Dark Munster

City (red hot ball) at home to Charlton (freezing cold ball).

It's 2:22 pm here in San Diego, way past my nap time. Get on with it.

Living across the pond I watched it on American TV Fox, with a couple of Yanks commentating. I thought they were surprisingly good, making a lot of good observations and avoiding inane nonsense. One of them remarked that the French midfield was being over run and the manager should bring on a sub before half time which duly happened shortly afterwards.

Yes, but I can't recall a better final. It was f**king brilliant. I wonder if the tournament, and this epic final, was so good because it was played in the middle of the season, rather than at the end of a grueling season when players are knackered? Not that I'd want it played in the winter again, but just a thought.

I think we all agree about that, but unfortunately FIFA have decided on 48 teams and that's not going to change (at least for the next WC).

Yeah I think that's a good possibility. Although there has been talk of keeping the groups of 3, but not having draws (penalty shootouts if matches finish level). I still think my proposal is the best! 😉

I like this idea of one team having the slight edge to avoid penalties. But instead of yellow/reds (which is at the mercy of a good or bad prior ref), how about in the first round the higher seed (i.e. team who finished first in their group) goes through after extra time if a draw? In subsequent rounds some sort of priority based on previous results.

The current FIFA proposal has groups of 3 with teams playing the other 2 in their group, just like the WC in Spain where one team has to sit out while the other 2 meet in the final match of the group. Collusion central. My proposal has teams playing 3 matches against another paired group, and then the top 2 from their own group play a knockout match. No teams play each other twice (unless they meet again in the final). 8 groups of 6 would I think lead to too many group matches and dead rubbers near the end. 5 matches each, just to get rid of the minnows. Plus an extra knockout round with 32 teams.

Looking ahead to the 48 team 2026 World Cup, I think we are all in agreement that the 16 three team group format proposed by FIFA is a load of wank. Apparently FIFA are meeting soon to discuss the format. That got me thinking, how could it be done properly given the ridiculous numbers of teams (that isn't a power of 2) has been decided. I came up with the following, that avoids collusion, gives each team a minimum of 3 matches, and gives a huge incentive to win the group matches. What do you lot think? Another crap idea, or maybe it could work? 16 groups of 3 teams, A, B, … , P as originally proposed by FIFA. Each team in group A plays against the three teams in group B, and likewise of course each team in group B plays against the three teams in group A. Similarly C and D are paired, and so on. Note at this stage no team yet plays teams from their own group. That comes next. After the 3 matches for each team, the top two teams in each group advance to the next round, with the third placed team eliminated. Positions are determined by points gained, followed by number of wins, then goal difference, then goals scored, then fair play, then by drawing of lots. The top two from each group meet in the next round for a 90 minute elimination match. Whoever wins advances, regardless of whether they were first or second in their group or how many points they have. However, if the match is a draw after 90 minutes the first placed team advances (no extra time or penalties.) These winners of the 16 groups now advance to a regular knockout, with extra time and penalties used in the usual manner if matches are tied after 90 minutes. The winners of groups A, C, E, G, I, K, M, O go to the top half of the bracket, and the others to the lower half, so that no two teams can play each other twice (except in the final). The part in bold is what I like. It gives a huge incentive to try to finish first in the group, and the elimination 1st v 2nd match itself would typically be open, with the second placed team desperate to win in the 90 minutes. The only boring matches are those where both teams are happy to settle for a draw.

They tried that here in the USA a long time ago. It was a bit of a disaster apparently.

Knackered perhaps.

That's a tad harsh. I think he deserves one more match before we call for his head.

Well the good thing about that is he does have relegation battle experience.

One could argue that's also true of the four remaining teams. But one will be. (France? Not the team of 4 years ago, and England more than matched them.)

Could they do a Greece? They certainly deserve to be in the semis, going past Belgium, Spain and Portugal, conceding only one goal (which as an own goal).

Bugger. England losing another quarterfinal on bloody penalties.

I don't fear it as well, as long as there is another Markus to bail us out. In the unlikely event that a billionaire doesn't ride over the horizon on a white horse to save us, we can look forward to the possibility of a few decades in the wilderness, like Leeds did and the skates are now enjoying.

Or worse.

Gapko... Ramos... Saints are creating superstars.

Take off the first choice players when the game is safe and bring on more expendable ones?

Nobody's slagged off Shaw yet. Stones has also had an easy ride from us so far....

Aren't 11 ponies better than 11 donkeys?

Not really, we'd get beaten by penalties.