Uefa has 13 spots, with four seeds that means nine non-seeds. One Uefa team will not be in the Uefa pot, unless they go with uneven pots. So the other two pots could go in a number of directions.DLew On Roids said:
International Football (non-USMNT)
- Thread starter SoxFanInCali
- Start date
Switzerland has snagged a seed. Assuming Uruguay beats Jordan in the CONMEBOL/AFC playoff, it will get the final seed. So our seeds are Brazil, Germany, Argentina, Italy, Colombia, Uruguay, Switzerland, and Spain.
I _think_ the Swiss replaced Italy -- Belgium is seeded.
I _think_ the Swiss replaced Italy -- Belgium is seeded.
Ugh, right on both counts. I simply miscounted the seeds and assigned five to UEFA. Dumb.
My bet is that FIFA puts a random UEFA ball in one of the other pots--presumably CONMEBOL/CAF--then sets an exception so if the UEFA ball comes out for a group headed by a UEFA seed, it gets moved down to the next available CONMEBOL seed's group. It'd be similar to what UEFA does to keep clubs from the same country out of the same CL/EL group.
My bet is that FIFA puts a random UEFA ball in one of the other pots--presumably CONMEBOL/CAF--then sets an exception so if the UEFA ball comes out for a group headed by a UEFA seed, it gets moved down to the next available CONMEBOL seed's group. It'd be similar to what UEFA does to keep clubs from the same country out of the same CL/EL group.
DLew On Roids said:
We should expect that there will be a "special pot" consisting of one UEFA team, probably the lowest-ranked (not a random UEFA). That's how they did it the last time the situation arose. Functionally, it should be the same as adding that UEFA team to the pot that ends up with 7---probably CONMEBOL/CAF.
Here's a draw simulator, fun way to kill an hour http://ultra-zone.net/2014-FIFA-World-Cup-Group-Stage-Draws
Belgium, Ivory Coast and Ukraine...I could live with that draw. Also Pot 4 is potentially terrifying. France, Italy, Portugal, Engerland and the Dutch if the seeds hold.
The oddest scenario would be is somehow Jordan downed Uruguay, and Mexico wins. Italy gets a seed, all euro non-seeds are in Pot 4, CAF & AFC both have five teams, so one CONCACAF team (presumably the highest rated?) moves into Pot 3 with 5 CAF and 2 CONMEBOL, and the other 3 CONCACAF go with 5 AFC in Pot 2.
I swear everyone one of these simulations ends with Switzerland being in an absolute joke of a group while the US is stuck in the group of death. Last draw was Switzerland with Honduras, Chile, and Ukraine while the US got Brazil, Ghana, and France.
I feel nauseous. Can we please catch a fucking break and draw the Swiss???
I feel nauseous. Can we please catch a fucking break and draw the Swiss???
Drawing the Swiss would be ideal. The idea of actually watching the match, though, strikes me as on a par with watching paint dry.Bailey10 said:
Bailey10 said:
Honestly, drawing a really tough seed isn't the worst thing--if the seed is really that good, they'll hammer everyone in the group and then you've got the two games against the non-seeds where you basically control your own destiny. You want to avoid quality in depth (with your Brazil/Ghana/France example being damn close to the nightmare scenario in that regard).
Bailey10 said:
Yeah how exactly did they slide into that spot? I assumed Uruguay was still riding high from the Copa America thing (because they definitely don't deserve it based on recent form) but I don't get the Swiss. Is this just FIFA rankings foolishness?
Turrable said:
They drew a very weak group in UEFA qualifying, Albania, Slovenia, Norway, Cypress, Iceland. They went unbeaten, 7-3-0
They are also unbeaten in their last 14 matches, with wins in friendlies over Brazil, Greece, Tunisia and Croatia. They also beat Germany last year in a friendly.
Looks like a friendly with you guys (USMNT) in on the cards for my guys (Engerlund) for late May / early June, though that's dependent on us not being drawn in the same group for the WC.
As an aside, England are also considering another friendly with a team TBN to be played in Miami.
