Semi Finals - France v Spain (Wed), England v Argentina (Thu)

131 replies · 3,538 views
16 days ago · edited 16 days ago · History
Won't happen, but go back to 32 please. It was the perfect max.
And then make Oceania a qualification series for one of the spots in the final Asian group round (ie, one of 10 or 12).  The 0.5 qualification spot comes with it.
These things won't happen - but that's the way it could have worked to give us more meaningful games and a chance of qualifying 'legitimately'. Unfortunately Pandora is already out of the box.
I know, I know, its serious!

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Ma
16 days ago
the .5 spot for Oceania and the randomised .5 spot for other confeds to match it was dumb. To be the only confed that didnt have an automatic spot was vastly unfair, anmd partly why the Australians moved to Asia. 
The increase to 48 teams still meant teams ike Italy failed to qualify. Increasing to 64 would "fix" that. I think 48 is big enough to include teams from all confeds but also keeps the risk of not qualifying high enough.

Some of the best games this tournament have involved first time qualifier!!

Queenslander 3x a year.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Mainland FC
16 days ago
coochiee wrote:
A big negative of going 64 teams, would be removing alot of the drama and excitement of actual WC qualification.

Like you would probably have say 8-9 teams qualify from CONEMBOL's 10 teams. Many qualifiers would have little edge or meaning.

8-9 teams from CONCACAF would see the US, Mexico and Canada cakewalk it every time now. When in the past all have failed, or only just qualified. 

Some of the most memorable games for 3 Lions football fans have been failed qualification (Poland at Wembley 1973), or knife edge qualification, like Paul Ince and his head bandage in Rome 1997.

Other international team fans would get a touch of the feeling AWs fans have now. Limited/less meaningful games between WCs.
We have some memories in common.  I of course watched the October 1973 England vs Poland game on the telly, the final game of the WC 1974 qualifications.  
The game itself was not a failure for England - the real failure was their loss earlier (June?) in the away leg to Poland at Chorzow.  Poland won that game 2:0 and it should have been an alarm bell for Sir Alf Ramsay. 
You can argue that Poland was simply a very good team then (they won gold for football at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, and in the end they came third at the 1974 World Cup).  But I prefer to think that there was a deeper problem with English football at that time since they also missed out on the very next WC 1978.


Permalink Permalink
16 days ago
I mean whatever format the world celebration of the world’s biggest game is going to be awesome. 

And to reward the odd team who’ve drilled hard and have a good keeper in great form that causes upsets. 

But I’ve heard so much about the Scotts and the Norwegians. Two fan bases out of 48. I saw a little of the Mexicans. A little of the Dutch.

I heard about what seemed like a targeted killing of the guy setting up screenings of the World Cup games in Gaza. 

Then nothing about 45 nations. That one guy got his mum there. It’ll be worse if it’s 64 teams. 

It becomes a jamboree for the sport, not 90% of games being scintillating examples of elite athletes meeting head on. 

Jamborees are fun. 

But my criticisms are twofold: standards drop overall and we can’t and don’t take in the whole story of the event, so it becomes a bit siloed, rather than a unified thing until the round of 16 or 32.


Permalink Permalink
16 days ago
Yeah I liked the 32 team format. I really enjoyed this tournament although the 3rd place teams getting through removed a lot of the jeopardy in the group stage. Spain drew the first game with Cape Verde in what was a huge shock result but with 3rd still going through there was never really any danger for them. I think I still prefer just the top 2 going through and it generally being necessary to win at least one game to do so. 
64 seems too many teams and would remove the drama and jeopardy of qualification if so many make it. You may as well just award the spots for each confederation based on rankings at that point. And there would just be too many games in the tournament.   
Permalink Permalink
16 days ago
Mainland FC wrote:
 coochiee wrote:
A big negative of going 64 teams, would be removing alot of the drama and excitement of actual WC qualification.

Like you would probably have say 8-9 teams qualify from CONEMBOL's 10 teams. Many qualifiers would have little edge or meaning.

