Cybereagles

Enugu II wrote:

Coach wrote:

sayala wrote:I bet people said the same thing when Ilunga Mwepu and his band of jokers were spelled 9-1 by Yugoslavia in 1974. People asked what African teams are doing at the WC

44 years later, what have they done, fancy dances and swaggerific strips aside?

WE may just keep them out because they water down the World Cup. We should just keep the World Cup among Germany, Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, and who ever else has shown the ability to win it. Ain't it a good suggestion for a helluva World Cup?

Why stop at 48? Why not 64?

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

Coach wrote:

sayala wrote:I bet people said the same thing when Ilunga Mwepu and his band of jokers were spelled 9-1 by Yugoslavia in 1974. People asked what African teams are doing at the WC

44 years later, what have they done, fancy dances and swaggerific strips aside?

WE may just keep them out because they water down the World Cup. We should just keep the World Cup among Germany, Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, and who ever else has shown the ability to win it. Ain't it a good suggestion for a helluva World Cup?

Why stop at 48? Why not 64?

Why stop at 64? Why not have a yearly World League Cup of Nations? or s something similar to Davis Cup.

Synopsis wrote:You all are talking about the teams that will play... what you should be talking about is the format of the 48 team world cup. FIFA has said 16 groups of 3. No more draws in the group stage (draws after 90 mins will go straight to penalties). So if the winner of a group has to play New Zealand while the 2nd place team plays Brazil you would have teams purposely trying to lose. Imagine if the game goes into penalties - you’d have teams missing penalties on purpose.

I’d rather have 64 teams than 48.

Synopsis,

You have a point in terms of format but I think it can be worked out [The issue of watering down is just BS, going by experience over the previous tournaments, if you ask me]. Sure there are problems with Groups of three but note that two from three get in from that stage. Although if all three teams are matched, the teams that get to play in the final game have an advantage and that is why having a game end in a draw is a no-no. There must be a winner which discourages, to a larger extent, match fixing. However, the way I understand this, is that this format is strictly for the first phase of groups of three teams. It will not be part of the second phase of groups of four teams. Is that incorrect?

Enugu II wrote:

Synopsis wrote:You all are talking about the teams that will play... what you should be talking about is the format of the 48 team world cup. FIFA has said 16 groups of 3. No more draws in the group stage (draws after 90 mins will go straight to penalties). So if the winner of a group has to play New Zealand while the 2nd place team plays Brazil you would have teams purposely trying to lose. Imagine if the game goes into penalties - you’d have teams missing penalties on purpose.

I’d rather have 64 teams than 48.

Synopsis,

You have a point in terms of format but I think it can be worked out [The issue of watering down is just BS, going by experience over the previous tournaments, if you ask me]. Sure there are problems with Groups of three but note that two from three get in from that stage. Although if all three teams are matched, the teams that get to play in the final game have an advantage and that is why having a game end in a draw is a no-no. There must be a winner which discourages, to a larger extent, match fixing. However, the way I understand this, is that this format is strictly for the first phase of groups of three teams. It will not be part of the second phase of groups of four teams. Is that incorrect?

There will not be a second phase. It will go straight to the knockout rounds.

Synopsis wrote:

Bigpokey24 wrote:you people are funny, the worldcup started with 4 8, 16, 24, 32 and now 48... I support the 48 teams.. nothing wrong with it, when teams will only play 2 group matches. Right now your argument makes no sense. We currently have 32 teams and we just witnessed Saudi chopping 5 goals.. Saudi choped 8..When we had 24 teams in USA 94, Cameroon chopped 6 from this same Russia, no to talk of Zaire in 82..

All these useless toreys of more teams would reduce the compettion is pure rubbish.. 4 years is a very long time in football

Saudi chopped 8 in 2002.

Progress then?

Coach wrote:

ohenhen1 wrote:Some people like money too much. Sold out their fellow Africans for money and are about to destroy the world cup by watering it down with 16 more countries.

The cordial has been watered down to 32 with the likes of Nigeria, Senegal, Egypt, Tunisa and Morocco, turning a glass of Ribena into Volvic touch of fruit.

NIGERIA MADE THE LAST 16

GHANA, CAMEROON AND SENEGAL QUARTERFINALS.

Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, what are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

Coach wrote:Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, was are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

'Dilution' is good for the growth and commercialisation of the sport in new places.

folem wrote:

Coach wrote:Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, was are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

'Dilution' is good for the growth and commercialisation of the sport in new places.

That is what continental cups are for.

