FIFA World Cup: Most prestigious trophy to win?
- Thread starter alko
- Start date
No and no.
I don't see anyone picking a EURO win over a WC win. Like Evilo says, it may be even harder to win, but the prestige isn't quite there (especially on a global level).
JeffreyLFC
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 10,091
- 7,194
I do think that world cup format is flawed.
The best team from what I've seen was not France but they were the most opportunistic. Same logic applied for Portugal at the EC.
The best team from what I've seen was not France but they were the most opportunistic. Same logic applied for Portugal at the EC.
Suiteness
Registered User
There's no other way to make this work though. Put all 32 nations in a league format where they all play each other twice would give you the most accurate results but that is obviously not feasible.
Would FIFA ever consider bringing back the 2nd round group stages?
Football is the only true global team sport isn't it?
I would imagine even in the US a final with the Americans in it would be quite an event. Having lived in China the coverage of football there is sensational. Only area I can think of where it doesn't seem that important is India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka. But even there I just had lunch with two Indians and one Pakistani and they all follow football so...
Then you got countries where football is popular, but not the biggest sport (like for example Japan), where I believe a WC gold would still be the most sought after trophy (if they could win it).
If we are talking a couple of hundred years I'm sure some e-sport will overtake football, but in my lifetime nothing would ever surpass the WC. Even if there was an event that would in some way become "objectively bigger" (whatever that would mean) the history of the WC would in any case mean the WC holds is position as no. 1.
I would imagine even in the US a final with the Americans in it would be quite an event. Having lived in China the coverage of football there is sensational. Only area I can think of where it doesn't seem that important is India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka. But even there I just had lunch with two Indians and one Pakistani and they all follow football so...
Then you got countries where football is popular, but not the biggest sport (like for example Japan), where I believe a WC gold would still be the most sought after trophy (if they could win it).
If we are talking a couple of hundred years I'm sure some e-sport will overtake football, but in my lifetime nothing would ever surpass the WC. Even if there was an event that would in some way become "objectively bigger" (whatever that would mean) the history of the WC would in any case mean the WC holds is position as no. 1.
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 66,201
- 12,161
It's a silly argument, IMO. You COULD argue another team was better, but it's not like is was Scotland winning. A traditional power beat all the teams in front of them and beat a damn good team in the finals. By 2.
The correct team won this tournament.
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
The best World Cup format would probably be a home and away round robin of the best 20 teams in the world. But you would have to make sure it's the right 20 teams as FIFA rankings can't ever be trusted even remotely. But of course such a tournament would never be designed as it would involve 38 matches for each team and would not have a host (and it would only work if there was no club football for a year).
Realistically, the current format is pretty good and one people will greatly miss once it moves to the 48 team format.
Realistically, the current format is pretty good and one people will greatly miss once it moves to the 48 team format.
Depends on how you define "best".
The format is a mix of a pure cup competition (like say the FA Cup) and a normal European league format. If you had it like you described you will more often get the "correct" winner, but I'm not sure if it makes the format better. The current format allows for teams like Croatia to have a proper shot at winning. And it allows for fans in places like Denmark, Sweden etc. to dream of reaching that same final (that would "never" happen in a format like yours - remember Leicester of course).
I don't mind the current format at all. I think it in many ways is the best of two worlds. And I agree with you - 48 teams will be crap. Almost completely ruins the group stages for me (which is borderline boring as it is).
France was definitely the best team overall of the tournament. Won all their games in regulation time, barely trailed all tournament and played methodical. If you don't like how they won, too bad.
France won it all and they came from far harder side of the play off tree. Who was better team than France then?
Savi
Registered User
It's actually amazing that for a true global team sport, 6 of the 8 most populated countries in the world either weren't at the WC or don't have a football culture. That's China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the US; 3.7 billion people!
If Iceland were a city in China they would only be the 184th most populated over there
koyvoo
Registered User
- Nov 8, 2014
- 17,253
- 17,030
You guys with this - best team this, but team that - stuff call the time.
Tournament history is littered with results that have the best not becoming champion. And, many times they are still the best team after the tournament. They just didn’t win it, which is unfortunate because winning the tournament is more prestigious and memorable than being the best team.
You don’t have to be the best team to win a tournament. You have to be good enough to compete with the favourites, but you don’t have to be better than them. You have to be both savvy and lucky. More so, if you’re unlucky, you can be Brazil 82 or Hungary 50, but you’re not gonna win. And they didn’t. And they were better than the teams they lost to. I’d rather win personally.
Tournament history is littered with results that have the best not becoming champion. And, many times they are still the best team after the tournament. They just didn’t win it, which is unfortunate because winning the tournament is more prestigious and memorable than being the best team.
