Football 16-17

[big__phil]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

Two teams per group. Making it even more pointless.

You'll get teams resting players after one game. What a joke.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes 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?)

nope - two teams per group qualify, so each team could end up with two points.

It's less likely than now tho, because there'll be a wider skills discrepancy between the teams than there is now (or at worst in just some of the groups, the same as now).

[big__phil]

Just now, eFestivals said:

nope - two teams per group qualify, so each team could end up with two points.

It's less likely than now tho, because there'll be a wider skills discrepancy between the teams than there is now (or at worst in just some of the groups, the same as now).

It will be worse than now, because they'll be more 'minnows' spread across all groups. Lots of big scores, which doesn't always make for good watching.

[mjsell]

A 3 team group system is stupid end off.

So either you do 4 teams in a group or you do straight knock out football.

And in both circumstances 32 is the right number of teams.

Forget big teams/smalls teams, from a mathmatical perspect 2,4,8,16,32,64 are the only number of teams that work. I cant see how people can justify anything else. 

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, big__phil said:

It will be worse than now, because they'll be more 'minnows' spread across all groups. Lots of big scores, which doesn't always make for good watching.

I for one cannot wait for Germany 8 Honduras 0.

[mjsell]

Just now, Scruffylovemonster said:

The rules are currently 'drawn out of a hat.'

It happened in England's group in 1990 when every single game was one all apart from England beating Egypt one nil so Ireland and the Netherlands were drawn to see who finished second and who third. I can't remember who 'won' but as the third place team were one of the four highest third place teams they went through to last sixteen as well as the format then was the same as the euros were last year. 

So in this scenario they would draw 2 teams out of a hat and the third in that group just goes home. . Well isnt that a great advert for football.

[mjsell]

7 minutes ago, Scruffylovemonster said:

No. If one team beats the other two two nil, they'll win the group. If the other two teams draw their match then they'll be joint second which is why there's talk of penalties happening after every draw cos this match could have been the first match in the group if that makes sense. 

What about if every team wins a game 2- 0. So for example: 

Team A 2-0 Team B

Team A 0-2 Team C

Team B 2-0 Team C

All teams end on the same points, goal difference, and goals scored. And there are no draws.

They would have to do penalties after every game. Which is an utter shambles.

Edited January 10, 2017 by mjsell

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, mjsell said:

A 3 team group system is stupid end off.

So either you do 4 teams in a group or you do straight knock out football.

And in both circumstances 32 is the right number of teams.

Forget big teams/smalls teams, from a mathmatical perspect 2,4,8,16,32,64 are the only number of teams that work. I cant see how people can justify anything else. 

They have had 24 team world cups which have been better than the 32 ones. In terms of 3 identical scores they could find a way, a 3 way penalty shootout would be fun!

Reducing the teams increases one unfairness which is more opportunity to play out games, but I think would reduce opportunity for teams to play reserve in the final match and therefore effectively replaces on unfairness for another. I think people get too hung up on fairness. Football tournament (current , past and future) are not science experiment and have huge potential for unfairness built in. Teams will need luck with 48 teams as they did with 16, 24 or 32.

[pink_triangle]

20 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

I for one cannot wait for Germany 8 Honduras 0.

I remember Costa Rica were the minnows in a group of 3 ex winners.

[pink_triangle]

46 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.

In the last world cup they put a lot of the smaller nations in to the 11pm slot and they were some of  the better games. Seeding would mean the minnows wouldn't play each other anyway.

29 minutes ago, big__phil said:

You'll get teams resting players after one game. What a joke.

It would depend on the draw. If a team wanted to win a group they wouldn't be able to take games easy if my maths are correct. The current format means some teams go into the last game with top spot guaranteed.

[mjsell]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I remember Costa Rica were the minnows in a group of 3 ex winners.

I remember North Korea were the minnows in there group at the 2010 world cup. They ended with 0 points, -11 goal difference, and scored 1 goal (getting beat 7-0 in the process) - for every story people like to bring up about minnows performing well theres loads that dont.

[Hugh Jass]

From the Guardian:

The proposed breakdown would comprise: Europe 16 teams (13 currently); Africa 9 (5); Asia 8.5 (4.5), South America 6 (4.5), Concacaf 6.5 (3.5), Oceania 1 (0.5), Host nation 1 (1).

8 Asian teams? Wouldn't it be easier to just say China are guaranteed a place every year?

[eFestivals]

48 minutes ago, mjsell said:

2,4,8,16,32,64 are the only number of teams that work. I cant see how people can justify anything else. 

having sat thru that Germany/Austria final group non-game many years ago (was it 1990?) I get where you're coming from with the numbers.

