The next World Cup format sounds horrendous

Report in the guardian today that discussions are being had around dropping the 3 team group on account of it being a F***ing stupid idea. I'm paraphrasing.

The idea now is to have 12 groups, which will lead to an increase of 40 games to 104 games. This also has the drawback of being a F***ing stupid idea.

If they must have bad teams in who've never qualified before they should just have a couple of wildcard slots. Or get rid of some of the European teams.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Report in the guardian today that discussions are being had around dropping the 3 team group on account of it being a F***ing stupid idea. I'm paraphrasing.

The idea now is to have 12 groups, which will lead to an increase of 40 games to 104 games. This also has the drawback of being a F***ing stupid idea.

If they must have bad teams in who've never qualified before they should just have a couple of wildcard slots. Or get rid of some of the European teams.
Click to expand...
Or do a couple of prelim rounds. Have top seeded teams automatically into the group stages. Lets say 24 teams.

Have 32 teams play off for the remaining 8 spots. 2 rounds of knockout. That way the genuine contenders won't play any more games than they already do, and it still opens the competition up to more minor countries. Or alternatively have prelim groups where the group winners progress to the main competition (similar to the cricket world cup)

You could argue this is already what they do with the qualification play off games I suppose but doing them as prelim games at the host nation would make it more inclusive.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Report in the guardian today that discussions are being had around dropping the 3 team group on account of it being a F***ing stupid idea. I'm paraphrasing.

The idea now is to have 12 groups, which will lead to an increase of 40 games to 104 games. This also has the drawback of being a F***ing stupid idea.

If they must have bad teams in who've never qualified before they should just have a couple of wildcard slots. Or get rid of some of the European teams.
Click to expand...

24 extra games in the tournament, a maximum of 1 game extra for each team, is far, far preferable to groups of 3.

If you add 16 more teams, you have to have more games.
You don't have to **** with the integrity of it though.
 
You could have groups of 3 with only the winners going through. Increases the jeopardy which is fine by me.
 
BoroFur said:
In 1982 24 teams competed in 6 groups of 4, then whittled down to 4 groups of 3.
The 4 group winners then competed in the semi-finals.

It was a ridiculous format.
Click to expand...
Only time England won all 3 group games and we end up with Spain (hosts) and germany. Why couldn't we have had N Ireland and Austria

Mind you Brazil, Argentina and Italy was even more brutal

Any format that lets 2 teams start a game knowing what they have to do is just open to fixing -- see W Germany v Austria in earlier game of this world cup when last games weren't played at same time.
 
48 teams is just a terrible number.
The prelim round is the best idea but then you have teams potentially coming to the WC for just 1 game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B_G
Jedi boro said:
Plus as bbc just said as the 3 concacaf members are hosts 🇲🇽 🇨🇦 and 🇺🇸 that means three additional concacaf slots to the newly added number. So you will have 7/8 concacaf members qualifying.
Click to expand...
Christ on a bike, so you'll have USA, Mexico, Canada...probably Costa Rica and Honduras going on last decade or two's form...who else? Jamaica possibly., Trinidad and Tobago....possibly even the Bahamas, Cuba or Barbados??
 
TeaCider said:
There's not a single player in the German team born in Turkey.

There's not a single player in the England team born in Ireland

There are only two players born in Africa In the French team, Camavinga (Angola) and Mandanda (DR Congo), both benchwarmers, and both were raised in France from the age of 2.

But, despite the ignorant implications of your post, such a move would negatively impact developing nations far more.

A quarter to a third of each African nations squad at this World Cup are made up of players born in Europe, using "loose family connections and passports" to play for a country they weren't born in.
Click to expand...
I think Wales is probably the country it would shaft the most.🤔
 
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.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Report in the guardian today that discussions are being had around dropping the 3 team group on account of it being a F***ing stupid idea. I'm paraphrasing.

The idea now is to have 12 groups, which will lead to an increase of 40 games to 104 games. This also has the drawback of being a F***ing stupid idea.

