Sheffield Forum

48 team WC is ridiculous

Home > General > General Sports Chat

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
22-01-2017, 11:08   #21
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 5,286
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
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.
We know,I already said that we don't know what the results are so cannot predict last game scenarios,there is first and second place to play for,for any teams involved against each other in the event of those being the last games.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 11:23   #22
blake
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Ecclesall
Total Posts: 2,132
coming in either first or second place is nothing to play for when there is a risk of being totally eliminated from the tournament. There would be a lot of anti-climactical last games.

also who decides which of the 3 teams in the group has to play their last match BEFORE the other two in the group play theirs a few days later? Nobody would want to be in that position. Being one of the two teams that play the final game in the group in a 3 team group is a massive advantage in qualifying.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 11:35   #23
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 5,286
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
coming in either first or second place is nothing to play for when there is a risk of being totally eliminated from the tournament. There would be a lot of anti-climactical last games.

also who decides which of the 3 teams in the group has to play their last match BEFORE the other two in the group play theirs a few days later? Nobody would want to be in that position. Being one of the two teams that play the final game in the group in a 3 team group is a massive advantage in qualifying.
Why do they play for first and second place in the current format of the WC and also in the Champions League then?,if it's no good,scrap it,teams are still being eliminated in this format,as they will be in the new format.
Being one of three teams who will play their final game before 2 others will make that game more competetive for that team,knowing it could be their final game,they will try harder to win,and also even more more determined to win their first game as well because of the knock on consequence of playing again before the other 2 play their last game.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 11:44   #24
blake
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: Ecclesall
Total Posts: 2,132
it doesn't necessarily matter who comes 1st or 2nd of the group. Costa Rica came top of England's group last time, Paraguay came top of their group in 2010. Everybody else would have wanted to play them in the knockout stage if they could regardless. Having to play your final match three days before the other two teams in the group is a huge disadvantage and a position that no team would want to be in.
  Reply With Quote
22-01-2017, 12:04   #25
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 5,286
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
it doesn't necessarily matter who comes 1st or 2nd of the group. Costa Rica came top of England's group last time, Paraguay came top of their group in 2010. Everybody else would have wanted to play them in the knockout stage if they could regardless. Having to play your final match three days before the other two teams in the group is a huge disadvantage and a position that no team would want to be in.
Then,like i said,if it doesn't necessarily matter,scrap it now,both in the current format WC and in the CL.Costa Rica coming top is a good advert for more smaller nations to be included,therefore a 48 team WC.It might be a huge disadvantage,you make it into an advantage by winning both your games.

Last edited by chalga; 22-01-2017 at 12:08.
  Reply With Quote
30-01-2017, 16:46   #26
ukdobby
Registered User
ukdobby's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Rojales
Total Posts: 9,862
Status: Online
payat has got his way and got a move now Ullao Is refusing to play for Leicester,are the players now bigger than the clubs.

---------- Post added 30-01-2017 at 19:17 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ukdobby View Post
payat has got his way and got a move now Ullao Is refusing to play for Leicester,are the players now bigger than the clubs.
Wrong thread,should be on modern football.

Last edited by ukdobby; 30-01-2017 at 16:48.
  Reply With Quote
30-01-2017, 20:31   #27
Robbie Loving
Fat McLovin
Robbie Loving's Avatar
 
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Always assume work
Total Posts: 16,163
Send a message via MSN to Robbie Loving
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalga View Post

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?
I would say there won't be 16 so-called big teams in the group stages yes.
Of course there will be better teams against their oppositions, but so called big teams?
Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Belgium, France, Portugal, Uruguay, Spain, England, Italy, Netherlands..... That's what I would say are the so-called big teams (and England and Uruguary only get in because they have previously won the world cup and some of the others are pushing what I'd consider so-called big teams)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalga View Post
Then,like i said,if it doesn't necessarily matter,scrap it now,both in the current format WC and in the CL.Costa Rica coming top is a good advert for more smaller nations to be included,therefore a 48 team WC.It might be a huge disadvantage,you make it into an advantage by winning both your games.
If you want smaller nations involved, then I'd be up for the idea of a straight knockout tournament, with no seeding, involving all countries in the world.

But then the regional FAs would make no money from qualifiers, so this is another non-goer.

Also another thing to consider.... Gaps between games.
If you're involved in the first and last game of the group, you first off have the advantage of knowing what you need in your final game to go through, but you also have extra rest that the other team does not have.
_______
It's just like watching the Blades :)
  Reply With Quote
30-01-2017, 21:14   #28
Beligerence
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2016
Total Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by blake View Post
coming in either first or second place is nothing to play for when there is a risk of being totally eliminated from the tournament. There would be a lot of anti-climactical last games.

also who decides which of the 3 teams in the group has to play their last match BEFORE the other two in the group play theirs a few days later? Nobody would want to be in that position. Being one of the two teams that play the final game in the group in a 3 team group is a massive advantage in qualifying.
I would hazard a guess that the lowest ranked side in each group would play in the final match, to try and make as many groups as possible having a meaningful final game.

Otherwise if the lowest ranked side play in the first two matches, they could be heavily beaten meaning the final match in the group only decides who finished 2nd and 3rd.
  Reply With Quote
30-01-2017, 22:15   #29
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 5,286
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Loving View Post
I would say there won't be 16 so-called big teams in the group stages yes.
Of course there will be better teams against their oppositions, but so called big teams?
Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Belgium, France, Portugal, Uruguay, Spain, England, Italy, Netherlands..... That's what I would say are the so-called big teams (and England and Uruguary only get in because they have previously won the world cup and some of the others are pushing what I'd consider so-called big teams)



If you want smaller nations involved, then I'd be up for the idea of a straight knockout tournament, with no seeding, involving all countries in the world.