My general point was that I think a world cup is better if more teams from around the world get to play in the tournament finals, and with a format which isn't stacked against them to favour the 'big' teams. 

[mjsell]

Just now, Hugh Jass said:

From the Guardian:

The proposed breakdown would comprise: Europe 16 teams (13 currently); Africa 9 (5); Asia 8.5 (4.5), South America 6 (4.5), Concacaf 6.5 (3.5), Oceania 1 (0.5), Host nation 1 (1).

8 Asian teams? Wouldn't it be easier to just say China are guaranteed a place every year?

This is what I meant earlier by saying the 33-48 bracket of the world rankings wont benefit from this.

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I remember Costa Rica were the minnows in a group of 3 ex winners.

didn't they get a result against one of them?

Or am I thinking about another time when Costa Rica embarrassed a team they shouldn't have done?

[Hugh Jass]

37 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

didn't they get a result against one of them?

Or am I thinking about another time when Costa Rica embarrassed a team they shouldn't have done?

Scotland at Italia 90?

[Hugh Jass]

41 minutes ago, mjsell said:

This is what I meant earlier by saying the 33-48 bracket of the world rankings wont benefit from this.

It's almost as if they've worked out which markets they need to sell this to.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Hugh Jass

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

From the Guardian:

The proposed breakdown would comprise: Europe 16 teams (13 currently); Africa 9 (5); Asia 8.5 (4.5), South America 6 (4.5), Concacaf 6.5 (3.5), Oceania 1 (0.5), Host nation 1 (1).

8 Asian teams? Wouldn't it be easier to just say China are guaranteed a place every year?

Sounds a great balance to me. I love watching the likes of Egypt, Japan, Paraguay, Mexico. They'll be some shit teams as always but that sounds a nice balance. More European teams would be far more dull.

I'm completely in favour of more teams at the WC, my only concern about this is the 2 from 3 group stage as loads of people have already talked about.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, mjsell said:

I remember North Korea were the minnows in there group at the 2010 world cup. They ended with 0 points, -11 goal difference, and scored 1 goal (getting beat 7-0 in the process) - for every story people like to bring up about minnows performing well theres loads that dont.

Does it effect your enjoyment of a tournament having a few big scores? Is it any worse than 2 good European sides grinding out a draw. For all the talk about dilution of quality, I'm not convinced that tournament improve in terms of entertainment in the later stages when most of the smaller teams have gone home.

[pink_triangle]

12 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Sounds a great balance to me. I love watching the likes of Egypt, Japan, Paraguay, Mexico. They'll be some shit teams as always but that sounds a nice balance. More European teams would be far more dull.

I'm completely in favour of more teams at the WC, my only concern about this is the 2 from 3 group stage as loads of people have already talked about.

I agree about the balance, I really enjoy seeing these random players you have never heard of and the new stories they bring. If people don't want to watch then there's plenty of other channels. However some of the smaller teams were the more interesting to watch in the last world cup and played some good football.

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

I agree about the balance, I really enjoy seeing these random players you have never heard of and the new stories they bring. If people don't want to watch then there's plenty of other channels. However some of the smaller teams were the more interesting to watch in the last world cup and played some good football.

I love the World Cup because the matches and teams and players are so different from the rest of the time. The teams that will probably play because of the expansion are the sort of teams I love to watch at WCs, unfortunately I suspect the 2/3 groups would diminish that effect.

[pink_triangle]

6 hours ago, mjsell said:

A 3 team group system is stupid end off.

 

Forget big teams/smalls teams, from a mathmatical perspect 2,4,8,16,32,64 are the only number of teams that work. I cant see how people can justify anything else. 

I imagine it will be 64 before too long, so you will have your 4 team groups back eventually.

[kaosmark2]

5-team groups would be fine I think, 2 from 5 would work well, 3 from 5 okay. I like the current 4-team but higher numbers are okay, it's just the 3-team that seems fucked to me.

[The Nal]

Hoping for a Utd vs Liverpool pisspot final. Liverpools best ever Premier League start and 15 games unbeaten, 9 wins in a row for Utd now. 

[mjsell]

11 hours ago, kaosmark2 said:

5-team groups would be fine I think, 2 from 5 would work well, 3 from 5 okay. I like the current 4-team but higher numbers are okay, it's just the 3-team that seems fucked to me.

Problem with 5 team groups is that it would be a big struggle at keeping the tournament at the same length as it is now - with the only way being to shorten the gaps between games.