Football 16-17

[Hugh Jass]

More groups and matches will mean more stadia required to host the tournament. At present you need roughly ten 40,000+ stadia to host a World Cup. With the extra matches it'll go up to about 13/14 I'd say. You'll see a lot more co-host arrangements going forard I'd say.

Although England could still host it tomorrow if necessary:

Wembley
Olympic
Emirates (max 3 in London)
St James
Stadium of Light (2 North East)
Old Trafford
Etihad
Anfield (3 North West)
Villa Park
Walkers (2 Midlands)
Elland Road
Hillsborough (2 Yorkshire)
St Marys (South Coast)

Decent geographical spread there too.

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Iceland, Wales and Northern ireland would all have qualified under the the 16 team rule.

Yep, the three teams I mentioned qualified by right of the rules - but this time. It's rare that they do.

With a bigger pool of teams they'd qualify more often, and while they'd often be a weaker team than they were this year, that doesn't mean they'd definitely be whipping boys for the other teams.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

i'm very much of the belief that the more teams are added the further it dilutes the overall quality of the tournament. Can anyone say the Euros were better for the eight extra teams? The world cup will have 48 matches to reduce the number of teams from 48 to 32.

Is a tournament firstly about quality, or is it firstly about a showcase of football?

And while the quality would be higher with fewer teams, it doesn't necessarily follow that the excitement from watching would be.  I'd say it doesn't get much more exciting than seeing an unfancied team such as Iceland burst England's bubble.

And why shouldn't they have the chance to do that? We might always hope that England might win, but we all know that if that happened its likely to be more the result of things somehow falling in England's favour than because they're 'the best team'.

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Scotland still won't qualify.

It's OK, they get a world cup final against England .every now and then.

[big__phil]

43 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

Biggest negative I've heard is it's a lot more likely that the last group game could be played to both team's advantage as they'd already know how the third team had done in their two games. 

This is quite an important point actually. At the moment the last games in the group are played at the same time, so you don't get repeats of that dreadful game from yesteryear when both teams basically agreed to a draw so they both qualified. Could we go back to that? God, I hope not.

On a purely selfish level, I'll end up watching less of it, because of the sheer number of games on. Bit of a shame really, but there you go. More advertising time for the sponsors though, although I doubt this was considered. 

[mjsell]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

And why shouldn't they have the chance to do that?

But isnt that the point of qualifying stage, all teams do have a chance already.

Having read all of the comments on here and about the changes, I'm not actually against the expansion to more teams - but the format of 16 groups of 3 just doesnt feel like it is going to work. There are too many scenarios where the 'showcase of football' could be muddied by the format.

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, mjsell said:

But isnt that the point of qualifying stage, all teams do have a chance already.

to an extent, but it's weighted quite strongly towards the better teams, which keeps the weaker ones locked out of the main competition.

I quite like the new suggested format. It makes it more like a traditional knockout cup competition, where weaker teams might get lucky and get the glory instead of it always being won from the same small pool of 'top' teams.

Less predictable and more exciting has to be a good thing for footie on a global scale, surely?

[Hugh Jass]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

Yep, the three teams I mentioned qualified by right of the rules - but this time. It's rare that they do.

With a bigger pool of teams they'd qualify more often, and while they'd often be a weaker team than they were this year, that doesn't mean they'd definitely be whipping boys for the other teams.

 

Is a tournament firstly about quality, or is it firstly about a showcase of football?

And while the quality would be higher with fewer teams, it doesn't necessarily follow that the excitement from watching would be.  I'd say it doesn't get much more exciting than seeing an unfancied team such as Iceland burst England's bubble.

And why shouldn't they have the chance to do that? We might always hope that England might win, but we all know that if that happened its likely to be more the result of things somehow falling in England's favour than because they're 'the best team'.

 

It's OK, they get a world cup final against England .every now and then.

The very point of qualification is to ensue that the best teams get there. If they're good enough they'll qualify.

[mjsell]

11 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

to an extent, but it's weighted quite strongly towards the better teams, which keeps the weaker ones locked out of the main competition.

