Surprise Seed: The Netherlands Beats out France
by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 11:18 AM EST
7 comments
FIFA has announced the seeds for Friday's World Cup draw, again changing the seeding formula days before the draw.
In 2002, FIFA used a formula which assigned weights to the two preceding World Cup finishes and theprevious three years' FIFA World Rankings. In 2006, FIFA adjusted those weights in response to (what would eventually be conceded as a) flawed world ranking system. For example, the Czech Republic was number two in the world at the time of the draw.
Had that formula been in place this cycle, the eight seeds would have been South Africa (as the hosts), Brazil, Germany, Italy, Spain, England, France and Argentina.
Today, FIFA announced France would not be seeded. Instead, the Netherlands - ranked third in the world but having failed to qualify for the 2002 World Cup - received a seed.
How did that happen? FIFA again changed the seeding formula. The questions: What is the new formula, and why the change?
FIFA decided to use the October 2009 World Rankings, completely discarding the use of previous World Cup results.
This can be seen as a hat-tip to a ranking system that has improved since 2006, yet it is still a system that is too flawed to be used as the sole input. There seems to be a regional bias to the ranking that sees half of the world's top 50 teams coming from the UEFA (Europe) region.
The other side of that bent coin: With the exception of Australia (who were not part of AFC until this qualifying cycle), no Asian confederation team is ranked above Japan's 43rd despite South Korea finishing fourth and seventeenth in the preceding World Cups and not losing in 2010 qualifying.
Even more curious: FIFA used the October 2009 rankings. They passed over November's rankings, and they didn't (as of this posting) issue an early edition of the December rankings.
The apparent logic: Use the teams' stature at the end of World Cup qualifying-proper, implicitly saying that no team should benefit from wins accrued in the November playoffs.
That makes sense, but it also means that the World Cup playoffs from 2005 are considered but the 2005 World Cup qualifying-proper is not. The FIFA rankings consider four years worth of data.
Few will argue that the Dutch are unworthy of consideration amongst the top seven sides in the world, but the timing of the decision reaffirms suspicions that FIFA would decide on whatever seeding formula served their needs, as it concerns the seeds. This is why FIFA does not release a seeding formula before the seed announcement, allowing the organization to (for the second World Cup in a row) tailor their criteria to serve their ends. We also saw this in UEFA qualifying, where a late decision to seed the top-four-rated playoff qualifiers drew the ire of small nations who thought the draw would be random.
Why was France - the 1998 champions and 2006 runners-up - effectively dropped? Out of fairness to the Dutch, who were unseeded in 2006 despite being ranked third in the world in November 2005? More likely, FIFA saw seeding France as untenable after L'Affaire Henry.
The same day France lost its World Cup seed, FIFA's disciplinary committee announced it would be investigating Thierry Henry's handball against France.
The good news: FIFA tried to do what it thought was best for the sport. The bad news: FIFA cooked the seeds and seemed always intent on doing so.
Lucky for FIFA those October 2009 rankings worked out so nicely for this draw, right?
0 recs |
7 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I'm getting really sick of this
It does not serve the best interest of the sport to pick who you want seeded and set the rules after the fact. Fairness demands that the rules for the competition – in their entirety – are known before the competition begins. Between this, the Chile situation, and the decision not to bring in the goal-line referees despite the disaster that happened just two weeks ago, I’ve lost pretty much all respect for FIFA.
I don't blame you SpartanDan
… and I think it would have been best to announce the seeding criteria before qualifying started. This is FIFA, and I can’t defend them.
I have to write about these events, but beyond the articles, I don’t let them tax my mind. I concentrate on the players.
by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
I'm glad France didn't get a seed
But I continue to be nauseated by Fifa’s way of doing business.
Not mediocre. Right about average
Another good way of putting it ...
… wouldn’t if be better just to say “our Executive Committee met and decided it was most-fair to reward the Dutch” …
… rather than hiding behind formula manipulations?
by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Yet another good way to put it...
“We didn’t want to further reward the French for cheating.”
Of course, in the end, does it really matter whether France, The Netherlands, or anyone else gets a seed? If you’re going to raise The Cup, you have to beat the good teams sooner or later. And being seeded doesn’t exempt you from the “Group of Death”, necessarily.
by DissidentAggressor on Dec 2, 2009 7:21 PM EST reply actions
Doesn't exempt you from it
But it sure as hell makes it easier to dodge. You only need to escape two out of three strong teams in your draw (instead of two out of two, assuming you don’t land in S Africa’s group) to be a strong favorite to reach the KO.
FIFA has...
…never been the bastion of integrity, heck, they aren’t even good at faking integrity.
by Marvin, The Paranoid Android on Dec 5, 2009 12:36 AM EST reply actions
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
