Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

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

    Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

    The traditional thread. As suggested by the doyen of footballing pundits, Brian Glanville on the BBC today.

    Think of the advantages:

    * it'd be over in three weeks, leaving much more time for sensible things like cricket, trash telly, barbecues and that big yellow thing in the sky

    * three games at different times each afternoon is confusing

    * fewer games for the leading teams, so the quality in later stages might be a bit higher

    * only six or seven European teams, so fewer makeweights stinking the place out

    * I've read the pre-tournament guide twice now and still can't remember all the funny-named foreigners

    * Ultonia would never qualify, unless they brought back the Brit championship and used that as the qualifiers...

    Come on Sepp and FIFA, you know it makes sense

    #2
    Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

    32 teams is certainly unwieldy, and there's a lot of filler there. Perhaps the best argument for it is that back when it was 16 teams, there were only about 90-100 entrants in qualifying. Now there are double the number of entrants, so the competition has expanded accordingly.

    Comment


      #3
      Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

      No. It would mean fewer games, fewer marketing possibilities, fewer chances to shout at the TV, fewer opportunities to be massively xenophobic (meant or not), and even less chance of Scotland qualifying.

      Comment


        #4
        Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

        And how would the person proposing such a downscaling be elected to the throne of corrupt cuntdom presently occupied by Sepp Blatter?

        Comment


          #5
          Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

          I propose doing away with qualifiers and groups, putting the name of every world nation into a big old hat, and having one massive knockout tournament.

          Round 1: 128 teams
          Round 2: 64 teams
          Round 3: 32 teams
          Round 4: last 16
          Round 5: quarter finals
          Round 6: semi-finals
          Round 7: final.

          To do a true knockout tournament you could only include 128 teams - let's say 128 the top ranked nations - because I don't think there are 256 national teams are there? (there's only 194 world countries AFAIK.)

          A seven round system would mean the eventual winners would play the same number of games at the finals as they do under the current system. Except you could get match-ups like, err..., England vs. Oman.

          Oh yeah, because there would be no qualifiers, friendly matches would actually mean something. And Scotland would always qualify.

          I bet we'd still be lumbered with a third-place play-off though...

          Comment


            #6
            Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

            The World Cup is ridiculously overblown at 32 teams, there's no denying that. Every World Cup produces about ten teams, in the end, who set the place alight at times and you look back on the tournament and think "with a bit more luck they could have won the thing", and that's as true now as it was in 1978 when there were only 16 finalists. The overall comparative quality hasn't improved - can't improve, indeed, in those terms, because at the end of the day the last 16 are the last 16, no matter what the format.

            However, I do like the overblown World Cup. If there are an assumed "top ten" sides, that means there are now 22 makeweights not just 6, which at least trebles the possibilities for huge upsets early on (even if it also raises the probability of three times as many dull 2-0 walkovers). Plus, while those upsets still happen, it also lessens the "Group of Death" syndrome. You still get your groups of death, of course, but they're kind of minimised -I doubt anyone truly expected Brazil, Cote d'Ivoire and Portugal to all make the semis this year, for example, whereas in 1978, Argentina, France and Italy had to play in round one and were probably 3 of the best 5 teams in the whole thing.

            Comment


              #7
              Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

              The current system - and the expansion of the European Championships - has nothing to do with opportunities for smaller nations and everyting to do with preventing the perceived disaster of a "big" nation failing to qualify with all the decrease in the marketing bonanza that would entail.

              Scotland would probably fail to qualify if we were given a bye.

              Comment


                #8
                Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                Rogins - I agree with your point that more teams equals more chance for potential upset, which in my view is a good thing.

                Which is why 128 teams would increase those chances even further... :-)

                Comment


                  #9
                  Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                  I think 32 is about right for the WC, but the Euros going to 24 could really start to dilute the quality and lead to some boring groups.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                    Once upon a time Glanville banged a drum for qualifying groups that weren't restricted by geography (e.g. Group 32: Canada, Peru, Lesotho, Austria and Indonesia). I thought this was an interesting idea until I discovered how some of the African teams travelled to their qualifying matches.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                      And how do they travel Eploding Vole?

                      Banana Boat, one donkeys or Elephant trains?

