Kev wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 02:45
Looking at this years Euro, I believe Netherlands was already guaranteed at least one of best thirds with their 4 points (correct me if I’m wrong). Under top two format, they would have been guaranteed to advance just yet.
I know they could still fight for a position but kinda want to see as many teams with jeopardy into their final match.
The group with Ukraine where they all finished on 4 points is a group where they all could eliminated or advancing but the odds of a group like that that happening is small
The 4 point group was an example that even competitive matches where everyone has something to play for don't guarantee exciting matches. Especially if both teams are satisfied with a draw.
As Dnipeovec has already said, the tiedbreaker also matters a lot. With GD, less positions are already fixed and the number of open games is higher. This is one of many reasons why I believe GD is superior to H2H.
Kev wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 02:45
Looking at this years Euro, I believe Netherlands was already guaranteed at least one of best thirds with their 4 points (correct me if I’m wrong).
I know they could still fight for a position but kinda want to see as many teams with jeopardy into their final match.
Under top two format, they would not have been guaranteed to advance just yet.
The group with Ukraine where they all finished on 4 points is a group where they all could be eliminated or advancing but the odds of a group like that that happening is small
The 4 point group was an example that even competitive matches where everyone has something to play for don't guarantee exciting matches. Especially if both teams are satisfied with a draw.
As Dnipeovec has already said, the tiedbreaker also matters a lot. With GD, less positions are already fixed and the number of open games is higher. This is one of many reasons why I believe GD is superior to H2H.
That’s a fair reason. I agree, I prefer GD to H2H. Poland were eliminated after 2 matches because of H2H but would have still been alive with GD.
I guess it depends on the scheduling but if all are on 3 points and 2 teams are happy to draw it might be enough in a third place format, but under top two one would most likely miss out should one of the other two win. So I feel top two allows for more exciting matches, there’s more at stake.
2026 will be interesting nonetheless. It will feel new yet oddly familiar (with 3rd places nothing new). I will be interested in how teams approach the group stage with either an attacking mentality or a try-not-to-lose approach.
Kev wrote: ↑Thu Jul 25, 2024 15:55
I’ll be honest, I don’t really like formats where third place teams advance. I prefer a consistent method where it’s the same across all groups ie winner vs runner up.
So I’m wondering if anyone has stats/percentages on how much jeopardy is lost going from top two advancing to that plus 75% third placings.
Qatar had an amazing if not the best 3rd Matchdays ever seen at a World Cup. I think 6 out of 8 groups had some insane impact on the standings during the 3rd matchday.
Maybe if there are stats that show it isn’t as bad with third places, maybe it will change my mind.
Depends how you want to measure "jeopardy". Obviously, less teams advancing means less chances to advance. If we take Euro 2024 and assume 12 teams (top-2) advancing instead of 16, it is 1/6 chances less to advance on average (66,6% to 50%): from -7% (95% to 88%) for Portugal to -24% for Italy (79% to 55%). For the lowest rated it was from 21% to 10% for Albania.
But I guess you mean something different. One way to measure it would be to compare how many matches on the last matchday were fully competitive (both teams could advance or be eliminated), semi competitive (only one team is qualified or eliminated, i.e. Spain-Albania) or friendly (result of the match wouldn't impact both of them advancing or being eliminated, i.e. France-Poland). This is all assuming teams don't care much for being placed 1st, 2nd or 3rd as long as they are qualified, otherwise it would be a different conversation.
The tedious task of comparing it is in the tournaments with 3 teams advancing, you'd need to understand before any given match whether the outcome for the team is guaranteed, like when after group B matches this year it was guaranteed that England, France and Netherlands have advanced. Which is just a little time-consuming and not very fun exercise
I think quick and obvious guesses without any calculation would be: top-2 teams format will have:
- Less teams advanced before the last matchday;
- More teams eliminated before the last matchday;
- Less semi competitive matches;
- More "friendly" matches.
- Unclear about competitive matches or number of teams that would care in the last matchday.
H2H tie-breaker vs goal difference tie-breaker matter a lot in this context.
Thanks @Dniprovec . I don’t blame you for not wanting to do all those scenarios lol.
