Eighth Debate

[Duncan Gardner]

Eighth finals, that is. AKA Round of 16. I'm suggesting abolishing them. Group winners only progress. Shortens the tournament and reduces bore draws. Granted there'd be more dead rubbers- but the weaker teams can treat as a party while the big boys are less likely to lose knackered players to injury. Over to you panel

[Satchmo Distel]

The big boys have the option of winning their first two games and resting players for the third. Or 'game management' where you go 3-0 up and cruise.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The round of 16 is, like the fifth round of the FA Cup, traditionally where any minnows who have overachieved in their first three games get swept away. You can't change that tradition.

[Wouter D]

Yeah, minnows like England in Euro 2016.

The round of 16 is ace. Belgium - USA gave us an amazing example of what extra time can be, in 2014. Germany - England was hilarious in 2010. We would have missed the Battle of Nürnberg in 2006, which was at least spectacular. The 2002 edition was a bit meh. In 1998 England once again left at this stage, while Nigeria unexpectedly crashed out horribly after cruising through their group. In 1994 we saw Argentina crash out against Romania. In 1990 Brazil, the Netherlands, and Spain were all eliminated in this round. In 1986 it was the USSR and Italy.

So there was one tournament without any surprises in the Round of 16. That is, unless our list of minnows include England, England, the Netherlands, England, Argentina, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, the USSR, and Italy. It's almost as if DG wants this to finally allow England to progress to the quarter finals. Why am I only seeing this now?

[Duncan Gardner]

Aye- if they make it to the QF Terri will prob call another snap election. I cant wait

[Wouter D]

Besides, without a round of 16, how would Mexico get eliminated?

In the upcoming Round of 16, I want to see Mexico eviscerate Brazil. To finally break that particular duck by booting home Neymar and his joga bonito buddies would be very cathartic indeed. To mark the occasion, they will then tear through Belgium in the quarter final, only to be fucked by Iceland in the semis.

A man can dream, can't he?

[Duncan Gardner]

A quick bump as he desperately looks for support

I want an exclusive tournament, Wouter and others an inclusive festival of jugendstil bolozenden or whatever it's called. You can have both by scrapping the R16.

[Jah Womble]

If you're hoping that there's any chance of FIFA actually shortening a tournament, well...

[Duncan Gardner]

The WC becomes ever more like the Olympics (more and more entrants, relaxed qualifying criteria, large-scale corruption), yet they squeeze it all into less than 3 weeks

[Duncan Gardner]

Right. 24 teams left, 21 of them can still notionally finish first in the group.

Hope I'm not misrepresenting anyone here, but do you like the R16 just because it's always been there (since 1986 anyway)? In the same way that you'll argue for the traditional 48 when FIFA suggest an expansion to 64

On Rogin's point: they're shortening the tournament for the diddy teams (ie the 16 who go home after 2 games). So why obsess on giving the middle-rankers 4 rather than 3?

Anyway, it's hardly as if ALL the game's commercial interests are united in supporting a 5 week jamboree. The powerful clubs could quite happily accept their stars not having to play 7 matches.

[Jah Womble]

Although I think that it made a complete sprawl of Euro '16, I have no problem with the extra round at the World Cup. Lesser teams have a better shout of achieving something - and one does then also feel that the overall winners are completely deserving of their victory.

I've no idea how the expansion of the tournament will work - indeed, there's now some doubt as to whether it'll happen at all - but, although I'm not a fan of increasing the number of finalists, I'd not object to reinstating 'best third-place' in the group stage, either. It eliminates dead-rubbers, for one thing. (Obviously, this would require considerable re-jigging.)

Oh b*llocks, it works fine as it is.

[Duncan Gardner]

I have no problem with the extra round at the World Cup. Lesser teams have a better shout of achieving something - and one does then also feel that the overall winners are completely deserving of their victory

Your "lesser teams" have achieved something by getting there- the more so, obviously, if it's a genuinely elite tournament with almost everyone potentially capable of getting to the last 4. Then they've had three more chances to achieve something- and second in the group represents in the World top 16. I mean, how many extra shouts do they need?

Does one? Why? Germany aren't any more deserving because they limped past Algeria last time.

