Head Honcho Posted 12 October 2005 Share Posted 12 October 2005 Should FIFA make the World Cup Finals bigger? Increase the number of teams who qualify for the finals, there are far too many good European teams missing out due to the fact that FIFA insist that all continents(except Oceania) have to be represented in the Finals. Why is it possible for 50% the South American teams to qualify but at most only 35% of European teams. I'm not saying don't let the less talented footballing countries go to the finals just increase the number of good ones who aren't going What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kyle lcfc Posted 12 October 2005 Share Posted 12 October 2005 You might aswell let every team compete at the world cup finals then. The so called big teams know what they have to do to qualify so if they don't do that there not good enough to be in the world cup finals. If England were knocked out in the group stages in Germany would you be saying we should go through no. Because we wouldn't be good enough so we'd go out the tournament. This is the joy of watching football the so called big teams don't always advance ahead of smaller teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Honcho Posted 12 October 2005 Author Share Posted 12 October 2005 I know that and agree with you, but Europe has a bigger percentage of above average teams then any other continent and some of these teams lose out on qualification because FIFA insists on these lesser teams from around the globe competing. Surely the Competiton isn't enhanced by having teams ranked 50-100 competing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knightonian Posted 12 October 2005 Share Posted 12 October 2005 I've thought about this too. My proposal is to have 40 teams rather than 32. That way you could have a couple extra from Europe, and given areas like Oceanana (sp) at least one team, rather then half a place (as it is currently). It does seem a little silly that some of the best teams in Europe can't qualify, yet Brazil and Argentina are almost guarentied a place, considering 4.5 teams qualify from one group in South America. The .5 team playing the .5 team from Oceanana in a play off. With 40 teams there could be 8 first round groups of 5 teams rather than of 4. It wouldn't affect the later stages of the tournament, would only add one match extra to each team, would make the competition last a little longer, and would enable a few more teams to enter. Just an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomassi Posted 13 October 2005 Share Posted 13 October 2005 Dont fix what isn't broken if we let the floodgates open and allow timbuktu and bob to enter then the standards will just drop keep it as it is i say plus the competition lasts nearly a month! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anish Posted 13 October 2005 Share Posted 13 October 2005 I've thought about this too. My proposal is to have 40 teams rather than 32. That way you could have a couple extra from Europe, and given areas like Oceanana (sp) at least one team, rather then half a place (as it is currently). It does seem a little silly that some of the best teams in Europe can't qualify, yet Brazil and Argentina are almost guarentied a place, considering 4.5 teams qualify from one group in South America. The .5 team playing the .5 team from Oceanana in a play off. With 40 teams there could be 8 first round groups of 5 teams rather than of 4. It wouldn't affect the later stages of the tournament, would only add one match extra to each team, would make the competition last a little longer, and would enable a few more teams to enter. Just an idea. Top post. Tom, I think Allen has a point. There are some poor teams who have qualified for the WC at the expense of some quality European teams that have missed out. Just look at the following list: Angola Costa Rica Ecuador Ghana Iran Ivory Coast Saudi Arabia Togo Tunisia That's 9 teams in my opinion that are just going to make up the numbers. At best they will get to the second round and that'll still be a fluke. And the European teams that have missed out include: Denmark, Greece, Romania, Republic of Ireland and Russia. Others who have to play off include Czech Republic, Spain, Norway and Turkey. In my opinion all those European teams are stronger than the teams that have qualified. I know if there was more European teams it would become less of a 'world' tournament and more weight being given to Europe, but in terms of a spectacle it would be more interesting. The games would be much closer and the competition as a whole would be much more competitive and unpredictable. The standard of football in Africa and some of the South American countries also needs to improve. Not an easy target admittedly and it won't help them at all if they have fewer teams in the World Cup, but the competition would benefit as a whole. It's just that as a commercial event it could be a poison that could tarnish its image as a global spectacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobbo Posted 13 October 2005 Share Posted 13 October 2005 It was only 24 teams not so long ago, so they have let more in recently (since France 98) I think 32 is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitesh Posted 13 October 2005 Share Posted 13 October 2005 Leave it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted 14 October 2005 Share Posted 14 October 2005 ...about adding more European teams--you'll get 16... in 2008, for the European Championships All in all, I think the distribution of teams is fine, except: 1) Based upon past World Cup performances, Africa should not get five teams. They should have gotten 4.5 with the extra playoff spot given to South America to round them out with five full spots. "The standard of football in... some South American countries" is a bit better than you think. That being said, however, it'll be interesting to see how all these newcomers do, and if this World Cup is true to form, one of them will be a big surprise. 