Ive heard that there are 3 proposals that I have read/heard being discussed and considered:
1) Have 9 groups of 4 sides.
The top team from EVERY group goes through, and the 7 highest performing 2nd place sides goes through. This means there would be 2 2nd place getters in the group stage, that miss out on the final stage. This is the only disadvantage, it would mean that goals for and against, OR the draw could make all the difference. I mean last World Cup, because of the closeness of the results in 'the group of death", would it have meant that they would only have one side in the Final 16? Their 2nd placed teams Goals Difference wouldnt have been as high as that of a 2nd place team in a very one sided group.

2)Have 4 groups of 4, and 4 groups of 5.

The top 2 teams from each group go through.
The disadvantage being that some of the sides have played more matches than others. But these matches could begin a few days earlier, so it wouldnt really increase the length of the Cup by much. It may mean that their are more likely to be player fatigue and injuries though...But isnt it fairer then having the group draw deciding the result?

3)(I didnt like this one)Have 6 nations in a "Super Group". These nations automatically qualify for the 2nd round, and the group play (not neccesarily full round robin, this would mean too many games-just 4 matches like the rest of the team in the cup. The difference this makes shouldnt be overly large, because these teams would still be seeded near the top AND they're playing purely for seeding) for their 2nd round seedings. They would be the highest ranked teams in the Cup, OR each confederations' champions.
The remaining 30 teams split into 6 groups of 5. The top 2 from each group join the teams from the Super Group in the 2nd round. The team with the most Points AND best Goal difference from these groups is seeded 7th, the next best 8th etc.
Disadvantages: more matches in the World Cup. Every team plays 4 group matches instead of 5. The top teams get automatically to the 2nd round.
I wouldnt mind the idea of the "Super Group" esp. if it was decided on the confederations champions. It would mean that they get something more than Confederation Cup entry from those tournaments, BUT the Confederation Champion many not neccesarily qualify for the World Cup (in which case the highest ranked nation could take their spot). I dont mind the idea of 4 group matches instead of 3, but Im sure most Europeans will object....But really, it doesnt add that much to the length of the tournament IMO.

hmmm..36 just doesnt work fairly :rolleyes:

Proposal No.1 is the best option and fairest, it motivates teams to play attacking football which means we won't be seeing many more games ending like Italy vs. Mexico last year.

Yea, I like the 1st proposal the best, itz the most fair.

All aren't fair.

32 is okay, we had enough crap teams last year. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by vince15
All aren't fair.

32 is okay, we had enough crap teams last year. :rolleyes:
yeah 3 is just ridiculous .... and the other 2 are pretty dodgy
just stick with the modern format ...
or else go back to how it was in the 50s ... with two group stages ... or like when Uruguay won it in the 30 swith a draw :rockman:

no seriously 32 is fine

Forget it!

Let's take the World Cup back to 16 teams like b4 1978 and let the very best teams play for the trophy. It's true what they say in Europe now about the European Championships. That is just the World Cup without Brazil and Argentina!

Originally posted by ShearerM4
yeah 3 is just ridiculous .... and the other 2 are pretty dodgy
just stick with the modern format ...
or else go back to how it was in the 50s ... with two group stages ... or like when Uruguay won it in the 30 swith a draw :rockman:

no seriously 32 is fine
I actually agree that 32 is fine...
The fact is that CONMEBOL, and UEFA want the 4 extra teams, because it means that they have 1 and 2 more spots respectively.

Oceania, and Africa are the only confederations against it..And what a suprise they're the only two not getting a place...

BUT lets get back to the topic at hand...And NOT turn this into a debate about the number of teams.

Chances are there WILL be 36 teams, so whats the best way of dealing with them.

Two group stages wouldnt help the situation...Somewhere along the line, you have to cut teams from some groups for finishing 2nd, when you dont have to drop teams from other groups for finishing in the same position.

I like the 16 teams idea. But I think, 4 from europe, 4 from America (north/south), 4 from Africa and 1 from the Oceania and other groups. It would be better.....

or have the 15 best teams in the world and the host nation.

Or, Lets just stick with the 32 teams!

