World Cup to expand in 2026

[Colm]

11 minutes ago, Anon said:

Wales and Iceland finished 2nd in their groups so would likely have qualified for the tournament regardless of whether the number of teams had been expanded or not. Tell me which of the also rans (Ukraine, Ireland, Sweden, Hungary) that scraped through the play offs you felt lit up the tournament.

I base it on rankings because it lets me know which teams were good at the time. Just because a team were good at a certain point it doesn't mean they should be at tournament finals from then onwards until the end of time. The Netherlands didn't qualify because they were a bad team who didn't deserve to sit at the top table in 2016. Their failure to qualify is a vindication for the current system in so much as it proves that so called lesser teams have ample opportunity to prove their worth in qualifying and earn their place.

4 team groups can normally only be contrived if the final two group games aren't played simultaneously. They are.

More games devalue the tournament. We are now at a stage where 1/2 of UEFA members and 1/4 of FIFA members will play in the prestige finals of their respective organisations' tournament. Much more of this and it will lead us to question what is the point in a qualification process at all.

Ireland beat Italy and narrowly lost to France in the knock outs... meanwhile teams like portugal only just scraped through the group stage without a win and managed to win the whole tournament!

[Stive Pesley]

10 minutes ago, Colm said:

meanwhile teams like portugal only just scraped through the group stage without a win and managed to win the whole tournament!

Portugal won the tournament despite having only won one of their seven games in regular time!

3 x draws in the group, 2 x 1-0 wins in extra time, 1 x win on penalties and the 2-0 win against Wales

[Anon]

15 minutes ago, Colm said:

Ireland beat Italy and narrowly lost to France in the knock outs... meanwhile teams like portugal only just scraped through the group stage without a win and managed to win the whole tournament!

And what travesty ultimately enabled a team who finished 3rd in their group to go on and win the tournament? It was the unnecessary increase in teams leading to a farcical group stage.

[ramsbottom]

I can't wait for England not to progress from a group of themselves, Sweden, Botswana & Kasikstan...

[CWC1983]

4 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Can I be the first to feel just awful that Scotland still probably won't qualify.

Of coarse we will. Everyone knows that we've deliberately played crap in the knowledge no fan wants to go to Russia or Qatar......

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

10 minutes ago, CWC1983 said:

Of coarse we will. Everyone knows that we've deliberately played crap in the knowledge no fan wants to go to Russia or Qatar......

 

Thanks, you're right, faith restored.

It was just Strachens Staycations after all wasn't it.

[Kennington Ram]

Joke decision.

The only difference between Infantino and the rest is that he's not thick enough to have been implicated in the corruption yet, but this move is Blatter-era stuff. It reduces the power of competent/non-bent officials within the game, whilst ensuring the smaller nations are dependent on keeping the senior FIFA leadership in their jobs. It's cash for services rendered.

I'm trying to do my own boycott of Russia and Qatar (no watching games both in qualifying and when there, and definitely not going out there) but this'll just make sure all the tournaments after Qatar are crap too. International footy is dead, it's a shame England couldn't win owt again before it kicked the bucket.

[McRamFan]

Does that mean England knocked out one game sooner?

[Van der MoodHoover]

3 team groups were used in the second stage of the world cup of 1982 in Spain and produced some really turgid football. 

[Albert]

On 1/11/2017 at 01:23, ramsbottom said:

I can't wait for England not to progress from a group of themselves, Sweden, Botswana & Kasikstan...

Impossible group, Kazakhstan is part of UEFA. 

People really seem annoyed at increasing the fraction of the World competing in the tournament by 7.58% (of the World) aren't they? Consider the teams that narrowly missed out on 2014:

AFC: Uzbekistan, Jordan, Oman and Qatar

CAF: Senegal, Ethiopia, Tunisia, Egypt, Burkina Faso

UEFA: Sweden, Romania, Ukraine, Iceland

CONCACAF: Panama, Jamaica

CONMEBOL: Venezuela, Peru

OFC: New Zealand

If the rumours of them wanting to combine CONCACAF and CONEBOL's qualification are true as well, then it will create some good contests for those final spots. These aren't minnows who are missing out though, there are some very good sides in there, not least of which the likes of Egypt, Sweden and Uzbekistan. Personally I'd love to see England play away in West Asia a few times, the meltdown that would follow a tough away day there would be classic. 