                      On the face of it there is alot of Filler in the world cup.
                      however if you looks at the last 5 or 6 tournaments, the so called "filers" have done pretty well and if we went back t0 16 teams then the likes of Cameroun, Senegal, Nigeria, USA, Turkey and Australia would not have had the impact they might had and would probably not have qualified.

                      Glanville is not interested in the world cup as a truly global tournament and would rather a EuroSouth American tournament with a couple of outsiders just to add a bit of colour. A bit like when the USA, Japan or Mexico are invited to partake in the Copa America.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                        If we take the top qualifiers in each region, the 16 we'd get for this World Cup would be:

                        7 Europe (Slovakia, Germany, Spain, England, Serbia, Italy, Netherlands)
                        2 South America (Brazil, Chile)
                        2 North America (USA, Mexico)
                        3 Africa (South Africa, Cameroon, Ivory Coast)
                        2 Asia/Oceania (Australia, South Korea)

                        No France, no Portugal, no Argentina, no Ribery, no Cristiano Ronaldo, no Messi, no chance in this era of anyone but the USA or Mexico qualifying from North America.

                        Die Steyn wrote:
                        * it'd be over in three weeks, leaving much more time for sensible things like cricket, trash telly, barbecues and that big yellow thing in the sky
                        That's a disadvantage.

                        * three games at different times each afternoon is confusing
                        That'll be your age.

                        * fewer games for the leading teams, so the quality in later stages might be a bit higher
                        In 74 and 78, the top four teams played 7 games in a 16 team competition, in 82-94, the top four teams played 7 games in a 24 team competition, since 1998 top four teams play 7 games in a 32 team competition.

                        * only six or seven European teams, so fewer makeweights stinking the place out
                        Slovakia and Serbia make it, Portugal and France don't.

                        * I've read the pre-tournament guide twice now and still can't remember all the funny-named foreigners
                        That'll be your age, again.

                        Mr Beast wrote:
                        The current system - and the expansion of the European Championships - has nothing to do with opportunities for smaller nations and everyting to do with preventing the perceived disaster of a "big" nation failing to qualify with all the decrease in the marketing bonanza that would entail.

                        Scotland would probably fail to qualify if we were given a bye.
                        The big flaw in your argument is that the expansion of the European Championships wasn't proposed by a "big" nation, it was proposed by Scotland.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                          Semenya Saxon Kingsmead wrote:
                          I think 32 is about right for the WC, but the Euros going to 24 could really start to dilute the quality and lead to some boring groups.
                          I agree completely. First, the World Cup is much more interesting with teams like North Korea, Ghana or New Zealand. Fewer top teams left behind and more access to the competition from non-traditional powers are a good thing, especially with parity developping globally.

                          The Euro however would definitely be bloated with 24 teams.

                          I think the main problem with both competitions isn't the number of finalists, but the overly laborious qualification process. What should be done is to shorten it, which would allow the World Cup and Euro be played once every 3 years instead of 4, with the Euro played the year before the WC. The World Cup frequency had been historically limited by factors like travel time, at a time when you'd have teams taking weeks to travel by ship from distant continents.

                          The Euro, CAN or Asian Cup results would be used to establish a number of automatic qualifiers (like the top half), which would shorten significantly the process. There would be a competition set up the summer before the Euro and WC between those that didn't qualify to thin out the field, leaving a smaller number of mid-tier countries to establish their qualification credentials in a concentrated process.

                          One important effect of shortening the frequency of WCs and Euros is to reduce the dominance of club competition, which has been gravely distorted by the big clubs, without significantly diluting the importance of those two big tournaments.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                            As suggested by the [strike]doyen of footballing pundits[/strike] bigoted old soak, Brian Glanville on the BBC today.
                            Fixed.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                              Technicky Vizionar wrote:
                              Mr Beast wrote:
                              The current system - and the expansion of the European Championships - has nothing to do with opportunities for smaller nations and everyting to do with preventing the perceived disaster of a "big" nation failing to qualify with all the decrease in the marketing bonanza that would entail.

                              Scotland would probably fail to qualify if we were given a bye.
                              The big flaw in your argument is that the expansion of the European Championships wasn't proposed by a "big" nation, it was proposed by Scotland.
                              Since I’m saying that it is UEFA/FIFA who are desperate to ensure the continual qualification of major nations, then the fact that Scotland proposed the change is irrelevant.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                Technicky Vizionar wrote:
                                No France, no Portugal, no Argentina, no Ribery, no Cristiano Ronaldo, no Messi, no chance in this era of anyone but the USA or Mexico qualifying from North America
                                Oh dear, boo-hoo-hoo, some mediocre teams wouldn't qualify. Well, don't employ psychiatric patients as your coaches and don't rely on a poster boy who didn't exactly pull trees up in the qualifiers, eh? Anyway, it's not as if we're denied the chance to see Franck, Leo and Ron play in other high-level tournaments.

