I would disagree saying "every game has been a hack fest", but ok, that's your opinion. A tribute starts with a gesture. And the gesture, if at all valid, had some reasoning and relevance to some degree, hence why it made the proposition believable in the first place. Had the rumor been Brazil vs Paraguay @ their stadium, it's likely the buzz wouldn't have the same context. Regarding your club comments. Read the Thread Title. I'm not getting caught in your vortex of reasoning. I'm pretty sure you understand what I meant.
just wanted to wish everyone a happy new year! hope 2017 is a year of continued improvement for the NT and its players. Here's a year of improved form, more playing time and cohesion both on and off the pitch and for some good friendly banter on the forum! wish you all the best in 2017 and beyond!
Thoughts on the expansion of the world cup to 48 teams? From FIFA's perspective, I totally get the financial incentive to expand - it's all about TV $$$ and increasing viewership in countries where futbol is not represented on the big stage at the moment. but in terms of qualifying, 48 teams means instead of 4+1 playoff spot, south america will probably get 6 plus 1 playoff spot. to me, the south american qualifiers are so intense and fun to watch b/c every game matters and every point dropped or gained can really make the difference between going/not going to the world cup. like the article says, it will take "gross incompetence" to not make a world cup. I guess we will see Peru/Venezuela in the 2026 world cup a 48-team world cup is a massive change to the game. i would have preferred two changes: 1. Eliminate the mandatory requirement for bringing 3 GK's (only 5 teams have used all 3 GK's in a single world cup) 2. Increase the # of teams by 4 so there is one additional group and whichever top 4 teams do the best in the group stage (formula based on points and goal difference) get a bye from the first knockout round. this keeps all teams incentivized to play all 3 group stage games at full strength but what do i know http://www.espnfc.us/world-cup-qual...d-negatively-affect-south-american-qualifying
I think that it sucks because as you said it will kill the excitement of las eliminatorias. I already heard that if this becomes a done deal then the whole format would change in South America and we would probably separate all the teams into two groups and have them fight for the top 3 spots. This means that we would only play 8 games in order to qualify. I also doubt that Conmebol and Concacaf would ever merge because i don't see Mexico, Brasil Etc agreeing to divide all their profits with more teams as it is. I also don't see how it would make sense having a team like Uruguay travel 14 hours to play Canada. It's just logistically impossible.
It's gonna be terrible. We already have enough crappy teams playing in the first round. But the worst would be the Conmebol/Concacaf qualifier merger. I love the current format of our qualifiers. They are fair and exciting, and that's the best anyone can hope for. I hope that this doesn't happen. But money talks, so who knows.
Exactly look how shitty our group last WC was. You seriously want 14 more shit teams in the cup. Only reason to do this is so China qualifies every time. I see no other reasons to do it. Rather merge SA and NA. Also have more play off spots Asia and Africa has way too many shit NTs at these things. SA/NA get 6/7 direct now get 4+3. But they get 3 teams at a play off Same with Europe teams that finish 3rd should go to a international playoff. Make the quality of the WC better not worse
30,000 foot view: this was a tournament that all up to 1978 was 16 teams. Think about that 16 teams. Most of our grand parents from that era would have turned over in their graves to have seen the current system of 32, which NOW many deem 'perfect'. FIFA is a brand. And for that brand to grow and make money (forgetting all the corruption for a moment), it needs to expand into new profitable markets, namely the Asian market which represents OVER 50% of the world's population, and is only, 'mildly' represented both in populous and in monetary opportunities during the WC. 5,000 foot view: I love the sport. And love Colombia. More so, while we take it somewhat for granted, Colombia has had a solid competitive NT for the past 30 years with some sour moments of almost having made it to the big dance. And with that, had we had a few more spots for Conmebol (think 2002-2010), we would have easily made a WC spot. Selfishly, this new version is a win-win for us by increasing our odds to be in the WC. Spectator view: Ok, so maybe some match-ups may stink. But the WC is a grand world event. Once that first whistle starts, people will get really excited. The sport and talent is getting better, faster, more athletic. And it's a world sport. Technology is only helping improve the experience. With over 200 WC nations in FIFA, this proposition represents less than 25% of the teams going to this prestigious tournament (think about March Madness with 64 teams). Once the first phase breaks out it will get deeper and the match up better. Heck, think about all the cinderella stories that will be born. Ultimately, at least in our lifetime, we will likely still see the big 3-4 stand out but eventually a couple new teams may arise to this top higher rank of WC winners...maybe that team is Colombia.
Si las eliminatorias se unen con concacaf y se puede dejar a todos los paises de esa confederación fuera del mundial , sería buenísimo .
I have no attachment to our qualification system precisely because its so much more competitive. I see no reason to take pride in how great our qualifiers are than others if it reduces the probability of playing at the big dance. That and more games to watch and enjoy. Im good.
Entiendo perfectamente, y respeto ese punto de vista, pero emoh, si cuesta mas arabia saudita-tunes para ver mas Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, hasta Peru, yo feliz.
