The Race for Pot 3

[Cblake]

15 minutes ago, Sal333 said:

Although, I'm leaning towards  the let's-play-Qatar scenario, I think many of you are forgetting that Qatar had just as good a showing at the Gold Cup as Canada did. I think many of you are underestimating that country.

I simply look at it that Canada is a better team than Qatar. This Canadian team has such momentum right with a world class group of players. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

13 minutes ago, Cblake said:

I simply look at it that Canada is a better team than Qatar. This Canadian team has such momentum right with a world class group of players. 

Qatar have played a lot of friendlies of the past half year. Lost badly to better teams, like in UEFA (Ireland, Serbia, Portugal, even tied Luxembourg), lost to Algeria, done okay vs. some Asia teams. I have no idea about player availability. 

Now for the Gold Cup, objectively, they looked good, played well, and were more or less at our level. They looked well coached, had some good players, but also looked a bit soft at times, or at least lacked 90-minutes of intensity.

We've picked up because we are playing for keeps, and they have the problem of not having any meaningful games. 

[Cblake]

Just now, Unnamed Trialist said:

Qatar have played a lot of friendlies of the past half year. Lost badly to better teams, like in UEFA (Ireland, Serbia, Portugal, even tied Luxembourg), lost to Algeria, done okay vs. some Asia teams. I have no idea about player availability. 

Now for the Gold Cup, objectively, they looked good, played well, and were more or less at our level. They looked well coached, had some good players, but also looked a bit soft at times, or at least lacked 90-minutes of intensity.

We've picked up because we are playing for keeps, and they have the problem of not having any meaningful games. 

No doubt having something to play for makes a huge difference. I think Qatar having played a lot together is the reason for the good showing at times especially in the Gold Cup. Some of the lower ranked teams can look good at times because they get very familiar with each other playing a lot. 

[Corazon]

Qatar did have a good showing in the Gold Cup but I believe if every other team from Pot 1 walks into the Gold Cup and wins it quite handily. A couple other things to consider about Qatar as a host nation. 

1) The majority of previous hosts are much better quality than Qatar is (even with strong performances of late).

2) I suspect VAR will be in place for the World Cup and therefore I see a lot less glaring referee errors.  Hard to imagine many of the shocking referee decisions in favour of host countries of years past not being overturned by VAR.

I'd still take Qatar any day over the other top teams.

[Kent]

9 hours ago, ballerz said:

I would like to get Qatar if it means we get the opening match and our lads will get the global spotlight. We then demolish the hosts 3-0 with Tajon’s brace, earning him a transfer to Manchester United immediately. All our MLS youngsters moves to good places in Europe.

People bring up the eyeballs of playing the opener vs Qatar. Yes, there would be lots of eyeballs, but if we beat Qatar a LOT of people will not take that as a reason for Canada to be taken seriously. The reaction of many will be "LOL, Qatar. Canada still hasn't beaten anybody."

I think I'm going to be happy with any draw to be honest. Despite the stats I presented on the previous page I think we probably have a better chance of advancing out of a group with Qatar than one of the other Pot A teams. But if we draw one of the other teams, we get a chance to go for a result against a big team and really make some waves.

[CanadaFan123]

55 minutes ago, Corazon said:

Qatar did have a good showing in the Gold Cup but I believe if every other team from Pot 1 walks into the Gold Cup and wins it quite handily. A couple other things to consider about Qatar as a host nation. 

1) The majority of previous hosts are much better quality than Qatar is (even with strong performances of late).

2) I suspect VAR will be in place for the World Cup and therefore I see a lot less glaring referee errors.  Hard to imagine many of the shocking referee decisions in favour of host countries of years past not being overturned by VAR.

I'd still take Qatar any day over the other top teams.

Qatar also seems to have either regressed or been figured out by their opponents. They started 2021 unbeaten in 10 and then went winless in 8 including getting thrashed by Portugal, Ireland and Serbia and drawing vs. Azerbaijan and Luxembourg. 

They played 24 matches last year but don't play until March this year, which I found odd. 

