WORLD CUP PLAY-OFFS: the Scottish balls-up scenario. It couldn't happen, could it?!

[Gordopolis]

Scotland should simply allow Russia to annexe it for one week in March and the Ukraine will withdraw, then take on Austria away. 

[emoji115]voice of reason

[Gordopolis]

Not really, because they failed to earn a seeding in the first place, which is the whole reason they were away from home. The seedings weren't arbitrary or based on some long-term ranking, they were based directly on performance in this tournament.

So a slim goal difference or head to head advantage wins you a home semi *and* final? I don't think that's ridiculous, and I wouldn't complain about that if Scotland were to benefit from it... but I don't think it would be hugely fair.
It would feel a bit like England's all but 1 home games on their route to getting rumped by Italy in the Euros [insert Chiellini smug gif here].

Not sure if there's any precedent that supports or debunks the chosen system. I just feel this is the right balance of advantage for the seeds in the semi, followed by an "evening up" for the finals.

ETA: a better system - although logistically unfeasible - would be to let seeds who make it through to the final keep home advantage, unless they are drawn in the final Vs other seeds, in which case a blind draw would decide who is at home.

[BFTD]

I'm still a bit unsure of these kinds of ties being decided over one leg at a home ground, purely because the understanding's always been that, if you aren't doing two legs, then the tie takes place at a neutral ground out of fairness. Probably just old-fashioned thinking; I suppose it's a reward for the teams who did better in their groups but, then again, some teams had harder groups so it's not a level field...meh.

Nobody's going to care if these are more exciting games than the play-offs usually are, and the draw hasn't worked out kindly for FIFA, so there's nothing nefarious about it. I'm probably the only person who gives a shit.

[RobbieD]

3 hours ago, Donathan said:

The American sports leagues manage it with their playoffs every year.

American sports know exactly where they are going way in advance. Not 4 days notice. And away fans travelling for sports is not popular at all.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Why do they deserve at least the luck of the draw?

For the reason already given.

[Donathan]

7 hours ago, RobbieD said:

American sports know exactly where they are going way in advance. Not 4 days notice. And away fans travelling for sports is not popular at all.

Not remotely true at all. Read up on how the NFL playoffs work. They’re played on four consecutive weekends in January/February and in each case, the highest surviving seeds play at home to the lowest surviving seeds. 

[craigkillie]

For the reason already given.

But they weren't playing away from home in the first place through sheer bad luck, they were playing away from home because they didn't perform well enough in the first round to earn a seeding.

[G51]

24 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Not remotely true at all. Read up on how the NFL playoffs work. They’re played on four consecutive weekends in January/February and in each case, the highest surviving seeds play at home to the lowest surviving seeds. 

Plus the NFL regularly flexes games from Sunday to Saturday during the last few weeks of the season. It did so this week for a game taking place the week before Christmas.

[Monkey Tennis]

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

But they weren't playing away from home in the first place through sheer bad luck, they were playing away from home because they didn't perform well enough in the first round to earn a seeding.

Yes, for which they'd already been 'punished' by virtue of having to play the semi final away from home.  I don't see it as intrinsically fair to have that penalty enshrined for the duration of the play-offs.  I'm pretty sure there would also be no bleating about it on here were we unseeded.

As others have said, one off matches at non neutral venues feel a bit unfair anyway.  To require the unseeded side to definitely play away from home twice strikes me as harsher than is necessary.

Edited November 28, 2021 by Monkey Tennis

[immcinto]

Home advantage in final should have gone to the team with the better result in the semifinal

[Tartan Blood]

9 minutes ago, immcinto said:

Home advantage in final should have gone to the team with the better result in the semifinal

How on earth would you decide what is a "better" result? Goals scored? Away goals? 

Having that as an incentive could dramatically impact on a result. Say we were winning 1-0 in the 87th minute and we hear Wales are winning 2-1. Instead of doing the right thing and trying to protect our lead, we might go all out for another goal. By doing so, we leave ourselves exposed at the back and end up conceding a goal, that otherwise wouldn't have happened.

[Lurkst]

10 hours ago, Gordopolis said:

ETA: a better system - although logistically unfeasible - would be to let seeds who make it through to the final keep home advantage, unless they are drawn in the final Vs other seeds, in which case a blind draw would decide who is at home.

That's what I said (kind of  )

12 hours ago, Lurkst said:

Tend to agree, the final permutations should be:-

Wales v Scotland/Ukraine 

Scotland v Austria 

Austria v Ukraine 

If the play off finals have to be one leg then they should really be played at a neutral venue.

I noticed on FIFA's draw programme on Friday that the inter confederation play-off finals are one off games in Qatar, in June 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Lurkst

[Donathan]

14 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

That's what I said (kind of  )

If the play off finals have to be one leg then they should really be played at a neutral venue.

