I’m going to do this one in separate parts, because I think it’s wise to wait until the draw at the start of next week before diving into the playoff percentages in UEFA. This will also give me a few days to try out a couple of minor adjustments to help tweak things a bit. So for this we’ll simply talk about what happened today and it’s possible upcoming implications. No ratings or sims or percentages until next week when we have the playoff draw in hand.
In
Switzerland, Slovakia, Argentina, Honduras = 100.00%.
Out
Croatia, Czech Republic, Sweden, Israel = 0.00%. Some awfully good teams in there, all need to prepare for Euro 2012 in Poland and Ukraine. Maybe by then my ratings will be so world famous I can finagle a free trip out of some media conglomerate!! Oh well we all need our pipe dreams. 
UEFA Group 1
To me the most interesting of the UEFA Groups was this group. Denmark took first place after round three and never relinquished it, the key late match being a home draw on September 5th of this year against Portugal. This also marked Portugal’s low water mark (in terms of qualification) in the sims. The lack of a win there basically ended their chances at winning the group and they realistically needed to win all three of their remaining games (including a difficult road match against a still in it Hungary side) just to get into the playoff ahead of Sweden or Denmark. A Swedish upset in Denmark combined with a Danish win in Albania would also have sunk their chances. Neither of the latter happened, and they did managed to win out and Sweden was left wondering about missed opportunities. The final two games that had meaning both went straight chalk. The sims projected Portugal to beat Malta 4.21 to 0.27, they won 4 to 0. Sweden was projected to beat Albania 2.01 to 0.46 but they won more comfortably than that 4 to 1.
One caution: it’s not a 36 team field, and although Portugal will be favored over whatever team they face, they ain’t in yet. If they start to celebrate and act like they’ve clinched it, they could really screw up this otherwise great comeback.
UEFA Group 2
The Greece and Switzerland duel that had been apparent for months finally came to an end today, as Israel failed to score in Basel and the 0-0 draw was all the Swiss needed to make the result in the Greece/Luxembourg game irrelevant. The Swiss try and follow up their good performance in 2006 with another next summer in 2010. A 2-1 win at home against Luxembourg never sounds good for a team as good as Greece, but the traditional European minnows actually avoided last place this time around (though goal differential suggest they were still the weakest team). I’m not sure you necessarily call this “improvement” for Luxembourg, but there are signs of a little life. More on where the Greeks sit later. Latvia technically still had a chance, but they really didn’t. In the end the 0-2 home loss to Greece in round 2 cost them a playoff spot. A win there and they make the playoffs. Add a win at home against the Swiss (they drew instead) and they’d have won the whole group. That’s how close it can be sometimes.
UEFA Group 3
The cause of much consternation over the real chances the pre-group favored Czechs still had, the outcome of the Slovenia at San Marino match was the 2nd most likely outcome: 3 to 0 Slovenia (the sims had 2 to 0 as ever so slightly more likely). This meant elimination for the Czechs and wonderful news for the Greeks. Slovakia for their part, wound up getting it done the hard way, with a third minute own-goal in Chorzow Poland being the lone goal that would send them to their first ever World Cup. Congratulations to the Slovakians, but next time do it the easy way by getting at least a draw at home when that will clinch it. As for the Czechs, this should have been a group they handled, but a home loss to Slovakia and only a single road win against San Marino and they don’t even sneak into a playoff. I’d have to say calling this campaign a “disaster” might sound a little harsh, but it’s not far from the truth. Unless Portugal or France stumble, they will win the “highest rated team to miss the World Cup” award this time around. And if Portugal stumbles bad enough, the Czechs might pass them in the ratings and still win it.
UEFA Group 6
The other two groups had already been decided last weekend, so we’ll skip to here. Croatia faced the same problem as the Czechs, they needed a minnow to come up with an unlikely result, and after 60 minutes, Ukraine was up a mere 1-0 in tiny Andorra. Unfortunately for Croatia the inevitable was merely postponed, Ukraine added five more in the next 24 minutes and Ukraine heads to the playoffs over the Croatians in a result that pushed the Greeks into the pool of upper seeds. England’s complete group dominance coupled with Ukraine getting to play them at home after England had already clinched, may ultimately have been the difference. But Croatia was outscored 9 to 2 in their two games against the group winners, and in a group with Andorra in it, a final goal differential of just +6 isn’t going to impress anybody or generate much sympathy. They maybe should have been good enough to make the playoffs, but they just weren’t. For their part, Ukraine is hardly a pushover and a seeded team would be wise not to take them lightly.
UEFA Playoff Seeds
Pot A (or whatever) = Russia, France, Portugal, Greece
Pot B (or whatever) = Ukraine, Ireland, Bosnia, Slovenia
We’ll see how it gets drawn, but by my ratings Ukraine and Greece is the closest possible matchup (Greece would still be favored), with Ireland the second biggest threat of the unseeded teams, and Russia the second weakest (but hardly weak) of the seeded teams. Say what you like about the FIFA rankings, but for these specific eight teams if you must divide them into two equal groups, I believe those are the right two groups. Interestingly the last ratings pull had Bosnia-Herzegovina and Slovenia rated 49th and 50th so they look to be roughly equal in quality and both are playing quite well at the moment. I doubt anyone has any right to expect an easy time of it, it ought to make for some truly exciting football. Check your local listings.
Many, many, many thanks to Edgar at http://www.football-rankings.info/ both for his general support of my sims, and his indispensable work predicting the future FIFA rankings based on results. You’re the best!!
