World Cup 2010 Draw

[Evafreak]

Holland, Norway, Macedonia and Iceland, Certainly not the worst draw for us fancy our chances of runners up spot at least ^_^

[Sam]

Hm I can see Scotland, England and Ireland making it through to the World Cup, possibly even Northern Ireland if they can match their performances with the ones in the Euro qualifying. Wales = goners!

[Crybaby Bunting]

I see Scotland definately going through, they've got the bonus of only 5 teams in their group as well as no really powerful teams. They were so close to having Italy in their group though.

and how many times have England had to play Andorra or Croatia in a qualifier? At least mix it up why dont you

[IAceI]

Well the guy on Sky Sports News appears to have a completely different view to me, then again every time a team came out from Pot 6 he claimed "oh they're not a great side" as if Spain were about to pop out next.

I'd rather play in out group that Group 1, 3, 4, 5 and possibly 7. Getting Croatia is one of the best things that could have happened to England, behind drawing Greece but that'd be just as difficult as Croatia.

I don't think England have an extremely difficult group by any stretch of the imagination, but apparently us going to Kazakhstan will be 'tough' according to the donkey on Sky Sports News, although I doubt he knows nothing about Kazakhstan other than some false quotations from Borat. They probably will prove a bit of a challenge, but no more so than any other country in their pot.

Then again the fact that most people are looking at the groups and are worrying shows just how poor of a team England have come. At least we're not going to have McClaren in charge come this stage and hopefully we won't have a nonce in the mould of Steve Bruce, Paul Jewell or any other of the moronic, untalented coaches and we actually have a tactical manager leading the side.

We're assuming Montenegro are the best in Pot 6, since they are untested, after that the next best side was probably Liechenstein who are widely recognised as the best of the minnows - perhaps contesting that with Estonia. So of the British Isles along with Republic of Ireland I'd say we have possibly the most manageable group out of us all.

Edited November 25, 2007 by IAceI

[britneyspearsisgod]

We'll be fine. I like these odds. I honestly don't see anything from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Andorra. I can't see how anyone can fuck up any worse than McClaren against those teams. We'll have to worry about Ukraine and Croatia, but depending on who we get, who knows? As far as groups go, we got a nice one.

Roll on South Africa

[NobBe Nobbs]

Belarus, Kazakhstan, Andorra, Ukraine, Croatia.

I see a total of ten losses for those games.

[The Quasi Juice]

We'll be fine. I like these odds. I honestly don't see anything from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Andorra. I can't see how anyone can fuck up any worse than McClaren against those teams. We'll have to worry about Ukraine and Croatia, but depending on who we get, who knows? As far as groups go, we got a nice one.

Roll on South Africa

[Lord Nibbler]

So the 9 group winners, and 8 of the 9 runners-up go through right? I could potentially see all the home nations making it. England, assuming they play better under the new manager than under McClaren, should be able to top their group, and I could see Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the Republic all finishing second, and doing better than the runners up from Group 2.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Just to correct Kulex...

The first two rounds of NA qualifying are essentially play-in matches...teams ranked 14 to 24 are drawn against teams ranked 25 to 35, they play one leg in each country, winners of those matches and Saint Vincent are then drawn against the teams ranked 1-12 (including Canada) for another two-leg match, the twelve winners of THAT round are split into three groups of four, (I believe it's six matches per group there) the top-two from each group advances to the final group of six, those final six play each other twice, the top three make the World Cup, the fourth goes into a playoff with some South American team.

So yes, it's complicated, but Canada has to do a lot more than win one match.

[IAceI]

Top 9 go through, with the top 8 in the runners up positions playing play offs.

Scores against the bottom ranked teams are discounted at the end to make it fairer on Group 9.

So 13.

[NobBe Nobbs]

Top 9 go through, with the top 8 in the runners up positions playing play offs.

Scores against the bottom ranked teams are discounted at the end to make it fairer on Group 9.

So 13.

[IAceI]

As far as I know Europe have 13 slots for the World Cup Finals.

Pretty sure the Top 9 all make it, then 8 of the best 9 runners up, with Group 1-8 having the results against the bottom side discounted. Which should 'in theory' be 6 points for most, then the the top 8 are put into 4 matches, with the 4 winners going through to join the other 9.

Edited November 25, 2007 by IAceI

[therockbox]

Piece of piss.

[IAceI]

http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/554821.pdf

3rd paragraph. That's for 2010 so I'm assuming it's been changed in recent years perhaps?

[Dan]

A few predictions;

Scotland won't qualify. They'll finish second but Holland are just too good.

England will win the group under Capello.

Wales will finish bottom three, Toshack will get the boot.

Northern Ireland will finish second, qualify through the play-offs.

RoI will shock the world by winning a group with Italy in.

Let's see how wrong I am in 2 years

[Adam]

I actually had a bet on that England would get Croatia. haha.

[DMN in the House]

Just to correct Kulex...

The first two rounds of NA qualifying are essentially play-in matches...teams ranked 14 to 24 are drawn against teams ranked 25 to 35, they play one leg in each country, winners of those matches and Saint Vincent are then drawn against the teams ranked 1-12 (including Canada) for another two-leg match, the twelve winners of THAT round are split into three groups of four, (I believe it's six matches per group there) the top-two from each group advances to the final group of six, those final six play each other twice, the top three make the World Cup, the fourth goes into a playoff with some South American team.

So yes, it's complicated, but Canada has to do a lot more than win one match.

Wait, so this is the time when the US looks capable at soccer, right?

[Lord Nibbler]

Obviously it depends on who gets drawn against who in the playoffs, but on paper the top 4 runners up would probably be Croatia, Sweden, Turkey and maybe Scotland.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Just to correct Kulex...

The first two rounds of NA qualifying are essentially play-in matches...teams ranked 14 to 24 are drawn against teams ranked 25 to 35, they play one leg in each country, winners of those matches and Saint Vincent are then drawn against the teams ranked 1-12 (including Canada) for another two-leg match, the twelve winners of THAT round are split into three groups of four, (I believe it's six matches per group there) the top-two from each group advances to the final group of six, those final six play each other twice, the top three make the World Cup, the fourth goes into a playoff with some South American team.

So yes, it's complicated, but Canada has to do a lot more than win one match.

Wait, so this is the time when the US looks capable at soccer, right?

[Adam]

Ive only seen the European draw for this, has the CONMEBOL (South American) qualifying started yet? I recalll it usually starts early cos every time its just the same 10 teams in one big league.