Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I didn't see the game but I did see Portugal-Congo and they are a well organised team that grinds the game to an halt enticing lateral and back passes.
At the time it seemed to me Portugal was playing badly and slowly but perhaps there was more to it.
 
Someone on twitter suggested a different way to get to the playoffs:

Have the group stage winners advance automatically to the 1/8 finals, and have the runners-up play the first elimination round.

I thought there was merit to this idea, and broke it down with ChatGPT as follows:

- 12 winners of the group stages advance to the 1/8 finals (round of 16)
- 12 runners up do a second group stage, four groups of 3. The four winners advance to 1/8 finals

This way, there are only 12 games in the second round, and a total of 100 games exactly in the tournament. Winning the group stage is much more desirable for the first round as it offers a material benefit, and winning the second round is necessary.

No more of this calculating optimal paths to knockout rounds. And four less games make the tournament just a little more compact, although that may not be what FIFA and commerce want.

What does everybody think about that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
What does everybody think about that?
If you want to change the format by doing away with the individual groups then change to the format of the CL groups and EL groups under UEFA. Then it is a big league table and enough permutations to totally confuse everybody and everything so you just want to win every game.
 
If you want to change the format by doing away with the individual groups then change to the format of the CL groups and EL groups under UEFA. Then it is a big league table and enough permutations to totally confuse everybody and everything so you just want to win every game.

No, I think the first group stage is fine as is, but I think this shenanigans with the best third placed teams advancing is bollocks. So I propose a second mini group stage (12 matches) for the runners-up only, while the winners all advance directly to the round of 16.

I made a chart with ChatGPT to make it more clear:
 

Attachments

  • Alternative 48-team World Cup format.png
    Alternative 48-team World Cup format.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 4
  • Like
Reactions: nebo1ss
Such a shame for Senegal. Really dodgy penalty call for Belgium right at the death.

Hopefully the USMNT that turned up for their first two games turns up again today.

England was very poor, indeed. Tuchel's bad squad selections bailed out by Kane's brilliance. They're going to get destroyed by Mexico in the next round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
England was very poor, indeed. Tuchel's bad squad selections bailed out by Kane's brilliance. They're going to get destroyed by Mexico in the next round.
In the Azteca in Mexico City where Mexico have only ever lost two games? England's first visit there since The Hand of God.
 
In the Azteca in Mexico City where Mexico have only ever lost two games? England's first visit there since The Hand of God.
The real problem with the Azteca is the height, 2200m.

Portugal played a friendly with Mexico there in March and you could see the players loosing intensity and stamina (OK, with the Portuguese national team you never know the reason, but that time it was obvious).

Now, with higher stakes and with the Mexican players so well seasoned after several games with those conditions it will certainly be a challenge for England.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
The real problem with the Azteca is the height, 2200m.

Portugal played a friendly with Mexico there in March and you could see the players loosing intensity and stamina (OK, with the Portuguese national team you never know the reason, but that time it was obvious).

Now, with higher stakes and with the Mexican players so well seasoned after several games with those conditions it will certainly be a challenge for England.
i heard that most of the teams participating had training sessions at a similar altitude so that players could adapt in advance
 
England played all 1966 games at Wembley.
That may have been the case, but the clear advantage of altitude benefits them greater than any other team. In many competitions, the place in the group table or ladder determines the venue for a knockout match. As the World Cup is revenue driven, and the host nations would have paid billions to FIFA for the pleasure, a few perks. here or there suffice.
 
Portugal - Croatia 2 - 1
Exiting, and good for Ronaldo to safely place that penalty.
Then an disallowed goal - luckily there is VAR.

Portugal now meets Spain, nice 'derby' 🔥
 
That may have been the case, but the clear advantage of altitude benefits them greater than any other team. In many competitions, the place in the group table or ladder determines the venue for a knockout match. As the World Cup is revenue driven, and the host nations would have paid billions to FIFA for the pleasure, a few perks. here or there suffice.
Speaking from personal experience of playing physical sports in the Rockies much higher than Mexico City, the altitude differential is overrated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lioness~
Speaking from personal experience of playing physical sports in the Rockies much higher than Mexico City, the altitude differential is overrated.
I think that largely depends on the level of competition.

In lower leagues the fitness level is less consistent so you see less of a change with the altitude.

At a top pro level they are all (pretty much) at the same fitness level, so the acclimatisation makes a bigger difference.

Look at Mexico’s home versus away record.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.