VirginiaHam
8:11 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
surely not.........32 was too many meaningless matches at Euro 2016.
|
kylay
8:09 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
It is unbelievable how much FIFA has sucked the life out of the world cup. 20 years ago, it was what I lived for. Now I actively hope west ham players retire from international duty to avoid the meaningless wear and tear.
|
i-Ron
7:53 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
andyd12345 1:37 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
You're way off.
The knockout games won't be seeded. They're the qualifier play offs from the qualifying group stages...played once instead of two legs.
So the game where Henry handballed it and knocked out Ireland. It's that fixture.
|
Alex G
7:31 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
If they keep expanding the euros and world cup like this I reckon in my lifetime I'll see Scotland qualify for another major tournament.
|
The Joker
7:19 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Recent World Cup and Euro tournaments have been fucking awful - in large part because the tournaments have become bloated with too many meaningless games.
Terrible idea.
|
Private Dancer
7:05 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
*scrapped....fucks sake
|
Private Dancer
7:04 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
i-Ron 11:26 Tue Oct 4
That's what I wondering, so if those Nov play off's are crapped and they do this instead I don't see a problem. 16 games, so would most likely only need to extend the tournamament by 4 or 5 days.
Mart - Thought it worked well. It wasn't a great tournament excitement wise, but the best parts of it was probably watching the teams that wouldn't normally have been there.
|
Mart O
1:48 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
So did anyone think that this summer's expanded Euros was a good idea ? It was a bag of shite, if you ask me.
|
andyd12345
1:38 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Shouldn't*
|
andyd12345
1:37 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Stupid idea.
The knockout games would be seeded, so Germany would end up playing Botswana and winning 12-0 - no way wold a revenue producing "favourite" be allowed to leave after 1 game.
That leaves a handful of mediocre teams that will play a handful of equally mediocre teams in the same knockout stage. On the basis that no one would really give a toss who qualified out of Slovakia and Slovenia, or Angola and Guinea then those games wouldn't provide any real drama (or promote any interest) deeming the whole thing pointless.
The point of the 2 year qualifying campaign is the separate the wheat from the chaff. The tournament itself should be used for that.
|
Up The Iron
12:33 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Sixteen teams (one of which features three West Ham players) is the only format worth having.
|
Sniper
12:17 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
(nt)
|
i-Ron
11:26 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
It's basically those two leg play off matches being played before the world cup, instead of november.
I think it's a great idea
|
Troy McClure
11:15 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
As Im sure its already been said...
MONEY MONEY MONEY
The game is dead.
|
dicksie3
11:02 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
It's already boring enough.
|
East Auckland Hammer
11:01 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Like the Club World Cup, only for countries and 10x the size.
|
Josh
10:52 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
So countries potentially going out to the host nation for only one game?
Yeah, makes loads of sense...
Thats the whole point of the WC Qualifying isn't it?
|
East Auckland Hammer
10:48 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
As it stands, I'm fairly happy with NZ 's qualifying route - win Oceania and playoff against a central or South American team for a place. We' re the only confederation without direct entry and rightly so given the weakness of the region.
I guess you could make a case for the regional group winners to go straight through to the group stages and then figure out the rest of the seedings and entrants from the rest of the qualification, but it would be a pretty tenuous case.
|
Vexed
9:32 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Baggins 9:19 Tue Oct 4
Probably. That would be pretty much pointless. Revenue generator.
|
Willtell
9:23 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Absolutely no point in expanding the game. I'd love to see NZ play in the WC too but really what's the point? They all have a chance to play in the early play-offs and if they are good enough would get through.
The problem is that for every NZ, Iceland etc there are larger nations without proper organised pro football that is the real reason for this proposal. The problem is they all have the same voting rights as an England, Spain, Italy or Germany but there are far more no hoper nations....
If they get their way they will increase their own chances so the problem is, like the Labour party is finding out, too much democracy can make stupid decisions.
Irrelevant football nations should not have an equal vote with the leading football nations. It is this that has led to corruption within FIFA where irrelevant nations can sell their votes resulting in Russia and Qatar getting the WC...
|
Baggins
9:19 Tue Oct 4
Re: A 48 team World Cup?
|
Vexed - There will be seeding and there will be group stages. No doubt about it.
|
| 
