World Cup Pods: Africa, South America Grouped; CONCACAF with Asia

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 11:45 AM EST Comment 51 comments

In addition to announcing the draw seeds, where the Netherlands were announced as surprise seeds, FIFA released the pod allocation for Friday's draw. Unlike the seeds, there were no surprises with the pods.

The three pods were as speculated in our mock draw.

Pot 1 will consist of the eight seeded teams and will be drawn into groups at the outset of the Friday's event.

Pot 2 consists of CONCACAF, Asia and Oceania and will be drawn, next with no restrictions as to where those eight teams can be drawn.

Pot 3 will have the African and South American nations. No Africa nation can be drawn into Group A - South Africa's group. No South American nation can be drawn into Brazil or Argentina's group (slightly decreasing the odds that unseeded South American teams go into a group of death, as they are more likely to get South Africa).

Pot 4 consists of the eight unseeded European nations.

World Cup Draw - Pods
Pod 1 - Seeded Teams	Pod 2 - CONCACAF, AFC, OFC	Pod 3 - CONMEBOL, CAF	Pod 4 - UEFA
Argentina Brazil England Germany Italy Netherlands South Africa Spain	Australia Honduras Japan Mexico New Zealand North Korea South Korea United States	Algeria Cameroon Chile Cote d'Iviore Ghana Nigeria Paraguay Uruguay	Denmark France Greece Portugal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Switzerland

Poll

Do you agree with how FIFA organized the pods?

Yes

59 votes

No

46 votes

105 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 51 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Keeping fingers crossed

for a grouping of South Africa, United States, Uruguay and Greece.

by Michael White on Dec 2, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A long shot

I’ll hope for it, but I’m expecting a tough draw. I’m thinking the US will have to prove its mettle as they did in 2002.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Dec 2, 2009 12:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably ...

… but even if the U.S. gets in with Brazil, Cote d’Iviore and Serbia, I’m going to be excited to see all those matches, even if the third features two 0-0-2 sides.

Sorry, that’s W/D/L format.

And if the U.S. goes 0-0-3 in that group, I will still be proud as long as they play hard. It will be no shape to lose all those matches, and the U.S. could do so while being the 10-12th best side in the world.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't matter who the US is matched up with

As long as they have to face such referees as Jorge Larrionda and the likes from 2006. Granted, they had a tough group, but going 11 v. 12 for 360 minutes is pretty difficult to begin with.

Speaking of Jorge Larrionda and his influence on the games, I am secretly wishing to play Italy again. We were the better team in 2006 that night and I think we could take them down if we wouldn’t get straight reds for fair tackles.

by Twin Cities Hawk on Dec 2, 2009 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stylistically ...

… it makes sense for the U.S. to hope to get matched with Italy (or England), IMO. They want to avoid the teams whose styles will overrun them, and while the U.S. counter provides an obvious blueprint for how the Yanks would beat the Dutch or Spaniards, I think U.S.-supporters should hope for Italy and England over the Netherlands and Spain.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They should also hope ...

… they don’t have to face the seeded team until Match Day 3, and then hope the match is a dead-rubber for the seed.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

On the whole I would agree

that playing the seeded team on Match Day 3 is preferable, but if we get Italy, I’d like to play them first. Because they are notoriously slow starters, we could grab a point there to open the Cup and then be in a position to need just a win and draw the rest of the way, with a win and loss still possibly putting us through.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 7:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Great point ...

… and I agree on Italy. Perhaps also Argentina.

Germany, on the other hand, I’d like third. Same with Brazil, but for different reasons.

I’d like South Africa first. And second. And third, too.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Let's make that last part happen

Any ideas on going about that one?

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If FIFA can supposedly cook the seeds to their liking (which they got it right, IMO, regardless of shady timing on their part)

Then don’t put it past them to cook up a US v. South Africa matchup. Someone mentioned in another thread that FIFA’s pants would fit really funny if they could get Obama and Mandela sitting next to each other for a game against their respective countries and I think there’s a very distinct possibility we could see that occur.

by Twin Cities Hawk on Dec 3, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thqt's a good point ...

… but I do put it past them to cook the draw. I would be quite the technological feed, considering how the draw is physically conducted, for them to cook it.

But with the seeds, that’s just a bunch of old guys coming out of a smoke-filled room, isn’t it?

by Richard Farley on Dec 3, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

'06

That was an exciting match. I think it may have been the last decent match Beasley played for USMNT. A really inspirational performance all around, with Cherundolo, Donovan, Keller and obviously McBride stuck in my memory as the bravest performers that night.

That said, I thought Mastroeni’s red was probably deserved, while Pope’s second yellow was too harsh.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Dec 2, 2009 1:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I was talking ...

… with somebody last night about McBride coming back to the national team for South Africa, particularly given his skill-set vis-a-vis the current options. It’s a bit sad that you can make the case for his inclusion. We should be beyond it …

… but for many reasons, there’s no way it would happen.

I miss him. I miss Pope. I miss Harkes.

We, I suppose I don’t miss Harkes that much. I hear from him enough.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 6:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

McBride

I love the guy, he’s a fearless striker. But I agree that it’s probably past his time. If they need that type of target man, I’d take Ching, though he also would probably not be my first choice as a starter.

