Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
48 Team World Cup
#1
FIFA has approved a new format.  

I'm unclear on how this will work, but it looks like 16 groups of three teams.  Then a 32 team knock out.  I'm unclear as to whether the top team from each group auto qualifies then the lower two teams get into an initial 32 team knock out, then the winners of those play the group winners (who would have a bye essentially).  

Anyway..it seems to give these borderline countries, like Uzbekistan, New Zealand and England, a real chance at properly experiencing a world cup.  The thought is it will expand the game so that more countries get to experience the big stage.  An admirable mandate, but likely a dilution of the quality of play, which was already in decline IMO.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
Groups of 3.. So only two games to decide if you advance? And top 2 of each group of 3 advances to knockout. Not too crazy about that. I sort of like the idea of giving more countries exposure, and I suppose the 32 team knockout round will resemble the field from past tournaments once the riff raff is given their walking papers
Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
Well look what expanding the Euro format did. Iceland anyone? N.Ireland? Wales? It was countries that don't normally participate that made for some of the most compelling storylines and matches. I don't see why it can't be the same for the WC.
damn it! See, this is what discount semen'll get ya!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
I think those 3 teams would have qualified for the Euro under the old format though.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
When I think about the requirements to host a World Cup, I always remember all the complaining and whining about teams getting good hotel and training facilities which are also close to where they will play the games.
Now you have to find 48 facilities in one country (usually one) to do that.

Not the most important consideration.

I say a "hard no!" to this idea. Too many shit teams in this tournament which will now drag out even longer.
Jesus Christ is flawed
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
(2017-01-10, 01:51 PM)miltonred Wrote: When I think about the requirements to host a World Cup, I always remember all the complaining and whining about teams getting flood hotel and training facilities which are also close to where they will play the games.
Now you have to find 48 facilities in one country (usually one) to do that.

Not the most important consideration.

I say a hard no! t this idea. Too many shit teams in this tournament which will now drag out even longer.
100% with you on that Milt. More cannon fodder. More meaningless games between mediocre countries. 
The last WC was mostly a yawn fest and adding a bunch of third raters will change that to a snooze fest. 
FIFA out prostituting itself again.
Reply
Thanks given by: Gooner
#7
I've said this for the past ten or so years: International football is not even close to the top example of the sport. I'd rank Champions League, Domestic leagues in England, Italy, Spain, France and Germany all being of higher quality. Then you can get into the weeds of Europa, and then UEFA and CONMEBOL internationals....but holy shit, matches like Japan v Greece and Iran v Nigeria are just wastes of time.

I think a lot of this can be put down to the fact tournaments lend themselves to shitty games. I also think that perhaps people in Japan, Greece, Iran and Nigeria were really excited about those games. So, really, who gives a shit? It can't be Barcelona 2009 v Barcelona 2010 all the time.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
To be fair, everyone in the office gets a massive hard on for the World Cup and Euros every two years. People who don't know a thing about football are very interested for four weeks in summer. If its like that here in Canada, imagine millions, even billions of people around the world do the same thing.

In truth they don't know the difference between a high level of football and a low level.

The older I get, by the way, the fewer games I think are high quality. For example I haven't seen a single CL game this year I got excited about. I imagine it will be the semis before it gets really interesting.
Jesus Christ is flawed
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
(2017-01-10, 09:52 AM)RyeRocks Wrote: Groups of 3..  So only two games to decide if you advance?  And top 2 of each group of 3 advances to knockout.  Not too crazy about that.  I sort of like the idea of giving more countries exposure, and I suppose the 32 team knockout round will resemble the field from past tournaments once the riff raff is given their walking papers

They way I interpret it is theres two games for each team in the group.  The top teams from the 16 groups go through and get a bye while the bottom two teams get seeded 1 and 2 and put into a 32 team one off knockout round.  The remaining 16 teams get second seeds to play the top 16.  This makes all the games meaningful.  But I could be wrong here...

(2017-01-11, 08:22 PM)miltonred Wrote: To be fair, everyone in the office gets a massive hard on for the World Cup and Euros every two years. People who don't know a thing about football are very interested for four weeks in summer. If its like that here in Canada, imagine millions, even billions of people around the world do the same thing.

In truth they don't know the difference between a high level of football and a low level.

The older I get, by the way, the fewer games I think are high quality. For example I haven't seen a single CL game this year I got excited about. I imagine it will be the semis before it gets really interesting.

I agree with all of this tbh.  The CL has always been kind of shit until the knockouts.  But...the group CL games vs the group WC games are night and day.  There's goals, and tactical play for the most part.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
Sounds like the US, Canada and Mexico are working on a joint Big to host the 2026 World Cup which would have the 48 team format.

Of course, the US would be the main host with the most games and the final.

The bid, if made, should have a strong chance with Europe and Asia excluded with Russia and Qatar hosting in 2018 and 2022.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
It's not about the quality of the game, it's about the quantity of cash.
Courage, my word, it didn't come, it doesn't matter.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
(2017-01-15, 02:26 AM)Arsenal Wrote: It's not about the quality of the game, it's about the quantity of cash.

I'll even give you an Amen for those true words .... being it's Sunday and you're on your way to work  Grin

Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
Oh, and sign me up in the same category as seeing this as nothing but a contrived effort of greed and prostitution from the governing body.  Like Milt's suggestion of office people, this format can only be geared towards them - who are 10x worse than post season hockey fans.  

It also detracts from potential fans becoming interested in football.  They see two countries with no real quality having a go, and struggle to comprehend what all the fuss is about?  Spraying WC cologne on shite, doesn't change the fact that it's still shite .... so the remedy to the situation is to break out the bigger bottle?

Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
I read somewhere that FIFA did computer simulations and admited that the outcome was that the quality of football would suffer, but that they still think this is a good idea....
So what they really said is.... we want more money.
Isn't there enough bullshit qualifying and friendlies played?
Jurgen Klopp is correct when he says that they players aren't horses... Time to play less games, not more!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#15
I'm sure the decision is primarily financial based and that's a shame because the quality of the football will obviously suffer. I don't suspect this will take away any viewership ratings as the casual football fans who only tune in to watch the major international tournaments won't be effected by this
"Larry Bird isn't white, he's clear" - Bill Murray
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)