I noticed on FIFA's draw programme on Friday that the inter confederation play-off finals are one off games in Qatar, in June 

 

I've always felt they should scrap the whole playoffs thing and instead have a preliminary round of the world cup itself

[Lurkst]

23 minutes ago, Donathan said:

I've always felt they should scrap the whole playoffs thing and instead have a preliminary round of the world cup itself

That seems to be what FIFA are moving towards with the proposed 48 team World Cup next time.

I'm not a fan of it TBH, I think qualifying for a tournament should earn you the right to three group games. 

 

[Donathan]

17 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

That seems to be what FIFA are moving towards with the proposed 48 team World Cup next time.

I'm not a fan of it TBH, I think qualifying for a tournament should earn you the right to three group games. 

 

 

What I'd like to move to would still get you three games, and would reduce the "meaninglessness" of the 48 team group stage.

 

I'd have 24 automatic qualification slots and 16 spots in the preliminary round. You could apportion them as follows:

 

UEFA: 10 automatic qualifiers + 5 playoff spots

CONMEBOL: 3 + 3

CAF: 3 + 3

AFC: 3 + 2

CONCACAF: 3 + 2  

OFC: 1 + 1

Hosts: 1 + 0

 

Then, at the time of the world cup draw, you draw the 24 automatic qualifiers into 8 groups of 3 and you draw the 16 preliminary qualifiers into 4 groups of 4. The preliminary round would be played 7-10 days before the main tournament starts and the top two from each of the preliminary groups get a spot in the tournament proper.

[craigkillie]

That is ludicrously harsh on Africa, who should have more places, not less. It's miles stronger than North America or Asia, particularly in terms of depth.

Oceania definitely don't deserve an automatic spot either.

[Barry Ferguson's Hat]

The qualifiers are unfair in their current form and could easily be changed to something more entertaining and equitable:

The qualifiers should revolve around the opening of a set of numbered briefcases, each of which contains a different prize (cash or otherwise). The contents (i.e., the values) of all of the cases are known at the start of the game, but the specific location of any prize is unknown. The contestant claims (or is assigned) a case to begin the game. The case's value is not revealed until the conclusion of the game.

The contestant then begins choosing cases that are to be removed from play. The amount inside each chosen case is immediately revealed; by process of elimination, the amount revealed cannot be inside the case the contestant initially claimed (or was assigned). Throughout the game, after a pre-decided number of cases have been opened, the "Banker" offers the contestant an amount of money and/or prizes to quit the game; the offer is based roughly on the amounts remaining in play and the contestant's demeanor, so the bank tries to 'buy' the contestant's case for a lower price than what's inside the case. The player then answers the titular question, choosing:

"Deal", accepting the offer presented and ending the game, or
"No Deal", rejecting the offer and continuing the game.

This process of removing cases and receiving offers continues, until either the player accepts an offer to 'deal', or all offers have been rejected and the values of all unchosen cases are revealed. Should a player end the game by taking a deal, a pseudo-game is continued from that point to see how much the player could have won by remaining in the game. Depending on subsequent choices and offers, it is determined whether or not the contestant made a "good deal", i.e. won more than if the game were allowed to continue.

Since the range of possible values is known at the start of each game, how much the banker offers at any given point changes based on what values have been eliminated (i.e. the offer increases if lower values are eliminated and decreases if upper values are eliminated). To promote suspense and lengthen games, the banker's offer is usually less than the expected value dictated by probability theory, particularly early in the game.[1] Generally, the offers early in the game are very low relative to the values still in play, but near the end of the game approach (or even exceed) the average of the remaining values.

For a contestant to win the top prize the player would have to select the case containing the top prize and reject every offer the banker makes during the game. The chances of a player selecting the top prize are 4–5% depending on how many amounts are in the game.

[BFTD]

It's funny to look back at how World Cup placings used to be. in 1978, Europe had 10 slots, 3 for South America, and one each for Asia, North/Central America, and Africa. Basically the European Championships with a few guests.

Anyway, enough of this preliminary nonsense and let's just have a World Cup year - everyone in the world rocks up to Qatar in January and we play a league tournament. Last team not to die during the summer wins.

[Fuctifano]

Will clearly never happen for a multitude of reasons but all-in global qualifying groups would be amazing. 

[Lurkst]

2 hours ago, BFTD said:

It's funny to look back at how World Cup placings used to be. in 1978, Europe had 10 slots, 3 for South America, and one each for Asia, North/Central America, and Africa. Basically the European Championships with a few guests.

Europe had 8.5 slots back in the 70s, with a play off with a South American team for the last place.

For Argentina 78, Hungary hammered Bolivia in the play off, and West Germany qualified as holders bringing the total up to 10 teams from UEFA.