News: Michel Platini calls for 40-team World Cup starting with Russia 2018

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Sudžuka, Oct 28, 2013.

  1. Unak78

    Unak78 BigSoccer Supporter

    Dec 17, 2007
    PSG & Enyimba FC
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Nigeria
    #52 Unak78, Nov 8, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2013
    Before assuming that that's a convoluted and watered down concept, consider some of the teams that have been saved by that third place spot. Personally I feel that that eliminates the artificial culling effect that an unlucky group draw can have especially in the case of the group of death.
    Bullshit.

    I love how 2010 completely overlays the fact that Africa has sent more different teams to the knockouts than AFC or CONCACAF, and that over the last twenty years CAF has definitely been far more consistent than AFC who have gone multiple years without sending a single team to the knockouts. CONCACAF has only sent 2 team, the US and Mexico, to the knockouts for the last 20 years. If anything CONCACAF only deserves two spots. One of the things that hurts CAF is it's general level of parity over the last 20 years. It's hard to build any sort of consistency when you're constantly sending new teams to the WC. Ghana has made two consecutive World Cups and out advanced the US and Mexico over the last two. Also, arguably the best team in Africa has been drawn into groups that neither the US or Mexico would have qualified from. This half-assed analysis needs to end. And it's mostly off of impressions gleamed from 2010.
     
  2. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    In what way is this relevent? There has still never been two African teams make the knockout stages in the same World Cup. Concacaf has been matching this and also two teams to the second round on more than one occasion. Even Asia got two teams in the knockout rounds once. Africa gets their 5 spots because they have many more teams than North America, and more than Asia. Not because they are significantly stronger.
     
  3. Unak78

    Unak78 BigSoccer Supporter

    Dec 17, 2007
    PSG & Enyimba FC
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Nigeria
    If you had half a mind to read the post that I was replying to (you didn't) then you might have understood that my post was directed at people out of CONCACAF and AFC who feel superior enough to try to single out CAF when they also done nothing to, as you say, prove that they're significantly stronger. Get your head out of your ass before replying or make your point clearly. Either you believe that AFC or CONCACAF deserve more spots than CAF or they don't.

    Getting two teams through one year and none the next isn't an example that they're any stronger than CAF teams especially considering what CIV has had to contend with. That is unless you're actually going to make the argument that any team out of AFC or CONCACAF would have qualified from those groups that they had dumped on them. No they would not have. Cumulatively CAF has sent more teams through than AFC over the last 20 years. It becomes a subjective argument as to what matters more. And CONCACAF is clearly a two team confederation.

    Bottom-line it's the ridiculous Africa-bashing that's gone on for far too long based on very little evidence of superior performance in either AFC or CONCACAF, and I don't give a shit if AFC can get two through if they then can't get any through the next tournament. When that happened in '06 I didn't see this level bs being thrown your way. So if you want to go there, then yeah... I'm going to fight you on that. Every damn time until that nonsense ends.
     
    ceezmad repped this.
  4. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    Actually I was replying to you and don't care what you were replying to. If some want to put Africa down at the expense of CONCACAF and Asia they are wrong to do so, but you were putting up very strange arguments (imo) to put down Asia and Africa and pretend that Africa is somehow superior because most of their teams aren't conisistant enough to perform at a succession of World Cups. I don't believe Asia and CONCACAF deserve more spots than Africa, but I don't think Africa deserve more based on superior performance, just on numbers. All three confederations are mediocre compared to Europe and South America.

    As for the rest of your post, it remains a succession of what ifs and buts. Those African sides that qualified also had a bit of luck at times, but thats football. I don't think AFrican sides get particularly hard groups compared to Asia and North America. Indeed, at the last two Cups African teams were in the same pot as South America thereby avoiding teams from one of the stronger confederations altogether. North American and Asian sides have always had the possibility of drawing two Euros and one South American team in their group, something African sides have't faced for the last two tournaments. I suspect that I'm not the one whos head isn't in clear space here.
     
    themightymagyar repped this.
  5. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Nat'l Team:
    Iran
    African countries, by and large, suffer from all sorts of problems including poverty, mismanagement and corruption. Consequently, African teams have not been as impressive as what one would expect from the undeniably rich and talented base they have to work from. But in time, that will change and frankly no other confederation has as much upward potential as Africa. One day, I can see not just African players, but African teams, dominate the sport.

    The argument for the AFC, on the other hand, is entirely different. It is mostly about population and the money that can be brought into the game. Appropriately managed to unleash its potential in that regard, Asian football can add the kind of revenues to the game that would improve football across many different places including in Africa.

    In this mix, the only argument Concacaf have to offer is that they have several decent sides and 2 that have been pretty good in making the knock out rounds. But the truth is that no matter how you slice it, there is simply no major interest in seeing more Concacaf teams in the World Cup. No major benefit from any team except US and Mexico making the World Cup, even if making sure football gains even more popularity in the US would also be a major objective of anyone entrusted to see the game develop and prosper.
     
    ceezmad repped this.
  6. Unak78

    Unak78 BigSoccer Supporter

    Dec 17, 2007
    PSG & Enyimba FC
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Nigeria
    #57 Unak78, Nov 9, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2013
    Where the f- did you get any of this? There's a reason why I mentioned actually reading the post that I was replying to, but even then I still have no idea what I posted that implies any of this.

