Remember, by the old ranking formula, I believe we got up to as high as #4, which everyone knows is insane. The new formula is a bit more realistic (at least as far as it concerns us). The highest we've been able to get is #11 (which is our current ranking). Add to that our less than stellar effort in 2006, and it doesn't look good to be a seed.
Which brings me to another point... Ranking is only half of the seeding process (at least how they've done it in the past). We need good WC performances on top of that. Until we get seeded, the chances are still good that we'll continue to be drawn into tough groups (given how they've separated teams when drawing them into groups). This, of course, makes it harder to have good WC performances. Which, of course, makes it harder to get seeded in the next one. And the cycle continues.
We just need to nut up and get out of the group this time and keep working our way up the rankings. Maybe next time we'll manage to be seeded if some other stuff falls our way.
Which brings me to another point... Ranking is only half of the seeding process (at least how they've done it in the past). We need good WC performances on top of that. Until we get seeded, the chances are still good that we'll continue to be drawn into tough groups (given how they've separated teams when drawing them into groups). This, of course, makes it harder to have good WC performances. Which, of course, makes it harder to get seeded in the next one. And the cycle continues.
We just need to nut up and get out of the group this time and keep working our way up the rankings. Maybe next time we'll manage to be seeded if some other stuff falls our way.