As an aside, England are also considering another friendly with a team TBN to be played in Miami.
Turrable said:
UEFA is actually thinking of scrapping friendlies entirely and having league format instead
http://www.goal.com/en/news/755/europe/2013/10/10/4324619/uefa-consider-replacing-friendlies-with-nations-league
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/david-owen/13425-david-owen-a-route-to-a-biennial-world-cup
I have trouble keeping track of CAF. Assuming the Pots used in the simulator posted above (which may not be a safe bet), who should we be hoping to draw from Pot 3? Pot 1 seems straight forward. Pot 4 is scary given the depth of quality teams. But I'm at a loss how to evaluate the draws from Pot 3.
Worst group I had so far was Brazil, US, Ghana, Netherlands. The Dutch are just a terrifying draw unless you get a bottom half team from Pot 1.
Worst group I had so far was Brazil, US, Ghana, Netherlands. The Dutch are just a terrifying draw unless you get a bottom half team from Pot 1.
CAF qualifying is still ongoing, so it's tough to say. If Burkina Faso holds on or Ethiopia gets through, probably those are the ones to catch. Tunisia maybe. Ecuador isn't that scary on paper, either, although I'd rather avoid South American teams in a SA-hosted Cup. But a lot depends on how chalky the CAF playoffs end up being.
EDIT: Just to clarify, that simulator assumes that the favorites advance in all of the CAF/UEFA playoffs, so it sort of gives a worst-case pool for the US. The actual pool will probably be a little bit softer.
EDIT: Just to clarify, that simulator assumes that the favorites advance in all of the CAF/UEFA playoffs, so it sort of gives a worst-case pool for the US. The actual pool will probably be a little bit softer.
Turrable said:
While it may seem that way, I've seen at least one guy with a ranking say that it's more accurate with friendlies in than with them out.
Greatest draw ever on the simulator just now:
Swiss
US
Algeria
Croatia
Sign me up for that right now.
Swiss
US
Algeria
Croatia
Sign me up for that right now.
I just got Belgium, Ecuador, and Bosnia. That would be fun. Not so tough competition from Pots 3 and 4 plus WARPIG.
I can't understand why the format for rankings shouldn't be more of an average, rather than just a total points system. I think that's what screwed France (although, who cares?), because their group had fewer teams and they had fewer games in which to accumulate points. I don't claim to understand how the whole thing works, but if you look at the rankings at any particular month, you see a few rankings that just make no sense at all. As far as I can tell, the Dutch haven't lost since last August to Belgium, in Brussels. And they're 8th? Behind Switzerland and a still-hasn't-qualified Uruguay? Really?Mr. Wednesday said:
The problem for the US is that USA, Chile, Ecuador, Ghana and Cote D'Ivoire are the top 5 teams in Pots 2 & 3, but the other four are in the opposite pot. That spells real trouble for the US. the US is very much clearly the best team in its pot.
Also, CONCACAF is the #3 region in terms of quality of entrants, but is potted with the worst (#5) region, Asia, so we can't play Asia, which is stupid. There's no reason for CONCACAF not to play Asian teams. Meanwhile, the #4 region, Africa, is potted with the #2 region, South America. CONCACAF should be with South America, but that's impossible numbers wise. The only way to get Asia into another pot would be if Mexico loses - then maybe FIFA puts 3 CONCACAF the three with 5 African teams.
I wish they'd put all the non-seed, non-UEFA teams in one pot, and just avoid putting teams from the same region together
Also, CONCACAF is the #3 region in terms of quality of entrants, but is potted with the worst (#5) region, Asia, so we can't play Asia, which is stupid. There's no reason for CONCACAF not to play Asian teams. Meanwhile, the #4 region, Africa, is potted with the #2 region, South America. CONCACAF should be with South America, but that's impossible numbers wise. The only way to get Asia into another pot would be if Mexico loses - then maybe FIFA puts 3 CONCACAF the three with 5 African teams.
