Road to South Africa

By David Warren

It is time to take a look as time runs short in the current cycle of World Cup qualifying, with most teams around the world having two games left to play.

Rather than going through it region by region, the focus is on the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking and how it is most likely to affect World Cup seedings when the draw is held in December. A top seeding in a finals group gives a country a good chance to advance and the best chance to avoid a so-called group of death (FIFA also factors in other criteria, such as a country’s performance in recent World Cups). All rankings are the latest published by FIFA, which were released before the matches of last Saturday/Sunday and Wednesday. The new rankings will be released on Oct. 16.

No. 1 Brazil looks terrific and has qualified. It beat visiting Chile (No. 21) by 4-2. Brazil should be the favorite, barring major injuries to key players. No. 2 Spain qualified for South Africa on Wednesday by beating Estonia, 3-0. The Netherlands (No. 3) had qualified earlier but still beat and eliminated No. 30 Scotland, 1-0, in Glasgow.

Italy (No. 4) beat Bulgaria (No. 19), 2-0, and needs only a draw at Ireland on Oct. 10 to win the group over and qualify with the automatic berth from Group 8. In Group 4, Germany (tied in the FIFA rankings with Italy at No. 4) and Russia (No. 6) are on a collision course, both winning easily Wednesday night. They meet in Moscow on Oct. 10. Germany is ahead by 1 point and will qualify with a win. Russia cannot clinch the group in that game, even with a win, but a home win will put it in the driver’s seat, with a closing match at Azerbaijan. Finally, No. 7 England qualified with a 5-1 thrashing of Croatia (No. 9) at Wembley Stadium in London.

It is quite likely that the World Cup will be lifted on July 11, 2010 at the Soccer City Stadium by one of those seven teams.

Argentina was ranked No. 8, but that was before two crushing defeats that probably should (but probably will not) result in the sacking of Coach Diego Maradona. Argentina has fallen to fifth in South American qualifying standings after losses to Brazil and Paraguay (No. 23). Paraguay qualified with the win. South America will get two more automatic berths; Chile has 27 points and will qualify with a win over Colombia (No. 48) or Ecuador (No. 36) in its final two matches. Then it gets congested: Ecuador (23 points), Argentina (22), No. 28 Uruguay and No. 51 Venezuela (each with 21) and Colombia (20). The fifth-place team (currently Argentina) will have to play a home-and-away playoff in November against the fourth-place team from Concacaf for a spot in South Africa.

With 16 points, the United States (No. 11) and Mexico (No. 24 and 15 points) look like heavy favorites to qualify again from Concacaf. They both notched wins on Wednesday, with the U.S. winning, 1-0, at Trinidad and Tobago (No. 63) and Mexico handling visiting Honduras (No. 42). Mexico may be the favorite to win the group because its remaining matches are against the bottom-feeders Trinidad and Tobago, and El Salvador. The U.S. plays at Honduras and hosts Costa Rica (No. 39) in its final two group games. The top three qualify directly for South Africa.

Elsewhere in Europe, Group 1 got tighter as Denmark (No. 16) had to settle for a 1-1 draw at Albania, while Portugal (No. 17) beat Hungary (No. 47) by 1-0l on a goal by Pepe. Sweden (No. 41) beat Malta. Denmark remains in control of the group with a 3-point lead over Sweden, 5 points over Portugal and Hungary.

In Group 2, the Swiss (No. 15) missed an opportunity to extend their lead by squandering a 1-0 halftime lead in Riga, and settling for a 2-2 draw with Latvia. Greece (No. 14) also blew a 1-0 halftime lead against Moldova. Switzerland has a 3-point lead over Greece and Latvia (the two play in Athens on Oct. 10). The Swiss are still the favorites to snatch the automatic bid. Israel (No. 22) has an outside shot at a second-place finish and a berth in the playoffs — but it is way, way outside.

In Group 3, No. 45 Slovakia inched closer to qualification with a 2-0 win in Belfast and now leads Northern Ireland (No. 31) and Slovenia by 5 points.

And in Group 7, Serbia (No. 13) and France (No. 10) drew, 1-1, in Belgrade. Serbia held on to its 4-point lead over the French, who most likely have to settle for a spot in the eight-nation playoffs.

In one of the most exciting matches Wednesday, Bahrain (No. 64) scored a stoppage-time goal to advance to a playoff against New Zealand (No. 100) on the away-goals rule, drawing 2-2 at Saudi Arabia (No. 65). The first leg in Bahrain ended scoreless.

In Africa, other than the hosts, Ghana (No. 32) has qualified and Ivory Coast (No. 20) is a near-certainty to advance. The three other berths will be decided on the final two match days next month.