Originally posted by ShearerM4
or like when Uruguay won it in the 30 swith a draw :rockman:

huh?! :confused:

Originally posted by briggzy
I like the 16 teams idea. But I think, 4 from europe, 4 from America (north/south), 4 from Africa and 1 from the Oceania and other groups. It would be better.....

or have the 15 best teams in the world and the host nation.

Or, Lets just stick with the 32 teams!
15 best teams in the world? And they're to be decided how? Through a group stage comprising of 32 teams sounds good to me :rolleyes:

You cant go off teh FIFA rankings, so the "15 best" just wouldnt cut it....

There is definitely room for 32 teams. The fact that "Bad" teams have been at previous World Cups doesnt mean that their isnt room for 32 teams, it just means that the qualification system hasnt worked, OR big name teams have represented poorly in qualifiers....Just have a look at teams that have missed out before!

The whole idea is ludicrous, FIFA have to keep in mind "the good of the game." The 32 team world cup works just fine, 36 is just not feasible. I don't think that the 36-team proposal has been approved yet (correct me If I'm worng), and Sepp Blatter is somewhat opposed to it.

Why do people want to change the current format, Japan-Korea and all the WC's before that have been ok.

32 is perfectely fine.

Originally posted by TOON ARMY
Why do people want to change the current format, Japan-Korea and all the WC's before that have been ok.

32 is perfectely fine.

36 teams=more money

Originally posted by BecksImage
36 teams=more money

36 teams=big dispute over a new and fair format.

They make enough money as it is.

Originally posted by BecksImage
The whole idea is ludicrous, FIFA have to keep in mind "the good of the game." The 32 team world cup works just fine, 36 is just not feasible. I don't think that the 36-team proposal has been approved yet (correct me If I'm worng), and Sepp Blatter is somewhat opposed to it. No it hasnt//

BUT the idea has been approved, just not the model. Meaning if CONMEBOL can settle on a good model then it WILL be 36 teams...

As Ive said, I also would rather 32...BUT this isnt the topic here...If ANYONE else posts about that, then your post WILL be deleted.

The topic is what 36 team mode works best...If you dont like any of the suggested 3, try thinking suggesting ur own.

This thread is about, if its going to be 36 teams, how should it be ran.

Cheers
sKIp_E

The Whole 36 teams ideas is pretty weak.

I like the simplicity of the current format and we already have too many teams.

Do we really need more 2nd rate teams in the competition?

Originally posted by FuriousGeorge
The Whole 36 teams ideas is pretty weak.

I like the simplicity of the current format and we already have too many teams.

Do we really need more 2nd rate teams in the competition?
George, rather than deleting your post, I have taken 5 off your post count...But post counts dont matter anyway right ;)

You have been warned, next time Ill delete your post...

But as for you last comment...Read the thread! I think 32 is better than 36, BUT 36 does NOT mean more 2nd rate teams...It means that teams like Uruguay and Ireland will get in (under the new system, with Oceania direct entry, they wouldnt), and it also means that teams like Holland will be more likely to qualify.

i think IF it does make it to 36 then option 1 is best becuase, like someone mentioned before..it makes for more attacking football...

that way teams who think they are going to qualify in 2nd place aren't guarenteed a ticket to the next stage and you won't see teams playing for a draw..

Originally posted by El Che
i think IF it does make it to 36 then option 1 is best becuase, like someone mentioned before..it makes for more attacking football...

that way teams who think they are going to qualify in 2nd place aren't guarenteed a ticket to the next stage and you won't see teams playing for a draw..
Yeah, BUT..As I said, it means teams in a tough group will often miss out.

If there are 4 decent teams in your group, the 2nd place team is MUCH more likely to get a draw, than if there are only 2...

Like, in the last World Cup, imagine if Argentina, Sweden and England all drew with each other (and played for wins, scored but still drew). Atleast two teams from that group deserve to go through, BUT with that system they mighnt...Maybe if Wins were worth 2, and draws 1, meaning a draw is worth more than before...Hard to say really

I think 32 would be best....those stupid South American nations want a chance at glory again even if it means ****ing up the World Cup. To tell you the truth i dont think they deserve another spot....only Brazil has done well....Uraguay was super **** at the WC,and do we really want to see Germany VS Colombia?:kader: leave it like it was...

might as well just make it 40 teams with 8 groups of 5, top two in each group advance. every team would only have to play one extra game. and i guess with 8 more spots then EVERYONE would be happy.