I wish they'd put all the non-seed, non-UEFA teams in one pot, and just avoid putting teams from the same region together
Infield Infidel said:
I absolutely love this idea. If this were to happen, other regions should follow suit, especially since European teams playing matches against non-Europeans (the US for example) would be impossible.
Who wouldn't love a combined league between North and South America? Throw the top couple teams in CONCACAF with CONMEBOL and put the rest of the North American scrubs in a second division.
Seen The Light said:
They are an average. They average the points earned in all your matches.
The real issue is that they do a points-from-zero rather than a deviation-from-expectation model, which has the effect that a whole lot of information (who you lose to) gets thrown out.
Mexico fired their coach again, after two matches (one win, one loss). Fourth coach in 5 matches
They hired the manager from Club America, and are apparently taking the club's entire coaching staff for the playoff with NZ.
They hired the manager from Club America, and are apparently taking the club's entire coaching staff for the playoff with NZ.
Problem is, once you went this way, it would lead to these leagues replacing the qualifying system we have now. And it would be much harder for the US to qualify in a combined Americas league than it is now.Bailey10 said:
Now, maybe that's still a good idea in the long run for the US. But I find it hard to get behind a system that leads to less appearances in the WC
I think the idea is just to make the idea of friendlies more meaningful. I love the concept too, but I think qualifying would remain untouched. What would worry me more is the inability to schedule friendlies outside your region, or to control who you play. In the run up to big tournaments, for instance, it's smart to schedule some friendlies against teams that play like your group opponents. I don't know if this flexibility would be built into a league concept.
The UEFA final match ups are:
Portugal - Sweeden
France - Ukraine
Greece - Romania
Iceland - Croatia
Portugal - Sweeden
France - Ukraine
Greece - Romania
Iceland - Croatia
I'd have to think those are two of the more difficult draws for Portugal and France, other than facing each other. Glad to see one of either Iceland or Croatia is going to qualify, and would love to also see Romania and/or Ukraine. New blood is good for the sport.Morning Woodhead said:
dirtynine said:
At the moment, the suggestion is that both World Cup/Euro qualifying and the new "Nations League" (I think that's the name, in parallel with the Champions League) would be regional within Europe, and therefore that European teams wouldn't be able to schedule money-spinning friendlies with the likes of Brazil or Argentina that both sides like to schedule. Personally, I think the value in scheduling pre-World Cup friendlies against "similar" opposition to your group opponents is minimal - surely competitive football with a purpose would be better preparation than substitution-filled friendlies. In any event, the globalization of football and the rise of the Champions League have helped to minimize the importance of friendlies, much as baseball's All Star Game has been largely rendered irrelevant by interleague play and massively increased television exposure: we now get to see the best players in the world play against each other in competitive matches all the time, so why should I care about meaningless exhibitions? I'd very happily watch the top two or three divisions of a Davis Cup-like football competition in perpetuity, which is basically what we're talking about here.
For my money, I think some non-European teams should be included within the Nations League; I don't think the Nations League can be fully global, especially if the competition is to be "owned" and run by UEFA, but you could rejigger the international calendar slightly to allow non-European teams to participate by invitation. At the moment, I think the plan is for nine divisions of six teams each, with 10 home-and-home matchdays per "league" season. But you could easily make it ten divisions and invite the six top-ranked non-UEFA teams to participate if they wish to, the caveat being that those countries' "home" matches would probably need to be staged in Europe or the Middle East for travel-related reasons (which is pretty much what the likes of Brazil and Argentina currently do anyway). I'd put two non-UEFA teams in each of the top three divisions and exclude them from the one-up, one-down promotion and relegation that will apply only to the European teams; at the end of each season, a new six non-UEFA teams would be chosen according to FIFA ranking, with any team which would have been relegated from the third division being ineligible for reselection.
