48 team WC is ridiculous

[Robbie Loving 10]

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.

[blake 10]

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.

[chalga 10]

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 ----------

 

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?

Edited January 22, 2017 by chalga

[blake 10]

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.

[chalga 10]

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.

[blake 10]

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.

[chalga 10]

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.

Edited January 22, 2017 by chalga

[blake 10]

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.

[chalga 10]

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.

[blake 10]

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.

[chalga 10]

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.

[blake 10]

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.