New Zealand All Whites make World Cup

B

bungydinsdale

Well-known member
Congrats to the All Whites, won 3 nil to advance to next year's finals for only fhe 3rd time.
Bit easier this time mind as don't have to go through playoff against South American team.
 
bungydinsdale said:
Congrats to the All Whites, won 3 nil to advance to next year's finals for only fhe 3rd time.
Bit easier this time mind as don't have to go through playoff against South American team.
Click to expand...
I’m happy for them to have made it but not sure what they will bring to the World Cup. There must be teams in other federations who envy the easy route the likes of New Zealand have.

I suppose we all have to start somewhere.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I’m happy for them to have made it but not sure what they will bring to the World Cup. There must be teams in other federations who envy the easy route the likes of New Zealand have.

I suppose we all have to start somewhere.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the new format, but they probably feel the old system was very much stacked against them, and won't feel bad about the deck being stacked in their favour this time.

As for what they bring to the tournament, the WC is much more that just an elite competition: it's a celebration of football and a means of growing the game too, so I see it as a good thing to have teams from all corners of the world

On the pitch, they performed well enough at WC 2010; the only undefeated team in the tournament against 3 respectable opponents. Can't expect that every time, but they were one of the stories last time they were in.
 
Last edited:
A world cup without representation from counties all over the world is not a world cup. It instead would be like the "World Series" baseball where only teams from USA enter.

The 2026 world cup includes a whopping 48 teams, so qualification has never been easier. Even Scotland have a chance. (SMILY FACE THINGLY)
 
Steer said:
A world cup without representation from counties all over the world is not a world cup. It instead would be like the "World Series" baseball where only teams from USA enter.

The 2026 world cup includes a whopping 48 teams, so qualification has never been easier. Even Scotland have a chance. (SMILY FACE THINGLY)
Click to expand...
You and @Frozen Horse were winning me over there and then you went and mentioned the minnows from the European side of football. Winky face.
 
I like NZ being there; it's possible the excitement will wear off if they qualify for every WC from now on and perform badly though.

I don't like the new format. My preference was for a 32 team WC but with more opportunity for other continents to have more places. Europe gets too many guaranteed qualifying spots in my opinion. So too do South America.

I'd have liked to see Europe with about 8 or 9 automatic qualifying places, with qualifying group runners up involved in inter-continental playoffs for remaining places. Yes, I know the best teams are from Europe and South America: those teams will still qualify automatically. If the likes of Wales and Serbia, who qualified last time can win a home and away playoff against the likes of Egypt, Nigeria or Chile, I'd feel they've earned their place too. But I think these lower ranked European teams should have to prove they're actually better than non-qualifiers from other continents, and not just rely on being European. It's great for the fans of Wales and Serbia to be there, but did the teams contribute much to the tournament? 2 of the 5 teams who didn't win a match (Denmark were a third).

If Europe is particularly strong in any given cycle, maybe it even gets 1 or 2 more places that it has now.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I like NZ being there; it's possible the excitement will wear off if they qualify for every WC from now on and perform badly though.

I don't like the new format. My preference was for a 32 team WC but with more opportunity for other continents to have more places. Europe gets too many guaranteed qualifying spots in my opinion. So too do South America.

I'd have liked to see Europe with about 8 or 9 automatic qualifying places, with qualifying group runners up involved in inter-continental playoffs for remaining places. Yes, I know the best teams are from Europe and South America: those teams will still qualify automatically. If the likes of Wales and Serbia, who qualified last time can win a home and away playoff against the likes of Egypt, Nigeria or Chile, I'd feel they've earned their place too. But I think these lower ranked European teams should have to prove they're actually better than non-qualifiers from other continents, and not just rely on being European. It's great for the fans of Wales and Serbia to be there, but did the teams contribute much to the tournament? 2 of the 5 teams who didn't win a match (Denmark were a third).

If Europe is particularly strong in any given cycle, maybe it even gets 1 or 2 more places that it has now.
Click to expand...
The format will increase to 64 teams in 2032 and they will give Oceana two places. Imagine New Caledonia or Cook Islands jostling against France.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I like NZ being there; it's possible the excitement will wear off if they qualify for every WC from now on and perform badly though.

I don't like the new format. My preference was for a 32 team WC but with more opportunity for other continents to have more places. Europe gets too many guaranteed qualifying spots in my opinion. So too do South America.

I'd have liked to see Europe with about 8 or 9 automatic qualifying places, with qualifying group runners up involved in inter-continental playoffs for remaining places. Yes, I know the best teams are from Europe and South America: those teams will still qualify automatically. If the likes of Wales and Serbia, who qualified last time can win a home and away playoff against the likes of Egypt, Nigeria or Chile, I'd feel they've earned their place too. But I think these lower ranked European teams should have to prove they're actually better than non-qualifiers from other continents, and not just rely on being European. It's great for the fans of Wales and Serbia to be there, but did the teams contribute much to the tournament? 2 of the 5 teams who didn't win a match (Denmark were a third).

