FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
On 12/07/2026 14:41, Blueshirt wrote:
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
lol
I'll say this much, though it's taken longer than I would have liked we >finally have two (on paper at least) epic matches to look forward to.
I didn't know that FIFA had "rigged" the system so that the
Top-4 ranked teams couldn't meet each other until the semis IF
they won their respective groups.
I'll say this much, though it's taken longer than I would
have liked we finally have two (on paper at least) epic
matches to look forward to.
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
That's a rather strange way to look at it.
Main point here is, the FIFA rankings seem to be remarkably accurate,
at list at this point. Might be a coincidence, as Anders said, or maybe >they're actually doing something right too. In any case it doesn't
happen very often and the tournament has to be played of course.
Not much connection to the 32 / 48 team problem, I don't like 48 teams
for different reasons.
anders t wrote:
I didn't know that FIFA had "rigged" the system so that the
Top-4 ranked teams couldn't meet each other until the semis IF
they won their respective groups.
That's exactly what FIFA's new seeding system was about...
making sure the top four ranked teams couldn't meet until they
reached the semi-finals. (If they performed as expected.)
Not much connection to the 32 / 48 team problem, I don't like 48 teams
for different reasons.
we go the 64 ...
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
48 is still too much IMHO. The group stage alone has 72 games, while the
old 32 teams Cup had 64 overall. But that ship has already sailed, and >indeed Infantino says he's considering another expansion, now to 64...
I think 48 or 64 is more or less the same, too much either way, but at
least with 64 you don't need "best thirds" advancing and the playoff
tree becomes more intuitive. We should watch out, though, because once
that step is taken there really is nothing stopping them from taking the >next one later (to, say, 96 teams...).
Quoting Lloo in rec.sport.soccer:
I think 48 or 64 is more or less the same, too much either
way, but at least with 64 you don't need "best thirds"
advancing and the playoff tree becomes more intuitive. We
should watch out, though, because once that step is taken
there really is nothing stopping them from taking the next
one later (to, say, 96 teams...).
IF 48 --> 64 then the 16 new spots should be allocated like so:
8 to UEFA
4 to CAF
2 to Conmebol
1 to AFC
1 to Concacaf
0 to OFC
Blueshirt wrote:
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the
top four teams in the the world are the best four teams in
the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the
end of the day...
That's a rather strange way to look at it.
Main point here is, the FIFA rankings seem to be remarkably
accurate, at list at this point. Might be a coincidence,
Anders said, or maybe they're actually doing something right
too. In any case it doesn't happen very often and the
tournament has to be played of course.
Not much connection to the 32 / 48 team problem, I don't like
48 teams for different reasons.
On 12/07/2026 10:41, Blueshirt wrote:
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
And according to Elo Ratings too.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
48 is still too much IMHO. The group stage alone has 72 games, while the
old 32 teams Cup had 64 overall. But that ship has already sailed, and indeed Infantino says he's considering another expansion, now to 64...
I think 48 or 64 is more or less the same, too much either way, but at
least with 64 you don't need "best thirds" advancing and the playoff
tree becomes more intuitive. We should watch out, though, because once
that step is taken there really is nothing stopping them from taking the next one later (to, say, 96 teams...).
Best regards,
Ll|-o
because once that step is taken there really is nothing stopping them from taking the next one later (to, say, 96 teams...).
Ll|-o <llb.moura@gmail.com> wrote:
I think 48 or 64 is more or less the same, too much either
way, but at least with 64 you don't need "best thirds"
advancing and the playoff tree becomes more intuitive. We
should watch out, though, because once that step is taken
there really is nothing stopping them from taking the next
one later (to, say, 96 teams...).
Gianni is from an alpine country, so I guess herCOll be very
much aware of various winter team events (bobsleigh
etc.) where the best countries can enter more than one
team in the competitionrCa..
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
On Sun, 12 Jul 2026 14:41:10 +0100, "Blueshirt"
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the
top four teams in the the world are the best four teams in
the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the
end of the day...
My preferred model in the SophCon had the probability of all
the top four teams making it to the semis at 0.3%. Even after
the completion of the group stage, the probability was 1.62%
I wouldn't read too much into it. However, I do think that the
expanded WC made it more likely for the top favorites to
qualify from the group stages (doh!), and also to win their
group, making it more likely that the top four teams would end
up in different quarters of the bracket, as per the
organizers' plans. They still had a lot to do from there,
though.
From what I could understand, and I did look into it
pre-tournament, the new seeding system ensured that whatever the
results of the group stages the top four nations would still be
in different quadrants... and couldn't meet until the
semi-finals at the earliest. (As per the first paragraph in the
linked article below.) Which is what has happened.
