View Full Version : Will we ever again see a second group stage in the WC?
MRschizoid21
17 May 2006, 09:32 AM
I like the idea carried out in the 1974 and 1978 World Cups, with two groups of 4, group winners in the final, runners-up meeting for 3rd place.
Can this be brought back at all?
I had an idea of working this with the current 32 team setup:
First group stage as usual.
Round of 16 is a knockout round, as it is currently.
The eight winners are put into 2 groups of 4 to determine their spots.
MRschizoid21
28 Jun 2006, 12:17 PM
If this happened, right now (hypothetically) we'd be preparing for groups featuring
Germany, Argentina, Italy, Ukraine
England, Portugal, Brazil, France
larrygiterdone
28 Jun 2006, 12:19 PM
i like it since it means more games!
gazzsamurai
28 Jun 2006, 12:24 PM
no! it will make the world cup suck and people will get bored of it and less will watch it
MRschizoid21
28 Jun 2006, 12:29 PM
no! it will make the world cup suck and people will get bored of it and less will watch it
Why would it suck? People didn't say that in 74 and 78 when a 2nd group stage directly preceded the 3rdplace and championship games.
Tuco
28 Jun 2006, 12:39 PM
It's a radical idea (even though it's already been done, as you said), but I can't seem to figure out if it will make the WC better or worse. The only way I'd be able to know for sure is to see it introduced in a future WC.
On one side, we'd get to see more quality teams in more matches, but this comes at the expense of extending the tournament by about 1-2 weeks. I wasn't around in the 70's, so maybe someone who saw those tournaments can voice their experiences.
Personally, I'd be ok with it being introduced for one WC.
ECUNCHATER
28 Jun 2006, 12:57 PM
I like it the way it is. The group stage is great and so is the single elimination stage. There is a lot of excitment in single elimination tournaments in any sport. The win or go home part of it makes it fun to watch. I like the group stage too though.
Leinad
28 Jun 2006, 04:30 PM
Why would it suck? People didn't say that in 74 and 78 when a 2nd group stage directly preceded the 3rdplace and championship games.
sure they did, thats why it got changed.
A lot of the fascination of the WC are the knockout stages.
U want a national team league, nothing else.
sendorange
28 Jun 2006, 04:34 PM
The knockout stages are the best part. Win or go home, no 2nd chances.
RichardL
28 Jun 2006, 04:51 PM
The knockout stages are the best part. Win or go home, no 2nd chances.
I actually prefer the group stage - the "lesser" teams (no disrespect indended) often provide the colour of the world cup, but a second group stage would just go on too long
Caesar
28 Jun 2006, 04:54 PM
I actually prefer the group stage - the "lesser" teams (no disrespect indended) often provide the colour of the world cup, but a second group stage would just go on too long
Agreed. The tournaments that had two group stages also had less teams.
Midorit
28 Jun 2006, 04:55 PM
The knockout stages are the best part. Win or go home, no 2nd chances.
I agree.I missed majority of the group stage matches,even those between big names.But I now I'm making super-human effort catch all the matches-I still missed Switzerland v Ukraine,God forgive me.I get better quality football from club matches so the thrill of win-or-go-home is what mainly draws me to the World Cup.
After Germany lost to Croatia in the World Cup '98,some well-known former German international called for the re-introduction of second group stage "because strong teams going out of the tournament so early is not fair".I laughed,and the world laughed at him as well.
mrtandy
28 Jun 2006, 05:00 PM
I suppose you could only have the eight group winners go through into a 2nd group stage. It would mean a team couldn't rest any players like in the Spain vs Saudi Arabia game. It would however mean a lot more meaningless games at the end of both group stages. It would also mean 2 less games played, so FIFA would never go for it.
midknight
29 Jun 2006, 08:54 PM
I still missed Switzerland v Ukraine,God forgive me.
I think God interceded on your behalf. Go light a candle and thank him with all your heart, man. ;)
Metros Striker10
29 Jun 2006, 09:03 PM
Yeah, that wasn't a great game at all. The Swiss missing all three PKs basically summed it all up.
I like the current format. Sure you'd have more games, but how many people will be able to watch them to begin with? People will have to take more days off from work, vacation, etc.
Millos
02 Jul 2006, 07:45 PM
Right now the winner is not always the best. With more groups, that would be solved.
Fiorentina lives!
02 Jul 2006, 11:36 PM
I strongly disagree with posters here who say knockout games are great.
They aren't.
Goals per game go down dramatically when knockout kicks in.
Knockout=teams playing with fear... and 7 defenders!
The problem with knockout is since one mistake means you lose teams get cowardly... besides, the whole one mistake costs everything means many times the better team loses just because they did everything righ EXCEPT that ONE mistake.
Frankly knockout sucks. Half end on PKs. Many end 0-0.
In group games you lose a game you still have two to play. Less pressure, so you attack more and play w/o the pressure of "the one mistake".
Unfortunately with 32 teams a 2nd Group stage is impractical.
At this juncture you would have to at least go back to the Spain 82 format.
Here is a radical idea, tho:
4 groups of 6, 5 games each... total 60 matches in 1st Round.
1st and 2nd move on to QF
QF+SF+3RD+FINAL = 8 more matches. 68 total. Last 4 teams would have 8 games vs. 7 now.
Basically, a knockout stage is GONE.
Right now you have 32 teams... 8 groups of 4 for 48 matches. Plus 8 2nd Rounders, QFs, SFs, 3rd and final... 64.
My proposal is 4 more matches. A bigger group stage, so teams can play w/o the fear of "the big mistake"...
24 teams... because 32 is too much.
Just an idea.
F.L.I.P.
02 Jul 2006, 11:53 PM
For me I would rather have the KO stages BUT have the WC every three years..four years is just too long for me. I just want to see the top players playing for their country in a great tournament more often than it is happening now. Maybe create another tournament?...I dont know, call it the "Earth Cup" lol or "Fifa Cup", have 16 of the best teams (of course you would need qualifiers for this tourney) playing a best of three series eliminating each other...just as long as the "best" players play for their country.
leg_breaker
03 Jul 2006, 11:29 AM
24 teams... because 32 is too much.
Just an idea.
24 teams means more knockout qualifying playoffs, so you don't solve anything. Five game group stages means that most games will be meaningless, or against teams who are already eliminated.
Midorit
05 Jul 2006, 11:10 AM
I strongly disagree with posters here who say knockout games are great.
They aren't.
Goals per game go down dramatically when knockout kicks in.
:)
Knockout=teams playing with fear... and 7 defenders!
The problem with knockout is since one mistake means you lose teams get cowardly... besides, the whole one mistake costs everything means many times the better team loses just because they did everything righ EXCEPT that ONE mistake.
Frankly knockout sucks. Half end on PKs. Many end 0-0.
In group games you lose a game you still have two to play. Less pressure, so you attack more and play w/o the pressure of "the one mistake".
After yesterday's match,you can't claim that a goalless match is boring(I know Italy did score two goals in the last minutes but the match was entertaining enough before them).If you have to look at statistics,and do not feel the pressure teams are under in knockout stage,then you are following a wrong sport.
As for the "better teams lose in knockout stage" argument,it's rubbish.A winner is a winner.If you don't want a better team to lose,we may as well scrap the whole tournament,get together around a pitcher and decide which is the better team