RECAPS
EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #16
Thursday January 12, 2017 5:00pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,320
someone said that the games are going to be worse because some teams are going to be very fatigued and often play against teams with a lot more rest.

If you look at what the top teams in big leagues do they play a lot more games and often play on short rest against teams that have a lot of rest.

I just don't think it'll be much of an issue compared to what it is now. If anything it'll favor the stronger teams. Which is what we want if we want better soccer as the tournament progresses.

for 16 teams it will be 2 more games than they are used to playing (those are the 16 new teams).

For everyone else it'll be the same amount of games...

16 teams will play 2 games (Group Stage).
16 teams will play 3 games (Group Stage + round of 32).
8 teams will play 4 games (Group Stage + R32 + R16).
4 teams will play 5 games (Group Stage + R32 + R16 + Quarterfinals).
4 teams will play 7 games (GS + R32 + R16 + QF + Semi + champ/3rd-4th).

Right now you have:
16 teams play 3 games (Group Stage)
8 teams play 4 games (GS + R16)
4 teams play 5 games (GS + R16 + QF).
4 teams play 7 games (GS + R16 + QF + SF + Champ/3rd-4th).

So really the only change to how many games is the new teams playing 2 games.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
MSantoine
Post #17
Friday January 13, 2017 2:38pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
Usually the fatigue difference is 1-2 days. Now you are talking about one team having 5-6 days rest(Assumes 3 groups play in one day, so ABC, DEF, GHI, etc ) vs someone who's had 10-12 days rest. If they play 4 games in one day then its 4 days vs 8 days. Still a huge difference.

Also regarding "depth". In a tourney you cant use depth. In league play yo have 30 or so guys you could count on, and in most cases you can play some reserves against one of them if one game is against a very inferior foe. In the World Cup, with only 2 group games, you wont be able to play reserves. You also have the issue of yellow card suspensions playing a huge impact. In current format you miss 1 of 3 group games and your team can survive. Its semi-easy to avoid a knockout round suspension. Now will they reset the cards after the group stage (would make card suspensions go away and increase physicality)? If not you are going to have early knockout games impacted heavily by suspension. Either option is worse then the current option.

Brian Sciaretta makes the best point about this world cup expansion. The only positive that could come out of this expansion is IF conmebol and concacaf merge. If they dont merge then its just all bad all around.

USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #18
Friday January 13, 2017 6:38pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,320
If they keep it to the 32 day time frame (which they have said) then they will have to do 4 games in a day, so you pretty much have to go by that. If you do 3 games a day it will take 16 days to finish the group stage. That would put the top 4 teams playing 5 games in 16 days, and it's possible that some of those top 4 teams could end up playing 5 games in 11 days. Obviously that's not possible to ask teams to do that.

So you will have 4 games a day in the group stage at least. Which would then finish in 12 days.

So the difference would be one team at 8 days rest and the other team at 4 days rest. Which isn't different from the top leagues having a team play on Saturday then in a Cup game on wednesday and then in a league game on Sunday. That team would have 3 days rest and the other team would have a 7 day rest.

And yes teams in the World Cup would be able to use depth. Being able to sub 1-3 people out in the 2nd game without losing much, would be a huge deal, and would absolutely be used by the better teams with better coaches. Whereas teams that have a big gap between their starters and their bench players, they can't use that at all. Those teams might be able to get past the group stages and maybe even into the round of 16, but those guys will eventually run out of gas, where as the top teams who have played 3 games as a team as well, but many of their players will have only played 2 games because they were able to sub guys out without losing production.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #19
Wednesday January 18, 2017 3:31pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,320
Was just thinking about this. With 16 groups of 3 (3 games per group) and a USA/Mexico/Canada bid (not a fan of...would rather it just be USA) you can have 16 host cities.
Each city hosts a Group of 3. Would cut down on travel costs big time for fans and teams.
Then 8 cities can host 2 Round of 32 games and the round of 16 games.
4 cities can host the Quarterfinals (1 from Mexico, 1 from Canada, 2 from USA)
2 cities can host the Semifinals (1 Mexico, 1 Canada)
1 city can host the Finals (USA)

Looking at stadiums and cities
DC (FedEx)
NY (MetLife)
Boston (Gilette)
Atlanta (Georgia Dome)
LA (Rose Bowl)
Houston (NRG)
Chicago (Soldier Field)
Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial)
Orlando (Camping World)
Kansas City (Arrowhead)
Mexico City (Azteca)
Guadalajara (Jalisco)
Guadalupe (BBVA Bancomer)
Toronto (Rogers Centre)
Montreal (Olympic Stadium)
Vancouver (BC Place)

The largest stadium is Rose Bowl. I think it should host the Final.
Azteca and Olympic Stadium host Semifinals.
Jalisco, Rogers Centre, Metlife, and FedEx host Quarterfinals.
BBVA, BC Place, Arrowhead, Lincoln Financial, Soldier Field, NRG, Georgia Dome, & Gilette host R32/R16 games.
Camping World hosts 3rd/4th place games.

