Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Europe v Rest of the World at World Cups

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • linus
    replied
    Originally posted by N est ? View Post
    Maybe a plate competition for 2026? I mean, if they're prepared to bloat the tournament out that much already, why not?
    Yes, they should just have the top 24 teams qualify outright, and then the second tier of 32 teams compete for the remaining 8 spots in a mini-world cup to be held the summer before, or something along those broad lines. This maximizes participation, access, and revenue, win-win all the way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wouter D
    replied
    Huge variation in those playoff participants there. Ivory Coast vs. Italy is a very different beast from China vs. Solomon Islands.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    In my scenario, 8 of the additional 16 places are automatic and 8 are via play-offs. We can give CONCACAF, Africa and Asia two each of the automatics so in 2018 IIRC the 8 would be Honduras, USA, Syria, Uzbeckistan, Congo, Burkina Faso, Italy/N.I., Chile. The play-offs would include Italy/N.I., Paraguay, Ecuador, ROI, Greece, Uganda, Ivory Coast, China, Solomon Islands and T&T plus one from each federation.

    I would think that, on average, each federation would get at least a couple of teams through the play-offs except Asia and Oceania.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wouter D
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    In spite of this, I would still say that yes, over two legs the sixth, seventh and eighth placed teams in CONMEBOL would at least fancy their chances, if not be outright favourites, in an intercontinental playoff.
    I agree with that statement. But Rogin's original one guaranteed CONMEBOL success in all three hypothetical intercontinental playoffs.

    Pick any of the CONMEBOL candidates against any of Trinidad, Zambia, and China, and I'd put the probability that the CONMEBOL team prevails at about 70%. Outright favorites indeed.

    Winning all three such playoffs would then have a success probability of 34.3%. Not impossible, but severely less likely to happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flynnie
    replied
    Considering the US's historic struggles in Central America, I think it's almost a certainty they'd be eaten alive by a CONMEBOL team in a playoff. Even more so if it's at altitude.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogin the Armchair fan
    replied
    Originally posted by Wouter D View Post
    Hmm. Chile, Paraguay, and Ecuador versus USA, Cote d'Ivoire, and Syria. And you're saying that CONMEBOL are guarateed to win all three? I'll bet against that; what odds do you offer?
    I'd still say so, and don't forget in the new 48 team allocation it wouldn't be those - more like Trinidad, Zambia and China.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    The CONMEBOL qualifying period for the World Cup just finished was the lowest standard I've ever seen it, because every team except Uruguay were going through a major overhaul and every team except Brazil had no idea what they were meant to be doing (until Uruguay got their shit together in the last few matches). That followed through into the tournament itself and was a big factor behind the disappointing showings of (especially) Argentina and Colombia, in my opinion (okay, Colombia didn't exactly disappoint, but they didn't deal with the group as comfortably as they ought to have done, in my opinion, even though it was my favourite group of the lot for competitiveness and overall standard).

    In spite of this, I would still say that yes, over two legs the sixth, seventh and eighth placed teams in CONMEBOL would at least fancy their chances, if not be outright favourites, in an intercontinental playoff. There's frequently nothing between sixth and fifth anyway. Even when the standard's higher than it was this time, it's a very tight group apart from those bottom two positions (arguably the bottom one position, but for Venezuela's regression to the mean this time round after improving in the previous two campaigns/Copas Amrica).

