WC 2006

December 9, 2005 1:44 PM

Jun 2006 is too far away! How did you like the drawing? What are the tough and easy groups? Let's the WC madness begin.
posted by dov3 (58 comments total)

Wow, I think USA might be in trouble with Italy and Czech Republic. Eek.
posted by paulychamp at 1:47 PM on December 9, 2005

Dutch NOS calls the Netherlands' placement with Argentina, Ivory Coast and Serbia and Montenegro as the "group of death". That's all I have to say right now.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 1:48 PM on December 9, 2005

Well, with my puny little country not qualifying the best thing of the WC is that it wont mean another spoiled summer spent in front of the TV.
posted by AwkwardPause at 1:50 PM on December 9, 2005

Group C is the killer. Group H sucks. The USA is in big trouble. No way they get out. On a related note, did anyone watch the telecast? Did they steal the Who Wants to be a Millionaire? set? And we hardly got to see Heidi!
posted by panoptican at 1:52 PM on December 9, 2005

Some amazing games to look forward too ARRGH can't wait.

Time to start planning the viewing schedule
posted by doogyrev at 1:52 PM on December 9, 2005

Am I the only one who saw "WC madness" and had the entirely wrong understanding as to what "WC" stands for in this context?

(for the unenlightened: WC often stands for "water closet", which is what quite a few Europeans call what most Americans call the "bathroom")
posted by leapfrog at 1:56 PM on December 9, 2005

Oh, and our friends over at SportsFilter have snarkless commentary.
posted by panoptican at 1:57 PM on December 9, 2005

All of my money's on Togo!

LET'S GO, TOGO!
LET'S GO, TOGO!

Oooooaaaayyyy
Oooaayyoooaayyyyooooaaayyyy!
posted by Shfishp at 1:58 PM on December 9, 2005

Does anybody know why they chose Ivory Coast for group C before they chose a second team for group B?
posted by crashlanding at 2:00 PM on December 9, 2005

Something to do with geographical distibrution rules? I.e. not more than x teams from the same continent, etc.? Someone more eloquent with more of their attention span intact may have a more detailed explanation.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:06 PM on December 9, 2005

Brazil has it pretty toasty. And England should be able to proceed without too much hassle, as well.

Ahhh, I'll probably get dragged into it, and sit glued to the box all summer. Oh well.
posted by AwkwardPause at 2:07 PM on December 9, 2005

I know that's why they put Serbia & Montenegro aside, but I didn't think there would be a problem with putting the Ivory Coast in England's group. If I was an Argentine fan I would be a little peeved.
posted by crashlanding at 2:10 PM on December 9, 2005

Is Ivory Coast considered that strong nowadays?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:11 PM on December 9, 2005

I think group E is the real group of death because whoever is lucky enough to make it out in second has to play Brazil in the first round in the knockout stages.

Pretty much only the top team in that group has a chance to go anywhere.
posted by crashlanding at 2:12 PM on December 9, 2005

Bah. If there is any group of death this year, it's E (no matter crashlanding's redefinition of the term).

If you look at the rankings, that's #s 2, 8, 12, and 50. Group C is #s 3, 4, 47, and 49. Argentina and Netherlands are clear faves. (Yes, I know rankings mean very little.)

Italy-Czech-US should be great fun. I'm likely one of the few to hope the Americans rise to the challenge.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:24 PM on December 9, 2005

I personally cannot wait for Sweden to annihilate England.
posted by fire&wings at 2:28 PM on December 9, 2005

The rules were that no team could be grouped with another team from the same confederation, except Europe, where there were more than 8 teams so the limit was no more than 2 Europeaan teams per group. Serbia, being the lowest-ranked team from Europe, was put in a special group to go into one of the 3 groups containing the non-European seeded teams. These rules led to the out-of-order picks.

