World Cup 2018 [GROUP H] Poland, Senegal, Colombia, Japan

[Vickzq]

Overall in the GS I had 14/32 correct positions prediction... Less than average I would say...

I was rather lucky with predictions - except for this group.
But it's more because I put UEFA teams ahead most of the time as "rebellion" against FIFA for increasing the tournament to 48 teams.

What’s the problem with expanding the tournament? The more the merrier.

If they really do that, then they should really do it with intercontinental-playoffs, as one suggested, to find the 16 additional teams participating.
But I would rather prefer to keep 32.

[Polak]

Prediction
1. Colombia
2. Senegal
3. Poland
4. Japan

The top team was predicted correctly [although after the 1st game tat wasn't looking certain]. The 2nd place could have been correct too, but the amount of yellow cards Senegal had made the difference. I'm not sure about this rule of using cards to determine what team finishes above the other, because it's ultimately down to the referees judgment on what foul deserves a card and what doesn't, and referees often make bad judgments on this [I generally don't like sports where some judges decide who wins]. Then again, if not cards, what else is there after points, goal difference, goals scored and head to head?

I don't know what to make of Colombia. They won the group, as I expected, but they didn't win it how I expected. I expected them to play and smash everyone like they did Poland, finishing top with 9 points. They lost the 1st game, did what I expected in the 2nd, then struggled to get a 1-0 win in the last one. How far they get in the World Cup will really depend on what Colombia shows up.

Poland were traditional 'World Cup Poland' in this century so far. 3 World Cups and the same story every time. Lose the first 2 games, then win the last one when it doesn't matter. What's the lesson? If you get Poland in your World Cup group, it's better to play them on matchday 1 or 2, then you'll win. If you get them on matchday 3 when they have nothing to play for, they might beat you, strangely.

So overall I only got 1 out of 8 in terms on getting every team in their correct position [group G] and 4 out of 8 in terms of predicting the 2 qualifying teams correctly. Group D was the only one where I got all the teams in the wrong place. There wasn't a group where I predicted the wrong 2 teams to qualify. It's very difficult to get all the positions correct, slightly easier to predict what 2 teams will qualify. Overall I would say an average performance, or probably a little less. Bring on the knock out rounds.

[Dragonite]

I was rather lucky with predictions - except for this group.
But it's more because I put UEFA teams ahead most of the time as "rebellion" against FIFA for increasing the tournament to 48 teams.

What’s the problem with expanding the tournament? The more the merrier.

If they really do that, then they should really do it with intercontinental-playoffs, as one suggested, to find the 16 additional teams participating.
But I would rather prefer to keep 32.

You “prefer to keep 32” because your favourite team qualified for the last 4 tournaments.

Would you still “prefer to keep 32” if Europe only had 8 spots and the teams getting these spots were the 8 quarter finalists from the previous Euro edition?

[Vickzq]

You “prefer to keep 32” because your favourite team qualified for the last 4 tournaments.

Would you still “prefer to keep 32” if Europe only had 8 spots and the teams getting these spots were the 8 quarter finalists from the previous Euro edition?

I can probably be happy I don't need these mental borders to look at things .
32 is a rather big number already (but it's rather easy to go through with groups of four, having two to advance, etc.) ... if a team can't qualify with all the spots given to each federation at the moment, the only federations that might have the competitive strenght to have somewhat a point to complain would be CONMEBOL and UEFA. Everybody else hardly gets more than one team out of whatever group stage... so why complaining about not having even more starters?

Why should the strongest federation UEFA only have 8 out of 32 spots? ... that's a question to begin with

You're not talking to a teenager, you know. I never asked for increasing spots at world cup before 1994 (as you think it's smart to focus on what you call "my team"), just to have some team participating. But compared to 24 teams, the 32 teams format avoids that silly "best 3rd ones pass" rule.
I would rather prefer to have the 16 teams EURO again - the 24 teams format is weird.

But then, ups... "your team" wouldn't have won, would it?

[Dragonite]

My point is very simple.
You don’t want expansion because with the current system your favourite team reached the last four tournaments.
Had your favourite team missed the last four tournaments (which would be the case if there were only 8 spots for Europe and the teams getting them were the 8 quarter finalists from the previous Euro edition), I think you would want expansion.

