Large kwblarge

General World Cup Chat

The JourneyFan
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post img 1193

happydays wrote:

AlfStamp wrote:

Have loved this world cup, so many exciting games.

Its a shame in the future its going to become so large and cumbersome when FIFA expand it past whats sensible.

That's what people said when it went from 16 to 24 to 32 teams. Time will tell, but remember many were lamenting the absence of teams like Netherlands, Italy etc, and if we end up with the occasional lop-sided game I don't think it matters. It's not like every single major European league or Champions League game is a close one

Thing is though Europe are only getting 3 extra spots with the increase to 48 teams, so you'll still get big teams from there missing out

http://thejourneyfan.blogspot.co.nz/

New Zealand Football Media Association Website of the year 2015 & 2016

AlfStamp
WeeNix
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

happydays wrote:

AlfStamp wrote:

Have loved this world cup, so many exciting games.

Its a shame in the future its going to become so large and cumbersome when FIFA expand it past whats sensible.

That's what people said when it went from 16 to 24 to 32 teams. Time will tell, but remember many were lamenting the absence of teams like Netherlands, Italy etc, and if we end up with the occasional lop-sided game I don't think it matters. It's not like every single major European league or Champions League game is a close one

 I thought the increase to 32 was perfect at the time.

Im not worried about lop sided games.

Hosting the event will become more problematic and expensive, more combined hostings will have to take place which in essence isnt a big problem except its going to be more involved when putting together bids, having compatible partners and even though the cost would be split between countries its going to cost even more to host. The need for more venues just puts hosting out of reach for more countries. Australia and NZ for example simply wouldnt be able to put in a combined bid to host the new larger event. We just couldnt handle the requirements. I couldnt imagine the countries in Central and Southern Africa being able to put a bid together, maybe the northern countries. Imagine a combined USA/Canada bid, the tournament would be played across a massive area.

Also as I understand it the group stage will have 3 teams per group which means the maximum number of games for a team will be 2 in the group stages. Right now if NZ were to be at a WC we would see our team play 3 games at least. Not sure I would be happy to go watch them only get 2 games. More groups being decided by the fair play rule or a coin toss.

Part of the magic of the WC is the qualifying process, we will end up with essentially automatic qualification which will feel just as unfair as currently having to go through via South America. European qualification is going to become substantially easier.

I thought at the time 32 was just right, still do.  I find the Champions League boring these days, its too big, too many teams and too many group games in total. Theres a point where people just switch off when things get to big and cumbersome

ClubOranje
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

AlfStamp wrote:

 I thought the increase to 32 was perfect at the time.

Im not worried about lop sided games.

Hosting the event will become more problematic and expensive, more combined hostings will have to take place which in essence isnt a big problem except its going to be more involved when putting together bids, having compatible partners and even though the cost would be split between countries its going to cost even more to host. The need for more venues just puts hosting out of reach for more countries. Australia and NZ for example simply wouldnt be able to put in a combined bid to host the new larger event. We just couldnt handle the requirements. I couldnt imagine the countries in Central and Southern Africa being able to put a bid together, maybe the northern countries. Imagine a combined USA/Canada bid, the tournament would be played across a massive area.

Not sure where you have been hiding, but you don't need to imagine this; 2026 has already been announced as being hosted by combined Canada-USA-Mexico.

Will be so convenient to watch Netherlands-Nigeria in Mexico City, then pop up to New York for Brazil-England, then over to San Francisco for Sweden-NZ, then Toronto for Uruguay-Japan.

Meanwhile we have 32 nations compressed into an area 1/3 size of Belgium for 2022 in Qatar.

And FIFA wonder why people think they are a circus. 

AlfStamp
WeeNix
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

ClubOranje wrote:

AlfStamp wrote:

 I thought the increase to 32 was perfect at the time.

Im not worried about lop sided games.

Hosting the event will become more problematic and expensive, more combined hostings will have to take place which in essence isnt a big problem except its going to be more involved when putting together bids, having compatible partners and even though the cost would be split between countries its going to cost even more to host. The need for more venues just puts hosting out of reach for more countries. Australia and NZ for example simply wouldnt be able to put in a combined bid to host the new larger event. We just couldnt handle the requirements. I couldnt imagine the countries in Central and Southern Africa being able to put a bid together, maybe the northern countries. Imagine a combined USA/Canada bid, the tournament would be played across a massive area.

Not sure where you have been hiding, but you don't need to imagine this; 2026 has already been announced as being hosted by combined Canada-USA-Mexico.

Will be so convenient to watch Netherlands-Nigeria in Mexico City, then pop up to New York for Brazil-England, then over to San Francisco for Sweden-NZ, then Toronto for Uruguay-Japan.

Meanwhile we have 32 nations compressed into an area 1/3 size of Belgium for 2022 in Qatar.

