do you really believe England can win the World cup

[papereyes]

Geographically. If you read what I said, I didn't mention quality of the teams involved. I couldn't care less if some 'better' (according to the notoriously suspect FIFA rankings, which I've only encountered when used by people trying to back up fatuous arguments like this) European teams miss out at the expense of Egypt, Iraq etc. I'd find it much more interesting to have a genuine spread of nations from across the world.

... and surely when FIFA seed tournaments such as World Cup qualification?

You may not like them, but they are self-consistent and transparent.

Incidentally, do you really think FIFA have appropriated qualification spots according to ranking? Have a think about the 2006 FIFA-Adidas-Budweiser-Avaya-Coca-Cola-Continental-Deutsche Telekom-Emirates-Fujifilm-Gillette-Hyundai-MasterCard-McDonald's-Philips-Toshiba-Yahoo World Cup in Germany. Laboured point maybe, but do you see what I'm driving at?

I'm not 100 % sure. On the one hand, yes, they should have a spread of different regions and on the other, they should keep one eye on which confederations do actually contain the better teams. You said "I'd much rather see a redressing of the imbalance in qualification places, giving more spots to Africa and Asia " - I raised the question as to where the imbalance was. According to the only realistic attempt to quantify things, the balance is strongly against Europe in favour of Asia.

I guess the question is what you want from a world cup - something inclusive (which, yes, does have its merits) or the best countries in the world fighting it out?

[papereyes]

There's another aside that I find quite funny and I need to use wiki to back it up.

Since 1982, UEFA has had between 13 and 15 qualifying positions (lowest of 13 in 1994 or 13 and a playoff in 1986; highest of 15 in 1998 and 14 plus a playoff in 2002).

Since 1982, UEFA has grown from 30 odd countries to 50 odd countries.

[prostak]

I guess the question is what you want from a world cup - something inclusive (which, yes, does have its merits) or the best countries in the world fighting it out?

Absolutely, and of course I can to some extent see the merits of only choosing the best countries in the world, but my point with the list of sponsors was that I don't really trust FIFA's motives in choosing this route. I'm really wary of sport being used to make a few individuals incredibly rich through exploiting the fans' devotion - and yes, I'm aware that it's a little late for such concerns but that doesn't stop the permeating commercialism leaving a sour taste. Remember the Dutch fans having their lager-branded lederhosen confiscated at the behest of Budweiser?

As for the expansion of UEFA without this being reflected in the qualifying allocation, don't forget that for every ex-Balkan powerhouse there's 2 or 3 ex-SSRs or Andorras...

[papereyes]

Absolutely, and of course I can to some extent see the merits of only choosing the best countries in the world, but my point with the list of sponsors was that I don't really trust FIFA's motives in choosing this route

Odd that, equally, I see the current system of trying to get as wide a pool of teams entered as possible proof of FIFA's poor intentions as well.

As for the expansion of UEFA without this being reflected in the qualifying allocation, don't forget that for every ex-Balkan powerhouse there's 2 or 3 ex-SSRs or Andorras...

But you said early I couldn't take into account the quality of the teams ...

[Barry the bird boggler]

The play offs will be seeded so to maximise the chances for any "unfortunates" to qualify, therefore you won't get a France v Portugal draw

For the draw itself England will be seeded 2, I would imagine, with the likes of Germany, Italy, Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Holland, France and Portugal above them (of course if France and Portugal screw up totally then they might make pot 1)! To be honest it makes no real odds as if England make Pot 1 there will still be a Spain or Holland or Portugal floating about in Pot 2 that they could wind up with anyway.

Oh and England CAN win the world cup, I would say there chances on the day are as good as anyones, particularly is it would appear we at last have a manager who is of some use and can get the team playing well without all the old pals acts going on

Just for the record, isn't there talk of increasing the number of teams in the EC Finals to 24?

[papereyes]

Just for the record, isn't there talk of increasing the number of teams in the EC Finals to 24?

Yes.

In 1992, it was 8 teams and, by 1996, it was 16.

16 teams from 50+ seems about right but I have nothing more than a hunch for this.

The 1990 and 1994 world cups were 24 team affairs iirc.

[1960]

And don't get me started on seeding for the finals. We have already won our group and might even get 10 wins out of 10. BUT we didn't qualify for the 2008 Euros and went out of the 2006 World Cup in the QF. So Germany, France and Argentina, even if they all qualify through play-offs, will no doubt be seeded above us.

The old old story with England seeding.

Though this is hilarious. What difference does seeding really make, if you're strong enough to win the thing? Plus, Germany, France and Argentina would all seem to be nations with better footballing history than England...

The difference is that in 2002 Beckham's free kick against Greece sent Germany to the play-offs and England qualified automatically. Nevertheless Germany were seeded above England and had a much easier draw. England met Brazil in the quarters while Germany didn't meet Brazil until the final - and then did worse than England had done.

The argument that you have to beat the best teams to win the thing is totally spurious - in the knockouts Germany had to beat Paraguay, USA and South Korea to get to the final - not walks in the park, but a bit different from meeting Brazil in the quarters.

[Archie's penalty]

Fail.

[prostak]

There's always 2012... then 2014... etc.