8-9 teams from CONCACAF would see the US, Mexico and Canada cakewalk it every time now. When in the past all have failed, or only just qualified. 

Some of the most memorable games for 3 Lions football fans have been failed qualification (Poland at Wembley 1973), or knife edge qualification, like Paul Ince and his head bandage in Rome 1997.

Other international team fans would get a touch of the feeling AWs fans have now. Limited/less meaningful games between WCs.
We have some memories in common.  I of course watched the October 1973 England vs Poland game on the telly, the final game of the WC 1974 qualifications.  
The game itself was not a failure for England - the real failure was their loss earlier (June?) in the away leg to Poland at Chorzow.  Poland won that game 2:0 and it should have been an alarm bell for Sir Alf Ramsay. 
You can argue that Poland was simply a very good team then (they won gold for football at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, and in the end they came third at the 1974 World Cup).  But I prefer to think that there was a deeper problem with English football at that time since they also missed out on the very next WC 1978.
Not quite old enough to remember 1973, but lived in the UK for a few years, and read enough to know that the performance of the Polish keeper that October at Wembley belongs in football WC qualification folklore.

1997 was travelling around Europe, and I think in some pub saw England grab a 0-0 draw in Rome. Ince in his iconic bloodied head bandage. Rioting Ingerland fans fighting the Carabinieri on the Spanish Steps.  
Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Mainland FC
16 days ago · edited 16 days ago · History
Look at World Cup expansion through the years. 

1930-1978: 16 teams (excluding 1930 and 1950 which had 13 due to withdrawals)
1982-1994: 24 teams
1998-2022: 32 teams
2026: 48 teams

16 teams was obviously very much the best of the best. It was also heavily contested by Europe and South America only. As fifa members and qualifying numbers grew it had to change.

The initial jump was probably made due to a gradual increase in competitiveness and global popularity. Although that initial 24 team tournament in Spain featured a 10-1 scoreline, the extra teams particularly from Africa proved their worth.

32 teams coming in the late 90s makes a lot of sense as there would have been about 15-20 new fifa members join at the beginning of that decade due to Soviet, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia splitting up. Some very competitive new nations coming from those previous three nations so an expansion is more than justified.

I was not in favour of the new expansion but I think enough new teams proved their worth and showed signs of competitiveness. Does bring back the third place problem that a 24 team tournament had. Think it was more positive than negative overall though.

Going straight to 64 is a bit much. The competition will become quite diluted at that point and with just under one third of fifa members qualifying, like others have said it takes away from the beauty of qualifying in the first place.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
Mainland FC
16 days ago
coochiee wrote:
 Mainland FC wrote:
 coochiee wrote:
A big negative of going 64 teams, would be removing alot of the drama and excitement of actual WC qualification.

Like you would probably have say 8-9 teams qualify from CONEMBOL's 10 teams. Many qualifiers would have little edge or meaning.

8-9 teams from CONCACAF would see the US, Mexico and Canada cakewalk it every time now. When in the past all have failed, or only just qualified. 

Some of the most memorable games for 3 Lions football fans have been failed qualification (Poland at Wembley 1973), or knife edge qualification, like Paul Ince and his head bandage in Rome 1997.

Other international team fans would get a touch of the feeling AWs fans have now. Limited/less meaningful games between WCs.
We have some memories in common.  I of course watched the October 1973 England vs Poland game on the telly, the final game of the WC 1974 qualifications.  
The game itself was not a failure for England - the real failure was their loss earlier (June?) in the away leg to Poland at Chorzow.  Poland won that game 2:0 and it should have been an alarm bell for Sir Alf Ramsay. 
You can argue that Poland was simply a very good team then (they won gold for football at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, and in the end they came third at the 1974 World Cup).  But I prefer to think that there was a deeper problem with English football at that time since they also missed out on the very next WC 1978.
Not quite old enough to remember 1973, but lived in the UK for a few years, and read enough to know that the performance of the Polish keeper that October at Wembley belongs in football WC qualification folklore.

