11/10/2010: Substitution crisis as
"friendlies" become farce
17/11/2010: Allegience rule concern in Gulum case
21/12/2011: FIFA stubbornness stagnates football's
evolution
New Zealand qualified for the World Cup with a pulsating 1-0 win over Bahrain on Saturday. This came after a 0-0 in Manama in the first leg a month prior. The return leg in Wellington had the hallmarks of Uruguay for Australia four years ago. So much so that I was prepared to pay the $30 premium to get the channel for a month just to watch it. The match did not disappoint. Before the match, I couldn't help think of the good fortune that suddenly turned for Australia actually had a greater target: Oceania. For decades trying to get representation and respect at the World Cup. Now there's essentially two teams there.
The fortune saw Australia finally accepted by Asia, Australia dealt the easier pool to qualify, Australia having the run of luck and chances in qualifying, Fifa revising their nationality rules in June that allowed two key NZ players to be suddenly available after previously playing for British home nations at youth level, Bahrain finding its way to be NZ's opponent instead of nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Uzbekistan and China, and then the ability to take the chance on offer and qualify on one glorious night. Over the two legs, they were the better team. Bahrain missed a sitter in Manama, while NZ could easily have scored more after scoring their goal just prior to half time.
Nerves played a role for both teams. NZ were nervous at the start of each half, while Bahrain were the first to crack. The missed penalty seemed to destroy them. This is their second capitulation to a team many would expect to beat, losing to Trinidad & Tobago in a playoff for the 2006 World Cup.
New Zealand at the World Cup, it's just like in 2005 saying Australia at the World Cup. It's unbelievable.
Such success for NZ has seen huge debate over the whether teams like NZ should even be there. It's impossible to dispute their right when all that they've done is follow the path assigned to them. The suggestion that all that they beat were teams ranked below them, that's not their design, and it's an argument that relates to teams like Brazil, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, etc. As stated earlier, NZ could quite easily have faced a higher nation like Japan or Australia.
The bigger question is the existence of Oceania. It's always been the subject of condescension and viability, especially with the subject of a direct spot the reception of laughter. It's been long sought by many - including members of Oceania itself - to have it dissolved. The selfishness of the other Confederations having given Oceania no choice other than to exist.
On principle, for such a weak Confederation like Oceania to get what seemingly is a simple process to qualify is odd. It's simple for New Zealand, obviously not for American Samoa. That simplicity is therefore dependent on perspective. Historically, it hasn't been simple at all, with only three World Cup appearances, including 2010 (Australia was unaffiliated to any confederation for its 1974 World Cup appearance after having quit Oceania in 1972, rejoining in 1978).
First of all, the sham "democracy" of Fifa. With 6 Confederations, you'd expect 6 proportional votes on the executive committee. No, it's 24, and it's proportional, to something! Europe have 9 votes while Oceania has 1. South America has 3 votes despite having the same number of teams as Oceania. With Europe, South America have 12, forming an alliance that traditionally runs the show. If the South Americans for some reason won't oblige, Europe can just bribe (oops, align) Asia or Africa and they have the numbers.
For Oceania to have equal voice with Europe seems absurd. This system really shows the weakness of the confederation and its eased to be pushed around. It also highlights the nonsensical democracy and the bigoted politicalness that has blighted the organisation. Fifa make self-serving decisions for immediate needs. That was evidenced all so clearly with the scurrilous decision to end the "world cup rotation" policy just as the immediate two obvious regions of Africa and South America were rightfully set as hosts and the sudden reversal, just 8 months after it was granted unanimously, of the Oceania's World Cup spot after South America whinged. It's a disgrace. Solution: Rationalise the confederations so that they are obviously proportional and can have equal say. In any democracy, that means numbers. In Fifa, that means moving nations to other regions to create an equal balance of members. Pity is that Fifa do not run the confederations. They formed themselves, and it's just evolved that voting patterns align with confederation affiliation. It's up to them.
