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
01-27-2013, 03:36 PM
  #51
Edonator
The Mightiest Club
 
Edonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vancouver
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 3,965
vCash: 500
Don't need to expand it.

As a fan of team that has never made it to the WC, the qualifications and playoffs to get into the WC suffice. The WC would just be icing on the cake.

The only 2 groups that can make a case for adding more teams is the UEFA and CONMEBOL. Rearranging the # of allocations each conference get at the expense of Europe/South America would be a slap in the face for those that love football.

Edonator is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2013, 03:36 PM
  #52
Panteras
perennial loser
 
Panteras's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Television sky
Country: United States
Posts: 7,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobo View Post
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.



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.
Colombia hasn't been to a WC since 98, also T&T did very well if you ask me in that WC

Panteras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 02:07 AM
  #53
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
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.
Pardon me but Ireland has made the World Cup 3 times.

1990 - Q-Finals
1994 - 2nd Round
2002 - 2nd Round

Not sure what your statement means but they got out of the group stage every time.

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 02:10 AM
  #54
Live in the Now
YNWA
 
Live in the Now's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LA
Country: United States
Posts: 31,683
vCash: 500
Awards:
Ireland at the Euros was not a very good team, that's what I meant. I would prefer that there are only a few teams that are that poor. They've been better before and will be again, but right now...it isn't good.

Live in the Now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 02:14 AM
  #55
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Ireland at the Euros was not a very good team, that's what I meant. I would prefer that there are only a few teams that are that poor. They've been better before and will be again, but right now...it isn't good.
Well get used to that with the Euro's expanding.

Ireland have called up some good players for the Feb game vs Poland (Anthony Pilkington will be a good one for the boys in Green)

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 06:36 AM
  #56
jekoh
Registered User
 
jekoh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobo View Post
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.
Bla bla bla... If I'm not mistaken in the last 3 WCs, 10 out of 14 SA teams made it to the 2nd round, that's 71%, while 25 out of 41 European teams made it, that's 61%.

So it's not just 2010, SA also did better in 06 contrary to what you imply. And in 98 too, which I didn't include but would widen the gap even more (4 out of 5 SA teams made it).

Also SA teams which fail to make it are more likely than European teams to still be good enough to not finish bottom of their group, with European teams being twice as likely to finish bottom.

Other than Eurocentrism, there is really nothing to suggest that the top non qualifiers from Europe are any better than the ones from SA. If anything evidence would suggest that the reverse is true.

jekoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 07:01 AM
  #57
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
I think expanding to 40 teams would not water down the cup.

Example: 2018 (Russia hosts, although if they ever do expand to 40, I doubt Qatar could do it, so it wouldn't happen until 2024 I guess but for sake of argument lets go with 2018)

Group A - Russia - England - Paraguay - South Korea - Egypt
Group B - Spain - Colombia - United States - Greece - South Africa
Group C - Brazil - Mexico - Australia - Switzerland - Morocco
Group D - Germany - Portugal - Cameroon - Denmark - New Zealand
Group E - Netherlands - Sweden - Ecuador - Ivory Coast - Costa Rica
Group F - Argentina - Croatia - Japan - Algeria - Turkey
Group G - Italy - Uruguay - Belgium - Ghana - Czech Republic
Group H - France - Nigeria - Serbia - Chile - Iran

Hosts - 1 place
Europe - 16 places (up from 13, +3 berths)
Africa - 8 places (up from 5, +3 berths)
Asia - 4.5 places - (remains the same)
S.America - 6.5 places (up from 4.5, + 2.5 berths)
N.America - 3.5 places (remains the same)
Oceania - .5 place (remains the same)

Not saying those would be the teams that qualify, who knows what international teams will look like by 2018 but some decent teams will still not making if the above holds true which includes

FIFA Ranking - Nation

24 - Norway
25 - Mali
26 - Bosnia
31 - Montenegro
32 - Hungary
33 - Romania
39 - Zambia
41 - Bolivia
41 - Rep Ireland
43 - Peru
44 - Slovakia
44 - Ukraine
47 - Slovenia
50 - Bulgaria
53 - Tunisia
55 - Venezuela
56 - Poland
68 - Austria
69 - Scotland
76 - Israel
79 - Senegal
86 - China

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 07:23 AM
  #58
ck26
Free Raptor Reagan
 
ck26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Coyotes Bandwagon
Country: United States
Posts: 7,116
vCash: 297
Scheduling 5-team groups is tricky. Group state in 2010 went from June 11 to June 25 ... teams played three games in two weeks, essentially every 4 or 5 days. A 5-team group you need to play an additional round robin game, which would be the equivalent of playing June 11 to June 30. But because you need to pair teams together in order to have an entertaining, competitive game, there has to be a "bye" week in there for each team, means means you're adding yet another 5 days to the tournament.