But then the regional FAs would make no money from qualifiers, so this is another non-goer.

Also another thing to consider.... Gaps between games.
If you're involved in the first and last game of the group, you first off have the advantage of knowing what you need in your final game to go through, but you also have extra rest that the other team does not have.
So you are putting Uruguay before teams like Chile and Columbia in the South American section?, No mention of Croatia,one of the most entertaining teams of the last few decades,China could be big players by then if their game develops like they want it to,and you haven't even mentioned the champions of Africa,or any team from Africa,or is there another reason that so many players from that nation are playing for top teams all over Europe,rather than that they are good and many come to prominence in the WC?
We've already been through the 'last game' scenario,there is first and second place to play for,not just 'going through',if it doesn't mean anything then,it doesn't mean anything now.

Last edited by chalga; 30-01-2017 at 22:25.
  Reply With Quote
30-01-2017, 22:36   #30
Robbie Loving
Fat McLovin
Robbie Loving's Avatar
 
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Always assume work
Total Posts: 16,163
Send a message via MSN to Robbie Loving
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalga View Post
So you are putting Uruguay before teams like Chile and Columbia in the South American section?,by the time that WC comes around,China could be big players if their game develops like they want it to,and you haven't even mentioned the champions of Africa,or any team from Africa,or is there another reason that so many players from that nation are playing for top teams all over Europe,rather than that they are good and many come to prominence in the WC?
We've already been through the 'last game' scenario,there is first and second place to play for,not just 'going through',if it doesn't mean anything then,it doesn't mean anything now.
Uruguay get in my 'big team' by virtue of previously winning the cup. But they also finished 4th in 2010 (and have qualified for 3 of the last 4), something Columbia (who have only actually got to the finals once in the last 4 attempts) have never managed and something Chile haven't managed to do since since 1962, where they finished 3rd, but they were the hosts... also they have qualified for the finals for 50% of the last 4 finals.

African champions? Ivory Coast? Who sit behind the mighty Northern Ireland in the FIFA (granted they they don't mean much) world rankings?
But also never got past the group stages in the world and also haven't even got past the last 16 in the current african nations cup.

As for China, it's hard to forecast a team will improve, but that first one of the world cups is in 2026, I don't think much will change in that timescale for them.
_______
It's just like watching the Blades :)
  Reply With Quote
30-01-2017, 22:50   #31
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 5,286
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Loving View Post
Uruguay get in my 'big team' by virtue of previously winning the cup. But they also finished 4th in 2010 (and have qualified for 3 of the last 4), something Columbia (who have only actually got to the finals once in the last 4 attempts) have never managed and something Chile haven't managed to do since since 1962, where they finished 3rd, but they were the hosts... also they have qualified for the finals for 50% of the last 4 finals.

African champions? Ivory Coast? Who sit behind the mighty Northern Ireland in the FIFA (granted they they don't mean much) world rankings?
But also never got past the group stages in the world and also haven't even got past the last 16 in the current african nations cup.

As for China, it's hard to forecast a team will improve, but that first one of the world cups is in 2026, I don't think much will change in that timescale for them.
African champions can be different every time the competition is played,so we aren't only talking about Ivory Coast,the top African teams are big teams,simply by virtue of the players they have and their stature in World football at the moment,otherwise,those players wouldn't be at some of Europes top club sides,Uruguay have qualified for some WC's by going through play offs,so they aren't always as good as the normal qualifiers from the South American section,not doing well in the actual WC doesn't mean you are not a big team,we know that because of England.
  Reply With Quote
30-01-2017, 23:02   #32
Robbie Loving
Fat McLovin
Robbie Loving's Avatar
 
Moderator
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Always assume work
Total Posts: 16,163
Send a message via MSN to Robbie Loving
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalga View Post
African champions can be different every time the competition is played,so we aren't only talking about Ivory Coast,the top African teams are big teams,simply by virtue of the players they have and their stature in World football at the moment,otherwise,those players wouldn't be at some of Europes top club sides,Uruguay have qualified for some WC's by going through play offs,so they aren't always as good as the normal qualifiers from the South American section,not doing well in the actual WC doesn't mean you are not a big team,we know that because of England.
And that is why England, for me, are only there by virtue of winning a world cup.

As for Africa, it was you who stated the African champions. I didn't realise that extended to all African teams.... but ok.
No African team has ever gone past the quarter finals.... 2002 Senegal, 1990 Cameroon and 2010 Ghana (who lost to Uruguay).

There's no dispute some fantastic players come from Africa, but this doesn't mean their national teams are anygood.,
_______
It's just like watching the Blades :)
  Reply With Quote
31-01-2017, 07:43   #33
chalga
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Total Posts: 5,286
Status: Online
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie Loving View Post
And that is why England, for me, are only there by virtue of winning a world cup.

As for Africa, it was you who stated the African champions. I didn't realise that extended to all African teams.... but ok.
No African team has ever gone past the quarter finals.... 2002 Senegal, 1990 Cameroon and 2010 Ghana (who lost to Uruguay).

There's no dispute some fantastic players come from Africa, but this doesn't mean their national teams are anygood.,
Course it's going to include more teams from Africa than the champions,that's the whole point of extending the WC to 48 teams,we went through most of the 90'ies and early 00'ies convinced by the football media in the UK that every WC was diminished because players like Ryan Giggs never got a chance to play in a finals,well now they get their wish,not for Ryan Giggs,but to see more of the worlds top players perform on the highest stage than would have been possible before.
I already said that it's not only about how a team does in the finals,it's about big teams in each starting group of three,the top African teams are big teams.If you got a theoretical group of England,Cameroon,Chile and Croatia,they would be calling it a group of death,because they are all big teams,now seperate them all into individual groups,they are still big teams.
  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 20:32.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017

Nimbus Server