And this isn’t a one on one conversation, everybody is welcomed to join.
People who don’t want expansion are selfish, as long as there’s a place for their teams, everybody else can stave to death. If they were the ones starving to death, their opinions would be completely different.

But please, anyone is welcomed to explain me why would have been so harmful having another 16 competing already in this edition.

[Vickzq]

...
But please, anyone is welcomed to explain me why would have been so harmful having another 16 competing already in this edition.

You can also put 96 teams in it - but at a certain point the public interest decreases massively, and all you would end with is like a group stage nobody watches (except for their own team, or favorite teams) or like a pre-tournament during the tournament, where even media would give up reporting everything. With 32 teams, it's still something special... media report every result and highlights about teams... and it's still a valuable brand to sell.
From the point of view of football, there's no doubt increasing it to 48 will lower the overall level - especially with so few extra-spots for CONMEBOL and UEFA.
And then there's the question... who is still willing to organize such a big tournament, if everybody expects so much... but the number of teams gets bigger and bigger? Or is anybody really willing to have a tournament suddenly lasting for 2 months? You need to compensate, either space or time.

From my point of view, I have more or less 5-6 favorite teams, half qualified this time... half didn't. I personally see no use of increasing it, and I certainly don't want to ever see a 32-teams EURO.
If that wasn't my opinion, I would be a pure hypocrite, because sometimes I complain about the big number of matches. And when some exotic teams play (although some of them should be part of a real world cup, that's a part of the fun) and when they don't do well at all... I sometimes think that a few is ok, but too many of such games are not needed.

Let's say you're right and people would want to increase spots for their own team... ok, possible. But that would show a lot of hypocrisy... because there is a lot of complaining to be heard about how increasing the number of teams would lower the level of quality. Can't have both.

[EarlofBug]

You can also put 96 teams in it - but at a certain point the public interest decreases massively, and all you would end with is like a group stage nobody watches (except for their own team, or favorite teams) or like a pre-tournament during the tournament, where even media would give up reporting everything. With 32 teams, it's still something special... media report every result and highlights about teams... and it's still a valuable brand to sell.
From the point of view of football, there's no doubt increasing it to 48 will lower the overall level - especially with so few extra-spots for CONMEBOL and UEFA.
And then there's the question... who is still willing to organize such a big tournament, if everybody expects so much... but the number of teams gets bigger and bigger? Or is anybody really willing to have a tournament suddenly lasting for 2 months? You need to compensate, either space or time.

I agree. In basketball leagues, where most of the league goes to a play-off at the end of the season, most of the people doesn't follow the regular league closely, but only tuning in at the play-offs.
I like the 24 teams Euro, and I think that the World Cup can be a bit bigger, but there will be an interest drop in the group stage matches. There is a limit to the attention that people can give to football matches, especially when it's a match between the 50 ranked team and the 80 ranked team.

[Dragonite]

So, “32” is the magic number, if it gets any bigger than that, Joe Sixpack gets an headache.
I think that you’re overestimating Joe Sixpack’s intellect. Anything higher than 10 where he can no longer use his fingers to help him count is “too much”.
Joe Sixpack only wants to watch Argentina, Brazil, five or six Europeans, and that’s more than enough for him. Countries that he can’t even find on a map, they’re unnecessary, they “lower the level of quality”.

I couldn’t care less about Joe Sixpack’s preferences.
We already have a competition with 48 teams (actually 56, 8 join after the group stages) and it works.

As for the logistics, maybe FIFA should just lower its standards, instead of asking for 10+ venues with over 50K seats, they could use what already exists.

Or co-hosting, why can’t four different countries host four parts of the World Cup?
Example, the European champion hosts groups A-C, the American champion hosts groups D-F, the African champion gets groups G-I and the Asian champion hosts groups J-L.

It already happened in the 2007 Asian Cup, with four hosts: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam.


As for the tournament duration:
With 4 games per day, the group stage would last 18 days
+ 1 day to rest like today
+ 4 days for the last 32 round (4x4)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 2 days for the last 16 round (4x2)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 1 day for the quarter finals (4 matches)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 1 day for the semifinals (2 matches)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 1 day for the final and third place match
-----
= 36 days of tournament duration

The current duration is 32 days; it would only take an extra 4 days, not another month.


