Knockout Stages - Round of 32

[cruzFOX]

Cape Verde got better and better the longer it went. Their passes were short and long but accurate, incisive and players connected and advanced rapidly there was stalling. Argies were really stretched and it was telling they were tiring. I’m bummed it didn’t go to penalties as Cape Verde earned it. What an incredible goal too that tied it. Messi was really really worried for 45 min.

[PhillippaT]

6 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

This is all well and good but doesn't address the point of this tournament being bloated whatsoever. There was no high wire element to any of the group stage because ultimately most sides were aware they could drop points and go through – if you give every side a safety net in the group stage then it becomes a pretty jeopardy-less affair.

 

I would also argue about FIFA's intentions when it comes to make the tournament larger. I highly doubt it's driven by a strong desire to be more inclusive or break any elitist glass ceiling – I don't even think they try to hide their desperate cash grabs any more.

It's possible for multiple things to be true...  That 32 teams isn't enough for the state of World football right now, yet 48 teams isn't perfect can both be true.  An increase to more than 32 can be explained by footballing reasons without any issues - it's the planned increase to 64 that's the real cash grab, even if it has 'tournament' reasons to do so (because of the issues a non ^2 amount has).

 

Having said all that, as a matter of ENTERTAINMENT, I think the 48 team format has proven it's worth over the 32, and that's precisely because the standard of football HAS increased in general, like FIFA want, regardless of perceived 'jeopardy'.  There were still 16 teams that didn't make it to the round of 32 - 1/3 of all teams that entered, so the only reason for complaint is that a lot of these 16 teams weren't quite up to it - but there were still some upsets!  I don't think people realise how bad MOST group stages have really been in previous World Cups!  I also think this additional round of 32 has proven itself worthy, which is what REALLY matters.

 

At the end of the day, most of this griping sounds like people complaining that there's too much football, which merely tells me they CANNOT be true FOOTBALL fans.  (One extra game for players/teams shouldn't be that much of an issue for them, so...)

Edited 4 July by PhillippaT

[Dan]

Cape Verde won their qualifying group. They would've qualified for a 32 team most likely.

[Danizen]

7 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Just catching up on the Argie highlights, let's apply the England Foxestalk principles to this shall we!

 

- Cape Verde deserved to win because their players are worse

- Argentina will lose the second they play a "good team"

- Argentinian fans and players should be embarrassed celebrating their goals and the win because Cape Verde are bad.

 

Anything I've missed?

I was going to add really go in on the black players but Argentina don't have any.

[Number 6]

Saw a stat that Mr Ayew ended the tournament with 0 shots, apparently the only starting striker to do so.

[Blueman1967]

Oliver is giving cards out like it's Christmas.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

7 hours ago, PhillippaT said:

It's possible for multiple things to be true...  That 32 teams isn't enough for the state of World football right now, yet 48 teams isn't perfect can both be true.  An increase to more than 32 can be explained by footballing reasons without any issues - it's the planned increase to 64 that's the real cash grab, even if it has 'tournament' reasons to do so (because of the issues a non ^2 amount has).

 

Having said all that, as a matter of ENTERTAINMENT, I think the 48 team format has proven it's worth over the 32, and that's precisely because the standard of football HAS increased in general, like FIFA want, regardless of perceived 'jeopardy'.  There were still 16 teams that didn't make it to the round of 32 - 1/3 of all teams that entered, so the only reason for complaint is that a lot of these 16 teams weren't quite up to it - but there were still some upsets!  I don't think people realise how bad MOST group stages have really been in previous World Cups!  I also think this additional round of 32 has proven itself worthy, which is what REALLY matters.

 

At the end of the day, most of this griping sounds like people complaining that there's too much football, which merely tells me they CANNOT be true FOOTBALL fans.  (One extra game for players/teams shouldn't be that much of an issue for them, so...)

 

I disagree

[21st Century Fox]

How have the Yanks hijacked this for their anniversary?!

[21st Century Fox]

[PhillippaT]

46 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

I disagree

Then you're not a football fan, and will be in a minority now, given the quality of the matches in R32.   Football wise I think this is giving FIFA everything they could have asked for.

 

EDIT: Bearing in mind that this is now after one of the best World Cup matches ever between Cape Verde and Argentina, which wouldn't exist at this time in any other previous format.  That match alone has proven this format for this World Cup.

Edited 4 July by PhillippaT

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

15 minutes ago, PhillippaT said:

Then you're not a football fan, and will be in a minority now, given the quality of the matches in R32.   Football wise I think this is giving FIFA everything they could have asked for.

 

I'll reply properly tomorrow but you're incorrect

[when_you're_smiling]

Think it’s a bit irrelevant debating a 48 team World Cup as we all know it’ll be a 64 one next time around.

[PhillippaT]

9 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

Think it’s a bit irrelevant debating a 48 team World Cup as we all know it’ll be a 64 one next time around.

As I've said, that one is obviously the greed talking, even if it would make the format simpler.  This one, however, nowhere near as much as some seem to think/want/seemingly need it to be.  It should be obvious to everyone now that >32 teams are good enough, and FIFA chose 48 for a reason.  Denying that there are more than 32 decent teams to make it worthwhile expanding the tournament is where people run into failing to understand what FIFA wants the World Cup to be - (for both football/sporting and entertainment reasons).

 

(EDIT: Of course, the BIGGEST issue is that people have their own subjective opinions of what THEY want the World Cup to be, even if it's deliberately NOT what FIFA wants.)

Edited 4 July by PhillippaT

[when_you're_smiling]

4 minutes ago, PhillippaT said:

As I've said, that one is obviously the greed talking, even if it would make the format simpler.  This one, however, nowhere near as much as some seem to think/want/seemingly need it to be.  It should be obvious to everyone now that >32 teams are good enough, and FIFA chose 48 for a reason.  Denying that there are more than 32 decent teams to make it worthwhile expanding the tournament is where people run into failing to understand what FIFA wants the World Cup to be - (for both football/sporting and entertainment reasons).

They want to get as much money as possible and as an added bonus, more teams in the tournament means more votes for Infantino.

[PhillippaT]

56 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

They want to get as much money as possible and as an added bonus, more teams in the tournament means more votes for Infantino.

Yep.  It's fair to say there were probably 8 teams at this World Cup that weren't really up to it, yet.  If people think that's bad, then 64... Yeesh.  Maybe they think not enough 9-0's are breaking with tradition?  

EDIT: I thought France were supposed to be good /s 

 

That's gotta be a pen, right?

Edited 4 July by PhillippaT