Remove this ad

#81 [url]

Apr 21 17 7:06 AM

pieter wrote:
or keep it simple (if you want to expand..)
8 groups of 6: gives every team 5 games

This results in too many matches per team and overall.   5 games in first round.  Finalists will play 9 games.

Gibraldo's plan keeps it at 7 games for the finalists, but he gives one extra game to the teams eliminated in the first round (FIFA gives only two games to the 16 eliminated teams).   This can be a good or bad thing, depending on your view...

In Gibraldo's plan, there will be more pressure on the first game. A team which loses its first match seems less likely to advance.

Also for fairness the system relies on having accurate seeding.   If pool A1 is a "group of death" (3 good teams) but A2 has (say) Germany + 2 weak teams, then Germany has a harder job to qualify in your system.

An example:
A1 : Brazil, Netherlands, Japan
A2 : Germany, Guatemala, New Zealand

Then Germany has three hard games, but Brazil + Netherlands + Japan have only one hard game.

But, this isn't necessarily a big problem.  The "luck of the draw" is already a factor anyway.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#82 [url]

Apr 21 17 8:14 AM

the best solution is to keep a 32 tournament: it is big enough....
I do not like 12, 24 or 48 teams in a competition, let us keep it simple, so people understand what is going on....those big competitions are not only watched by football specialists.... 

Quote    Reply   

#83 [url]

Apr 21 17 11:13 AM

gibraldo wrote:
what are your opinions on this? 

You've given this some thought, I can tell... smiley: smokin

Have you considered comparing these methods (you show two variations in the video, there's FIFA's 16-group format, and surely others have been proposed) in terms of "entertainment value"? For example, metrics like most goals (per game), fewer(?) draws, fewer dead rubbers, higher match quality(?)... In a 16x3 format, the top 16 seeds will avoid each other during the group stage; in your cross-pool model these teams will necessarily generate eight matches between themselves. Then again, the same is true for the bottom 16 teams.

Also the possibility of teams being eliminated "undeservedly" (as you point out, all three teams in A1 may win their three matches, but only two go through). Although the potential for that exists already - teams have been eliminated despite not losing a match (Scotland 1978, New Zealand 2010) or even conceding a goal (Switzerland 2006). Conversely, you may also have teams going through "undeservedly", such as with a negative goal difference or without winning a game.

Last Edited By: Kaizeler Apr 21 17 11:17 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#86 [url]

Apr 22 17 1:26 AM

Kaizeler wrote:
Also the possibility of teams being eliminated "undeservedly" (as you point out, all three teams in A1 may win their three matches, but only two go through).
Yes this is similar to my point about the importance of the seeding.  One rather extreme way to deal with that could be, instead of pairing the pools into hexes, why not just merge all the subgroups into one large 48-team table and take the top 16?

Kaizeler wrote:
Conversely, you may also have teams going through "undeservedly" [...] without winning a game.
This seems rather unlikely though.   It is more likely to happen in the current system, and far more likely in FIFA's choice of groups of 3 teams with 2 advancing.

In Gibraldo's format it is more critical to avoid losing any match, I think.  Each team has a reduced capacity to directly affect its rivals, given that it has 5 rivals in its group but only has matches against 3 of them, so there isn't the same opportunity to make up for a defeat as there is in the existing groups of 4 teams.   Losing a game means you are at the mercy of the results between the rival teams. This could lead to a more defensive approach.

Quote    Reply   

#87 [url]

Apr 23 17 11:33 PM

nfm24 wrote:
In Gibraldo's format it is more critical to avoid losing any match, I think.
To quote another forum member, «I wonder why (almost) always the 'right things' jump into your mind» smiley: wink

I've had a go at simulating a few iterations of Gibraldo's proposed hex format and seeing how likely teams are to qualify given their match record [clicky, F9 to refresh]. As you can see, three wins doesn't guarantee qualification and a single defeat has a substantial impact (at least comparing with our "classical" 4-team groups).


And also this would have implications in terms of the mentality teams approach their games with. Whereas in quadrangulars smaller teams could target a total of 4 points and have a better-than-half chance of qualification (so they could afford to lose against the top seed), in hexes this threshhold is 5 points.

Quote    Reply   

#88 [url]

Apr 24 17 6:51 AM

I suppose the same effect (more important to avoid defeat) could be interpreted as the similar but distinct "more important to win", and when it is more important to win it is usually assumed that more attacking football will follow. Although in practice a lot of teams' best chance to win is still by defending en masse and hoping for a set-piece / counter-attack for a jammy 1-0, as in the two textbook Scotland wins over France approx 10 years ago.

I suppose it is beyond the modelling capacity to build in a sort of "tactical mindset" to the match results in the simulation.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help