HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Other Sports > Soccer
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Soccer Discuss leagues around the world and the World Cup

Would you be in favor of expanding the world cup to have more teams compete?

View Poll Results: Would you be in favor of expanding the world cup? If so, how?
Leave the World Cup alone. 32 nations. Everything left the same. 42 82.35%
Keep it at 32 nations but give Europe less spots and spread it out a bit more! 2 3.92%
Expand to 40 teams but keep it at 8 groups of 5 (top 2 into 2nd round) 4 7.84%
Expand to 40, keep it at 4 per group total of 10 groups 0 0%
Expand to 64 teams! 1 1.96%
Drop it from 32 to 24 1 1.96%
Drop it from 32 to 16 1 1.96%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-20-2013, 09:40 AM
  #26
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: La Plata, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 21,988
vCash: 500
With the rankings for the federations, you're going to get the most teams from the areas that have the best national sides.

It's the World Cup, not the European Cup with Featuring Special Guests from South America.

In order to be justified as the World Cup, you have to include sides from everywhere, no matter how dinky they might seem.

While they did park the bus (no worse than Chelsea did to win the CL, or other national sides have done for ages), they still managed to score and give a good account of themselves. They had college players and others who would struggle to make a Tier 3 side. Even so, they were able to do well and hold their own. As much as seeing the best players in the World Cup, there is something to be said how a unit of sacrifice and commitment can win out. For all the vaunted Euros, Greece, who is probably closer to NZ than Spain at times, won not all that long ago, using much the same. Celebrate the sport, not the elitism and exclusivity that some try to justify. The World Cup is supposed to celebrate the world's game, and that might mean putting in some sides from areas that aren't as high of a quality. So be it. They can still compete and show what they can do, and spread the sport. God knows, I rather see the guys who have the joy, then some of the national sides who looked like they were being forced at gun point to play (France?) and don't have that joy for the game.

Chimaera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-20-2013, 10:35 AM
  #27
villevalo
Registered User
 
villevalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 852
vCash: 500
And that's where we differ, you believe the WC is to be the celebration of football over that of the quality of the tournament, something I think should be left to things like the football medal in the Olympics, which really is the place for something like that.

For me, on the international front, I want to see as many good footballers as possible for a fantastic tournament. Which you can get from having qualification based on strength of the team and not geographical location.

That would be a perfect competition, for me at least, oh and making sure England don't qualify too.

villevalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-20-2013, 10:42 AM
  #28
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: La Plata, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 21,988
vCash: 500
Except, you usually do get most of the best sides in the world, even with it being a celebration of the sport. Who was left home who might have done better? Two middling European sides?

It's the best sides from all around the World. Every region included, and as such, it works.

Chimaera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-20-2013, 10:48 AM
  #29
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by villevalo View Post
I'd like to see a removal of the crap teams and an addition of better teams, mainly European teams that missed out. At the moment the hardest international trophy to win is the Euro's and apart from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and a couple African nations, the World Cup misses a lot of international talent because it limits the amount of Euro team spaces.
Have you watched any of the 16-team Euros? There is always at least 1 or 2 crap teams out of the 14 or 15 managed to qualify.

7 of the 13 UEFA teams didn't make it out of the group stages in 2010. Only 3 of them won their groups. 3 of them finished last in their groups.

Brad Tolliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 06:24 AM
  #30
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimaera View Post
It's the "WORLD CUP". While I do think the quality is reduced a bit, New Zealand's not a good representative of scorn. They drew with all three teams who were considered better than them, and did admirably.
They actually finished ahead of Italy. The notion that NZ "stole" a more deserving European team's spot is laughable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Tolliver View Post
7 of the 13 UEFA teams didn't make it out of the group stages in 2010.
Exactly. Hell even Concacaf and Asia had a better ratio.

Not that Europe deserve fewer spots, and surely more UEFA teams went through at previous tournaments, but who wins or reaches the SF is completely irrelevant. What matters here is how the bottom teams do.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 09:50 PM
  #31
Captain Conservative
Registered User
 
Captain Conservative's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: My Blue Heaven
Country: Spain
Posts: 3,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by villevalo View Post
I'd like to see a removal of the crap teams and an addition of better teams, mainly European teams that missed out. At the moment the hardest international trophy to win is the Euro's and apart from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and a couple African nations, the World Cup misses a lot of international talent because it limits the amount of Euro team spaces.
Don't forget Columbia. Falcao, Rodriguez, Guarin, Zapata, Yepes and Martinez are all quality.