CONMEBOL
If there’s one thing Argentine footballers tend to like, it’s drama. If they were planning on qualifying anyway, did they really have to do it like this? Mario Bolatti’s late winner from a goalmouth scramble was an exclamation point, but simply keeping home side Uruguay off the scoreboard was all they needed and that’s what they did. Ecuador could have made this a very bad day for Uruguay indeed, but Mexican league star Humberto Suazo fired the already qualified Chileans ahead in the 51st, and Ecuador couldn’t manage a single road goal much less two and bow out of qualifying. For Uruguay, they manage to cling to the playoff spot. Finding out who they were going to play would prove to be extremely dramatic…
CONCACAF
Honduras and Costa Rica were the only two teams with anything to play for. One would qualify directly, the other would move on to face the Uruguayans in the playoff. The USA fielded essentially their first string at home against Costa Rica, while Honduras traveled to El Salvador. The Hondurans needed a win to overtake Costa Rica, the Costa Ricans needed a win themselves to make that irrelevant. In the 21st minute, Bryan Ruiz scored a very goal to put Costa Rica up 1-0 on the USA and three minutes later would double their advantage with a postage stamp wonder strike from outside the box. At halftime the scores read 2-0 Costa Rica, with Honduras scoreless in El Salvador. In the 64th minute the Hondurans caught the slightest glimmer of hope as Carlos Pavon put them ahead in El Salvador 1-0. That hope grew a great deal when Michael Bradley swept one in during a goal mouth scramble to trim the Costa Rican lead to 2-1. In the 89th minute all hell broke loose as the Costa Rican head coach Rene Simoes and his assistant were both ejected from the match and touchline. The equipment manager was now the head coach in the 90th minute of a 2-1 game where they needed to hold the lead to go to the World Cup. Unthinkably, in the fifth minute of stoppage time Jonathan Bornstein’s header off of a corner leveled the score at 2-2 sending Honduras to the World Cup, Costa Rica to the playoff and the moods of two Central American countries in vastly different directions.
I don’t think the quotes coming out of the Costa Rican camp toward the officiating crew in the coming days will be suitable for young ears. They have a very difficult artificial turf down in Saprissa that Uruguay would be wise to prepare for. Trust me on this: it can be a very difficult place to play and they likely won’t be in a very good mood down there for that one. Uruguay will be favored and by a significant margin, but there’s no way I’d count Costa Rica completely out.
Expect a set of sims to be ready to go once UEFA Playoff draw is announced on Monday.
51 responses so far ↓
1 Mitz // Oct 15, 2009 at 1:02 am
Europe last night was really just not that interesting – the only “highlight” was group 3. Kudos to Slovakia for holding on in Poland for 87 minutes and hearty congratulations for upstaging their more glamourous neighbours; a big well done to Slovenia as well – I hope that they upset whichever seed they draw.
But what went on across the Atlantic certainly made up for it! Costa Rica must be in mourning today, but they must pick themselves up. If Uruguay approach they playoff in the tepid style of yesterday’s match (surely they won’t will they?) then CR have every chance.
By the way, I for one want Portugal to bottle it. I have nothing against any of the Portugal team, not even CR9, but what Danny Jordaan came out with yesterday made me feel a bit queasy. The World Cup is the biggest show on earth – to suggest that it “needs” any one personality is ridiculous. You’ve got Messi, now go away.
2 Daniel Burnier // Oct 15, 2009 at 5:02 am
I have a question about the seeded countries in the final draw: I think 7 of them are clearly defined:
1-South Africa
2-Brazil
3-Argentina
4-Italy
5-Germany
6-England
7-Spain
8-???
Which country will be the 8th seeded, if we consider that Portugal and France go through the play offs? Either Portugal, or France or the Netherlands… or? As far as I know the world ranking is not the only parameter to be considered. thanks
3 Mitz // Oct 15, 2009 at 6:12 am
It looks like being a very close run thing with Portugal just edging out France – always assuming of course that both of them make it through the playoffs. If they don’t, then the final seed will be Netherlands.
http://www.football-rankings.info/2009/10/2010-world-cup-seeding-formula-based-on_14.html
There is a formula that FIFA employ involving the official FIFA rankings and also performance at the last two finals tournaments. Assuming the same procedure will be employed as it was four years ago, the final position from 2006 will outweigh that of 2002 by 2:1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup_seeding
At the moment, it is so close between France and Portugal that they can both progress with the number 8 seed status changing hands, depending on who they draw in the playoff.
FIFA won’t be that bothered for a change, because the 8th seed will be European anyway. The cynic in me says that they will want Uruguay to beat Costa Rica as the pots in the draw will then be nice and even:
Pot 1: the eight seeds
Pot 2: the other 8 Europeans
Pot 3: 5 Africans, 3 South Americans
Pot 4: 5 Asians (or 4 Asians plus New Zealand), 3 Concacaf
4 Brendon // Oct 15, 2009 at 8:54 am
Assuming that FIFA doesn’t change its factors and proportions much from previous World Cup seedings, it looks like the last No. 1 seed is France’s to lose. After France, I have Portugal and then Holland.
There is a chance, though unlikely, that Holland passes Portugal even if Portugal advances. It would only happen if Portugal dropped a spot or two in FIFA ranking, which is obviously unlikely 1) since the current FIFA rankings of these teams doesn’t have updates from Portugal’s recent wins (those come out tomorrow), and 2) one would figure the ranking would only improve with a playoff victory. Also, 3) Holland is already at No. 3, so not much room to improve.
These are the current seeding standings using the assumption (and it IS an assumption and not fact) that FIFA maintains the same formula it used for 2006 (obviously, if it’s changed even a small bit, the order of France, Portugal and Holland could change):
1 Brazil (59.7)
2 Germany (59.5)
3 Italy (56.5)
4 Spain (56.0)
5 England (50.3)
6 Argentina (49.0)
7 France (46.7)
8 Portugal (43.0)
9 Netherlands (42.7)
Tenth and beyond are well behind, but Mexico (30.7) and USA (29.3) are the next two of teams that have qualified or still have the chance to do so.