People underestimate the depth of talent in World football, there are some very good national sides out there, World Cup qualification will remain competitive even with the changes. Few would have anticipated that the Netherlands could miss out on a 24 team Euros, going from 13 European qualifiers to ~16-18 isn't going to make that much of a difference in that context. 

What we will see is a great variety, and more to play for in the qualifiers for the smaller sides. Take Asia for example right now. There are 4.5 places, 4 guaranteed, one playoff against another continent. Asia has 4 main sides, Australia, Japan, Korea and Iran. With the likes of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Oman, Bahrain and such all being very competitive, they are always in an uphill battle to dethrone one of the big four for an automatic place, and much of the time that playoff place ends up against someone like Uruguay, making it basically impossible for them. 3-3.5 extra places in Asia, particularly for such a large confederation will be a major boost to many sides, while the competitiveness will remain. There are realistically 10-15 sides that could be competing for those extra places. 

The same can be said of Africa were some very strong sides in Egypt, Tunisia and such struggle to qualify from the brutal CAF qualifying campaign, despite being some of the strongest on the continent. 

The only worry with 48 teams in the World Cup is how we do the group stage to prevent collusion. Beyond that it should be a great thing for World Football in the coming decades. Personally I'd prefer 12 groups of 4 with the top two and the 8 best third placed teams going through, but 3 team groups seems to be how they're going to do it. 

[Sith Happens]

On 10/01/2017 at 13:28, StivePesley said:

Wow - great analysis, and all seems valid. A good job there is no corruption in football eh? Oh...

I'm struggling to think of ways they will prevent it, any ideas?

 

Its a good job there isnt you are right. If there was i would fully expect Russia and Qatar to be handed bery favourable groups when the draw is made and thus increasing their chances of progression. That wont happen at all will it.

[ramsbottom]

On 1/10/2017 at 13:28, StivePesley said:

Wow - great analysis, and all seems valid. A good job there is no corruption in football eh? Oh...

I'm struggling to think of ways they will prevent it, any ideas?

 

You could always not watch it all...

I'll only watch England's games in Russia just on principle.  So that'll only be three games...

[Sith Happens]

2 minutes ago, ramsbottom said:

You could always not watch it all...

I'll only watch England's games in Russia just on principle.  So that'll only be three games...

We havent qualified yet.

[ramsbottom]

Just now, Paul71 said:

We havent qualified yet.

Your right, plenty of opportunity to screw it up way before then

[Anon]

1 hour ago, Albert said:

snip

It's all well and good simply claiming that sides like Uzbekistan and Egypt are secretly great and would be a good addition to  a world cup finals, but that doesn't explain why they keep failing to qualify against other Asian and African teams who themselves consistently fail to make a significant impact in the final tournament.

2014 - Of the four European teams who had to qualify through the play offs (so theoretically the weakest from the continent), 2 qualified from the group stage (where they collected an average of  4.5 points each) and one made it to the quarter final.

Asia's representatives in the tournament all finished bottom of their groups and gleaned an average of 0.75 points each, winning a combined total of 0 games.

Africa's five representatives earned an average of 2.4 each in the group stage from which only two qualified, both going out in the last 16.

 

2010 - The four European play off winners averaged 3.25 points each in the groups. One qualified and went out in the last 16.

The four Asian teams averaged 3.5 points each. Two qualified and both were eliminated in the last 16.

The five African teams (I'm ignoring South Africa since they didn't have to qualify) averaged 2 points each in the groups. One qualified and made it to the quarter final.

 

2006 - The three European play off winners averaged 6.3 points each in the groups, from which two qualified and one went on to make the final.

The four Asian teams averaged 1.75 points each. 0 qualified for the knock out rounds.

