Qatar s̶u̶m̶m̶e̶r winter world cup 2022

[Alexandro Garibaldi]

Groups of five would really mess with the scheduling.

You are adding another 32 games to the first round which already take up a high percentage of the of the overall comp - 80 rather than 48 1st round games before the 32 knockout games.

With an uneven number of teams in each group, there will be bye days for each team with each wave of first round fixtures. No the only problem, but the worst thing about that they couldn't schedule all teams to play their last group game at the same time. So one team will be finished just sitting around watching the other four teams play their final game to see if they make it through. See Germany v Austria in 1982 for why that can't happen.

So then you have to have 10 groups of four instead. Do you send home four of the second places, eliminating sixty per cent of the competition in the first round? Because you can't keep all but 8 of the teams and have a round of 32 because then all four in some groups would be going through and that really wouldn't be worth turning up for.

Does anybody running football ever think how their ideas would work before they start making them public?

Good points. It's going to have to be 64 teams then...

 

[virgo]

Sorry about being pedantic but it's gas not oil. Have worked there many times

They produce loads of Oil too though. 1.2 million barrels per day (which is about 8 times more than the North Sea).

 

[Le Juif Rouge]

Oh hell, no.

Rather yes please. FIFA are a joke, and the concept of National sporting competition is dying.

 

[virgo]

Groups of five would really mess with the scheduling.

You are adding another 32 games to the first round which already take up a high percentage of the of the overall comp - 80 rather than 48 1st round games before the 32 knockout games.

With an uneven number of teams in each group, there will be bye days for each team with each wave of first round fixtures. No the only problem, but the worst thing about that they couldn't schedule all teams to play their last group game at the same time. So one team will be finished just sitting around watching the other four teams play their final game to see if they make it through. See Germany v Austria in 1982 for why that can't happen.

So then you would have to have 10 groups of 4 instead. Then how do you do the second round? Do you send home four of the second placed teams, eliminating sixty per cent of the competition in the first round? Because you can't keep all but 8 of the teams and have a round of 32 because then all four in some groups would be going through, and that really wouldn't be worth turning up for.

Does anybody running international football ever think how their ideas would work before they start making them public?

You wouldn't need to send home 60% of the teams, or would all 4 qualify from a group. The top 3 would qualify from each group(3 x 10=30 teams ) plus the "best" of the 2 teams coming fourth (2 teams out of 10). That gives you the 32 teams, to go into a straight forward KO competition, which, if necessary could be seeded. The advantages for the "minnows" is that at least 2 of them qualify for the next round. The advantage to the "established" nations is that they should all qualify for the KO stage. The disadvantage to the public is that it would be boring.

Another way would be to have separate groups for the , erm, group matches. For clarity, lets call them "major groups". Each major group would consist of several "minor groups". That is "major groups 1 and 2" could have 3 groups of 4 teams each (12 + 12 =24), whilst "major group 3" would have 4 groups of 4 teams (16 teams). The winners of each "minor group" would qualify to the next stage (10 teams), plus the 2 best runners-up from each "minor group" (6 teams), to give a KO stage of 16 teams.

An alternative would be to have 1 "major group" of 3 groups of 6 teams (18 teams), and another "major group" of 4 groups of 6 teams (24 teams). The first 2 to qualify from each minor group (6 teams + 8 = 14) plus the best 3rd place from each "major Group"" (2 teams). This will again give a knockout stage of 16 teams.

The above suggestions are, of course, ridiculous, but it is FIFA we are dealing with, so they will probably come up with something far more stupid and outrageous than even my warped imagination can.

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

8 groups, 5 teams in each, top two go through.

That's your second round.

 

[virgo]

8 groups, 5 teams in each, top two go through.

That's your second round.

Can't have an odd number in group matches, as the last matches have to be played simultaneously to avoid a repeat of Austria v Germany (can't remember date, but has already been mentioned earlier in thread).

Edit-it was 1982 (just peeked at earlier post)

 

[Caveman Ninja]

To be honest I'd be lot more interested in a tournament for the bottom 40 teams in the rankings! But then I suppose I'm weird like that

 

[Project Zeus]

Can't see a system of 40 teams working to well, to be honest. I'd sooner see 64 go to the thing and have an extra knock-out round, but the number of games would be impossible to stage, especially in the developing countries that FIFA are going for nowadays - they struggle enough with the stadiums being built as it is. The only way it could work would be to scrap the group stage and go for a straight knock-out; but again, that probably won't happen as too many countries will have to leave on their first day at the tournament. Imagine if the hosts went out on the first day.

