Impact of Nations Leagues (UEFA original, Concacaf) on World Football? [Multiple R]

My idea: cut ALL the bottom feeders (why do Iran and Japan play freaking Cambodia and Turkmenistan?) with an additional previous round and make 4 groups of 6 teams, unifying the old format's second and third stages. Top 2 in each group qualify. You have all the teams that are worth anything in the final round this way.

I don't really like groups in which one and only one team advances, makes draw luck play a big part just like in those crazy african play-offs.

Top teams will also play less games, just 10 instead of the previous 18/20.

 

Even better than my own proposal to have 4 groups of 4. I agree, having more meaningful games should be prioritized over just playing all these pointless games against minnows for the sake of formality.

 

Turkmenistan isn't a good example to make your point. They are a credible 3rd tier side in the AFC, not a minnow. They qualified to the 2019 Asian Cup and were actually in Japan's group, losing to Japan 3:2. But the point about revamping the format to weed out minnows is fine. It has sometimes been done in the past more effectively. The top 6 in the AFC should be exempt from R1 qualifiers. The R1 qualifiers (9 groups of 4-5) could then give us 18 teams (2 advancing from each round to R2) for final round of 24 teams in 4 groups with 6 teams as you suggest.

 

Think that wouldnot bother Conmebol, nor UEFA. Conmebol gets matches against strong opponents plus the money it generates and UEFA gets it's goal suffocating a Bi-annual WC.

 

I mean it would still be less than ideal, but it certainly beats playing meaningless friendlies against South Korea and Senegal.

 

That points towards NL matches having a role in qualification for continental championships and the WC.

I think FIFA is leading on this project because all confederation NLs should lead to qualification for FIFA NL finals if the information we have so far about this process it broadly correct.

 

Agree about UEFA. Most of their NL matches would still be against other UEFA sides so their ranking wouldn't be impacted much.

But for CONMEBOL sides it would impact their ranking alot. And ranking is quite important heading into the 48 team WC, if you're not Brazil or Argentina.

 

I've stated before that the obsession with ranking is a bit weird. It doesnot impact much if you end up in a pot a level higher.
I also pointed to the opportunity to profit from being a pot lower, like the Orange Squad in pot 2.
Turns out my prediction was 100% right. From all pot 1 countries nobody got a better (=weaker) combo of nations than the Orange Squad.

 

Is there actually a country that benefitted from getting into pot 2 instead of pot 3?
Which ones in pot 2 would be more of a pot 3 strength.

 

Yes, this is why some of the debates about percentages of teams advancing to the next round from each confed are kind of flawed. If Morocco finishes third in its group at this World Cup, they are performing on par with expectations.

 

No idea on merit how the US can be ranked that high. Mexico at least picked up a win at the last World Cup against the then-#1. The US wins a Gold Cup and a Nations League, and barely qualifies above Costa Rica for the WC, and that's enough for #14 in the world after not even making the last WC?

 

While rankings follow a formula and how the US ranks is based on points they have earned on that basis. the way you put it makes it clear why the US looks out of place among pot 2 teams. And why, provided Iran gets its act together, Group B is actually a weird group where you basically have 3 teams of comparable strength who would each fit well in pot 3. I personally don't see the US as a pot 2 side the same way I don't see Wales have any business being in pot 4.

 

One thing I've noticed about ELO, which might apply to the new FIFA formula as well since it's an ELO-derivative, is there does seem to be a bit of a lag from what I can tell.

I wrote about this in another thread:

My guess is that despite the USA's recent hiccups, their otherwise consistent performances in WC qualifiers and finals started them off at a pretty high base so that even with the failure to qualify for Russia, they couldn't drop too low in the rankings.

 

That is anecdotel and a fluke (getting Qatar, who is really a pot 4 team).

Anyway, I was thinking/talking in terms of the 48-team WC. Dropping one pot down is arguably more significant. A team like Ecuador or Colombia goes from cruising into the KO stage (as a pot 2 team) to instead winding-up in a group (as a pot 3 team) where 1 team is similar to them and the other is much better (in theory, at least).

 

I think they should have six pots for the 48 team world cup. For simplicity I'll call the pots A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2. Arrange the groups so that pot A1 teams wont play pot A2 teams (if they all win their groups) until the round of 16.

ie.

Group A
A1
B2
C1

Group B
A2
B1
C2

etc.

 

Wouldn't the joint NL games replace friendlies with an I value = 10. Conmebol teams will prolly get treated equally but even if FIFA were petty going from I = 15 (NL) to I = 10 isn't a massive drop. Considering European teams haven't been taking the NL all that serious, with experimental sides, heavy rotation, playing very open and usually in lower gear, ... South Americans could very well profit ranking-wise. Besides the bottom teams in a 48 team WC are lowly sides like Oman, Burkina Faso, New Zealand, El Salvador, ... Are you afraid Chile, Colombia, etc. will drop below those teams?

 

Right, but we were talking about a scenario where FIFA might not recognize the inter-confederation (UEFA-CONMEBOL) Nations League, and thus classify any UEFA v CONMEBOL matchups as "friendlies".

 

As I said, that would be petty if FIFA actually did such a thing and even if they did the NL games replace regular friendlies; if UEFA classify any UEFA v CONMEBOL matchups as "friendlies" the I value (= 10) would still be the same.

NL games are glorified friendlies anyway. Hardly any difference between I = 10 or 15. Especially in lopsided games where the much higher ranked team pretty much always wins (points won would be basically the same regardless of I value = 10 or 15), when teams are tied in the ranking then 5 points would be exchanged (I = 10) or 7.5 (I = 15), not that big of a deal either.

Conmebol teams could also do well in the NL and climb the rankings. And in the 48 team era they simply have to stay ahead of some of the lowest ranked teams to ever feature at a WC. Not so sure why they should be afraid.

 

I see no point of out national teams to play more matches away and less matches at home.

 

Well, the point is to play stronger competition more consistently. Playing Panama or Jamaica B team isn't ideal warm-up to a World Cup. Scanning through the list of teams that Uruguay have played recently shows there is little diversity - constantly playing other countries in the Americas and once every two years maybe a team like Iran or Hungary.

 

to get better?!! A country can raise it game over long period where it is all about discovery and development of new players. In a medium to short time, to get better as a team at IMHO you need to face strong competition. Away matches even against same level teams are harder.

 

Reportedly, quoting the president of an (unnamed) FA within CONMEBOL, the qualis for 2026 would remain unchanged (18 MDs for the WCQs + 6 joint NL games in groups of 4; imho that would be quite the squeeze to fit everything in). And it would be decided in a council meeting two days ago yet this is all that was made public:

https://www.conmebol.com/noticias/calendario-de-torneos-de-la-conmebol-2023/

No decision or has anything come out wrt CONMEBOL's format for the 2026 WCQs?