I don’t see how exhaustion is a factor; the English players for example will all play at least as frequently (far more so, in fact) during the Premiership season; they’ve got a 5 day gap between their last group game and the 2nd round. They’ve all had several weeks of rest before the tournament, and are professional sportsmen. 7 matches in one month? 'S not much to ask.
As for improving the “best” team’s chances, well, I disagree on two levels. One, I don’t think you want to make the cup more of a foregone conclusion; who wants to see a tournament in which the “best” team is a virtual shoo-in? Secondly, I don’t see why you think the smaller format would help this. More than half of the “upsets” you cite came from the era of the 16-team tournament, and in every case another quality team won. What’s the problem?
Finally, before bemoaning the cost, you should consider that the World Cup is in fact one of the most profitable large sporting events in the world. Since it’s mostly held in countries with large footballing traditions, or at least good sporting stadia available (e.g. USA '94), the infrastructure costs are relatively small by comparison to something like the Olympics, and as demonstrated this year, sell-out crowds can be all but guaranteed. Add in the tourism money, the ad and television revenues etc., and “expensive” really isn’t on the table.
Add me to the list of people who really like the current format.
Whilst there are some weak teams, I don’t think there are as many as ten no-hopers. And some teams that might have been a show missed out - Greece and Cameroon spring to mind (as an aside, is anyone else waiting for the future World Cup where Roger Milla scores a brace from a motorised wheelchair?).
It’s a good balance: the good teams have to do enough in the group stage whilst pacing themselves. Few groups are lay-down miseres; and finishing top matters. The relatively large numbers ensure that the event is a carnival of football where some teams can achieve a fair bit by playing well in good company.
As for cost, if I were advising the South African government about staging the event next time, the cost advice is really simple - as it is for all these “major events” - don’t build any infrastructure you won’t regularly use to capacity after the event. The rest is pretty much a wash unless you get the media rights.
I like it, but if I had to change it, I’d add 8 more teams and put 5 in each group. That’s only adding one more game I think. This would allow you to add some teams from Europe that are better than some of the lesser teams from other regions.
For the lesser teams, Ghana, Saudi, US, etc… they may not win it, but it adds somthing to the country, and might make soccer stronger in those areas. FIFA or whoever runs the WC is looking at that too, to promote their sport for the future.
Italy the best team in 1978? Italy were rather ordinary in '78 - Argentina were manifestly the best side in that tournament. And in 1990 - sorry, but most people would say, I think, that Holland were the best side in the world in 1990 and they fell to some magnificent gamesmanship from ze Germans.
But I do have a good feeling about Italy this year - if they can beat the mighty Aussies.
And, FWIW, I vote for 32 teams. What could be improved greatly is the way the teams get there.
I think the 32-team format is great. How many people thought Ghana would put on a show and advance to the round of 16, giving the business to the Czech Republic and the USA? I’m willing to bet a lot more people would’ve given that seed in a 16-game tournament to one of the latter two countries than to Ghana.
:rolleyes: Ah, yes. Of course: Nobody knows how to play the game outside of Europe. All those little insert-insult-heres are just tourists. You Europeans are right to look down your noses at us and bar us from playing in your World Cup–whose all-time attendance record, by the way, belongs to the 1994 USA edition.
We must note George Mason University, the Togo of American college basketball who came into the semifinals (even the finals? don’t quite remember) with a serious chance of taking home the whole cake when things heated up. No way on Earth they would’ve qualified for a 16-team tournament.
I for one would like to hear this expanded upon, at least in email if not in the thread. My friend, her brother and I have made it our goal to attend a World Cup sometime in the near future, and they’re iffy on shooting for 2010 because they “don’t want to see a World Cup in a place like South Africa” (with no tradition in the sport). My two cents were that any World Cup is better than no World Cup, for a couple of 'Merkins like us anyway; I’d like to hear if maybe I’m wrong about that.