Coach wrote:

sayala wrote:I bet people said the same thing when Ilunga Mwepu and his band of jokers were spelled 9-1 by Yugoslavia in 1974. People asked what African teams are doing at the WC

44 years later, what have they done, fancy dances and swaggerific strips aside?

When defending a free-kick, they no longer leave the defensive wall to blast the ball away. No more jokes.

Ramadan people...Ramadan

folem wrote:

Coach wrote:Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, was are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

'Dilution' is good for the growth and commercialisation of the sport in new places.

Absolutely. There is no difference between 32, 48 and 64 for that matter, when the stones are shaken out of the rice, it’ll the same ol’ usual suspects remaining. The rest were merely there to fill the calendar. Nigeria included.

nanijoe wrote:Ramadan people...Ramadan

Exactly. Average weight at the start of the game 74.2kgs went down to 73.8 by full time. Chai!

Goldleaf wrote:The utterly shambolic performance of Saudi Arabia in today's match is a very bad sign of things to come when FIFA goes to a 48-team format World Cup. Useless nations like Ghana, Kenya, Andorra, San Marino may be assured of outings in the World Cup when 16 new places are added to the current 32, which already feature weak qualifiers.

If a poor Russia can put 5 unreplied goals past a pitiful Saudi Arabia, then the likes of Kenya will get 14 or 16 from Germany!

But they weren't nominated or appointed into that slot. They earned it.

I still think FIFA should synchronize the calendar even further.
Give teams who qualify for their respective Confederation Semi-Final games automatic births, seed the remaining teams and put them in pool.

You are guaranteed at least 4 teams from each Confederation and the rest will be based on how you do home and away.

Travel has become easier. Teams that don't have a FIFA grade field should be made to play in a neutral field.

nanijoe wrote:Ramadan people...Ramadan

Well, according to Cellular's theory of hunger in sports, this should be the Saudi's peak performance

Goldleaf wrote:The utterly shambolic performance of Saudi Arabia in today's match is a very bad sign of things to come when FIFA goes to a 48-team format World Cup. Useless nations like Ghana, Kenya, Andorra, San Marino may be assured of outings in the World Cup when 16 new places are added to the current 32, which already feature weak qualifiers.

If a poor Russia can put 5 unreplied goals past a pitiful Saudi Arabia, then the likes of Kenya will get 14 or 16 from Germany!

Granted some of the goals scored by Russia are classic - especially the last goal (free kick) - Saudi Arabia didn't play well at all. Even being down, they still played as if nothing is at stake. At least, fight - win or lose - fight!

Mr. Piffington wrote:There’s also going to be a higher chance of having upsets and underdog stories.

Certainly so

txj wrote:

nanijoe wrote:Ramadan people...Ramadan

Well, according to Cellular's theory of hunger in sports, this should be the Saudi's peak performance

You no well...

Have never been a fan of playing while one is fasting.

How can you compete against professional athletes while fasting?

But like you said on the game thread, watch them be a handful for other teams.

Synopsis wrote:

folem wrote:

Coach wrote:Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, was are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

'Dilution' is good for the growth and commercialisation of the sport in new places.

That is what continental cups are for.

Continental Cups apart from UEFA's don't have the financial rewards a World Cup brings.

i am all for it however Europe has too many spots at the moment which increase the odds of a European nation winning.

Africa: 5
Asia: 4.5
Europe: 13
North, Central America and Caribbean: 3.5
Oceania: 0.5
South America: 4.5
Host: 1

the 16 slots should divided among the non European nations

Coach wrote:

folem wrote:

Coach wrote:Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, was are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

'Dilution' is good for the growth and commercialisation of the sport in new places.

Absolutely. There is no difference between 32, 48 and 64 for that matter, when the stones are shaken out of the rice, it’ll the same ol’ usual suspects remaining. The rest were merely there to fill the calendar. Nigeria included.

Only about 10 teams can really win the world cup.

Every Team can actually win the World Cup

folem wrote:

Coach wrote:

folem wrote:

Coach wrote:Fabulous, Turkey, South Korea have made semi-finals...the point is, if the likes of Saudi Arabia are watering down the contest, was are Nigeria and our African brethren doing, adding a shot of Wray and Nephew? Africa as a continent has failed at the Mundial and must be included in any discussion of dilution.

'Dilution' is good for the growth and commercialisation of the sport in new places.

Absolutely. There is no difference between 32, 48 and 64 for that matter, when the stones are shaken out of the rice, it’ll the same ol’ usual suspects remaining. The rest were merely there to fill the calendar. Nigeria included.

Only about 10 teams can really win the world cup.