But the points would factor! Otherwise we're back with the same problemThat would be quite interesting, like a warmup match but the points do not factor. Maybe have a rivalry matchday! Argentina vs Brazil, Mexico v USA, England v England.
But the points would factor! Otherwise we're back with the same problemThat would be quite interesting, like a warmup match but the points do not factor. Maybe have a rivalry matchday! Argentina vs Brazil, Mexico v USA, England v England.
Not bad at all. The problem has been that the FIFA ranking systes is bollocks. The one you're using is much better.I just did a mock draw based on ELO rankings. FIFA would probably add some regional constraints for the final draw but it gives a good idea of what to expect:
Group A: Italy, Serbia, Morocco
Group B: Uruguay, Ecuador, Tunisia
Group C: England, Senegal, Honduras
Group D: France, Chile, Ghana
Group E: Switzerland, Slovakia, Egypt
Group F: Brazil, Wales, Ivory Coast
Group G: Spain, Denmark, Cameroon
Group H: Belgium, Peru, Iraq
Group I: USA, Iran, South Korea
Group J: Argentina, Poland, Syria
Group K: Canada, Australia, DR Congo
Group L: Portugal, Colombia, Panama
Group M: Germany, Costa Rica, Burkina Faso
Group N: Netherlands, Japan, Uzbekistan
Group O: Mexico, Sweden, Saudi Arabia
Group P: Croatia, Nigeria, New Zealand
That's not that bad, is it? Some seeded nations even got two difficult matchups in their group but even if you only have one worthy opponent you have to be very careful because one mistake could mean your third game is already a knockout match against a top team.
That shows it's not going to be this huge gulf in qualityI just did a mock draw based on ELO rankings. FIFA would probably add some regional constraints for the final draw but it gives a good idea of what to expect:
Group A: Italy, Serbia, Morocco
Group B: Uruguay, Ecuador, Tunisia
Group C: England, Senegal, Honduras
Group D: France, Chile, Ghana
Group E: Switzerland, Slovakia, Egypt
Group F: Brazil, Wales, Ivory Coast
Group G: Spain, Denmark, Cameroon
Group H: Belgium, Peru, Iraq
Group I: USA, Iran, South Korea
Group J: Argentina, Poland, Syria
Group K: Canada, Australia, DR Congo
Group L: Portugal, Colombia, Panama
Group M: Germany, Costa Rica, Burkina Faso
Group N: Netherlands, Japan, Uzbekistan
Group O: Mexico, Sweden, Saudi Arabia
Group P: Croatia, Nigeria, New Zealand
That's not that bad, is it? Some seeded nations even got two difficult matchups in their group but even if you only have one worthy opponent you have to be very careful because one mistake could mean your third game is already a knockout match against a top team.
All 2, there will 2 games before the knockouts.doesnt this mean that the final match of each group will be played with the third team having played all 3?
so doesnt that create incentives like in 1982?All 2, there will 2 games before the knockouts.
But yes
Yes, in basically all of the 16 groupsso doesnt that create incentives like in 1982?
yikes. thats even worse than i expectedJust ran a crappy little excel simulation using these football match goal distributions from 0-0 to 3-3. My simulation is therefore based on random results, where all teams have the exact same chance of winning ie. no teams are better or worst than anyone else. These are crappy simulations, but based on those;
Scenario 0: There is a 13-15% chance of team A losing their first two games, leaving team B and team C to fight it out for first place in the final match. 0-3-3 after two games. No collusion is necessary as Team A are already out.
Scenario 1: There is an 18-20% chance of team A drawing one, and losing one game, leaving them with 1 point, whilst team B and C have 1 point and 3 points. 1-1-3 after 2 games. Team B and C can collude to draw and send Team A home, regardless of score.
Scenario 2: There is a 6-7% chance of team A drawing their first two matches, leaving them with 2 points, whilst team B and C have 1 point each. 2-1-1 after two games. Team B and C can collude to have a higher scoring draw to send Team A home. i.e. A 1-1 sends Team A home if Team A had two 0-0 draws so far. A 2-2 draw sends Team A home if they had two 1-1 draws so far.
