MolteniArcore
Well-known member
8 groups of 6 sounds good to me.
bloody hell that would be 9 games to lift the trophy and 120 group stage matches, the competition would last 2 months8 groups of 6 sounds good to me.
8 groups of 6 sounds good to me.
You would think that the best nations will get the pick of the best players. If a player is good enough, and eligible, for either they will most likely choose the one that has the most chance of winning. Importantly, as it stands, they only have to make that decision quite late in their development so they will know if they are going to have a chance of representing the senior team. If a player was forced to make a decision early then they might not wait around to find out how they will develop. Currently all the players not good enough to play for England that have gone on to play for Wales, or France and all the African nations, might have chosen those countries earlier or not at all which means they lose out on those players but there is a potential for them to gain some of the very best ones that might choose one of the lesser nations while they are younger.I don't have a problem with players representing 2 nations per se. I'm English and nothing else, but I know plenty of individuals who feel allegiance to more than one nation, and I don't fundamentally feel anyone should be forced to choose.
What I worry about is whether letting players switch would help or hinder smaller nations.
On one hand, it might mean that rising players would be more willing to represent an African or North American nation, safe in the knowledge that they could switch to a stronger nation if their game developed sufficiently. This could make smaller nations stronger. They may also pick up a few veteran players no longer good enough to play for the stronger nation.
On the other hand, their best players could be picked off in their prime by stronger nations, thus weakening them. On the whole, I tend to think it would be a bad thing for smaller nations, but I don't have a lot of evidence to actually base that on.
Yeah cheers for the sarcasm but the fact remains that FIFA want to expand the inclusion of the World’s confeds to 48 teams and I was merely trying to suggest how you do that whilst still not increasing the number of games for the realistic teams to win the tournament. Clearly it’s a terrible idea but playing groups of three won’t work. So bring these minnows over for a “World Cup tournament” to prequalify for the main tournament. And that includes NZ.That's a great idea.
To save on travelling time & cost, the teams could play their near neighbours and to make sure fatigue & injuries aren't a factor in the Finals, you spread those games over a couple of years before the World Cup, it will ensure the best 32 teams are there with well prepared squads.
Nice one.
It has already happened as in the early days of the mls as originally games were settled with what were called shoot out wins.some suggestions there wouldn't be anymore draws because "Americans don't get draws/ties". Instead there would be a penalty shoot-out before the game to determine who wins if it is a draw.
You would think that the best nations will get the pick of the best players. If a player is good enough, and eligible, for either they will most likely choose the one that has the most chance of winning. Importantly, as it stands, they only have to make that decision quite late in their development so they will know if they are going to have a chance of representing the senior team. If a player was forced to make a decision early then they might not wait around to find out how they will develop. Currently all the players not good enough to play for England that have gone on to play for Wales, or France and all the African nations, might have chosen those countries earlier or not at all which means they lose out on those players but there is a potential for them to gain some of the very best ones that might choose one of the lesser nations while they are younger.
Basically would more players bargain on being good enough for a lesser nation, only to develop into a talent good enough for the leading nation than the current system where they all go for the leading nation and only end up in the lesser nation when they find out they aren't good enough?
See my opinion on that is that it is looking at the results improving instead of those countries themselves actually improving. Are tier 1 teams now just competing with their own B teams instead of those nations? Are those players blocking genuine Samoans/Tongans from playing the game and would it encourage more Samoans/Tongans to play the game because their team is better or will it discourage them because they have more competition for a place? It's probably better for the fans of the tier 1 teams because they have more interesting games/tournaments and they'll still probably win but I know I personally would be less enthused about watching my team full of players doing us a favour instead of having pride in a group of players from my own country representing the country they are proud to be from win or lose.The reason why I'm hesitant to agree is that, since 2016, Rugby League has allowed players to represent a tier 1 nation (Oz, NZ or England) and another nation (e.g. Samoa, Tonga). I think the only restriction is you can't represent them both in a calendar year.
The feeling is that this has made the smaller nations more competitive, as evinced by Samoa dumping England out in the semis.
Now, RL is not football, and the lessons are not necessarily transferable. As I said, I'm not fundamentally against it. If I was certain it would help smaller nations in football, I'd be for it, but I wouldn't want to simply entrench the power of the big nations.
Like wales have done you mean with England youngsters .I'd be removing eligibility through grandparents, personally.
I get why they allow players to switch after friendly only caps, as it would be very easy for managers to give solitary caps to players in meaningless games just to ensure that they're locked in forever.
You can't force a player to play for a country. It is the player that makes the decision to play.I'd be removing eligibility through grandparents, personally.
I get why they allow players to switch after friendly only caps, as it would be very easy for managers to give solitary caps to players in meaningless games just to ensure that they're locked in forever.
You can't force a player to play for a country. It is the player that makes the decision to play.
I know I personally would be less enthused about watching my team full of players doing us a favour instead of having pride in a group of players from my own country representing the country they are proud to be from win or lose.
In what way I’m not sure I understand the questionA question to those who know....
If I was to decide to go to the next World Cup, WHERE WOULD I START?
What about getting tickets and booking internal travel and accommodation for a holiday that might last 2cweeks or 4 weeks.
Where ( or when) do I start???
With hindsight he would have made the England squad if he had been patient but with the majority of players the ones that do make it will choose England so teams like Ivory Coast lose out on the best players but if those players were forced to make a decision before they play for the U21s then maybe some of the better ones will choose Ivory Coast or whoever before finding out whether they will be good enough to play for England. Zaha was with the England setup for as long as he could, even playing in the 1st team. If he had to decide at 18 then Ivory Coast might have had 7 years of him playing for them instead of waiting to find out he's only there because England didn't want him at 25.I get that, but the likes of Zaha switched because they didn't see a route in to the England squad.
Not because they'd been forced to play in the first place, but because they weren't seeing a genuine route to play for their country in a competitive match.
So why not play for their other country?
Surely a player can represent 2 nations with pride.
We certainly have no problem with the idea of a player representing 2 clubs with pride.
As I say, I'm only eligible to represent England though, at the age of 45, I'm probably leaving my call up a bit late. However, I have no problem accepting that anyone able to represent 2 or more countries would feel equal pride in representing any of them without diluting it. I wouldn't say they can't without having been in their position.
So do you wait till the draw? Arnt there companys that sell packages?In what way I’m not sure I understand the question
Venues are picked but we won’t know dates times etc until around the draw