With approximately 200 member nations among the 6 existing confederations, there's a ready-made geographical allocation of 4 confederations with 50 member nations to be made: Merge Oceania into Asia to form an Asia/Pacific confederation and merge South America into CONCACAF to form an Americas confederation. With the current Europe and Africa, that gives 4 confederations with approximately 50 teams. Instantly you have an equal representation in the executive committee and a viable voting allocation. No longer can two of the six confederations gang-up on the other four. Now, three of the four confederations must agree to pass motions.
Currently there is so much debate as to the numbers each confederation deserve. Obviously they each want more. On a democratic level, it seems insane that South America, a region of 10 teams, gets 4.5 spots, same as Asia with almost 50 teams. Africa could feel aggrieved with their 50 nations only getting 5 spots, while Europe with their 14 spots even complain for more. Oceania sits always wanting a direct spot, as it deserves for the simple principle of being a full confederation and already having guaranteed representation at every single other Fifa tournament on the planet. The World Cup, ironically the tournament that involves the most teams with 32, they miss out.
With four equal confederations, the allocation of World Cup spots is now simple, and a mechanism can be introduced to reward confederations on performance.
Each confederation gets 4 guaranteed spots per World Cup, with the remaining spots allocated based on performances of each confederation averaged over the previous 3 World Cups.
From the past 3 World Cups, the following regions and their teams made the second round, the top 16:
1998
Europe: Denmark, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, England, Italy, Norway, France, Germany,
Romania, Croatia (10)
Americas: Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico (5)
Africa: Nigeria (1)
Asia/Pacific: (0)
2002
Europe: Germany, Spain Ireland, Italy, Denmark, England, Belgium, Sweden, Turkey (9)
Americas: Paraguay, Mexico, USA, Brazil (4)
Africa: Senegal (1)
Asia/Pacific: Korea, Japan (2)
2006
Europe: Germany, England, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, France,
Spain, Ukraine (10)
Americas: Ecuador, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil (4)
Africa: Ghana (1)
Asia/Pacific: Australia (1)
Average (rounded): Europe 9.7 (10), Americas 4.3 (4), Africa 1, Asia/Pacific 1
For World Cup 2010, allocations are therefore Europe 14, Americas 8, Africa 5, Asia 5.
Ironically, that equates almost identical to the actual allocation. Europe has one less spot, while Africa has one more - the host. Under this new system, the hosts' spot comes from the guaranteed allocation.
Looking to 2014...
2010
Europe: Netherlands, Slovakia, Germany, England, Spain, Portugal (6)
Americas: Uruguay, USA, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Paraguay (7)
Africa: Ghana (1)
Asia/Pacific: Korea, Japan (2)
Average (rounded): Europe 8.3 (8), Americas 5, Africa 1, Asia/Pacific 2.3 (2)
For World Cup 2014, allocations are therefore Europe 12, Americas 9, Africa 5, Asia 6.
Europe's disaster in Africa, qualifying only 6 teams instead of the usual 9 or 10 to the second round, sees them lose two spots. The Americas qualified 7 teams, up from their usual 4 or 5, to give them an extra spot. Asia/Pacific gains a spot for qualifying 2 teams twice in the past 3 World Cups. That really is the key. In future, if Asia becomes a power and get 8 teams to the top 16 and Europe falters with only 2, the system is in place to reward confederations accordingly. Asia would get 12 spots, Europe 6. All this without having to engage the petty bickering of the current system.
The fear with the Americas that the South American teams would take all the spots is circumvented by the confederation itself reserving 3 spots to North/Central (and 3 to the South) with the remaining spots open for either. They could even run the qualification similar to the current situation. It's just that the allocation is awarded to the entire confederation to use as they please. They could even just promote the quarter-finalists from their regional championship and not play any qualifiers at all.
Similar situation also for Asia/Pacific. The Oceania section can play among itself, with the winner coming into Asia at the first major group phase, or even earlier if they prove too weak. If Asia were ever as powerful to have 8 or 10 spots, they could create an East/West split for qualifying, awarding 3 guaranteed spots to each.
Many believe that the World Cup should be about the best in the world. While you couldn't shun one entire part of the world being represented, what about after the guaranteed 4 spots per confederation, the remaining 16 spots were decided by a qualification system that included the whole world? It's easy.