Scenario 3: There is a 27-29% chance of Team A winning one of their first two games, and losing the other. 3-3-0 after two games. Team B and Team C can collude, only if Team A's loss is greater or equal to their win. I.e. if Team A won 3-0 and lost 1-0, they are topping the group over all, and cant be caught on goal difference by both teams. If the reverse is true, they will be losing the group with -2 GD (compared to -1 for the team they beat), and the two teams can collude by allowing the team that Team A beat, to beat the other team by anything less than six goals! There is around a 70% chance of this (Team A losing by more goals than they won by, or having the same GD is both matches) occurring in Scenario 3, although that includes the chance that in both games the goal difference was the same (40%) meaning that, only a result with the same goal difference again, but higher scoring, will send both teams through.
Scenario 4: There is an 18-20% chance that Team A wins one and draws one. 4-1-0 after 2 games. Team A can't be caught by both teams, so no collusion is possible.
Scenario 6: There is a 13-15% chance that Team A wins both games. Team A can't be caught by both teams, so no collusion is possible.
Overall, I calculate there is a 45% chance that Team B and Team C can collude in their final game to cause Team A to come last. This does include some situations where it would unlikely if they could collude in such a manner, but the possibility is there.
For example:
After a 3-3 draw in Match 1, and a 0-0 draw in match 2, a -4 draw will send Team B and C through - but this would seem to be unlikely
After a 2-0 win by Team A in match 1, and a 3-1 loss for Team A in match B, Team B and C can collude in Match C, team B and C can collude by allowing Team B to win 4-2.
tl;dr There is a 45% chance that collusion is possible in the third and final match in any group.
Surely it will create more attacking football as you will have to try and win your matches and goal difference will be a major factor?Groups of 3 are another stunningly idiotic decision by FIFA. Match fixers rejoice with the number of dead games this creates.
There are definitely positive's and negatives.Surely it will create more attacking football as you will have to try and win your matches and goal difference will be a major factor?
That's one I hadn't thought of. Would be at least 3-4 days. Wonder if FIFA has given this any thought?On the negative side, collusion, and fans waiting around only to find out they've been knocked out
There are some decent or semi decent teams not participating in the current 32 - Italy, Netherlands, USA, etc.I thought they might be planning 12 groups of 4, meaning a tonneload more games, and a ridiculous 8 3rd placed teams through.
That wouldn't have been great, and on first glance groups of 3 does keep the games the same.
But a team's world cup can be over after 2 games, you get 2 qualifiers out of 3 teams, and the obvious risk of the last game being a carve up. The whole point of having the last group games kick off together is to reduce the risk of cheating, so that's a backwards step.
The biggest issue though is obviously, you're adding another 16 teams who weren't good enough to qualify under the usual format.
If Saudi Arabia, Iceland, Panama, Tunisia and Costa Rica managed to qualify, how poor are these extra 16 teams going to be?
Ivory Coast, Cameroon, Ghana, Chile, Paraguay, Ecuador, Wales, Czech Republic, Scotland, Greece, IrelandThere are some decent or semi decent teams not participating in the current 32 - Italy, Netherlands, USA, etc.
One of the major problems I have with it is just the fact there’s no need. The current format is working fine.There are definitely positive's and negatives.
Their format increases the knockout matches from 16 to 32 matches plus there is more chance the final group game will effectively be a knockout game too.
On the negative side, collusion, and fans waiting around only to find out they've been knocked out
At least the commentary improves.And here we are, it's finally here, the opening match of the tournament. The United States vs England. These players from the United States have been imagining this day for the past 8 years, since the decision was made to host it here. The youngest player for the United States was just 10 years old when the US won the rights to host the tournament. England of course will co-host the next tournament in four years time, along with Australia. The teams are on the pitch, so let's going our commentary team, JayZ is alongside Sir David Attenborough.
I'd wager if this is the chosen setup there would be 12 group winners joined by the 4 best second-placed sides, similar to how it was with 6 groups of 4 which sent 12 sides plus 4 third-placed sides into a knockout round.I thought they might be planning 12 groups of 4, meaning a tonneload more games, and a ridiculous 8 3rd placed teams through.
I don't see any issue with that, instead of the current 3 matches per day, they could easily play 4 or 5 each day early on in the competition.They've already chosen 16 groups of 3, as that adds the fewest amount of games overall. (Maintains the 48 group games, only adding 16 knockout games).
