FIFA World Cup 2022

[Malenko]

8 minutes ago, Bobfoc said:

I strongly dislike the 48-team format, but it's a bit less confusing than the 24-team format that the World Cup used to have and the Euros have now. The top two teams from each group qualify, with the group winners playing the runner-up of the corresponding group, and vice-versa. Just like the 24-team competitions, two thirds of the teams get out of the groups, which is a lot, but at least you don't need a supercomputer to work out all the permutations in the final group matches.

That is true and I thought about it while writing my post but didn't feel like writing too much. No more confusing calculations involving groups other than your own.

One thing that I still can't get behind - and this happens in both the 24 and 48 team format - is the fact both teams who play the last group game know the result they need to achieve and if it's a 1-1 to screw the one team who played both already, so be it. This happened in the 80s more than once which - I like to pretend - is the reason why it changed.

I doubt we won't see a couple of these in the first 48-team WC.

 

 

[Bobfoc]

5 minutes ago, Malenko said:

One thing that I still can't get behind - and this happens in both the 24 and 48 team format - is the fact both teams who play the last group game know the result they need to achieve and if it's a 1-1 to screw the one team who played both already, so be it. This happened in the 80s more than once which - I like to pretend - is the reason why it changed.

In all likelihood, that is the reason it changed. West Germany played Austria in 1982, both knowing that a 1-0 win for West Germany would see both of them through to the next round. West Germany scored after ten minutes and both teams then just decided to have a lazy kickaround for the rest of the match.

[Malenko]

Just now, Bobfoc said:

In all likelihood, that is the reason it changed. West Germany played Austria in 1982, both knowing that a 1-0 win for West Germany would see both of them through to the next round. West Germany scored after ten minutes and both teams then just decided to have a lazy kickaround for the rest of the match.

The most famous and obvious example. I expect a couple of those when we're back at the same situation in 2026, although maybe not so blatant.

[Colly]

I've said it before, I'd vastly prefer them to just go the whole hog with a 32 team Euros and a 64 team World Cup. It's the best format in terms of structure and only adds one knockout.

[Malenko]

5 hours ago, Colly said:

I've said it before, I'd vastly prefer them to just go the whole hog with a 32 team Euros and a 64 team World Cup. It's the best format in terms of structure and only adds one knockout.

I wouldn't mind that either. 8, 16, 32, 64. Not exactly rocket science.

[gunnar hendershow]

I'd think from a competitiveness standpoint you'd see a major dropoff from 48 to 64, whereas I don't think there will be as glaring a dropoff from 32 to 48. Owing to the depth of the confederations getting additional slots in the expanded field. But I do agree I like the numerical balance of 64 to 32 to 16, etc.

[Lineker]

Out of interest, I looked up the 16 best-ranked teams to have not qualified, according to the latest Fifa rankings (excluding Russia, and passing over all teams currently awaiting playoff ties), to see who could have potentially made a 48-nation tournament: 

1. Italy (highest ranked at #6)
2. Colombia
3. Sweden
4. Chile
5. Nigeria
6. Egypt
7. Czech Republic
8. Austria
9. Hungary
10. Norway
11. Turkey
12. Algeria
13. Slovakia
14. Republic of Ireland
15. Romania
16. Paraguay (lowest ranked at #50)

Obviously this isn't an exact science (i.e. which extra spots are allocated to which confederations remains to be seen, etc), but I thought it was an interesting exercise.

[METALMAN]

Interesting exercise if you're a NERD

[gunnar hendershow]

Based on the expanded field and where slots are allocated I believe Italy, Sweden, and the Czech Republic make it in from UEFA. Chile and Colombia from CONMEBOL, as well as Nigeria, Egypt, and Algeria from CAF. Paraguay possibly make it in courtesy of a playoff. That's 9 of the additional 16 teams and I'd argue each of them are no weaker than the bottom 6-8 nations currently in the World Cup. And in the case of Italy at least likely stronger.

[Bobfoc]

12 minutes ago, Lineker said:

Out of interest, I looked up the 16 best-ranked teams to have not qualified, according to the latest Fifa rankings (excluding Russia, and passing over all teams currently awaiting playoff ties), to see who could have potentially made a 48-nation tournament: 

1. Italy (highest ranked at #6)
2. Colombia
3. Sweden
4. Chile
5. Nigeria
6. Egypt
7. Czech Republic
8. Austria
9. Hungary
10. Norway
11. Turkey
12. Algeria
13. Slovakia
14. Republic of Ireland
15. Romania
16. Paraguay (lowest ranked at #50)

Obviously this isn't an exact science (i.e. which extra spots are allocated to which confederations remains to be seen, etc), but I thought it was an interesting exercise.

My main takeaway from this is that we'll still see a fair few decent European teams miss out. New Zealand, ranked 101st, will probably qualify every time unless Australia rejoins OFC. You can expect teams like Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Panama to be decent contenders each time as well.

I think it gets particularly interesting when you look at the Asian nations. Japan, South Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Australia ought to be lock-ins, but you've then still got three other qualifiers left over. It's a chance for the likes of China, Qatar Bahrain, UAE and Iraq, with the likes of Kuwait, Syria and Oman possibly in the frame. I imagine FIFA is hoping that India gets in on it as well because that's a potentially massive audience.

[Malenko]

Yeah, it's 3 new european places and 2 from South America. 11 places will go to AFC, CAF and Concacaf teams. There will be a couple interesting qualifiers for sure.