So the question here is, would people want to watch 4 World Cup matches per day for 18+4+2+1 days?
I would.

[EarlofBug]

So, “32” is the magic number, if it gets any bigger than that, Joe Sixpack gets an headache.
I think that you’re overestimating Joe Sixpack’s intellect. Anything higher than 10 where he can no longer use his fingers to help him count is “too much”.
Joe Sixpack only wants to watch Argentina, Brazil, five or six Europeans, and that’s more than enough for him. Countries that he can’t even find on a map, they’re unnecessary, they “lower the level of quality”.

I don't mean that people won't watch it at all. They'll watch, but with less enthusiasm, and maybe less matches. Right now, I know that a lot of people try to watch every match. If the size was doubled, I guess that they won't watch all of it.
I think that a 64 teams tournament is feasible, but it might have costs. There is some room for growth for the World Cup (BTW, I like the 24 teams Euro, and I think that it will grow to 32 teams in about 10-14 years). Lets see how will the World Cup work with 48 teams.

We already have a competition with 48 teams (actually 56, 8 join after the group stages) and it works.

Do you mean the Europa League? How many people watch every match of it? How many people watch matches where their team isn't involved? I don't know, but I guess that not many.

As for the tournament duration:
With 4 games per day, the group stage would last 18 days
+ 1 day to rest like today
+ 4 days for the last 32 round (4x4)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 2 days for the last 16 round (4x2)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 1 day for the quarter finals (4 matches)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 1 day for the semifinals (2 matches)
+ 2 days to rest
+ 1 day for the final and third place match
-----
= 36 days of tournament duration

The current duration is 32 days; it would only take an extra 4 days, not another month.

So the question here is, would people want to watch 4 World Cup matches per day for 18+4+2+1 days?
I would.

Yeah, that doesn't look too long.
I'm think about 64 teams tournament. That would make the group stage - 24 days. So six more days than your calculation.
That would make a world cup lasting 42 days. Is that too long? I don't really now

And I thought that you were talking about a 96 teams World cup...

[Polak]

I'm not against more teams in the World Cup. I would even take 64. I'd also be happy with 32 teams in the Euros. The part I don't like is 3 teams qualifying from 4 team groups. Qualifying in 3rd place out of 4 teams doesn't seem like an achievement. Northern Ireland for example, qualified in 3rd place during Euro 2016 and reached the 2nd round, but it didn't feel like they really deserved it. The same goes for other who qualified in 3rd. It makes the group stage a bit of a farce.

[Vickzq]

...
Joe Sixpack only wants to watch Argentina, Brazil, five or six Europeans, and that’s more than enough for him. Countries that he can’t even find on a map, they’re unnecessary, they “lower the level of quality”.

I couldn’t care less about Joe Sixpack’s preferences.

...

An argument doesn't sound smarter just because one belittles the other side's opinion.
At the end of the day, it was already clear beforehand: You and whatever Joe Sixpack would at best only have a personal opinion and not take any decision for FIFA. So some might be for or some against whatever happens. But all you can do is discuss it... and starting with 'I don't care' probably won't cheer the situation up, notably in a discussion forum.

I'm not against more teams in the World Cup. I would even take 64. I'd also be happy with 32 teams in the Euros. The part I don't like is 3 teams qualifying from 4 team groups. Qualifying in 3rd place out of 4 teams doesn't seem like an achievement. Northern Ireland for example, qualified in 3rd place during Euro 2016 and reached the 2nd round, but it didn't feel like they really deserved it. The same goes for other who qualified in 3rd. It makes the group stage a bit of a farce.

The fact that the 3rd placed teams of another group (of e.g. a 24-team tournament) won't pass bothers me more ... there is already a certain influence of a lucky draw involved. But having the few groups with real outsiders in it gives the respective 3rd placed teams a serious advantage when all groups are compared (to find best 3rd).
As long as you had comparable two rather favorite teams in each group, it seems rather balanced - and if some other team passed one of them, then they really deserved to do so. But the 3rd-placed ranking shifts focus on the "what are your bottom teams?" question.