To give an idea of what this might look like, looking mostly at FIFA rankings but fiddling with them a bit where it seems appropriate (e.g., on account of rankings anomalies perpetrated by World Cup qualifying):
Division 1: Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Brazil, Argentina
Division 2: Belgium, Switzerland, England, Portugal, Uruguay, USA
Division 3: France, Sweden, Croatia, Russia, Ivory Coast, Colombia
Division 4: Greece, Ukraine, Bosnia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Serbia
Division 5: Romania, Slovenia, Scotland, Armenia, Turkey, Hungary
Division 6: Wales, Iceland, Norway, Austria, Montenegro, Albania
Division 7: Ireland, Finland, Slovakia, Israel, Poland, Bulgaria
Division 8: Belarus, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Northern Ireland, Moldova, Estonia
Division 9: Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Kazakhstan
Division 10: Malta, Liechtenstein, Faroe Islands, Andorra, San Marino, Gibraltar
I may have slightly over-seeded the USA, but you get the point...anyway, look at Division 1! Who wouldn't want to see those six nations play competitive matches against each other all the time, with one of the four European sides guaranteed to be relegated to Division 2 and with Brazil/Argentina playing for FIFA ranking points which might keep them in Division 1 as well? Division 1 of the Nations League may have a corrosive effect upon the World Cup and European Championships, just like the Champions League helped cheapen domestic cup competitions over time (although I still think the World Cup in particular would continue to shine by being open to the whole world), but it would be a runaway financial success and help create more public demand for something it wants already.
(Note: instead of playing the Nations League over the course of a single year like the Davis Cup, you could expand it to two years - possibly with eight teams per division and more non-UEFA participation - and do less harm to the existing international calendar. Pre-World Cup friendlies could be preserved this way as well.)
Seen The Light said:
In the last 20 years, Croatia has reached a World Cup semifinal, and both Romania and Ukraine have reached World Cup quarterfinals. So be careful who you're calling "new blood", eh?
Iceland has to be loving this, by the way...with Croatia out of form and having sacked their coach, they'll really never have a better chance of reaching the World Cup than they do right now.
ConigliarosPotential said:
In the last 20 years, Croatia has reached a World Cup semifinal, and both Romania and Ukraine have reached World Cup quarterfinals. So be careful who you're calling "new blood", eh?
Iceland has to be loving this, by the way...with Croatia out of form and having sacked their coach, they'll really never have a better chance of reaching the World Cup than they do right now.
US might have gotten lucky with Johannsson--have to imagine that part of his decision to join up with the US squad was down to doubt that Iceland would ever have a realistic chance to play in a major tournament.
ConigliarosPotential said:
In the last 20 years, Croatia has reached a World Cup semifinal, and both Romania and Ukraine have reached World Cup quarterfinals. So be careful who you're calling "new blood", eh?
Iceland has to be loving this, by the way...with Croatia out of form and having sacked their coach, they'll really never have a better chance of reaching the World Cup than they do right now.
Good point. They're not what you would really consider traditional powers, though.
I wonder if Johansson is wishing he had stuck with Iceland, since they actually have a chance to qualify.
Whoever draws the winner of the Greece-Romania playoff from the UEFA pot will be extremely happy with their WC group.
I'm not saying that either team is a pushover (particularly the Greeks who always have a solid defense and play teams tough in tournaments), but they would be a desirable draw given the alternative of the Netherlands, Italy, and England in that pot. And thats not even considering Portugal and France, who you would favor to go through in the playoff.
I'm not saying that either team is a pushover (particularly the Greeks who always have a solid defense and play teams tough in tournaments), but they would be a desirable draw given the alternative of the Netherlands, Italy, and England in that pot. And thats not even considering Portugal and France, who you would favor to go through in the playoff.
Would love to see Iceland in there. I actually think having smaller countries and less-traditional soccer powers is good for the Cup - it creates more interesting matchups and it helps the smaller sides grow (and maybe even retain their dual-eligible players). Though the Cup finals are about as big as they could get at 32 teams, you know there will be pressure to expand (just like every successful tournament deals with). So: How about having a two-stage World Cup, where stage 1 is actually a final round of global qualifying for the 32-team final? This could be a series of 32 home and home playoffs around the world, or even better, a modest group global phase to be played out over the summer before the Cup (in Concacaf, for instance, it would replace the Hex).