[Bobfoc]

For what little it's worth, in my Football Manager saves, qualifiers I've seen have included Guinea-Bissau, India, The Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Congo (both versions), India, Oman, Syria, Curacao, The Gambia and Suriname.

[Chris2K]

2 hours ago, Lineker said:

Out of interest, I looked up the 16 best-ranked teams to have not qualified, according to the latest Fifa rankings (excluding Russia, and passing over all teams currently awaiting playoff ties), to see who could have potentially made a 48-nation tournament: 

1. Italy (highest ranked at #6)
2. Colombia
3. Sweden
4. Chile
5. Nigeria
6. Egypt
7. Czech Republic
8. Austria
9. Hungary
10. Norway
11. Turkey
12. Algeria
13. Slovakia
14. Republic of Ireland
15. Romania
16. Paraguay (lowest ranked at #50)

Obviously this isn't an exact science (i.e. which extra spots are allocated to which confederations remains to be seen, etc), but I thought it was an interesting exercise.

I strongly endorse the concept of a 48 team tournament.

[The Kraig]

4 hours ago, Bobfoc said:

My main takeaway from this is that we'll still see a fair few decent European teams miss out. New Zealand, ranked 101st, will probably qualify every time unless Australia rejoins OFC. You can expect teams like Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and Panama to be decent contenders each time as well.

I think it gets particularly interesting when you look at the Asian nations. Japan, South Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Australia ought to be lock-ins, but you've then still got three other qualifiers left over. It's a chance for the likes of China, Qatar Bahrain, UAE and Iraq, with the likes of Kuwait, Syria and Oman possibly in the frame. I imagine FIFA is hoping that India gets in on it as well because that's a potentially massive audience.

Actually, the OFC are the only region not guaranteed a representative. They need to go through a play-off, currently with a CONMEBOL team, whose region are almost all heavy hitters. Peru will be hard to beat, and if they do beat Peru, I take that as enough evidence of being deserving to be there.

It's difficult to compare rankings in things like this, since NZ don't have much chance to pump up their rankings like other countries. I think it's why I find the play-offs so interesting, it's the only good example we get to see non-seeded teams face off with high stakes.

I don't think a change in format will change OFC's qualification route, since their rankings are so low.

[Malenko]

7 minutes ago, The Kraig said:

Actually, the OFC are the only region not guaranteed a representative. They need to go through a play-off, currently with a CONMEBOL team, whose region are almost all heavy hitters. Peru will be hard to beat, and if they do beat Peru, I take that as enough evidence of being deserving to be there.

It's difficult to compare rankings in things like this, since NZ don't have much chance to pump up their rankings like other countries. I think it's why I find the play-offs so interesting, it's the only good example we get to see non-seeded teams face off with high stakes.

I don't think a change in format will change OFC's qualification route, since their rankings are so low.

He means in 2026 and OFC gets a direct spot under the new format.

[The Kraig]

11 minutes ago, Malenko said:

He means in 2026 and OFC gets a direct spot under the new format.

Whaaaat. Well that's just daft. Think they would entertain the idea of an intercontinental qualifying league? That would separate wheat from chaff before the finals.

Maybe FIFA just want to ensure OFC have one representative so that interest doesn't die off in that region.

[gunnar hendershow]

31 minutes ago, The Kraig said:

Whaaaat. Well that's just daft. Think they would entertain the idea of an intercontinental qualifying league? That would separate wheat from chaff before the finals.

Maybe FIFA just want to ensure OFC have one representative so that interest doesn't die off in that region.

Yeah it's basically for that purpose alone. So you get New Zealand presumably qualifying every year and then the 2nd best OFC squad going to the 6-nation playoffs. Arguably the only way OFC winds up getting 2 nations to qualify is if New Zealand ever hosts the World Cup. And tough to see that playing out any different than Tahiti at the Confederations Cup did.

[Malenko]

1 hour ago, The Kraig said:

Whaaaat. Well that's just daft. Think they would entertain the idea of an intercontinental qualifying league? That would separate wheat from chaff before the finals.

Maybe FIFA just want to ensure OFC have one representative so that interest doesn't die off in that region.

Just because with all this mess some people may not be aware, the number of qualifying spots per continent/confederation is pretty much decided and I only say pretty much because, as always, the confederation that gets to host is worth a qualifier so there's one less spot available through their qualifying groups.

We get 16 UEFA; 6 CONMEBOL; 9 CAF; 8 AFC; 6 CONCACAF; 1 OFC

Then you have the usual intercontinental playoffs for the final 2 spots. This time around there's a mini tournament and you could even get a second OFC team if they qualified. You won't because it will probably be the seventh CONMEBOL and one from either CAF, AFC, CONCACAF but you could. I think New Zealand will probably be there every tournament for a while like he said.

 

EDIT: part of this was said above already. I take too long to reply apparently. 

 

[DFF]

Put this together based on the incoming format + the current FIFA rankings. I know we get plenty of spots already, but it really does seem like some decent European countries (that would like be stronger than, say, Iraq and Jamaica) would still miss out.

If anyone's wondering why there's 2x Concacaf teams in the playoffs - the way FIFA worded the rules, the host continent (ie Concacaf in 2026) get an extra spot in the playoffs. 

[Roster Depth Sicko No. 2]

Africa definitely benefit most from the new format I think, there's a lot of quality African players who miss out each time given they only get 5 countries usually. Nearly doubling that is great stuff.