    Without taking into context the statement that I was replying to then you're talking out of your ass here. It's pretty disingenuous of you to attack me when you don't seem to understand the point that I was actually trying to make. It doesn't even make sense for me to even address anything in this paragraph. You're basically arguing with yourself and your made-up interpretation of what I said.
    There is absolutely no way that you can reasonably deny that CIV was in the most difficult groups of any team from any of the three confederations in question in both of the last two World Cups. None.

    So here's my point, and I don't want you misreading me again. I want ppl consider whether or not AFC or CONCACAF's second knockout team in 2010 would have done any better in either of the last two World Cups before they question CAF's performance relative to those two confederations. It also is relevent to that point that I point out that there have been past years when CONCACAF and AFC's performance has been lacking without so much of a comment. Now I will call that a double standard and if you want to attack me on that point, be my guest bc I actually said that.

    But is that your fabled "superiority" argument? If it is, then fck it because I have apparently lost the ability to speak English.

    And don't come on here and act self-righteous and claim to be "replying to me" without taking into context what I was replying to and then in the next point completely subvert everything that I was trying to say and ignore the point that I actually made. That's the definition of taking things out of context. In end you're arguing points that you cultivated in your head.
     
  7. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    That's just a matter of personal opinion.
    In 2006, Costa Rica had a lots much harder group than the one CIV had to face.
    All CIV faced as dificult opponents were Netherlands and Argentina, while Costa Rica had dificult match-ups against Germany (WC host), Poland and Ecuador.
    More so, Trinidad and Tobago also had a tough group, facing England, Sweeden and Paraguay, and fellow continental team Ghana's group was probably the most difficult group of all, and Ghana still managed to get through out of it, alive.
    As for 2010, as a big diference to any of those teams you pretend to compare them against, they had to face the most easy or worst team of the whole WC (almost amateur side, North Korea), so all they had to really do was face two tough teams in their group, which no matter how you want to look at it, is not much diferent than what other teams faced in the same WC. One compared to the other, New Zeland (Ofc), Honduras (Concacaf), and even South Africa, Nigeria and Cameroon (Caf), had it lots more difficult than them, each one facing 3 difficult and hard opponents, with no easy game in their groups. Undoubtly, once again, between Caf, Afc, Ofc and Concacaf the, the most difficult group, was the one that Ghana had, where once again, they managed to get through.

    As for the sole expression of "group of death", that simply is subject to the opinion of whom makes that call. In my case a "group of death", is the one where all of its teams have the same or almost equal chances to get through to the next phase.
     
  8. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    Poland and Ecuador? C'mon... You joke. The weakest CONMEBOL team and a crap Polish side, that was arguably the worst European team at the cup.
     
  9. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Ecuador wasn`t the weakest Conmebol team for that WC (for that WC, it was Paraguay).
    As for whom were the worst Uefa team for that WC, that title belonged to Serbia & Montenegro, whom incidentally was faced by CIV.
     
  10. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006

    You are now just talking out your ass, you've got absolutely no credibility now. CIV. would have qualified out of all those groups you mentioned as superior. That group Costa Rica was in in 2006 was the weakest group that year, by far.
     
  11. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Well, that is your opinion, which is diferent than mine.

    CIV, in 2006, in all of those groups would have ended exactly as how they did, in their own group. Basicly because CIV, has never been a powerhouse nor anything like it. In all the groups, at most, they would have been, the 3rd contender of the group (in some cases, the fourth as Costa Rica was), exactly as they were in the group they played in.
     
  12. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006

    Well no offence but your opinion is garbage, and I think most people would agree. No way would Poland and Ecuador finish above CIV in 2006, which IMO was CIV's best team. The fact that you think Poland and Ecuador are tougher opponents than Holland and a Serbia who topped their WCQ group with Spain, shows just how much of a joke your opinion is.
     
    Unak78 and zahzah repped this.
  13. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    By this ridiculous definition, Tahiti, New Caledonia, Solomon Islands, Fiji Would be a group of death.
     
  14. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    #65 Rickdog, Nov 9, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2013
    If you want to call out my opinion as being garbage, you can think or say whatever you want to.

    But in May of 2006, Chile (with at most a "C" team), whom was lots bellow Ecuador's level and hadn't even made it to the WC, had a friendly game against CIV in France, where we had a draw, so very likely that Ecuador at the time would have skinned them alive.

    Btw, beating Spain in 2006, was nothing out of this world. Even Chile, with the 1962 3rd place, had a lots more better overall WC performance than what they had at that time, and even more recently than theirs sole 4th place from 1950.
    Spain, as the "top" team, they currently are, "exploded", only after the 2008 euro.
     