You'd conclude confederation-level qualifying earlier, giving a global pool 64 preliminary WC teams, and then set up 16 global groups of 4. A home-and-home round robin (played out over a few months) would give you 6 awesome, high-pressure World Cup-style games, three of which would be in your own backyard. Top two teams in each group progress to the finals.
• It gives more sides a taste of the Cup
• It lets you play incredibly meaningful games against global competition in front of home crowds
• It's arguably a fairer way to distribute spots than simply awarding them to confederations
• It gives dual-eligible players more reason to stick with sentimental country obligations, instead of gravitating towards world powers
• It would be incredibly financially lucrative
• You don't have to change anything about the 32-team World Cup itself
• Imagine the pandemonium on the final day(s) of matches with simultaneous starts.
Teams like Iceland or or Wales or Burkina Faso or Jamaica or Togo wouldn't have to wait for a once-in-a-generation chance to feel Cup fever - it wouldn't be crazy for them to be in the group phase somewhat consistently. Think about global groups like USA / Ireland / New Zealand / Senegal, or England / Ivory Coast / Peru / China. Could be amazing.
Just spitballin'.
You'd conclude confederation-level qualifying earlier, giving a global pool 64 preliminary WC teams, and then set up 16 global groups of 4. A home-and-home round robin (played out over a few months) would give you 6 awesome, high-pressure World Cup-style games, three of which would be in your own backyard. Top two teams in each group progress to the finals.
• It gives more sides a taste of the Cup
• It lets you play incredibly meaningful games against global competition in front of home crowds
• It's arguably a fairer way to distribute spots than simply awarding them to confederations
• It gives dual-eligible players more reason to stick with sentimental country obligations, instead of gravitating towards world powers
• It would be incredibly financially lucrative
• You don't have to change anything about the 32-team World Cup itself
• Imagine the pandemonium on the final day(s) of matches with simultaneous starts.
Teams like Iceland or or Wales or Burkina Faso or Jamaica or Togo wouldn't have to wait for a once-in-a-generation chance to feel Cup fever - it wouldn't be crazy for them to be in the group phase somewhat consistently. Think about global groups like USA / Ireland / New Zealand / Senegal, or England / Ivory Coast / Peru / China. Could be amazing.
Just spitballin'.
How about just expanding to 40 countries, and having eight groups of five instead of eight groups of four, with the tournament otherwise unchanged, with the best two advancing from each group to the knockout stage?
That would expand the tournament without creating an additional round (which I agree would be fun to watch, but would further crowd the calendar, which clubs would hate). All you would really need to do is add an additional game to the group stage, which would lengthen the WCF by less than a week.
You'd have to allot the eight additional spots among the confederations, of course.
Any reason why this wouldn't work, or would be detrimental? Obviously, most (but not all) of the additional eight teams would be weaker than teams 1-32, but if a weak team managed to advance through a group of five, hats off to them, I would think.
That would expand the tournament without creating an additional round (which I agree would be fun to watch, but would further crowd the calendar, which clubs would hate). All you would really need to do is add an additional game to the group stage, which would lengthen the WCF by less than a week.
You'd have to allot the eight additional spots among the confederations, of course.
Any reason why this wouldn't work, or would be detrimental? Obviously, most (but not all) of the additional eight teams would be weaker than teams 1-32, but if a weak team managed to advance through a group of five, hats off to them, I would think.
OilCanShotTupac said:
I've thought way too much about 40 in 8 groups X 5 teams (multiple spreadsheets made since the 2010 cup), but you'd always have one team with a bye while the four other teams play. It would rotate, but some teams would have 7-8 days off while their opponent has 3 days off. That's a big advantage as far as fitness is concerned Also, the teams with the first and last byes would play four matches in a row with 3-4 days off, while the other three teams would have that 7-8 day break somewhere in between. It would give those teams an advantage. Also, during the last round, there's more of a chance that teams the group result will be known prior to the matches since one team would be finished. It's doable, and if you compress the schedule with four matches per day instead of three the longer breaks are only 7 days, but very complicated, and a big advantage to the three teams with breaks in the middle.