12 groups of 4 would be 72 group games, larger than the whole world cup is now
As pointed out somewhere near the top of this page, it leaves the 2 teams playing on the final matchday a big possibility of collusion under plenty of scenario.Surely it will create more attacking football as you will have to try and win your matches and goal difference will be a major factor?
It pretty much ends there. I suppose Austria, Ukraine, Turkey, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Chile are all absent. Still leaves room for plenty of dross.There are some decent or semi decent teams not participating in the current 32 - Italy, Netherlands, USA, etc.
Just pointing it out, but 2/3 points for a win makes no difference whatsoever in a 3 team group.The Euros expansion kept the 4 team groups and it just doesn’t work. Teams can qualify without even winning a match and there are so many dull games with teams just playing for a draw. At least with the 3 group format a draw is more useless and goal difference will become a big factor.
The 1982 World Cup used 3 team groups for the second round of the competition and any team that drew both games were eliminated and back then a win was much less valuable (only 2 points). Teams will have to go for the win right from the off.
I’m also open to there being more nations. It didn’t work at the Euros but I think that’s to do with the 4 team group format. At the World Cup there are always great teams and nations that miss out.
Plus we get another round of knockout football which is fun.
There are obviously problems with that format as many in here have pointed out and it does seem a little unnecessary given how well the current format is working.
The United North American bid could easily accommodate that many matches. One would think FIFA would want more matches as it equals more revenues, more story lines, etc.. The key is limiting the additional matches on each nation. Adding an extended knockout round adds potentially one additional match to nations that advance deeper into the knockout round.They've already chosen 16 groups of 3, as that adds the fewest amount of games overall. (Maintains the 48 group games, only adding 16 knockout games).
12 groups of 4 would be 72 group games, larger than the whole world cup is now
They want all teams to have a guaranteed two games, though.The United North American bid could easily accommodate that many matches. One would think FIFA would want more matches as it equals more revenues, more story lines, etc.. The key is limiting the additional matches on each nation. Adding an extended knockout round adds potentially one additional match to nations that advance deeper into the knockout round.
The only other option I'd see somewhat feasible to keep an even number for advancement (i.e. 8/16/32) would be to seed the top 16 nations and award them byes to the group stage, then have the remaining 32 nations compete in a knockout match for entry to the group stage, which this round could kickoff the tournament and could be played over four days (unless it's a two-leg knockout of course, then it would take a full week). This would then pit 32 nations in the group stage and carry forward with current format. Seeing as nations are playing 2-4 friendlies prior to the World Cup this knockout round is easily doable.
The world cup itself had 24 teams in it for a few editions and it still worked okay back then. Having 3 team groups is just plain stupid.The Euros expansion kept the 4 team groups and it just doesn’t work. Teams can qualify without even winning a match and there are so many dull games with teams just playing for a draw. At least with the 3 group format a draw is more useless and goal difference will become a big factor.
The 1982 World Cup used 3 team groups for the second round of the competition and any team that drew both games were eliminated and back then a win was much less valuable (only 2 points). Teams will have to go for the win right from the off.
I’m also open to there being more nations. It didn’t work at the Euros but I think that’s to do with the 4 team group format. At the World Cup there are always great teams and nations that miss out.
Plus we get another round of knockout football which is fun.
There are obviously problems with that format as many in here have pointed out and it does seem a little unnecessary given how well the current format is working.
Incomplete rounds are also a terrible idea, the more the draw affects the outcome of a competition, the less desirable.8 groups of 6 is the way forward for me (with incomplete round robin's)
8 groups of 6, all playing 3 games. Top 4 go through.
Round of 32
Round of 16
Re-rank the remaining 8 teams here teams that have won 5 games have the easiest route to final
Quarter final, semi final, final
Did you just watch France and Denmark?Totally against this, it affected the quality of the last Euros and it will make the WC worse not better, just a nice way to win more votes.
And why being Portuguese has anything to do with a opinion? We had yesterday more than 600 hundred passes and Iran not even 200 hundred and suddenly they deserved to win?Did you just watch France and Denmark?
I’m surprised you are moaning about the last Euros especially being Portuguese.
Not like Portugal did well in their group. Even against Iran and Morocco you weren’t really great to watch.
We can belittle all the small teams. But the big boys like France, Spain and Portugal have been boring to watch.