If Europe is particularly strong in any given cycle, maybe it even gets 1 or 2 more places that it has now.
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone would oppose the play-off system you mentioned. When you think of World Cup football, Italy naturally comes to mind, yet they haven't qualified for the last two tournaments. That has more to do with the strength of the competition in Europe rather than how poor Italy is.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I doubt anyone would oppose the play-off system you mentioned. When you think of World Cup football, Italy naturally comes to mind, yet they haven't qualified for the last two tournaments. That has more to do with the strength of the competition in Europe rather than how poor Italy is.
Click to expand...

I think it's true that European teams have been strong in the last 2 tournaments. European teams formed a higher percentage of the teams qualifying for the second round than qualifying for the tournament.

For the WCs in Brazil and South Africa, the majority of European teams went out in the first round. It ebbs and flows.

That's why i like the idea of more places for continents who are strong in any particular cycle, and the only way to do that is through intercontinental playoffs.

I look forward to Italy being back in the WC too, but I think there's a danger of assuming they're strong because of past WC performances. OK, for 2018, they were drawn in the same group as Spain, which is unlucky, but then lost a play off vs Sweden, who were good enough to reach the quarter final then. For 2022, they lost out to Switzerland in qualifying, and were eliminated from the playoffs by North Macedonia, despite it being a single leg at home. Given those circumstances, I think I have to say they weren't good enough to qualify.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I think it's true that European teams have been strong in the last 2 tournaments. European teams formed a higher percentage of the teams qualifying for the second round than qualifying for the tournament.

For the WCs in Brazil and South Africa, the majority of European teams went out in the first round. It ebbs and flows.

That's why i like the idea of more places for continents who are strong in any particular cycle, and the only way to do that is through intercontinental playoffs.

I look forward to Italy being back in the WC too, but I think there's a danger of assuming they're strong because of past WC performances. OK, for 2018, they were drawn in the same group as Spain, which is unlucky, but then lost a play off vs Sweden, who were good enough to reach the quarter final then. For 2022, they lost out to Switzerland in qualifying, and were eliminated from the playoffs by North Macedonia, despite it being a single leg at home. Given those circumstances, I think I have to say they weren't good enough to qualify.
Click to expand...
I agree, if you don't perform, you don't qualify. Losing to North Macedonia was ridiculous on their part, especially considering they were Euro winners in 2020 but failed to qualify for the World Cup in both 2018 and 2022. This is particularly surprising given the players Italy had at the time.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I’m happy for them to have made it but not sure what they will bring to the World Cup. There must be teams in other federations who envy the easy route the likes of New Zealand have.

I suppose we all have to start somewhere.
Click to expand...
Question for you NC, which was the only team to go through the 2010 World Cup unbeaten?
 
bungydinsdale said:
You asked what they may bring to the WC, hopefully another unbeaten campaign. That's something not man other teams have managed, regardless of their size.
Click to expand...
I understand that New Zealand were well organised and disciplined in their approach, trying to hit teams on the break. They even secured three good results against stronger opponents on paper. They even took early leads against Slovakia and Italy before sitting deep to absorb pressure. Against Paraguay, they adopted a similar strategy, defending in numbers for a 0-0 draw.

For the price of a ticket, neutral fans might have hoped for a more open game, and although going undefeated for a team like NZ is impressive, I would rather have seen them gamble against Paraguay and give themselves a better opportunity to go through to the next round than bore the pants off neutrals.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I understand that New Zealand were well organised and disciplined in their approach, trying to hit teams on the break. They even secured three good results against stronger opponents on paper. They even took early leads against Slovakia and Italy before sitting deep to absorb pressure. Against Paraguay, they adopted a similar strategy, defending in numbers for a 0-0 draw.

For the price of a ticket, neutral fans might have hoped for a more open game, and although going undefeated for a team like NZ is impressive, I would rather have seen them gamble against Paraguay and give themselves a better opportunity to go through to the next round than bore the pants off neutrals.
Click to expand...
Easier to say in hindsight. I suspect NZ were not good enough to play an expansive game and played to their strengths in 2010 - that is play conservatively and remain organised. They were still in with a chance to qualify for the knockouts and a draw might even have been good enough if Slovakia and Italy had played out a draw.
 
Zoophonic said:
Easier to say in hindsight. I suspect NZ were not good enough to play an expansive game and played to their strengths in 2010 - that is play conservatively and remain organised. They were still in with a chance to qualify for the knockouts and a draw might even have been good enough if Slovakia and Italy had played out a draw.
Click to expand...
I get that, but sometimes you need to take a chance on your own fortunes and give yourself a better chance to qualify.
 
We all remember England getting knocked out of the 1982 World Cup whilst going 5 games unbeaten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top