I quite like the new suggested format. It makes it more like a traditional knockout cup competition, where weaker teams might get lucky and get the glory instead of it always being won from the same small pool of 'top' teams.

Less predictable and more exciting has to be a good thing for footie on a global scale, surely?

I just think a 3 game group has the potential to be catastrophic. Its not beyond the possibility of all three games ending 0-0 with each team winning a post game shootout(!), and then what happens? 

Or the final game of the group has both teams only needing a goaless draw to progress ahead of the team that has played their games already.

the potential for these scenarios happening far outweighs the possible positives that could come from the same format - even if the positives occur more frequently

Edited January 10, 2017 by mjsell

[ThomThomDrum]

16 groups of 3 with each team only getting 2 games sounds dodgy 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

The very point of qualification is to ensue that the best teams get there. If they're good enough they'll qualify.

But perhaps the point shouldn't be ensuring it's just about the same teams every time?

It of course suits the fans of those countries for it to be like that, but there's another 100+ teams who never get a look-in because the qualies structure is stacked against them, and if they do manage to qualify the finals structure is then also stacked against them. 

I'd much prefer a structure that gives the likes of Iceland a better chance to embarrass a 'big' team.

[The Nal]

6 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

16 groups of 3 with each team only getting 2 games sounds dodgy 

Yeah huge pressure on the refs. One bad decision could knock a team out. 

Last couple of World Cups have been fairly shit though apart from the Uruguay/Holland semi in 2010 and Brazil getting hockeyed in the last one so due a shake up. 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, mjsell said:

I just think a 3 game group has the potential to be catastrophic. Its not beyond the possibility of all three games ending 0-0 with each team winning a post game shootout(!), and then what happens? 

Or the final game of the group has both teams only needing a goaless draw to progress ahead of the team that has played their games already.

the potential for these scenarios happening far outweighs the possible positives that could come from the same format - even if the positives occur more frequently

The drawing part after the three games is a worry, as is the last games not being played simultaneously, but with those put to the side I much prefer a format that has a bigger chance of upsets (a small team going thru at the expense of a biggie). 

 

[Hugh Jass]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

But perhaps the point shouldn't be ensuring it's just about the same teams every time?

It of course suits the fans of those countries for it to be like that, but there's another 100+ teams who never get a look-in because the qualies structure is stacked against them, and if they do manage to qualify the finals structure is then also stacked against them.

I'd much prefer a structure that gives the likes of Iceland a better chance to embarrass a 'big' team.

It's not the same teams every time though is it? Just ask the Dutch, every tournament has it's share of first timers and sides who haven't qualified in decades. Of course the big teams ar going to be there every there every time, that's simply because they're better than most. You still get the odd blip - McLaren's England, the Dutch recently, but it's the likes of Brazil, Germany and even to an extent England that are the big global draws at a World Cup. 50% of qualifiers never change but the other 50% are constantly rotating.

Just had a look at the FIFA World rankings, the teams currently 33-48 who in theory would benefit from this (not precise I know but it's only a guide) is a who's who of teams who qualify fairly regularly for tournaments but offer absolutely nothing when they get there - Tunisia, Egypt, Czech Republic, Algeria, Romania, Paraguay, Serbia... are any of these teams really going to make the World Cup better?

Edited January 10, 2017 by Hugh Jass

[eFestivals]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

It's not the same teams every time though is it?

pretty much it is. 

There's a bit of variance cos England don't always qualify, but mostly it's the same teams.

[mjsell]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The drawing part after the three games is a worry, as is the last games not being played simultaneously, but with those put to the side I much prefer a format that has a bigger chance of upsets (a small team going thru at the expense of a biggie). 

 

What? You can't just 'put aside' those things, forget about them and only talk about the positives of the change. I'm all for giving smaller teams a chance/ having more chance of upsets (I've been banging on about this in regards to the FA Cup) but you cant just use that as the reason for accepting a ridiculous system that has the chance to destroy the remaining reputation of the biggest tournament in international football

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Hugh Jass said:

Tunisia, Egypt, Czech Republic, Algeria, Romania, Paraguay, Serbia... are any of these teams really going to make the World Cup better?

Try it another way. Greece won the Euros not so long ago, and they'd probably make a list like yours.

