178 replies to this topic

[MetroFanatic]

To me, the most absurd thing is that teams will go through the grueling qualifying process for a guarantee of just 2 games.

[magicmoron]

To me, the most absurd thing is that teams will go through the grueling qualifying process for a guarantee of just 2 games.

More teams, but fewer games per team.  That was the deci$ion FIFA made.

[JBigjake54]

6-1-1 Requires a tie breaker
3-3-3 Requires a tie breaker

There may be some unhappy 3-point teams eliminated on tie-breakers, watching 1-pointers advance.

[bukie2k]

I think the original World Cup format had multiple group stages.

In 1930 the 4 group winners (one of which was the United States) met in the semi-finals. 1934 and 1938 were straight head to head knockout tournaments. 1950 consisted of 2 group stages with the winner of the second stage getting the trophy. From 1958 to 1970 the tournaments were single elimination after the group stage as it has been from 1986 up to the present. The '74 & '78 tournaments had a second round of group games (2 groups x 4 teams) where those group winners met in the final. Both years the group stage consisted of 16 teams (4 groups x 4 teams) and in '82 it was a second round of 12 teams (4 groups x 3 teams) with those 4 group winners meeting in the semis. The first stage was 24 teams (6 groups x 4 teams) that year. 

[magicmoron]

In 1930 the 4 group winners (one of which was the United States) met in the semi-finals. 1934 and 1938 were straight head to head knockout tournaments. 1950 consisted of 2 group stages with the winner of the second stage getting the trophy. From 1958 to 1970 the tournaments were single elimination after the group stage as it has been from 1986 up to the present. The '74 & '78 tournaments had a second round of group games (2 groups x 4 teams) where those group winners met in the final. Both years the group stage consisted of 16 teams (4 groups x 4 teams) and in '82 it was a second round of 12 teams (4 groups x 3 teams) with those 4 group winners meeting in the semis. The first stage was 24 teams (6 groups x 4 teams) that year. 

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of the details.  Looks like they tried it several times in different ways.

[Rybka]

To me, the most absurd thing is that teams will go through the grueling qualifying process for a guarantee of just 2 games.

And winning the whole darn thing used to get you something on top of winning. It used to be a guaranteed finals spot in the next go-around. Now the winner has to qualify just like every other team. Then they gave the winner  a place in the dubiously important Confederations Cup 3 years out. Now even that bs is gone. So besides winning, you get nada, nil, naught.

[Arsenal14]

To me, the most absurd thing is that teams will go through the grueling qualifying process for a guarantee of just 2 games.

The most annoying thing for me is how much 48 teams changes qualifying for the US.

With 6 Concacaf teams qualifying, the grueling process becomes excruciatingly dull.

[bukie2k]

With 6 Concacaf teams qualifying, the grueling process becomes excruciatingly dull.

 

Pre-1990 any US fan would have been jumping for joy at this development. Prior to 1985 when the US just missed going to the final round of Concacaf qualifying the Nats were normally eliminated in the very early rounds, dropping out with the likes of Puerto Rico and Barbados.

 

I get the philosophy of a rising tide lifts all boats but sooner or later you begin to dilute the final product too much. I think 48 teams is that point. Maybe FIFA should have explored making the play-off games part of the tournament proper, something along the lines of the play-in games in the NCAA b-ball tournament. Have 28 or however many teams qualify directly, and the final slots filled by the winners of the play-off games held 3-4 days prior to the start of the group stage.

[Arsenal14]

I get the philosophy of a rising tide lifts all boats but sooner or later you begin to dilute the final product too much. I think 48 teams is that point.

I agree, but mostly because of the format. I think the individual matches will mostly be fine, with the occasional 8-0 thrashing. If they expand to 64 (which I expect they will pretty quickly), then the games at the World Cup will be abysmal for the first 2 weeks.

I'm more concerned about the years leading up to it though. The World Cup only lasts a month; qualifying lasts for years. If qualifying is a cakewalk for the world's top 25, what's the point of watching?

[ivo]

I'm more concerned about the years leading up to it though. The World Cup only lasts a month; qualifying lasts for years. If qualifying is a cakewalk for the world's top 25, what's the point of watching?

Yeah, I'm not planning on watching qualifiers anymore. Nations League games will have more cachet than the qualifiers. At least there's a trophy at stake.

[Thomas A Fina]

Also, and especially with the Nations Leagues games taking up friendly windows, fewer chances to play high quality competition for the better CONCACAF teams

[JBigjake54]

26-man squads https://www.bbc.com/...otball/61916351

[elf]

The most annoying thing for me is how much 48 teams changes qualifying for the US.

With 6 Concacaf teams qualifying, the grueling process becomes excruciatingly dull.

Yeah, not a fan in having 48 teams qualifying. The current set up is already exciting.

[Eleazar]

interesting discussion among 3 ex USMNT player: Jimmy Conrad, ex RBNY Heath Pearce and Charlie Davies.