EPT2016 - 2017 Football Thread - Page 125
| Forum Index > Sports |
Liquid`Drone
Norway28920 Posts
| ||
|
Ysellian
Netherlands9029 Posts
On January 10 2017 01:10 sneirac wrote: That will just mean well get to enjoy more dictators and presidents that aspire to become dictators will get to use the world cup as a marketing opportunity. Maybe we will get a rotation of winter and summer world cups? Lots of middle eastern oil countries to go to. I don't know, I think a lot of it depends on how the Qatar world cup is received. While a lot of the middle eastern spending may seem retarded, there is also plenty of intelligent investment. The World Cup just isn't great for your country unless the stadiums are already there or the newly built stadiums are guaranteed to be used by clubs. What Qatar are doing right now is shooting themselves in the foot to be frank. I think the UAE and Bahrain are relishing the hit to Qatar's reputation. Also I know for a fact that important infrastructural projects have been delayed indefinitely due to the costs of World Cup related infrastructure. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands4025 Posts
I don't like this change at all. No draws?! Draws are part of football. Group phase is the best phase of the WC, as there are 3 games on everyday, all you do is get beer and hang around with your friends for 2 weeks, it's amazing. After group phase, it feels you're just back to normal with the occasional match, like during the league season. The best change would be for the WC to have 5 teams per group instead of 4. 1 game per team extra, 8 new teams in the WC in total (4 europe, 2 SA, 1 africa, 1 asia). 2 teams advance per group as usual. Win-win! | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11449 Posts
This is suppose to be the most elite and prestigious international competition. I don't wanna see a crap team there just because of the extra spots | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28920 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On January 10 2017 02:05 Liquid`Drone wrote: I hate the no draws suggestion though. And I agree that group stage phase is the best part of the WC, and I don't like the structure they are proposing for a 48 team tournament at all. But I just don't think you guys from countries that consistently make it to championships really understand how much a country that almost never makes it appreciates making it. Besides Iceland, I thought Northern Ireland was the most fun team to follow last EC, because you could really tell how much all the fans and players loved being there, and the 'new contenders' really didn't make fools out of themselves at all. Football is so volatile and teams have improved so much that even with the inclusion of another 16 teams, there aren't suddenly gonna be a bunch of uninteresting games. Germany-Fiji, sure. Portugal-Hungary? Best game of the EC.. The only team you mentioned that definitely made it into the Euro because of the extended system is Hungary. Both Iceland and Wales were second in their groups, and played quite convincingly in the qualifiers, and Northern Ireland was first. Teams that were third: Ireland (okayish, they had passion and beat (a poor) Italy when the latter didn't care anymore), Hungary (entertaining), Turkey (terrible), Ukraine (terrible), Sweden (aka Zlatan's disgrace). But in general, there was just too much bloat with a load of terrible quality matches throughout the group phases. Maybe it's because of the setup (3rd place qualifying, so most teams really didn't give a shit) rather than the actual number of teams, though. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28920 Posts
| ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
On January 10 2017 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think the group stage with 66% of teams going through is a terrible idea, regardless of whether there are 24 or 48 teams involved. So I'm not positive towards the proposed WC setup or the current EC setup. But I am very positive towards more teams qualifying for tournaments - because football keeps evolving and more and more teams end up being competitive, and because I think being in championships is an amazing experience for countries that aren't used to it. Fair enough that Iceland and Northern Ireland actually won their qualifying groups - but they would have celebrated the participation equally much if they qualified through being third placed and winning playoffs. And my impression is that Iceland's EC participation was a bigger deal to Iceland than say, Germany's most recent world cup victory was to Germany. But will this actually do more than move the threshold of qualifying? I mean the former fringe nations that participated every other tournament (hey dutch friends!) will now become regular participants and there will be a new crop of teams that will become fringe teams. However the novelty only lasts for one or two tournaments and then that will become more or less routine for a country like Iceland too and after all that we still have 20x Fifa members but 48 participants so it will just have to be increased again in a few years and we paid for it with a worse tournament. I get your argument, its just that there is a point where this will turn from a benefit to a negative and the worse tournament format is already a huge drawback. Add to that, due to how qualifying is organised in the majority of confederations its very questionable how many small teams will actually benefit from this. I think all but Europe and South America play multiple rounds where large parts of the pool are sorted out early and the new slots will just be distributed to teams that have already had a shot at qualifying every time. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6326 Posts
On January 10 2017 03:28 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think the group stage with 66% of teams going through is a terrible idea, regardless of whether there are 24 or 48 teams involved. So I'm not positive towards the proposed WC setup or the current EC setup. But I am very positive towards more teams qualifying for tournaments - because football keeps evolving and more and more teams end up being competitive, and because I think being in championships is an amazing experience for countries that aren't used to it. Fair enough that Iceland and Northern Ireland actually won their qualifying groups - but they would have celebrated the participation equally much if they qualified through being third placed and winning playoffs. And my impression is that Iceland's EC participation was a bigger deal to Iceland than say, Germany's most recent world cup victory was to Germany. I'm going to agree with you here. The biggest problem in the euro were the ridiculous group stages. The bloat has pretty much always existed in the wc it'll just be a little more than usual. | ||
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18772 Posts
| ||
|
Greg_J
China4409 Posts
| ||
|
Faruko
Chile34173 Posts
| ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
2026 first 48 team world cup, wonder what odds are it goes to a country like Dubai or Iceland to host xD without any infrastructure to cope. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
And yes, I think that the number of asian/african teams at the world cup was too low so far. 2026 is virtually guaranteed to be hosted be the USA (with mexico or canada possibly as cohosts). FIFA has kept the principle of "at most every third world cup for the same continent" for quite some time now, which makes europe and asia ineligible. | ||
|
WillyWanker
France1915 Posts
On January 10 2017 23:29 Mafe wrote: I think the one of the weirdest aspects of this schedule will be that some teams will be eliminated before others have played their first game. You can limit this by having the lowest seeded team to rest on the 2nd playday. The top 1 team should not lose their 2 games... In theory. I don't like it mostly because like someone said already, this format will encourage teams to play defensive. Also, qualifying for a WC should be an achievement in itself... I guess it's easier to disapprove with that decision when you come from big football countries :p | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
 | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18487 Posts
On January 11 2017 00:26 Pandemona wrote: Plus for us European countries coming off the back of long regular seasons going into the World Cup and having in theory to play 2 games before it starts which mean something is just extra games. England already fucked as it is, can't make it even harder for us I don't get it. Please explain why there are 2 extra games? | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18772 Posts
| ||
| ||
