cidered abroad Posted January 10, 2017 Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 And England will still not progress past the first group stage, losing heavily to the Faroe Island Ladies XI and only drawing with Pitcairn Islands and Burkino Faso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 With an extra 16 matches be interesting to see how they got in the fixtures without increasing the length of the tournament. There's no 2 game last march group games anymore, can see games being played noon till midnight to squeeze them all in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 13 hours ago, Portland Bill said: Why not have more countries getting the chance to play in the WC finals. It's not long ago that England failed to qualify for the final 32, so at least it gives us more chance ( no I'm not joking) of qualifying each time. Less and less English talent playing in our leagues ( we have just signed an Aussie,Bosnian and a German ourselves! ) will make it harder for us. Currently Europe gets 13 of the 32 places, i for one would like some of the other football mad countries in the World get their chance to finally have their day. There are talented players worldwide who currently will never get to play in a WC, It may well make WC finals become a bit more interesting, because the last few have become stale imo. I read today that 77 different nations have played in WC finals, some of these should have more of a chance of experiencing the tournament again in the future, Would you envision something similar to S America's single super-group for qualifying? Because it's in qualifying that Europe has it sewn up. Europe gets 13 places and decides those places via 9 groups of 6 teams each. The draw for those groups is seeded, thus the 9 "best" teams get a group of their own that they can pretty easily dominate, largely guaranteeing that those teams get through to at least the play-offs. Frankly I hate seedings in sport. My attitude is that if you want to win you take the luck of the draw and you beat whoever lies in front of you at whatever stage of the competition. Seedings are used to try and guarantee that the highest rank (and therefore most commercially attractive) players/teams meet at the latest possible stage - thus helping to achieve a "blockbuster" tie. However this then ensures that those players/teams continue their success. Tennis is the biggest perpetrator of this - doing it all it can to make sure that the top 4 get to the semi-finals (where they get more ranking points and prize money). Basically you can get more minor teams into the finals by simply not seeding the qualifying stage. No need to expand it to 48 teams. Just don't seed the qualifying. Sure you may end up with Spain, Germany and Italy all in a group, and one will miss out. Tough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 Anything to help inclusion is a positive from me. It hardly devalues the competition, it's still going to be the same teams come the end of the tournament. It just gives those lesser nations who don't usually qualify the opportunity for a bit more glory. People probably said the same when expanding from 24 to 32, and yet 32 seems spot on to me. The only negative from my side is that the group stages will be dreadful under this format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star of a gunner Posted January 11, 2017 Report Share Posted January 11, 2017 On 10 January 2017 at 11:56, Taz said: Couldn't have said it better myself. The Euros were awful, and not just because of the England results/performances. I watched a lot of the evening games, and to be honest I can't remember one single game that was worth watching really. Everything that is changed, whether it be tournament formats, sponsorships, kick off times, it's all money orientated. A lot of fans are becoming wise to it, but I can't see anything getting bette, or even changing, anytime soon. Followed england all round the world ,fed up with being ripped off to watch shit football ,happy to just follow city now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North London Red Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 I'm loathe to post a link to a Daily Mail article, but I have to say I agree with this piece from Martin Samuel: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-4107154/FIFA-s-new-48-team-format-mean-Tahiti-vs-Curacao-Welcome-2026-World-Cup.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted January 12, 2017 Report Share Posted January 12, 2017 Probably already been mentioned but in my opinion we should not have a league system at all; not at the Euros nor the World Cup. Just invite the top 96 seeded teams from the rankings. Pit the top 48 against the bottom 48 and continue in that vein until the final... Every single match becomes a cup final. Make 'friendlies' meaningful for rankings based on a points system whereby the higher ranked team you beat you gain more points but, equally, if you play a low ranked team it is not a negative if you win as it is now. What better way to level the world playing field of football... Duhhhh... How simple is that? Genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.