Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

FIFA WC 26 - Other Nations LIVE Match Thread ⚽

with israel playing middle eastern sides in neutral venues in asia
The Middle Eastern sides physically refuse to play Israel because they believe that Israel is an illegitimate state. Even at a neutral venue plenty of people would travel just to stir up racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. The Muslim countries voted to expel Israel, which is why they played in the OFC and then UEFA.

Putting Russia in Asia makes sense, but personally I’d rather see an East-West AFC split. We NEED an AFC split.
 
The Middle Eastern sides physically refuse to play Israel because they believe that Israel is an illegitimate state. Even at a neutral venue plenty of people would travel just to stir up racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. The Muslim countries voted to expel Israel, which is why they played in the OFC and then UEFA.

Putting Russia in Asia makes sense, but personally I’d rather see an East-West AFC split. We NEED an AFC split.
Russia is a pariah state getting their arses kicked by a country they invaded again. They can stay out of sport until their government learns to engage positively with the rest of the world.

The AFC are slime & I find their self righteous faux victimhood regarding Israel the very height of piss funny hypocrisy. Fuck them.
 
Russia is a pariah state getting their arses kicked by a country they invaded again. They can stay out of sport until their government learns to engage positively with the rest of the world.

The AFC are slime & I find their self righteous faux victimhood regarding Israel the very height of piss funny hypocrisy. Fuck them.
Russia sounds not unlike the USA
 
I must admit I have really enjoyed watching African teams....

There's a special vibe they bring – the raw passion, flair, rhythmic attacking football, and pure joy in every match on and especially off the pitch!

The energy from the fans and players is infectious. I’d argue only South Americans match that level of passion!

Even if the cold sobering reality is European teams are still the clear benchmark in consistency, depth, and overall quality. The World Game is for everyone, not just the elite nations si I’d keep the current qualifying status quo as it is.
African teams will be even harder to beat in years to come as they get more and more expat players from Europe who come through European academies rather than African.
 
African teams will be even harder to beat in years to come as they get more and more expat players from Europe who come through European academies rather than African.

Totally agree.

I touched on this on my Le Foot blog....

 
I might look at how the metrics are, but ideally in FIFA's world it should be primarily based on member numbers in each confederation, but then adjusted for strength/past performances (eg, UEFA and CONMEBOL get a few more than the equality split, due to the fact they perform better historically). I might do a break down on how it is percentage wise at the moment, and how it probably should be with my above process.
Percentage of each confederation qualifying for the World Cup
  • AFC - 8 from 46 = 17.4%
  • CAF - 9 from 54 = 16.7%
  • CONCACAF - 6 from 35 = 17.1%
  • CONMEBOL - 6 from 10 = 60%
  • OFC - 1 from 11 = 9.1%
  • UEFA - 16 from 55 = 29.1%
211 member nations - percentage of confederation in the grand scheme of things
  • AFC - 46 of 211 = 21.8%
  • CAF - 54 of 211 = 25.6%
  • CONCACAF - 35 of 211 = 16.59%
  • CONMEBOL - 10 of 211 = 4.7%
  • OFC - 11 of 211 = 5.2%
  • UEFA - 55 of 211 = 26.1%
 
Article on Morocco and African football from the Guardian....

Morocco set proud example for Africa

The Guardian

Osasu Obayiuwana Los Angeles


Over the past six decades, Morocco have achieved several milestones for Africa at the World Cup. The first country to qualify directly, for the 1970 finals in Mexico, they returned in 1986 and became the first team from the continent to make the last 16, then made that impressive semi-final run in Qatar four years ago.

Even if the Atlas Lions fail to match their 2022 performance, by losing to France tomorrow, they have made history as the first African team to reach the quarterfinals at successive World Cups.

“The general feeling, amongst Moroccans, is pride and contentment in this team,” says Amine El Amri, a football journalist who, from his base in Casablanca, has been closely observing fans’ attitudes toward the team’s performance. “The main goal before the competition was to reach the quarter-finals, given the context, given the change of manager, with the departure of Walid Regragui and the coming of Mohamed Ouahbi. I think the victory over the Netherlands cemented the reputation of Ouahbi as a trustworthy coach. Many doubts about him were cleared up after that match.

“Beating Canada in the way we did, despite having a very difficult first half, has also added to that confidence. You have to be in Casablanca, in Marrakech, in every city and little town, to just measure how happy people are [with the team].”

There is no uncertainty about the scale of the quarter-final task at Boston Stadium, with the tournament’s most fearsome attacking trio – Kylian Mbappé, Michael Olise and Ousmane Dembélé – to contend with.

