davieG

48 Team World Cup and Video Technology - latest from FIFA

86 posts in this topic

Posted

13 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

This is terrible for a number of reasons. The first being that the groups have an odd number of teams. So there will always be teams at a disadvantage in terms of rest. The team that places first and third will have the most amount of rest in between games, while each of the other two teams will have to play back to back games.

 

Also, with an odd number of teams, not all of the teams will play at the same time on the last matchday of the group stage, which will allow scenarios where both teams can advance if they conspire.

 

For example:

Colombia defeats England 2-0 on matchday 1.

England defeats Nigeria 1 - 0 on matchday 2.

On matchday 3, both Colombia and Nigeria can advance if Nigeria wins 1-0.

 

Colombia would have 3 pts, 1 GD.

England would have 3 pts -1 GD

Nigeria would have 3 pts 0 GD

 

Even if both teams do not conspire to fix the result, if Nigeria scored first on the 3rd matchday, both teams would be in positions to advance so far as the result stays. What motivation would there be for either team to attack? if either team conceded, they would be in danger of not advancing. That would lead to boring, defensive football like we saw at the euros. 

Not to mention 48 teams waters down the pool of advancing teams, and it reduces the anxiety/excitement of world cup qualifying.

 

 

You're right, I think head to head would still be the first tiebreaker, but in your example it wouldn't matter anyway since they'd be the same I think.

 

Of course your example does include the far fetched scenario of England winning a game...

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Taking another example (using the same teams as above)

 

Colombia beats England 2-0

England beats Nigeria 2-0

Nigeria beats Colombia 2-0

 

Each team has three points with a +2 goal difference

 

So who goes through, and who goes home?

 

EDIT - this is bound to happen sooner or later. In a 4 team group there are 6 matches so the chances of them all having the same score are much slimmer than with only 3 games

 


Edited by stripeyfox
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Awful. 

 

They just want more money and in this case the lesser Countries to qualify. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

Taking another example (using the same teams as above)

 

Colombia beats England 2-0

England beats Nigeria 2-0

Nigeria beats Colombia 2-0

 

Each team has three points with a +2 goal difference

 

So who goes through, and who goes home?

 

EDIT - this is bound to happen sooner or later. In a 4 team group there are 6 matches so the chances of them all having the same score are much slimmer than with only 3 games

 

Don't forget the other suggestion to this 48 team world cup is that every match has to have a winner so there will be a penalty shootout if the game ends a draw.

 

Its all just absolute madness


Edited by kingcarr21
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1 minute ago, kingcarr21 said:

Don't forget the other suggestion to this 48 team world cup is that every match has to have a winner so there will be a penalty shootout if the game ends a draw.

 

Its all just absolute madness

 

Sepp Blatter, Gianni Infantino, Michel Platini will vote to send one of the teams home (in the tied example), like in X Factor (so England then)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1 minute ago, kingcarr21 said:

Don't forget the other suggestion to this 48 team world cup is that every match has to have a winner so there will be a penalty shootout if the game ends a draw

Yeah, I heard that on the radio yesterday. Not ideal, but maybe the best solution if expending it to 48 teams.

And the tournament is over the same number of days so we get 4 group matches every day instead of 3.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

8 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Yeah, I heard that on the radio yesterday. Not ideal, but maybe the best solution if expending it to 48 teams.

And the tournament is over the same number of days so we get 4 group matches every day instead of 3.

 

 

Still don't know how they'd resolve the example I gave where each team wins one game by the same score?

 

I'm sure FIFA have all the answers! 
 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If they had to expand, I would have rather ranked the 48 teams and given the top 16 a bye to the group stage, and forced the bottom 32 to play in an elimination game. It would be cruel and unfair to go out of the world cup after one defeat, but at least it would be exciting. Afterward, you would have the standard group stage that we do now.

 

Either that or just blow up the current model to 64 teams and have 6 rounds of single elimination games (like american college basketball). 

 


Edited by Detroit Blues
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

33 minutes ago, stripeyfox said:

You're right, I think head to head would still be the first tiebreaker, but in your example it wouldn't matter anyway since they'd be the same I think.

 

Of course your example does include the far fetched scenario of England winning a game...

 

 

The only benefit of the expansion is to see what remote island nation will next defeat England lol. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

8 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

The only benefit of the expansion is to see what remote island nation will next defeat England lol. 

Maybe the remote island nation of Canada!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

3 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

The World Cup's gone for me after Russia.

 

You'll still watch it every four years, virtually all of us will. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Love how it will be all about how few Uzbekistan and Guinea-Bissau can get hammered by Germany after they draw against each other. 


Edited by Nalis
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

2 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

You'll still watch it every four years, virtually all of us will. 

I can't see myself being even as close to as bothered. Even the Euros just gone I made less of an effort to watch games than I usually would.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think this might be the end of individual countries hosting it as well.

 

The logistics of 48 teams and their fans setting up camp would be a nightmare for all but the largest countries with the most advanced infrastructure to cope, so don't be surprised if Euro 2020, hosted in a variety of European stadia, ends up becoming a blue print as confederations host it rather than nations. 2026 goes to UEFA, 2030 goes to CONMEBOL etc etc. 

 

In theory, this may mean that nations could bid for the same 'game packages' as with Euro 2020. This might mean that Qatar vs Peru would be played at somewhere like the CCS while quarter finals onwards would go to the Bernabeu, Wembley or San Siro. 

 

The problem is that this being FIFA means the bidding process would most likely be spectacularly corrupt and the bidding process would be decided on the thickness of brown envelopes rather than the merits of the bid. 