[EarlofBug]

...
Joe Sixpack only wants to watch Argentina, Brazil, five or six Europeans, and that’s more than enough for him. Countries that he can’t even find on a map, they’re unnecessary, they “lower the level of quality”.

I couldn’t care less about Joe Sixpack’s preferences.
...

An argument doesn't sound smarter just because one belittles the other side's opinion.
At the end of the day, it was already clear beforehand: You and whatever Joe Sixpack would at best only have a personal opinion and not take any decision for FIFA. So some might be for or some against whatever happens. But all you can do is discuss it... and starting with 'I don't care' probably won't cheer the situation up, notably in a discussion forum.

I think that by "Joe Sixpack" Dragonite meant just some regular guy, maybe from the US, who doesn't follow football everyday closely like us, and just tunes in for the big matches. He didn't mean to belittle anyone from this forum.

I'm not against more teams in the World Cup. I would even take 64. I'd also be happy with 32 teams in the Euros. The part I don't like is 3 teams qualifying from 4 team groups. Qualifying in 3rd place out of 4 teams doesn't seem like an achievement. Northern Ireland for example, qualified in 3rd place during Euro 2016 and reached the 2nd round, but it didn't feel like they really deserved it. The same goes for other who qualified in 3rd. It makes the group stage a bit of a farce.

The fact that the 3rd placed teams of another group (of e.g. a 24-team tournament) won't pass bothers me more ... there is already a certain influence of a lucky draw involved. But having the few groups with real outsiders in it gives the respective 3rd placed teams a serious advantage when all groups are compared (to find best 3rd).
As long as you had comparable two rather favorite teams in each group, it seems rather balanced - and if some other team passed one of them, then they really deserved to do so. But the 3rd-placed ranking shifts focus on the "what are your bottom teams?" question.

I liked the last Euro a lot (except maybe the final winner ) The option to advance from the 3rd place made more suspence in the final round of the group stage. It doesn't bother me. Also, not knowing for sure how will the bracket look in the next round until the final match of the group stage made it very interesting to me. I think that the amount of teams and the length of the tournament was perfect.

[Vickzq]

I think that by "Joe Sixpack" Dragonite meant just some regular guy, maybe from the US, who doesn't follow football everyday closely like us, and just tunes in for the big matches. He didn't mean to belittle anyone from this forum.

...

I liked the last Euro a lot (except maybe the final winner ) The option to advance from the 3rd place made more suspence in the final round of the group stage. It doesn't bother me. Also, not knowing for sure how will the bracket look in the next round until the final match of the group stage made it very interesting to me. I think that the amount of teams and the length of the tournament was perfect.

I didn't value that as personal attack - but fact is, a lot of people buying tickets to watch games can be from countries one would not expect... like USA for 2014 world cup. So to sell a product or a brand, the world cup will also have to "please" the general public to some extent.
I really like the group stage... and also the big attention every team - a squad like Panama as well - gets. Can't see the same intensity of 'followership' when a world cup is blown up to 48 or 64 teams.
Until now the fact of even qualifying was noteworthy... the value of this achievement will decrease rather fast.

Ok, interesting until last match-day. But then probably having every 3rd placed advancing would be rather fair... instead of doing a group vs. group comparison to pick some and leave others.

[Dragonite]

I started with asking you a question.
You like the World Cup size because your team reached the last four editions, yes or no?
Second question, would you still like it if the access system was different (example: 8 spots for Europe going to the quarter finalists from the previous Euro edition) and your team missed the last four editions instead, yes or no?

I never got a direct answer to any of these questions, only things like “with 48 teams the tournament would last 2 months”, “nobody would be able to host it”, “Joe Sixpack can’t follow more than 32 teams”…

I tried to refute these claims, presenting a model where the World Cup would only last 36 days, compared to the current 32, suggesting co-hosting and/or easier requirements, and saying that Joe Sixpack isn’t even following 32 teams, so if his point of view is FIFA’s priority, they should go back to the 16-teams format.

There isn’t a single personal attack here, Joe Sixpack is a fictional character, the person that believes that the only good teams outside Europe are Argentina and Brazil, and even the strong European teams are only four or five. If anyone here matches the profile…