with the 24 format at world cups, inreally was a fan of the four 3rd placed teams advancing rules, but with 12 groups it is kind of impossible to freely assign 8 3rd place teams to 8of the 12 group winners. the spread over at least 5 days for a cycle of matches at the last group matchday in 12 groups may lead to round of 32 encounters where 1 opponent has maybe 8 or 9 free days. I understand FIFA mentioning the concept that was discussed of "having 2 parallal world cups and both winners playong the final". That is similiar to what i had poposed as the 4 clusters (triple groups). By cutting into smaller pieces, it is much more feasible on the schedule. However, I do not like that. It reminds me of WC 2002 where they made more or less 2 16 team world cups as the 4 japanese groups played it out as well as the 4 koreans and only in the final there was an encounter between contenders of both. An alternative to wild card matches with bye days for the best group winners would only be to have a round of 16 with only 4 runners up advancing or the round of 32 with only 8 3rd placed teams advancing. But is that not much more unfair to those who miss out though reaching the same position in a group? To me it is.
Infantino has mentioned that given the success of the 4 team group format in this WC, that they will discuss in the next few weeks keeping that format for 2026 as opposed to the 3 team group format.
Good. The idea of 3 team groups is hideous. Especially with the suggested PKs to end all group stage draws. That's not even football anymore, it's just rubbish.
i was actively opposing it, contacted FIFA on various channels. Generally they do not accept external consultancy, they didn't pay for [emoji6] however i think fuys like us have their stakes in it. now they put it on the thrilling group stage, but they also know at earlier world cups, groups of 4 were also decuded early in some cases. now, it is up to them, to even get rid of the flaws of 4-team-groups with the introduction of wild card matches and the importance then to finish 1st in a group. so, from a necessity (48 teams) to exploiting a chance.
I believe they will settle on the two 24-team tournaments format with the two winners meeting in the final. Pros: You can't have a group stage rematch in the final. Both sides of the bracket should be of equivalent quality (contrary to current Euro format). Easier to schedule so that teams don't have weird layoffs (6 days) compared to others (4 days). Cons: You could have a group stage rematch in the semifinal.
I'm still failing to see the different, logistically, between having two parallel 24-team tournaments and just having 12 groups of 4 with 8 best third-place teams advancing. As far as I can tell, it's just reshuffling the same 32-team knockout bracket. I really like the idea of 4-team groups with 8 best group winners getting a bye, because it creates an incentive to keep playing hard even if you've won the group after two games. And I don't think it gives big teams an unfair advantage. In this World Cup, Morocco had the second-best group stage record. In 2018, the three teams that won all three games in their groups were Uruguay, Croatia, and Belgium. Uruguay and Croatia were the two lowest-ranked Pot 2 teams.
The difference is that in the pure 12 group format, a team could from Group A in theory could play a team from Group J in the Round of 32. The team from Group A could have a three or four day extra layoff than the latter due to scheduling (I assume there will be either 4 or 6 matches per day for the group stage-I think it may end up being 6). If there are two 24-team tournaments, a team from Group A could meet a team from Group F, and there would be just a one-day rest difference. Also, the major complaint about the 24-team Euro is that one half of the knockout bracket tends to be weaker than the other. If the WC is split in two, those concerns could be mitigated.
I'm quite comfortable with the possibility of a group stage rematch in the final if they turn out to be the best two teams.
but with the 4 clusters a 3 groups like i proposed, this spread from A to J is not possible in the round of 16. in the wild card round (round of 24), one from ABC can only play one from ABC, however not from the own group ofcourse. in the round of 16, one from ABC will also play one from ABC, but again not from the same group. in the quarter final one from ABc will play one from DEF. in the semis,they can play 1 from GHI or JKL. i also like the idea of 2 teams can face each other again in the final. if the two teams are coming from the same group, why shouldn't that be the case.
