Men's Football FIFA World Cup 2022

[NearPup 3,491]

There is just no format for 48 teams that is as good as the current format.

[kungshamra71 948]

Fun fact: last time Portugal ever won a match in a World Cup last 16 eliminatory was in 2006 on the famous battle of Nuremberg against the Netherlands 

Edited December 4, 2022 by kungshamra71

[JoshMartini007 2,765]

3 hours ago, ChandlerMne said:

Next WC with 48 teams, or 20% of world countries. I mean really...

Some days I like to imagine a 192-team World Cup. Screw logistics and the time it would take to complete. I want a true World Cup

 

Sorry for the 19 or so teams which won't participate.

[Monzanator 4,768]

3 hours ago, ChandlerMne said:

Should have guessed. Same guy who had an idea to have a winter WC, with 5 subs, female referees and so on.

I am a conservative, changing established formats isnt my cup of tee but this is beyond my wildest dreams.

I mean, 3 teams per group, just hillarious.

 

 

 

Well, we had three team groups in 1982 R2 when only 12 of 24 teams made it out of the first group stage. But it was quickly abandoned after only one edition. To have two out of three teams progress from group stage would make almost all the last matches in group stage meaningless if the third team didn't win the first two making the last match a de facto shootout to progress. And you know some bozos would still play for a 0-0 draw

[thiago_simoes 1,441]

3 hours ago, LDOG said:

It could be 12 groups of 4 teams, it's not decided yet.

This seems to be better than the "3 countries per group" nonsense, but the World Cup is already too long as it is now, so what good could a 48-team tournament do?

There's only one trophy, so there's no reason to drag the competition week after week as if, say, Finland had a chance to win the whole thing.

[bestmen 2,903]

Who won , england or great britain ? 

[vinipereira 3,460]

All the expected winners didn't disappoint so far, hopefully this trend continues tomorrow 

[heywoodu 16,003]

7 hours ago, ChandlerMne said:

Should have guessed. Same guy who had an idea to have a winter WC, with 5 subs, female referees and so on.

I am a conservative, changing established formats isnt my cup of tee but this is beyond my wildest dreams.

I mean, 3 teams per group, just hillarious.

 

 

 

How is the 5 subs thing bad?

 

So far it has only been good - at least definitely not bad - and could add some more dynamics to a match. Plus it somewhat decreases the overall injury chances, which is great.

[heywoodu 16,003]

7 hours ago, LDOG said:

It could be 12 groups of 4 teams, it's not decided yet.

It's truly hard to decide which one is better, or less bad. Groups with three teams...meh. A number of groups which can't lead to a direct knockout stage without unfair things like 'top-x numbers 3 also qualify'...meh.

[Siddhartha Talukdar 244]

4 hours ago, JoshMartini007 said:

Some days I like to imagine a 192-team World Cup. Screw logistics and the time it would take to complete. I want a true World Cup

 

Sorry for the 19 or so teams which won't participate.

Why not all 210 FIFA members divided into 35 groups of 6. The host nation of each group could be the top seed of that respective group. Then 35 group winners + 29 top second placed teams could compete in 64 team knockout