Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 11/11/2022 at 17:29, Disco said:


Their Dad (surprisingly not approaching 50 when this photo was taken) is the most Scottish looking man is the world.

 

E2-l2QgXMAQSYJ8.jpg

 

That's Alex McLeish surely. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ben said:

 

Loads of people tweeting how bad this is, I thinks it's a cracking idea 

It’s a shite one for me, the WC was bloated enough with 32 teams, 48 + 8 games is a piss take.  Money has driven it like this - just like the expansion of the Euros

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Don't like the idea of teams finishing 3rd in their group and still going through 

 

I'd sooner have 64 countries and top 2 going through. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The teams who play last in the groups will know what will be required for 3rd place to get through so there could well be some dodgy matches playing out for a bore draw. This was experienced in the 1994 world cup before it changed to 32 teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CPL said:

The teams who play last in the groups will know what will be required for 3rd place to get through so there could well be some dodgy matches playing out for a bore draw. This was experienced in the 1994 world cup before it changed to 32 teams.

 

Yeah, and it encourages scared and boring football. Finland won their first game in 2020 Euros and the coach admitted that they didn't want to be too aggressive against Russia in the second game as draw would have been fantastic and even a small loss alright. Then he was complaining after the last game how the results in other groups hadn't been good for us when we got knocked out.

 

If teams are ready to defend a 1-0 loss in the second group game to protect their goal difference, football will be boring as fuck. IP's way of having 48 teams would be so much better and every game would be meaningful to the end as that bye is so valuable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 months later...

A single host country is better, but I think it's become very hard to many single countries to host the World Cup (or Olympics) so I'm fine with Morocco, Portugal, and Spain as co-hosts. It's only a few games but so needless to add the South America part. If you want it there for the 100th anniversary then just put it there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

A single host country is better, but I think it's become very hard to many single countries to host the World Cup (or Olympics) so I'm fine with Morocco, Portugal, and Spain as co-hosts. It's only a few games but so needless to add the South America part. If you want it there for the 100th anniversary then just put it there. 


Yeah there are very few countries who could pull off hosting the tournament single-handedly (I’d think Spain would be one of them, logistically/infrastructure-wise). I do like regional co-hosts provided it makes sense, which of course this one doesn’t. I’m not sure USA-Mexico-Canada makes sense either tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...