Superally Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Now looks it's likely to be expanded to 48 teams. We still wont qualify ha ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnie Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Just been reading that on the Beeb website. Apparently the vote was in favour. I think it devalues the tournament slightly - there was a prestige to the World Cup previously, which is being diluted by involving so many teams. Of course, I do see the argument that World Cup means it should involve more nations, but that's what the qualifiers are all about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deutsch Par Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 From what I have read about it, it looks like the first stage will be more of a preliminary round so the weaker nations who qualify will probably be filtered out then. The winners will still only play 7 matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digs Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 It's a joke IMO. This is about getting developing nations into the tournament. The problem with that is that's not what the World Cup is about. It's not supposed to be a festival of nations, it's not the Olympics. The World Cup is supposed to showcase the best national teams in the World, with the best players, and qualifying to get there should be difficult. It's not really going to benefit teams like Scotland, it will benefit those who are already playing against relative ability, i.e. their level, so you'll have teams in there who have no business competing at the top table because they're not good enough yet they will have 'qualified' because they have beaten teams that are no better than Junior sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al k Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Still won't qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I think I read somewhere Europe will only get 3 or so extra places so it hardly impacts us much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanguinePar Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 I've not looked at the plans in detail, but I quite like the sound of this tbh.I don't agree that the WC is or should be just about the very best in the world playing each other over and over (see also the Champions League) every 4 years, and I'm glad that a more diverse range of teams will get there and have their chance at achieving something, even if that's just making into the final 32.I also agree with Infantino that smaller nations getting exposure will be good for their development as football nations and hopefully help break the iron grip of the European and South American teams.The only thing I'm not keen on is the fact that, as always, it'll likely be seeded throughout, thus trying to manufacture progression for the best teams instead of leaving things to chance and enabling huge matchups in the early stages and also the higher probability of longer runs by underdogs. But that is just the way of modern football, sadly.Related - here's a table from the BBC on World Cup formats over the years. Love it :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanguinePar Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Quote from Mourinho (given before this vote took place I think, judging by the editor's note):I’m totally in favour. As a club manager, if the expansion meant more games, less holidays and less pre-season for players, I would say no. But it’s important for critics to analyse and understand that expansion doesn’t mean more matches. Players are protected and clubs are protected in this way. I prefer groups of three. Two matches and then through to the knock-out stages or go home (Editor’s note: one of the World Cup expansion proposals is for 48 teams in 16 groups of three sides). This way, the two group matches are crucial, then the knock-out stage is next which brings even more emotion. Teams with less potential and experience will probably play two matches and go home. But they would do so having improved and gained experience on the pitch, which would be added to the economic rewards of appearing at the finals - including further investment in their footballing infrastructure.The expansion means that the World Cup will be even more of an incredible social event. More countries, more investment in different countries in infrastructure, in youth football. More nations taking part means more passion, more happiness, more enthusiasm. More countries means more Africans, Asians, Americans together. Football is developed in the clubs, so we can’t expect football to explode in terms of quality at a World Cup. The World Cup is a social event and football can’t relinquish this opportunity to further reflect fans’ passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turps Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Anyway, enough of all that, let’s get to the heart of the matter. Does it mean Scotland will qualify?Current proposals, which look likely to ratified by Fifa, would mean Europe receiving three more places in the tournament, 16 in all (one per group). So I’d say there was still a strong chance of Scotland stuffing that up.The proposed breakdown would comprise: Europe 16 teams (13 currently); Africa 9 (5); Asia 8.5 (4.5), South America 6 (4.5), Concacaf 6.5 (3.5), Oceania 1 (0.5), Host nation 1 (1).So it's not giving us much more of a chance to qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digs Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Quote from Mourinho (given before this vote took place I think, judging by the editor's note):I’m totally in favour. As a club manager, if the expansion meant more games, less holidays and less pre-season for players, I would say no. But it’s important for critics to analyse and understand that expansion doesn’t mean more matches. Players are protected and clubs are protected in this way. I prefer groups of three. Two matches and then through to the knock-out stages or go home (Editor’s note: one of the World Cup expansion proposals is for 48 teams in 16 groups of three sides). This way, the two group matches are crucial, then the knock-out stage is next which brings even more emotion. Teams with less potential and experience will probably play two matches and go home. But they would do so having improved and gained experience on the pitch, which would be added to the economic rewards of appearing at the finals - including further investment in their footballing infrastructure.The expansion means that the World Cup will be even more of an incredible social event. More countries, more investment in different countries in infrastructure, in youth football. More nations taking part means more passion, more happiness, more enthusiasm. More countries means more Africans, Asians, Americans together. Football is developed in the clubs, so we can’t expect football to explode in terms of quality at a World Cup. The World Cup is a social event and football can’t relinquish this opportunity to further reflect fans’ passion.The part in bold is one of the big issues. If you've got a group of three, then you will have situations like in the past where teams know what they need to do and playing out draws or particular scorelines. That is completely wrong and against the spirit of competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnie Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 The proposed breakdown would comprise: Europe 16 teams (13 currently); Africa 9 (5); Asia 8.5 (4.5), South America 6 (4.5), Concacaf 6.5 (3.5), Oceania 1 (0.5), Host nation 1 (1).So it's not giving us much more of a chance to qualify. Im not sure that split is quite right or fair on Africa or Asia with the number of nations within their federations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turps Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Quote from Mourinho (given before this vote took place I think, judging by the editor's note):I’m totally in favour. As a club manager, if the expansion meant more games, less holidays and less pre-season for players, I would say no. But it’s important for critics to analyse and understand that expansion doesn’t mean more matches. Players are protected and clubs are protected in this way. I prefer groups of three. Two matches and then through to the knock-out stages or go home (Editor’s note: one of the World Cup expansion proposals is for 48 teams in 16 groups of three sides). This way, the two group matches are crucial, then the knock-out stage is next which brings even more emotion. Teams with less potential and experience will probably play two matches and go home. But they would do so having improved and gained experience on the pitch, which would be added to the economic rewards of appearing at the finals - including further investment in their footballing infrastructure.The expansion means that the World Cup will be even more of an incredible social event. More countries, more investment in different countries in infrastructure, in youth football. More nations taking part means more passion, more happiness, more enthusiasm. More countries means more Africans, Asians, Americans together. Football is developed in the clubs, so we can’t expect football to explode in terms of quality at a World Cup. The World Cup is a social event and football can’t relinquish this opportunity to further reflect fans’ passion.The part in bold is one of the big issues. If you've got a group of three, then you will have situations like in the past where teams know what they need to do and playing out draws or particular scorelines. That is completely wrong and against the spirit of competition.They are talking about doing away with draws and having games go to penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digs Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 Why don;t we just go straight to penalties from kick off or score within ten seconds from the halfway line. Saves wasting 90 mins playing games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.