Perhaps they should simply keep 32 and revise the continental entry numbers based on FIFA rankings.

 

[Francis Benali (on loan)]

You wouldn't need to send home 60% of the teams, or would all 4 qualify from a group. The top 3 would qualify from each group(3 x 10=30 teams ) plus the "best" of the 2 teams coming fourth (2 teams out of 10). That gives you the 32 teams, to go into a straight forward KO competition

To do from 10 groups of 4 you'd have to have all four teams in two of the groups going through. It would be an almost completely pointless first round (and in that case the pointless first round would take up 60 of the 92 games).

 

[Francis Benali (on loan)]

Perhaps they should simply keep 32

This. The only answer is this. You do wonder if it is more by luck than judgement, but FIFA currently have the best format for a WC finals.

If the competition for places at the finals is stronger than it used to be then the qualifying stage will be more competitive. That can only benefit international football.

 

[Francis Benali (on loan)]

FIFA are a joke, and the concept of National sporting competition is dying.

Agree with the first part of that sentence. With respect, the second part looks like nonsense. Would you rather watch Notts CCC in the County Championship over the Ashes? Are the Crusaders more exciting than the All Blacks? Would you rather watch the Birchfield Harriers compete in the British National League over GB&NI athletes in the Olympics? It is just football that has it wrong. The clubs already having too much power is the reason.

Rather the idea of competitive club football is dying. They may as well just televise the cheques being written as that is when it is all won and lost. Not so with international football.

 

[EmJay]

How about they settle it by having less teams automatically qualify and more inter-continental playoffs. That way the Asian and African teams have the chance to take European spots if they can beat the European teams.

Heaven forbid we actually have the best 32 nations on earth qualifying!

Have 10 automatic qualifers from Europe, 4 from South America, 2 from North America, 2 from Africa and 2 from Asia/Oceania. Then have 6 groups of 5 teams teams with each group having one team from each continent, top 2 from each group also qualifys.

Those numbers are just off the top of my head but you get the idea.

 

[Le Juif Rouge]

Agree with the first part of that sentence. With respect, the second part looks like nonsense. Would you rather watch Notts CCC in the County Championship over the Ashes? Are the Crusaders more exciting than the All Blacks? Would you rather watch the Birchfield Harriers compete in the British National League over GB&NI athletes in the Olympics? It is just football that has it wrong. The clubs already having too much power is the reason.

Rather the idea of competitive club football is dying. They may as well just televise the cheques being written as that is when it is all won and lost. Not so with international football.

It is getting ever easier for people with talent to move around the planet and you are going to see more and more sportsmen and women competing for countries of convenience, and thus the concept of sporting nationhood and national character will disappear.

It also don't think it will be too much longer before the big “club football brands” declare some form of UDI away from FIFA and form their own league.

 

[Francis Benali (on loan)]

I'd sooner see 64 go to the thing and have an extra knock-out round,

Perhaps they should simply keep 32 and revise the continental entry numbers based on FIFA rankings.

If they were going to insist on expanding the competition I think it would have to be to 48. 8 groups of 6, with 2 or 4 teams from each group going through. Though you're probably eliminating either too many or not enough after the first round with that format. And even with a round of 32 that's 168 with 120 of them being first round matches.

64 teams means either 8 groups of 8 with 224 first round matches. Shoot me. Or 16 (SIXTEEN)groups of 4. Shoot me. Or a straight knock and as you say teams taking a year to qualify for the finals only to be sent home on the first day.

Surely your last point is the answer. It shouldn't be easy to make it to a World Cup. The performance of each country can influence how many places their confederation gets at future competitions. Which I believe is how it is now. No need to change it. It is the perfect tournament format. The only questionable thing about the current WCF structure is whether or not a 3rd place play-off is necessary.

Idiots have ballsed up the European Cup. God knows what the Europa Cup is even supposed to be. Allowing non-Champions into the CL has robbed FA Cup of it's prestige. Can we not mess with this great football competition we have in the WC (despite FIFA) and leave it be. See some of the more recent cricket world cup to see how a bad format can ruin a competition.