And FIFA wonder why people think they are a circus. 

Convenient for who? Those wealthy enough to travel across  a continent a number of times during a tournament to watch games?. Qatar is building the stadiums to handle it. Will be far more convenient for those of us in the working classes to travel fro venue to venue in Qatar than  North America.

Pop up there, skip down there, gosh how lovely old chap

ClubOranje
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

AlfStamp wrote:

ClubOranje wrote:

AlfStamp wrote:

 I thought the increase to 32 was perfect at the time.

Im not worried about lop sided games.

Hosting the event will become more problematic and expensive, more combined hostings will have to take place which in essence isnt a big problem except its going to be more involved when putting together bids, having compatible partners and even though the cost would be split between countries its going to cost even more to host. The need for more venues just puts hosting out of reach for more countries. Australia and NZ for example simply wouldnt be able to put in a combined bid to host the new larger event. We just couldnt handle the requirements. I couldnt imagine the countries in Central and Southern Africa being able to put a bid together, maybe the northern countries. Imagine a combined USA/Canada bid, the tournament would be played across a massive area.

Not sure where you have been hiding, but you don't need to imagine this; 2026 has already been announced as being hosted by combined Canada-USA-Mexico.

Will be so convenient to watch Netherlands-Nigeria in Mexico City, then pop up to New York for Brazil-England, then over to San Francisco for Sweden-NZ, then Toronto for Uruguay-Japan.

Meanwhile we have 32 nations compressed into an area 1/3 size of Belgium for 2022 in Qatar.

And FIFA wonder why people think they are a circus. 

Convenient for who? Those wealthy enough to travel across  a continent a number of times during a tournament to watch games?. Qatar is building the stadiums to handle it. Will be far more convenient for those of us in the working classes to travel fro venue to venue in Qatar than  North America.

Pop up there, skip down there, gosh how lovely old chap

Sarcasm. Sorry, know it is not everyone's cup of tea. Exactly the point. Although Qatar is not ideal, for a travelling fan it is at least practical to get to multiple games, exactly as you say.

Leggy
tradition and history
FilledFilledFilledFilledEmpty
For post picture 1332

ClubOranje wrote:

AlfStamp wrote:

ClubOranje wrote:

AlfStamp wrote:

 I thought the increase to 32 was perfect at the time.

Im not worried about lop sided games.

Hosting the event will become more problematic and expensive, more combined hostings will have to take place which in essence isnt a big problem except its going to be more involved when putting together bids, having compatible partners and even though the cost would be split between countries its going to cost even more to host. The need for more venues just puts hosting out of reach for more countries. Australia and NZ for example simply wouldnt be able to put in a combined bid to host the new larger event. We just couldnt handle the requirements. I couldnt imagine the countries in Central and Southern Africa being able to put a bid together, maybe the northern countries. Imagine a combined USA/Canada bid, the tournament would be played across a massive area.

Not sure where you have been hiding, but you don't need to imagine this; 2026 has already been announced as being hosted by combined Canada-USA-Mexico.

Will be so convenient to watch Netherlands-Nigeria in Mexico City, then pop up to New York for Brazil-England, then over to San Francisco for Sweden-NZ, then Toronto for Uruguay-Japan.

Meanwhile we have 32 nations compressed into an area 1/3 size of Belgium for 2022 in Qatar.

And FIFA wonder why people think they are a circus. 

Convenient for who? Those wealthy enough to travel across  a continent a number of times during a tournament to watch games?. Qatar is building the stadiums to handle it. Will be far more convenient for those of us in the working classes to travel fro venue to venue in Qatar than  North America.

Pop up there, skip down there, gosh how lovely old chap

Sarcasm. Sorry, know it is not everyone's cup of tea. Exactly the point. Although Qatar is not ideal, for a travelling fan it is at least practical to get to multiple games, exactly as you say.

Outside of the cost,  I for one would not bother having to fly for over 5 hours to watch the games at the venues mentioned. 

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

D-Sidi
Phoenix Academy
FilledFilledEmptyEmptyEmpty
For post default

Maybe they’ll have 3 points for a win, 2 points for a penalty shootout win, 1 point for penalty shootout loss, 0 points for general game loss (re 2026) for the group games...48 teams is over inflated though. 

Mainland FC
Starting XI
FilledFilledFilledEmptyEmpty
For post pogon szczecin

D-Sidi wrote:

Maybe they’ll have 3 points for a win, 2 points for a penalty shootout win, 1 point for penalty shootout loss, 0 points for general game loss (re 2026) for the group games...48 teams is over inflated though. 

... and a point deducted for writhing on the ground clutching a knee, head, chest and an arm before settling on clutching an ankle

Actually, getting outplayed quite a bit these days

Post New Reply

Please Login or Create an account to post a reply.