  15. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    As a matter of fact, despite how bad they all are, it is a "group of death", anyone can win out of there.
     
  16. HeartandSoul

    HeartandSoul Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 25, 2007
    The Garden State
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    8 groups of 5, with the top two from each group qualifying to the round of 16 isn't any more difficult to organize and is much simpler then the other proposals I have read so far.

    I wouldn't want CONMEBOL or UEFA losing any spots, so if extending the WC to 40 teams is the logical next step, then let it be done.
     
    Unak78 repped this.
  17. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    2006:
    If CIV were to replace any of Ecuador, Poland or Costa Rica they would easily finish behind Germany in that group.
    If CIV were to replace Ghana in their group than there is no reason to believe they wouldn't finish 2nd, just like Ghana did. Although I agree that Ghana were in the second toughest group at the 2006 World Cup.
    If CIV were to replace T&T in the England, Sweden and Paraguay group they would be contending for no1 in the group with England.

    2010:
    If CIV had Ghana's, Algeria's, Cameroon's or Nigeria's group they would be strong favorites to be second in their group (and maybe first in Algeria's group) as South Korea, Denmark, Japan, Slovenia, USA, Greece, Serbia, Australia had nothing on them.
    That said CIV messed up their first game against Portugal as the clueless coach decided to play for a draw against a Portugal team, that was actually weaker than them.
     
  18. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    ROTFL. Really, a friendly?
     
  19. HeartandSoul

    HeartandSoul Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jan 25, 2007
    The Garden State
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Pure speculation, in the end it's footy, and there aren't any guaranteed outcomes. Assumptions go out the window when you see the actual results.

    No one really expected Zambia to beat CIV in the 2012 African cup final, but it happened. Despite having a very solid team, CIV hasnot been able to win a continental cup during the last few years. In any given day they could either win or lose, and nothing is assured.
     
  20. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006

    Spain is a top team no matter what year it is , you called a team that topped a group with Spain the weakest European side at the WC, when it was clear to anybody who watched the WC that year it was Poland.


    You really want to base everything off friendlies ? Well CIV did tie world champions Italy in a friendly that year, so by your absurd logic they should have made the final.
     
  21. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    Zambia technically did not beat CIV. It was a PK shoot out . That CIV team played that entire tournament without conceding a single goal, they were by far the best team, and were unlucky to lose via shoot outs.
     
    zahzah repped this.
  22. zahzah

    zahzah Member+

    Jun 27, 2011
    Club:
    FK Crvena Zvezda Beograd
    They also outplayed Zambia in the final. Zambia basically must have hired all the witchdoctors on the continent to win that cup, because for what its worth they lucked out by winning that torunament. It really should have been a Ghana vs Cote d'Ivoire final in the first place. I have no idea to this day how Zambia managed to win the trophy.
     
  23. Bran

    Bran Member

    Nov 18, 2010
    Nijmegen
    Nat'l Team:
    Netherlands
    From a spoiled high-ranking nation fan perspective it seems so useless to add more smaller nations that will only be there to be cannonfodder for the bigger nations, but if you look it at their way it already means a lot to just be there at the world cup, facing teams such as Brazil and Spain that would already be enough for them. Remember how that Tahiti goalie cheered when Torres missed that penalty in the confederations cup despite already being down to like 0-6? you really notice they don't care they are just happy to be there for the whole experience and more power to them. It also is kind of egotistical to say "yeah because we really want Honduras - Burkina Faso at the next world cup " just because it doesn't give you pleasure because it isn't Germany - Spain doesn't mean that lower level countries shouldn't be on the world cup. So I am all in for expansion.

    I think Africa's time to rise above rivals associations such as the AFC and CONCACAF is going to be next year. Teams from those rival associations are in a weaker state now than they were in 2010. Only Japan has any real quality to do something and that is hindered by a mediocre coach. It also comes down on a good draw, either CAF will have a lot of bad luck and Ghana will be placed in between Spain - Netherlands and Ivory Coast in Germany - France or something like that or they get a more doable group in the vain of Switzerland - Greece or Uruguay - Ecuador.
     
    zahzah repped this.
  24. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Nat'l Team:
    Chile
    Before 2008, Spain could beat anyone the same way as they could lose to anyone. Reasons why they have never got to semifinals of any WC in the past (1950 didn't play semifinals). Just as an hypothetical case, if for whatever reason we win next WC and they not make it past quarters, once again we would be over them in WC achievements (and we, are no powerhouse in footy, so take that in mind).

    Till now, Spain is only a "shooting star"......


    Friendly games are only friendly games, but no matter how much you don`t want to give any importance to them, they still are games that have been played or will be played, which for "anything", it is lots more than "nothing".

    Btw, the World champion of 2006, till the 9th of June that same year, was Brazil. So when CIV tied with Italy, all they achieved was a draw against a team whom got eliminated at the second round of the previous WC, by South Korea.
     

Share This Page