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.
If this happened, right now (hypothetically) we'd be preparing for groups featuring Germany, Argentina, Italy, Ukraine England, Portugal, Brazil, France
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Actually, a 2nd group stage with 32 teams as I had it (group stage, 1 KO round, 2nd group, final), only adds 1 extra game instead of 4.
It leads to dead matches where neither side is playing for something. The knock out system we have now is better.
i feel that they should just abandon the first set of knowckout games altogether and only alow the 8 group-winners to advance. there would be 8 fewer games in the tournament, but i feel that the overall entertainment level of the remaining 56 matches would be much higher. first, you encourage more attack oriented play in the group stage by eliminating the opportunity to advance through second place. right now, a 0-0 draw can be considered a positive result in many circumstances and clearly, many teams at this world cup knew that and made tactical adjutsments accordingly many times leading to less entertaining games. its all about getting a result, which in the case of the group stage is adavnacing. if that means playing with extreme caution and hoping to snatch a goal here or there, then thats what teams will do in order to move on. france may win the whole thing and they tied 2 of their 3 first round matches. by only allowing the group winner to advance, each team would be forced to attack and push forward to get wins and the necessary points to win the group. second, it would add to the drama on the last day of the group stage, which i felt was severely lacking in this world cup. off the top of my head, only the round of 16 spots from groups d, e, and group f were in real doubt heading into the last game. many teams knew they were through and consequently rested several key players. the holland/argentina tilt was supposed to be the fixture of the first round but turned out to be a dull, unveventful affair because both teams had already secured a spot in the second round. imagine if that game decided who adavnced and who went home. not only would we have been able to see robben, sorin, etc. actually play, but we would've essentially seen a knockout match in which the dutch would have had to go all out to score a goal and win without having the option of holding out for penalties. finally, by only allowing group winners to adavnce, you eliminate a set of matches that i feel, is not all that entertaining in the first place. sure argentina/mexico was a great game and there surely have been others in the past, but for the most part these matches pit a powerhouse (i.e. italy) vs. a team that squeezed out of their group (i.e. australia) that probably feels that their best chance of winning is dropping off and hoping for a goal against the run of play or a 0-0 draw that gives them a chance at advancing on a shoot-out. i always recall the us-brazil round of 16 match from the 94 world cup. the united states was not at all interested in taking a chance in the game, even when leanardo was red-carded and they gained a man-adavntage. all they wanted to do was stifle brazil's attack and hope for a goal against the run of play or a shootout. by eliminating the round of 16, i feel that we spare ourselves several games like that and get right down to the 8 teams that had to score goals and win games in order to advance and, more importantly, will likely try to do the same again. i know this lessens the chance of seeing a dark horse make a long run in the tournament since several of them (i.e. ghana) advance in a 2nd place spot and may also cause a good team to be eliminated based on one bad result early (i.e. france) but i think it would make for a more entertaining tournament, particularly by forcing teams to play a more attack-oriented style and look for wins in the group stage.
I agree that the holding out for penalties is a frustrating thing. Especially with the stinker that was ARG/MEX. But, I still wouldn't think that 2nd place teams shouldn't qualify, as sometimes you just get slow starts.
If you abolish the second place teams going through, then France would have gone home after the first game. And you'd end up with many teams being eliminating or going through on goal difference.