And if England get out of the groups, they've often been turned over by a team that shouldn't have beaten them in the groups. Why should that win count for nowt, and England go thru because the structure suits their frailties while the win for that team counts for naff all because of the structure?

It's easy to go with the cultural imperialism of "we should be go thru and not that 'weak' team because they don't make the tournament better", and yet the point of any match is to win it - and then a win can count for nothing.

The current structure simply helps to maintain the dominance of the same teams and works against the growth of the game.

[Hugh Jass]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

pretty much it is.

There's a bit of variance cos England don't always qualify, but mostly it's the same teams.

There have been 11 first time nations across the last thre world cups. That's before you get to the teams who qualify sporadically.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, mjsell said:

What? You can't just 'put aside' those things, forget about them and only talk about the positives of the change. I'm all for giving smaller teams a chance/ having more chance of upsets (I've been banging on about this in regards to the FA Cup) but you cant just use that as the reason for accepting a ridiculous system that has the chance to destroy the remaining reputation of the biggest tournament in international football

I'd be happy to go with a normal knockout structure to avoid the issues you've raised.

I reckon that'd be worth it - but the vested interests wouldn't have it, cos some like to believe they have a right to be there, and demand things are structured to just about ensure them that 'right'.

 

[mjsell]

15 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Just had a look at the FIFA World rankings, the teams currently 33-48 who in theory would benefit from this (not precise I know but it's only a guide) is a who's who of teams who qualify fairly regularly for tournaments but offer absolutely nothing when they get there - Tunisia, Egypt, Czech Republic, Algeria, Romania, Paraguay, Serbia... are any of these teams really going to make the World Cup better?

Also, the interesting thing with these teams are that I believe the majority have actually played at World Cups in the last 20 years, and I think technically Serbia as a nation are the only ones that havent played in a world cup before (however they did as Serbia & Montenegro).

England having played Algeria, Tunisia, Romania and Paraguay in World Cups since 1998.

 

Due to the way the qualifying structure will be updated, I'm willing to bet that this expansion wont actually benefit a lot of the teams that make up that 33-48 world rankings bracket

Edited January 10, 2017 by mjsell

[pink_triangle]

43 minutes ago, mjsell said:

But isnt that the point of qualifying stage, all teams do have a chance already.

 

Well I would be all for keeping it the same and having a random qualification to give everyone the same chance. The current system protects the big boys firstly by seeding for the groups and more disgracefully seeding again for the play offs.

1 hour ago, big__phil said:

This is quite an important point actually. At the moment the last games in the group are played at the same time, so you don't get repeats of that dreadful game from yesteryear when both teams basically agreed to a draw so they both qualified. Could we go back to that? God, I hope not.

On a purely selfish level, I'll end up watching less of it, because of the sheer number of games on. Bit of a shame really, but there you go. More advertising time for the sponsors though, although I doubt this was considered. 

I'm the opposite, I will watch more should the schedule allow. I love watching world cup groups and seeing the smaller nations. There are plenty of opportunities to see the best from England, France, Spain etc.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

There have been 11 first time nations across the last thre world cups. That's before you get to the teams who qualify sporadically.

some of that is down to changes in the structure, to give non-European/non-south American teams a better shot. 

Most of the complaints being made here for the new structure would also apply to those changes, too.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, mjsell said:

Also, the interesting thing with these teams are that I believe the majority have actually played at World Cups in the last 20 years, and I think technically Serbia as a nation are the only ones that havent played in a world cup before (however they did as Serbia & Montenegro).

England having played Algeria, Tunisia, Romania and Paraguay in World Cups since 1998.

and Egypt in 1990, too ... a game i remember well, as i listened to it on a radio in my tent at Glasto (and came out of the tent after the match to find 20 people had been listening outside ).

Egypt gave us a decent match, as did Romania (I can't remember the others). There's no reason why England should be favoured by the structure and those not.

[Hugh Jass]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Try it another way. Greece won the Euros not so long ago, and they'd probably make a list like yours.

And if England get out of the groups, they've often been turned over by a team that shouldn't have beaten them in the groups. Why should that win count for nowt, and England go thru because the structure suits their frailties while the win for that team counts for naff all because of the structure?