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by CanadaFan123

[Obinna]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:15 AM, Miche said:

Let’s look at the point-gains over the past year (FIFA / ELO):

Pot 3                                          Pot 4

Sweden         +30 / +0              Nigeria                +35 / -10

Senegal         +23 / -24             Canada                +165 / +242

Wales             +16 / +7               Tunisia                 -14 / -28

Iran                 +76 / +80            Cameroon            +45 / +25

Serbia             +55 / +71             Ecuador               +49 / +39

Morocco          +66 / +52           Saudi Arabia        +80 / +69

Japan               +47 / +36           Peru (IC)               +51 / +62

South Korea     +57 / +35           Panama (IC)         +63 / +87

Conventional wisdom is that pot 3 is better than pot 4, but I am wondering how much of a difference it makes. Either way we get a team in pot 1 and 2 and the strength of the pot 3 & 4 sides is pretty equal.

Panama stand out as a punching bag, but we wouldn't draw them anyways.

The next weakest side, at least traditionally, would be Saudi Arabia, but they are doing well in qualifying and on their day are just as good as Japan or South Korea. They are actually ahead of the Japanese last I checked Asian qualifying.

I would prefer Cameroon to Senegal, but I am not convinced the gap is really that big. Same for Morocco versus Tunisia. 

The one team that sticks out as being tricky is Sweden, because they have a history of advancing deep in World Cups.

Aside from that, I am not concerned about any of these teams. Sorry if some of this has been discussed, but can someone give me a deeper reason to be worried about the pots aside from "Pot 3 good"?

 

[archer21]

18 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Conventional wisdom is that pot 3 is better than pot 4, but I am wondering how much of a difference it makes. Either way we get a team in pot 1 and 2 and the strength of the pot 3 & 4 sides is pretty equal.

Panama stand out as a punching bag, but we wouldn't draw them anyways.

The next weakest side, at least traditionally, would be Saudi Arabia, but they are doing well in qualifying and on their day are just as good as Japan or South Korea. They are actually ahead of the Japanese last I checked Asian qualifying.

I would prefer Cameroon to Senegal, but I am not convinced the gap is really that big. Same for Morocco versus Tunisia. 

The one team that sticks out as being tricky is Sweden, because they have a history of advancing deep in World Cups.

Aside from that, I am not concerned about any of these teams. Sorry if some of this has been discussed, but can someone give me a deeper reason to be worried about the pots aside from "Pot 3 good"?

 

I think the difference between Pot 3 and 4 is probably pretty small, but it’s still a slight advantage to be in Pot 3 because Pot 4 teams will on average be a little bit weaker. Just have to hope and pray not to get matched with the play in winner from CONMEBOL.

I think the only reason anyone cares right now anyways is because we’re assuming we’ve qualified already so it’s kind of the only thing left to root for.

Edited February 11, 2022 by archer21

[xabuep2]

I would like a group with France and Russia (if they manage to qualify) and take revenge for that 1-0 and 2-0 in Mexico 1986. 

I swear I thought Canada would draw against Platini's France on that hot day in Leon

[TOCanada115]

Talking with a few of my buddies, I’ll ask you guys this because I was kinda shocked with some of their answers. 
 

Other than Qatar, which Pot 1 team would you want to play in the group stage?

My choices:

Would rather play: Belgium, Argentina, winner of Italy vs Portugal,

Don’t want to play: Brazil, Spain

Somewhere in between: France, England 

[Corazon]

8 minutes ago, TOCanada115 said:

Talking with a few of my buddies, I’ll ask you guys this because I was kinda shocked with some of their answers. 
 

Other than Qatar, which Pot 1 team would you want to play in the group stage?

My choices:

Would rather play: Belgium, Argentina, winner of Italy vs Portugal,

Don’t want to play: Brazil, Spain

Somewhere in between: France, England 

1st Choice - Qatar - and it's not even close...

2nd Choice - Belgium, Argentina - Belgium are on the decline, Argentina weakest team after Qatar but also haven't lost a game in almost 30 matches.

3rd Choice - Italy / Portugal & Spain - Portugal & Italy may have stumbled in Qualifying but both are still great teams.  Spain in transition and have shown they can have some poor games but have also looked incredible at times with the new players.

4th Choice - England, France & Brazil - Yes England seems to choke in big games but they usually come out for all the games they're expected to win.  Even though France and Brazil have stumbled a couple times in the past couple years, they're still so good.

 

 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Corazon

[Obinna]

3 minutes ago, TOCanada115 said:

Talking with a few of my buddies, I’ll ask you guys this because I was kinda shocked with some of their answers. 
 