Five African teams averaged 2.4 points each. One qualified from their group and were eliminated in the last 16.

 

So we see that the even the European teams who have to qualify by scraping through play off games perform as well or better than the very best Asia and Africa have to offer.

I understand it is a global tournament so there is a need for representation, but it's also the final stage of that tournament so there has to be some kind of meritocracy at work. For instance, how is it fair that the finals of all the long distance track races in the Olympics are filled with East Africans? I'm sure the race would be more interesting and exciting if they put a load of Asians and Europeans who are provably worse than the Africans in the final of the steeplechase.

All I see from proponents of this change is wishful thinking and conjecture about how these teams could compete if only they were given the chance. Real life results and facts say different.

[McRamFan]

Surely this is a good thing for the manufacturers of high end watches...?

[Highgate]

Won't the 2 teams playing the last game of the group have an unfair advantage of the other team in the group? 

[Albert]

14 hours ago, Anon said:

It's all well and good simply claiming that sides like Uzbekistan and Egypt are secretly great and would be a good addition to  a world cup finals, but that doesn't explain why they keep failing to qualify against other Asian and African teams who themselves consistently fail to make a significant impact in the final tournament.

2014 - Of the four European teams who had to qualify through the play offs (so theoretically the weakest from the continent), 2 qualified from the group stage (where they collected an average of  4.5 points each) and one made it to the quarter final.

Asia's representatives in the tournament all finished bottom of their groups and gleaned an average of 0.75 points each, winning a combined total of 0 games.

Africa's five representatives earned an average of 2.4 each in the group stage from which only two qualified, both going out in the last 16.

 

2010 - The four European play off winners averaged 3.25 points each in the groups. One qualified and went out in the last 16.

The four Asian teams averaged 3.5 points each. Two qualified and both were eliminated in the last 16.

The five African teams (I'm ignoring South Africa since they didn't have to qualify) averaged 2 points each in the groups. One qualified and made it to the quarter final.

 

2006 - The three European play off winners averaged 6.3 points each in the groups, from which two qualified and one went on to make the final.

The four Asian teams averaged 1.75 points each. 0 qualified for the knock out rounds.

Five African teams averaged 2.4 points each. One qualified from their group and were eliminated in the last 16.

 

So we see that the even the European teams who have to qualify by scraping through play off games perform as well or better than the very best Asia and Africa have to offer.

I understand it is a global tournament so there is a need for representation, but it's also the final stage of that tournament so there has to be some kind of meritocracy at work. For instance, how is it fair that the finals of all the long distance track races in the Olympics are filled with East Africans? I'm sure the race would be more interesting and exciting if they put a load of Asians and Europeans who are provably worse than the Africans in the final of the steeplechase.

All I see from proponents of this change is wishful thinking and conjecture about how these teams could compete if only they were given the chance. Real life results and facts say different.

Things change as years go by, but I would endeavour to point out that Egypt are arguably the strongest team in Africa going by the results of the African Cup of Nations. The brutal nature of CAF qualification in recent times (all teams qualified through playoff last time out). 

I get that thing far flung from England aren't many's forte, but the rest of the football World deserves their chance as well. The World Cup is about more than who's going to win it, or even who's going to do well; I mean, England is still allowed to compete and they've not been a threat since before Thatcher. To many nations it's just an achievement getting there, and for many of these nations it's their chance to face off against great football nations in a way they otherwise can't do. It's not unlike the FA Cup in that way. When Burton drew Manchester United and forced a replay, of course they wanted to go on and win the tie, but the big thing was actually playing against a side like them. Smaller nations won't improve without the chance, and these sides that will be included aren't minnows by any stretch. Again, I'd love to see England play them in an away day with something on the line. 

Ultimately, if we were to have a World Cup merely about who would win, it would be about 8-12 teams. Say what you will about the magic of the tournament, there have been a whole 8 winners, 1-2 of those haven't won it in generations and most likely wouldn't even consider them a threat. 