5 Ken Houghton // Oct 15, 2009 at 9:40 am
If World Ranking is the only parameter, the US is now odds-on for the 8th spot, though either Russia or France likely still would be ahead of them if they won out in the playoffs.
Personally, I wouldn’t seed the Davies-less US on a bet. Assuming Portugal and France win through, it’s France in the 8th seed.
6 Amir // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:31 am
I have a general question:
are the rankings transitive – that is can team A be favorite against B, B favorite against C and C favorite against A?
If so, how do you determine the rankings?
7 Cramer // Oct 15, 2009 at 2:29 pm
You can see the proabable seedings her: .http://www.football-rankings.info/2009/10/2010-world-cup-seeding-formula-based-on_14.html#links And you can also find links to the calculation of the nubmers used for the seeding
8 dorian // Oct 15, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I hope that FIFA revise their Seeding formula for 2010, at least as it relates to using an average of three different FIFA Rankings, because I find the impact to be mathematically illogical.
Half of the 2006 seeding formula was essentially based on an average of three FIFA Rankings (Nov. 2005, Dec. 2004, Dec. 2003). However, each of these Rankings reflect 8 years of matches, so matches in 2003 are captured in all three Rankings, while matches in 2005 were only captured in the Nov. 2005. This impact seems mathematically illogical, because matches in 2003 should carry more weight that those in 2005. (I first read about this here: http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/paul20051127.html.)
(Also, somewhere I read (no citation) that FIFA wanted to capture 10 years worth of matches in the Rankings half of the equation, so that’s why they chose to use three different Rankings.)
However, now that FIFA Rankings use four years’ worth of matches (instead of eight) as of July 2006, I hope that FIFA use logic and modify the “average of three 8-year Rankings” to simply “one 4-year Ranking.
(I also hope FIFA seed the top 16 teams instead of 8.)
Shouldn’t hope nor expect logic, I realize…
9 Nat // Oct 15, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Dorian,
The only way you may get your wish for 16 seeded teams is if Costa Rica defeats Uruguay as the confederational allocation couldn’t easily be divided into groups of 8 under the current system. If CR beats Uruguay, using a 16 team seed system and the old seeding formula may actually be an easier solution.
Seed Pot A: Brazil, Argentina, S. Africa, Italy Spain, England, Argentina, Portugal
Seed Pot B: France, Switzerland, Netherlands, Russa form pot B-1, while Mexico, USA, Paraguay, and Ghana form pot B-2
Pot C: (UEFA and Africa non-seeds)
Serbia, Denmark, Greece, and Ukraineform pot C-1 while Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Tunisia, and Algeria form pot C-2.
Pot C-1 could not be drawn with B-1 and C-2 could not be drawn with B-2. This would prevent groups with three Euros or two African teams.
Pot D: 2 CONCACAF, 1 CONMEBOL, 5 Asia
CR, Honduras, Chile, S. Korea, Japan, Bahrain, N. Korea, and Australia.
Additional measures would need to be taken with special lots for Pot D allocation and to prevent S. Africa from drawing another African team. Still, if I can figure out the needed drawing to guarantee geographic diversity in 5 minutes with a random number generator and Excel, certainly FIFA could figure it out in a few months time. A random draw:
A: Brazil, Ghana, Greece, Japan
B: Germany, Mexico, Denmark, S. Korea
C: Italy, USA, Ukraine, Chile
D: Spain, Paraguay, Serbia, Honduras
E: England, Russia, Ivory Coast, Costa Rica
F: Argentina, Netherlands, Cameroon, N. Korea
G: Portugal, France, Tunisia, Australia
H: S. Africa, Switzerland, Algeria, Bahrain
Logic says the US would have better odds of drawing an easier group in a 16 team seed system, but despite these odds, my random number generation has managed to put the USA in a very deep group with Italy, Chile, and the Ukraine. Oh well.
10 Edgar // Oct 16, 2009 at 12:23 am
You’re welcome Voros. Goes both ways as I used your qualifications chances for my seeding posts.
11 Daniel Burnier // Oct 16, 2009 at 1:49 am
Nat, just a comment: I know it has no influence on your system at all, but you forgot Slovakia and added 5 from the 8 relegated teams
1.Portugal
2. France
3. Ukraine
4. Russia
5. Greece
Another question: Is it possible that either USA or Mexico are seeded instead of NL/POR/FRA?
12 Mitz // Oct 16, 2009 at 3:29 am
Hi Daniel,
It is not possible for either Mexico or USA to overtake Netherlands in the seeding rankings if FIFA employ the same method as four years ago. Even if Mexico were suddenly to rise to No 1 in the FIFA rankings in November (which is impossible, by the way) their final points total would still be marginally behind Netherlands.
Looking at the figures again, at present France do have a small but significant lead over Portugal – if France win their playoff I would expect them to be seeded. The two are very close together in the November FIFA rankings, but even if Portugal do move up a place it won’t be enough to take them past France in the seedings.
Of course, FIFA may well decide to use a different method this time, throwing us all off the scent.
13 dorian // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:43 am
Nat,
Very clever ideas! Enjoyed reading it.
I was thinking about something a little different, starting with 4 pots of teams based on some sort of ranking systems (e.g. Nov 2009 Rankings) with South Africa in Pot 1, and the next 15 teams based on their ranking. Something like this:
Pot 1: South Africa, Brazil, Spain, Netherlands,
Pot 2: Italy, Germany, Argentina, England
Pot 3: France, Portugal, USA, Russia
Pot 4: Switzerland, Cameroon, Greece, Chile
Pot 1 would be drawn into Groups A, C, E, G with South Africa being place in the A1 slot and Brazil placed in the G1 slot.