You’re right on the money though I was referring to dead rubbers/semi dead rubbers. They take away from the spectacle. I’d rather as many teams being able to be both eliminated and advance going into their last matchday. Qatar 2022 Group E was a great example of this, every team was on the verge of advancing and also being eliminated during those 2 games.
Before third matchday at Qatar 2022, only 5 teams had their fates sealed. Portugal, France and Brazil all advanced and Qatar and Canada were eliminated, leaving 27 teams fighting for 13 spots.
I know there is more of chance for semi dead rubbers over dead rubbers, but it can be a mere formality for some teams. Yes they can fight for positions, but I think the intensity drops.
Also semi dead rubbers opens up the possibility for the team already advancing and its opponent to collude to get a result that helps both.
Looking at this years Euro, I believe Netherlands was already guaranteed at least one of best thirds with their 4 points (correct me if I’m wrong). Under top two format, they would have been guaranteed to advance just yet.
I know they could still fight for a position but kinda want to see as many teams with jeopardy into their final match.
The group with Ukraine where they all finished on 4 points is a group where they all could eliminated or advancing but the odds of a group like that that happening is small
Just comparing the last two editions of WC vs the last two editions of Euro - virtually there is no difference.
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
So have done a little simulation for a few different scenarios:
An example of an average group is using those two teams:
Pot 1
Argentina, Spain
Pot 2
Poland, Nigeria
Pot 3
New Zealand, Paraguay
Argentina 4 pts
Spain 4 pts
Poland 4 pts
Nigeria 4 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Zealand 4 pt
Paraguay 4 pt
An example of a group where giving 4th as lowest points as possible :
Pot 1
England, Germany
Pot 2
Sweden, Chile
Pot 3
North Korea, Uzbekistan
England 9 pts
Germany 6 pts
North Korea 6 pts
Chile 2 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sweden 1 pt
Uzbekistan 1 pt
An example of a group where giving 4th as highest points as possible :
Pot 1
Brazil, Netherlands
Pot 2
Australia, Peru
Pot 3
China, Rwanda
Brazil 6 pts
Netherlands 6 pts
Australia 6 pts
Peru 6 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
China 3 pts
Rwanda 0 pts
So from my calculations highest 4 can obtain is 6 points and lowest is 2 points. Possible for all 6 to finish on 4 points.
I could be wrong but don’t think you can finish 4 with 0 points but you can certainly advance without winning a game.
How would you do the draw? Would you do it so for example no South Americans can be in the same group of 6, or they can but are not able to play each other?
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
So have done a little simulation for a few different scenarios:
An example of an average group is using those two teams:
Pot 1
Argentina, Spain
Pot 2
Poland, Nigeria
Pot 3
New Zealand, Paraguay
Argentina 4 pts
Spain 4 pts
Poland 4 pts
Nigeria 4 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Zealand 4 pt
Paraguay 4 pt
An example of a group where giving 4th as lowest points as possible :
Pot 1
England, Germany
Pot 2
Sweden, Chile
Pot 3
North Korea, Uzbekistan
England 9 pts
Germany 6 pts
North Korea 6 pts
Chile 2 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sweden 1 pt
Uzbekistan 1 pt
An example of a group where giving 4th as highest points as possible :
Pot 1
Brazil, Netherlands
Pot 2
Australia, Peru
Pot 3
China, Rwanda
Brazil 6 pts
Netherlands 6 pts
Australia 6 pts
Peru 6 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
China 3 pts
Rwanda 0 pts
So from my calculations highest 4 can obtain is 6 points and lowest is 2 points. Possible for all 6 to finish on 4 points.
I could be wrong but don’t think you can finish 4 with 0 points but you can certainly advance without winning a game.
How would you do the draw? Would you do it so for example no South Americans can be in the same group of 6, or they can but are not able to play each other?
A team with 0 pts could advance if one team in each pot win/lose all 3 matches
Pot 1
Argentina, Spain
Pot 2
Poland, Nigeria
Pot 3
New Zealand, Paraguay
Argentina 9 pts
Poland 9 pts
New Zealand 9 pts
Spain 0 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nigeria 0 pts
Paraguay 0 pts
No preference on how to do geographical separation in group draw. May be easier to just put them in separate group.