Or, if you prefer, FIFA rigged it all.
posted by babar at 2:52 PM on December 9, 2005

Yeah, Sven going up against his home country should be interesting.
posted by terrapin at 2:54 PM on December 9, 2005

Soccernet has a handy wall chart available.
posted by terrapin at 2:55 PM on December 9, 2005

Wow, that really is a handy wall chart!
posted by AwkwardPause at 2:59 PM on December 9, 2005

It will be a great group, but how did Mexico get a higher seed than the U.S.? I thought the U.S. won its group. Not that the U.S. would want to play Portugal, I'm just askin'.
posted by jmgorman at 3:02 PM on December 9, 2005

Only six teams (+ Germany and Brazil) are seeded. The rest are distributed according to geography.

The six highest-ranked teams according to the FIFA World Cup™ final competitions of 2002 and 1998 (ratio: 2:1) and the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking in the years 2005, 2004 and 2003 (ratio: 1:1:1) will be placed into pot 1 – and drawn into position 1 of each group.

The 24 remaining teams will be distributed into pots 2, 3 and 4 in such a way that guarantees the best possible geographical distribution in the groups. - pdf
posted by AwkwardPause at 3:09 PM on December 9, 2005

Mexico got a better seed because the seeding was based on performance in the last two or three World Cup finals, not how the teams did in the qualification rounds for this one.
posted by einarorn at 3:09 PM on December 9, 2005

If the US does get out it will have did knowing they beat or played with some good teams -- set's them up well for the elims.
posted by narebuc at 3:19 PM on December 9, 2005

Balls.
posted by loquacious at 4:05 PM on December 9, 2005

I'm going to try to watch the games outside, in a beer garden perhaps. My couch can be depressing and hot in the summer.
posted by eighth_excerpt at 4:21 PM on December 9, 2005

My home country didn't qualify but England and Sweden ending up in the same group almost makes up for that (almost).

I can't wait for that match.
posted by sveskemus at 4:36 PM on December 9, 2005

As a fan of Japan, I have to that Japan is pretty screwed. But this will save me all the time I would have wasted watching the second round. Not that I wouldn't like to watch those games as well; it's just that Japanese TV won't broadcast them unless Japan is involved. Obviously Brazil is tough. Are there any Australian or Croatian fans who can give me more insight into the strength of their teams?

Terrapin: Is it me, or is that chart... not so handy?

OT: I always thought that WC stood for White Chair.
posted by donkeymon at 4:44 PM on December 9, 2005

I believe here is your handy wallchart.

The U.S. got a tough draw, but I think they are up for the challenge. They were never really out of that 2002 quarterfinal with Germany, and I think they have a deeper roster and an even more experienced team for 06. I think they can compete against Italy.

Did anyone else hear the pre-draw interview with Marcus Hahnemann on BBC Radio 5? "Is Mexico seeded?" Yikes.
posted by Otis at 4:54 PM on December 9, 2005

Japan recently drew (goal) with Brazil in a meaningless competition. But at least it proves it's maybe kinda possible.
posted by fire&wings at 5:07 PM on December 9, 2005

Tough draw for Holland, but there's hope!
posted by clevershark at 5:13 PM on December 9, 2005

Forget it. USA are going home after the first round.
posted by normy at 5:14 PM on December 9, 2005

Yeah, I wouldn't count the US out just yet. I'm excited to see how they perform. Supporting the US is fun because nobody else in the world expects them to do much, so when they win, there's another slew of stories about how the Americans are finally getting into soccer and when they lose, it's no big deal (although the '98 debacle was rather embarrassing). Think about what a US victory over Italy could do for the Americans. It would be similar to the victory (in a friendly) over England in - when was that- '91 or '92?
posted by Kronoss at 5:26 PM on December 9, 2005

Are there any Australian or Croatian fans who can give me more insight into the strength of their teams?

Australia's team is mostly made up of guys playing top-flight European football e.g. Harry Kewell at Liverpool, Mark Schwarzer at Middlesborough, Brett Emerton at Blackburn, Marco Bresciano at Parma. On paper: a decent side.