Captain Conservative is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 08:55 AM
  #32
tobo
Registered User
 
tobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Belgium
Posts: 2,550
vCash: 500
Leave it. You didn't qualify? Too bad, better luck next time.

tobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 09:52 AM
  #33
Alklha
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 8,628
vCash: 500
I voted that it should be left how it is, but I wouldn't be too bothered if it did go to a 40 team set up.

8 groups of 5 is still a workable situation and only adds another 4 or 5 days to the tournament. The only issue is that one team from the group doesn't play on the final match day, however the significance of that is somewhat mitigated by the fact there is an extra game to separate teams.

The European Championships moving to a 24 team set-up is forced, and isn't really workable as the qualification from the Group Stages shows.

Alklha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:03 AM
  #34
HajdukSplit
Registered User
 
HajdukSplit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NJ
Country: Croatia
Posts: 5,265
vCash: 500
Also, the 24-team Euro will make qualifying a formality for most of the "Pot 1" nations while in a 16 team Euro you have seen England not qualify and France/Portugal get scares in recent years.

I understand why UEFA expanded it (more money obviously and I think that there are teams capable of being competitive in the expanded version) but its not an ideal scenario with 3rd place teams now making the knockouts.

HajdukSplit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 11:44 AM
  #35
tobo
Registered User
 
tobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Belgium
Posts: 2,550
vCash: 500
I'd say third placed teams in the Qualifying rounds aren't that bad usually. Belgium, Armenia, Israel, Norway, Serbia, Hungary, Romania and Scotland finished third in 2012. Some of these teams should have the talent to qualify, but countries like Armenia or Israel didn't stand a chance of finishing #1 or #2 under the old system. Who knows, a tournament is always difficult, maybe we see an underdog beat several powerhouses and make a deep run into the knock-out stage?

tobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 12:26 PM
  #36
HajdukSplit
Registered User
 
HajdukSplit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NJ
Country: Croatia
Posts: 5,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobo View Post
I'd say third placed teams in the Qualifying rounds aren't that bad usually. Belgium, Armenia, Israel, Norway, Serbia, Hungary, Romania and Scotland finished third in 2012. Some of these teams should have the talent to qualify, but countries like Armenia or Israel didn't stand a chance of finishing #1 or #2 under the old system. Who knows, a tournament is always difficult, maybe we see an underdog beat several powerhouses and make a deep run into the knock-out stage?
Well add the 2nd place teams which lost in a playoff; Turkey, Montenegro, Estonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

I think teams like Estonia and Armenia had lucky qualifying campaigns and they just would have happened to qualify for a 24-team version and don't forget in most years Poland/Ukraine would have to qualify as well.

Expanding to 24 teams though really helps teams like Norway, Israel, Romania type teams who qualify once in a while but usually finish 3rd in qualifying groups

HajdukSplit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-25-2013, 12:29 PM
  #37
Franck
Insolent Upstart
 
Franck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gothenburg
Country: Sweden
Posts: 8,060
vCash: 50
The World Cup is perfect as it is. Leave it alone.

Franck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-26-2013, 07:02 PM
  #38
Hesher
down on the upside
 
Hesher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: middle of nowhere
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 2,350
vCash: 500
Leave it like it is. Expanding the Euros to 24 teams is bad enough.

Hesher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 04:10 AM
  #39
NMF78
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Belgium
Country: Belgium
Posts: 603
vCash: 500
32 teams is fine but there should be more teams from europe, at least 16 of the 32 teams should come from europe.

NMF78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 05:58 AM
  #40
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMF78 View Post
32 teams is fine but there should be more teams from europe, at least 16 of the 32 teams should come from europe.
No, they shouldn't.

CONEMBOL should be the first in line for spots. UEFA can't even fill the Euros with 16 quality teams, they don't need more spots just so mediocre teams can get in.