With FIFA the most stupidest ideas always possible. Don't cancel it. Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
No exactamente. Fifa en teoria pondria al pais sede y a los mejores 15 del ranking como cabezas de serie, a los siguientes 16 segun el ranking los pondria en otro bombo y luego a los restantes en otro bombo. Haria un sorteo muy a su estilo, procurando que no quedaron dos equipos de la misma federacion en el mismo grupo. Es decir, tendriamos un equipo muy bueno, uno aceptable y uno entre regular y malo en cada grupo. Por ejemplo, Colombia hoy rankeada 6ta, seria cabeza de serie, y nos tocaria como rival un equipo como Costa Rica, Islandia o Senegal (los tres razonablemente buenos) y otro como Grecia, Arabia o Congo (no malos, pero no muy buenos). Repitan el ejercicio con Argentina, Brazil, Alemania, Chile, Belgica y muy pocos grupos serian competitivos, tal vez les toca una Holanda o Mexico o Turquia, pero el tercero siempre seria bastante flojo... En ese orden de ideas, las cabezas de serie deberían ganar sus grupo con facilidad (dos partidos decentes, Colombia-Senegal y Colombia-Arabia) y el otro partido seria para los records (Senegal-Arabia), pero no aportaria nada al torneo, EMHO. Es decir, vamos a tener un buen porcentaje de juegos de primera ronda sin ninguna incidencia, diluyendo muchisimo la calidad y la emocion del torneo. Personalmente, hubiera preferido un mundial de 40 equipos con 8 grupos de 5, porque eso obliga a los favoritos a ganar 3 juegos y podria hacer mas emocionante la fase de grupos. El pero de este formato es que alargaria el mundial una semana en un calendario de por si bastante estrecho. Con otros miembros habiamos discutido otros posibles formatos; algunos propusieron crear un mundial A y un mundial B, en un formato similar a Champions/Europa (los mejores de cada confederacion van al A y hay otros cupos al B). Mi propuesta seria mantener el mundial de 32 equipos, con 24 cupos directos y cambiaria los repechajes a un "pre-mundial", con 24 equipos, 8 grupos de 3, con el ganador de cada grupo avanzando al mundial.
ARQUEROS: David González (Medellín) y Camilo Vargas (Cali). DEFENSAS: Felipe Aguilar (Nacional), Farid Díaz (Nacional), Luis Manuel Orejuela (Cali, también puede jugar como volante), Juan Sebastián Quintero (Cali), Leyvin Balanta (Santa Fe), William Tesillo (Santa Fe) y Daniel Bocanegra (Nacional). VOLANTES: Abel Aguilar (Cali), Mateus Uribe (Nacional, también puede jugar como lateral derecho), Macnelly Torres (Nacional) y Santiago Montoya (Tolima) DELANTEROS: Miguel Borja (Nacional), Hárold Preciado (Cali) y Andrés Felipe Ibargüen (Nacional)
Another good Article that I read today. Balance de la Selección Colombia en la era Pékerman Hace 8 partidos consecutivos la Colombia de Pékerman no vence a las siguientes potencias de Suramérica: [4] Argentina, [2] Brasil y [2] Uruguay. Ahora bien, de los últimos 21 puntos disputados ante selecciones potencias de Suramérica como Brasil, Argentina y Uruguay; la Selección Colombia de Pékerman sumó apenas 2 puntos, para un pésimo rendimiento del 9,5%. Veamos esto: - 7 juegos seguidos sin ganar Colombia vs potencias suramericanas: 2015 0-0 Argentina/ 0-3 Uruguay/ 0-1 Argentina, 2016 1-2 Brasil/ 2-2 Uruguay/ 0-3 Argentina y 2017 0-1 Brasil. - 4 partidos consecutivos sin ganar de Colombia. Peor racha de Pékerman sin poder triunfar vs: 2-2 Uruguay, 0-0 Chile, 0-3 Argentina y 0-1 Brasil. El rendimiento de Pékerman con Colombia vs Argentina, Brasil y Uruguay en 15 enfrentamientos es de un muy bajo 28,88%. De estos 15 juegos ganó solo 3 veces. El crematorio de atacantes y delanteros en que se ha convertido la Selección Colombia en la era Pékerman arroja estos números: hace 7 partidos consecutivos que no marcan un gol. Son exactos 689 minutos sin que un atacante o delantero no celebre un gol con la ‘Tricolor’. Ha llamado 28 jugadores de los cuales una gran cantidad son precisamente delanteros. Sin contar partidos oficiales de eliminatorias, Copa América y Copa Mundo, y se han jugado 21 partidos amistosos con Pékerman. Perdió los dos más serios contra Brasil. El único ante un rival respetable q ganó fue contra Bélgica partido que no quería jugar. En los demás amistosos aprovechó la fragilidad de Haití, Perú, Costa Rica, Kuwait, Bahréin, Eslovenia, Estados Unidos, Canadá, El Salvador, Jordania, Senegal, Túnez y Guatemala. Read more: http://www.antena2.com.co/seleccion...selección-colombia-en-era-péker#ixzz4Yge9HZDy
El articulo no le parece problema para hablar de los partidos del 2013 y 2014 de amistosos ......pero felizmente ignora la victoria a brasil en 2015 (SEGUNDA VICTORIA DE LA HISTORIA en partido oficial), contra uruguay de 4 partidos se han ganado 2 , empatado 1 y perdido 1.... Se nota la parcialización de los datos por parte de la cadena de carlos antonio velez. Que bacca se coma penales, que falcao le caiga un poste y que borja le saquen la pelota de la linea....no creo que sea culpa de pekerman innegablemente hay un record negativo.......pero la manera selectiva de que datos decide usar el articulo para construir su falacia da asco