WC 2014 - Bits and Bobs

[Ian Royal]

We should start a European Island confederation so they get an automatic WC qualification spot too.

Faroe Islands, Gibralta, Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus.

[Flyingkiwi]

It wouldn't matter if NZ improved so much they were ranked in FIFA top ten, the OFC would still be the poor cousin (Population-wise/money-wise/everything-wise). Why bother having a confederation that isn't treated equally???

Being treated equally doesn't mean getting the same stuff as everyone else; it means being judged by the same standards as everyone else.

Your teams aren't good enough for the World Cup.

Neither is England, in that case. I'm pretty sure that NZ did far better in South Africa than England has in Brazil.

[Ian Royal]

[Flyingkiwi]

We should start a European Island confederation so they get an automatic WC qualification spot too.

Faroe Islands, Gibralta, Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus.

Why? They are in a confederation with automatic qualification.

[Ian Royal]

We should start a European Island confederation so they get an automatic WC qualification spot too.

Faroe Islands, Gibralta, Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus.

Why? They are in a confederation with automatic qualification.

So someone who's not good enough to qualify for most World Cups can get to the Finals. That's your argument after all.

[stealthpapes]

We should start a European Island confederation so they get an automatic WC qualification spot too.

Faroe Islands, Gibralta, Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus.

Why? They are in a confederation with automatic qualification.

Europe has playoffs for the less good teams

[paultheroyal]

We should start a European Island confederation so they get an automatic WC qualification spot too.

Faroe Islands, Gibralta, Ireland, Iceland, Malta, Cyprus, Isle of Wight

Yep, like that

[Ouroboros]

Neither is England, in that case. I'm pretty sure that NZ did far better in South Africa than England has in Brazil.

Yeah, and if you'd only stopped Mexico putting 9 past you in two games you'd have lit up this tournament too, right?

[Flyingkiwi]

Neither is England, in that case. I'm pretty sure that NZ did far better in South Africa than England has in Brazil.

Yeah, and if you'd only stopped Mexico putting 9 past you in two games you'd have lit up this tournament too, right?

Perhaps not as much as the mighty Eng-er-land did. It'd be a lot to expect NZ to out-do their 1 point.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, England didn't do very well. You might have noticed that not many of us on here actually give a shit.

Now, if I were French, would that make my argument any more palatable for you?

[Brum Royal]

Chile striker Pinilla gets a tattoo of his last minute shot hitting the bar against Brazil

http://metro.co.uk/2014/07/01/ouch-chile-star-mauricio-pinilla-gets-tattoo-of-crossbar-shot-against-brazil-4782397/

[Flyingkiwi]

Yeah, England didn't do very well. You might have noticed that not many of us on here actually give a shit.

Now, if I were French, would that make my argument any more palatable for you?

It wouldn't matter if you were Mongolian.

You say that the World Cup is a balancing act "between encouraging the promotion of the game around the world and ensuring the highest quality tournament". I agree. It is. The OFC is the only confederation with no automatic qualification spots so Australia jumped from the OFC to Asia to give itself a better chance of qualification. You are now saying that Aussie is an Asian "Big gun" and I agree there, too.

I made a throw-away comment that it would be nice if NZ were in a confederation that had automatic qualification. (This was a promise made by Sepp Blatter to get the OFC vote at one point but hastily withdrawn after he won whatever election it was. That's why Aussie jumped and weakened the OFC further. But Charlie Dempsey got the prick back). Sure! It'd be lovely for NZ to have that "free ticket" you mention but not, perhaps, realistic. It would be nice, if we have to have a play-off, for it to be against another minor/emerging football nation (Particularly in Asia) rather than having to play established footballing nations like Uruguay and Mexico. You might say that "you'll have to beat them if you want to win the thing! Blah! Blah! Blah!". But that's ignoring the developmental role the World Cup has. I KNOW (I don't think, I KNOW) that NZ has the ability to compete with the vast majority of Asian teams and, I think, I'm in a pretty good position to judge this.

By the way: I have duel British/NZ nationality due to the fact that was born in Newbury, grew up in Reading but if you're going to be disrespectful toward NZ Football, I'll defend it.

[Green]

I had you down as more of a rugby nation.

[Flyingkiwi]

I had you down as more of a rugby nation.

Well... NZ is (Obviously). However, football has been making an impact over the last 30-odd years due to the relative success of the All Whites and the fact that parents don't want little Johnny coming home with missing teeth/a broken arm/spinal-cord damage after playing rugby at school. Rugby is still the National Sport, but football is definitely making inroads.

[Ouroboros]

Fair enough.

The only thing I'd restate is that having to play Mexico in the play-off wasn't to be expected, and doesn't reasonably reflect the fairness of the status quo. Having to qualify past the 4th place CONCACAF team surely counts as going up against a "minor/emerging football nation"? It "should" have been Honduras. It was very, very nearly Panama. Two nations who have never won a World Cup game between them.

In that respect NZ were unlucky, and if the OFC v CONCACAF play-off is retained then you'd expect NZ to have a much better chance of making the World Cup next time round.

[soggy biscuit]

Only 7 players have worn black boots in the WC so far

true fact

[Pepe the Horseman]

Who?

[Starfish]

Island

Gibralta

Are you sure about this Ian?

[Green]

Why?

[Ian Royal]

Island

Gibralta

Are you sure about this Ian?

Was origially thinking minor nations and changed my mind. Slipped through quality control. I'll have a word with them.