Brad Tolliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 06:08 AM
  #41
tobo
Registered User
 
tobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Belgium
Posts: 2,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Tolliver View Post
No, they shouldn't.

CONEMBOL should be the first in line for spots. UEFA can't even fill the Euros with 16 quality teams, they don't need more spots just so mediocre teams can get in.


CONMEBOL has enough teams as it is. 4 out 9 qualify directly for the World Cup and the fifth plays play offs against the Asian #3. What do you want? That teams that ended in the bottom half of the group can qualify as well? What a joke that would be.


Last edited by tobo: 01-27-2013 at 06:24 AM.
tobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 08:05 AM
  #42
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 74,138
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Tolliver View Post
No, they shouldn't.

CONEMBOL should be the first in line for spots. UEFA can't even fill the Euros with 16 quality teams, they don't need more spots just so mediocre teams can get in.
France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Russia, Belgium, Turkey, Poland, Czech Republic, Serbia, Sweden, Denmark and Ukraine.

Would look fine to me in a tournament.

Shrimper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 09:16 AM
  #43
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobo View Post


CONMEBOL has enough teams as it is. 4 out 9 qualify directly for the World Cup and the fifth plays play offs against the Asian #3. What do you want? That teams that ended in the bottom half of the group can qualify as well? What a joke that would be.
CONEMBOL usually has 6-8 quality teams, and those teams usually do better than UEFA teams 14+. UEFA couldn't even get half their teams out of the group stages at the last WC, they certainly don't deserve more teams. All 5 CONEMBOL teams did and 4 of them made the quarters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
France, England, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Russia, Belgium, Turkey, Poland, Czech Republic, Serbia, Sweden, Denmark and Ukraine.

Would look fine to me in a tournament.
Just no on the bolded teams.

Turkey just dropped back-to-back qualifiers to Romania and Hungary. So no.

Poland? Seriously? They couldn't even win a game at the Euros with a cupcake group at home. Not even close to a quality team.

Serbia either plays terrible in qualification or ends up looking like one of the worst teams when they actually make a tournament. They don't deserve to go to Brazil if they can't even beat Scotland.

Ukraine is mediocre at best and not getting better.

Then you have a gaggle of teams like Belgium, Russia, Czechs, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Bosnia, and Switzerland, and you are lucky if you get 3-4 good teams out of that group.

Brad Tolliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 09:43 AM
  #44
Panteras
perennial loser
 
Panteras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Television sky
Country: United States
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Conservative View Post
Don't forget Columbia. Falcao, Rodriguez, Guarin, Zapata, Yepes and Martinez are all quality.
I just cringe when I hear or see people refer to it this way lol..ayways, carry on, just a little rant I had to throw out there, nothing against you mate but yeah it's not Columbia btw

Panteras is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 10:02 AM
  #45
cgf
Registered User
 
cgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 12,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Tolliver View Post
CONEMBOL usually has 6-8 quality teams, and those teams usually do better than UEFA teams 14+. UEFA couldn't even get half their teams out of the group stages at the last WC, they certainly don't deserve more teams. All 5 CONEMBOL teams did and 4 of them made the quarters.

Just no on the bolded teams.

Turkey just dropped back-to-back qualifiers to Romania and Hungary. So no.

Poland? Seriously? They couldn't even win a game at the Euros with a cupcake group at home. Not even close to a quality team.

Serbia either plays terrible in qualification or ends up looking like one of the worst teams when they actually make a tournament. They don't deserve to go to Brazil if they can't even beat Scotland.

Ukraine is mediocre at best and not getting better.

Then you have a gaggle of teams like Belgium, Russia, Czechs, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Bosnia, and Switzerland, and you are lucky if you get 3-4 good teams out of that group.
lol, Belgium, Russia, Denmark, Switzerland and Greece are at least on par with any non-euro nation other than Brazil and Argentina, and maybe the Ivory Coast and Columbia. Hell even teams like Poland, Ukraine, Montenegro, etc. would qualify if they were part of any other confederation.

cgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 10:20 AM
  #46
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgf View Post
lol, Belgium, Russia, Denmark, Switzerland and Greece are at least on par with any non-euro nation other than Brazil and Argentina, and maybe the Ivory Coast and Columbia. Hell even teams like Poland, Ukraine, Montenegro, etc. would qualify if they were part of any other confederation.
Are you sure?