Every site will host 4 or 5 games.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
MSantoine
Post #20
Thursday April 6, 2017 4:35am

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
FIFA announced what they will propose as bid allocations for 2026 expanded World Cup. It will be voted on later this year.

Slot allocation*

∑ AFC: 8 direct slots

∑ CAF: 9 direct slots

∑ CONCACAF: 6 direct slots

∑ CONMEBOL: 6 direct slots

∑ OFC: 1 direct slot

∑ UEFA: 16 direct slots

They said host would subtract from that federations total (so if us hosts then concacaf only gets 5 bids). Then they said 6 team playofffof last two spots. One team from each fed minus Europe and bonus spot for host.

So pretty much qualifying will be a joke as qualifying for hex (just need to be better than Nicaragua) is all it will take

BMD15
Boston
Post #21
Thursday April 6, 2017 1:52pm

Joined Oct 2015
Total Posts: 119
I'd have to imagine the if this proposal passes then we'll see the Hex retired and CONCACAF will come up with a new qualifying format. Still though, with 6 spots on the line we should never have any issues qualifying moving forward...
NETID
TheTruth
Post #22
Thursday April 6, 2017 4:46pm

Joined Dec 2013
Total Posts: 950
Well, with it easier for everyone to qualify should give younger players a better chance as there's more room for experimentation. Maybe hurts us as at the WC we don't have the top ~100 player pools that the better countries have. At least for the next 10-20 years.

Know Nothing
Post #23
Thursday April 6, 2017 4:49pm

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 1,185
Looking at this, I find it all to be a joke.

The expanded format, while giving more chances to the other qualifying regions, greatly favors Europe.

With 16 teams and 16 groups, Europe will have one team per group. With the coefficients being what they are for seeding, I would assume 9-10 of the 16 seeds will be European.

chris_thebassplayer
San Jose
Post #24
Friday April 7, 2017 1:55am

Joined May 2013
Total Posts: 1,277
It will be like the old days when there would be gross mismatches... a giant would blow out a minnow by 10 goals...

The best players on the planet against guys who would go back to their jobs booking Island boat cruises a day after they were eliminated.

hamsamwich
Post #25
Friday April 7, 2017 3:16am

Joined Oct 2013
Total Posts: 2,509
No qualifying for 2026 guys, we can all watch friendlies vs Mexico, Brazil, England, etc in the run up. I'll go to Mexico but you won't see me in Canada.

Seems great for New Zealand they won't have to play a knockout series they will just get in there.

@chris- who doesn't enjoy a good blowout from time to time???

@know nothing- so we would get USA, a European team and pick out of a hat? I agree it does seem a little harder but I guess it depends on how much USA can improve by then.

MSantoine
Post #26
Friday April 7, 2017 1:05pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,723
Original post from hamsamwich

No qualifying for 2026 guys, we can all watch friendlies vs Mexico, Brazil, England, etc in the run up. I'll go to Mexico but you won't see me in Canada.

Seems great for New Zealand they won't have to play a knockout series they will just get in there.

@chris- who doesn't enjoy a good blowout from time to time???

@know nothing- so we would get USA, a European team and pick out of a hat? I agree it does seem a little harder but I guess it depends on how much USA can improve by then.


Actually CONCACAF looks to be taking a page from Europe and trying to come up with a Nations League where friendlies pit teams close to each other in FIFA rankings. Meaning more matches for US vs Mexico, CR, Honduras, Panama as we wont be playing those teams in qualifying anymore. CONCACAF is trying to play the game to get FIFA rankings up by keeping teams playing similar ranked teams

dfw_fan
DfW
Post #27
Friday April 7, 2017 5:50pm

Joined Apr 2013
Total Posts: 911
Original post from TheTruth

Well, with it easier for everyone to qualify should give younger players a better chance as there's more room for experimentation. Maybe hurts us as at the WC we don't have the top ~100 player pools that the better countries have. At least for the next 10-20 years.


Young players you say, our U-23, U-20 cannot handle tough competition at thier level, how will they against full strength

TheTruth
Post #28
Friday April 7, 2017 9:04pm

Joined Dec 2013
Total Posts: 950
Yeah, basically agree with you. As much as some people are excited about several of our guys under 21 (I am too) I still think we are a ways away from having that depth. And when I say depth - 100s of guys out there who would be fairly interchangeable with the roster for our U-20 team.

Most of the top countries don't have their best 23 for those youth teams. Plenty of them are busy toiling away at their clubs. I feel like we generally do (or think we do, or actively try to do) and that's a bad thing (although if I were the coach I'd be doing it too). Something a lot of people fail to grasp on these forums.

Page 2 of 2
« Previous 1 2

The young soccer careers of Rubio Rubin and Brady Scott are headed in completely opposite directions.
RECENT POSTS
Wagner Nears Premier League Goal
YA lineup prediction vs. T&T
vom Steeg lands at Fortuna
Good week for young Americans
THIS WEEK'S HEADLINES

RANDOM TAGS FROM PAST WEEK...
United States, Under-17 World Cup, Ghana, Colombia