 

Edit: From a mathematical point of view in terms of average points, it's important to remember the quota of teams in each of the groups. There are 4 Asian teams in 8 groups, and 5 African teams in 8 groups. Due to this, the minimal points per game possible for the two groups combined is 2 points per 9 teams (there is going to be at least one group where they overlap). There are on the other hand 13 European teams, meaning there will be at least 5 cases of overlap, limiting the minimum points to 10 across the 13 teams. Mathematically, European teams are advantaged in this regard in that merely taking points off other European teams already gives them at least 0.77 points per game. I'm not saying that Asian or African teams are better, but if you're going to average their performances it's probably worth noting the mathematical side, or considering the performances against different continents, before simply using it as the basis for your arguments. 

For the record, Asia has had a semi-finalist more recently than England. 

[Anon]

10 hours ago, Albert said:

Things change as years go by, but I would endeavour to point out that Egypt are arguably the strongest team in Africa going by the results of the African Cup of Nations. The brutal nature of CAF qualification in recent times (all teams qualified through playoff last time out). 

I get that thing far flung from England aren't many's forte, but the rest of the football World deserves their chance as well. The World Cup is about more than who's going to win it, or even who's going to do well; I mean, England is still allowed to compete and they've not been a threat since before Thatcher. To many nations it's just an achievement getting there, and for many of these nations it's their chance to face off against great football nations in a way they otherwise can't do. It's not unlike the FA Cup in that way. When Burton drew Manchester United and forced a replay, of course they wanted to go on and win the tie, but the big thing was actually playing against a side like them. Smaller nations won't improve without the chance, and these sides that will be included aren't minnows by any stretch. Again, I'd love to see England play them in an away day with something on the line. 

Ultimately, if we were to have a World Cup merely about who would win, it would be about 8-12 teams. Say what you will about the magic of the tournament, there have been a whole 8 winners, 1-2 of those haven't won it in generations and most likely wouldn't even consider them a threat. 

 

Edit: From a mathematical point of view in terms of average points, it's important to remember the quota of teams in each of the groups. There are 4 Asian teams in 8 groups, and 5 African teams in 8 groups. Due to this, the minimal points per game possible for the two groups combined is 2 points per 9 teams (there is going to be at least one group where they overlap). There are on the other hand 13 European teams, meaning there will be at least 5 cases of overlap, limiting the minimum points to 10 across the 13 teams. Mathematically, European teams are advantaged in this regard in that merely taking points off other European teams already gives them at least 0.77 points per game. I'm not saying that Asian or African teams are better, but if you're going to average their performances it's probably worth noting the mathematical side, or considering the performances against different continents, before simply using it as the basis for your arguments. 

For the record, Asia has had a semi-finalist more recently than England. 

The rest of world football already has their chance. You do realise that the qualifiers are part of the World Cup, just not the finals? When Burton drew Manchester United they did it because they earned their place in the 3rd round by winning their previous fixtures, not because the FA messed with the structure of the tournament because they felt sorry for them or wanted to generate more revenue.

It's not even particularly about elitism, just common sense. I was fully behind the move to increase the number of teams to 32. The structure as it is, is pretty much perfect. The games fit neatly into a four week period and, aside from the final group games, can be played at intervals that allow you to watch every single game if you're so inclined. Four team groups are competitive and fair without lasting too long.

Fair point on the European head to heads. I agree that isn't the best method, so let's look at the direct results of African and Asian vs European teams in the world cup finals. I have even included 2002 this time to attempt to improve Asia'a dreadful record.

Asia vs Europe - P30 W7 D6 L17

Africa vs Europe - P39 W8 D8 L23

[Sith Happens]

20 hours ago, Highgate said:

Won't the 2 teams playing the last game of the group have an unfair advantage of the other team in the group? 

In theory yes thats why they are all played at the same time currently. Even in the PL and EFL all the last games are at the same time even if televised.

I have no issue with increasing the number of teams, just keep it groups of 4 even if a few extra groups and change the qualification for the 2nd round, make it top 1 auto qualifies and then best X number of runners up...job done, no need to mess around with it.