GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Clubs would hate that. Fans would love it.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Design your own World Cup
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Where are you magicking up the time you'd need for a 2nd group stage?
Furball
Evil Scotsman
I'd keep the format as it is but **** off a couple of the African teams and Asian teams in favour of more European sides* (ok they've hardly done themselves any favours this tournament but I don't care), maybe one more from the Americas and one from Oceania. I don't care that Oceania is basically New Zealand and a bunch of Pacific islands, it's a farce that one of FIFA's regions has zero guaranteed participation at a World Cup.
Every 2nd World Cup would have to be in Europe as well.
*I'd do this via intercontinental qualifiers so the **** African sides still have the opportunity to progress and prove they really deserve it.
Every 2nd World Cup would have to be in Europe as well.
*I'd do this via intercontinental qualifiers so the **** African sides still have the opportunity to progress and prove they really deserve it.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Haven't FIFA basically confirmed that it'll go to 40 teams at some stage? I mean I know these sorts of ideas get floated a lot, but I'd be really surprised if it didn't happen. It'd just go to 8 groups of 5, same tournament structure, with slightly more games per day and I think the plan was it would extend the duration of the tournament by two days or something.
If that happens, I'd keep everything as it is and add one guaranteed spot to the holders again, I think four to Europe, one each to Asia and South America (so they go up to 5.5 each), and half a spot each to Oceania (bringing them to 1) and Africa (bringing them to 5.5 so they have an intercontinental playoff as well).
So it'd be:
Holders - 1
Hosts - 1
Europe - 17
South America - 5.5
Asia - 5.5
Africa - 5.5
North/Central America - 3.5
Oceania - 1
Only problem I can really see with that is if there was a World Cup hosted in South America and they were also the holders they'd end up with 8 teams in it which is a bit much for a confederation with only 10 nations, but you could easily make small adjustments between tournaments for that sort of thing. 17 spots might be too many for Europe, could maybe take one from there and split it into another intercontinental playoff, maybe between North/Central America and Africa.
edit: Actually on second thought, 17 for Europe is definitely too many. I think 16 for them and a spot between CONCACAF and CAF.
If that happens, I'd keep everything as it is and add one guaranteed spot to the holders again, I think four to Europe, one each to Asia and South America (so they go up to 5.5 each), and half a spot each to Oceania (bringing them to 1) and Africa (bringing them to 5.5 so they have an intercontinental playoff as well).
So it'd be:
Holders - 1
Hosts - 1
Europe - 17
South America - 5.5
Asia - 5.5
Africa - 5.5
North/Central America - 3.5
Oceania - 1
Only problem I can really see with that is if there was a World Cup hosted in South America and they were also the holders they'd end up with 8 teams in it which is a bit much for a confederation with only 10 nations, but you could easily make small adjustments between tournaments for that sort of thing. 17 spots might be too many for Europe, could maybe take one from there and split it into another intercontinental playoff, maybe between North/Central America and Africa.
edit: Actually on second thought, 17 for Europe is definitely too many. I think 16 for them and a spot between CONCACAF and CAF.
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Or an Argentina v Peru situation.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah that's a potential issue, but I still think it's going to happen at some stage in the next few cups.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
If they are raising it to 40 then it is the most logical group allocation aside from the integrity issues. Not sure what else they could go with as 10 groups would either mean 4 runners-up going home or some bizarre format, in keeping with the past tbf
Honestly the only formats that haven't been a tad contrived have had either 16 or 32 teams. I wouldn't add any more teams unless they went ahead and doubled it
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
I like your idea Faiip but I think North/Central America are unlucky to only get 3.5 from 40. I mean all 4 of their teams are in the second round of this World Cup. I know you're building your own World Cup, but I think bring that 3.5 up to either 4 or 4.5 and take a spot away from Europe. We already have Euros 
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Yeah to be fair I don't know how many more places should go to Europe. My main hesitation with giving more spots to North/Central America is that I think the quality of the remaining teams there would be poor, Honduras didn't offer much to this tournament and the next team would be Panama I guess? Hard to see them improving the Cup much. At least you know that Europe has more competitive teams. But those spots could go to Africa or Asia too.
Either way I don't think it's a big deal. I think it'll still be a while before we see a tournament winner that isn't from South America or Europe but the gap in quality between the rest of the world and the second tier nations from those regions has clearly shrunk significantly. Last two World Cups have had less than 50% representation from European teams in the last 16, and this tournament hasn't really had any teams that just look horribly out of their depth. Worst performers were probably Honduras, maybe Cameroon or South Korea, and aside from Cameroon's effort against Croatia they were all consistently competitive. If it's a close enough thing I think getting more representation from other parts of the world would add more to the tournament than having Serbia qualify or whatever. Maybe 13-15 is enough.
Either way I don't think it's a big deal. I think it'll still be a while before we see a tournament winner that isn't from South America or Europe but the gap in quality between the rest of the world and the second tier nations from those regions has clearly shrunk significantly. Last two World Cups have had less than 50% representation from European teams in the last 16, and this tournament hasn't really had any teams that just look horribly out of their depth. Worst performers were probably Honduras, maybe Cameroon or South Korea, and aside from Cameroon's effort against Croatia they were all consistently competitive. If it's a close enough thing I think getting more representation from other parts of the world would add more to the tournament than having Serbia qualify or whatever. Maybe 13-15 is enough.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
I'm going to throw it out there that nobody on this forum will ever see a World Cup that is won by a team outwith Europe or South America.