If they must have bad teams in who've never qualified before they should just have a couple of wildcard slots. Or get rid of some of the European teams.
Click to expand...
It is clear to me (and someone who actually favours the expansion to a 48 team format as a Kiwi) that there has to be a pre tournament of some kind between the minnows similar to the T20 WC to whittle numbers down to 32. You just can’t have the winner having to play 8 games to win the tournament.
 
Abel Tasman said:
It is clear to me (and someone who actually favours the expansion to a 48 team format as a Kiwi) that there has to be a pre tournament of some kind between the minnows similar to the T20 WC to whittle numbers down to 32. You just can’t have the winner having to play 8 games to win the tournament.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BoroPhil said:
48 teams is just a terrible number.
The prelim round is the best idea but then you have teams potentially coming to the WC for just 1 game.
Click to expand...
There is that as a negative, but I still think it works. It gives those countries a chance to be part of the World Cup which they wouldn't get at the moment.

To be fair, they are likely going to be playing a winnable game (unless a major team messes up the qualifiers like Italy this year). It's probably better than going to a World Cup into a group of 3 where they are going to be playing two unwinnable games.
 
I'd stick with the current 32 teams.

However, I'd allocate places like this:

Host: 1
Europe: 9
South America: 4
Africa: 4
North America: 3
Asia: 3 =24 automatic places

Intercontinental playoffs:

Europe: 5
South America: 2
Africa: 3
Asia: 3
North America: 2
Oceania: 1 = 16 Teams, 2 legged head to head for the 8 remaining places. No one can be drawn against a team from the same continent.

Everyone has a chance of more places than they get now.
However, it's decided on the current strength of each federation, not past performance.
I'd argue it balances opportunity and quality.
 
As above, the current format is perfect.

32 works perfectly and realistically even in this format we see poor nations. The problem is, as fans we are looking what is the fair way to ensure the teams that qualify deserve on merit. Fifa, however, are looking at how to get more nations in so they can spread football to become the number 1 sport in nations it previously has had little relevance.

At the very least, reducing the format to 12 groups of 4 teams is better than the horrific 3 team group model. Not a fan though that some groups will see 3 teams qualify, we have seen the negative effect this has had on the Euros.

Essentially the right answer is to stick with 32 teams - if it must be about giving other continents more exposure to qualify then make the play offs a global draw rather than a continent draw. Then the best of the rest have qualified fairly - Even make a thing of it, go to the hosts, weekend of all the play offs, one match, winners are through and into the final draw.
 
Expat Smoggie said:
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.
Click to expand...
No chance, when MLS started I was a DC United season ticket holder. When they had the 'shoot out' rule, fans would walk out, or turn their back to the players, eventually the shoot out was dropped. There will be no shoot out in the group stages.
 
There's definitely not anything wrong with players choosing to represent a country that they are eligible for but I think there should be more restrictions on things like switching. I don't like that players can play for a nation and then play for another. It's kind of ok at youth level, particularly schoolboys etc because it doesn't make sense to be flying kids all over the world to play football when they can play for the team they live in. Professional age players, U21s or the 1st team should make a decision and stick to it. That includes call ups, not just getting on the pitch. Players like Laporte switched after being in the France squad, Diego Costa played for Brazil then became Spanish by residency and switched. Grealish played for Ireland's U21s before switching to England.

I presume a lot of players wait to see if they are good enough for their 1st choice and then if not they go for another they are eligible for. I've always thought you should represent the country that you feel you belong to and that feeling doesn't really change.
 
Nano said:
There's definitely not anything wrong with players choosing to represent a country that they are eligible for but I think there should be more restrictions on things like switching. I don't like that players can play for a nation and then play for another. It's kind of ok at youth level, particularly schoolboys etc because it doesn't make sense to be flying kids all over the world to play football when they can play for the team they live in. Professional age players, U21s or the 1st team should make a decision and stick to it. That includes call ups, not just getting on the pitch. Players like Laporte switched after being in the France squad, Diego Costa played for Brazil then became Spanish by residency and switched. Grealish played for Ireland's U21s before switching to England.

I presume a lot of players wait to see if they are good enough for their 1st choice and then if not they go for another they are eligible for. I've always thought you should represent the country that you feel you belong to and that feeling doesn't really change.
Click to expand...
A decision should be made at U21 level and never reversed even if it's a non-competitive match
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top