Pot 2 would be drawn into Groups B, D, F, H.
Pot 3 would also be drawn in Group B, D, F, H.
Pot 4 would then be drawn in Groups A, C, E, G.
This assures that South Africa (and the other top 3 seeds) don’t get Netherlands, Portugal, or France, but rather these three “seed bubble” teams may have to play each other.
After the top 16, there are several approaches with could work — some may depend on final teams and final ranking.
One approach is to have a Pot E of remaining UEFA teams to assure no group has more than 2 European teams; then have a Group F of remaining CONMEBOL teams to assure no more than 1 South American team. At this point, some groups would have 2 teams, some would have 3, and some may have 4. One final Pot G would have everyone, sacrificing some of the geographic diversity in the “lesser” confederations. (I know this could lead to 3 teams from the same confederation being in the same group, but as long as they aren’t from UEFA or CONMEBOL I don’t believe this is so bad; could be fun!). In truth, your strict geographic diversification is probably more attractive to FIFA, and once the teams and ranks are known, it may be fun to try a more complex computer-based algorithm to handle the final 16 after starting with the 4 pots of 4.
14 dorian // Oct 16, 2009 at 10:46 am
Typos, yikes, apologies. Last paragraph should say Pot F (and not Group F). And why have pots 1, 2, 3, 4, E, F, G… Better to have used 1-7 or A-G…
15 california viola // Oct 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I could be wrong, but – barring surprises from FIFA – the last seeded team should be France (if they qualify, of course).
The big question is, what’s going to happen with the two last pots.
Three scenarios here.
1. Uruguay beats Costa Rica
In my opinion the third pot should have CONCACAF plus the rest of Africa (the two confederations with the best placed teams) while the last pot would have the rest of CONMENBOL plus Asia/Oceania.
2. Costa Rica beats Uruguay and New Zealand beats Bahrain
In this case mathematics dictates a third pot with CONCACAF and Asia (four teams each) while the last pot would include the rest of CONMEBOL (2), the rest of Africa (5), plus New Zealand.
3. Costa Rica beats Uruguay and Bahrain beats New Zealand
Oh boy! What exactly do they do in this case? Assuming the rest of CONMEBOL and the rest of Africa stay together (in order not to divide teams from the same confederations in more than two pots), the possible solution would be as follows:
Pot three: CONCACAF (4) plus four teams from Asia
Pot four: Paraguay, Chile, the rest of Africa, and one team from Asia
At this point I wonder – to avoid this mess, why doesn’t FIFA use the computerized system used by UEFA to determine the groups in the Champions League? All teams would be seeded based on their rankings:
Pot A: South Africa (host), Italy (champions), Brazil, Germany, Spain, England, Argentina, France
Pot B: Portugal, Netherlands, Mexico, United States, Switzerland, Paraguay, Ghana, Russia
Pot C: South Korea, Cameroon, Japan, Australia, Greece, Cote d’Ivoire, Denmark, Serbia
Pot D: Uruguay, Tunisia, Chile, Honduras, Slovakia, Algeria, Bahrain, North Korea
Once a team is drawn, the computer will immediately determine in which groups this team can be assigned and which ones it cannot. For example, once the seeded teams (pot A) are placed in their groups, the teams from pot B will be drawn: if Paraguay is picked the computer will automatically determine that it cannot end in the same group with Brazil or Argentina; if Ghana is selected the computer will make sure that it is not placed in South Africa’s group. The computer will also make sure that no group has more than two teams from Europe. This is the same process used by UEFA to determine Champions League groups and it seems to work very well.
Seeding teams rather than dividing them geographically would have the benefit of avoiding unbalanced groups. With the type of seeding currently used by FIFA we could easily have a group with Brazil, Portugal, Mexico, and Ghana, and another with South Africa, Slovakia, North Korea, and Algeria.
16 Amir // Oct 17, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The problem is that the current ranking system is not so good to seed teams in the lower pots (mainly because the standard for qualification is very different in each confederation).
FIFA rankings also breaks down when comparing different confederations.
Using Voros’ rankings as of 12.10:
SA (Host)
Italy (CH)
Brazil
Spain
Netherlands
England
Argentina
Germany
—————–
France
Portugal
Mexico
Uruguay
Denmark
C?te d’Ivoire
Paraguay
Russia
———————————–
Serbia
USA
Chile
Greece
Australia
Switzerland
Cameroon
Japan
———————————–
Honduras
Ghana
Korea Republic
Morocco
Tunisia
Slovakia
Algeria
Bahrain
17 Mitz // Oct 18, 2009 at 1:00 am
I agree with Viola on this one. FIFA makes a rod for its own back by having the seeded pot and then the other pots dictated purely by geographical splits. The Champions League system would be fairer (if FIFA believes in its own rankings at least!) and more straightforward.
The only romantic downside is that the World Cup draw has invariably thrown up at least one “Group of Death” which is always good for a few good fun column inches, and adds spice to the first round. This system wouldn’t eradicated the possibility altogether, but it would lessen the chances. I expect we would all survive…
18 dorian // Oct 18, 2009 at 11:06 am
I’ll agree with Viola and Mitz as well, as seeding all 32 teams does make the most sense! (And seeding 32 is better than just seeding 16 as I described above 😉 .) It would also be great if FIFA used the computerized approach described by Viola to ensure the geographic diversity.
