MDFC Manager
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 24,307
Nope, they could meet in the semi thoughCan we have a Japan VS South Korea final? That would be epic
Nope, they could meet in the semi thoughCan we have a Japan VS South Korea final? That would be epic
Agreed that 4.5 or even 5 makes sense for Conmebol, but next time you get 6+1/3, that seems crazy.We have 10 teams, 4 (40%) qualify and 1 has a playoff.
In 2010 we had four in the quarters, that because Brazil eliminated Chile in R16
In 2014 we had four in the quarters, that because Brazil eliminated Chile and Colombia eliminated Uruguay in R16
In 2018 we only got two in the quarters because Argentina lost to France and Colombia lost to England in R16, Peru exited at group stage
We've been shite this time with only Brazil and Argentina going through. Ecuador and us let the region down not getting into R16 which is the standard par for the course. Australia stopped Peru making it, and delivered, no complaints there clearly.
So your saying it's coming home?
Coming home
It's about developing the game worldwide, which part of that isn't obvious? Slowly but surely it is working.Because good performance should be awarded and not penalized.
CAF are contributing 2/16 (12.5%) teams in the knockout stage.
They currently have 5/32 (15.6%) teams in the world cup, which seems reasonable, yet they're getting 9.33/48 teams (19.4%) next time.
Failure is being rewarded.
its called a world cup. and fights between two weaker teams are more often than not the best games. same with champions league its called that for a reason 5 clubs from england and 4 from other top nations is totally against the idea. I like more weaker teamsLet's see in 4 years time if a team like Syria or El Savador (they'd have made the playoffs based on the qualifying this time with the 48 places in 2026) make it and lose all 3 games whilst conceeding 10+ goals. How interesting that'd be for everyone.
Qatar looked completely useless in this WC and they're miles better than the likes of Syria.
As mentioned, African, Asian, North American teams have their own regional tournament if you're very interested in those teams.It’s be more interesting than watching Scotland vs Israel for the 700th time in the last 5 years
Oh yeah, the new format is bonkers. It's actually going to be dogshit as well because each group will have a team that is useless so you are getting shot of the rollercoaster that this GW3 has been and instead go straight into knockouts, which are going to be cagey affairs.Agreed that 4.5 or even 5 makes sense for Conmebol, but next time you get 6+1/3, that seems crazy.
With Bolivia being completely useless away, basically that's 9 teams fighting for 6 spots and a playoff spot.
Syria and El Salvador are under different continental bodies, by your very own examples.As mentioned, African, Asian, North American teams have their own regional tournament if you're very interested in those teams.
Has it really worked? UEFA are dominating the WC like never before in the last 2 decades or so.It's about developing the game worldwide, which part of that isn't obvious? Slowly but surely it is working.
After 1994Think this is the 1st time ever no nation has finished with maximum points in their group?
so does europeAs mentioned, African, Asian, North American teams have their own regional tournament if you're very interested in those teams.
We have been shit for quite a while though.We have 10 teams, 4 (40%) qualify and 1 has a playoff.
In 2010 we had four in the quarters, that because Brazil eliminated Chile in R16
In 2014 we had four in the quarters, that because Brazil eliminated Chile and Colombia eliminated Uruguay in R16
In 2018 we only got two in the quarters because Argentina lost to France and Colombia lost to England in R16, Peru exited at group stage
We've been shite this time with only Brazil and Argentina going through. Ecuador and us let the region down not getting into R16 which is the standard par for the course. Australia stopped Peru making it, and delivered, no complaints there clearly.
When did I say they were in the same confederation?Syria and El Salvador are under different continental bodies, by your very own examples.
At least get the geography right if you want to stick with your awful point.
It’s a world cup and good diversity of countries from all corners who take part in the tournament is a good thing. If it was too top heavy with European sides it wouldn’t feel much like a World Cup at allAs mentioned, African, Asian, North American teams have their own regional tournament if you're very interested in those teams.
of course they do, i placed a bet on brasil...Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Cameroon stealing Norway's only relevance to the World Cup. Bastards.
Agreed, 3 teams groups will result in lots of collusion in the final matchday with many teams knowing exactly what is the required result for both to qualify.Oh yeah, the new format is bonkers. It's actually going to be dogshit as well because each group will have a team that is useless so you are getting shot of the rollercoaster that this GW3 has been and instead go straight into knockouts, which are going to be cagey affairs.
They will get rid of what has been a huge success here!
and I said watching them is more interesting that Scotland vs Israel again (I swear that match happens every international break). Because when else would they play each other outside of a World Cup?When did I say they were in the same confederation?
Syria would have been 9th in AFC qualifying, El Salvador 7th in Concacaf.
They'd have made the playoffs according to the 2026 allocation, which was exactly what I said.
They can only meet at the quarter finals if Japan beats Croatia and South Korea beats BrasilNope, they could meet in the semi though
I get the point about diversity, but there has to be a balance with quality as well.It’s a world cup and good diversity of countries from all corners who take part in the tournament is a good thing. If it was too top heavy with European sides it wouldn’t feel much like a World Cup at all
This is coming from someone from Ireland and I’d dearly love to be involved every 4 years but fully accept this it’s the way it’s meant to be
The World Cup is unique.
