tournament seedings'

[YankeeJim]

I've always thought that seeding teams was simply a way to smooth the way forward for the top tier teams. They are always guaranteed at least one match against a minnow so usually sleep walk through the group stage, ala France & Argentina and generally have only one tough match in the first three. I'd like to see a total open draw. A group with Brazil, Germany and Spain would require those teams to exert effort to get out of group and allow at least some of the minnows best effort to come in the knockout phase. That would effect card accumulation and likely a few knocks as well.

I know the tournament organizers want a final with some names in it but I'd like to see some upstart get there.  Anyone else feel the same?

BTW, England got some great fortune, They won't see a tournament favorite until the semi's. (Spain)

[VicHalomsLovechild]

I think the organisers are more concerned with TV audiences and thereby advertising income. To be fair to them, other sports do much the same in knock out competitions.

[Fulham Tup North]

It is the same for Wimbledon which starts Monday. The aim being that the number 1 & 2 seeds will meet in the final, if both are good enough!
The World Cup throws up random results, like Germany losing to South Korea!
If a 'smaller' side has a bit of luck then they can still do well. The thing with the smaller teams is that for them every game is against a big or at least bigger Country, in the FIFA rankings anyway.
So they may win through their group, possibly as runners up, but will still have to face 'better' opposition in the knock-out phase.

[Tabby]

Seeding makes things more fair and less random to the smaller teams as well. Sure, you may get to be in an easy group, but then you could get to be the team in a group with Brazil, France and Spain.

I don't like the chances of teams being that random. It is bad enough as it is.

[gezkc]

Hosting a World Cup is a huge investment for a country, so to remove seeding and risk having all the high ranked countries and big name players knocked out early on in the tournament would be a disaster. You'd end up with empty stadia, low TV viewing figures and basically a tournament noone's interested in.

I think the current seeding system works well - you still get groups with teams like Belgium and England or Spain and Portugal in, so there's the potential for an upset or two, but you ensure that all the best teams don't knock each other out in the first round.

[bobbo]

I've always thought that seeding teams was simply a way to smooth the way forward for the top tier teams. They are always guaranteed at least one match against a minnow so usually sleep walk through the group stage, ala France & Argentina and generally have only one tough match in the first three. I'd like to see a total open draw. A group with Brazil, Germany and Spain would require those teams to exert effort to get out of group and allow at least some of the minnows best effort to come in the knockout phase. That would effect card accumulation and likely a few knocks as well.

I know the tournament organizers want a final with some names in it but I'd like to see some upstart get there.  Anyone else feel the same?

BTW, England got some great fortune, They won't see a tournament favorite until the semi's. (Spain)

yes Jim me. I've always thought it.

[YankeeJim]

Hosting a World Cup is a huge investment for a country, so to remove seeding and risk having all the high ranked countries and big name players knocked out early on in the tournament would be a disaster. You'd end up with empty stadia, low TV viewing figures and basically a tournament noone's interested in.

I think the current seeding system works well - you still get groups with teams like Belgium and England or Spain and Portugal in, so there's the potential for an upset or two, but you ensure that all the best teams don't knock each other out in the first round.

That's an explanation, not a justification. What chance did Morocco or Iran have to advance? If the minnows don't matter, why not have a cup with 16 teams and not waste time with them?

[Tabby]

Hosting a World Cup is a huge investment for a country, so to remove seeding and risk having all the high ranked countries and big name players knocked out early on in the tournament would be a disaster. You'd end up with empty stadia, low TV viewing figures and basically a tournament noone's interested in.

I think the current seeding system works well - you still get groups with teams like Belgium and England or Spain and Portugal in, so there's the potential for an upset or two, but you ensure that all the best teams don't knock each other out in the first round.

That's an explanation, not a justification. What chance did Morocco or Iran have to advance? If the minnows don't matter, why not have a cup with 16 teams and not waste time with them?

Did you watch the Iran - Portugal game? Iran came close to going through.

[YankeeJim]

Hosting a World Cup is a huge investment for a country, so to remove seeding and risk having all the high ranked countries and big name players knocked out early on in the tournament would be a disaster. You'd end up with empty stadia, low TV viewing figures and basically a tournament noone's interested in.

I think the current seeding system works well - you still get groups with teams like Belgium and England or Spain and Portugal in, so there's the potential for an upset or two, but you ensure that all the best teams don't knock each other out in the first round.

That's an explanation, not a justification. What chance did Morocco or Iran have to advance? If the minnows don't matter, why not have a cup with 16 teams and not waste time with them?

Did you watch the Iran - Portugal game? Iran came close to going through.

True but the operative word is "close". They still didn't do it.

[Tabby]

You said "what chance do they have". They were bloody close to doing it, and you're writing them off as a lost cause. All they needed was a scrappy win against either Spain or Portugal.

With your suggested system, Iran could have been in a group with Brazil, Spain and Portugal. What chance would they have then?

[toshes mate]

I think seeding works in certain circumstances but many sports just take it too far.  My personal solution is a wide open draw where luck is the only thing that can save you if you want to see it that way.  Football is about winning no matter who you play against and I think it is better that way but as a media sport professional football has way too many vested interests to want to make it open and fun.

[YankeeJim]

You said "what chance do they have". They were bloody close to doing it, and you're writing them off as a lost cause. All they needed was a scrappy win against either Spain or Portugal.

With your suggested system, Iran could have been in a group with Brazil, Spain and Portugal. What chance would they have then?

Iran is like the US, not a bad team, just not a real good one. Iran in that group would mean a couple of other minnows would be in a group where they had a chance. More importantly, the three big guys you named would have to break a sweat to advance. I understand your point and also the reality that a Senegal v Korea semifinal or final wouldn't make the TV guys or FIFI happy. Just a talking point mate. Money talks the loudest so nothing will change.  082.gif

[filham]

Seeding takes an element of luck out of the tournament and gives the weaker teams a chance of glory in the early matches.
It works well leave it alone.

[the nutflush]

It ain't broke so why are we seeking to fix it?  If you are the number one team in the world you have earned the right not to play the second best team in the world in the round of 16. 

[YankeeJim]

So you struggle and reached heights your nation, i.e. Iceland or Panama, have never done before and you get Brazil in the first match?
One can argue either side effectively but in the end its all about money.

[gezkc]

So you struggle and reached heights your nation, i.e. Iceland or Panama, have never done before and you get Brazil in the first match?
One can argue either side effectively but in the end its all about money.

They might play Brazil in the first match, but they'll play a less good team in the second match and an even less good team in the third match. How's that unfair?

I'm not sure why you have this sentimentality about wanting minnows reaching the final. Surely the whole point of a tournament is that the best team wins?

If a team is lowly ranked, it's for a reason. As soon as they meet a good side, they'll go out anyway.

[YankeeJim]

Just engaging in discussion. If the aim is for the best team to win, why play? The big teams get a "rest" game in group so have not only the better players but more rested ones. it is just an American thing. We love it when the arrogant get knocked off their perch. Sort of a Horatio Alger story, if you will.