England

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Shock.

[Mole_Toonfan]

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

[ponsaelius]

I don't see why you couldn't just have a draw after the group stage, the 8 group winners vs the 8 runners up.

 

The draw being 'unbalanced' isn't the problem, it's teams knowing their potential route and trying to manipulate it.

[Kaizero]

I don't see why you couldn't just have a draw after the group stage, the 8 group winners vs the 8 runners up.

 

The draw being 'unbalanced' isn't the problem, it's teams knowing their potential route and trying to manipulate it.

 

All for that suggestion tbh Makes things even more exciting.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I don't see why you couldn't just have a draw after the group stage, the 8 group winners vs the 8 runners up.

 

The draw being 'unbalanced' isn't the problem, it's teams knowing their potential route and trying to manipulate it.

 

Agreed. I’m not well versed on the history of the WC so I don’t know if it’s always been this way or if teams were drawn from a pot like with the FA Cup after qualifying from a group.

 

For fairness and to help final games between those that have qualified not becoming a non event or a farce, however, perhaps drawing qualifiers from a hat is the best outcome?

 

England vs Belgium tomorrow is a game probably neither want to play because the deciding result will leave one team facing a tougher path towards the Final and the other an easier path. On paper anyway of course.

 

The biggest challenge in terms of fairness is that when a team has already qualified after two games, their final game can adversely or positively effect the rest of the group in ways that mean the other teams may have to rely on the team already qualified to put out a strong team and win or put out a weak team and lose or hope they play the game in the right spirit.

 

I can’t see a way around that, other than for each individual team to make sure their own fate rests in their own hands come the final game which means for all teams to go all out to win their first two games. That’d does not happen though, the conventional wisdom being that a team cannot afford to lose their first game when it should be they have to win their first game.

 

That would make for a better spectacle and a more competitive group stage of the WC.

 

When it expands to even more teams the quality will be diluted and we will see some more teams that will stink out the tournamnet, but if they get their on merit they deserve a shot at it I suppose.

 

What I’d like to see is a group of teams that are not high up in the rankings who are to all intents and purposes there to make up the numbers to use a cliche, be paired all in the same group to give such teams a chance. Teams like Panama for example.

 

One could argue why should such teams be given a leg up or a helping hand over better teams who will be paired against even better teams, but the WC should always also be about the development of the game and rewarding nations who have qualified on merit in the name of balance and fairness. like how top ranking or seeded teams are rewarded.

 

Otherwise all WC qualifying teams should be drawn into the actual WC groups by chance rather than seeding by way of drawing numbers like with the FA Cup 3rd round onwards. Just mix them all together and may the best teams qualify and win instead of may the best team win following favourable pre determined or fixed circumstances.

 

Or maybe not

[Guest Howaythetoon]

A quick question to gauge opinion, should the winner get automatic passage into the next WC like it used to be? I’m happy that the winner has to qualify for the following tournament myself, but I don’t buy the original reason given that it’s unfair on them as they won’t have played a competitive match for 2 years or so. Getting to the WC should always be based on merit, although obviously the host nation or nations have to automatically qualify.

[tgarve]

A quick question to gauge opinion, should the winner get automatic passage into the next WC like it used to be? I’m happy that the winner has to qualify for the following tournament myself, but I don’t buy the original reason given that it’s unfair on them as they won’t have played a competitive match for 2 years or so. Getting to the WC should always be based on merit, although obviously the host nation or nations have to automatically qualify.

I

We always breeze through qualifying , bar some rare disasters so just let us qualify again

[Sho Time]

Or maybe not

 

I only read this part of the post.

[Marmoset]

A draw with England finishing second on fair play (as long as we avoid Columbia) for me please. Solid performance and keep momentum from being damaged but still the easy (easier) potential games.

[Mole_Toonfan]

Going to be funny as hell if Colombia don't even qualify ( which is very possible) with everyone wanting to avoid them.

