Sheffield Forum

48 team WC is ridiculous

Home > General > General Sports Chat

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
04-10-2016, 19:54   #1
MAC33
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: perth aust
Total Posts: 945
After watching weaker teams defend their own half if not penalty box at the recent Euro Championship this idea to increase the WC to 40 then 48 teams is only going to make it more of a bore fest.

This guy needs to be put in his place. No one wants this!


https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/inf...201517492.html
  Reply With Quote
11-10-2016, 18:28   #2
SiSiSi
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2009
Total Posts: 2,675
Agreed. Imagine if the Faroe Islands were to qualify because it was made easier for them to do so, and we lost to them!

Altogether possible.
_______
There's one born every minute.

Last edited by SiSiSi; 11-10-2016 at 18:37.
  Reply With Quote
11-10-2016, 20:32   #3
ukdobby
Registered User
ukdobby's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Rojales
Total Posts: 9,423
Status: Online
With what I've just seen for 45 mins it's the only way England will qualify.
  Reply With Quote
10-01-2017, 14:25   #4
solero
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Total Posts: 154
what's silly about it is that it for the good teams, especially European ones, who of course don't include England, is that it will make it even easier for them to qualify than it is now. And it's too easy now as it is. There is no incentive for a team to qualify from their group in 1st position. They can come 3rd. It doesn't matter. Germany could field their youth team in the qualifiers, come 3rd and they'd still be seeded as one of the favourites.

the most thing wrong with it is that the way they are planning it in the finals is that the qualifying groups are groups of only 3, which is garbage.

having it over 5 weeks instead of four isn't so bad and in fact that's the only thing that's good about it. Some people have been trying to make out that it will be more tiring for the players, but it won't be, as the champions and the finalists still only play seven games, except over 5 weeks instead of 4.
  Reply With Quote
10-01-2017, 15:09   #5
tinfoilhat
Registered User
tinfoilhat's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2011
Total Posts: 12,824
Status: Online
International football is dead. To be fare it was well on its way before today but it's dead now.

How many rip roaring matches have you seen in the past four major tournaments?
_______
We get the world we deserve.
  Reply With Quote
10-01-2017, 15:24   #6
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 4,913
Status: Online
Good move this,allows more teams and players to show up on the world stage,and eliminates a lot of meaningless games in the current overblown first stage,teams will need to play to win from the start and hit the ground running,or risk going out,which will make for more interesting games,and the chance for an upset if one of the lesser teams happens to win either of their games,which will give them a better chance of going through to the knockout stage.
  Reply With Quote
10-01-2017, 18:53   #7
melthebell
*gets coat*
melthebell's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Near whitby, originally from Sheffield
Total Posts: 53,320
Status: Online
Send a message via MSN to melthebell Send a message via Yahoo to melthebell
fifa get more money
_______
Does your wife know what your up to mel when your in your own little world?
  Reply With Quote
10-01-2017, 19:41   #8
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 4,913
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by melthebell View Post
fifa get more money

Exactly,if it's good enough for the Premier League,which is lauded around the world,and every team in the pyramid aspires to get into it and get hold of the money,then it's good enough for FIFA.
  Reply With Quote
10-01-2017, 21:07   #9
stpetre
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2014
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Total Posts: 1,811
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiSiSi View Post
Agreed. Imagine if the Faroe Islands were to qualify because it was made easier for them to do so, and we lost to them!

Altogether possible.
Another possible 'Banana skin' result for England would be San Marino or Gibraltar being in the same group. And Ssssh about the Faroe Islands, aren't they near Iceland ?
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 16:22   #10
Harrystottle
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2014
Total Posts: 1,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by melthebell View Post
fifa get more money
Yes, it does seem to be a money racket now. At least the Premiership puts some good games on, but like TFH says, the world cup rarely does. Germany Brazil was the exception rather than the rule and the WC in South Africa must have been one of the worst tournaments in recorded history.

Maybe it's time the Europeans just broke away altogether? Or could FIFA just be binned and we start again?
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 16:46   #11
Robbie Loving
Fat McLovin
Robbie Loving's Avatar
 
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Always assume work
Total Posts: 16,129
Send a message via MSN to Robbie Loving
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalga View Post
Exactly,if it's good enough for the Premier League,which is lauded around the world,and every team in the pyramid aspires to get into it and get hold of the money,then it's good enough for FIFA.
I'm not sure I agree.
If lesser teams aim for 2 draws, they have a 50/50 chance of qualifying.

I don't like the idea of the final group games not being played at the same time.
_______
It's just like watching the Blades :)
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 18:05   #12
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 4,913
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Loving View Post
I'm not sure I agree.
If lesser teams aim for 2 draws, they have a 50/50 chance of qualifying.

I don't like the idea of the final group games not being played at the same time.
Then we'll see the bigger teams going for the win from the off to make sure they qualify,I'd rather see one team going for all the points rather than 2 teams satisfied with a point in their first game because they have 2 more games to qualify.
  Reply With Quote
11-01-2017, 21:56   #13
Robbie Loving
Fat McLovin
Robbie Loving's Avatar
 