1997 was travelling around Europe, and I think in some pub saw England grab a 0-0 draw in Rome. Ince in his iconic bloodied head bandage. Rioting Ingerland fans fighting the Carabinieri on the Spanish Steps.  
I agree that 64 teams will reduce the drama. A couple of dramatic qualifying matches that I remember involve Wales and Scotland.

Welsh fans never forget the 1977 qualifier for the 1978 Argentina finals played at Anfield which was 0-0 until the 78th minute when Scotland scored from the spot ... the only problem was that the raised hand that touched the ball came from Joe Jordan of Scotland not a Welsh defender. Scotland added a second through Kenny Dalglish but the Welsh always wonder what if as Scotland topped the three team pool (Czechoslovakia were the other team) to secure the only qualifying spot. There were only 16 teams in Argentina and for the only time in world cup history Scotland were there but England weren't.

The two sides met again in 1985 at Ninian Park where Scotland (GD +4), Wales (GD +1) and Spain (GD -1) were all level on 6 points with a match to go. Spain hosted Iceland in the other match. Only the winner went through with the runner up facing an intercontinental play off. Wales scored in the first half and still led 1-0 with 10 minutes to go when Scotland were awarded another penalty which did at least hit a Welsh player this time. The match finished 1-1 while Spain beat Iceland 2-1 to top the group leaving Scotland playoff bound and Wales out. Of course the match will always be remembered for the tragic death of manager Jock Stein who collapsed with a couple of minutes to go.

Alex Ferguson took charge for the playoff which Scotland won 2-0 on aggregate against Australia (2-0 at Hampden then 0-0 in Melbourne which I remember listening to at school in Edinburgh on a radio that the teacher had brought in for what was meant to be a maths class I think).
Permalink Permalink
16 days ago
2009 and heartbreak for Ireland with the 'Hand of Frog' 2010 WC playoff loss in Paris.
Permalink Permalink
16 days ago
Tartan Kiwi wrote:
 coochiee wrote:
 Mainland FC wrote:
 coochiee wrote:
A big negative of going 64 teams, would be removing alot of the drama and excitement of actual WC qualification.

Like you would probably have say 8-9 teams qualify from CONEMBOL's 10 teams. Many qualifiers would have little edge or meaning.

8-9 teams from CONCACAF would see the US, Mexico and Canada cakewalk it every time now. When in the past all have failed, or only just qualified. 

Some of the most memorable games for 3 Lions football fans have been failed qualification (Poland at Wembley 1973), or knife edge qualification, like Paul Ince and his head bandage in Rome 1997.

Other international team fans would get a touch of the feeling AWs fans have now. Limited/less meaningful games between WCs.
We have some memories in common.  I of course watched the October 1973 England vs Poland game on the telly, the final game of the WC 1974 qualifications.  
The game itself was not a failure for England - the real failure was their loss earlier (June?) in the away leg to Poland at Chorzow.  Poland won that game 2:0 and it should have been an alarm bell for Sir Alf Ramsay. 
You can argue that Poland was simply a very good team then (they won gold for football at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, and in the end they came third at the 1974 World Cup).  But I prefer to think that there was a deeper problem with English football at that time since they also missed out on the very next WC 1978.
Not quite old enough to remember 1973, but lived in the UK for a few years, and read enough to know that the performance of the Polish keeper that October at Wembley belongs in football WC qualification folklore.

1997 was travelling around Europe, and I think in some pub saw England grab a 0-0 draw in Rome. Ince in his iconic bloodied head bandage. Rioting Ingerland fans fighting the Carabinieri on the Spanish Steps.  
I agree that 64 teams will reduce the drama. A couple of dramatic qualifying matches that I remember involve Wales and Scotland.