Correction: An earlier version of this blog item was erroneously posted under a pseudonym and should have carried the author’s full name.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

j.r. September 10, 2009 · 6:37 pm

Italy and Scotland are not in the same group and therefore will not be playing each other on Oct. 10th. Italy will be playing Ireland, probably for top spot in the group, on that date.

NYT Editor–Thanks. Posting has been repaired.

Jared September 10, 2009 · 6:42 pm

I wrote an article on my blog about seeding which I think people should find interesting.

I hope it’s ok to post a link:
//analyticalfootball.blogspot.com/2009/09/2010-world-cup-seeding-summary-version.html

Will G, Portland September 10, 2009 · 6:53 pm

(Re: Italy V Ireland) –“needs only a draw at Scotland on Oct. 10 to win the group over Ireland”

I hope they will be playing at Croke Park in Dublin, I know the Italian Fed is pretty slick but….

tom September 10, 2009 · 7:09 pm

those rankings are a joke, spain losing to the US, although an aberration, should have take Spain out of the 2nd spot, no? yes, and unless these teams are going to have head-to-head stats, the entire ranking system is a joke! there is too much voodoo involved, and the process needs to be transparent. Argentina’s collapse should take them out of the top 10, basing these stats on history and current games and whatever else leaves too many variables, this is a joke.

john@york UK September 10, 2009 · 7:29 pm

Coming in at a credible ( No. 666 ) are of course the highly dependant English WAGS.
If only they knew where the southern hemisphere was, let alone South Africa, they could put on a jolly good “showing”.
The waiter ( or as some soccer fans know him as Mr. Cappelo ) has forbidden the girls from the “training ground” – aka : the casting couch in the caymans.
This Italian fellow could well be in danger of over-seeing an England side doing rather well in the 2010 World Cup.
Much to the chagrin of Hello magazine no doubt !

Roberto M. September 10, 2009 · 7:35 pm

Tom @ 4,

“spain losing to the US, although an aberration, should have take Spain out of the 2nd spot, no?”

What do you think this is, American-style rankings, ala BCS? Soccer rankings are fine. I have no problem with Spain being second, because they play like the second best team in the world right now. Clearly, the U.S. does not play at that level, not withstanding its win against Spain. Moreover, there is a system for ranking teams that FIFA outlines. The fact that you don’t know how the ranking system works, or haven’t bothered to look it up, does not mean that there is vodoo involved.

Footballo September 10, 2009 · 8:10 pm

The rankings are fine. They are based on some methodology. One defines a set of rules, add the points, and get the rankings. If you do not like it, invent a better set of rules.

I am tired of seeing Brazil, Italy and Germany winning (or almost). I would be thrilled with an Asian, African, or the US team. Spain would be fine, but I bet they are not as good as it seems. Holland deserves(d). Paraguay winning not difficult.
England could, France can’t. Tradition counts, and we go back to the first teams again.

rella September 10, 2009 · 8:53 pm

I hope that the NYT has arranged for its very own complement of carrier pigeons as part of its World Cup coverage:

//www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112702824

NYT Editor–How did you find out? Now, as we write, they are sequestered in a remote area at a special training facility. I’ve heard next week’s practices will be dedicated to practicing scorpions and those flipping throw-ins. Soon on this blog (and YouTube) … pigeon training videos.

Chris Conant September 10, 2009 · 9:09 pm

The rankings and the seeding favors the established powers. Until another team wins the championship, the system will continue as-is. Never forget that FIFA is based on the Continent.

I posit that the United States is the next developing power, in the sport. Within the next four cycles from this one in 2010, I expect the US to place; within the next ten, I expect them to win.

john@york UK September 10, 2009 · 10:12 pm

– rella

Would we be allowed to eat the pigeon if the result was not to our liking ?
Garlic, cream, old vintage port, and a penalty shoot out should do it !

Bakes September 11, 2009 · 12:53 am

Chris Conant… I suggest you familiarize yourself with the ranking methodology before you ascribe ulterior motives to FIFA. There is a very transparent process for awarding points to teams based on international matches played and the outcomes achieved in those matches.

If you sit idle and don’t play then your ranking drops… same for if you play and lose obviously. So if Spain kept active or the teams below were inactive then Spain’s position would not be affected.

—————-

David The Yank… I’m pretty sure you were among the ones sweating bullets last night as your team had to pull out a miracle to escape those same “bottom feeders”. I might bode you well to continue to show respect to your opponents despite your current success. Your team very well will be bottom feeders in the near future as well.

I’m not sure if you’re actually supposed to be a journalist or if you just accompanied mommy or daddy to work today.

tom September 11, 2009 · 6:18 am

Spain losing to the US means they are NOT the 2nd best team in the world, period.

JJGG September 11, 2009 · 8:23 am

At the last World Cups, the stronger teams suffered against developing teams, to then mastermind their tactics and come out as winners anyway.