 

Worse, the format stinks. The flaws in three team groups are so obvious that it's genuinely incredible the idea is even being pursued. Surely, if we must go to 48 teams, it'd make more sense to go to 12 groups of four and see the group winners and four best runners up go through? The results would be that the games would be more competitive, avoiding the ludicrous situation of winless teams going through as in Euro 2016, and the quality of the last 16 may actually improve. I wouldn't even seed the last 16 under these circumstances, as the quality would surely improve with 12 of the last 16 having actually won their group. 

 

I'm actually not averse to more Asian, African and Oceanian sides qualifying. It may even improve it if we get one or two stories like Iceland's exploits. It does, however, need to be managed properly to avoid a farce. Unfortunately, FIFA's recent record of leadership and organisational skills don't exactly breed much in the way of optimism. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Groups of three ..........hmmmmmmmmmm, they haven't really thought that one through have they??

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

2 minutes ago, Bilo said:

I think this might be the end of individual countries hosting it as well.

 

The logistics of 48 teams and their fans setting up camp would be a nightmare for all but the largest countries with the most advanced infrastructure to cope, so don't be surprised if Euro 2020, hosted in a variety of European stadia, ends up becoming a blue print as confederations host it rather than nations. 2026 goes to UEFA, 2030 goes to CONMEBOL etc etc. 

 

In theory, this may mean that nations could bid for the same 'game packages' as with Euro 2020. This might mean that Qatar vs Peru would be played at somewhere like the CCS while quarter finals onwards would go to the Bernabeu, Wembley or San Siro. 

 

The problem is that this being FIFA means the bidding process would most likely be spectacularly corrupt and the bidding process would be decided on the thickness of brown envelopes rather than the merits of the bid. 

 

Worse, the format stinks. The flaws in three team groups are so obvious that it's genuinely incredible the idea is even being pursued. Surely, if we must go to 48 teams, it'd make more sense to go to 12 groups of four and see the group winners and four best runners up go through? The results would be that the games would be more competitive, avoiding the ludicrous situation of winless teams going through as in Euro 2016, and the quality of the last 16 may actually improve. I wouldn't even seed the last 16 under these circumstances, as the quality would surely improve with 12 of the last 16 having actually won their group. 

 

I'm actually not averse to more Asian, African and Oceanian sides qualifying. It may even improve it if we get one or two stories like Iceland's exploits. It does, however, need to be managed properly to avoid a farce. Unfortunately, FIFA's recent record of leadership and organisational skills don't exactly breed much in the way of optimism. 

Good idea your '12 groups of 4'.

Be great if the criteria for 'best runners-up' related to goals scored or suchlike.....Might stop everyone playing for a 1-1 in their opening games!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

11 minutes ago, Worthington said:

Good idea your '12 groups of 4'.

Be great if the criteria for 'best runners-up' related to goals scored or suchlike.....Might stop everyone playing for a 1-1 in their opening games!

If we were to seed it, it'd be a good separator. The eight teams who amassed the most points and scored the most goals get seeded, so not even winning the group guarantees a seed. It'd make for some exciting football at the notoriously turgid group stage as everyone has to hit the ground running. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Underdog stories are so good because they are just that. There's nothing romantic about Uzbekistan getting to the last 32 of a World Cup because they came 7th in Asia and then progressed past Burkina Faso. It's just farcical organisation.

 

Asia & Africa getting more teams than South America is absolutely astonishing as well, granted South America would be a bit of a farce if 8 out of 10 were qualifying so I can see the argument in favour of merging CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

3 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

You'll still watch it every four years, virtually all of us will. 

I will. For the first time this year though I didn't make an effort to watch every game, the decline in standards was a big factor in that as well.

 

No way will I be watching some of the games in a 48 team World Cup either, something which I never thought I would say.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1 minute ago, Dan LCFC said:

Underdog stories are so good because they are just that. There's nothing romantic about Uzbekistan getting to the last 32 of a World Cup because they came 7th in Asia and then progressed past Burkina Faso. It's just farcical organisation.

 

Asia & Africa getting more teams than South America is absolutely astonishing as well, granted South America would be a bit of a farce if 8 out of 10 were qualifying so I can see the argument in favour of merging CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.

I don't know why they don't, apart from the fact that the USA would genuinely struggle to qualify and that doesn't sit with the FIFA business model. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

Asia & Africa getting more teams than South America is absolutely astonishing as well, granted South America would be a bit of a farce if 8 out of 10 were qualifying so I can see the argument in favour of merging CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.

It's a tough one South America. I'd rather dump every single one of them in than see Burkina Faso or Qatar getting there, but obviously complicated, the Copa America is beyond doubt now the tournament with the highest quality in terms of game to game action.

 

Watch something absolutely ridiculous happen in 2026, we'll have 20 teams from Africa and Asia and someone like Argentina won't qualify.


Edited by MattP
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are currently 211 countries affiliated to FIFA. How about they all take part, do away with qualifiers & have a world cup every year. Think how much cash that would bring into FIFA coffers ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

12 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The thing with FIFA changes to the tournament format are that they seem to be happening so quickly or so fast in succession - I think the majority of us have been rather fortunate that we've been able to witness relatively few changes in the 80ies, 90ies and Noughties - so we take that for granted, I suppose.

If we had a new format for a prolonged period of time we could determine whether it's worth it or not and it's worked out fine with 32 before.

But it's safe to say FIFA would probably go ahead and alter it straightaway and open up the competition to 64 nations in the foreseeable future.

 

I guess it's because they want to push in a direction where smaller nations can participate in a World Cup and get that "feeling", too. Whether that's for the good of the sport or simply a publicity or marketing stunt remains open for debate.

Good post...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

2 hours ago, Foxes1 said:

The Panini sticker albums are going to be massive glad I don't collect them.

Good point, well made. My young lad will want one so I'd better start saving now :thumbup:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.