I think it would be better 40 teams, with 10 groups of 4, 2 advance per group. The 10 1st place teams and top 2 second place teams advance to round of 16, and the 8 worst performing teams 2nd place teams have a play-in round. The groups might not be balanced, but this would motivate teams to win their group instead of settling for second.
Euro should have taken a similar round, and expanded to 20 instead of 24, and 5 group winners and top 2nd place team advance, and then the bottom four 2nd place teams play-off. I hate the idea of taking some 3rd place teams and not others. At least with a play-off, everyone with the same ranking in their respective group advances.
Here's an idea that I clearly haven't thought out fully and might not make any sense, but what if you expanded to 36 teams?
In qualifying, you take out all of those 1/2 qualifying spots (with the playoffs). Work out the total qualifying spots so it comes to 36. So give Oceania a full spot, add a 5th full for Conmebol, and a 4th full for Concacaf, etc. Rather than having the "playoffs" the prior November, you bring the lowest qualified team from each of the 6 regions (Euro, Africa, Concacaf, Conmebol, Oceania, Asia) to the actual WC, and start the tourney a week earlier.
Randomly put them into two groups of 3. Each plays the other 2 teams in the group, top team in each group gets put into the tourney. So you had 36, and you end up with 32. Yes, you might then end up with 2 African teams in a group, or 2 South American teams, etc., but you'd essentially be giving these teams that would otherwise miss out on the Cup by losing in November a chance to actually go to the WC, play meaningful games, and have a chance to qualify for the main tourney. Plus then it gives the host country a few games to work out any kinks before the tourney starts in full. Plus the regional rivalry aspect to the tourney could be cool.
I realize this would never happen, especially because it wouldn't allow travel arrangements and tickets to be set until the last minute, but I thought it would be kind of cool. Like a "'worst of the confederations' cup."
In qualifying, you take out all of those 1/2 qualifying spots (with the playoffs). Work out the total qualifying spots so it comes to 36. So give Oceania a full spot, add a 5th full for Conmebol, and a 4th full for Concacaf, etc. Rather than having the "playoffs" the prior November, you bring the lowest qualified team from each of the 6 regions (Euro, Africa, Concacaf, Conmebol, Oceania, Asia) to the actual WC, and start the tourney a week earlier.
Randomly put them into two groups of 3. Each plays the other 2 teams in the group, top team in each group gets put into the tourney. So you had 36, and you end up with 32. Yes, you might then end up with 2 African teams in a group, or 2 South American teams, etc., but you'd essentially be giving these teams that would otherwise miss out on the Cup by losing in November a chance to actually go to the WC, play meaningful games, and have a chance to qualify for the main tourney. Plus then it gives the host country a few games to work out any kinks before the tourney starts in full. Plus the regional rivalry aspect to the tourney could be cool.
I realize this would never happen, especially because it wouldn't allow travel arrangements and tickets to be set until the last minute, but I thought it would be kind of cool. Like a "'worst of the confederations' cup."
dirtynine said:
There's no way FIFA - or the biggest/most powerful nations within FIFA - would want to risk having one or more of the most popular nations upset before the final 32. The Champions League was created in large part to ensure that this wouldn't happen in the world's most prestigious club competition; why would FIFA want to go in the opposite direction with the World Cup?
OilCanShotTupac said:
Having an odd number of teams in each group is a non-starter, largely for the reasons Infield Infidel mentioned - three-team groups was a failed experiment (see: 1982), and five-team groups wouldn't be much better. (Five-team groups were tried in the UEFA Cup a few years ago, and I don't think anybody liked them...although maybe that's because nobody likes the UEFA Cup/Europa League, period.)
Infield Infidel said:
You can just about get away with differentiating between second-placed teams in European World Cup qualifying because each team gets to play 8-10 matches - in the World Cup itself, you only get to play 3 matches, which means there's far less evidence with which to compare teams that don't play against each other. I don't particularly like the 24-team tournament format in which 16 teams advance to the knockout stage, but at least there you're differentiating between third-placed group teams instead of second-placed teams; if you finish third in your group, you should kinda feel lucky to go through at all.