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
So from my calculations highest 4 can obtain is 6 points and lowest is 2 points. Possible for all 6 to finish on 4 points.
I could be wrong but don’t think you can finish 4 with 0 points but you can certainly advance without winning a game.
How would you do the draw? Would you do it so for example no South Americans can be in the same group of 6, or they can but are not able to play each other?
It is possible, but I don't believe such a draw would be allowed to happen when each of 3 teams have the same opponents:
A1 vs A2, A1 vs B2, A1 vs C2
B1 vs A2, B1 vs B2, B1 vs C2
C1 vs A2, C1 vs B2, C1 vs C2
A1, B1, C1 winning 3 games each, ending up with 9 points, A2, B2, C2 losing 3 games each, and one of those teams ends up being 4th with 0 points.
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
So have done a little simulation for a few different scenarios:
An example of an average group is using those two teams:
Pot 1
Argentina, Spain
Pot 2
Poland, Nigeria
Pot 3
New Zealand, Paraguay
Argentina 4 pts
Spain 4 pts
Poland 4 pts
Nigeria 4 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Zealand 4 pt
Paraguay 4 pt
An example of a group where giving 4th as lowest points as possible :
Pot 1
England, Germany
Pot 2
Sweden, Chile
Pot 3
North Korea, Uzbekistan
England 9 pts
Germany 6 pts
North Korea 6 pts
Chile 2 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sweden 1 pt
Uzbekistan 1 pt
An example of a group where giving 4th as highest points as possible :
Pot 1
Brazil, Netherlands
Pot 2
Australia, Peru
Pot 3
China, Rwanda
Brazil 6 pts
Netherlands 6 pts
Australia 6 pts
Peru 6 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
China 3 pts
Rwanda 0 pts
So from my calculations highest 4 can obtain is 6 points and lowest is 2 points. Possible for all 6 to finish on 4 points.
I could be wrong but don’t think you can finish 4 with 0 points but you can certainly advance without winning a game.
How would you do the draw? Would you do it so for example no South Americans can be in the same group of 6, or they can but are not able to play each other?
A team with 0 pts could advance if one team in each pot win/lose all 3 matches
Pot 1
Argentina, Spain
Pot 2
Poland, Nigeria
Pot 3
New Zealand, Paraguay
Argentina 9 pts
Poland 9 pts
New Zealand 9 pts
Spain 0 pts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nigeria 0 pts
Paraguay 0 pts
No preference on how to do geographical separation in group draw. May be easier to just put them in separate group.
Ah yes I think I had different scheduling so that’s why I didn’t get the same, but you are right that it can happen.
I wonder how often it would happen given the skill difference between the pots.
Knockout stage could be:
A1 vs B4
A2 vs B3
B2 vs A3
B1 vs A4
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
So from my calculations highest 4 can obtain is 6 points and lowest is 2 points. Possible for all 6 to finish on 4 points.
I could be wrong but don’t think you can finish 4 with 0 points but you can certainly advance without winning a game.
How would you do the draw? Would you do it so for example no South Americans can be in the same group of 6, or they can but are not able to play each other?
It is possible, but I don't believe such a draw would be allowed to happen when each of 3 teams have the same opponents:
A1 vs A2, A1 vs B2, A1 vs C2
B1 vs A2, B1 vs B2, B1 vs C2
C1 vs A2, C1 vs B2, C1 vs C2
A1, B1, C1 winning 3 games each, ending up with 9 points, A2, B2, C2 losing 3 games each, and one of those teams ends up being 4th with 0 points.
I think if it is scheduled in such a particular way it may not happen, I think mine had different opponents.
Kev wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 15:03
So from my calculations highest 4 can obtain is 6 points and lowest is 2 points. Possible for all 6 to finish on 4 points.
I could be wrong but don’t think you can finish 4 with 0 points but you can certainly advance without winning a game.
How would you do the draw? Would you do it so for example no South Americans can be in the same group of 6, or they can but are not able to play each other?