Other than Qatar, which Pot 1 team would you want to play in the group stage?

My choices:

Would rather play: Belgium, Argentina, winner of Italy vs Portugal,

Don’t want to play: Brazil, Spain

Somewhere in between: France, England 

Seems reasonable on the surface. I guess you could swap Spain and France. I agree with Argentina, maybe less so with Belgium and Italy/Portugal, but don't have a problem with those takes. If you're forcing someone to choose it's logical to go with one of two teams who never qualified directly, while Belgium (despite their world class players and their ranking) doesn't have the same fear factor as an England or Spain, probably because of their history. 

[Lansdude]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

Conventional wisdom is that pot 3 is better than pot 4, but I am wondering how much of a difference it makes. Either way we get a team in pot 1 and 2 and the strength of the pot 3 & 4 sides is pretty equal.

Panama stand out as a punching bag, but we wouldn't draw them anyways.

The next weakest side, at least traditionally, would be Saudi Arabia, but they are doing well in qualifying and on their day are just as good as Japan or South Korea. They are actually ahead of the Japanese last I checked Asian qualifying.

I would prefer Cameroon to Senegal, but I am not convinced the gap is really that big. Same for Morocco versus Tunisia. 

The one team that sticks out as being tricky is Sweden, because they have a history of advancing deep in World Cups.

Aside from that, I am not concerned about any of these teams. Sorry if some of this has been discussed, but can someone give me a deeper reason to be worried about the pots aside from "Pot 3 good"?

 

Serbia won their group (with Portugal, who are probably going to run in to Italy in one of the 2nd round finals), and instead of Wales it could be Austria, Scotland or Ukraine. Instead of Sweden it could be Russia, Poland, or Czech Republic. Serbia plus two of any of those eight UEFA teams I mostly wouldn't want to play, especially Wales, Austria, Sweden, or the Czechs.

Not much distance between Senegal/Egypt and Cameroon/Algeria. Morocco won their group in the Cup of Nations though they have to beat DR Congo; Tunisia didn't make it out but have to go through Mali to qualify who won theirs. The African choices are mostly a wash.

I also give a slight edge to Japan/South Korea over the CONMEBOL runners-up.

Of course a lot of these teams are right on the bubble between pot 3 and 4 and it depends on who wins what, but the main thing is that I'd rather avoid most of those UEFA teams.

[Obinna]

13 minutes ago, Lansdude said:

Serbia won their group (with Portugal, who are probably going to run in to Italy in one of the 2nd round finals), and instead of Wales it could be Austria, Scotland or Ukraine. Instead of Sweden it could be Russia, Poland, or Czech Republic. Serbia plus two of any of those eight UEFA teams I mostly wouldn't want to play, especially Wales, Austria, Sweden, or the Czechs.

Not much distance between Senegal/Egypt and Cameroon/Algeria. Morocco won their group in the Cup of Nations though they have to beat DR Congo; Tunisia didn't make it out but have to go through Mali to qualify who won theirs. The African choices are mostly a wash.

I also give a slight edge to Japan/South Korea over the CONMEBOL runners-up.

Of course a lot of these teams are right on the bubble between pot 3 and 4 and it depends on who wins what, but the main thing is that I'd rather avoid most of those UEFA teams.

Right, so from your perspective the luck of the draw (avoiding UEFA) is more relevant than what pot we are in?

[Lansdude]

11 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Right, so from your perspective the luck of the draw (avoiding UEFA) is more relevant than what pot we are in?

I should have been clearer, the marginal pot 3/4 teams I'm talking about are almost all (all?) the African and Asian teams. I haven't looked at all the scenarios but I'm pretty sure in 90% of them the UEFA teams land in pot 3. So if we make pot 3 we don't have to worry about luck.

[Obinna]

5 minutes ago, Lansdude said:

I should have been clearer, the marginal pot 3/4 teams I'm talking about are almost all (all?) the African and Asian teams. I haven't looked at all the scenarios but I'm pretty sure in 90% of them the UEFA teams land in pot 3. So if we make pot 3 we don't have to worry about luck.

Ah I got you. Thanks for the clarification.

I was looking for an answer like this when I asked why should we care about pots. I can see how pot 3 helps us avoid the UEFA teams, even though I don't fear any of them aside from Sweden (and maybe Serbia), but that's just me. 

Perhaps we match up better with the Latin American countries? We haven't played many (any?) European teams during this cycle, so it's hard to know where we stack up. We have played Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama and have only suffered 1 loss in injury time with a depleted GC squad. That should bode nicely for if/when we play Peru or Ecuador.

I have a gut feeling that pound for pound the Sub-Saharan African teams would give us the most trouble, even more than the UEFA teams. Players like Davies, David, Millar, Buchanan and even Laryea give us speed the other teams we've played have struggled with. Those African teams may be able to neutralize that more than the European (or Asian) teams, but I haven't been following CAF very closely to have good knowledge of what those individual match ups could look like. 

[Lansdude]

17 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Ah I got you. Thanks for the clarification.

I was looking for an answer like this when I asked why should we care about pots. I can see how pot 3 helps us avoid the UEFA teams, even though I don't fear any of them aside from Sweden (and maybe Serbia), but that's just me. 

Perhaps we match up better with the Latin American countries? We haven't played many (any?) European teams during this cycle, so it's hard to know where we stack up. We have played Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama and have only suffered 1 loss in injury time with a depleted GC squad. That should bode nicely for if/when we play Peru or Ecuador.

I have a gut feeling that pound for pound the Sub-Saharan African teams would give us the most trouble, even more than the UEFA teams. Players like Davies, David, Millar, Buchanan and even Laryea give us speed the other teams we've played have struggled with. Those African teams may be able to neutralize that more than the European (or Asian) teams, but I haven't been following CAF very closely to have good knowledge of what those individual match ups could look like. 

Ecuador basically CONCACAF-ed their way in and are going to get killed at the world cup on a level playing field in good conditions with good refs. I'm not worried about them or Peru. I would be worried about getting Chile, Colombia, or Uruguay if they get into pot 4 from the intercontinental playoff. If one of those three teams makes it in, whatever group they're in will be the group of death.

I watched a lot of the Cup of Nations and wasn't impressed with any of the teams. A lot of individual talent, a lot of chaos and disconnection. None of the teams really impressed me as a larger unit but that could just be the atmosphere and character that comes from continental African play. I don't know for sure, but I'm not worried about them as much as facing a well-organized Czechia with a finisher like Patrick Schick, for example.

I don't think there's a vast gulf between the quality in Pot 3 and 4, but there's enough to turn a draw into a win, or a loss into a draw, which are the margins we will need to get out of the group stage. I think it's quite significant.

[Unnamed Trialist]

Have any of you noticed how many Qatar Pot comments and questions you see reacting to tweets, videos...? It's like the fan base is really into the question, which really started as a joke. 

[Obinna]

8 minutes ago, Lansdude said:

Ecuador basically CONCACAF-ed their way in and are going to get killed at the world cup on a level playing field in good conditions with good refs. I'm not worried about them or Peru. I would be worried about getting Chile, Colombia, or Uruguay if they get into pot 4 from the intercontinental playoff. If one of those three teams makes it in, whatever group they're in will be the group of death.

I watched a lot of the Cup of Nations and wasn't impressed with any of the teams. A lot of individual talent, a lot of chaos and disconnection. None of the teams really impressed me as a larger unit but that could just be the atmosphere and character that comes from continental African play. I don't know for sure, but I'm not worried about them as much as facing a well-organized Czechia with a finisher like Patrick Schick, for example.

I don't think there's a vast gulf between the quality in Pot 3 and 4, but there's enough to turn a draw into a win, or a loss into a draw, which are the margins we will need to get out of the group stage. I think it's quite significant.

I've watched ACON tournaments in the past and what you are describing just sounds like typical play from most African teams, so I would say that's simply the character. They tend to be far less organized than European teams and it's often their undoing, but the question we may want to ask is what's a worse match up for Canada, generally speaking, a more athletic, less organized African side, or a less athletic, more organized European side? 

This is not the perfect comparison, but consider the United States. They are organized and relatively athletic, like most European teams. So what do we make of our success against them? They haven't been able to contain Davies in the two times he played them, plus Buchanan and David have given them trouble as well. Part of me wants to throw away the whole comparison because this USA team under Berhalter is simply not playing to their strengths, despite being organized, but what better analog do we have?