Another problem with the 32 team format. It is such a financial and organisational nightmare that there are only maybe 7 or 8 countries in the world that can handle it. I think the 2010 finals will not be played in South Africa. FIFA will step in and award them to another country. Otherwise South Africa will learn the hard way that the 2010 Soccer World Cup will be nothing like 1995 Rugby World Cup.
If it was 16 teams then many countries could host the World Cup.
With 32 teams only Brazil, Argentina, USA, China, Germany, England, Spain, Italy France could handle the logistics of this bloated tournament on thier own(I cannot believe people here are suggesing there should be more games and teams!).
FIFA does not want shared hosts in the future or to award the Cup to a country that has hosted it before. That leaves only China.
But would any country want to hold it any more?
Arch Trout I suspect has a hidden agenda, Scotland might stand a better chance of reaching a major cup final without all those far off upstarts getting in the way.
Although there is no doubt that not all the strongest teams reach the finals due to the way the qualifying is set up. I can’t think of a way to feasibly change that without making the qualifying completely unwieldly.
Anyway, it’s FIFA’s avowed aim to encourage football on all continents so that they can take over the world.
And count me in as another who thinks the 32 team finals are about right.
I believe Japan was quite capable of hosting the entire tournament on its own (IIRC, they were initially awarded sole hosting of the tournament, but FIFA agreed to split it when S. Korea threw a tantrum). Professional football had been alive and well for at least a decade before, and most cities have at least one major football stadium already (the two biggest, Yokohama International and Saitama Super Arena, are routinely filled for football and other events). 12 stadiums could have been ready easily. On top of that, Japan is certainly no stranger to moving massive numbers of people around the country at high speed, so infrastructure was no problem.
The biggest problem, IMO, is that because of the distance of east Asia from football’s main fan regions (Europe, Africa and S. America), coming to the games in person is a very expensive endurance trek, and the televised matches are all in the middle of the night.
That was my mistake. I agree with you on Japan. I should have said I was not making an exhaustive list. Just showing that 95% of countires in the world could not handle the 2014 World Cup, or even the 2010 World Cup.
I see it as a problem that most countries in the World will never have a chance of hosting the World Cup based on its size(64 games, 32 teams).
Yes, because as I pointed out above it’s actually pretty profitable. And you don’t end up with a bunch of useless boondoggles like Olympic-spec velodromes no-one will use; you end up with a set of decent multi-use stadia, hopefully nicely distributed. And since football isn’t particularly specialist in its demands, this can mostly be achieved by upgrading existing stadia. You don’t need a huge footballing tradition, just a sporting one; Australia for example could host it with ease. Sure, there are some countries who simply aren’t up to hosting it, but I don’t see why that’s a problem; it’s football, not some sort of egalitarian hand-holding exercise.
Anyway, you want to reduce the number of countries competing in order to enable smaller nations to host it; but then you want to exclude those nations from actually competing. Seems a bit backwards. If I were Ghana, say, I’d much rather be competing overseas than hosting a tournament I’m not even involved in. Assuming I got over the shock of waking up as a smallish African nation, that is.
I think 32 teams is perfect and I think the system that has been set up is very good. I think the World Cup serves two main purposes: 1) to crown the world champion; and 2) to promote soccer globally. I think both these goals are met quite well with the current set up, 32 teams allows a good representation from all corners of the globe, which is very important/ At the same time I think the cream rises to the top almost every single time. I can’t really think back to a world cup where the best team in the tournament didn’t prevail. Maybe Brazil’s team in '82. Maybe.
Cry me a river. Israel has to qualify in the European zone because their neighboring countries are too pansy to play them and FIFA is too pansy to make them do it anyway. They tied Switzerland for qualifying in their group this year–didn’t lose a single game in that group-- and lost it on tiebreakers. How well do you think that team would have done if they were qualifying against Japan and Iran?
I’m not sure why you’re sniping at me since we seem to be saying the same thing, namely, it’s easier to qualify from some zones than it is from others.