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Always assume work
Total Posts: 16,129
Send a message via MSN to Robbie Loving
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalga View Post
Then we'll see the bigger teams going for the win from the off to make sure they qualify,I'd rather see one team going for all the points rather than 2 teams satisfied with a point in their first game because they have 2 more games to qualify.
But that's the problem, there won't be big teams in every group because there is so many groups.
_______
It's just like watching the Blades :)
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 07:34   #14
blake
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Badian, Cebu, Philippines
Total Posts: 2,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalga View Post
Then we'll see the bigger teams going for the win from the off to make sure they qualify,I'd rather see one team going for all the points rather than 2 teams satisfied with a point in their first game because they have 2 more games to qualify.
this post is total nonsense. 3 points for a win sorts that out. In the last WC, 14 out of the 16 first group games got results and only two of them were drawn. Several of them were by 2, 3, and 4 goal margins too. As a moment's thought ought to tell anyone, it's far better to get a win in the first game and then perhaps play for a draw in the later and especially the last game, like Costa Rica did when they didn't have to try too hard against England to ensure qualification.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 09:14   #15
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 4,913
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
this post is total nonsense. 3 points for a win sorts that out. In the last WC, 14 out of the 16 first group games got results and only two of them were drawn. Several of them were by 2, 3, and 4 goal margins too. As a moment's thought ought to tell anyone, it's far better to get a win in the first game and then perhaps play for a draw in the later and especially the last game, like Costa Rica did when they didn't have to try too hard against England to ensure qualification.
So in a 48 team WC,they will be more incentive in going for a win in the first game then,as they know there's only one more game to come instead of 2,a 48 team WC will make it more competative,,nonsense are those saying a 48 team WC is a bad idea.

---------- Post added 22-01-2017 at 09:18 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Loving View Post
But that's the problem, there won't be big teams in every group because there is so many groups.
Have you seen the groups for the first 48 team WC yet?,do you think all the teams in those groups will be of the same level in ability or some will be 'bigger' than others?,are you saying that out of all the worlds teams,there won't be 16 so called big teams to put one in every group?

Last edited by chalga; 22-01-2017 at 09:36.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 09:36   #16
blake
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Badian, Cebu, Philippines
Total Posts: 2,065
it is just not an issue. In the 2014 tournament, 88%, or 14 out of the 16 first group games when everyone played their first game resulted in a win and a loss for one or the other. You are saying that two draws out of 16 games is too many? 3 points for a win in a group of 4 is all the incentive required to motivate teams to want to win their first group game.

in the previous tournament, 2010, 11 of the first 16 games, or 69%, were won or lost by one side or the other.

in the tournament before that, 2006, 13 of the first 16 games, or 82% were won or lost by one side or the other.

even in 1990, which was the last tournament to have only two points for a win, 9 out of the 12, or 75% of the first games where everyone played their first game resulted in a win or a loss for one or the other.

the average for draws in the Premiership varies from year to year but it is usually about 25%.

you're just seeing a 'problem', that doesn't in actual fact exist.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 10:02   #17
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 4,913
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
it is just not an issue. In the 2014 tournament, 88%, or 14 out of the 16 first group games when everyone played their first game resulted in a win and a loss for one or the other. You are saying that two draws out of 16 games is too many? 3 points for a win in a group of 4 is all the incentive required to motivate teams to want to win their first group game.

in the previous tournament, 2010, 11 of the first 16 games, or 69%, were won or lost by one side or the other.

in the tournament before that, 2006, 13 of the first 16 games, or 82% were won or lost by one side or the other.

even in 1990, which was the last tournament to have only two points for a win, 9 out of the 12, or 75% of the first games where everyone played their first game resulted in a win or a loss for one or the other.

the average for draws in the Premiership varies from year to year but it is usually about 25%.

you're just seeing a 'problem', that doesn't in actual fact exist.
So how can a 48 team format where there are only 3 group games and therefore much less margin for error be making the WC worse?,I am talking about the quality of games here,which nobody can predict,you can have garbage games of any result,but if there are only 3 games in a group,it makes it more likely that all the teams are going to have to be positive in them,plus it makes the first stage less time consuming and introduces the knock out stage more quickly.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 10:21   #18
blake
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Badian, Cebu, Philippines
Total Posts: 2,065
it's bad enough with 3 team groups that 16 teams would have to go home after having played only two games.

but that's the least of it.

a group of 4 is just a more absorbing group. A team can lose their first game, and yet still qualify. If it's only 3 teams in the group, if they lose their first game, they have almost no chance and also it's really easy for two of the 3 teams to rig their last game. It's impossible for all 3 teams in the group to play their final game at the same time. It's a totally ridiculous idea to have 3 team groups and I'm surprised that anybody is even considering it.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 10:39   #19
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 4,913
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
it's bad enough with 3 team groups that 16 teams would have to go home after having played only two games.

but that's the least of it.

a group of 4 is just a more absorbing group. A team can lose their first game, and yet still qualify. If it's only 3 teams in the group, if they lose their first game, they have almost no chance and also it's really easy for two of the 3 teams to rig their last game. It's impossible for all 3 teams in the group to play their final game at the same time. It's a totally ridiculous idea to have 3 team groups and I'm surprised that anybody is even considering it.
Nobody knows the results,so nobody can guess what 'last game' scenarios are going to produce,the last games can be played at the same time,and if they keep the same format where the group winner plays a runner up in the knockout,then there will be at least first and second place to play for,no matter what results have gone before,even if they both have 3 points each already.Yes,a team can lose their first game in a 4 team group and still qualify,but that is my whole point,in a 3 team group it will make teams more competetive to not lose that first game,to come out from the start and hit the ground running,or else.
As far as 16 teams going home after 2 games,in many cases,that is 2 games more than they would be playing in a 32 team format,again,the whole point of having 48 teams.

Last edited by chalga; 22-01-2017 at 10:47.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 10:53   #20
blake
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Badian, Cebu, Philippines
Total Posts: 2,065
in a three team group it is IMPOSSIBLE for all three teams in the group to play their last game at the same time. There'd be about 6 Germany-Algeria 1982 Disgrace of Gijon type games. It's a ridiculous idea.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:42.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2014 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017