The worrying thing is Platini supposedly wants to be head of FIFA. So presumably he needs to impress people. Does he have a plan for how an odd number of teams will complete a group in a way that is fair for all five teams? Because without one it simply looks like he doesn't think things through. In most cases when somebody is in the running to be top dog in something as big as football, the candidate cannot publicly present an idea that appears this flawed without seriously damaging their credibility. They can at FIFA though. I had hopes for Platini when he became UEFA President. Anybody must be an improvement on Blatter, right? But these days the idea of Platini as President of FIFA seems a more damaging prospect than even another four years of Blatter.

the globe’s supreme sporting tournament needs rigorous protection from meddle-men such as Blatter and Platini, respective presidents of Fifa and Uefa seeking a dilution of a special competition’s quality for questionable ends.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...d-Cup-finalists-to-40-just-do-not-add-up.html

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

8 top ranked qualifying teams get automatically placed into first knockout round.

Leaves 32 teams to play in the groups. As before, 8 groups of 4, but now only side to finish first goes through.

 

[Rigler]

8 top ranked qualifying teams get automatically placed into first knockout round.

Leaves 32 teams to play in the groups. As before, 8 groups of 4, but now only side to finish first goes through.

So if they go out in the first knock out round, they've spent two years qualifying and travelled half way round the world to play in one match!

 

[MaxiRobriguez]

Not saying I think it's a good solution, just offering thoughts on how it might work.

 

[Alexandro Garibaldi]

So if they go out in the first knock out round, they've spent two years qualifying and travelled half way round the world to play in one match!

At least England, if they were good enough to qualify automatically for that stage, would get to play extra time and penalties before going home.

 

[Brolin]

I'm not sure it can work with more than 32 teams without having a flawed competition in terms of an uneven number in a group, or an unwieldy competition that is difficult for more than a handful of countries to stage, and goes on for longer than necessary like the Cricket World Cup in the West Indies and this sentence.

Looking back at the last World Cup only Ghana really impressed from the African nations, especially given it was in their continent for the first time. They'd have to show some more next year to justify bringing even more teams.

Intercontinental qualifiers is the answer to ensure the best teams from around the world get in. But then disappointment is also important - there needs to be a skin in the game for the big nations in the two years leading up to a tournament.

I'm hoping to go to my second World Cup next year and it will in all likelihood be my last as I don't much fancy Russia or Qatar. In 2026 I'll be 40 and probably more into bridge than football, or whatever people do at that age.

 

[Rigler]

I'm not sure it can work with more than 32 teams without having a flawed competition in terms of an uneven number in a group, or an unwieldy competition that is difficult for more than a handful of countries to stage, and goes on for longer than necessary like the Cricket World Cup in the West Indies and this sentence.

Looking back at the last World Cup only Ghana really impressed from the African nations, especially given it was in their continent for the first time. They'd have to show some more next year to justify bringing even more teams.

Intercontinental qualifiers is the answer to ensure the best teams from around the world get in. But then disappointment is also important - there needs to be a skin in the game for the big nations in the two years leading up to a tournament.

I'm hoping to go to my second World Cup next year and it will in all likelihood be my last as I don't much fancy Russia or Qatar. In 2026 I'll be 40 and probably more into bridge than football, or whatever people do at that age.

I went to the World Cup in 2006 for my mates 40th, and he's a couple of years younger than me......

 

[incapable hulk]

Expanding the World Cup is daft. It's supposed to be the pinnacle tournament with rthe best teams. Its not a bloody school sports day where everyone goes home with a medal.

Aye, that's why the tournament is called "The World Cup Finals".

Seems a bit mad to have so many teams in it.

 

[Barbus]

If Blatter wants to give more Asian and African teams the chance to play at at the finals, fine.

Just change the play off system to they are between countries of different continents, instead in intra-continental as they are now.

If they are better they will qualify, if not they won't. Simple.

 

[Francis Benali (on loan)]

The next step would be to introduce global qualifying groups. One can just imagine the apoplexy of Premier League managers when their England contingent are late back from Fiji and Vanuatu away.

It's true. We don't even get permission from Liverpool for Daniel Sturridge to travel to the Ukraine.

 

[Rigler]

If Blatter wants to give more Asian and African teams the chance to play at at the finals, fine.

Just change the play off system to they are between countries of different continents, instead in intra-continental as they are now.

If they are better they will qualify, if not they won't. Simple.

That's actually not a bad idea. This month there will be 4 Europe v Europe play offs, and if I remember correctly there are 5 Africa v Africa play offs. It wouldn't take much to change it so at this stage there are a number of Europe v Africa play offs, and as you say if the African nations win those then they've every right to go to the finals.

 

[DanR]

It's true. We don't even get permission from Liverpool for Daniel Sturridge to travel to the Ukraine.

If there was anything in the Ukraine worth stealing then Liverpoo would have sent the entire first team.