I could care less about my post count, but I don't understand why would delete my post anyways. Is it not Okay to not like a 36 team World cup?

Whatever.

i believe 36 teams is stupid...do they want more teams like saudi arabia (dont want to ofend nobody) to lose 7-0 agains germany?
it just doesnt make sense...

but...never the less...if a 36 team form comes forward why dont they do like this

the 8 weaker teams play for a playoff and the 4 winner i'll join the other 28 automaticly qualified to the 32 first round groups

by the way...confederetions are always claming for an extra spot in the next world cup...i believe there should be 32 spots distribuited like this

europe 15
South America 5
north america 3
Africa 5
Asia 3
Oceania 1

then imagine that in the next world cup the 2 worst teams were australia and Uruguay....than those confederetions would loose one spot to another confederation

Originally posted by vince15
All aren't fair.

32 is okay, we had enough crap teams last year. :rolleyes:

yeah, France for example!:f***: :crazyboy: :p

i honsetly don't get why Asia get 41/2 spots anyway... they should get 3.. give the other spot to S.America and the half spot to Europe

Originally posted by Alex
It means that teams like Uruguay and Ireland will get in (under the new system, with Oceania direct entry, they wouldnt)

:rolleyes: I'm not even going to start.

As for Ireland, I don't see how Oceania qualifying directly affects them at all.

Originally posted by ahmedk
Uraguay was super **** at the WC,and do we really want to see Germany VS Colombia?:kader: leave it like it was...

And I suppose Portugal, Poland, France, Croatia, South Africa and Cameroon all lived up to expectations. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't mind seeing Germany vs. Colombia. It'll be much better than Saudi Arabia vs. Germany that's for sure. I'd watch Colombia over Tunisia or China any day.

The fact that you think Uruguay was super **** tells me that you didn't even watch any of their games. Hell, at least we made it, we could have done a lot worse than two draws and a loss. You're better off just keeping quiet about things you just gather from results and statistics, it's a sure way to get into fights.

As for having 36 teams, it's a bad idea, but it's quite likely to happen anyway. The best format is the first one, it's simple and straight forward. Teams will have to push themselves to finish top of their group, this will lead to more attacking football and a likely end to teams that just sit back and play out time. I think most people are against this system because they fear their national team isn't strong enough to finish first and dislike the uncertainty that coming in second doesn't guarantee qualification to the second round.

Originally posted by FuriousGeorge
I could care less about my post count, but I don't understand why would delete my post anyways. Is it not Okay to not like a 36 team World cup?

Whatever.
I didnt change your post count...Just wanted to see you reaction, but really after this post, I have half a mind to turn it to 0.
How ignorant are you?

Have you read the rest of the thread?

Ive stated on numerous occasion, that I personally dont like the idea of 36 teams, and I would rather 32. BUT it seems 36 WILL get the go ahead, so if it does, how would you like it to work....

Originally posted by Ruben Sosa
:rolleyes: I'm not even going to start.

As for Ireland, I don't see how Oceania qualifying directly affects them at all.



And I suppose Portugal, Poland, France, Croatia, South Africa and Cameroon all lived up to expectations. :rolleyes:

I wouldn't mind seeing Germany vs. Colombia. It'll be much better than Saudi Arabia vs. Germany that's for sure. I'd watch Colombia over Tunisia or China any day.

The fact that you think Uruguay was super **** tells me that you didn't even watch any of their games. Hell, at least we made it, we could have done a lot worse than two draws and a loss. You're better off just keeping quiet about things you just gather from results and statistics, it's a sure way to get into fights.