While FIFA Rankings may not be as good as Voros or Elo rankings, they are better than the pre-2006 FIFA Rankings. Moreover, comparing the two lists above (FIFA-Ranking-driven and Voros-Ranking-driven), there are 22 teams that appear in the same pot under the two approaches (after replacing Morocco with North Korea). Ten of the remaining 12 teams are “within” one pot (meaning Pot 2 under one approach and Pot 3 under the other approach). Only two teams are more than 1 pot different: Ghana and Uruguay. Maybe not so bad that the FIFA-Ranking approach would be good enough — and an improvement over the WC2006 approach.
There could even be a “groups of death” with some combination of Brazil/Argentina, Netherlands/Portugal, Denmark/Serbia (and maybe Honduras from Pot 4) for the media to “um” and “oh” at.
Now if FIFA did want to avoid Netherlands/Portugal being drawn into South Africa’s Group A, they could split the first two pots into four subpots of four teams each based again on Rankings, where the top half of Pot 1 (including South Africa) would be drawn with the bottom half of Pot 2 (while the bottom half of Pot 1 would be drawn with the top half of Pot 2). The Computer should be able to handle even this!
19 Daniel Burnier // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:26 am
Viola, I like the system you proposed… but now another question raises in my mind. We all know that one group cannot have more than 2 european teams. But is it allowed that a group has NO european team at all?
According to this system we could have a group like this:
Brazil/USA/Australia/Tunisia.
I don’t remember any group in the last 3 or 4 world cups with not AT LEAST ONE european team. Or am I wrong?
5 european teams will be seeded for sure (the last one can be either Portugal, France or the Netherlands), so I am pretty sure that the POT2 will contain the 8 not seeded european ones.
20 Voros // Oct 19, 2009 at 1:34 am
The pots have indeed shaped up, if Uruguay defeats Costa Rica, that would leave each of the American confederations with 3 teams, and 5 apiece from Africa and Asia/OFC.
Even should the Costa Ricans win, if the Kiwis were to prevail, you could then match up Asia and CONCACAF with the remaining teams in the other pot.
The only difficult to figure scenario would be if Costa Rica and Bahrain win. That leaves 5, 5, 4 and 2 from the confeds meaning that you would probably have to split one confed up a little.
21 Daniel Burnier // Oct 19, 2009 at 4:34 am
Play offs:
Republic of Ireland-France
Portugal-Bosnia-Herzegovina
Greece-Ukraine
Russia-Slovenia
what do you think? I bet France, Portugal, Ukraine and Russia will go through
22 Mitz // Oct 19, 2009 at 4:43 am
Greece were always going to be the most vulnerable of the seeds, and now they have drawn Ukraine they are an even more obvious candidate for an “upset”.
I’m not going to give Ireland the kiss of death by saying I fancy them against France…
23 california viola // Oct 19, 2009 at 9:28 am
Daniel, each group must have at least a European team and no more than two. The pots I’m proposing are based on strength in order to ensure that groups are balanced. It would be the computer’s job to make sure that there is at least one European team in each group and no more than two, and no more than one team from each of the other confederations.
I’m not sure if you have ever watched the draw for the group stage of the Champions League. Once a team is drawn the computer automatically determines in which group it can go or in which group it must go (if only one group can be selected). If, for example, an English team is drawn and there are already English teams in groups A, E, and G, the computer announces that the only available groups are B, C, D, F, and H. The corresponding balls are placed in a bowl and one is picked.
Let me give you an example with the teams we think are going to qualify.
Let say the seeded teams are so drawn:
A: Germany
B: France
C: Italy
D: Argentina
E: England
F: South Africa
G: Brazil
H: Spain
Now pot two teams are drawn:
Ghana (cannot go in group F because South Africa is there) — drawn into group C
United States (any group left) — drawn into group D
Mexico (any group left) — drawn into group B
Netherlands (any group left) — drawn into group G
Paraguay (any group left because Argentina and Brazil have been paired already with a team from this pot) — drawn in group E
Russia (any group left) — drawn in group F
Portugal (any group left) — drawn in group H
Switzerland — goes to the last empty group: A
Now pot three teams are drawn:
Denmark (cannot go in groups A or H as they already have two European teams) — drawn in group E
Cote d’Ivoire (cannot go in groups C or F due to the presence of an African team) — drawn in group H
South Korea (any group left) — drawn in group B
Serbia (cannot go in group A – two European teams already) — drawn in group F
Australia (any group left) — drawn in group G
Japan (any group left) — drawn in group D
Cameroon — must go to group A because group C has an African team already
Greece — goes to the last empty group: C
Now pot four teams are drawn:
Notice that Slovakia – the remaining European team – must go in group D since this group has no European teams in it, so no other team can finish in group D.
Honduras (cannot go in groups B and D due to the presence of a CONCACAF team) — drawn in group G
Algeria (cannot go in groups B, C, F, or H due to the presence of an African team and, of course D) — drawn in group B
Uruguay (cannot go in groups D or E due to the presence of a CONMEBOL team) — drawn in group H
Bahrain (cannot go in group D) — drawn in group A
Tunisia — must go automatically to group E since in cannot go to group D and the other remaining groups already have an African team in it
North Korea — (either C or F) – drawn in group C
Chile — must go to group F since Slovakia has to go to group D
Slovakia — goes to group D
So the groups would be as follows:
A: Germany, Switzerland, Cameroon, Bahrain
B: France, Mexico, South Korea, Algeria
C: Italy, Ghana, Greece, North Korea
D: Argentina, United States, Japan, Slovakia
E: England, Paraguay, Denmark, Tunisia
F: South Africa, Russia, Serbia, Chile
G: Brazil, Netherlands, Australia, Honduras
H: Spain, Portugal, Cote d’Ivoire, Uruguay
The system is simple, has been used for a while by UEFA, and there are never complaints because procedures are explained beforehand. In my opinion, this system has two obvious advantages. It provides more balanced groups. It also offers a good chance of a fair draw to teams that are ranked high but belong to confederations that are usually sent to weak pots due to geographical considerations (United States and Mexico, for example).
