Just been looking at the previous World Cup formats. Just wondering if there is a case to increase the number of teams to say around 40 and have a different format for the finals. Anyone got any ideas?
Alternative formats
I would say leave it as is. The quality of the European Championships will inevitably be diluted when it expands to twenty-four teams next time, so the same thing would probably happen if the World Cup was expanded much more. There's already a fair share of mediocre teams as it is now.
If they go to 40:
8 groups of five
-Hosts
-15 teams from Europe
-8 teams from Africa
-8 teams from Asia and Oceania(Combine the two zones)
-8 teams from the Americas(combine the two zones)
Allow joint bidding, but no more than 2 countries, must be adjacent and in the same confederation, and if a joint bid is succesful then that confederation loses a space.
Group stage would run like this:
Day 1: Opening ceremony and first game
Day 2: Three games
Days 3-18: Four games per day(72 of the 80 group games would be played over the first 18 days)
Days 19-22: Final 8 group games
Days 23-26: Last 16
Days 27-30: Quarter finals
Days 33-34: Semi finals
Day 37: Third place playoff
Day 38: Final
So the tournament would take just over 5 weeks, and start on a Friday
8 groups of five
-Hosts
-15 teams from Europe
-8 teams from Africa
-8 teams from Asia and Oceania(Combine the two zones)
-8 teams from the Americas(combine the two zones)
Allow joint bidding, but no more than 2 countries, must be adjacent and in the same confederation, and if a joint bid is succesful then that confederation loses a space.
Group stage would run like this:
Day 1: Opening ceremony and first game
Day 2: Three games
Days 3-18: Four games per day(72 of the 80 group games would be played over the first 18 days)
Days 19-22: Final 8 group games
Days 23-26: Last 16
Days 27-30: Quarter finals
Days 33-34: Semi finals
Day 37: Third place playoff
Day 38: Final
So the tournament would take just over 5 weeks, and start on a Friday
Might be better if it was genuinely the best 24 teams on the planet,I think we all know that 2nd tier European teams are better than a lot of the finalists from the lesser zones
The trend does seem to be to expand these competitions so I wouldn't be surprised if FIFA followed UEFA's lead within the next decade or so.
Originally Posted by pixel_pixel:
“Just been looking at the previous World Cup formats. Just wondering if there is a case to increase the number of teams to say around 40 and have a different format for the finals. Anyone got any ideas?”
“Just been looking at the previous World Cup formats. Just wondering if there is a case to increase the number of teams to say around 40 and have a different format for the finals. Anyone got any ideas?”
In short - no.. If you increase the number of teams then you will start to get some poor one sided games in the group stages because the difference between relative team strengths will increase. Quality over quantity I say.
Originally Posted by mickmars:
“Might be better if it was genuinely the best 24 teams on the planet,I think we all know that 2nd tier European teams are better than a lot of the finalists from the lesser zones”
“Might be better if it was genuinely the best 24 teams on the planet,I think we all know that 2nd tier European teams are better than a lot of the finalists from the lesser zones”
Yet the only two teams who have lost badly so far have been Spain and Portugal!
Originally Posted by carnoch04:
“Yet the only two teams who have lost badly so far have been Spain and Portugal!”
“Yet the only two teams who have lost badly so far have been Spain and Portugal!”
Honduras got played off the park by France.
I have wondered about changing qualifying - put all 197 or so countries into one big pot and draw them out into 30 groups, along with the holders and the hosts who will qualify automatically.
No seeding. No geographic restrictions. It could mean England get drawn against teams from Asia, Africa and the Americas, and would result in some hideous groups, but not probably one of my better ideas.
No seeding. No geographic restrictions. It could mean England get drawn against teams from Asia, Africa and the Americas, and would result in some hideous groups, but not probably one of my better ideas.
Originally Posted by DMN1968:
“I have wondered about changing qualifying - put all 197 or so countries into one big pot and draw them out into 30 groups, along with the holders and the hosts who will qualify automatically.
No seeding. No geographic restrictions. It could mean England get drawn against teams from Asia, Africa and the Americas, and would result in some hideous groups, but not probably one of my better ideas.”
“I have wondered about changing qualifying - put all 197 or so countries into one big pot and draw them out into 30 groups, along with the holders and the hosts who will qualify automatically.
No seeding. No geographic restrictions. It could mean England get drawn against teams from Asia, Africa and the Americas, and would result in some hideous groups, but not probably one of my better ideas.”
Argentina v American Samoa could be interesting.
As for a 40 team World Cup, this format could work.
The top 24 highest ranked qualifiers (decided by the FIFA world rankings at the time of the draw) go straight through to the group stage. The remaining 16 teams would face each other in a preliminary round, played over 2 legs with the winners qualifying for the group stage. (There would be a 4 day gap before their first group game). The second legs would be played in the same venue as the first to avoid unnecessary travelling.
To keep the scheduling simple, the group that each winner of the preliminary round would play in would be assigned when the main draw takes place. There would have to be no geographic restrictions in the main draw, instead there would be 3 seeded pots, plus the playoff teams in the 4th pot.
Originally Posted by jenzie:
“five team groups, but leave the NUMBER of groups the same”
“five team groups, but leave the NUMBER of groups the same”
5 team groups would mean a team would finish the group before the others and would increase the amount of dead games towards the end of the groups.
Originally Posted by mickmars:
“Might be better if it was genuinely the best 24 teams on the planet,I think we all know that 2nd tier European teams are better than a lot of the finalists from the lesser zones”
“Might be better if it was genuinely the best 24 teams on the planet,I think we all know that 2nd tier European teams are better than a lot of the finalists from the lesser zones”
Who is missing that would definitely give the top guys a run. Theres 16 european teams, isnt there?
No, the competition's fine as it is right now. Some weaker teams make it in now, but it works because teams are well represented on a geographical basis and the quality's still good enough to throw up some exciting clashes in the group stages. Any change would be for the worse imo.
That said, didn't stop UEFA ruining the Euros did it.
That said, didn't stop UEFA ruining the Euros did it.