It is possible, but I don't believe such a draw would be allowed to happen when each of 3 teams have the same opponents:
A1 vs A2, A1 vs B2, A1 vs C2
B1 vs A2, B1 vs B2, B1 vs C2
C1 vs A2, C1 vs B2, C1 vs C2
A1, B1, C1 winning 3 games each, ending up with 9 points, A2, B2, C2 losing 3 games each, and one of those teams ends up being 4th with 0 points.
I think if it is scheduled in such a particular way it may not happen, I think mine had different opponents.
EDIT: Nope don’t think I had that actually, mines seems very similar to @Dniprovec , my bad.
I believe the number of matches would be 104 (72 group (9 for each group) 32 knockout) mirroring the new format.
Knockout stage is more straightforward than what we currently have
diyx wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 06:25
As Dnipeovec has already said, the tiedbreaker also matters a lot. With GD, less positions are already fixed and the number of open games is higher. This is one of many reasons why I believe GD is superior to H2H.
I have also thought this for the exact same reason for a long time.
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
I quite like this idea actually given you can transition into a standard knockout stage.
Only issue if coming 4th with 0 points.
Would there be issues if you were to allow the top 3 in a group advance onwards but instead of guaranteeing 4th, you would then find the remaining 8 best sides not in the top 3 of a group?
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
I quite like this idea actually given you can transition into a standard knockout stage.
Only issue if coming 4th with 0 points.
Would there be issues if you were to allow the top 3 in a group advance onwards but instead of guaranteeing 4th, you would then find the remaining 8 best sides not in the top 3 of a group?
Groups with later match day 3 may have a slight advantage as they know final results of other groups before their 3rd match. Also in really extreme situation this could still include teams with 0 pts. And the knockout stage team matchings would no longer be straightforward
Shing wrote: ↑Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:12
Proposed by other users in the Euros thread, another possible format for a 48 team tournament is Swiss. 48 teams could be divided into 8 groups of 6 teams. Each team play 3 matches in group stage. Top 4 in each group advance to knockout stage.
A possible way to do group draw is to divided teams into 3 pots. Each group contains 2 teams from each pot, and each team play a match against a team from each pot. So it would be possible to see Argentina vs Spain in group stage. The knockout stage team matchings would be more straightforward and symmetric comparing with the existing format.
Cons of this Swiss format would be in extreme situation, a team losing all 3 matches is possible to advance to knockout stage. Also on the final match day of group stage, 3 matches have to be played at the same time instead of 2 matches.
I quite like this idea actually given you can transition into a standard knockout stage.
Only issue if coming 4th with 0 points.
Would there be issues if you were to allow the top 3 in a group advance onwards but instead of guaranteeing 4th, you would then find the remaining 8 best sides not in the top 3 of a group?
Groups with later match day 3 may have a slight advantage as they know final results of other groups before their 3rd match. Also in really extreme situation this could still include teams with 0 pts. And the knockout stage team matchings would no longer be straightforward
I hadn’t factored that in, imagine 8 zero point teams lol.
Yep that’s fair enough.
I thought about structuring it like this.
Group winners play those remaining 8 sides (teams from same group could not play their group winner)
And 2nd vs 3rds for the rest
I quite like this idea actually given you can transition into a standard knockout stage.
Only issue if coming 4th with 0 points.
Would there be issues if you were to allow the top 3 in a group advance onwards but instead of guaranteeing 4th, you would then find the remaining 8 best sides not in the top 3 of a group?
Groups with later match day 3 may have a slight advantage as they know final results of other groups before their 3rd match. Also in really extreme situation this could still include teams with 0 pts. And the knockout stage team matchings would no longer be straightforward
I hadn’t factored that in, imagine 8 zero point teams lol.
Yep that’s fair enough.
I thought about structuring it like this.
Group winners play those remaining 8 sides (teams from same group could not play their group winner)
And 2nd vs 3rds for the rest
You can just arrange the draw in a way that the situation with 3 teams with 0 points won't be possible to happen by fixing the schedule and drawing teams into respective slots. This way you ensure that each pair of the teams faces each other or, if not, only two of the same opponents, not all three. It means that the maximum amount of teams that could end up with 0 points is 2.
For example:
A1 vs A2, A1 vs B1, A1 vs C1, A2 vs B2, A2 vs C2, B1 vs B2, B1 vs C1, B2 vs C2, C1 vs C2