I apologize in advance if I made a mistake or two, but the computer will not.
24 dorian // Oct 19, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Viola
Wonderful example walking through all 32 teams. Also, thanks for describing the Champions League draw with the computer voice for those not familiar.
(Small note: I believe South Africa has already been placed in Group A. Also I’d bet Brazil will be placed in Group G due to the stadiums.)
Any way to know if FIFA is aware of this seeding approach? Any way to encourage them to consider it? If they do like it on Dec 3, would there be time to write the computer program by Dec 4? Do they need someone to write the program for them ahead of time (for a free ticket to the final)? Lots of questions, but with so few people following seeding, it would be great to have the word spread.
25 Jon // Oct 19, 2009 at 7:34 pm
california viola, while your draw procedure is interesting and would probably produce more balanced groups, I’m sure FIFA much prefers a draw with physical bouncing balls for visual openness. Your system would be essentially unworkable in that manner.
26 Daniel Burnier // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:13 am
thank you viola,
this system is indeed very good. In the end we have well balanced groups. Of course some of them are stronger, like group G or H, but no one is too weak. The system is better than the one used by fifa for the last WC, in my opinion.
27 Daniel Burnier // Oct 20, 2009 at 1:19 am
Jon, I think the system would work properly also witn the bouncing balls, but it would need 2 draws. One for the country itself and one for the placement into the possible groups, considereing the constraints.
Of course that before you pick the first ball, you cannot say in what groups that country is allowed to be put into.
I think a double draw (only in cases there are some group placement constraints) is perfectly possible.
28 Mitz // Oct 20, 2009 at 2:51 am
FIFA always has a pretty complicated double draw, exactly as Daniel describes. In fact, they further complicate matters by doing a random draw within each drawn group to decide which team is No 2, 3 and 4 in the group, and that only has significance in terms of who plays whom in what order. So a Champions League style draw along the lines of Viola’s suggestion is most certainly possible, even with an old fashioned, non-computerised draw.
29 california viola // Oct 20, 2009 at 8:47 am
Jon, UEFA does use “physical bouncing balls for visual openness.” The only thing the computer does is determining in which group a team can or cannot go (due to geographical consideration.
Let me explain again how it would happen with an illustration:
Let’s pretend all the seeded teams have been drawn in a group and South Africa in is group A, Brazil in G, and Argentina in D. Now FIFA decides to draw the teams from pot #2. A former player (Van Basten let’s say) picks one of the balls from this pot. It happens to be Paraguay. The computer sends this message on the screen behind Blatter: POSSIBLE GROUPS – A, B, C, E, F, H. In other words, the computer has determined that Paraguay cannot go in groups D and G due to the presence of other CONMEBOL teams. (Now, this is easy to see without the use of a computer, but it becomes a little more complicated with pots 3 and 4 – then a computer becomes very important.) At this point a FIFA vice-president gets a ball each from eight bowls label A, B, C, E, F, and H and place them in an empty bowl in front of another former player (Pele‘, let’s say). Pele’ mixes the balls, picks one up, opens it, and let‘s say it’s C. That’s the group Paraguay ends up in. Now Van Basten picks another ball from pot #2. It’s Ghana. The computer quickly determines which group Ghana can end up in and sends this message to the screen: POSSIBLE GROUPS – B, D, E, F, G, H. Group A has been excluded because another African team is in it and group C has been excluded because it already has two teams. The FIFA vice-president repeats the procedure and places balls with the letters B, D, E, F, G, and H inside the empty bowl in front of Pele’ (the unused balls from before are discarded) and the Brazilian player picks a group for Ghana. The process is repeated for all other teams and pots. (There is also another draw to determine the calendar of each group but this procedure is the same as in the past.)
Now I can assure you that this process is a lot quicker in real life than in writing. UEFA uses it for the Champions League draw and the process takes just a few minutes, is transparent, and very efficient.
30 california viola // Oct 20, 2009 at 9:10 am
Dorian, I find very hard to believe FIFA is not aware of the system used by UEFA to draw the Champions League groups. After all that draw is televised too (I watched it on Fox Soccer Channel here in the United States last August).
The bigger question is, would FIFA be interested in using a system that makes a little more sense than the one it uses now?
My guess is that FIFA will keep the current system for the very simple reason that it gives South Africa an extra chance to end up in a weaker group. South Africa does not have a very good team right now and it has a great chance to be the first host nation ever to miss the second round. Judging from the disappointing pattern of ticket sales at the last Confederations Cup, FIFA has a desperate need to make sure South Africa makes it at least past the first round.
The only possible incentive I see FIFA has to implement a UEFA-like kind of draw is the necessity to avoid a repeat of the 1998 fiasco. I’m not sure how many here remember that draw. It was held in Marseille, France and it was as complicated as this one because of geographical restrictions. Blatter had given a very lengthy explanation before the draw, but of course not too many had paid attention. At one point an opponent for France was drawn. It turned out to be Japan. Since Japan was a debutant it was considered a favorable draw for the home team and the French crowd cheered. However, Blatter had to explain again that Japan had to be placed in a different group (for a geographical reason I don’t remember) and it was placed in Argentina’s group. The crowd jeered and booed Blatter for several minutes.
31 dorian // Oct 20, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Viola
Thanks for even more detail on the operational process of the draw. Mathematically, it seems that the first step (where Van Basten draws Paraguay) is not really needed, because they could simply start with the highest ranked team in the second Pot (say Portugal), then have the computer say A, D, or G, then have Pele draw one of these three Groups, then Van Basten draw the position number within the Group. Seems more simple and just as fair.
