@ Jah
1Why shouldn't [non-elite teams] be given a little more rope? Because the marginal benefit to them doesn't justify expanding the tournament. Their rope as you call it was making the last 32
2 You've answered your broad point- at some stage the tournament becomes overlong/ boring/ a risk to players' fitness and clubs' profit- and ultimately unmanageable. We're just disagreeing where that divide comes
The current holders played 17 matches to win the tournament. That in the R16 didn't make that much difference to the overall quality of the tournament, nor how deserving the Germans were
My point is that the top four teams shouldn't need to play 7 games in the Finals. It irritates me and others including their employers. You're answering it with a mix of largely irrelevant logic and acceptance that things should/ will stay as they are long-term so why challenge? Which in any case is contradicted by the plans for 2026- the long-established 3 games for all finalists is likely to go
4 I'm proposing getting rid of 8 games offering potential upsets. There would still be 55
5 I'm suggesting the tournament is bloated as it is- the evidence being the mediocre teams that regularly appear in it. You aren't really challenging my reasoning- just disagreeing with my bias
1Why shouldn't [non-elite teams] be given a little more rope? Because the marginal benefit to them doesn't justify expanding the tournament. Their rope as you call it was making the last 32
2 You've answered your broad point- at some stage the tournament becomes overlong/ boring/ a risk to players' fitness and clubs' profit- and ultimately unmanageable. We're just disagreeing where that divide comes
The current holders played 17 matches to win the tournament. That in the R16 didn't make that much difference to the overall quality of the tournament, nor how deserving the Germans were
My point is that the top four teams shouldn't need to play 7 games in the Finals. It irritates me and others including their employers. You're answering it with a mix of largely irrelevant logic and acceptance that things should/ will stay as they are long-term so why challenge? Which in any case is contradicted by the plans for 2026- the long-established 3 games for all finalists is likely to go
4 I'm proposing getting rid of 8 games offering potential upsets. There would still be 55
5 I'm suggesting the tournament is bloated as it is- the evidence being the mediocre teams that regularly appear in it. You aren't really challenging my reasoning- just disagreeing with my bias
Comment