Ouabhi’s managerial composure reflects the serenity in the team required to cope with the demands of high-level competition, says the former Cameroon goalkeeper Joseph-Antoine Bell, a veteran of the 1982, 1990 and 1994 World Cups.


“Nobody can play against Morocco at the World Cup and say that they are sure to win,” he says. “They can be behind in a game but they will never lose their temper, they will never be out of themselves, they focus and keep playing with confidence that their game will lead them to recovery.

“This is what happens when a team have solved all their problems … They are able to totally focus on the games they are playing, without thinking about financial or administrative problems. This is a well-prepared team. Sadly, most of our teams in Africa are not operating at this level. When a country [like Ghana] will hire a coach with less than two months [to a World Cup], how do you want them to be ready?”

Ouahbi was appointed by Morocco only in early March but oversaw five friendlies in the buildup and had worked for four years with the under-20s and under-23s. Ghana played only twice under Carlos Queiroz before the World Cup and their captain, Jordan Ayew, was frank after elimination by Colombia in the last 32 about the difficulty in adjusting to the Portuguese’s tactics.

“You can’t do that in one month or two months,” he said. “Football doesn’t work like that. Defensively, we were better. But we fell a bit short offensively, so we have to find the right balance now.”

Queiroz cryptically alluded in his farewell message to Ghana to the need for the football association to be far more professional in its management of the national team.

Senegal’s football federation should take a leaf from Queiroz’s timely counsel to Ghana, after the Lions of Teranga’s World Cup ended in tatters, losing 3-2 to Belgium in the last 32 despite holding a 2-0 lead in the 86th minute.

Sunday Oliseh, the former Nigeria captain and head coach, and a member of Fifa’s technical study group at the last World Cup, knows the deep pain of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, having lost 2-1 to Italy at the 1994 World Cup after his side led 1-0 from the 25th to the 88th minute.

“The only consolation was that we were naive and new to the trade,” he says. “But for it to happen now, with the experience our players in Africa have and knowing how teams close up shop, when they are 1-0 or 2-0 up, it’s worse. Many are blaming the coach but the experienced players should have also taken control.”

For Bell, African teams will finally live up to their World Cup potential when the federations put in the hard yards of good governance. “I think we are getting closer and closer to winning a World Cup,” he says. “But if we are serious, we need to have three or four countries in the quarter-finals.”
 
Really? Is this comment serious?
Annex is to claim part of another country. Russia did this with Crimea and later the Donbas. America, as of now, does not have any major disputed territories (other than small islands and military bases).

If America did annex another part of the world, such as Greenland, then we can compare them.
 
Annex is to claim part of another country. Russia did this with Crimea and later the Donbas. America, as of now, does not have any major disputed territories (other than small islands and military bases).

If America did annex another part of the world, such as Greenland, then we can compare them.
I think it's the "full scale military invasion" part of your comment that people are baffled by
 
I think it's the "full scale military invasion" part of your comment that people are baffled by
I must’ve been misunderstood.

There currently aren’t US troops shooting up entire cities in Cuba or Venezuela. Trump also isn’t invading Iran, he’s bombing it. Putin on the other hand has done so with Russia attacking Ukraine.

Again, if Trump decides today that he’ll forcefully invade another country, then we can compare it. But currently, the US is only making threats and attacking from the outside.
 
I must’ve been misunderstood.

There currently aren’t US troops shooting up entire cities in Cuba or Venezuela. Trump also isn’t invading Iran, he’s bombing it. Putin on the other hand has done so with Russia attacking Ukraine.

Again, if Trump decides today that he’ll forcefully invade another country, then we can compare it. But currently, the US is only making threats and attacking from the outside.
Bombing another country isn't much better though, especially as that bombing is done on the part of another country, and also is causing global issues in supply chains for oil.

I think the stat is that the US has been involved or at war for 233 of its 250 year history
 
Annex is to claim part of another country. Russia did this with Crimea and later the Donbas. America, as of now, does not have any major disputed territories (other than small islands and military bases).

If America did annex another part of the world, such as Greenland, then we can compare them.
Other.. the key word.
 
I must’ve been misunderstood.

There currently aren’t US troops shooting up entire cities in Cuba or Venezuela. Trump also isn’t invading Iran, he’s bombing it. Putin on the other hand has done so with Russia attacking Ukraine.

Again, if Trump decides today that he’ll forcefully invade another country, then we can compare it. But currently, the US is only making threats and attacking from the outside.
Attacking/invading.. what is the difference? Trump's army literally went into Venezuela and took their leader only a few months ago.
 
Back
Top