Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Mexico's third World Cup. America's second. What f***ing nonsense that the country who invented the game has only had it once and that before either  held it for the first time.

 

I think that's the attitude that stops anyone voting for England. Plus money, they must not bribe enough.

I think the FA don't show that attitude enough if I'm being honest. It's a disgrace how few major football tournaments England has hosted.

 

:thup: Considering the quality of the stadiums and the national interest in the sport it's a complete joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico's third World Cup. America's second. What f***ing nonsense that the country who invented the game has only had it once and that before either  held it for the first time.

 

I think that's the attitude that stops anyone voting for England. Plus money, they must not bribe enough.

I think the FA don't show that attitude enough if I'm being honest. It's a disgrace how few major football tournaments England has hosted.

 

:thup: Considering the quality of the stadiums and the national interest in the sport it's a complete joke.

 

I both agree and disagree. I mean, compared to France and shit it's a disgrace. But I also think Europe in general has hosted far too many tournaments. That said I do not think developing countries should get it because fuck that noise. Which leaves very few countries that could host it in other continents than Europe. I think Scandinavia should be given a European Championship at some point though. Combined we have almost enough decent stadiums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico's third World Cup. America's second. What f***ing nonsense that the country who invented the game has only had it once and that before either  held it for the first time.

 

I think that's the attitude that stops anyone voting for England. Plus money, they must not bribe enough.

I think the FA don't show that attitude enough if I'm being honest. It's a disgrace how few major football tournaments England has hosted.

 

:thup: Considering the quality of the stadiums and the national interest in the sport it's a complete joke.

 

I both agree and disagree. I mean, compared to France and shit it's a disgrace. But I also think Europe in general has hosted far too many tournaments. That said I do not think developing countries should get it because fuck that noise. Which leaves very few countries that could host it in other continents than Europe. I think Scandinavia should be given a European Championship at some point though. Combined we have almost enough decent stadiums.

I agree. Scandinavia has been waiting since 92 and World Cups 58, so definitely should be due. The churlish would count Russia but not me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

The best solution would be an A and B tournament. The top teams after qualification make the normal World Cup, the remaining teams have their own tournament. Would mean the smaller and newer nations play meaningful and competitive football to help their development and chances of making the next 'main' tournament

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 teams to be knocked out before the group stages. Whats the point!? :lol:

 

Wouldn't mind that. As long as it would be some sort of extra-qualifiers. Rather that than a 48 or 40 team groupstages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would prefer to keep it as is, but I suppose it wouldn't be totally horrible if the cross continent final playoffs like 1st Oceania v 5th Asian team etc and maybe the second place playoffs for Europe as well were held in the hosting country immediately prior the world cup finals.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that work with their precious seedings system though? Might get a scenario where a big nation is in the Play Off and in the bottom pot, and it would be too late logistically to change it based on rankings, etc that close. They'd hate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37553822

 

Mark McGhee would be in favour of an expanded World Cup finals if it is easier for Scotland to qualify.

 

The Scotland assistant was responding to an idea put forward by Fifa president Gianni Infantino to expand the finals from 32 to 48 teams.

 

"I'd be a fan of any format that gets us to a World Cup," said McGhee.

 

"The format this time round is pretty difficult and it was shown in the Euros that teams like Iceland can make a fantastic contribution."

 

Europe will be represented at the 2018 World Cup finals by hosts Russia, the winners of nine qualifying groups and the winners of four play-offs involving the eight best group runners-up.

 

But Infantino has suggested that more teams could be allowed to qualify in future finals, with 32 teams playing in a preliminary knockout round and the winners progressing to the initial group stage as it is now.

 

McGhee praised this year's expanded European Championship finals and the role played by smaller nations like Wales, who reached the semi-finals.

 

"Not just the teams but the supporters of these teams made it a spectacle," he said.

 

"I know the Tartan Army would anyway and, if there is a route to make it more manageable to get there, I am up for that."

 

Aye, but for one, Iceland didn't qualify because of the expanded format.

Two, they're not talking about a Euro-style expansion, they're on about some shitty glorified play-off match held in the host country immediately before.

Three, as a Scotland fan, I'm gagging to go to a WC, but not to go over for a one game knock-out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

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...