    All the same, I still think giving CONMEBOL more spots than it currently has is ridiculous, simply because of the mockery it would make of the qualifying process. Having that epic, eighteen-game league championship all for the sake of cutting fewer than half of the teams is daft. If FIFA want to open up more spots to the CONMEBOL sides they should do it by fusing CONMEBOL and CONCACAF and putting a total of, say, ten automatic spots plus three playoff spots up for grabs. That way if more than half of South America does end up qualifying, they've earned it (sure, the standard's higher down here, but the CONCACAF sides are plenty experienced enough at blood and thunder qualifying matches to cause some shocks), and, well ... that really would be a qualifying competition everyone would want to watch, wouldn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    If FIFA are confident that the non-CONMEBOL teams would go through, set up the play-offs. But of course they won't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wouter D
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogin the Armchair fan View Post
    Have 5 automatic CONMEBOL qualifiers, let their next 3 play off against one each from AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, I guarantee you'd end up with 8 CONMEBOL.
    Hmm. Chile, Paraguay, and Ecuador versus USA, Cote d'Ivoire, and Syria. And you're saying that CONMEBOL are guarateed to win all three? I'll bet against that; what odds do you offer?

    Leave a comment:


  • Flynnie
    replied
    Seriously, imagine seeing this:

    CONMEBOL (6): Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile

    Versus some of the utter shit at the tail end of every other confederation and saying "You know who has too many places in the World Cup? The South Americans!".

    Leave a comment:


  • Rogin the Armchair fan
    replied
    If anything CONMEBOL has too many places, given there's only ten teams, unless Suriname and Guyana go to CONMEBOL. It seems daft having a ten team league where six qualify, and one goes to the next round.
    Except that pretty much the top 8 or even 9 of those 10 can more than hold their own against anyone else. Chile dIdn't even make it this year, and they've won the last 2 Copa Americas. It's nonsense for anything other than political reasons to have more AFC teams at the finals than CONMEBOL ones. Have 5 automatic CONMEBOL qualifiers, let their next 3 play off against one each from AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, I guarantee you'd end up with 8 CONMEBOL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Originally posted by David Agnew View Post
    If we based the 2026 quallifying on the 2018 performances, a 48 team World Cup would produce the following qualifiers:

    UEFA (16): Russia, France, Portugal, Germany, Serbia, Poland, England, Spain, Belgium, Iceland, Switzerland, Denmark, Croatia, Sweden, Italy, Northern Ireland
    CONMEBOL (6): Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile
    CONCACAF (6): Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, USA, Trinidad & Tobago
    CAF (9): Tunisia, Nigeria, Morocco, Senegal, Egypt, Congo DR, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Cote D'Ivoire
    AFC (8): Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Australia, Syria, Uzbekistan, United Arab Emirates
    OFC (1): New Zealand

    Playoffs (2): Paraguay, Guatemala, Canada, Zambia, China, Solomon Islands

    I think there's too many strong European teams to reduce their numbers, and a World Cup needs to be more representative of the World. Out of the extra teams, there's four debutants, the UAE haven't been there since 1990 and Congo DR were called Zaire last time they qualified. If anything CONMEBOL has too many places, given there's only ten teams, unless Suriname and Guyana go to CONMEBOL. It seems daft having a ten team league where six qualify, and one goes to the next round.
    How many of the additional 16 would have made the last 32? Probably the UEFA and CONMEBOL ones.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Who would broadcast the plate games? The participating countries would watch it but for everyone else the games would probably clash with the main competition. Plus sheer viewing fatigue.

    OTOH just make it the third placed teams from 2018 and that could work

    2018: Nigeria-Senegal final for me. I don't see Germany and Poland being able to get their shit together.

    Leave a comment:


  • N est ?
    replied
    Morocco - Peru
    Iran - Nigeria
    Germany - Poland
    Costa Rica - Senegal

    Peru - Nigeria
    Germany - Senegal

    Nigeria - Germany

    Leave a comment:


  • N est ?
    replied
    2018 Plate:

    Saudi - Morocco
    Peru - Iceland
    Iran - Egypt
    Nigeria - Australia
    Serbia - Germany
    Tunisia - Poland
    Korea - Costa Rica
    Senegal - Panama

    Leave a comment:


  • N est ?
    replied
    Maybe a plate competition for 2026? I mean, if they're prepared to bloat the tournament out that much already, why not?