You don’t have to be the best team to win a tournament. You have to be good enough to compete with the favourites, but you don’t have to be better than them. You have to be both savvy and lucky. More so, if you’re unlucky, you can be Brazil 82 or Hungary 50, but you’re not gonna win. And they didn’t. And they were better than the teams they lost to. I’d rather win personally.
It's actually amazing that for a true global team sport, 6 of the 8 most populated countries in the world either weren't at the WC or don't have a football culture. That's China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the US; 3.7 billion people!
If Iceland were a city in China they would only be the 184th most populated over there
People tend to forget how not that long ago the WC was mainly a European and South American event. Until Cameroon in 1990 who cared about Africa?
China will soon be there. Football from my experience is a lot more popular there then one would think based on how their national team performs. I remember sitting in a small local cafe/restaurant being the only white person in there seeing video footage from the Norwegian national team's preparation to a game on Chinese TV (and they were not playing China). Wouldn't say the same, but from experience coverage is quite good in Indonesia as well. Never been to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
koyvoo
Registered User
- Nov 8, 2014
- 17,253
- 17,030
It was also a long, long time were those early powerhouses, and the most successful World Cup teams were so far ahead of everyone else. Their still ahead, but the gap is closing and the amount of nations that can put together 23 guys who can play is multiplying rapidly.
It is definitely for the great public as there are millions of people who only watch football when the WC or the euros is on. I can't imagine that any CL-final would attract 20m TV-viewers in England even though winning the CL is often considered much harder than the WC.
Btw, it would be interesting to hear a South-American view concerning the WC-qualifiers of Conmebol. I would imagine as it is a proper South-American league where everyone plays against everyone else winning it would be considered an achievement in itself. Copa America is a tournamnet but WC-qualifiers is a league.
Or is just meh as long as you qualify? When you have secured qualification you take it easy and no matter whether you win or finish 4th?
Btw, it would be interesting to hear a South-American view concerning the WC-qualifiers of Conmebol. I would imagine as it is a proper South-American league where everyone plays against everyone else winning it would be considered an achievement in itself. Copa America is a tournamnet but WC-qualifiers is a league.
Or is just meh as long as you qualify? When you have secured qualification you take it easy and no matter whether you win or finish 4th?
Last edited by a moderator:
But I fail to see a team more impressive in that tournament.
All teams showed flaws. Belgium just barely got past Japan and were dominated by Brazil.
France had a very shaky first half in the final.
Croatia was immensely lucky to win two penalty shootouts in a row. They had to face a fairly easy to road to the final too.
Brazil showed plenty of limits. Spain as well. Germany even more.
Frankly, I can't see a better team than France in this WC. Nor a more impressive.
koyvoo
Registered User
- Nov 8, 2014
- 17,253
- 17,030
I agree. But some people probably have different views of impressive and would weigh it on backheels and nutmegs.
France was versatile. They had a plan not only for multiple opponents, but also for multiple scenarios, each plan being conducive to a victory. That’s impressive to me. Looking at Croatia and Belgium, I feel in the end they were naive. Noobs. Whatever. They only had one card to play. And this falls into line with certain nations or certain generations developing into “tournament teams”.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
Not sure if I'd call that luck. Their shooters need to score, and their goalie needs to make a save. They managed to do exactly that, twice, after basically running a marathon every game. Sure, France took care of business early enough to avoid pens, but I wouldn't fault Croatia or call them "lucky" because they persevered and made it to the finals through a different route.
Nah, penalty shootouts is a lot more than skill to shoot and skill to stop. More even than mental aspects.
There's a great dose of luck involved. Heck, didn't Modric's penalty hit the goalie, the crossbar and went in?
And I don't fault them for having a better half of a bracket or failing to win in 90 minutes. But PK shootouts is also luck and certainly not what I would classify as impressive.
There's a great dose of luck involved. Heck, didn't Modric's penalty hit the goalie, the crossbar and went in?
And I don't fault them for having a better half of a bracket or failing to win in 90 minutes. But PK shootouts is also luck and certainly not what I would classify as impressive.
Dr Pepper
Registered User
I think it's pretty damn impressive to win your way to the World Cup finals, especially considering they didn't use embellishment or "Neymar" their way there.
Skill, endurance, and unity. And a wee bit of luck, since every team benefits from that.
Every penalty shootout has a huge amount of luck. Are you new to football?
Did Modric's penalty that hit goalie+post+crossbar was pure technique?
Please. I don't mind saying France lucked in winning penalty shootouts against Brazil in 86 or Italy in 98 for instance.
