1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
I didn't suggest just inviting the best 32 teams.
Should it be the best 32 teams?
- Thread starter 1927
- Start date
I didn't suggest just inviting the best 32 teams.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
Maybe its cos FIFA realise how poor the quality of football is in the OFC compared to say Europe and South America. Although this time it has backfired spectacularly as we now have two of the buggers in the finals!
Just look at NZ passage to finals, they are there without beating anybody above about 100 in the world!
Lo Siento.
Second As Farce
yeah there are some anomalies, but firstly the only way you could guarantee the top 32 teams would be through an international qualifying competition, which would involve some very small, impoverished countries paying a shitload to travel around for not much gain. Secondly, the better teams that miss out because of the system aren't good enough to warrant changing the qualifiers to give them the opportunity to qualify. Would the World Cup really benefit that much from having the Republic of Ireland there?
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
I'm not advocating a system to guarantee the best 32, just a fairer system that gives teams in the top 80 say, an equal chance of qualifying as teams like NZ who didnt even have to beat anyone in the top 100.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
You folks do know the WC Finals in, say, 1966 comprised 16 teams and lasted 19 days?
By the time it gets to 16 teams, they pretty well are the best in the world, and certainly the last 8 are. The point of 32 teams is to make the Finals more of an event, not the 'best' from the very start. You're missing the point by quite a lot.
By the time it gets to 16 teams, they pretty well are the best in the world, and certainly the last 8 are. The point of 32 teams is to make the Finals more of an event, not the 'best' from the very start. You're missing the point by quite a lot.
This wouldn't give the best 32 teams. Unless you think that the 4th round of the FA Cup always represents the best 32 teams in England? Or, for a fairer comparison, that the 5th round always represents the best 16 teams in England?
You're describing a knock-out competition, which is notoriously bad at resulting in the genuinely best final group. At least the current situation gives us some leagues.
And like L_C is saying, the current set-up does make sure that the best, say, 16 teams are there. That's the crucial part, surely? The other half of the teams in the competition are just there to make it a good event.
Silva
This went well.
I agree, but it's still not fair. If other national teams have a second chance to qualify, then it should be arranged so that the OFC champions could play a second playoff against another team that also fell short of any chance of a second attempt. Usually African, IIRC.
Also, the World Ranking is rubbish. Portugal in third
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
I agree, but it's still not fair. If other national teams have a second chance to qualify, then it should be arranged so that the OFC champions could play a second playoff against another team that also fell short of any chance of a second attempt. Usually African, IIRC.
Also, the World Ranking is rubbish. Portugal in third
One of the anomlies of the FIFA rankings, I think I am correct in saying, is that results in World Cup finals are given higher importance. Therefore a lower ranked team, say NZ, by virtue of qualifying and having the opportunity to play against higher ranked teams can get further up the rankings. However take a team like Scotland who dont qualify are penalised twice in a way as they dont accumulate enough ranking points to get into the top seeds in any quailifying group, so have to play higher ranked teams and then fail to qualify again.
But as you have already said FIFA rankings are shit.
tommers
Busta Rhymes is an unstoppable movement
good.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Only twice? Change the system.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The worst team in the tournament so far – Greece – have come from the European qualifiers.
Tough qualifying? Really? This was their group:
Team MP W D L GF GA Pts
Switzerland 10 6 3 1 18 8 21
Greece 10 6 2 2 20 10 20
Latvia 10 5 2 3 18 15 17
Israel 10 4 4 2 20 10 16
Luxembourg 10 1 2 7 4 25 5
Moldova 10 0 3 7 6 18 3
Tough qualifying? Really? This was their group:
Team MP W D L GF GA Pts
Switzerland 10 6 3 1 18 8 21
Greece 10 6 2 2 20 10 20
Latvia 10 5 2 3 18 15 17
Israel 10 4 4 2 20 10 16
Luxembourg 10 1 2 7 4 25 5
Moldova 10 0 3 7 6 18 3
Yeah, and they lost the game in question to South Korea, who many would look down their noses at (despite the fact that they actually reached the semi-final when it was played in their own back yard)
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
LOL.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Switzerland and Greece, eh . . . it's a funny old game . . .
It's the WORLD Cup and it can't be truly a World Cup unless there are teams from all over the globe. I agree with you that New Zealand will always be a shoo-in from Oceania and will qualify after one play-off with a mediocre Asian team, but a World Cup consisting almost solely of European and South American nations, with the odd African side plus Mexico and USA isn't a World Cup.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Absolutely agree with this.. surely part of the greatness of the world cup is that it brings sides together from literally everywhere ...
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
205 teams enter the world cup, only 32 can make the finals. Even if every corner of the world isn't represented in the finals wouldn't make it any less a world cup, If you aint good enough you shouldn't be there.
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
Can't argue with that.
TrippyLondoner
Well-Known Member
ericjarvis
give a feck for the feckless
So which are the best 32 teams then? Prepare to have 80% of people disagree with you.
It's a completely daft argument. As has already been said, the FIFA rankings aren't taken all that seriously. So basically there has to be a qualifying competition of some sort. To prove your case you have to do two things. Firstly prove that it isn't the best 32 teams, which requires you come up with a way of ranking international teams that a reasonable number of other people will agree with. Good luck with that because I've never seen anyone manage it. Then you need to come up with qualifying criteria that would lead to the "best" 32 teams being in the finals. A simple knock out format isn't going to cut it, it would be even more of a lottery than the current system.
1927
Funnier than he thinks he is.
So because Wales aren't that good does that preclude me from having an opinion?
Don't you think it would be a shame to have the World Cup always competed by a small pool of countries? Because if you COULD manage to somehow work out the real top 32, I doubt it would change much from one WC to the next. At least this way we have a *bit* of variety.
Silva
This went well.
Portugal missed the France 98, dropped to 43rd (lowest), but one year later, was on the top 15. Netherlands missed WC2002, and after dropping from the top 10, bounced back to number 6 in the last 2002 rankings. England more or less the same in 2008. Good teams will eventually bounce back from missing big competitions. While I believe this system IS broken, Scotland haven't been any good in the past 10 years, give or take. Plus, they've still managed to hang on the top 20 for a while between 2007 and 2008. I'm more than inclined to say the system was broken in their favour (pretty much like it is broken for Portugal, now).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This idea is all kinds of wrong. Just as the "Champions" league has killed European club football, so this would kill the WC. Too much reward today for what you did yesterday just entrenches a tedious status quo.
Europe has 12 spots. That's plenty. If you can't get into those spots, what good would you be anyway. And in any case, this is all about pitting different footballing cultures against each other. Both Koreas play in a way that is very different from Europe or South America, and it is refreshing to watch. Plus, of course, in the absence of a world league, how do you know who is the best? On the evidence so far, there's a case for Europe having fewer teams, not more. As a group, the South American teams look stronger.
Europe has 12 spots. That's plenty. If you can't get into those spots, what good would you be anyway. And in any case, this is all about pitting different footballing cultures against each other. Both Koreas play in a way that is very different from Europe or South America, and it is refreshing to watch. Plus, of course, in the absence of a world league, how do you know who is the best? On the evidence so far, there's a case for Europe having fewer teams, not more. As a group, the South American teams look stronger.
Infidel Castro
Producto Falso
Re the OP, there's a paradox - the best teams in the world cup can only be judged by being in the finals. We'll only know who the best is by seeing the winner, SFers and QFers, etc. As to the make-up of the 32, it's all to do with continental federations, truly repesenting the world. The idea of globe-trottong to fulfill a quota of knock-out matches to find the best 32 for the finals is a nice idea in principle but logistically impossible.
Similar threads