Last night I was lying in bed thinking about soccer formations (as I tend to do), and I had the thought that one option for Bradley might be a 4-2-3-1 with Clark and Bradley holding, Donovan, Feilhaber and Dempsey attacking, and Jozy as striker. That would allow them to build on their strength in the midfield, since I don’t think they really have a top flight striker to pair with Altidore now that Davies is out.

Not mediocre. Right about average

by trza on Dec 3, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think that would be good ...

… the 4-2-3-1, and I can even see Bradley moving from his 4-2-2-2 to something more like that, given current injury, depth, and quality concerns. If that happens, I think the 3 are most likely Donovan, Dempsey, and either Holden or Rogers.

I’ll try to write more about this another time, but my ideal USMNT formation is the 4-3-2-1.

I’ll leave it at that, for now :)

by Richard Farley on Dec 3, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think Bradley will stick

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 3, 2009 12:07 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

Oops

The joys of commenting via mobile while driving. I’m in California too, where it’s illegal to be on your phone while driving. If pulled over, do you think I could get Sepp Blatter to pay the ticket because I learned from him that you can make up the rules as you go along to your own liking?

Seriously though, the point I was going to make is that I think Bradley will stick with his 4-2-2-2. I see Holden out right with Dempsey up top, but with Dempsey playing as a withdrawn striker, it wouldn’t surprise me if he dropped back often to make it look like a 4-2-3-1 at times.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 3, 2009 2:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly my thoughts, Ryan ...

… what we’ve seen is that Bradley is going to go to some lengths to make this set-up work. He’s invested in it.

Which is too bad.

by Richard Farley on Dec 3, 2009 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And hopefully they leave the old washed up guys behind

I think worrying about that is a lot more important than what the refs do. At least it isn’t in South Korea.

by Cool Dudes on Dec 4, 2009 1:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

we’ll know in 15 hrs! one way or another, i’ll be puttin my money on Spain. of course, they’ll have to get past the US first…. ;)

by jonflyfisher25 on Dec 3, 2009 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Groups of Death

I think there will be at least two groups of death. Portugal and France are big teams you want to avoid, as are the US in pod 2 and probably cote d’ivoire in pod 3. Having said that, there are very few of what one might call “minnows”.

Blame my wife!
Waiting until August 2010

by sir eccles on Dec 2, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agree on minnows ...

… to only teams people seem to really be considering minnows are South Africa, New Zealand, Honduras, North Korea and Algeria, and I can find reason to disagree on four of those.

Sorry, New Zealand.

It’s very exciting. Next year, there will be very few matches “meh” matches on the first two match days.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

CONCACAF and Asia

You were right, but my thinking that FIFA would manipulate things to get what they want was right as evidenced by the seeding. If this was all decided a bit ago as FIFA claims then I would love to hear what they talk about in these meetings. Seriously now. Imagine the worldwide ratings a reality show of being inside the FIFA meetings would get? It would be hilarious, I’m sure, as they all sit around saying, “can you believe all of those idiots out there think we’re here doing what’s best for the game? I mean, Jack Warner is a vice president. If that’s not a sign, what it is?” The only thing is they would have to make sure it’s not HD. I’ve seen those FIFA executives. Nobody wants to see them in HD.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 1:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I mentioned this possibility last night ...

… on the Set Piece Analysts podcast, but I didn’t think it was a probability. Looking back, I underestimated the Henry-effect. If I were FIFA, I would give France the seed and just say “the Henry thing is not that big a deal.” Instead they acknowledge the Henry controversy twice in one day. First, they announce the investigation (which I started to write a post about but then passed) and then with the seeds.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

France, hasn’t been good for a while, since 2006 they got eliminated in the first round of the Euro, in wich if i recall correctly they weren’t seeded and the fact that they where even playing playoff instead of going in directly didin’t help, also the dutch perform extremely well in their group, even if it was a weak one, so i think they were right to be seeded. England being seeded surprise me. i tought that if FIFA didn’t want France to be seeded they may have tried to secure an african team in the second round and give it to Ivory coast.

IMO Argentina is the weakest link of the seeded outside of South Africa, because Maradona’s “tactics” have been just awful and he was way over his head playing the qualys so in the world cup a semidecent coached team is gonna cause them trouble.

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that." Bill Shankly

by SantiagoColombia on Dec 2, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have doubts that Maradona is still in charge by June

so with him possibly gone and a competent manager in his place, it’s tough to judge Argentina. I’m not sure which Argentina side we’ll see in South Africa.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He will be in charge

is to much of a political backlash for Grondona to fire Maradona and he will never quit, even when is clear to everyone that he should have never been in charge in the first place. of course Messi could just dominate for a month and they end up winning, but i more rather take my chances with argentina than with anyother of the seeded teams.

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that." Bill Shankly

by SantiagoColombia on Dec 2, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It seems ...

… this qualifying debacle has people in Argentina really rethinking their views on Maradona. Obviously, before he accepted the position, he was a cult hero and could do no wrong. From talking to people down there over this qualifying cycle, I get the impression that some of the loyalists were looking for a way that Maradona could leave the national team but still maintain his icon status.

