it's not unique to the format of course but it's a pleasing feature of some of the last round of world cup group games - matches in which both teams need a win, so it's attack against attack. by the time you get to the knockout stage the default, other than in the case of a mismatch, is generally defence against defence, and then attack against defence once one team has a lead.
A real shame it’s the e last time we’ll see simultaneous group games with next World Cup intending to have 16 groups of three teams in group games. So that’s just two games each and a total of three games. The first game could decide how that last two play out. Absolute rubbish.
I agree with you.
though I also read that they were now considering 4 team groups, even with the expanded format. would mean an insane number of teams if so.
Couple of thoughts...
The increase in added time is a total success. Time wasting has disappeared. It needs to be brought into all leagues. Makes the ref's job easier, and the refereeing has generally been pretty good, with the odd exception.
I actually like the compressed format of four games a day. I know not everyone likes it, but it adds to the excitement.
France and Brazil the best so far Australia dark horse?
Mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of men.
Not convinced by France, Brazil (or anyone, yet, really?), mostly because (as proven last night) the second strings aren’t quite as strong as maybe they need to be. A couple of injuries or cards, and certainly Brazil don’t look as good.
Also, with so many surprise match ups in the Ro16, surely there’ll be another surprise or two to come? As you say, Aussies to beat Argies? (Senegal beating England wouldn’t be a surprise)
The increase in added time is a total success. Time wasting has disappeared. It needs to be brought into all leagues.
Which is why, of course, when asked by a couple of journo's the FA immediately ruled it out.
What a bunch of dicks. On what possible grounds could they rule it out?
"The supporters, the only thing to them is that they love their club.
The only thing the receive in exchange is emotions.
For this reason, the supporter is the best thing in football." - Marcelo Bielsa
The increase in added time is a total success. Time wasting has disappeared. It needs to be brought into all leagues.
Which is why, of course, when asked by a couple of journo's the FA immediately ruled it out.
What a bunch of dicks. On what possible grounds could they rule it out?
TV schedules over-running, cutting into advertising slots and leaving insufficient time for the likes of Souness and Keane to tell everyone what they've already seen?
It’s beyond belief though that FIFA is considering replacing the four team finals groups with three team ones for 2026 plus penalty kicks for bonus points. Goodness, it’s not as though the four team version continues to be a roaring success….
Which is why, of course, when asked by a couple of journo's the FA immediately ruled it out.
What a bunch of dicks. On what possible grounds could they rule it out?
TV schedules over-running, cutting into advertising slots and leaving insufficient time for the likes of Souness and Keane to tell everyone what they've already seen?
And why is it that the the half time group of too often stupid and lazy ex pro’s, has now mushroomed to four plus a presenter. Two is quite ample. Four gives nobody time to say anything of value and many of them just repeat what the one before has said.
It’s beyond belief though that FIFA is considering replacing the four team finals groups with three team ones for 2026 plus penalty kicks for bonus points. Goodness, it’s not as though the four team version continues to be a roaring success….
Aye.
Can't see any advantage in having groups of three. Smells of MBA management bollocks, change for change's sake.
The current format works just fine. A team can lose the first game and still go on to win the trophy.
This WC is working out better than I expected. Competitive games mostly and some surprises.
Mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of men.
Before the game yesterday, 5Live had their South American Football Correspondent, Tim Vickery, on to set the scene. He was also given the chance to put the 'other side' of the Suarez debate.
His defence was:
1 - Leave poor Luis alone - after all, when Jack Charlton handled the ball on the line to prevent a goal against England - I didn't catch which match it was - we didn't spend years chasing him for it and calling him a cheat.
2 - In the Ghana incident where Suarez handled it on the line, the ball had been played in from a free kick outside the area that should never have been given anyway - ludicrous decision, he called it - and so the whole thing should never have happened.
Yeah, great thinking, Tim.
What the fuck has the handling of the ball by another player, from a different country, in a match [presumably] during the late sixties have to do with Luis Suarez? It's irrelevant.
And even if we pretend it is somehow actually relevant for a minute, try thinking it through, Tim.
No doubt the fans of the team involved against Jack thought he was a cheating cunt and hated him for it, whereas we in England can barely remember it or think we got away with one; just as Uruguay fans think it's either blown up out of proportion about poor Luis [or else revel in it]. Y'know, a bit like Irish fans hate Henry for his handball, while most of the rest of us regard Henry as a brilliant striker for Arsenal and France, a fairly likeable sort who also handled the ball that time and cheated. And Maradona is still possibly the best player ever, even though Hand Of God.
Trouble is, Tim, in Luis' case, he was also a dislikable, biting cunt who people tend to think is a bit of a cunt, anyhow.
Shame that.
As for point 2, it was the ref who got the free kick wrong [if, indeed, it was wrong - I haven't seen it back], not Ghana. Vickery, like Suarez, said maybe Ghana should have just scored their penalties. Yes, Tim, and maybe Uruguay should have just defended the free kick a bit fucking better when the ball came in.
Suarez was a very good player who did plenty of stuff on a football field I enjoyed watching; he was also [and appears still to be] a massive cunt who bites and cheats. He's both things at the same time.
"Football is not so important that we can't have tolerance of incorrect evaluations."
All the more reason to do it. It's the reason it works, 5 games in and they're not time wasting any more because the managers know it'll catch up with the players (not that I think the poor darlings would really suffer with an extra 10 minutes a week).
it's not unique to the format of course but it's a pleasing feature of some of the last round of world cup group games - matches in which both teams need a win, so it's attack against attack. by the time you get to the knockout stage the default, other than in the case of a mismatch, is generally defence against defence, and then attack against defence once one team has a lead.
A real shame it’s the e last time we’ll see simultaneous group games with next World Cup intending to have 16 groups of three teams in group games. So that’s just two games each and a total of three games. The first game could decide how that last two play out. Absolute rubbish.
Because there's more teams as well the groups will be completely uncompetitive. Imagine a group of 3 with Brazil, Canada and Macedonia.
Imagine game 1 of that group Brazil beats Canada 4-0.
Game 2 Macedonia decides to park the bus against Brazil to ensure they lose by less than four goals
Final game 3 - Macedonia parks the bus v Canada it ends 0-0 and goes through to next round on goal difference. It exactly promoting attractive football.
for the increase in injury time.