Welsh fans never forget the 1977 qualifier for the 1978 Argentina finals played at Anfield which was 0-0 until the 78th minute when Scotland scored from the spot ... the only problem was that the raised hand that touched the ball came from Joe Jordan of Scotland not a Welsh defender. Scotland added a second through Kenny Dalglish but the Welsh always wonder what if as Scotland topped the three team pool (Czechoslovakia were the other team) to secure the only qualifying spot. There were only 16 teams in Argentina and for the only time in world cup history Scotland were there but England weren't.

The two sides met again in 1985 at Ninian Park where Scotland (GD +4), Wales (GD +1) and Spain (GD -1) were all level on 6 points with a match to go. Spain hosted Iceland in the other match. Only the winner went through with the runner up facing an intercontinental play off. Wales scored in the first half and still led 1-0 with 10 minutes to go when Scotland were awarded another penalty which did at least hit a Welsh player this time. The match finished 1-1 while Spain beat Iceland 2-1 to top the group leaving Scotland playoff bound and Wales out. Of course the match will always be remembered for the tragic death of manager Jock Stein who collapsed with a couple of minutes to go.

Alex Ferguson took charge for the playoff which Scotland won 2-0 on aggregate against Australia (2-0 at Hampden then 0-0 in Melbourne which I remember listening to at school in Edinburgh on a radio that the teacher had brought in for what was meant to be a maths class I think).
My life being a never-ending stream of surprises, I also watched that 0-0 draw between Australia and Scotland in Melbourne, what with me being a newly minted Aussie then. 
But these were also the long and frustrating years of being a Socceroo fan, which only ended with the advent of the Golden Generation that eventually saw the qualification to the WC 2006 and playing well despite arriving there as the second-lowest FIFA ranking team in the tournament


Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
coochiee
16 days ago
I think if the FIFA bosses want a 64 team WC then they will get it. Countries will vote for it because more of them will get a chance of more money. This WC made $15 billion USD profit. Lots of small football countries who made the WC now have a nice payout and there are lots of other countries who weren’t there want to be in the lolly scramble 

A 64 country WC would have to go to continents. It’s just too big for a couple of countries to handle. 
There could be an issue with dilution of the quality of football. But this WC showed there is talented countries out there. Nine out of the ten African Fed countries got out of pool play. There are probably more quality African nations like Nigeria, Mali etc who would be OK at a WC

Asia is a different story. This WC was a disaster for the Asian Confed. Only Australia and Japan got out of pool play and they didn’t get far after that. There were a host of Asia Confed countries who had poor WC. Qatar last in pool goal average -8, Saudis last -4, Irak last -11, Jordan last -5, Ouzbékistan last -9
The west Asia countries are very poor. I don’t think adding more Asia Confed countries to an expanded WC would be a great idea though I’m sure FIFA wants China in. 
Maybe even Italy might qualify for a 64 nation WC. They have never really recovered from being humbled by the mighty AWs in 2010
Permalink Permalink
Endorsed by
coochieeMainland FC
16 days ago · edited 16 days ago · History
$15 Billion revenue (not profit?) is just an insane amount of money.
It was $4 Billion above the earlier budgeted $11 Billion.

48 team WC is here to stay and yes don't be shocked if they try make it work as 64 teams.

It's easy to be cynical about FIFA and no doubt corruption and it are bedfellows, but bigger WCs generate more cash to throw at development in poorer countries. That can be a good thing.

Looks like Infantino is gonna get re-elected.

https://inside.fifa.com/organisation/president/news/gianni-infantino-world-cup-usd-15-billion-revenue-members

Mr Infantino tells representatives of FIFA’s Member Associations (MAs) that FIFA World Cup 2026™ revenues have “opened a lot of doors, opportunities and possibilities” in terms of future investment

Expects FIFA’s revenues to top USD 15 billion in revenue this year for the 2023-2026 cycle, and promises “to do more” to develop the game globally

States that the FIFA World Cup™should “always at the centre of everything we do”

Confirms “more than 200” MAs have pledged their support for his upcoming re-election
Permalink Permalink