Of course, what those four teams had to do from there was make
sure they got through he knock-out rounds accordingly ... which
is easier for me to type here than actually do in practice for
them in their games. But, they did all manage to get there.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/13475350/world-cup-2026-draw-new-fifa-seeding-and-pot-system-explained-ahead-of-48-team-tournament
I wouldn't read too much into it. However, I do think that the
expanded WC made it more likely for the top favorites to qualify from
the group stages (doh!), and also to *win* their group, making it more
likely that the top four teams would end up in different quarters of
the bracket, as per the organizers' plans. They still had a lot to do
from there, though.
If you don't like 48 teams, you probably won't like 64 then!
Blueshirt wrote:
If you don't like 48 teams, you probably won't like 64 then!
Actually, I like 64 more than 48, at least you get rid of the
best 3rd place teams qualifying. But no, I don't like 64
either. They're too many. Not only that there are too many
games played, and irrelevant and very unbalanced ones, which
they then of course lamely try to spin into something very
beautiful. Main problem IMO is, being at the World Cup used to
mean something. And so it should. Now everybody except Italy
and Romania can qualify.
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
FIFA Rankings at start of the FIFA 2026 World Cup:
1) Argentina
2) France
3) Spain
4) England
FIFA World Cup 2026 Semi-Finalists:
Argentina, France, Spain, England.
So, we've played a month of football to establish that the top
four teams in the the world are the best four teams in the world.
Seems like the 32/48 team thing is kind of irrelevant at the end
of the day...
Another observation: 2.96 is the highest goal average
per game in a World Cup since 1970 (2.97).
Another observation: 2.96 is the highest goal
average per game in a World Cup since 1970 (2.97).
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:25:43 -0000 (UTC), Werner Pichler
<wpichler@gmail.com> wrote:
Another observation: 2.96 is the highest goal average
per game in a World Cup since 1970 (2.97).
How much would it have been without the France-England tennis match?
Quoting Ll|-o in rec.sport.soccer:
48 is still too much IMHO. The group stage alone has 72 games, while the
old 32 teams Cup had 64 overall. But that ship has already sailed, and
indeed Infantino says he's considering another expansion, now to 64...
I think 48 or 64 is more or less the same, too much either way, but at
least with 64 you don't need "best thirds" advancing and the playoff
tree becomes more intuitive. We should watch out, though, because once
that step is taken there really is nothing stopping them from taking the
next one later (to, say, 96 teams...).
IF 48 --> 64 then the 16 new spots should be allocated like so:
8 to UEFA
4 to CAF
2 to Conmebol
1 to AFC
1 to Concacaf
0 to OFC
Otherwise UEFA should leave FIFA.
Werner Pichler wrote:
Another observation: 2.96 is the highest goal
average per game in a World Cup since 1970 (2.97).
Another observation:
It wasn't a bad World Cup. Like Qatar there was a lot
of noise surrounding the tournament but the actual matches
were [on the whole] enjoyable.
On the whole yes. The clearly best team won, and it's one of the most
if not the most deserved winner ever. England might say they should
have played the final but really, it's hard to imagine them giving
Spain too much trouble.
Another observation: 2.96 is the highest goal average
per game in a World Cup since 1970 (2.97).
Blueshirt wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Another observation: 2.96 is the highest goal
average per game in a World Cup since 1970 (2.97).
Another observation:
It wasn't a bad World Cup. Like Qatar there was a lot
of noise surrounding the tournament but the actual matches
were [on the whole] enjoyable.
On the whole yes. The clearly best team won, and it's one of the most
if not the most deserved winner ever. England might say they should
have played the final but really, it's hard to imagine them giving
Spain too much trouble.
So the only bad point, as ever, the refereeing. While I have to say on
the whole this was probably the best officiated World Cup ever (not
that it was fabulous, but the others were worse), and there have been
rather few goal-changing errors that didn't seem to influence the game winners, there is this "let everything go" approach that seems to be
getting worse than before, at least that's my impression. Which of
course culminated in the England - Argentina semi.
Now, my conspiracy theory (what's a World Cup without a good conspiracy theory ?) is that they're doing it on purpose to be able to influence
the results. Given that now the video ref makes it more difficult to do
by individual big ref errors.
I'm not saying this is necessarily true but it's a strong possibility.
In our case, that somebody put big money on Argentina being in the
final, so they had to be helped to get there.
Anyway, as there is a clear winner this time, there's not much interest
for this kind of discussion, and on the whole it was a good Cup. I
guess there will be more to say about this in future editions.
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026 23:25:43 -0000 (UTC), Werner Pichler
<wpichler@gmail.com> wrote:
Another observation: 2.96 is the highest goal average
per game in a World Cup since 1970 (2.97).
Digging a bit deeper:
2.99 goals per game in the group stages
2.91 gpg in the knockout rounds, of which:
2.66 goals in regular time in the knockout rounds (32 matches)
0.89 goals in extra time in the knockout rounds (9 matches)
One of the reasons my sophcon bots did rather poorly is because they
were calibrated on an average of 2.4 goals per game, and therefore
were much more likely to predict upsets.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:26:45 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,091 |