Each confederation sends their next best 8 teams to compete in 8 world groups. Each group has a team from each confederation - Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia/Pacific. They play round robin, home and way. The top 2 qualifying for the World Cup.
Given potential time constraints, the promotion of these teams to the world qualifying stage would need to be decided by regional championships. Again, it's easy. Here's the sequence of events in a four-year World Cup cycle:
Season 1: Qualifying for regional championships
Season 2: Any remaining regional qualifiers, regional championship end of season
Season 3: World Cup qualifying draw early season, World Cup qualifying, Confederations Cup end of season
Season 4: Any remaining World Cup qualifying, World Cup end of season
Of those attempting to qualify, they only play 6 matches. The only other qualifying is for the regional championships. The one potential negative is the four automatic qualifiers are out of action for 2 years. Overall, there's actually far less games than currently played. Clubs would like it.
If you're worried about strong teams hogging all the qualifying places, they won't. Theoretically, regionally strong teams like Brazil, Italy, Mexico and Nigeria will have automatically qualified as a result of good performance in their regional championship. It will be teams like Slovenia, Poland, Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Saudi Arabia, China and South Africa that will be seen.
The beauty of this system is that basic allocations are fixed permanently, with the rest decided by a genuine World Cup qualifying process that rewards actual recent worldwide results. It also gives more chance for teams to play serious matches against teams from other regions. Currently, this is only possible at a World Cup or Confederations Cup.
Possibly the bickering will one day see an increase to 40 teams at a World Cup. This would need to be done as extra groups, as the obvious solution of expanding individual groups from 4 teams to 5 teams causes many problems. Not least the odd number of teams means a "bye" for one of them on the playing day of a group. In the four-team system, all teams can play the same day. Most importantly, is the final round-robin round where the matches are played simultaneously. With five teams, one would be sitting out, and that is unacceptable.
Then there's side issues of squad sizes needing to be increased and then the more difficult qualification out of a five-team group for weaker nations. Extra teams also creates extra scenarios of same-region teams playing each other, with as many 3 groups containing three Europeans teams. They'd need to be spread out over extra groups.
Given that four-team groups would be required, an interim measure would be 36 teams over 9 groups of four. In that situation, the nine group winners plus the 7 second placed teams with the best record would progress to the knockout phase. To go to 40 teams, 10 groups would be required with 10 group winners and 6 second-placed teams.
The duration of the World Cup would not require extending as they just play more matches on a day. Currently there's much padding of the fixture so as many games can be seen at once.
If extra teams do eventuate, same principles for allocation apply as above. For 36 teams, five spots are guaranteed, with rest based on top 16 from the previous World Cup. With 40 teams, six spots are guaranteed.
For the worldwide World Cup qualifying idea, again, increase the spots to 5 or 6 guaranteed respectively for 36 or 40 teams, and retain the 8 groups. Or leave it at 4 guaranteed per region and create 11 or 12 qualifying groups.
The question is whether FIFA would ever want to move to a situation of "best second-placed" teams progressing to the knockout phase at a World Cup. The current system of 32 teams is a nice balance both in simplicty of 8 groups of 4 with top 2 progressing and, even more importantly, the challenge in qualification itself.
A perennial bugbear of mine is the abuse of yellow cards. Solution: Teams must be punished immediately. I've said it before countless times, and no doubt say it again countless time. That is the player is ejected 15 minutes so as the team hurt by the infringement is actually rewarded. In ice-hockey, it's called a power-player. In football, it would add a fascinating contrast to games. The principle of temporary ejection is only consistent with a red card, which is permanent ejection. It's pointless to suspend players by accumulated yellow cards because a team in future gets the undeserved benefit.
Exceeding the abuse of yellow cards these days is the simulation of injuries. It's an epidemic. As usual, Fifa sits around, does nothing except trot out the silly little "Fair Play" banner. Solution: If the player calls a doctor on the pitch, that player is ejected from the game for 10 minutes.
Question, if a professional foul to deny a goal scoring chance occurs in the penalty box, is it denying a goal scoring chance when the result of such a foul is a penalty? An intriguing question, just in principle.