Also debated to be a red so yeah... perhaps that needs reevaluating?No chance that's a red card. It happens all the time. Remember Cheillini against Saka in the eutros?
Seriously? You want to watch Syria v El Salvador?and I said watching them is more interesting that Scotland vs Israel again (I swear that match happens every international break). Because when else would they play each other outside of a World Cup?
and most of the times when two teams out of the top ten play they are so good they neutralize each other and the game is shit.I get the point about diversity, but there has to be a balance with quality as well.
The current balance is about right, awarding non-UEFA confederations with many extra spots next time will just result in a drop in standard.
If the option is that or a dull game between second or third rate European sides facing each other over and over and over then yes, absolutely.Seriously? You want to watch Syria v El Salvador?
Each to their own I guess.
UEFA isn't dominating more than they did. As I showed earlier, in 2010 and 2014 out of 8 quarter-finalists four were CONMEBOL and all the eliminated CONMEBOL teams had been knocked out by CONMEBOL teams. UEFA has never managed such a record with their qualifying teams.Has it really worked? UEFA are dominating the WC like never before in the last 2 decades or so.
CAF teams made the QF decades ago, and have yet to make a SF after all these decades.
The only thing I agree with is that increasing the number of teams is an awful idea. Just like it is with the Euros, just like it is with the Champions League.I tend to site with Cal here. On meritocracy alone, Europe is already getting less than it should, and in 4 years it would be worse.
It is the World Cup, so there should be the best teams in the World. Not diversity for the sake of diversity, there is no fun on seeing shit teams in the World Cup. Imagine Costa Rica vs Spain but much worse than that. There are gonna be teams who will concede over 10 goals in the next World Cup IMO.
Increasing the number of teams in the World Cup was a bad idea. Increasing the number so it means more awful teams is a horrible idea.
Inglend are going to win the whole thing. It’s coming home to the 7 point lions.So Brazil, Argentina, France, Spain, Portugal have all lost to teams ranked under the USA in the world rankings but England are terrible and having an awful cup because of a 0-0 draw vs. a team in the second round? It’s sometimes tough finding reason.
i agree the most anticipated games between two great football nations are usually the most boring gamesIf the option is that or a dull game between second or third rate European sides facing each other over and over and over then yes, absolutely.
By that logic you don't watch the CL but watch the League trophy?and most of the times when two teams out of the top ten play they are so good they neutralize each other and the game is shit.
I prefer games where the outcome is not obvious before the match even kicked off, imagine France v Syria (with no resting).If the option is that or a dull game between second or third rate European sides facing each other over and over and over then yes, absolutely.
Good point about the bolded part, it's nothing more than a Fifa cash grab and it's a ridiculous format next time.I tend to site with Cal here. On meritocracy alone, Europe is already getting less than it should, and in 4 years it would be worse.
It is the World Cup, so there should be the best teams in the World. Not diversity for the sake of diversity, there is no fun on seeing shit teams in the World Cup. Imagine Costa Rica vs Spain but much worse than that. There are gonna be teams who will concede over 10 goals in the next World Cup IMO.
Increasing the number of teams in the World Cup was a bad idea. Increasing the number so it means more awful teams is a horrible idea.
8! But overall I agree with your point.UEFA isn't dominating more than they did. As I showed earlier, in 2010 and 2014 out of 8 quarter-finalists four were CONMEBOL and all the eliminated CONMEBOL teams had been knocked out by CONMEBOL teams. UEFA has never managed such a record with their qualifying teams.
Furthermore, you used to get 10 teams into R16 and now get 7, so others have been chipping away.
What UEFA has dominated is the winning, which isn't surprising seeing as you have 4-5 World Cup winning level sides, and usually 2-3 other challengers that are good enough to reach a semi or final. The rest of the world has two, one has been grossly mismanaged (Argentina) and the other hasn't had a great generation since the 2002 vintage (Brazil). This is the closest, and it's not a match for that one.
ingeland ingeland ingelandInglend are going to win the whole thing. It’s coming home to the 7 point lions.
yeah i dont watch cl when united isnt involved and i have travelled through europe to support my local team and they never gonna win anythingBy that logic you don't watch the CL but watch the League trophy?
I prefer games where the outcome is not obvious before the match even kicked off, imagine France v Syria (with no resting).
Good point about the bolded part, it's nothing more than a Fifa cash grab and it's a ridiculous format next time.
8! But overall I agree with your point.
However, it remains that Concacaf and CAF are being rewarded for not improving after decades. With AFC you can at least argue they have improved a lot this time.
Fair enough, personally I find the tactical battle amongst top sides fascinating.yeah i dont watch cl when united isnt involved and i have travelled through europe to support my local team
it can be! mourinhos inter was fascinating to watch for exampleFair enough, personally I find the tactical battle amongst top sides fascinating.
Exactly, the airbus parking actually made for quite interesting battles against tiki-taka.it can be! mourinhos inter was fascinating to watch for example