We're one of those teams that "can beat any team in the world on our day", except "our day" doesn't come very often. Given Croatia and Japan are ranked 20th and 15th in the world (compared to our 49th), I can't see that day materialising in June 2006 either.
posted by bright cold day at 5:44 PM on December 9, 2005

I'm with leapfrog, but I'll take it a step further. This is a great example of a terrible FPP that could have been decent. Here's what my thought process was, while reading it:

* June 2006? What's happening then? Is this a movie thing, with just a link to a teaser trailer?
* Drawing? Maybe it's an art thing?
* Groups, huh? I'm not sure what to make of that.
* Water closet?

So I enter the thread looking for tags, thinking that'll help (no, I didn't think to click the link). No tags. And it isn't a link to news about the World Cup. No, it's a link to the World Cup's home page. Sigh. Let's hope no one wants to link to the World Cup home page next week, because the only way they'll find this thread is if they think to search for "WC".
posted by Plutor at 5:54 PM on December 9, 2005

bright cold day writes "We're one of those teams that 'can beat any team in the world on our day', except 'our day' doesn't come very often. Given Croatia and Japan are ranked 20th and 15th in the world (compared to our 49th), I can't see that day materializing in June 2006 either."

On the other hand you guys finally got in the Cup again, and your results in the qualifying were pretty impressive. OK, scoring above ten goals against small islands that barely manage to put 22 players together isn't that impressive, but beating Uruguay when everybody thought we would see a Cup with all previous champions was impressive. Japan has a "correct" team, but you can surely beat them. Croatia is tougher, but possible. Remember, two draws may send you forward, depending on how much you can resist Brazil. Three draws (we're not so had to draw with, put everybody plus the coach in your own field and if none of our guys is inspired it may be done) will definitely send you forward.

fire&wings writes "Japan recently drew (goal) with Brazil in a meaningless competition. But at least it proves it's maybe kinda possible."

A meaningless competition (Confederations Cup) Brazil eventually won. As I said above, we're not that difficult to draw with - only very, very hard. But when Brazil happens to be in a bad day, it can even be beaten (as we were in the qualifying more than one time).
posted by nkyad at 6:27 PM on December 9, 2005

USA v. Germany 2002 quarterfinal -- Germany won because they stopped a late US goal by a HANDBALL.

Stupid anti-US referees.

Can't wait to see how we don't get a single call this time around, especially post-Iraq.
posted by andreaazure at 6:52 PM on December 9, 2005

Stupid anti-US referees.

Can't wait to see how we don't get a single call this time around, especially post-Iraq.

Wait - it took 37 comments to get down to that level of discourse? I'm going to take issue with that. Sure, Fussbal ist Krieg and all that, but this is out of line. Consider yourself flagged. Oh, and see you in Germany, American.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:05 PM on December 9, 2005

andreaazure writes "Stupid anti-US referees."

Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetence...football referees are notoriously unreliable and FIFA is one of the most anti-technology organizations in the planet. So learn to live with it. In 1966 England won the Cup being with "goal" where the ball never crossed the goal line. In 1986 Argentina eliminated England with Maradona using his hand to score a goal.
posted by nkyad at 7:06 PM on December 9, 2005

On postview: no snark intended. I still think it was out of line, though. Why bring ugly politics into the beautiful game? And this:

Oh, and see you in Germany, American.

was only meant as a gentle prod in the name of sportsmanship.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:19 PM on December 9, 2005

Nykad: 1966 England won 4-2, so the controversial goal was not necessarily decisive.
posted by cushie at 7:28 PM on December 9, 2005

Mexico got a better seed because the seeding was based on performance in the last two or three World Cup finals, not how the teams did in the qualification rounds for this one.

The U.S. beat Mexico 2 - nil in South Korea.
posted by jmgorman at 7:40 PM on December 9, 2005

cushie writes "Nykad: 1966 England won 4-2, so the controversial goal was not necessarily decisive."

That fourth goal was scored in the last minute or so of the additional time. The third goal was decisive, it broke the German enthusiasm (after having managed to draw a few minutes before the end of the normal time) and allowed England to dictated the action from then on.
posted by nkyad at 7:51 PM on December 9, 2005

jmgorman, I believe the poor showing in '98 is what kept the U.S. from getting seeded.
posted by Otis at 7:53 PM on December 9, 2005

Count me among those who feel the US will surprise some people.

