Football 16-17

[mjsell]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

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!

I'm still not hearing a solution to the 3 results being the same (plus shootout wins - if that travesty happens as well)

And yes they should have done better - but they are also not competeing on an equal footing so I don't accept that point of view.

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, mjsell said:

I'm still not hearing a solution to the 3 results being the same (plus shootout wins - if that travesty happens as well)

And yes they should have done better - but they are also not competeing on an equal footing so I don't accept that point of view.

Surely the "well they should have done better" line can also be applie to the qualification process. Didn't qualify? Well you should have done better...

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

It's fairly simple, if a side is good enough they'll qualify.

Nope. It's a consequence of the format.

If there's qualie groups, the team that will qualify is the team who does the best within that format.

If there's a knockout format, the team that will qualify is the team who does the best within that format.

It's not necessarily the case that it'll be the same team that qualifies if it were possible to run both formats alongside each other - proving it's the format that decides who qualifies no more or less than it's about who is "good enough".

Having the current groups format gives a preference to the teams who can put in the best average, rather than the team who can play the best on the day.

Your statement there is a tortology. If they're good enough FOR THE FORMAT they'll qualify via that format. The format can't be detached from who benefits by it.

Edited January 10, 2017 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

7 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

It's fairly simple, if a side is good enough they'll qualify. 

 

I disagree the current format normally results in a big team in pot 2 which often makes it very hard for the teams in that group or the smaller nation (due to seeding) who gets one in the play offs

8 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

 

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).

If it was fully elitist it could just get the best 32 teams and be full of Europe and south America. . I think there is a role for the smaller teams to develop through the experience. Take big boys shouldn't worry as most minnows will leave pretty quick.

[pink_triangle]

16 minutes ago, mjsell said:

the whole point of a world cup is to find out who the 'best' team in the world is.

 

The only real way of finding the best team in the world would be a league format and wouldn't invite anyone from Asia. I think the world cup is about more than that.

A change which would improve the world cup would be a reduced champions league. I would fully support that.

[Hugh Jass]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope. It's a consequence of the format.

If there's qualie groups, the team that will qualify is the team who does the best within that format.

If there's a knockout format, the team that will qualify is the team who does the best within that format.

It's not necessarily the case that it'll be the same team that qualifies if it were possible to run both formats alongside each other - proving it's the format that decides who qualifies no more or less than it's about who is "good enough".

Having the current groups format gives a preference to the teams who can put in the best average, rather than the team who can play the best on the day.

Your statement there is a tortology. If they're good enough FOR THE FORMAT they'll qualify via that format. The format can't be detached from who benefits by it.

So what are you proposing? A 50-team European knock out competion to determine who qualifies? Unless the draw is completely random and you end up with Germany v Spain or somesuch the bigger teams will nearly always beat the smaller teams, especially at they would almost certainly be played over two legs.

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, mjsell said:

the whole point of a world cup is to find out who the 'best' team in the world is.

But that's a consequence of the format.

Who is the better team? The winner of the league, or the winner of the cup? 

Everyone will have a preference for which format they believe shows the best team, but really it's only ever the best team within the format of that competition.

Edited January 10, 2017 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

10 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Surely the "well they should have done better" line can also be applie to the qualification process. Didn't qualify? Well you should have done better...

A tournament (much more so than a league) is influenced by luck. There is no perfect format and sometimes life's unfair. I suspect under this new format the better teams will win the trophy, just as they have done with other formats. There will be times that teams play out results (just as they can with the current format) but each format has advantages and disadvantages. The current format allows a team to win 2 games and then play reserves in game 3 which is again unfair on the teams who had to play stronger opposition.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

So what are you proposing? A 50-team European knock out competion to determine who qualifies? Unless the draw is completely random and you end up with Germany v Spain or somesuch the bigger teams will nearly always beat the smaller teams, especially at they would almost certainly be played over two legs.

I'm trying to point out that the format of a comp makes a difference to who might win that comp, that's all.

The WC used to be a knockout. Back in time, winning the FA cup was considered a bigger and better win than winning the league. The structure has evolved into what it is, but for a number of different reasons - including to favour particular teams over other teams.

I realise there'd be some practical issues with having a solely knock-out comp, but that doesn't mean that some of that idea couldn't be used to broaden who might qualify for the finals or who might progress thru those finals.

At the end of the day, it all depends on what exactly is wanted to be achieved via a comp. For the WC, is it about showcasing the best teams in the world playing each other, or is it about showcasing teams from around the world (and via that drawing in new fans from those countries)?

There is no default 'best'. It's entirely subjective.

[mjsell]

43 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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.

I missed this in the fervour but I do completely agree with you on this. The seeded playoffs are one of the most ridiculous things in football... after the away goals rule

[Hugh Jass]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm trying to point out that the format of a comp makes a difference to who might win that comp, that's all.

The WC used to be a knockout. Back in time, winning the FA cup was considered a bigger and better win than winning the league. The structure has evolved into what it is, but for a number of different reasons - including to favour particular teams over other teams.

I realise there'd be some practical issues with having a solely knock-out comp, but that doesn't mean that some of that idea couldn't be used to broaden who might qualify for the finals or who might progress thru those finals.

At the end of the day, it all depends on what exactly is wanted to be achieved via a comp. For the WC, is it about showcasing the best teams in the world playing each other, or is it about showcasing teams from around the world (and via that drawing in new fans from those countries)?

There is no default 'best'. It's entirely subjective.