45 day World Cup anyone?

Keep in mind that the 2010 Champions League final was 22 May and that clubs from World Cup-quality countries (Dinamo Zagreb, HK Rosenborg, Red Bull Salzburg, Partizan Belgrade) began play in the 2011 Champions League on 13 July.

ck26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 10:59 AM
  #59
Chimaera
same ol' Caps
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: La Plata, Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 21,918
vCash: 500
I think one of the problems many have to factor in is the willingness of players and clubs to go to a tournament that stretches any further.

More teams are fine, but if you make it much longer, some clubs are going to get upset. The money behind the clubs is at least enough to make some organizers think hard about what's best.

I also think that some players might decide to take themselves out of contention at some point if their career and livelihoods are threatened with the extra matches. Insurance costs alone of another 5 days are significant.

Chimaera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 12:10 PM
  #60
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 71,003
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 EASY group.

Belgium finished 4th in their qualifying group.
Using one of results doesn't really make a good comparison.

Put Switzerland up against Honduras now-days, they'd beat them. Back then Shaqiri and Xhaka weren't as good as they are now and they now add a bigger attacking presence. Back then they only had Eren Derdiyok and he wasn't renowned for doing that well.

Denmark have improved since then as well, they showed they could cope in a group with Germany, Portugal and Netherlands.

Also. A 40 team World Cup just won't work. Although I do have to question on why you think South America deserves 6.5 spots when there's only 9 teams. That's just wrong.

Shrimper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 12:29 PM
  #61
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
Using one of results doesn't really make a good comparison.

Put Switzerland up against Honduras now-days, they'd beat them. Back then Shaqiri and Xhaka weren't as good as they are now and they now add a bigger attacking presence. Back then they only had Eren Derdiyok and he wasn't renowned for doing that well.

Denmark have improved since then as well, they showed they could cope in a group with Germany, Portugal and Netherlands.

Also. A 40 team World Cup just won't work. Although I do have to question on why you think South America deserves 6.5 spots when there's only 9 teams. That's just wrong.
What about UEFA teams that have gotten worse since then?

South America deserves 6.5 spots because they can produce that many quality teams. Their 8th place team finished 2 points behind Uruguay in a true round robin tournament.

Brad Tolliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 12:58 PM
  #62
HajdukSplit
Registered User
 
HajdukSplit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NJ
Country: Croatia
Posts: 5,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Live in the Now View Post
Ireland at the Euros was not a very good team, that's what I meant. I would prefer that there are only a few teams that are that poor. They've been better before and will be again, but right now...it isn't good.
to me Ireland were fortunate to qualify, they finished 2nd in their group by taking I think 3 points from the two main rivals for qualification(Russia, Slovakia). What helped them is taking full 6 points from Armenia while Slovakia lost both games to them. Then they got the easiest playoff draw (Estonia; still think UEFA fixed this form them to repay them for 2010) and in most years Estonia would never even come close to a playoff, in a normal qualifying year Ireland would have played Serbia where their chances would have decreased but Serbia were in turmoil that campaign.

For me the only confederation who probably deserves at least one more spot in South America, I think they can produce 6 quality teams at a World Cup (anything more than 6 would be too much, it would devalue their qualification competitiveness). Europe should be 13-14. I would actually cut one from Africa until they produce better results, they have been massive disappointments in the 2000s minus one good run from Ghana and Senegal. I guess its unfair to judge CIV as both World Cups they have been in the group of death. Asia have done well so their allocation is ok for now. CONCACAF doesn't deserve 4 spots, don't remember the last time anybody other than MEX/USA won a World Cup match (Jamaica 1998?)

