You don’t want the opposite problem, either. If the group stage was top-two-out-of-five (or top-one-out-of-six, as suggested) then how many meaningless games would there be at the end of the group stage? If the advancing teams have already clinched, it takes a lot of the excitement away. It makes for a much more exciting tournament to have all the games matter, even if it results in complex tie-breakers.
And there’s another problem with five-team groups. As it is, the last group stage games are played simultaneously. It used to give an advantage to teams that played last, because they knew the result of the other game that affected their position. You can’t have simultaneous games with five teams; one team will have completed their games while the other four still had a game to play.
I’m afraid you guys are right. What about eliminating the round robin altogether and making it like the NCAA basketball tournament? Sixty-four teams in a one loss and you’re out format?
Not a good idea IMHO, the outcome would depend too much on the match draws. And with 64 teams you’d get a lot of unattractive teams that just don’t have the skills to play a WC.
On the other hand in a group of three there would only be three games in total, two for each team, and that leads to much more chance eliminations/advancements. There is no room for error from the very start. It is almost like the knock out stage, they might just as well proceed directly to that.
So five is too big, six even more so, and three is too small. That leaves either four or skip the group stage and go for knock out directly.
If 104 games is too much it may well be that the problem is that 48 teams are too many. I know how FIFA got there, but that does not make it better. They dug themselves into this problem, let them keep digging until the walls of the well collapse over them. Then plant a cross at the site, wipe your hands clean and walk away, whistling.
True. I was trying to reduce the number of games that the finalists would have to play. Maybe top 2 in each group advance, and thus you get a Round of 16 as well. The finalists would then have to play 9 games vs. the current 7.
But I completely agree that 48 is way too many teams. Considering that the number of true contenders for the Cup would still be the same, which is usually less than 8.
I mean, the whole 48 thing was Infantino’s promise when he ran for President of FIFA, and it got him elected. Teams make a ton of money just for being there (over $10M this year for teams knocked out of group), so it was just another form of bribery….
I’m not necessarily against having 48 teams, I don’t like it much but it could work, if you take the time to do it right, sort of having a last round of qualifications in the cup itself.
Add a week or two to the tournament and have bigger groups or 2 groups rounds whatever, but they are trying to have their cake and eat it too, addding teams but not adding games or time.
If there is a concern on more games equaling a longer tournament, why not schedule more games per day.
In the Round Robin, teams had 4 days between games. Between Round Robin and Knockout there are also 4 days. Between the Round of 16 and the Quarters, there are 5/6 days. Between the Quarters and Semis, there are just 3 days and between the Semis and 3rd Place game, there are 2/3 days and between the semis there are 3/4 days.
I think they cold squeeze the extra games into the 29 days. Its not like the teams have travel days.
Not much travel in this special tournament in such a small country like Qatar, but in the next WC happening on a whole continent, they surely will have travel days.
Yep. One of the things that European players who come to MLS almost always comment on is how they didn’t realize how grueling the travel is. Folks from outside don’t realize just how big North America is.
The current game shows that bigger groups would lead to more boring games because more teams could qualify early. France which are already qualified brought their B squad against Tunisia and are playing very uncommitted. Not a good game.
I don’t know who’s calling the Australia-Denmark match, but they are celebrating as if Australia’s goal just guaranteed they will go through. Seriously? There is still 30 minutes to go and Denmark has been pressing pretty good and now has to score twice to get through. Chill, there, announcer, it ain’t over until the last whistle.
Not sure why the Groups can’t play in the same stadium for the Round Robin games. I actually thought they did. That is big financial travel burden for the visiting fans if they wanted to attend games in three different locations
This is a problem with odd-numbered groups, beyond the issue you identify with the last game. If you want each team to have 3-4 days between games, then one team is sitting around for twice as long waiting. I think this would extend the timeline beyond simply having more games to play.
Is this true for the round robin though? They’ll still keep each group in the same location, and they can minimize travel as it moves into the knockout.
That’s a ridiculous thought process which has been trotted around since we first increased from 16 back in 1982.(I am not targeting you specifically, just the idea that it somehow cheapens the cup). More teams make it better. It makes the game better. Look at all the upsets and the need upsets we saw and have seen for the last few tournaments.
No Cameroon-Argentina, Senagal-France, Saudi Arabia Belgium, Iran Wales, the list goes on and on.
A 64 nation cup will have no more or no less issues than a 24 nation one did or a 16 one. In 24 team one we saw sides qualify despite finishing third in the group, and also go far (see Argentina in 1990).