The rule was actually brought in to stop the one-on-one situations outside the box of a defender, or even an approaching goalie, dragging down an attacker. In the box, such a foul is a penalty, therefore the goal scoring chance is hardly denied. In fact, it's probably enhanced in that you get your best kicker to take the shot on goal. Fifa really need to clarify the rule.
There's rarely a time goes by when watching a game with friends that an offside is called and I'll say "It wasn't offside". I don't even need to be watching the screen. Why? Because 95% of the time the referees are wrong. Why does the sport allows these blatant miscarriages of justice? When you think in AFL that a trivial incident can consume back page of newspapers for days, it's unbelievable that soccer just carries on. It's the culture of the sport. Then they wonder why players dive. They're just trying to restore the balance.
Solution: First I'd change the rule that offside must be both at when the ball is played and when the ball is received. Often a player is running back on-side and gathers the ball. This should be allowed as he's remaining in the spirit of the game. It's actually quite easy to judge because, unlike when the ball is played and the referee needs to be watching the ball and the defensive line simultaneously (impossible if you're not an eagle), he just need watch the player with the ball who'll be either behind the line or not. Granted, it's probably too difficult for the referees as they already cannot administer simple existing rules - like "the attacker gets benefit of the doubt". It makes even the 5% they get right as tenuous, because most of those quite easily would be "benefit" situations. The off-side rule was only ever created to avoid loitering in the goal area.
A second change to the rule would be offside only if the player is clearly 1 metre offside.
A rule that I'd like to see trialled is to extend the offside-exclusion line from the halfway line to about a third distance to the attacking goal. First, it would cut out the need for the referee to make as many decisions. Second, it could create more space and open up the game.
Administrators wonder why fans don't show to "friendly" matches, as just emphasised in the match involving Australia and Paraguay. First there's the nature of the games themselves, largely trial or exhibition matches with rarely the first choice team invovled. Then, for the second half of these matches, the predominate "action" is typically seen on the sidelines, with the endless substitutions. It's one big merry-go-round and a high-five fest. While teams need some environment to use more substitutions than the three ordinarily allowed, at least reduce the stoppages to just 3 per team per match, maybe even only allow two stoppages per team for the second half. Part of being a "friendly" should be that the match is friendly to the crowd. Remember that teams can still make multiple changes at these times and can make changes at half time. For all matches, no substitutions at all in injury time. The way that period of time is exploited is ridiculous.
Australian-born Ersan Gulum's recent selection to play for Turkey has raised a broader issue on FIFA's national allegiance rule. Currently that once played for the senior team, players are locked to that nation forever. Previously it was even stricter, with a cap at any level locking that player. Tim Cahill was the most famous case, representing Samoa at youth level and then barred from representing Australia - despite apparently given advice at the time that he was not locked - until FIFA relaxed the rules after heavy petitioning.
The case with Gulum highlights more the apparent motive of Turkey to stockpile young talent before they can be selected for other countries. Australia has also found itself forced to engage in similar practices, most notably securing Mark Viduka and Harry Kewell before Croatia and England, respectively, could select them. That's not to suggest Australia is nefarious in any way. They are merely locking in players that are Australian nationals and born here, compared to cases of Turkey and Croatia seemingly poaching outside their borders.
While it can be cited that ultimately it is the player's decision, the rule itself remains intransigent and open to exploitation. Awarding caps simply to tie a player to a country is wrong. National selection should mean something more. It's selfish against the player in that this cap maybe his only one. There's also the pressure on the player to make such a tough decision in the first place.
The solution is to make the rule fairer by reducing the exclusivity to a period like 4 years. That means that if a player has not played for his country at any level in a four year period, he is unlocked can change allegience to another national team in which he is eligible. The classic case is Cahill, who served much longer than four years out of international football. He would never have endured that process. A rarely publicised case is John Aloisi, who refused selection for Australian youth teams to remain open to represent Italy. That would never have been required. An interesting case is Viduka, who's been out of the Australian team for nearly 4 years. If Croatia calls him, he can play for them. Of course, this does not mean he go play for China. Current nationality and citizenship rules still apply.
