2026 World Cup

atypical_boro

atypical_boro

Well-known member
As well as the slightly ludicrous idea of playing a world cup in an area that spans Edmonton to Mexico City and San Francisco to Boston, and the expansion to 48 teams meaning pretty much all half decent footballing nations will qualify at a canter (with less meaningful qualification matches) I've now only just clocked that its 16 groups of 3.

3-team groups have been tried once before at a world cup. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Lots to dislike about the reformat.

I have no problem going back to the USA. By the time it comes around, it will we 32 years since it's been on the North American continent.

That said, I don't like spreading it over multiple countries for the sake of it. I prefer a tournament to have an identity I suppose.

I don't like that 16 teams go home after 2 matches. I think 3 is enough time to get to know teams, see who'se any good etc.

Groups of 3 is potentially problematic too. I don't think groups of 4 necessarily stops contrived results (France vs Denmark in the last WC could have been suspected of contrived non-aggression).
I don't know if this is going ahead, but there was talk of group games going to penalties to get results if necessary to stop contrived draws? This, for me, ignores the fact that the notorious shame of Gijon did not end in a draw.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I don't know if this is going ahead, but there was talk of group games going to penalties to get results if necessary to stop contrived draws? This, for me, ignores the fact that the notorious shame of Gijon did not end in a draw.
Click to expand...
Yes, Van Basten wants that, not sure if a decision has been made.
 
Frozen Horse said:
Lots to dislike about the reformat.

I have no problem going back to the USA. By the time it comes around, it will we 32 years since it's been on the North American continent.

That said, I don't like spreading it over multiple countries for the sake of it. I prefer a tournament to have an identity I suppose.

I don't like that 16 teams go home after 2 matches. I think 3 is enough time to get to know teams, see who'se any good etc.

Groups of 3 is potentially problematic too. I don't think groups of 4 necessarily stops contrived results (France vs Denmark in the last WC could have been suspected of contrived non-aggression).
I don't know if this is going ahead, but there was talk of group games going to penalties to get results if necessary to stop contrived draws? This, for me, ignores the fact that the notorious shame of Gijon did not end in a draw.
Click to expand...
The shame of Gijon was in a 4 team group.
 
Rofesleg said:
The shame of Gijon was in a 4 team group.
Click to expand...
Ah yeah, it was second round that went down to 3. Odd format in hindsight.

However, surely the risk of collusion is bigger with 3, generally, if the top 2 go through? At the 82 world cup only the winner of each group went through.
 
Rofesleg said:
The shame of Gijon was in a 4 team group.
Click to expand...

My point was collusion can still happen in a group of 4. That said, I think there is more opportunity for it in groups of 3.

Meanwhile, I think this evenings matches are prime examples of the type of drama the WC will be losing with groups of 4.
 
Frozen Horse said:
My point was collusion can still happen in a group of 4. That said, I think there is more opportunity for it in groups of 3.

Meanwhile, I think this evenings matches are prime examples of the type of drama the WC will be losing with groups of 4.
Click to expand...
Group F has been awesome. Fair play Hungary, so close.
 
Loads of people were moaning about the new Euros format but tonight showed that it works brilliantly. That was so entertaining.
 
uncle_rico said:
Loads of people were moaning about the new Euros format but tonight showed that it works brilliantly. That was so entertaining.
Click to expand...

I'll take back some of what I said about the format.

I reckon the group stage has been 25 goals up on the 2016 tournament.
Over 36 matches, that marks a big rise in attacking intent.
 
atypical_boro said:
As well as the slightly ludicrous idea of playing a world cup in an area that spans Edmonton to Mexico City and San Francisco to Boston, and the expansion to 48 teams meaning pretty much all half decent footballing nations will qualify at a canter (with less meaningful qualification matches) I've now only just clocked that its 16 groups of 3.

3-team groups have been tried once before at a world cup. What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...
On your point about geography aren’t we watching a current tournament that spans Europe? From Rome to St Petersburg across 7 countries. We don’t think that was ludicrous? It seems to have worked ok. And as for the 48 teams New Zealand won’t be complaining.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
On your point about geography aren’t we watching a current tournament that spans Europe? From Rome to St Petersburg across 7 countries. We don’t think that was ludicrous? It seems to have worked ok. And as for the 48 teams New Zealand won’t be complaining.
Click to expand...
Yep. Give us a chance to add the football to our Cricket and rugby world champions list.

7100939A-44A3-49C3-9DA8-A05BB4CA8826.jpeg
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
On your point about geography aren’t we watching a current tournament that spans Europe? From Rome to St Petersburg across 7 countries. We don’t think that was ludicrous? It seems to have worked ok. And as for the 48 teams New Zealand won’t be complaining.
Click to expand...
I think it completely takes away the tournament atmosphere having it spread over such a large area. In one small country the atmosphere is incredible around tournaments but this just seems to be lacking, think a world cup where the only way to get between host cities is to fly will have the same impact.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
On your point about geography aren’t we watching a current tournament that spans Europe? From Rome to St Petersburg across 7 countries. We don’t think that was ludicrous?
Click to expand...

I think it's fairly ludicrous. I don't think it's fair to judge this tournament on it because of covid though, which means however it was organised, it would feel odd.

I remember a few years back Holland/Belgium bidding for the WC. Their big selling point was that it would be the most environmentally friendly games ever (their delegation all rocked up on bikes).
The powers that be showed what they thought of that idea. FIFA went for the idea of air conditioned stadia in Qatar, and UEFA decided to have everyone jetting back and forth across the continent.
 
TBF I think hosting a world cup even just partly in Canada is stupid. They barely acknowledge the existence of “soccer”. At least it is bigger in the US nowadays and they actually know what it is.
 
JM14 said:
I think it completely takes away the tournament atmosphere having it spread over such a large area. In one small country the atmosphere is incredible around tournaments but this just seems to be lacking, think a world cup where the only way to get between host cities is to fly will have the same impact.
Click to expand...
That happened in Russia And Brazil where supporters had to fly to host cities. In Qatar all the venues are within a 30 mile radius but that will not add to the atmosphere. It would be the same if just held in the USA in my opinion given the size of that country, its football ambivalence in general and the lack of a heart to a few of those cities.
 
atypical_boro said:
Mexico do ok for world cups like! Third time they’ve hosted it since we last had it.
Click to expand...

I didn't know this at the time, but the '86 WC was originally awarded to Colombia.

When this wasn't considered safe anymore due to the drug cartels, I don't know why Mexico was chosen; I assume they wanted to keep it somewhere in the Americas.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I didn't know this at the time, but the '86 WC was originally awarded to Colombia.

When this wasn't considered safe anymore due to the drug cartels, I don't know why Mexico was chosen; I assume they wanted to keep it somewhere in the Americas.
Click to expand...
Yeah I knew that. They still had the infrastructure I think.
 
Fair point about the distances in this Euros but what I’ve loved about this format, that I didn’t expect to, is that most of the games are a home game for someone so the atmosphere is fantastic. It’s like having 10 different hosts in football-mad countries.

Main problem with the US is that they’re indifferent to football and have no culture of it.

I’d never, ever host a WC or a Euros in a country with no footballing culture if it was up to me, it’s **** and makes a mockery of how special the tournament is. They don’t deserve it. Rather have a WC in Hungary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top