2) Based upon past World Cup performances, Asia doesn't deserve five teams, which is a bit of a shame considering that the world's most populous continent should have a large representative showing. In 2002, S. Korea was excellent, but Japan advanced in the worst group of the tournament and were promptly dispatched in the second round... and we all know about how terribly China and Saudi Arabia performed. I won't have to worry about Asia getting five teams, however, because Trinidad and Tobago will beat Bahrain in the playoff Four teams in CONCACAF seems like a lot, even to me. But in sum, the United States and Mexico are both better than the top two teams in Asia or Africa. The teams on the next level (Costa Rica, T&T, Guatemala) are better than the second-tier teams in Africa or Asia (C.R. did beat China in WC 2002). The third-tier teams (Honduras, Panama, Jamaica) are all easily better than their counterparts in Africa or Asia. CONCACAF teams (well, all of the Western hemisphere for that matter save Brazil) have, historically, failed in European-hosted World Cups. However, two of CONCACAF's three representatives qualified for the second round in 2002, easily the best percentage among all continental federations (and Costa Rica finished with four points and missed out on the second round due to goal differential!) My point? Well, I guess I don't really have one. Just saying that we can play some ball around these parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Honcho Posted 14 October 2005 Author Share Posted 14 October 2005 Dont fix what isn't broken if we let the floodgates open and allow timbuktu and bob to enter then the standards will just drop keep it as it is i say plus the competition lasts nearly a month! The competition doesn't have to last any longer all you need are a couple of extra Stadiums in the host country. If you want a true World Cup, stick all teams competing in a pot, and have 32-36 World qualification groups. Winner of each group to qualify. I know at first it will be a logistical nightmare, but in this day and age it would soon be overcome. Many players in this country have to travel halfway round the world anyway(socceroos as an example). The tournament has become to diluted for my liking. Wait until the draw is made you'll see! The top two seeds will have a much easier passage through the group stage, this is surely not good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 14 October 2005 Share Posted 14 October 2005 I've thought about this too. My proposal is to have 40 teams rather than 32. That way you could have a couple extra from Europe, and given areas like Oceanana (sp) at least one team, rather then half a place (as it is currently). It does seem a little silly that some of the best teams in Europe can't qualify, yet Brazil and Argentina are almost guarentied a place, considering 4.5 teams qualify from one group in South America. The .5 team playing the .5 team from Oceanana in a play off. With 40 teams there could be 8 first round groups of 5 teams rather than of 4. It wouldn't affect the later stages of the tournament, would only add one match extra to each team, would make the competition last a little longer, and would enable a few more teams to enter. Just an idea. Spot on, I agree. I think these tournaments have been piss poor in recent years and something needs to change to spice it up again. Perhaps England winning it would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head Honcho Posted 14 October 2005 Author Share Posted 14 October 2005 Spot on, I agree. I think these tournaments have been piss poor in recent years and something needs to change to spice it up again. Perhaps England winning it would be nice. :laugh: I don't know whether to laugh or cry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 14 October 2005 Share Posted 14 October 2005 Its a world cup have every team in the world in it, with no seedings and make it last 6 months - straight knock-out, my moneys on San Marino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomassi Posted 14 October 2005 Share Posted 14 October 2005 i think the last two world cups have been the most exciting ever (well maybe italia 90 aswel) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cisono Posted 14 October 2005 Share Posted 14 October 2005 i think the last two world cups have been the most exciting ever (well maybe italia 90 aswel) Didn't think you were around then!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.