As for having 36 teams, it's a bad idea, but it's quite likely to happen anyway. The best format is the first one, it's simple and straight forward. Teams will have to push themselves to finish top of their group, this will lead to more attacking football and a likely end to teams that just sit back and play out time. I think most people are against this system because they fear their national team isn't strong enough to finish first and dislike the uncertainty that coming in second doesn't guarantee qualification to the second round.
Yep Uruguay were fine at the last World Cup...Unlucky at times, and definitely not a failure..
When I said Ireland and Uruguay would miss out, I wasnt arguing, just stating the facts, that under the new system, if they finished where they did in last years qualification, both would miss out. Irelands "half spot" has gone to asia, and Uruguays to Oceania.
I seriously doubt whether Asia should have an extra spot. They argued that they deserve it, because of Korea and Japans success at the last World Cup...BUT having two good teams doesnt mean that their 4th or 5th team is going to be good.

Anyway, as I said, we've argued all this before, and the common consensus is that Oceania are a bit of an unknown..Everyone wants to see before they can state a true opinion, and Asia, DOESNT deserve their spots...

BUT for now, everyone stick to THIS topic...IF there is a 36 team world cup, whether you agree with it or not, how should it be ran.

I see now. Thought you were saying Uruguay wouldn't Qualify for the next WC because of the reduction of spots. We've got a young team and now we have a manager that doesn't get bossed around by the players or their agents, so I'm fairly confident. Can't wait for the Qualifiers to start.

Another possible system could be 12 groups of 3... but that's just being silly.

I think that the Oceania spot is the most contoversial. Being from Australia I love the idea, but I will concede that it is unfortunate that potentially a better side may miss out because of it. But upon saying that I think the world cup should have representatives from all confederations.

Who knows maybe Australia or god forbid even New Zealand could be the Senagel of the next World Cup.

I say 32 is fine, it will be sad if a good side misses out but it would'nt be the first time. Ask Holland.

Originally posted by Ruben Sosa
I see now. Thought you were saying Uruguay wouldn't Qualify for the next WC because of the reduction of spots. We've got a young team and now we have a manager that doesn't get bossed around by the players or their agents, so I'm fairly confident. Can't wait for the Qualifiers to start.

Another possible system could be 12 groups of 3... but that's just being silly.
Yeah and with 12 groups of 3, you've still got the problem of some 2nd place teams going through, but not others....

choppy, you say the Oceania spot is the most controversial..I definitely disagree...I think that Australia AND New Zealand would be better than the 5th Asian team

Or 4th... probably even 3rd.

Proposal 1 - 9 groups of 4 2 2nd placed teams miss out.
I don't like this one. Like you said if you have a 'group of death' then more often than not it'll be the 2nd placed team in this group that will miss out, and a weaker team from an easy group consisting of France, Japan, Mexico and Honduras will go through.

I think we all will agree that the top 2 from every group deserves to get to the knock out stages.

Proposal 2 - 4 groups of 4 and 4 groups of 5
This proposal would be unfair as it means that some teams will play a game extra. I think they could organise it not to effect the length of the tournament but what if, in that 1 extra game, your teams best player picks up an injury that would have been avoided if the match had not been played. Or even players being more tired. You have a final between a team that has played 7 games against a team that has played 8 games to get there. The team that has played 8 games would arguably be more tired than the team that has played 7 times.

Proposal 3 - 6 choice nations get a bye and everyone else plays
I agree that this is probably the worst of the lot, and it would be very controvertial in selecting the teams to play. Example, England or Germany in the last world cup. England won their qualifying group which included Germany, and thrashed them in Munich. Then Germany, based on performances in past world cups get seeded over England. Germany get to the final but get a much easier ride than England, although both were eventually knocked out by Brazil, with England putting on arguably a better show against the eventual winners.

Not only that they also get a further 4 'friendly' games to prepare and keep their players fresh for taking on 'weaker' teams in the next rounds.

I don't think any of these proposals would work. The fairest system they have is the current one that includes 32 teams, I think everyone here agrees on that. The issue is how best to accommodate 36 teams. I just don't see how you can do it fairly.

The idea I think would probably be best would be to introduce an extra round between the 1 group stage and the 2nd round. We need 16 teams in the 2nd round, we'll have the 9 group winners and give them a bye into a new 3rd round. They've earned it by winning their group. Then you take the 9 runners up, and in the quickest instance, give the best 5 teams (decided by pts, goal difference and goals against) a bye. The 4 other teams are drawn and pitted against each other to make 2 matches that will decide which of these go through.