I've no idea how the expansion of the tournament will work - indeed, there's now some doubt as to whether it'll happen at all

Source? But if it is 48 teams with initially 16 groups, I imagine each group will be seeded, not just split by continent.

although I'm not a fan of increasing the number of finalists, I'd not object to reinstating 'best third-place' in the group stage, either. It eliminates dead-rubbers, for one thing. (Obviously, this would require considerable re-jigging)

You don't need any rejigging to involve more mediocrity. It's there already

Oh b*llocks, it works fine as it is

It works fine for Honduras (consistently 3rd or 4th best team in North America) or Australia (ditto Asia). Indulging them doesn't justify bloating the competition.

[Satchmo Distel]

24 teams are still in it after 2 games. Surely that's a good thing?

[Pietro Paolo Virdis]

.

[Jah Womble]

Your "lesser teams" have achieved something by getting there- the more so, obviously, if it's a genuinely elite tournament with almost everyone potentially capable of getting to the last 4. Then they've had three more chances to achieve something- and second in the group represents in the World top 16. I mean, how many extra shouts do they need?

Does one? Why? Germany aren't any more deserving because they limped past Algeria last time.



Source? But if it is 48 teams with initially 16 groups, I imagine each group will be seeded, not just split by continent.



You don't need any rejigging to involve more mediocrity. It's there already



It works fine for Honduras (consistently 3rd or 4th best team in North America) or Australia (ditto Asia). Indulging them doesn't justify bloating the competition.

1 In a lot of cases, these countries don't have the advantages that the elite have. Why shouldn't they be given a little more rope (as it were)? If the elite are so superior, they'll do the job anyway.

2 Logic alone tells us that having to win more games is going to be a greater challenge. (Although any more than we have now would make for a very protracted tournament.) But, despite the competition expanding by twice its size - and the format having been changed at least three times - it's been seven games for the finalists since, what, 1974? Italy plodded through the group in 1982; France 'limped' past Paraguay in 1998; etc, etc... They were ultimately worthy winners. What's your point?

3 https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/w...tar-world-cup/

4 Eliminating 'mediocrity' - assuming that you mean 'teams without the requisite pedigree' - would also eliminate potential upsets. Tournament football thrives on these.

5 I'm not 'for' bloating the competition - as I'd hoped would be obvious. I just think it would require much better reasoning to shrink it down (which won't happen anyway).

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Yeah, minnows like England in Euro 2016.

The round of 16 is ace. Belgium - USA gave us an amazing example of what extra time can be, in 2014. Germany - England was hilarious in 2010. We would have missed the Battle of Nürnberg in 2006, which was at least spectacular. The 2002 edition was a bit meh. In 1998 England once again left at this stage, while Nigeria unexpectedly crashed out horribly after cruising through their group. In 1994 we saw Argentina crash out against Romania. In 1990 Brazil, the Netherlands, and Spain were all eliminated in this round. In 1986 it was the USSR and Italy.

So there was one tournament without any surprises in the Round of 16. That is, unless our list of minnows include England, England, the Netherlands, England, Argentina, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, the USSR, and Italy. It's almost as if DG wants this to finally allow England to progress to the quarter finals. Why am I only seeing this now?

Sorry, I've just got to step in here and point out that the second round of the 1986 world cup will live on forever, but not because of any game involving the USSR or Italy

[Satchmo Distel]

3. Link only refers to 2022. We are still headed for 48 in 2026 AFAIK

[Wouter D]

Sorry, I've just got to step in here and point out that the second round of the 1986 world cup will live on forever, but not because of any game involving the USSR or Italy

Of course! How could I have forgotten the giant upset caused by the plucky underdog's charismatic midfielder Lothar M. scoring an unexpected 88th minute goal to eliminate the mighty Moroccans!?

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

You're getting warmer

[Satchmo Distel]

Spain v Denmark?

[Wouter D]

I can imagine that TAB's talking about Negrete's goal.

[Satchmo Distel]

Negrete rien.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

No never mind me. I got my second rounds and quarter finals horribly mixed up.

[Satchmo Distel]

France v Brazil then?

[Wouter D]

No never mind me. I got my second rounds and quarter finals horribly mixed up.