Such a change to a 4-year window means that players are not crucified for life on one decision. Even the simple matter of a player that legitimately settles in another country and gains citizenship, that player could now represent their new country. Virtually every other sport allows for nationality changes. Football should be no different.
On an idealist level, that national duty should be the ultimate pride and loyalty, it's foolish to believe all players are so patriotic, nor should it be demanded. Some may simply covet international football. Changing at club level is fine, so international level should not be so formidable. Ultimately it would still rest with the national football associations whether they allow such freedom themselves, forming their own policy for national selection. It won't see a rampant trade in players changing countries as they do clubs. A country like Australia perhaps will only ever chose Australian citizens. Most players are only ever eligible for one country, or would never considering playing for another.
Specifically on Gulum, he's 23, has never heard a word from previous coaches, nor anything from Holger Osieck. Ideally, communication is lacking. Osieck could say that he's interested, and requests the player be patient so his progress is monitored for a year or so. If the player hears nothing at all, it's difficult to blame him. He presumes no hope for the next 4 years, then he's 27, or gets injured. This opportunity for Turkey could be his best.
Earlier this week, Craig Foster posted an interesting blog at the theworldgame website about the evolution of the game. While there was a sneaky slight against AFL that drew part of the response, more interesting the effect of governance on a sport's evolution, and here there is a stark difference...
The only sport I know that only exists in Australia is AFL. I'm not sure the argument of non-evolution, because that sport evolves probably too quickly, so much so that the AFL makes rule changes to restore the balance. The most recent is the substitute rule. It's the large field and no restrictions like offside that cause AFL to evolve so quickly. Collingwood's forward-press looked like era-defining strategy, then less than a year later it was unravelled. Forward set-ups are far more dynamic than soccer's, umm, "do we play one or two strikers". Defence is far more than that sticking a man on a post.
In contrast, the progression of football is stunted by the dictatorial and oppressive regime that is FIFA. Clearly there are flaws in the game where players's abilities have exceeded the boundary of the original rules. The lack of space, no respect to yellow cards, poor officiating of offsides, just to name a few. Rarely a week goes by without arguing over fouls being red or yellow, the dullness of some games, and goals denied by wrong offside calls. If it were AFL, they'd have acted.
Personally, I'd like to see trialled no-offside zone extended to 2/3s of pitch, offside only if a player is offside both when the ball is passed and when the ball received (takes care of passive situation, and if player is back onside to receive the ball, the original advantage is negated), and 15mins off for a yellow card (a natural progression from a red being permanently off, and fixes problem of red too strict on fouls when a yellow obviously too soft).
To control time wasting I'd add external time-keeping, 5 mins off for a player if he calls a doctor, and no substitutions in injury time. With proper time-keeping, I'd reduce halves to 40mins and add time for every single stoppage (injuries, setting up free-kicks, subs, goal celebrations).
While I'm not in the habit of promoting AFL, if you mention sport as only played in Aus, that's AFL, and should provide examples.
Quote "Vladimir"
I have to disagree with your assertion of FIFA. The resistance to change rules is a positive thing for the game, as it makes coaches to think proactively and counter others.
Not sure what you mean by lack of space and no respect to yellow cards. Poor officiating of offsides is very rare in major competition. Dullness of the game?? Have you watched any gold coast AFL games? Not to mention Saint Kilda and their way of play in the last few seasons. I think that quality of A league can be improved, but I guess you get what you pay for.
I enjoy AFL as well, and have to say that constant rule changes makes me turn off. Every year there is a new rules that confuse players, coaches and fans. I can;t see that as positive. AFL is tring to influence the game. make it more high scoring so that they can squeeze more ads in the goal breaks.
I don't watch many AFL games. I'm a football fan first and foremost - watching reasonable amounts A-League and all international matches. Concentrating on AFL's GC as example is selective bias. Why not ask have you watched any Geelong or Hawthorn games?