Keller is in amazing form, and I believe my man Eddie Johnson will step up and make himself known on the international stage...
posted by First Post at 9:20 PM on December 9, 2005

I don't know why people still think the US doesn't know how to play the game - they finished first in their qualifying, ahead of Mexico. Every time they played a first rank national team in the last few years they played well. Last time around, in Japan, they've beaten Portugal (one of the strongest European teams), eliminated Mexico and lost to Germany on a referee mistake (and, granted, their own incapacity of scoring - if memory serves me well, I spent that game watching the US team lose chance after chance to score, only to be defeated by Germany in the end). So, regardless their group, I don't see why not consider the US team one of the favorites to get past the group phase. Allright, they are not Brazil, Germany, Argentina or Italy, but they are one of the strongest teams in the "second tier".
posted by nkyad at 9:34 PM on December 9, 2005

Anyone else going to Germany?
posted by brent at 10:05 PM on December 9, 2005

You all forgot about Poland! But seriously, Group E is going to have some entertaining games.
posted by kyleg at 10:19 PM on December 9, 2005

Don't forget, the first-ever proper FIFA World Club Championship starts tomorrow. Cheer on your continent. (Antarctic research scientists are advised to cheer for their home nation's continent).
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 11:28 PM on December 9, 2005

Forza Azzurri! Er, I mean...Go USA! No, wait...Arrggh!

/conflicted
/hopes for no spitting incidents this time.
/and better refs
posted by romakimmy at 4:32 AM on December 10, 2005

In 1986 Argentina eliminated England with Maradona using his hand to score a goal.

And there was me thinking the greatest world cup goal ever was the reason England got knocked out that year.
posted by daveirl at 4:36 AM on December 10, 2005

I wear two hats as a English born, yet naturalised Australian, so I'm torn.

England have, for once, a comfortable group and draw, we shall do well this time I feel. England will win their group at a canter.

Australia were always in for a tough draw. Our ranking (#49) belies our true ability, we have the skill to match and beat Japan, Croatia will be interesting (four Croatian players are Australian born, and at least one of the Australians has a strong Croatian heritage) but not unwinnable and we'll get a free football lesson from Brazil.

And for Team USA, they're screwed to the wall ..
posted by oliyoung at 6:31 AM on December 10, 2005

I can't believe how lucky France was: Switzerland, South Korea, Togo ... Haven't les bleus have been stinking up tournament after tournament recently? Jeez, you win one lousy world cup like 8 years ago on home soil, and the selection committee rewards you thusly?
posted by donpedro at 10:55 AM on December 10, 2005

Mexico was seeded above the US because of their generally higher ranking in the FIFA world rankings, which are generally worthless, combined with a better performance in France 1998 (where the Mexicans advanced to the 2nd round and the US lost all three matches and finished, technically, 32nd out of 32 teams).

Even though the US has beaten Mexico in almost every meaningful competition from 2002 on - the 2002 WC quarterfinal, 2006 hexagonal WC qualifying group, the 2005 CONCACAF Gold Cup, Mexico has maintained a better ranking due to winning the 2003 Gold Cup and subsequently doing quite well (beating Brazil) in the FIFA Confederations Cup. And thanks to their success in this meaningless tournament, they get a group even a minnow could advance from, while the US ends up in the group of death.

I too can't figure out why Ivory Coast wasn't placed in Group B when they were drawn.
posted by thirdparty at 12:41 PM on December 10, 2005

Côte d'Ivoire, please. You kids like the Wikipedia, right? Use it.
posted by Kwanzaar at 5:38 PM on December 10, 2005

How embarassing. Thanks, Otis.
posted by terrapin at 7:59 AM on December 11, 2005

From Kwanzaar's link: In fact according to national law, the name of the country cannot be translated from French.

Huh. Never knew. Silly law, that.
posted by donpedro at 11:11 AM on December 11, 2005

And of course the Wolrd Cup is in Deutschland, and nowhere else.
posted by wilful at 5:02 PM on December 11, 2005