This time in South Africa, it should be the same case.

Usually, Brazil will probably have an easy group, and have lucky games and reach the final.

Spain, unless they maintain their current standard, are likely to be eliminated by the 8th finals.

Italy, with their wins by 1 goal a game, will probably reach the final, not exclusively by entertainment, but by their usual approach on tactics and discipline.

England looks now like a contender, but fall short against strong teams, which probably do not include…

…France and Argentina, which suffer from unconvincing training.

All in all, if the US can maintain stamina for a full match, they may be one of those “developing” teams that can be a real surprise next year, but they can’t lose games they initially are winning…

Bluesea September 11, 2009 · 10:53 am

A rule of thumb, don’t put the cart before the horse. The USMNT hasn’t yet qualified. So don’t jinx the squad.

Jaws September 11, 2009 · 12:21 pm

matches are 9+ months away, so who cares about rankings??? form wins out always. much can happen between now & then. if rankings really matter why play? only ones that really count are right after the WCs….

but US is definitely not #11 in world at this point….

Sam September 11, 2009 · 12:40 pm

This article doen’t explain how the seeding might go, given the standings—that would be interesting. Would an 11th place world ranking keep the US out of a “group of death”?

Sam September 11, 2009 · 12:45 pm

PS–read Jared’s link (see above) for a useful analytical summary of standings and WC seeding–

Jared–with the US ahead of Mexico, why is Mexico ahead of the US in the seeding standings?

john September 11, 2009 · 12:55 pm

What’s with Asian teams already qualified not getting any mention? Are their FIFA rankings too low to warrant notice?

Thomas B. September 11, 2009 · 1:29 pm

@ Chris Connent: It’s is all very transparent and not unlike chess rankings. It doesn’t favor powers. It favors recency and world cup performance. And the farther from a WC the less import those matches have.

//www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/procedure/men.html

//www.worldsoccerbars.com

Tim S September 11, 2009 · 2:23 pm

The way England played in its group, esp. against Croatia this week, suggests that it will be a semi-finalist at the very least. The Dutch can’t seem to win shoot outs so I see them crashing at the round of 8. Would someone please give Brazil a real scare before the semis??

Lazaro September 11, 2009 · 2:58 pm

I’m so excited that Ghana qualified. They were my favorite team in the last World Cup. It will be very sad if Argentina doesn’t make it, but they are coached by the soccer version of Isiah Thomas: //nomoreonionbags.com/blog/?p=269

Chris Conant September 11, 2009 · 9:16 pm

Any system that would not seed a regional winner is faulty: the United States won CONCACAF prior the 2006 World Cup, yet FIFA awarded a seed to Mexico. But for attempting to win a seed, the United States might have forfeited the last match of the qualifiers in 2005.

I understand that FIFA has revised the rankings since the last World Cup, but I still question it, as there remains a great deference to the past, in considering the preceding three World Cups, twelve years ago, which would have consisted of players completely irrelevant to the present teams.

charles September 11, 2009 · 10:48 pm

A European team has NEVER won the World Cup outside of Europe.Period.

Apart from Brazil, i can only see an African team winning it, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana or the Ivory Coast.

The English media have already started the “we are going to win it” England haven’t won anything since 1966-44 years by the time 2010 comes round.

They will be going there with NO world class keeper, no world class defenders, in fact i struggle to name one genuine world class English player (Gerrard-at a push and he’d probably only make the bench).

It’s all built on hype, by the English press. Same as it is every time England qualifies for a major competition.

Take a look at the results in England’s recent friendlies
Only beat the Swiss by a goal, lost to France, drew with the Czechs and the dutch, lost to Spain and only recently scraped past the Slovenians.

Qualifying results, they are just as impressive, aside from Croatia (who were missing players from Euro 2008-which England failed to qualify for) England have played NO team ranked higher than 25th in Fifa’s Rankings.

Andorra-49 mins to score against the 195th ranked nation in the world.
Kazakhstan-52 mins to score against the nation ranked 136th in the world.
Belarus-an early goal against the 77th ranked nation, then nothing else till the second half.
Ukraine-25th ranked and saved by a goal five minuted from full time.

Take away the media spin and it’s hardly impressive is it?

Footballo September 12, 2009 · 10:25 am

Wow, charles. I agree 100 per cent with you.

England is not all that what the media says.

I cant understand why people do not use facts, numbers, statistics, to base their judgments. It must be because people hate to work and they are really bad in mathematics in school.

charles: you did a much better job in reporting useful facts than most of the bloggers and reporters around here. Thanks a lot. I’ve learned something today.

stephen September 12, 2009 · 12:00 pm

Charles-

Spot on, mate!

Nowhere outside of England is rated highly. The non-stop rubbish hyperbole from Fleet Street has begun.

Cheers