However, it seems that the spectacle of drawing team names out of a pot is critical to the draw excitement. So even though there might be a more simple method, drawing team names wii continue.
I think the process above, where eligible groups are immediately posted behind the drawers, would avoid the 1998 issue (especially is Van Basten explains it before he draws Paraguay).
32 Mitz // Oct 22, 2009 at 3:04 am
I’d love to be able to lobby FIFA to get Viola’s suggestion taken up, but I fear we’d have as much chance turning back a hurricane by using a desk fan.
On a slightly different point, I really don’t understand why they are always so secretive about their methods and policies. There hasn’t been a single murmur regarding what will happen if Egypt beat Algeria by 2 goals on Nov 14th, for example. And more generally, why has FIFA so far not confirmed the 2010 World Cup’s seeding criteria? We can only assume that they will go the same way as 4 years ago, but nobody knows…
Meanwhile, Voros, where are you? Where are the Euro playoff sims? Your public needs you!
33 Borri // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:34 am
@Mitz
http://worldcup.mtnfootball.com/live/content.php?Item_ID=24412
34 Mitz // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:24 am
Thanks Borri.
35 Amir // Oct 23, 2009 at 6:20 am
dorian said “Mathematically, it seems that the first step (where Van Basten draws Paraguay) is not really needed, because they could simply start with the highest ranked team in the second Pot (say Portugal), then have the computer say A, D, or G, then have Pele draw one of these three Groups”.
It’s not exactly true – it might affect the probability of drawing some teams.
36 dorian // Oct 23, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Amir
Found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with your comment “It’s not exactly true,” depending on how I read it! Here’s what I was thinking:
I figure there are 40320 (8 factorial) permutations of how Van Basten could draw 8 teams out of Pot 2 (i.e. the ordering of the teams). One of these team-order permutations is drawing the teams in the same order as their ranking.
Each of these team-order permutations can be associated with another set of permutations – how the teams are placed into the Groups A-H. For example, Viola’s group-assignment permutation was A) Switzerland, B) Mexico, C) Ghana, D) USA, E) Paraguay, F) Russia, G) Netherlands, H) Portugal. If my math is correct, there are also 40320 possible group-assignment permutations for each specific team-ordering. Of these 40320 possible group-assignment permutations, some will violate the geographical restrictions (e.g. any permutation with Paraguay in the Brazil or Argentina group is an unacceptable permutation), while the other group-assignment permutations will be geographically acceptable.
While I have not calculated the number of acceptable (and unacceptable) group-assignment permutations (given Pot 1 assignments to Groups A-H), let’s call this number X in the single case where the Van Basten team-order is the country-rank order described above.
It seems to me that all 40320 team-order permutations would produce the exact same X acceptable permutations. (Also note that each acceptable group-assignment permutation has a probability of 1/X.) If so, then the possible group-assignment outcomes (and their associated probabilities) are identical (i.e. mathematically fair) regardless of whether the team order is randomized (Van Basten drawing balls) or the team order is fixed (Van Basten reading team names in order of their ranking).
Happy to have my math corrected if off.
That all said, I still believe that FIFA would only go for something where team names (and not just Group letters and numbers) appear on balls being drawn.
37 Paulo Sanchotene // Oct 23, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Viola,
About 1998 draw, I’m not sure but I could bet that Japan was in a pot with other AFC teams and Conmebol’s. That made impossible for it to be in the same group as France in order to avoid two South Americans playing each other in the first stage.
Who could check this? Is it possible to know?
Best regards,
Paulo Roberto
38 Amir // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:08 am
dorian, not all acceptable permutations have the same probability.
I’ll give a simple example (letter means continent):
pot 1 – A1, B1, C
pot 2 – A2, B2, D
if A1 is taken out first, it has a 0.5 probability of drawing D.
if B1 is taken first and A1 is taken out second, A1 only has a 0.25 probability of drawing D (it needs B1 to draw A2 and then itself to draw D).
39 Mitz // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:45 am
I don’t think that is correct Amir. In your example, whatever the order of teams drawn from the first pot, A1 has a 1 in 3 chance of drawing D.
Here’s a full summary:
A1, B1, C A1, C, B1
———– ———–
B2, A2, D B2, A2, D
B2, D, A2 B2, D, A2
D, A2, B2 D, B2, A2
B1, A1, C B1, C, A1
———– ———–
A2, B2, D A2, B2, D
A2, D, B2 A2, D, B2
D, B2, A2 D, A2, B2
C, A1, B1 C, B1, A1
———– ————
A2, B2, D A2, D, B2
B2, D, A2 B2, A2, D
D, B2, A2 D, A2, B2
A1 gets D in one of the three cases every time (and of course B2 two out of three).
40 Mitz // Oct 24, 2009 at 2:46 am
Sorry about the spacing – not very easy to see what I mean, but I hope you get the idea.
41 Amir // Oct 24, 2009 at 5:55 am
again, not all cases have the same probability.
the procedure of the draw is not taking one of the possible draws (that way obviously all possibilities were equal), but taking one team, then picking an opponent for it and so on.
Read my example again (with more details):
pot 1 – A1, B1, C
pot 2 – A2, B2, D
if A1 is taken out first, it has a 0.5 probability of drawing D (either D or B2).
if B1 is taken first and A1 is taken out second, A1 only has a 0.25 probability of drawing D (B1 can draw A2 or D, then if B1 draws A2, A1 can draw either B2 or D, so p=0.5*0.5=0.25).
42 california viola // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Paulo, I’m not 100% sure but I think you are correct. Japan as first non-South American team drawn had to be placed in Argentina’s group in order to avoid having two CONMEBOL teams in the same group.