FWIW I actually wouldn't be against a pure knock out World Cup at all (much as I wouldn't for the European Cup either) and haven't said I wouldn't be. It would add an extra air of excitement. If they want to keep the current group stage then knock out format then the purest number is 32 teams (and 16 for the Euros). My original point was that that adding extra teams to this format will not work.

[mjsell]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm trying to point out that the format of a comp makes a difference to who might win that comp, that's all.

The WC used to be a knockout. Back in time, winning the FA cup was considered a bigger and better win than winning the league. The structure has evolved into what it is, but for a number of different reasons - including to favour particular teams over other teams.

I realise there'd be some practical issues with having a solely knock-out comp, but that doesn't mean that some of that idea couldn't be used to broaden who might qualify for the finals or who might progress thru those finals.

At the end of the day, it all depends on what exactly is wanted to be achieved via a comp. For the WC, is it about showcasing the best teams in the world playing each other, or is it about showcasing teams from around the world (and via that drawing in new fans from those countries)?

There is no default 'best'. It's entirely subjective.

Yes I agree with your point about the format making a difference to who might win a comp. But we are discussing the change from the current format to the new format - which isnt the biggest of changes but from my point of view brings to the fore several problems that cannot justify the positives.

Can someone please tell me how they would deal with all 3 results being the same!

[big__phil]

51 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

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.

I tip my hat to you, but I can't imagine rushing home from work to catch the start of India v DR Congo. A few of these games between the lesser sides are nice, but there would be too many to hold my interest. There's only so much poor quality football I can watch if I don't have a vested interest in either side.

[Hugh Jass]

4 minutes ago, mjsell said:

.Can someone please tell me how they would deal with all 3 results being the same!

It's FIFA, you wouln't bet against them going with the rankings.

[big__phil]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

It's FIFA, you wouln't bet against them going with the rankings.

Yeah, there's usually a way. It'll go down to the number of corners or something.

[eFestivals]

Just now, mjsell said:

Can someone please tell me how they would deal with all 3 results being the same!

I presume it'll be done in the same way as it would be in the current format - which is penalties between those equal teams, i think?

I agree it seems more likely to happen if everything remains equal, but I'd say the chances of every team having the same approach to the comp as now is slim. 

For example, the general idea in the UK is that it's better to not lose the first game and that often causes it to be a draw. When a draw is less appealing because it might see you having the luck of penalties, there's a greater incentive to try to win.

And, I think, with groups of three where two go thru, the only chance of evens is if all three teams get identical results, isn't it? So actually, it's perhaps not as likely to happen as you're thinking, particularly when they'll still be all the (supposed) strongest teams but 16 new (supposedly) weaker ones.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, big__phil said:

I tip my hat to you, but I can't imagine rushing home from work to catch the start of India v DR Congo. A few of these games between the lesser sides are nice, but there would be too many to hold my interest. There's only so much poor quality football I can watch if I don't have a vested interest in either side.

Don't you normally watch England then?

I love to watch some of the unfancied teams. I always find Mexico a joy to watch, for example.

[big__phil]

Just now, eFestivals said:

Don't you normally watch England then?

I love to watch some of the unfancied teams. I always find Mexico a joy to watch, for example.

Mexico are a hell of a lot better than some of the teams that will now qualify...

[mjsell]

7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

For example, the general idea in the UK is that it's better to not lose the first game and that often causes it to be a draw. When a draw is less appealing because it might see you having the luck of penalties, there's a greater incentive to try to win.

I'm fairly confident 2 draws would see the vast majority of teams through providing the other game doesnt end in a higher scoring draw. So for the majority of teams going into this format a draw in the first game is a good result.

[mjsell]

I have just thought of another issue with the 3 team format and that is of rest periods - one team in the group will get double the rest between their two games than the other two.

[big__phil]

Just now, mjsell said:

I'm fairly confident 2 draws would see the vast majority of teams through providing the other game doesnt end in a higher scoring draw. So for the majority of teams going into this format a draw in the first game is a good result.

No, you'd need at least 4 points, and hope you outscore the team you drew with against the minnows of the group (assuming they beat them). 3 points could do it, but it seems unlikely.

(This all assumes only one team qualifies per group - is that right?)

[mjsell]

1 minute ago, big__phil said:

No, you'd need at least 4 points, and hope you outscore the team you drew with against the minnows of the group (assuming they beat them). 3 points could do it, but it seems unlikely.

(This all assumes only one team qualifies per group - is that right?)

no 2 qualify from the 3.

 

the first knockout round will be a last 32

Edited January 10, 2017 by mjsell

[big__phil]

Just now, mjsell said:

no 2 qualify from the 3

Really? Bloody hell.

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, big__phil said:

No, you'd need at least 4 points, and hope you outscore the team you drew with against the minnows of the group (assuming they beat them). 3 points could do it, but it seems unlikely.

(This all assumes only one team qualifies per group - is that right?)

Two teams per group. Making it even more pointless.

[eFestivals]

Just now, mjsell said:

I'm fairly confident 2 draws would see the vast majority of teams through providing the other game doesnt end in a higher scoring draw. So for the majority of teams going into this format a draw in the first game is a good result.

The only "the same" results which would matter (for then needing penalties to split) tho is all three teams with identical results - which I reckon is less likely to happen than now when the abilities of the teams would be wider than what there is within the current format.

I'm trying to get my head round it. I'm thinking there'll be a way of working out the probability under both formats, and i'm thinking the probability would be lower with the new format.