Some people seemed to want Maradona to start butting heads with Grondona, Grondona fire him, replace him with a better option, and them Argentina could qualify, Maradona could still be a counter-culture icon, etc.

Then Argentina qualifies.

Now all those feelings have subsided beneath relief.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

100% Agree, SC

Considering they barely qualified for the 08 Euros, then promptly got destroyed by the Dutch in the Group Stages and finished last in the last major tournament they’ve played in, I think it’s only appropriate they didn’t get a top seed.

Add in the facts that the Dutch are currently the world #3 team and went undefeated in the last qualification group stage of the 10 WC while allowing only two goals.

by Twin Cities Hawk on Dec 2, 2009 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In one of our conversations in another thread

we discussed the possibility of France missing out with Netherlands jumping in and I thought it likely so it doesn’t surprise me. Even if it was done for the wrong reasons, I like that France isn’t seeded. I hated the previous seeding formula that took into account performance in the prior two World Cups. The goal of seeding is to keep the top 7/8 teams from ending up in the same group and it’s tough to argue that France is one of the top 7 teams in the world right now and what does prior performance mean? That was four years ago! Did winning the World Cup in 1998 help France in 2002? Even if FIFA did basically hand pick their 7, at least they picked out the 7 best teams in the world.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree completely ...

… with this:

“Even if it was done for the wrong reasons, I like that France isn’t seeded.”

That’s why I voted “Yes” in the poll.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I voted yes as well because of that reason

but the one thing I don’t like (for purely selfish reasons) is that the US is in Pot 2. That means the US will be drawn and at that point we will only know which seeded team they are with. I wanted the US in Pot 4 so when they got to Pot 4, I’d know which group I wanted them draw into into. Now, there won’t be much rooting when the US is picked, but rather after they are picked and that’s two rounds of picking that my heart is pounding instead of one. I think FIFA is conspiring to give me a heart attack.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Love it!

I, too, was hoping for the drama of Pot 4 coming around, the US being in there, and thinking “please don’t let this be the U.S. yet.”

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I won't like France not seeded if we draw them

That Pod ‘D’ looks the most uneven.

Looks pretty fair though. Its probably more fair because its manipulated, so can’t complain.

by Cool Dudes on Dec 4, 2009 2:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There is also the least surprising and most outrageous

decision of the FIFA meeting. No additional referees for the World Cup. Seriously?!? Now the question is whether I should be upset with FIFA for not doing what is right or upset with myself for actually being upset at FIFA for doing what FIFA does.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 2:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i've been trying to think...

is there any rational reason why having additional referees would be a bad thing? besides some concept of “tradition?”

capital letters suck.

by soccerfreak on Dec 2, 2009 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well two extra officials means two more idiots on the pitch

Joking aside, what makes me even more upset is that they (FIFA) doesn’t see why now is a good time for rushing through this change for the WC – in addition to video technology for the tournament as well – but they are investigating Henry and possibly suspending him for a number of matches, for his handball against Ireland which was caught…using video technology.

That, my friend, is a head scratcher.

by Twin Cities Hawk on Dec 2, 2009 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And had it been caught during play ...

… there’s no way in hell we’d be having this discussion about suspending him. So their answer to the atrocious missed call … is to punish the player extra for making them look bad, but not actually doing anything about the result or preventing it from happening again? That is gross incompetence.

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And that's ...

… a great way to put it, Dan. While France goes to SA, Henry is paying (in multiple respect) for the referee missing that call.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 6:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"...is that they (FIFA) doesn't see why now..."

My 7th grade English teacher just raked my knuckles with a ruler over that butchering of the English language.

by Twin Cities Hawk on Dec 2, 2009 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm surprised ...

… they made this decision so definitively, so early.

This could have been discussed over the next few months. I suppose it still could.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There aren't enough qualified refs

The quality of refs at world cups has been a constant complaint. The need to find neutral refs from countries not used to say the European style of play is always going to be a problem.

Blame my wife!
Waiting until August 2010

by sir eccles on Dec 2, 2009 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair point

Although part of the problem regarding linesmen, at least, is that they’re asked to do the impossible when judging offsides (you have to be looking for the furthest downfield players and identify where they are at the moment the ball is kicked, when you might have to be looking in an entirely different direction to see the ball). It’s a minor miracle that they get that call right as often as they do.

by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2009 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Updated my draws

Got rid of all the old ones and did four new ones with the correct seeds/pots.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 6:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Cool ...

… I"m going to try and do a catch-up post tomorrow where I’ll feature a lot of the great things that have been posted over the last two days.

by Richard Farley on Dec 2, 2009 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Looking forward to it

With the draw only two days away, I’m ignoring the real world to focus on the soccer world. Class? Who cares. Work? It can wait. I’ve been scouring the web for anything soccer related all week.

Formerly ryebreadraz

by Ryan Rosenblatt on Dec 2, 2009 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The netherlands are a better team than france

so they should be seeded…i really don’t understand FIFA system, but they made the right decision today

"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister

by VolsnCards5 on Dec 2, 2009 7:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs