G
Gytaz2
Guest
I thought the image would be more fitting here. It sums up what I wanted to say perfectly.
I thought the image would be more fitting here. It sums up what I wanted to say perfectly.
J
janos2
Guest
No i didn't.EXACTLY
You've just proven my point
You just don't get it.
Anybody can use stats to prove whatever he wants.
All one has to do is use the figures that suit him and disregard the rest.
If taken out of context anything can be used to support ANY argument.
I raise my case
Am i missing sth here?
M
mcampbell0752
Guest
Great updates!
D
Dtown2
Guest
I'd say a healthy Dominican Republic squad could have mirrored Germany's performance, remember they only lost to Canada after one of their stars was recalled due to injury.
F
Filas2
Guest
I like numbers So let's see some history.
since 1990, the were similar system as now, starting in 4 groups and qualifying either for 1/8 final or quarterfinal (in case if there were only 16teams starting in WC). So for each year we can check numbers of teams from each continent in different phases, like top16, top8, top4, top2 and winner.
Let's see continent by continent performance (for period 1990-2010).
Africa
Allways had 12.5% of all teams in WC (means 2 out of 16 or 3 out of 24).
Never qualified for top8.
50% qualification for top16. Worst at 2010 - 33.3%. Best at 2006 - 66.7%.
Asia
Minimum 12.5% of all teams (2 out of 16), maximum 16.7% (4 out of 24). Average representation of Asian teams - 14.3%
6.25% qualification for top8. Best at 1994 - 50% (and the only).
25% qualification for top16 (same for both 2006 and 2010).
Oceania
Minimum 6.25% of all teams (1 out of 16), maximum 8.3% (2 out of 24).
Average representation of Oceanian teams - 7.1%
12.5% qualification for top4. Best at 2002 - 100% (and the only).
37.5% qualification for top8. Best - 100% (1990,1994 and 2002).
100% qualification for top16.
Americas
Minimum 20.8% of all teams (5 out of 24), maximum 37.5% (6 out of 16).
Average representation of American teams - 30.4%
3.4% winning. Best at 1994 - 16.7% (and the only).
6.9% in top2. Best at 1994 and 2002 - 16.7%.
23.5% in top4. Best at 1990 and 2006 - 33.3%.
50% in top8. Best at 1990 and 2002 - 66.7%, worst at 2006 - 33.3%
45.4% in top16. Best at 2010 - 60%, worst at 2006 - 33.3%
Europe
Minimum 31.3% of all teams (5 out of 16), maximum 41.7% (10 out of 24).
Average representation of European teams - 35.7%
13.3% winning. Best at 1990 and 2002 - 20%.
26.7% in top2. Best at 1990 - 40%, worst at 1994 and 2002 - 20%.
37.5% in top4. Best at 1994 - 60%, worst at 2006 - 22.2%.
67.5% in top8. Best at 1998 - 100%, worst - 60% (4 times).
94.7% in top16. Best at 2006 - 100%, worst at 2010 - 90%.
Got tired with all the calculations, so will go to sleep and leave conclusions for future
So let's see some history.since 1990, the were similar system as now, starting in 4 groups and qualifying either for 1/8 final or quarterfinal (in case if there were only 16teams starting in WC). So for each year we can check numbers of teams from each continent in different phases, like top16, top8, top4, top2 and winner.
Let's see continent by continent performance (for period 1990-2010).
Africa
Allways had 12.5% of all teams in WC (means 2 out of 16 or 3 out of 24).
Never qualified for top8.
50% qualification for top16. Worst at 2010 - 33.3%. Best at 2006 - 66.7%.
Asia
Minimum 12.5% of all teams (2 out of 16), maximum 16.7% (4 out of 24). Average representation of Asian teams - 14.3%
6.25% qualification for top8. Best at 1994 - 50% (and the only).
25% qualification for top16 (same for both 2006 and 2010).
Oceania
Minimum 6.25% of all teams (1 out of 16), maximum 8.3% (2 out of 24).
Average representation of Oceanian teams - 7.1%
12.5% qualification for top4. Best at 2002 - 100% (and the only).
37.5% qualification for top8. Best - 100% (1990,1994 and 2002).
100% qualification for top16.
Americas
Minimum 20.8% of all teams (5 out of 24), maximum 37.5% (6 out of 16).
Average representation of American teams - 30.4%
3.4% winning. Best at 1994 - 16.7% (and the only).
6.9% in top2. Best at 1994 and 2002 - 16.7%.
23.5% in top4. Best at 1990 and 2006 - 33.3%.
50% in top8. Best at 1990 and 2002 - 66.7%, worst at 2006 - 33.3%
45.4% in top16. Best at 2010 - 60%, worst at 2006 - 33.3%
Europe
Minimum 31.3% of all teams (5 out of 16), maximum 41.7% (10 out of 24).
Average representation of European teams - 35.7%
13.3% winning. Best at 1990 and 2002 - 20%.
26.7% in top2. Best at 1990 - 40%, worst at 1994 and 2002 - 20%.
37.5% in top4. Best at 1994 - 60%, worst at 2006 - 22.2%.
67.5% in top8. Best at 1998 - 100%, worst - 60% (4 times).
94.7% in top16. Best at 2006 - 100%, worst at 2010 - 90%.
Got tired with all the calculations, so will go to sleep and leave conclusions for future
sinobball2
Moderator
Great analysis! Hope FIBA can see this.I like numbers
since 1990, the were similar system as now, starting in 4 groups and qualifying either for 1/8 final or quarterfinal (in case if there were only 16teams starting in WC). So for each year we can check numbers of teams from each continent in different phases, like top16, top8, top4, top2 and winner.
Let's see continent by continent performance (for period 1990-2010).
Africa
Allways had 12.5% of all teams in WC (means 2 out of 16 or 3 out of 24).
Never qualified for top8.
50% qualification for top16. Worst at 2010 - 33.3%. Best at 2006 - 66.7%.
Asia
Minimum 12.5% of all teams (2 out of 16), maximum 16.7% (4 out of 24). Average representation of Asian teams - 14.3%
6.25% qualification for top8. Best at 1994 - 50% (and the only).
25% qualification for top16 (same for both 2006 and 2010).
Oceania
Minimum 6.25% of all teams (1 out of 16), maximum 8.3% (2 out of 24).
Average representation of Oceanian teams - 7.1%
12.5% qualification for top4. Best at 2002 - 100% (and the only).
37.5% qualification for top8. Best - 100% (1990,1994 and 2002).
100% qualification for top16.
Americas
Minimum 20.8% of all teams (5 out of 24), maximum 37.5% (6 out of 16).
Average representation of American teams - 30.4%
3.4% winning. Best at 1994 - 16.7% (and the only).
6.9% in top2. Best at 1994 and 2002 - 16.7%.
23.5% in top4. Best at 1990 and 2006 - 33.3%.
50% in top8. Best at 1990 and 2002 - 66.7%, worst at 2006 - 33.3%
45.4% in top16. Best at 2010 - 60%, worst at 2006 - 33.3%
Europe
Minimum 31.3% of all teams (5 out of 16), maximum 41.7% (10 out of 24).
Average representation of European teams - 35.7%
13.3% winning. Best at 1990 and 2002 - 20%.
26.7% in top2. Best at 1990 - 40%, worst at 1994 and 2002 - 20%.
37.5% in top4. Best at 1994 - 60%, worst at 2006 - 22.2%.
67.5% in top8. Best at 1998 - 100%, worst - 60% (4 times).
94.7% in top16. Best at 2006 - 100%, worst at 2010 - 90%.
Got tired with all the calculations, so will go to sleep and leave conclusions for future
I think we should calculate on a 8-year cycle just like FIBA does though. In which case you'd see Americas as a whole isn't doing that much better than Africa and Asia in terms of qualifying to the 2nd round, despite elite teams like USA and Argentina. All 3 continents should have # of teams reduced. Asia has too many teams every time, but there are excuses (2006-Japan-host; 2010-Lebanon-wild card). Europe is the most competitive and needs more slots. Oceania should stay the same (they have no choice anyway).
L
leonesponce2
Guest
Thats true... Eurobasket 2009 16th ranked team (Bulgaria) could very well win a medal playing in Africa or Asia zone and could make some noise in the Americas region (although wouldnt advance to semis nor win a medal) whereas the 10th team in the Americas Championship 2009 (US Virgin Islands)would not even make the Eurobasket tourney... and I can not assure that it will win a medal in an african or asian tourney, just can assure it'll make some noise...
So even though Im from the Americas region, I understand that if the WC is to be expanded to 32, meaning 8 more spots... 4 of those should be given to Europe... 2 to Americas 1 each for Asia and Africa... (14 Europe, 6 America, 4 Asia, 4 Africa, 2 Oceania + OC and Host)
Nonetheless I think FIBA Americas should also expand in the near future, becuase this region has the potential to be very competitive... (see 2010 Centrobasket where T&T upset PR, Jamaica without Roy Hibbert almost defeated Panama for a place in the semis, and the Dominican Republic which with a complete roster of its best player can compete pretty well with most european teams)
But right now, after USA, Argetnina, Brazil and Puerto Rico, the Americas region does not have a world caliber team... thats why I think 6 teams should be enough as of now...
M
mvblair2
Guest
Great analysis Filas!!
I think USVI would be OK in Africa, but not win, and they would do very little in Asia.
Yes. in Centrobasket, we saw some very good teams defeat some other very good teams. T&T was lucky. Jamaica was good. DR was powerful. PR was powerful.
I disagree, Ponce. What about Uruguay and DR? Don't you think they can compete on a world stage?
L
leonesponce2
Guest
Well that they can compete.... yes... get a positive
result? I doubt it... maybe the DR with all their players... but Uruguay
I'm not so sure that they can be competitive against, let's say Australia,
Yesterday they will compete against China, Lebanon, Angola, Nigeria, and
perhaps win some of those games, but they will struggle vs all
the europeans teams... just look at Puerto Rico's and Brazil's
record against european competition and you'll get an idea of what I'm
saying....
L
leonesponce2
Guest
Did a research of Brazil's and PR performances vs europe since 2002 (neither team played in Sydney) and they are awful... Puerto Rico is 4-13 but just 1-12 since the athens olympics, after going 3-1 in 2002. Brazil meanwhile isn't playing any better than that going 2-9 during the same span... but its worthy to highlight that both teams have had many close loses in between... PR lost by 1 to Italy in 2006, by 3 to Greece this year and by 2 to Turkey.... Brazil lost to Turkey by 2 in 06 and by 3 to Slovenia this year.... so if they are having such a hard time vs europeans teams.... I can not see Urugay nor the DR doing any better...
C
CaveLight2
Guest
Wow, lively discussion. As my old cinema teacher said, good points.