Seen The Light said:
This proposal sounds like the March Madness play-in game, or several other formats which the cricket and rugby World Cup organizers have dabbled with. I don't think it would work for several reasons, starting with the three-team groups (see above) and the idea of differentiating between the main World Cup to which everyone is invited and a pre-tournament tournament which is neither fish nor fowl. In cricket, rugby and college basketball, the lines between minnows and clearly established superpowers are pretty stark, whereas those lines are drawn much more gradually in football.
Anyway, to sum up: I think 32 is a pretty good number for the World Cup. It's large enough to allow unexpected teams to qualify occasionally, but small enough to be played within a month (and therefore keep club football mostly happy) and be hosted by a wide range of countries. Proposals to expand the World Cup are solutions in search of a problem, IMHO. The "Nations League" idea, however, is a potential solution to a very real problem - the utter pointlessness of international friendlies in the modern game - and one which I think could transform the face of international football for the better. So that's where I'd hope FIFA and/or UEFA are currently focusing their brainstorming efforts.
I agree that, at least from a fan's perspective, the WC Finals tournament shouldn't expand beyond 32. As it is, I find myself struggling to work up the motivation to watch every game in the tournament, because the worst qualifiers are really pretty mediocre. Adding 8 more teams is just going to exacerbate that, in exchange for (maybe) a couple more decent games. Honestly, 24 teams seemed like the magic number that struck a balance between getting good representation from every confederation and ensuring that every matchup had at least a reasonable chance of being compelling. The thought of more matchups on the level of Angola-Iran makes me want to scratch my eyes out.ConigliarosPotential said:
That said, and perhaps paradoxically, the 64-team proposal upthread, with the initial home-and-home round robin phase to whittle the final field down to 32, is oddly compelling. Maybe it's because I'd feel a little less obligated to watch every single match in that phase, since it wouldn't be the World Cup proper, and so I could ignore the crappiest matchups without feeling too bad about it. Also, it would put an end to all the debates about how one confederation deserves more spots or another deserves fewer spots in the final tournament -- they'd be settling all that through actual, direct competition between teams from different confederations. And to be honest, I'd love to see some of these European teams whose fans bitch about the cushiness of CONCACAF qualifying take a hack at some away games in Mexico City or San Jose.
I don't think that there'd be too much concern about losing the major teams in that phase of the tournament. Over a double round-robin, the effects of luck tend to get smoothed out, and the best teams rise to the top, especially in this case, where the spread between good teams and bad teams is a little larger with a 64-team field. I'd be more worried about smaller confederations being able to handle the travel costs of a global, home-and-away round-robin, but maybe FIFA could throw in some cash (I mean, assuming they have any /s) to help out with that.
Yeah, the qualification issue wouldn't be that bad; as it is, usually a few decent European sides stay home each cycle (this time around, that's Denmark, the Czechs, and one of Sweden/Portugal). This proposal simply moves the final round of qualifying to a global scope, so if you're good enough, you progress. It probably even helps better-than-average Euro teams. Imagine you're Denmark or the Czechs this time around. ELO has them both ranked in the mid-20s in the world, which sounds fair to me. To qualify out of Europe, they needed to finish top (or a strong second) in a group that included each other, plus Italy, plus some feisty Eastern European teams. Under the 64/global system, either would likely be in a 4-team group with one better side (an Argentina, maybe) and two worse top 70-ish sides (let's say, Senegal and Uzbekistan). A top-2 finish there gets them through. In general, better teams (regardless of confederation) are given a fairer shot than they have now.
The one flaw I can think of is simultaneous starts to end the groups, on a global scale - depending on the teams involved, the logistics could have games kicking off at crazy/nonsensical hours.
The one flaw I can think of is simultaneous starts to end the groups, on a global scale - depending on the teams involved, the logistics could have games kicking off at crazy/nonsensical hours.