It's easy to go with the cultural imperialism of "we should be go thru and not that 'weak' team because they don't make the tournament better", and yet the point of any match is to win it - and then a win can count for nothing.

The current structure simply helps to maintain the dominance of the same teams and works against the growth of the game.

It's fairly simple, if a side is good enough they'll qualify. Just as Wales, Northern Ireland and Iceland managed. I don't believe we have a divine right to be there at all. England are routinely good enough to qualify for tournaments (and qualify with ease usually) but aren't good enough, either mentally or in terms of ability, to accomplish anything at an actual tournament. That's nothing to do with structures being in their favour or "attitudes of imperialism".

The World Cup should be elitist. It should be about bringing the very best teams from each continent together to play each other. We have a two year qualification system to identify the best teams in each continent (I agree that seeding for Play-offs is bullshit though).

Edited January 10, 2017 by Hugh Jass

[mjsell]

Just now, eFestivals said:

and Egypt in 1990, too ... a game i remember well, as i listened to it on a radio in my tent at Glasto (and came out of the tent after the match to find 20 people had been listening outside ).

Egypt gave us a decent match, as did Romania (I can't remember the others). There's no reason why England should be favoured by the structure and those not.

What do you mean!!? clearly the current structure allows those teams to qualify if they do well enough! the whole point of a world cup is to find out who the 'best' team in the world is.

The lower teams such as these mentioned have the ability to make the tournament and have there moment but dont make it all the time because they arent consistent enough over a longer period of time like the so called bigger nations.

[pink_triangle]

31 minutes ago, mjsell said:

I just think a 3 game group has the potential to be catastrophic. Its not beyond the possibility of all three games ending 0-0 with each team winning a post game shootout(!), and then what happens? 

Or the final game of the group has both teams only needing a goaless draw to progress ahead of the team that has played their games already.

the potential for these scenarios happening far outweighs the possible positives that could come from the same format - even if the positives occur more frequently

I think catastrophic is stretching it! It's a game of football, the clubs will be whittled down until one remain. The best team may not win, just like they don't in the current format. If a nation faces elimination by two teams playing out a draw, then they should have done better first game!

 

26 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Yeah huge pressure on the refs. One bad decision could knock a team out. 

Last couple of World Cups have been fairly shit though apart from the Uruguay/Holland semi in 2010 and Brazil getting hockeyed in the last one so due a shake up. 

One bad decision can knock teams out in the current format, or any other format they choose. I actually though Brazil was overall a good world cup. Very enjoyable groups but regressed as the tournament went on.

 

18 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

It's not the same teams every time though is it? Just ask the Dutch, every tournament has it's share of first timers and sides who haven't qualified in decades. Of course the big teams ar going to be there every there every time, that's simply because they're better than most. You still get the odd blip - McLaren's England, the Dutch recently, but it's the likes of Brazil, Germany and even to an extent England that are the big global draws at a World Cup. 50% of qualifiers never change but the other 50% are constantly rotating.

Just had a look at the FIFA World rankings, the teams currently 33-48 who in theory would benefit from this (not precise I know but it's only a guide) is a who's who of teams who qualify fairly regularly for tournaments but offer absolutely nothing when they get there - Tunisia, Egypt, Czech Republic, Algeria, Romania, Paraguay, Serbia... are any of these teams really going to make the World Cup better?

I think the last euros were better for having the likes of Wales and Iceland. I think the last world cup was better for having the likes of Algeria and Costa Rica. Interestingly (as in Brazil) the tournament starts to get boring when only the big boys are left.

Out of interest do you think you would feel differently if you didn't support a nation who (almost) always qualified?

16 minutes ago, mjsell said:

s the reason for accepting a ridiculous system that has the chance to destroy the remaining reputation of the biggest tournament in international football

People have said the same when the tournament has expanded in the past and life goes on. There will/have been good and poor tournaments with all formats. 

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

Out of interest do you think you would feel differently if you didn't support a nation who (almost) always qualified?

 

I support a nation who has only won one World Cup match since 2006. I have absolutely zero sense of entitlement here.