Conversely, we haven't impressed yet against Jamaica, but it's only been 1 game and we'll learn more next window. They are probably the best analog in our region for some of the African teams we could face. 

[Lansdude]

9 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I've watched ACON tournaments in the past and what you are describing just sounds like typical play from most African teams, so I would say that's simply the character. They tend to be far less organized than European teams and it's often their undoing, but the question we may want to ask is what's a worse match up for Canada, generally speaking, a more athletic, less organized African side, or a less athletic, more organized European side? 

This is not the perfect comparison, but consider the United States. They are organized and relatively athletic, like most European teams. So what do we make of our success against them? They haven't been able to contain Davies in the two times he played them, plus Buchanan and David have given them trouble as well. Part of me wants to throw away the whole comparison because this USA team under Berhalter is simply not playing to their strengths, despite being organized, but what better analog do we have?

Conversely, we haven't impressed yet against Jamaica, but it's only been 1 game and we'll learn more next window. They are probably the best analog in our region for some of the African teams we could face. 

That's a good question and you're right that we haven't really faced a good team that plays like that. This region can be loosely divided into snippy grinders and second tier technicians. We're probably an even hybrid of these with an admixture athleticism. The next Jamaican match will be a good test but it remains to be seen what kind of effort they're going to mount for a lost cause. I guess really the only thing you can point to is a gross generalization about rankings and what type of teams go further in tournaments. I think this team gets beaten when it's outclassed, not outrun, partially because we have runners and partially because we know how to adjust tactically. All speculation with a zillion variables.

[TGAA_Star]

Personally a group I definitely would love for Canada would be the reigning World Champions France, runners up from 2018 Croatia and Iran.

France, Croatia, Iran and Canada 

[Free kick]

11 hours ago, Obinna said:

Seems reasonable on the surface. I guess you could swap Spain and France. I agree with Argentina, maybe less so with Belgium and Italy/Portugal, but don't have a problem with those takes. If you're forcing someone to choose it's logical to go with one of two teams who never qualified directly, while Belgium (despite their world class players and their ranking) doesn't have the same fear factor as an England or Spain, probably because of their history. 

I would like to face a side who would be less familiar with our talent.  Germany, France, Belgium and Portugal would have some familiarity with our players because of league play, so i would like to avoid these sides.    In Europe, there isn't as much attention played to championships outside their own borders.  There is only casual or cursory interest (ie>;  Standings,  the occasional super talent gets followed).   So would want to play those teams that doesnt have familiarity with our talent because they are the ones susceptible to taking us lightly.  

Edited February 12, 2022 by Free kick

[TGAA_Star]

8 hours ago, Free kick said:

I would like to face a side who would be less familiar with our talent.  Germany, France, Belgium and Portugal would have some familiarity with our players because of league play, so i would like to avoid these sides.    In Europe, there isn't as much attention played to championships outside their own borders.  There is only casual or cursory interest (ie>;  Standings,  the occasional super talent gets followed).   So would want to play those teams that doesnt have familiarity with our talent because they are the ones susceptible to taking us lightly.  

Unless we end up facing an Asian team or African team in Qatar or even a South American team because that could happen also

[Unnamed Trialist]

20 hours ago, TOCanada115 said:

Talking with a few of my buddies, I’ll ask you guys this because I was kinda shocked with some of their answers. 
 

Other than Qatar, which Pot 1 team would you want to play in the group stage?

My choices:

Would rather play: Belgium, Argentina, winner of Italy vs Portugal,

Don’t want to play: Brazil, Spain

Somewhere in between: France, England 

IMO never play a team from South America. They have a way of digging deep and the dark arts are front and centre. 

Because of speed and physicality, you don't want a team that can match your pace. In principle a Senegal would do that. 

Avoid teams with major talents in key positions. So France in attack, or Argentina. 

I personally believe Spain is accessible because they don't adjust to rivals. England similar. They're also a bit young and don't have killer strikers. They're also arrogant. 

Would 4 points normally get us out of a group? 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[Redpunkfiddle]

This article is a little messy, but provides the info. 4 points is a 50% crapshoot to advance and depends on other results going your way.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/football/are-4-points-enough-to-qualify-from-a-fifa-world-cup-group-stage/story-Q8VtKVNj9MjaRoAiEgLb8J.html