2024 Paris Olympic Games

  • if history mattered that much, brazil would have won against the americans 3 times in a row in the finals.


    1 country from each continent is enough representation, it's not an equality contest.

    So France is enough representation for Europe then

  • I see for indoor volleyball, there are 11 Olympic slots, so calculating the quota for 5 regional federations with 1 representative is reasonable. Other places are allocated to the new competitions of the world volleyball federation (rules in favor of teams from Europe). Here we also have to consider the strength of the European men's volleyball teams, the performance of the Asian men's teams disproportionate to their women's teams. So the allocation of this quota I think is reasonable and equal in terms of the criteria that there are too few teams to play the Olympics and it is different from other sports!

  • if history mattered that much, brazil would have won against the americans 3 times in a row in the finals.


    1 country from each continent is enough representation, it's not an equality contest.

    I totally agree about history being fairly unimportant. Look at CEV CL as well, Russian teams were unbeatable for a long time but struggle to get any wins these days vs Italian and Turkish teams. There are many examples of this, you are only as good as you are right now.


    And totally agree that European teams are generally on a higher level than in other continents on average.


    With all that said the OGs are literally about representation of the continents and equality! It's literally the point of the OGs to bring together the bests of each continent, not just the overall bests. Europe is richer than most continents on average so it's logical that there are more teams on a higher level with more investments. Wch are about bringing the very bests together surely but the Olympic spirit is actually about more than that.

  • I don't think this reform will have that big effect on continent diversity as some of you pretend, at least in case of a female volleyball, with, for example, Japan and Dominican Republic being in top10 of FIVB ranking. So if they keep the ranking they have, there's only a small chance they won't make it to the Olympics considering that these 6 spots via OQTs will be taken by the very best teams. The real difference is for 3rd Asian/NORCECA/2nd South American team - but, well - they have two years to outplay these weak European states and surpass them in the world ranking (and outplay them in OQT), so don't worry, if they're more deserving a spot in Olympics, then they'll do it.


    So it's very fair criteria after all. On the other hand tho, in general, for older teams in both male and female competition this new ranking formula combining with OG qualification system can be a killer, for every team but top3 in both rankings it's perhaps impossible to take VNL lightly now considering the high ratio quota of every game and its frequency. Imagine playing with younger players and getting 1-11 ranking in VNL, for mid-level team that's a loss of serious amount of ranking points, when 11th Germany is 5 points ahead of 14th ROK.


    With already overloaded calendar, it may have real negative consequences on players, so as much as I do enjoy this OQ formula because it's objectively more fair, in general it's just a wise step to increase the relevance of VNL, lol, without saying it. In next year, Poland will play seriously in VNL, then in ECH, and then 7 games in OQT that supposedly should be the most important tournament this season, with no alternative to give the best players a breath. I honestly doubt that the real amount of games played by the best players will decrease even though there's no Grand Champions Cup nor World Cup in its past formula, and that perhaps should have been a main goal with calendar reform. At this point, only China and Brazil (as by far continental leaders), and the USA don't need to care about a ranking.

  • have to look at it this way

    World Champs, Olympics and VNL give you biggest bang for the buck on the points if you win or upset a team in front of you.

    However, if your team is not playing in those events, you have to win against those within your confederation.

    Just to give an example, the USA women only gained 34 points in the VNL last year 382 to 416 after the final. 17 matches, so essentially 2 points per match.

    Japan was at +30 points over the same time frame.


    So if you are moving 2-4 points a match, it would be an expected result in my mind.

    When you start seeing 6-10, 12-20 point movements in a match, then those are the upsets, but they can come back down if you don’t follow it up with another win.

    0-1 point movements are near upsets, but you still won. So neither team really moves.

    Essentially think of 30 point gaps as an entire tournament that a team would need to win a majority of their games to make a massive move up the standings.

  • Initial thoughts....


    This massively helps the host. The CAVB representative is almost guaranteed to be in Pool A alongside France (barring something crazy in qualification)


    getting a full 3 points from the 4th place team is massive, especially when the other pools will be more competitive.


    A mock pool


    A: France, Serbia, Italy, Cameroon.

    B: USA, Turkey, DR, Netherlands

    C: Brazil, China, Russia, Japan

  • I don't like this ,,two best 3rd placed teams'', in sports in general it doesn't make sense to compare points/sets gained in different groups against different opponents. Especially here, when single sets can decide the outcome of which team will advance.


    It makes things easier for the host IMHO that is seeded as #1 and has the weakest team in the competition in his group (so France we'll defeat African team and even single point in other two matches can give them qualification for QF, while normally besides beating African team they'd need to defeat another higher ranked team to advance), perhaps that's the reason this change was introduced.

  • FIVB is listening to the players I guess... in seeking less matches.


    I also dont like the two best third place teams... I wouldnt mind seeing all three qualify, but the 2/3rd place team have to play an extra match before the quarterfinals against each other. (maybe thats too american of me)