Tom Halsey
International Coach
Yeah I would imagine Panama are the next in line from Central America. The thing is everyone always talks in terms of "adding something to the tournament" or similar, particularly pundits on TV, which seems to be slightly missing the point. Obviously whoever you add isn't going to seriously challenge to win the thing because they're not there already. That doesn't necessarily mean they're not in the best 32 teams (or whatever number you want to make it) though. If we were picking purely the best 32 teams there would probably be another side from Central America and certainly another couple from South America without question, at the expense of Asia in particular and then possibly Europe. I'm not sure that would be best for the long term health of the sport and the competition though.
EDIT: This is based purely on the current abilities of the sides in question as opposed to their long term potential.
EDIT 2: Actually the weaker African teams are worse than the weaker European teams also.
EDIT: This is based purely on the current abilities of the sides in question as opposed to their long term potential.
EDIT 2: Actually the weaker African teams are worse than the weaker European teams also.
Last edited:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
I don't really think it matters if no team from outside Europe or South America ever win the World Cup to be honest. Switzerland are never going to win the world cup either, but they are competitive. Costa Rica won't win it either but you can't deny they've made a significant contribution to this world cup that justifies their inclusion. The issue is more that if you already have more than a dozen teams from Europe, adding a 5th team from Asia or whatever is going to do more to promote and grow the sport throughout the world and make the tournament a more inclusive spectacle than adding another team from Europe. If there is a significant gap in class between the nations or some of the countries excluded from Europe were highly competitive and clearly deserving of inclusion you'd have to account for that, but if you're adding more sides and deciding if Iceland or Egypt would add more to the tournament, better worldwide representation is a significant factor. There are already regional tournaments after all.
It's just a balance because obviously your Germany vs Saudi Arabia type games don't help much, or if they do help football in Saudi Arabia the cost in the quality of the event might not be worth it. But that clearly hasn't been the case at this World Cup where European teams have been far from dominant.
It's just a balance because obviously your Germany vs Saudi Arabia type games don't help much, or if they do help football in Saudi Arabia the cost in the quality of the event might not be worth it. But that clearly hasn't been the case at this World Cup where European teams have been far from dominant.
If anyone deserves another spot it is South America.
Ecuador only there because of the whole altitude thing but if that couple of minutes at the end of the Switzerland had gone the other way then they would have all reached the second round. Obviously playing in South America is an advantage but it was a similar story in South Africa.
Ecuador only there because of the whole altitude thing but if that couple of minutes at the end of the Switzerland had gone the other way then they would have all reached the second round. Obviously playing in South America is an advantage but it was a similar story in South Africa.
Tom Halsey
International Coach
Tbh I think you could make an OK argument that every single South American country is one of the best 32 in the world. For sure if we were doing it purely on current ability South America would get more places.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
On merit South America definitely warrants more spots but I'd say the same thing applies as with Europe's claim. This tournament we're missing Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela and Paraguay, who I don't think would really add that much more than an African side or whatever, though it being a South American hosted cup does change that a little. I think around 6 is fine, so maybe an extra spot for Cups not hosted in South America, but more than that would make the qualification process feel like a bit of a waste of time.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
I really hope a team from outside Europe or South America wins it sooner rather than later, but I can't for the life of me see it happening at any point in the immediate future. Teams from Africa, in particular, continue to be particularly disappointing. Even those which show up and don't either look like they don't give a crap (Cameroon) or under-perform/choke really badly (Ivory Coast) never look like they're actually going to do anything. Ghana for instance had their flash in the pan moments, but it was always pretty clear they weren't really going anywhere; Nigeria have been pretty fun to watch, but I suspect their departure is imminent; Algeria have done well but were perhaps fortunate to be placed in a group with opposition who performed really badly.
Problem is, for me, that this sort of thing has been happening for as long as I can remember. Cameroon are never not involved in some sort of scandal, Ivory Coast have repeatedly not performed, Ghana have done well on the whole but have arguably underperformed given the players at their disposal, Nigeria were emerging as dark horses/reasonable contenders about 20 years ago but until recently seemed to have spent all the time since the mid/late nineties regressing. Then we've had teams like Togo and Angola that were just hopelessly out of their depth.
I'm not suggesting Africa should have it's number of places docked, but on the whole I think it's safe to say that African teams at the World Cup have on the whole been pretty disappointing over the last 20 years. Given the amount of great players that have come out of Africa in that time, it's kind of weird that throughout that period never has an African team come into a tournament and really been expected to do anything. It's not that I'd even necessarily expect them to be mooted as favourites, but when was the last time anyone said "oooh, you better watch out for [AFRICAN TEAM] this year, I think they could go quite far"?
Problem is, for me, that this sort of thing has been happening for as long as I can remember. Cameroon are never not involved in some sort of scandal, Ivory Coast have repeatedly not performed, Ghana have done well on the whole but have arguably underperformed given the players at their disposal, Nigeria were emerging as dark horses/reasonable contenders about 20 years ago but until recently seemed to have spent all the time since the mid/late nineties regressing. Then we've had teams like Togo and Angola that were just hopelessly out of their depth.
I'm not suggesting Africa should have it's number of places docked, but on the whole I think it's safe to say that African teams at the World Cup have on the whole been pretty disappointing over the last 20 years. Given the amount of great players that have come out of Africa in that time, it's kind of weird that throughout that period never has an African team come into a tournament and really been expected to do anything. It's not that I'd even necessarily expect them to be mooted as favourites, but when was the last time anyone said "oooh, you better watch out for [AFRICAN TEAM] this year, I think they could go quite far"?