loki679 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Why should Canada get a world cup? Just in the Americas there's Chile, Peru, Argentina and Colombia who have a much richer footballing tradition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 16 groups of 3 apparently. No skulduggery going to happen there then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Why should Canada get a world cup? Just in the Americas there's Chile, Peru, Argentina and Colombia who have a much richer footballing tradition. I'm not saying they should. They should have a suitable bid with a lasting legacy. The problem is though the new format makes it harder for nations who are wanting to create a legacy now have more difficulty doing so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. Why should Canada get a world cup? Just in the Americas there's Chile, Peru, Argentina and Colombia who have a much richer footballing tradition. What's heritage got to do with it. It's who's willing to pay FIFA the most isn't it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. what the fuck is this post? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcjb Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 What's the actual format? I read the winners would still play only 7 games? So it'll be the same? I thought by having a group of 3, it would mean 1 less game? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. what the fuck is this post? http://i66.tinypic.com/1183kap.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 What's the actual format? I read the winners would still play only 7 games? So it'll be the same? I thought by having a group of 3, it would mean 1 less game? 2 of 3 in each group go through leaving 32 in knockout stage. This will require one extra game for the knockout stage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 which shouldn't be much extra stress because every final group game will be fixed anyway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole_Toonfan Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I mean it was obvious, but at least it's been admitted. Because obviously you don't make this move if you care one little bit about the product on the field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I am broadly in favour of the changes. Half of the third group matches are shit, i.e Argentina and Netherlands playing for a 0-0 draw as both teams are through, or an already eliminated Poland second team beating Iran 2-1 with both teams already out. Shit teams and stalemates will be removed quickly. Almost all second games will have a knockout flavour. Beyond whichever team you support, the final, and the semis, the best matches have always been with the plucky underdogs knocking out England/France/whoever. We will get more of these matches. Whilst th existing format has existed most of my life it has changed with the times before and we do need to see more places. I doubt it will happen but I would have even more suppport if there was somewhat more of a possibility to reduce the number of international games in a domestic season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 My big worry is that it now pushes the prospect of Canada getting the World Cup further away. Canada only have 3 stadiums that are suitable for a World Cup, well 4. Some of these are going to need renovating and extensions as well. I guess other countries will have a similar problem, but instead of having to gain half a dozen stadium they now probably need to add another 2-3 stadiums to that list. I think a Canada bid will now have to include baseball and CFL stadiums. what the fuck is this post? http://i66.tinypic.com/1183kap.jpg wonder if any canadians have as much passion for their country getting a WC as stifler does? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Many were against expanding the World Cup previously. Havelange basically got in in 74 because the stuffy bigwigs wanted to keep it as a European and South American event. But it made sense in the 70s with the mass decolonization that had taken place in the previous decades and did again in the 1990s after the fall of USSR and Yugoslavia. Football is the undisputed global game, and one of the reasons for its success is because its continually expanding and inclusionary. Compared to sports like cricket that seem happy to stay as the colonial boys club that Stanley Rous wanted football to be. So broadly on a principle I'm not against the expansion of tournaments. My reservations come for 3 reasons. One is that with the state FIFA is in right now, the motivations are far more in line with making money and using the 'democratic' nature of FIFA to retain power across many smaller confederations. This makes it very difficult for any decision that FIFA makes to sit easily. Secondly, the format is an issue. Expanding the Euros wasn't so much reducing quality that was the issue but the format that made it dull. Big teams stunk out the group stages just as much as the newcomers, because the format allowed and even encouraged negative football to flourish - look at Portugal getting through with 3 draws and then going on the win the tournament. So the solution is either to have groups of 3, or to have a preliminary round before the main group stage. I'd prefer the former as starting a World Cup in stages ruins it - it should always open with the hosts. Finally, an expanded World Cup of 48 teams is difficult to host. You can see with a 24 team Euros that nobody is willing to host it. Only a handful of large nations probably have the capacity to do so. However a 48 team World Cup does make co-hosting more workable, so even though that was never supposed to happen again it may need to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just seen the potential format. Personally I think that's better than alternatives that have 3rd place teams going through. Something approaching straight knockout from the start is good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just seen the potential format. Personally I think that's better than alternatives that have 3rd place teams going through. Something approaching straight knockout from the start is good. Encourages draws/defensive football though? if you play games 1 & 2 in your 3 team group, and get 2 points, a winner in game 3 will see you through with the two draws Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ameritoon Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I'm sure they'll do away with draws and every group stage game will have extra time and penalties Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Hmmm. It's hard. The format does suck. 16 and 32 work very well, everything else is difficult. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just seen the potential format. Personally I think that's better than alternatives that have 3rd place teams going through. Something approaching straight knockout from the start is good. Encourages draws/defensive football though? if you play games 1 & 2 in your 3 team group, and get 2 points, a winner in game 3 will see you through with the two draws Game 3 will is absolutely nailed on to be a draw if that gets those other teams through.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just seen the potential format. Personally I think that's better than alternatives that have 3rd place teams going through. Something approaching straight knockout from the start is good. Encourages draws/defensive football though? if you play games 1 & 2 in your 3 team group, and get 2 points, a winner in game 3 will see you through with the two draws Game 3 will is absolutely nailed on to be a draw if that gets those other teams through.... If game 3 is a draw in that situation all 3 teams will have played out draws and all be on 3 points. Then what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Goals scored I would assume... lots of 6-6 final group games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Hmmm. It's hard. The format does suck. 16 and 32 work very well, everything else is difficult. I'd genuinely prefer it to have 64 teams. Have the first round a 2 legged knockout or some bollocks. At least keep the correct number in the bracket. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Group stages are going to be as pointless an affair as the Euros. Pony teams like Congo, New Zealand & Norway providing a free pass for the big teams. Hopefully the knockouts will still be dece. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I think its a cracking Idea, under current rules Asia get 4 places, Africa get 5 and Europe get 13, that's not fair. I'm all for more games to watch during the world cup and although I didn't initially like the idea of penalty shootouts settling group games this is probably the best way to keep things fair. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 Initially thought this was going to involve Wild Card bullshit and thought it was a terrible idea, but having seen the actual format I'm more amenable. This actually shortens the group stages, so that seems like a good thing. Realistically qualifiers have been too unforgiving with a lot of deserving teams in Europe missing out due to arbitrary tiebreakers, so this makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foluwashola Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 I think its a cracking Idea, under current rules Asia get 4 places, Africa get 5 and Europe get 13, that's not fair. I'm all for more games to watch during the world cup and although I didn't initially like the idea of penalty shootouts settling group games this is probably the best way to keep things fair. It's perfectly fair. Europe tend to send 13 genuine football teams, bar 2002 when Ireland qualified. The same can not be said of Asia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now