The big problem of course is that the French crowd went crazy as they had not listened carefully to Blatter’s explanation before the draw. The draw was held in Marseille’s stadium and there was quite a crowd.
I think it’s possible that FIFA may be forced to use a UEFA Champions League kind of draw due to the fact that there are going to be several geographical restrictions in this one. There will be two South American teams seeded and two or three more in a separate pot. South Africa will have to avoid the remaining five African teams. Plus there is the possible added confusion generated by the prospect of having to divide the Asian teams in two different pots.
It is also possible that FIFA continues with its system based on geographical groups but uses the computer to avoid embarrassing accidents like the one in Marseille.
43 Mitz // Oct 25, 2009 at 3:47 am
OK, I’m going to try again. Let’s look at all six orders for A1, B1 and C to be drawn, and examine the possible opponents in each case:
Case 1: A1, B1, C
Possible order of opponents:
B2, A2, D
B2, D, A2
D, A2, B2
Case 2: A1, C, B1
Possible order of opponents:
B2, A2, D
B2, D, A2
D, B2, A2
Case 3: B1, A1, C
Possible order of opponents:
A2, B2, D
A2, D, B2
D, B2, A2
Case 4: B1, C, A1
Possible order of opponents:
A2, B2, D
A2, D, B2
D, A2, B2
Case 5: C, A1, B1
Possible order of opponents:
A2, B2, D
B2, D, A2
D, B2, A2
Case 6: C, B1, A1
Possible order of opponents:
A2, D, B2
B2, A2, D
D, A2, B2
In every case, A1 draws B2 two out of three times and D one out of three. Similarly, B1 draws A2 two out of three times and D one out of three. C, not constrained by the possibility of an opponent from its own continent, has an equal probability of drawing A2, B2 or D. Ergo, the order in which A1, B1 and C come out of the pot has no bearing on the probability of which opponent they get. QED.
44 Amir // Oct 25, 2009 at 7:07 am
mitz,
you assume all possibilities have the smae probability (1/3) and that’s not true according to the draw procedure.
Case 1: A1, B1, C
Possible order of opponents:
B2, A2, D
B2, D, A2
D, A2, B2
in this case for example, the last possibility has a probability of 1/2 when drawing only the team and not its group, because the first team could be only B2 or D with equal chances.
The first 2 possibilities have a probability of 1/4 each.
45 Michele // Oct 26, 2009 at 7:05 am
Here is my take on the 1998 draw. Most is from memory and, hence, not necessarily 100% correct (and I remember it since Denmark was in the same group as France):
Conmebol and Asian teams are in the same pot (also including a left over European team from the European pot) and with Brazil and Argentina already drawn into groups A and H, it can’t be a free draw due to the risk of two South American teams in the same group. In order to avoid this FIFA wants to fill groups A & H as quickly as possible with non-South American teams. Another aspect was that they needed Norway (the extra European team) to join group A or H to avoid having three European teams in the same group.
I think, but am not sure, that they started out with Norway and simply had to draw a ball saying A or H. It turned out to be be group A with Brazil. Chile were drawn next and logically went into group B. Then on to group C, France’s group. A South American team would have fit nicely in that group, but, since FIFA wanted to make sure not to be stuck with a South American team for group H, the next Asian team drawn would be put in that group. Japan was drawn and most people, myself included, thought they would go into group C until Blatter announced that they should go to group H.
After that, there were no more problems with the remaining teams in the pot and groups C-G were completed one by one with Saudi Arabia going to group C with France, Denmerk and South Africa.
46 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:16 am
Michele and Viola,
Since we three are on the same page, it’s really possible that the draw went exactly like we remember it.
About South Africa, it wouldn’t be a problem because in 2006, there were 5 European, 2 South Americans and Mexico as seeding teams. Just the same three continents there will probably be next year.
I bet FIFA will keep the way they draw: manually and geografically.
By the way, I’ve never understood how this could ever possibly be difficult to comprehend.
Best regards,
Paulo Roberto
47 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 1, 2009 at 11:33 am
And, of course, why bother if any AFC team would be weak in 1998: Japan, S. Korea, S. Arabia or Iran.
48 california viola // Nov 2, 2009 at 9:04 am
There should be seeded teams from three confederations but not from CONCACAF. One from Africa, two from CONMEBOL, and five from Europe.
The draw is pretty easy to understand for people like us who have followed draws in the past and follow the seeding procedures, but not necessarily for people who watch it for the first time. This year it could be very complicated (with teams from UEFA, Africa, South America, and possibly Asia split in different pots) and FIFA should really consider using computerized information in the background to explain where a team can or cannot go.
As I explained before, my problem with dividing teams geographically is that this system is often unfair for strong teams belonging to weak confederations and too rewarding for weak teams from strong confederations. For example, United States and Mexico are ranked very high, but it is possible that they will be placed in the same pot with the Asian teams. Thus they will be penalized by not having the opportunity to have a weak team like North Korea or Bahrain (or New Zealand) in their group.
49 Paulo Sanchotene // Nov 2, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Viola,
“FIFA should really consider using computerized information in the background to explain …”
That’s perfect, and really different then draw with computers!
“United States and Mexico are ranked very high, but it is possible that they will be placed in the same pot with the Asian teams.”
On the other hand could be Paraguay, Chile and Uruguay! After all, someone needs to be with AFC in the same pot. But the North are better fit then the South Americans, IMHO.
Best regards,
Paulo Roberto
50 Daniel Burnier // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:00 am
hello Voro
what about the playoof percentages?
have a nice day
51 RedRobot8 // Nov 12, 2009 at 11:30 am
Thought you’d be interested in this:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/for-soccer-fans-among-you.html
Leave a Comment