These are more my observations I post rather than major personal concerns. Earlier this week TWG trashed the Sydney/Gold Coast game, as many fans did. It's very common. Even the tone in match commentary, saying a game "needs a goal", and crowds more likely to get bored and do mexican waves or more pre-occupied with chanting. The game does become a bottleneck. Twenty players typically occupy 1/4 of the pitch. A few tweaks could create a little extra space, meaning more goal-mouth action. Another option is 1 less player per team, something Johnny Warren would often suggest as remedy. Subs could be increased to four.
The offsides are dreadful. Every single game there'd be 2 or 3 called that are not offside. That's at any level. The fault is the community accepts it as part of the game, except if a goal scored is even minutely offside and then there's a furore. The tweaks I suggest would at least mean referees need to act less. In an ideal world, I'd like offsides NEVER to be called unless a goal is scored. Then a replay can be checked if the ref thinks there was an offside. Why do we need to keep stopping play when the point of offside is to stop illegal goals?
If there were respect for yellows, there'd be far less ruthless tackling. Fans scream at that behaviour, and then when a red is given, oh it's too harsh and "ruins the game" (classic example was Melbourne Victory's Foschini vs Brisbane Roar early in the year). If a yellow actually punished the team and rewarded its opponent, maybe the attitude changes.
I suggest trials for these rules. I'm not for change just for its sake. The reason I even highlighted these flaws was to show the more restrictive nature in football both in governance and true evolutionary fluidity.
Quote "Ted"
I agree with soccerorealm, that whilst teams and tactics evolved and I am sure with lots of dollars will continue to do so. FIFA is the worst and most stagnant organization that hardly changed any rules for a long time. Many games are ruined by wrong decisions of referees with penalties, red cards and offside calls. Goal line technology is only 5% of blatant cases. We need video ref. (like in other sports) and loosen offside rules somehow. Subs we need to allow more , but do it only few times per game (i.e. half time etc.) unless player injured or red carded (major events).
Also A-league teams, especially even MV you can hardly say demonstrate any tactical brilliance and have 1 system of play that suits all. Even Roar now lost 3 times and defend the 'way the play'. Adapting to an opposition non existent it seems, strange? I would say foolish. even FIFA game allows you that , but not A-league coaches.
Lastly, AFL is often ridiculous to watch with uncertain rules for free kicks, play ons, fouls etc. I like dynamics of it, but it is not by far well regulated game. With a lot of dodgy decisions and plays. Since there are so many goals, people hardly complain if few decisions are wrong by refs. and Australian mentality - 'should be right mate' kind of works as well in this sports. But it is fun to watch and usually best team wins, because there are so many goals scored. Perhaps time to make soccer goals bigger as well? :)
I'm less fussed with goal-line technology as that's only a handful of games per season, and simply use video ref and stop the game if a goal scored. Whereas offside it's at least 2-3 incidents per match, mostly the case is against the attacking team, which just gets brushed aside by the seemingly anti-goal culture of the sport. Then the sport has extreme absurdities like Kewell at the World Cup vs Ghana, where accidental handball sees a penalty, Kewell hit with a red card (for denying a goal-scoring chance even though a penalty is given) and a one game suspension.
While AFL has huge flaws, especially with its "subjective" rules (interpretation often changes, even through a match, and the fans do scream about it), yes, the focus is more on pure tactical nature. Simply, the contrast in strategies are varied and stark. Both Hawthorn and Collingwood were able to pop up with game-crushing strategies, only to be made almost obsolete within 18 months. Ironically, maybe this is happening with Brisbane Roar right now.
Football needs more goal mouth action, more shots, more saves. That's the excitement factor. Goals are big enough, and if you make them bigger it could just make teams more defensive. Personally, I'd like to see the 2/3s no-offside zone trialled, because that at least gives attacking teams the option to camp a striker further forward, meaning opposing defence must retreat, therefore more space, and more counter attacks. I like this because it such a rule just means there's a tactical option for more space, rather than, say, reducing teams by 1 man to force new space. Be aware, field hockey totally removed their offside rule without any detriment to the game.
I just don't understand why football is so afraid to trial anything. It's almost like admitting to a flaw in the game, and our egoes just won't take that.
http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/craig-foster/blog/1085449/To-post-or-not-to-post?