The pros of an entirely random World Cup draw (all 32 teams in one pot, draw them into eight groups at random) are that it would be even more interesting because any team can play any team, theoretically. And it would be much simpler and easier to understand.
The drawback is that you could have all-European or all-African groups and miss out on intercontinental play.
Thoughts - is it a better format? Or, “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it?”
I think that is indeed a huge drawback.
In addition with the nature of the round robin stage (2 teams from each group make elimination), a group with, say, Germany and Italy in it would be less fair than a group where the top ranked team is… South Korea. I think the seeds do make it more fair of a tourney and result in exciting elimination round matches.
Whoops, miscomprehended the OP.
I was going to say that you might end up with the top four teams in the same group, which would turn the rest of the tournament into a “coronation” - but if there are eight groups, and the top two from each advance to the single-elimination round with each group’s teams put into different halves of the bracket, the problem isn’t quite as bad as it sounds.
Okay, you still run the risk of the #3 and #4 teams being knocked out early, but that’s not too far from the current possibility that the #3 team might end up against a strong second-tier team in the first single-elimination game and get knocked out early.
Still, there’s too much of a risk that the final will end up with a good team facing a mediocre one because the mediocre one had a much easier path to the final.
I thought you were going to suggest a straight, unseeded knock-out for the 32.
Just like the FA cup in England. (though that is an unseeded knock-out for 64 teams)
I wouldn’t have any problem with it. That structure is no more artificial than the current seeded pot and mini-league. If you are going to win it then you have to play the best teams (or their conquerors) at some point anyway.
The current mini-league allows teams to have a slow start without wrecking their chances.
But of course money talks. Having the risk of big names falling at the first hurdle doesn’t sit well with FIFA and less games (only 31 games in knockout vs 64 in the tournament as-is) means less money. Of course less games would mean the possibility of a replay if games were drawn.
Also, a lot of fans travel to the World Cup. To go halfway round the world and just see your national team play once would be a bit of a let down having played 10 or more matches just to qualify. At least the fans get about ten days to take in the tournament…
I think the current format is pretty good (although we’ll never agree on the choice of venues :)).
The old Sixteen team WC worked well (especially in 1966!), although in 1950 there was no World Cup Final. It was a final group match. Not a good idea.
IIRC 1974 and 1978 had group matches rather than knockout after the first round.
Being English, my memory of this era is rather hazy. That bloody clown Tomaszewski…
The 24 nation World Cup never really worked. 1982 (although it produced some great games between Italy, Brazil and Argentina), the three team second round was about scoring more against the weakest team in the group.
There followed a period of the top two teams in the group and four of the third placed teams qualifying for the second round, which tended to lead to rather negative styles of play.
That said, Scotland never managed to reach the second round in a World Cup, so it can’t have been all that bad.
Im on the opposite end of the 32 team knockout—if anything I think the qualifying round should be longer, or maybe use it to eliminate only one team and do a second qualifying round. I’ve seen too many great teams piss away four years of solid work with one bad week and get knocked out too early. Maybe a field of 32 with the three knockout games, then a field of 24 2 game round robin with then the top 2 of 3 or top 1 of 3 going to the 16 or 8 game knockout.
OR maybe be like Cricket and have larger pools, and less knockouts------4 groups of 8, seven qualifying matches, top 4 or 8 teams advance. If you can win your group over 7 games, surely you’ve been battle tested enough to show you deserve to advance. That would also get the tourists to stay longer and pay for longer stays!
As for the “meaningless” games that would be sure to develop, count them towards FIFA points for the next world cup?
Trouble is you are constrained by the time taken to run the tournament. Bigger round robin groups multiply the number of games hugely.
4 groups of 8 is not possible given the current length. That would involve 7 match days of 4 games for each group. i.e. 112 games just clear that first stage, then another 3 or 7 on top of that. That ends up being a tournament double the size of the current one.
I like the thought of the bigger groups though. I’d do it by reducing the number of teams to 16. Then two groups of 8 round robin and with top 4 in each going through to QF’s. That gives you a tournament the same size as now.