I don't have anything else to add other than echoing the chorus of boos against the 3 team group. The group stage is one of the most interesting parts of the WC, all the math and permutations involved and what each team must do. The way it's currently done has mostly prevented collusion and has given some of the most exciting last day games of any WC seen. To do away with that would be intentionally shooting oneself in the foot. A 3 team group stage is just an awful idea that I hope won't be revisited. It just doesn't work.
Would it really be shooting in the foot? I think it is probably more like stubbing a toe or something. But having an extra round of 32 do-or-die knockout stage would be fun and exciting too. So that will be the ointment that makes the toe feel better.
I agree that the group stage is one of the most interesting and exciting parts, and 3 teams will totally destroy that.
Maybe in the long run it might destroy it but initially there will be many minnows that would either be qualified for the first time ever or for the first time in many decades so the Group stage will still be exciting and fun in that regard. So many joyful fans that will be so pumped up for the tournament win, lose, draw or shootout.
well coratia and morocco at this world cup somehow show that knock out matches are prone to average teams progressing. i mean despite all power and commitment, both could score only 1 goal in 2 x 90 minutes and still reach a semi final where they both then did not score.
They were still exciting though. And it will be more exciting for many more fans if teams advance that have not even made the tournament in decades become media darlings.
Agree about 5 KO rounds, but they gotta do something to keep the group stage part of the WC intriguing and full of drama. Part of the beauty of the World Cup and why many people are saying that 2022 was one of the best ever is due to what happened in the group stage. For e.g. the drama that Argentina was involved in after losing that first match and having to then sweat to finish in the top 2 by beating 2 pretty decent teams. There wouldn't be the same tension and doubt about them advancing if only 1 team in each group got eliminated. I am not sure why the 24-team knockout idea is not even on the table for discussion.
yes. Logistically the third place scenarios don’t work with the schedule in a unified 48 team pairing system. Personally, I’m not a fan of two thirds of the field playing a knockout round anyway. It also advances some third place teams at the expense of others in a scenario where third place teams have no common opponents/have not played on another. What I’d like to see is a bit unconventional it’s a system that is ultimately more fair to identify 16 knockout participants. +8 groups of 6 +first three group matches for all 6 teams are pre-assigned by seeding order with an eye toward balancing the strength of opponents. Obviously seed 1’s schedule will be slightly easier as they can’t play themselves. +4th group match is a flex match based upon standings through three. +standings through three are the sum of two components: a-team pts/match b-average opponent pts/match in matches that exclude that team. the latter adjusts team achievement for opponent strength recognizing the unbalanced group schedule without penalizing a dominant team. Obviously if a team reels off 9 points in the first three matches, their opponent strength of schedule will appear weaker if we include their defeats of those opponents. Highest rated team through three plays the highest rated of the two teams they haven’t already played in match 4. Same with team 2 and three. Final rank after 4 matches based on the same pts/match for Team A + opponent pts/match excluding Team A matches. Two advance. Basically: everyone gets three predetermined matches for ease of supporter logistics. All 6 group members play 4 of 5 possible opponents so there isn’t a huge difference in opponent strength, but the marginal difference in opponent strength is accounted for in the standings. With 2 of 6 advancing, an emphasis is also placed in attacking and trying to secure 3 points in matches. There’s also a high probability the two bottom feeders play one another in the 4th group match, leaving a lot to play for in the bonus group match for the other 4 teams. Teams also get 4 matches to prove their worth for R16. No R32 knockout, but the 4th group match would probably add a couple more days to a 12 group of 4, R32 format.
it’s actually easier than explaining current groups on the final match day because it boils down to your W/D/L results and the same for other matches. In the current format, goal differential creates quirks. Win and you’re in but if you draw, you need a draw in the other match...or Team D can beat Team C, but not by more than two goals..and if they win by two goals, they can’t score 4 or more. Those contingencies are much more difficult to explain going into the match or in real time as score lines shift. same thing with third place qualification. Advancement there is contingent on all sorts of permutations and combinations that happen in other groups before and after a team plays. This is actually easier: we need to win. And if we only draw, we need these results on the other matches for strength of schedule advantage or to keep another teams direct match results down. No more 3-1 in the other game qualifies us but 4-1 and we lose out to the winner of that match but if 3-1 ends up 3-2, we lose second place to the loser of that match. Those scenarios are actually much, much more difficult to explain. Going into match 3, this is your points + SOS of opponents over 6 other matches where 4 of them are already known/baked in to the standings.