                                Congratulations on your appointment as Coca Cola/ McDonalds marketing director btw.

                                That'll be your age
                                Cheeky bugger. Are we doing a Midlands Vuvuzelathon? If so, it's the 3pm matches that put me off, not the late night ones.

                                In 74 and 78, the top four teams played 7 games in a 16 team competition
                                Three group games, quarters, semis and final are the obvious structure for 16 team finals, whatever oddities they tried in the 70s. Cutting out the round of 16 makes sense.

                                Slovakia and Serbia make it, Portugal and France don't
                                Serbia and Slovakia are better. Just look at the tables.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                  I would certainly hope that anyone proposing that the World Cup be reduced to 16 teams would agree that Europe deserves no more berths than South America. 5 each for Europe and South America, 2 each CONCACAF, Africa, and Asia.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                    But UEFA didn't have any say on it. Scotland proposed it, and the other member states voted on it, UEFA didn't get a vote.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                      Die Steyn wrote:
                                      Technicky Vizionar wrote:
                                      No France, no Portugal, no Argentina, no Ribery, no Cristiano Ronaldo, no Messi, no chance in this era of anyone but the USA or Mexico qualifying from North America
                                      Oh dear, boo-hoo-hoo, some mediocre teams wouldn't qualify. Well, don't employ psychiatric patients as your coaches and don't rely on a poster boy who didn't exactly pull trees up in the qualifiers, eh? Anyway, it's not as if we're denied the chance to see Franck, Leo and Ron play in other high-level tournaments.

                                      Congratulations on your appointment as Coca Cola/ McDonalds marketing director btw.
                                      Cheeky bugger. I watch as little CL as possible. Besides the World Cup is about the World, and frankly I don't care how mediocre some sides will be, at least they have something to aim for, and something to improve for.

                                      That'll be your age
                                      Cheeky bugger. Are we doing a Midlands Vuvuzelathon? If so, it's the 3pm matches that put me off, not the late night ones.
                                      I was looking to start a thread on this later in the week. I have other commitments during the WC as a whole, but other than England games, I'm pretty much up for anything. (although I'd rather find somewhere I can have a coffee for 12.30/3.00 double header games, given that I've spent most of the last nine months on the wagon).

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                        Sorry Inca, that's ridiculous. It can't be justified on footballing grounds or on geographical ones. On geographical qualification it'd be ludicrous for half of South America to qualify, while Europe would get 1 in 10 and Asia not even that.

                                        And (apart from Brazil and Argentina) the South American sides have no recent pedigree. As Sean of the Shed mentioned on another thread recently, no South American side bar those two has reached the quarter-finals since 1978. There are 11 European teams before you reach the 3rd South American team in the current rankings and 18 before you get to the 5th one.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                          Take away Germany and Italy, and the only European champions have been one-offs that won it in their own country. South Americans are also the only countries to have one it outside of their own continent.

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                            But Brazil and Argentina's record should have no bearing on whether Paraguay or Ecuador should qualify.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                              I mean, I don't want to go back to 16 or 24 anyway, so it's a moot point, but with any number greater than 8 participants, Europe has a better claim to extra teams than South America.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                                I find it odd that in halving the total participants (32 to 16), you'd increase the number of South American teams that qualify (from 4.5 to 5).

                                                If you combined CONCACAF and CONMEBOL, and gave them four total spots, the USA and Mexico would qualify a lot more than Uruguay, Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador and Paraguay put together. Paraguay have been consistenly the third strongest South American nation over the last 14 years, but you'd be hard pressed to find a Paraguayan that's made an impact in world football since Chilavert retired.

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  Should the World Cup revert to 16 teams?

                                                  Even if we went to a 16 team WC and the likes of Concacaf only got 1 place the Eurosnobs will still complain we're over represented and don't deserve to be there.

                                                  The more the merrier I say.

                                                  Comment

                                                  Working...
                                                  X