You'd need to put rules in place in case teams have equal points, goal difference and goals for and run into the 4 worst category.

It could also be altered to include some highest scoring 3rd placed teams in the extra playoff round, like they used to in the World Cup which could make fairer.

Like I said... My post count is irrelevant... However, your need to impose your 'power' is weak. You obviously imagine I care.

I am still not sure why my opinions are worth less than other onthis same thread... Oh wait.. they aren't! Go pick on someone else.

Originally posted by FuriousGeorge
Like I said... My post count is irrelevant... However, your need to impose your 'power' is weak. You obviously imagine I care.

I am still not sure why my opinions are worth less than other onthis same thread... Oh wait.. they aren't! Go pick on someone else.
You're still not listenning...This thread is about HOW to accomodate 36 teams. Thats what should be discussed here. I SPECIFICALLY said NOT to say "Id prefer 32" because as I said, so would I, but thats not what this thread is about...

My need to impose my power? Have I imposed any yet? I oculd have yellow carded you for arguing, or for posting off topic after a warning, but I didnt...I didnt touch your post count (which considering that you dont care about it you seem to be quiet angry for mentioning it)....

You opinions on the best 36 team cup are worth as much as anyone elses, so feel free to post them. Until you do so, stay out of this thread.

I think it should be a 256 team supertournament.

Originally posted by artur303
I think it should be a 256 team supertournament.

YEAH! In a league system with home/away matches!

go for 36 teams, just give better continents more teams.

i hope that the 36 team decision doesnt pass. Its crazy. But if it does, I doubt that itll last for too long.
No offence but I predict that Fifa see that it isnt worth changing the entire system after Australia gets mutilated in Germany.

Australia is just complaning cause they keep getting beaten. Sure, South america did provoke the 36 idea, but it all started from the socceroos protestng at Blatter's desk to be allowed in.

36 is just wrong and I hope they notice soon.

Originally posted by pasion1
i hope that the 36 team decision doesnt pass. Its crazy. But if it does, I doubt that itll last for too long.
No offence but I predict that Fifa see that it isnt worth changing the entire system after Australia gets mutilated in Germany.

Australia is just complaning cause they keep getting beaten. Sure, South america did provoke the 36 idea, but it all started from the socceroos protestng at Blatter's desk to be allowed in.

36 is just wrong and I hope they notice soon.
aha Australia get mutilated in Germany..Thats really funny coming from someone in England. I dont care if it was a friendly, England know aswell as Australia, sport between those two nations is never "friendly".

There was a huge outcry in England over the loss, and the FULL team were behind 2-0 (and the young guys that came on didnt have to face Kewell, or our two starting CM's)...

I agree that 36 doesnt work, but blaiming Oceania is stupid. Australia WONT get thrashed at the next World Cup, and Oceania will keep their spot, be the next World Cup 36 teams OR 32...

"Australia just complaing because they keep getting beaten"? In World Cup Qualifiers, we've lost 3 matches in the last 3 campaigns. One to Argentina (we also drew against them) one to Uruguay and im afraid one to Canada, BUT we won the Canada home and away tie-only to be given another playoff against Argentina....So we win Oceania, we beat Canada, then have to beat Argentina...sounds really fair to me. We have also beaten Uruguay, and drawn with Argentina and Iran twice (the Iran matches were the biggest let down, we played much better and just didnt put hte ball in the net-BUT its our fault I admit that)....How many games has England lost in its past 3 world cup campaigns?

hmm...I really hope u read this-altho u probably wont becos ur comment was really quite ignorant.

Originally posted by aussiesanga
go for 36 teams, just give better continents more teams.
Another slightly ignorant comment...Im guessing that you read the subject and that was it. Its not about how we decide who goes there, or even IF we have 36...its about, if we have 36, how do we run the actual Cup.

Cheers
sKIp_E

I guess the best way to do it would be with 6 groups of 6 and take some of the best 3rd place teams like they did in the '94 Cup. Still not the best of solutions, but at least all the top 2 of each group get in. (:/)

And, I think Oceania deserves an automatic bid, at the expense of one of UEFA's. Why they hell do half the Cup teams have to be from f*cking Europe, anyway?