    Leave a comment:


  • tee rex
    replied
    The 48 team tournament exacerbates the imbalance between the lengthy qualifying process (plus 6 month wait afterwards) and time spent actually at the World Cup. It's tough enough that Peru or Morocco spend forever waiting for their chance, bring thousands of followers and then go home after 3 games, to wait another decade or two. Now they go home after 2 games. Hope against logic is an essential ingredient of the whole football experience, and for almost all countries hope is still alive after 2 games in the current format (even if it's "we need to beat the top seeds and the other game goes in our favour" ... it's still hope). The 24 team format with the 3rd place qualifiers even more so, albeit at the expense of decent football.

    In 2026 hosts Canada will have years of build-up and then play for 3 hours before it's all over. At least they won't have spent a fortune on plane tickets, unlike the eliminated Ugandans and Uzbekis. I can't think of any other major team sports event that has such a brutal contrast.

    Rank outsiders celebrating their upset draw in the second group game is an integral part of World Cup history, and now it only means 'boarding pass'. Shame.

    Leave a comment:


  • David Agnew
    replied
    If we based the 2026 quallifying on the 2018 performances, a 48 team World Cup would produce the following qualifiers:

    UEFA (16): Russia, France, Portugal, Germany, Serbia, Poland, England, Spain, Belgium, Iceland, Switzerland, Denmark, Croatia, Sweden, Italy, Northern Ireland
    CONMEBOL (6): Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Chile
    CONCACAF (6): Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, Honduras, USA, Trinidad & Tobago
    CAF (9): Tunisia, Nigeria, Morocco, Senegal, Egypt, Congo DR, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Cote D'Ivoire
    AFC (8): Iran, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Australia, Syria, Uzbekistan, United Arab Emirates
    OFC (1): New Zealand

    Playoffs (2): Paraguay, Guatemala, Canada, Zambia, China, Solomon Islands

    I think there's too many strong European teams to reduce their numbers, and a World Cup needs to be more representative of the World. Out of the extra teams, there's four debutants, the UAE haven't been there since 1990 and Congo DR were called Zaire last time they qualified. If anything CONMEBOL has too many places, given there's only ten teams, unless Suriname and Guyana go to CONMEBOL. It seems daft having a ten team league where six qualify, and one goes to the next round.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wouter D
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
    It's a World Cup so it needs teams from all over the world but looking at that list Wouter put together, there's no way Croatia should be at risk of not having a place, given where they ended up.
    That's very post hoc, though. Their qualification campaign was not exactly vintage. Based on their relative performance in qualifying, Poland had substantially more right to be in the World Cup than Croatia.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Play-offs are surely the way to go. Croatia v Uzbekistan would produce the correct finalist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Thistle
    replied
    It's a World Cup so it needs teams from all over the world but looking at that list Wouter put together, there's no way Croatia should be at risk of not having a place, given where they ended up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    48 will be a disaster. The quality is not there. I would say there is enough quality for 24 but we stick with 32 to simplify the qualifying. For example 2018 had 8 makeweights for that reason.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wouter D
    replied
    Originally posted by Rogin the Armchair fan View Post
    An extra 4 for Asia
    Syria, Uzbekistan, United Arab Emirates, and either China or Iraq. Ugh.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wouter D
    replied
    It could do with some tweaks. I'd prefer OFC to have a full spot, because I can't square diversity with an entire continent's association not have at least one guaranteed spot. I'd also like to see more African qualifiers, but definitely no more Asian ones; they by and large stunk the place out.

    Berths at the 2018 World Cup:
    AFC 5, CAF 5, CONCACAF 3, CONMEBOL 5, OFC 0, UEFA 14

    Preferred tweak:
    AFC 3, CAF 7, CONCACAF 3, CONMEBOL 5, OFC 1, UEFA 13

    So that would replace Australia and either Saudi Arabia or South Korea with two from DR Congo, Zambia, Cote d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso, and Uganda. It would also replace Switzerland, Croatia, Denmark or Sweden by New Zealand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Satchmo Distel
    replied
    Or have play-offs between zones for half of the 16 slots.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X