Hey average Joe Sports fan. What team is the USA going to play on Tuesday? Well new Soccer Sports fan it could be this team or that team, it all depends on how our team and the other teams in the super huge group did in their games. Oh... ...Okay. I'm watching baseball.
With third place entrants: what team is the US gonna play and when? “well they may be out already. We won’t know for two more days. And depending upon the results of group C F and K, if we are in, we could be playing the Swiss in Miami or Ivory Coast in NY.” seriously, what I explained above is way the hell easier. You know the first three matches same as before. You’ll know the date of the 4th before the third even kicks off and the opponent immediately at the conclusion of the third set of matches. And if you advance from group, you’ll know exactly where in the bracket you’ll be and the team you’ll be playing within 24 hours...if you don’t already.
You know the first three based on what Joe Sports fan? Well glad you asked New Soccer Sports fan. It is something called FIFA rankings that not everybody likes. Heck, even some real hardcore soccer fans do not like the rankings system. Oh Joe fan, so you are telling me the seeding process that not everyone likes is going to determine the biggest sporting event and the order in which teams play at the beginning? And depending on some results that will determine who we play on Tuesday? That is kinda weird and does not make sense. What was the format before? Groups of 4 teams, not super huge Groups. Every win counted as 3 points, draw 1 point. Top two teams qualified. Tie breakers were goal differential and goals scored. Oh, they should have done something like that this time around. Maybe Groups of three with two teams advancing. OOhhh and I love shootouts that I saw on YouTube so that could be a tiebreaker of some sort.
if a beer league softball player understands a loser bracket, he’ll understand this. Fwiw: the SOS adjustment basically functions as the tie breaker. The max sos disparity after 3 is 1 pt and after 4 is 0.75 pts. So if two teams are level on 5, it’s a tiebreaker. If team 3 trails team 2 by a point, a max sos bump won’t let them leapfrog. “Why did we not qualify?” Change it from goal differential to schedule strength. I don’t know how you managed to successfully underestimate and overestimate the casual sports fan. Joe Mouth Breather won’t understand anyway. Just put him in front of the TV and tell him what goal we’re shooting at. Anybody with a few brain cells and greater than zero interest will understand: FIFA wanted more money so they expanded the tournament. That creates some janky formatting issues. Goal differential has been replaced by schedule strength as a tiebreaker. Christ, look at all the wildcard tiebreakers in American sports.if Cleetus can understand qualification for an SEC championship based on unbalanced schedules, he’ll get a new WC system...if he wants to. And frankly, I don’t care what someone in one country who pays attention to soccer for three hours every WC in one country thinks. The worlds largest sporting event does not need to cater to people requiring hand holding in one country. 32 was nice. But the ship sailed on that. They’re reconsidering how they organize 48, but 32 is over. Time to move on Homie.
FIFA cares about this market that they can tap into $$$$ and they want to grow the sport in the USA. Infantino even said he thinks he can make soccer the #1 sport here so you know he cares about what fans think and how they will react to the format. I know they are considering Groups of four with third place which I would not mind but they may just stick with the Groups of three thing for now until they realize they can expand to 64. Anything else like Groups of 6 just seems a bit far- fetched.
But isn't that similar to scenarios entering the final day of the NFL regular season? Win and you clinch your division. Win plus teams A and B lose, and you clinch your division and get a first round bye. Lose or draw and you can still clinch the division if team X loses or draws as well, but if Team X wins you need 2 among Teams Y, Z and W to lose or draw just to get into a wild card game against one of these six teams: ....