WC 2010
South Korea 2, Greece 0

Japan 3, Denmark 1

Chile 1, Switzerland 0
Honduras 0, Switzerland 0

The Slovenian team that beat Russia couldn't make it out of the EASY group.

Belgium finished 4th in their qualifying group.

Brad Tolliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 10:27 AM
  #47
cgf
Registered User
 
cgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 12,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Tolliver View Post
Are you sure?

WC 2010
South Korea 2, Greece 0

Japan 3, Denmark 1

Chile 1, Switzerland 0
Honduras 0, Switzerland 0

The Slovenian team that beat Russia couldn't make it out of the group stage in the EASY group.

Belgium finished 4th in their qualifying group.
By that logic columbia shouldn't even be thought about as they didn't even qualify in 2010. Teams change, the Swiss are vastly better now than they were three years ago, they're midfield is much stronger and with kids like Shaqiri and Xhaka they're much stronger in attack. Same is true for Russia, where Dzagoev and Kokorin give the russian attack much more punch, Denmark, who now have Eriksen running them, and even the greeks with their young CBs and attacking mids. One off results three years ago are a poor way to compare where teams will be in a year.

I.E. Germany ***** Argentina, Sweden just drew germany in the fall, so Sweden > Argentina, right?


Last edited by cgf: 01-27-2013 at 10:33 AM.
cgf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 11:09 AM
  #48
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgf View Post
By that logic columbia shouldn't even be thought about as they didn't even qualify in 2010. Teams change, the Swiss are vastly better now than they were three years ago, they're midfield is much stronger and with kids like Shaqiri and Xhaka they're much stronger in attack. Same is true for Russia, where Dzagoev and Kokorin give the russian attack much more punch, Denmark, who now have Eriksen running them, and even the greeks with their young CBs and attacking mids. One off results three years ago are a poor way to compare where teams will be in a year.

I.E. Germany ***** Argentina, Sweden just drew germany in the fall, so Sweden > Argentina, right?
Plenty of UEFA teams are getting worse.

If UEFA wanted more WC spots, then the 2nd/3rd tier UEFA teams that would actually benefit from the extra spots shouldn't have drop a giant collective turd against "inferior" countries they actually had to play at the most recent WC.

Then factor in the Euros, where there is always at least 1-2 comedy options that manage to qualify out of a 14-15 teams.

Brad Tolliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 11:54 AM
  #49
tobo
Registered User
 
tobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Belgium
Posts: 2,550
vCash: 500
Complaining about "weak" European sides participating in the World Cup, but forgetting to mention rubbish like Nigeria, Cameroon and North Korea qualified in '10. Seriously, a lot more unequal matches are being played at WC than EC. They should get rid of some CONCACAF teams. Why were Costa Rica and Trinidad & Tobago in Germany '06 anyway, or Honduras in South Africa?

And besides, you're so focused on the 2010 edition, but take a look back in time. In 2002, Uruguay, Argentina and Colombia failed to survive the group stage. Only Paraguay and Brazil qualified for the knockout stage. They joined 9 UEFA-teams. In '06 10/16 teams that reached the knockout stage were European.

Quote:
Belgium finished 4th in their qualifying group.
Teams change if you didn't know. Back then we must have had one of the youngest and most unexperienced sides of Europe. Couple that with years of clueless management and a rotten atmosphere, no wonder we failed to qualify for any tournament since WC '02. Today we lead in our group and are talentwise on par with the biggest European nations.


Last edited by tobo: 01-27-2013 at 12:03 PM.
tobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 12:01 PM
  #50
Live in the Now
YNWA
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,946
vCash: 500
Awards:
Ask Sweden and Switzerland why T&T and Honduras were there, I'm sure they'll have an answer.

Only three CONCACAF teams go so they don't need any spots taken away. The spots are fine. As long as there's only one or two teams as bad as an Ireland I think everything will be alright.

Live in the Now is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.