So in conclusion I would give 1 more spot to UEFA and CONMEBOL and take away one spot from CAF and get rid of the 0.5 from CONCACAF/OFC. Put New Zealand in AFC, Oceania doesn't need to be a confederation imo


Last edited by HajdukSplit: 01-28-2013 at 01:06 PM.
HajdukSplit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 01:31 PM
  #63
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HajdukSplit View Post
to me Ireland were fortunate to qualify, they finished 2nd in their group by taking I think 3 points from the two main rivals for qualification(Russia, Slovakia). What helped them is taking full 6 points from Armenia while Slovakia lost both games to them. Then they got the easiest playoff draw (Estonia; still think UEFA fixed this form them to repay them for 2010) and in most years Estonia would never even come close to a playoff, in a normal qualifying year Ireland would have played Serbia where their chances would have decreased but Serbia were in turmoil that campaign.

For me the only confederation who probably deserves at least one more spot in South America, I think they can produce 6 quality teams at a World Cup (anything more than 6 would be too much, it would devalue their qualification competitiveness). Europe should be 13-14. I would actually cut one from Africa until they produce better results, they have been massive disappointments in the 2000s minus one good run from Ghana and Senegal. I guess its unfair to judge CIV as both World Cups they have been in the group of death. Asia have done well so their allocation is ok for now. CONCACAF doesn't deserve 4 spots, don't remember the last time anybody other than MEX/USA won a World Cup match (Jamaica 1998?)

So in conclusion I would give 1 more spot to UEFA and CONMEBOL and take away one spot from CAF and get rid of the 0.5 from CONCACAF/OFC. Put New Zealand in AFC, Oceania doesn't need to be a confederation imo
The 3 times Ireland made the World Cup they had some big names and some star players. When they made the Euro's for the first time in 1988 they had a great manager in Jackie Charlton who basically played the long ball and brought a lot of English and Scottish born (with Irish parents/grandparents) into the squad.

The team that made it to Poland could have played better but the manager (trappatoni) is so set in his way that they play like crap & are very boring to watch.

The only thing you can say in Ireland defense at the Euro's was that if they were in any other group they would have had a better showing. Ireland had Italy/Spain/Croatia - the 2 teams who made the final and a very good IMO Croatian side.

GarretJoseph* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 01:42 PM
  #64
HajdukSplit
Registered User
 
HajdukSplit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NJ
Country: Croatia
Posts: 5,055
vCash: 500
From what I remember reading, seemed like the Irish fans/media were too confident going into the tournament. They thought three points against Croatia was a formality ("Croatia is not a good team" "McClean will rip Corluka apart") and then beating Italy was "in the cards"

I didn't watch much of Ireland in the qualifications, but once Croatia drew them I watched their three friendly matches (Czech Republic, BiH, Hungary) and it was a typical British team, organized, physical but barely created any chances. Of course I was nervous about the match, as Croatia tend to look down on teams like Ireland (like they did Austria & Turkey at Euro 2008) but I did think Ireland's qualification was helped out massively by Slovakia's innept performances...they beat Russia in Moscow but failed to take anything from Armenia


Last edited by HajdukSplit: 01-28-2013 at 01:54 PM.
HajdukSplit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-28-2013, 01:57 PM
  #65
Brad Tolliver
Terror Goes Into
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Overtime
Posts: 4,073
vCash: 500
90 was all about parking the bus so it was right in Ireland's wheelhouse.

They got a nice group draw in 94 but the Dutch made quick work of them in the round of 16.

The 2002 team that beat the Dutch to qualify was probably their best with a good generation of role players in their prime and a 22 year-old Robbie Keane.

By 2012 they played a bunch of Championship-level players with a 32 year-old Robbie Keane at the Euros and it showed. Much like their neighbors they haven't evolved with the game.

Brad Tolliver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-29-2013, 06:23 AM
  #66
GarretJoseph*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,604
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Tolliver View Post
90 was all about parking the bus so it was right in Ireland's wheelhouse.

They got a nice group draw in 94 but the Dutch made quick work of them in the round of 16.

The 2002 team that beat the Dutch to qualify was probably their best with a good generation of role players in their prime and a 22 year-old Robbie Keane.

By 2012 they played a bunch of Championship-level players with a 32 year-old Robbie Keane at the Euros and it showed. Much like their neighbors they haven't evolved with the game.
Wouldn't consider Italy (Who made it to the final), Norway and Mexico a nice group draw. If anything it was a tough group.

GarretJoseph* is offline   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 04:19 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.