[Kaizero]

Hate Martinez, but giving him credit where credit is due - saying «Winning is not our priority, if we win, we win. But it’s not our priority.» in public is great

[Tisd09]

I don't know why they do the predetermined path from the 2nd round. Like someone said earlier, have a pot of group winners and a pot of group runners up and do a random draw stops all this nonsense then.

 

From a non Englishman personally I think they should go out to win while giving some fringe players such as Rashford a run out. Public noises made by Southgate suggests this is the case but whe knows what he is saying behind closed doors?

[Klaus]

Just heard this headline on the radio

 

‘Never has the nation wanted England to lose so badly than tonight vs Belgium!’

 

[Disco]

I don't know why they do the predetermined path from the 2nd round. Like someone said earlier, have a pot of group winners and a pot of group runners up and do a random draw stops all this nonsense then.

 

From a non Englishman personally I think they should go out to win while giving some fringe players such as Rashford a run out. Public noises made by Southgate suggests this is the case but whe knows what he is saying behind closed doors?

 

All when and good but when folk (fans, broadcasters, whoever) are spending £000's having more than 1-2 days to plan and move is probably pretty beneficial.

[Mole_Toonfan]

I don't know why they do the predetermined path from the 2nd round. Like someone said earlier, have a pot of group winners and a pot of group runners up and do a random draw stops all this nonsense then.

 

From a non Englishman personally I think they should go out to win while giving some fringe players such as Rashford a run out. Public noises made by Southgate suggests this is the case but whe knows what he is saying behind closed doors?

 

All when and good but when folk (fans, broadcasters, whoever) are spending £000's having more than 1-2 days to plan and move is probably pretty beneficial.

 

Yeah that's probably the main reason it's never happened, the logistics of it all is really difficult.

[sbnufc]

Rumoured Belgium line up is so weak (compared their their main starting 11). They have the right idea, good for them.

 

They'll get to the final and Southgate will be sat at home rocking slowly "but the momentum"

 

 

[Guest dabe]

Crush them. Break Brazil. Win, we have enough to compete and overcome any remaining team.

[Tsunami]

You’ve got to give yourself the best chance of winning the whole thing and that means finishing 2nd in the group. The bottom half of the draw is so much weaker.

[Kaizero]

Crush them. Break Brazil. Win, we have enough to compete and overcome any remaining team.

 

http://vectornews.eu/uploads/posts/2018-06/15289248511getty2.jpg

[Guest firetotheworks]

It's a tough one.

 

I don't like the idea of going into a match looking to lose, but then ultimately it's about winning the war, not one battle.

 

At the same time, it doesn't instil confidence in your players if you're planting the seed that they can't beat certain teams.

 

It's a difficult one and I'm on the fence. I certainly wouldn't be unhappy with a draw and a couple of English yellow cards, played within the spirit of actually trying to win.

[STM]

Cant believe anyone thinking finishing second is beneficial. If we lose tonight and finish second, we aren't winning this cup. I'm sure i read the last 15 winners all topped their groups.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Cant believe anyone thinking finishing second is beneficial. If we lose tonight and finish second, we aren't winning this cup. I'm sure i read the last 15 winners all topped their groups.

 

You can't believe that people would prefer to play Japan, Switzerland/Sweden over Columbia, Brazil/Mexico?

 

I don't think anyone's thinking about England winning, just going the furthest. Surely you can understand both perspectives?

[STM]

Cant believe anyone thinking finishing second is beneficial. If we lose tonight and finish second, we aren't winning this cup. I'm sure i read the last 15 winners all topped their groups.

 

You can't believe that people would prefer to play Japan, Switzerland/Sweden over Columbia, Brazil/Mexico?

 

I don't think anyone's thinking about England winning, just going the furthest. Surely you can understand both perspectives?

 

I just thought people wanted to win it. My bad.

[Guest dabe]

Crush them. Break Brazil. Win, we have enough to compete and overcome any remaining team.

snip

 

Harry Kane can be the great equaliser. Not saying they will win, but definitely enough about them to have no fear of the other "big" sides. They're asking for trouble going into games thinking they can't compete with the likes of Brazil, Portugal, France or Spain.