Yeah fair point. Though previously they'd have still had to navigate a play off. Regardless though there's going to be lots of poor teams there. Can't imagine Uzbekistan will be any good.
Aren't there talks to go to 64 too? That's be a joke, probably would bin off qualifying for South America entirely seeking as they already get 6.5 places out of 10!
Curacao currently top their group apparently, Cuco Martina to score a screamer anyone?! Looking forward to a limp 1-0 win with a Kane penalty against one of these sides.
I sort of get it. The 'greatest cup in the world' is the FA Cup where all teams, from all levels can compete and make their way to the final. Having 48 teams will have poor teams, but we would just call it the 'magic of the FA Cup'?
Sorry mate but I disagree and you can't compare a domestic competition to the world cup imo. The World Cup finals is supposed to be the best teams in the world and by reducing the quality of the teams allowed to participate it reduces the quality of the whole tournament and means you'll have more complete mismatches. With 12 groups it means you'll have 12 teams in each seeding pot which is far too many. There aren't 12 top sides in the world and the knock of effect is there'll be some absolute ****e in pot 2. This means the groups will be much easier for the top sides, and especially with two thirds of 3rd placed teams going through, makes big nation casualties in the group stages far less likely. There's 72 group stage matches next year and there'll still be 32 teams remaining in the competition after them all. It's absurd.
Yeah I get it actually. The World Cup is like a Champions League. You need the top say 32 teams there to make it worth something. It also means more if the lower teams qualify rather than if there are say 64 teams and you just know they are going to qualify.
And in news that should surprise absolutely no one Sweden have sacked their manager. I have to say it takes a really bad manager to make a team which contains Isak, Gyokeres and Kulusevski completely inept at scoring goals.
The talk of 64 teams is the way of rectifying the problem caused by moving to 48 teams - namely that 12 groups of four doesn't fit nicely into a last 16 or last 32. Whereas 64 teams does. You get the same number of KO matches with a 64-team WC as you get with a 48-team WC. But you know where you stand in the group stage with a 64-team WC - ie top two from every group qualify - rather than the farcical situation with a 48-team WC where you might qualify by finishing 3rd or you might not. It's bad enough that we already have that in the Euros. Obviously a 64-team WC becomes an even bigger joke than a 48-team WC with regards to the standard of teams qualifying. But I would suggest that the main damage is already done by moving from a 32-team to a 48-team WC. Having 12 groups instead of 8 groups will dilute the overall quality of each group (the concept of a group of death will itself be dead) and all the big teams can effectively have a bye through the last 32. And therefore further dilution of the group stage, by expanding to 16 groups, arguably would have little material impact on the overall quality. Once you get to a stage where the 3rd and 4th seeded sides are really very poor, does it really matter if they're made even worse? The issue is moving from a 32-team WC. Terrible, terrible idea.
England qualify for the World Cup with 2 games to spare without conceding a goal. Ever since the Serbia game things have started to click under Tuchel.
