Soccer really sucks, doesn't it?

[Drake Tungsten]

First, let's take a look at the last place teams in the group phase:

Europe: 3 (23%) --> 2 of which were arrogant "top teams" whose worst enemies are they themselves.
Africa: 3 (50%)
Asia: 1 (25%)
North America 1 (33%)

Exactly. Giving Europe 3 less spots wouldn't have made a bit of difference to the results of the World Cup, but it would've given teams from other regions a better chance of making what's supposed to be a global tournament.

It's really easy to come up with a fair distribution of World Cup spots. Observe...

Europe - 10
Africa - 5
Asia - 5
South America - 5
CONCACAF + Oceania/Australia - 5
Host nation/defending champion - 1 each

If you want to make Africa/Asia compete for 10 spots and CONCACAF/South America/Oceania also compete for 10, that's cool too and probably for the better (travel concerns aside). Either way, Europe still gets twice as many spots as any other continent and the World Cup becomes a real global tournament.

[Dauphin]

Talking of things that won't happen. Make it 64 teams. 16 groups of four, top team goes through to knockout phase.

[Cort Haus]

Maybe we should make it 256 teams, so we can stop this qualifying nonsense altogether.

If there aren't that many countries in the world yet we can give spots to separatists like Catalonia, Basqueland, the two Belgiums, Republica Srpska and Texas.

[Drake Tungsten]

Talking of things that won't happen. Make it 64 teams. 16 groups of four, top team goes through to knockout phase.

How many total matches would that work out to?

[duke o' york]

Dauphin's plan works out at 112 games, as opposed to the current 64. But it's more football!

[Drake Tungsten]

The World Cup is already too long. Going back to 24 teams might be a better idea.

[duke o' york]

You are clearly a complete n00b to the evil machinations of Sepp Bellend Blatter.

[Dauphin]

Maybe we should make it 256 teams, so we can stop this qualifying nonsense altogether.

Sensible Soccer never allowed it (64 max), so neither should FIFA

[Dauphin]

Dauphin's plan works out at 112 games, as opposed to the current 64. But it's more football!

More importantly, no team would have to play any additional games under the revised format.

[germanos]

I really hope that was cut and pasted.

If not, you're wasting yourself on this thread.

The topic has been raised so often that I decided to write it up. Apart from that, I could use some practice in writing things up.

this was the most informative post I read here in years

Mission accomplished

[siron]

Awkward enough, Germans are nowhere abroad to be referenced to as anything close to 'Deutsch' (as they call themselves), but rather 'German' or 'Allemagne'.

That's BS. As mentioned earlier: 'Deutsch' has it roots in 'Theodiscus' and let me just quote wiki:

...and the word for "German" in many European languages including German deutsch, Dutch Duits, Yiddish daytsh, Danish tysk, Norwegian tysk, Swedish tyska , Spanish tudesco and Italian tedesco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodiscus

The Englishmen just figured that coasters between Amsterdam and Danzig spoke more or less the same language.

[germanos]

That's BS.

I stand corrected, your honour.

[Robert]

Now my vacation has finished and I'm home again, I had the opportunity to look at it all again in detail.

I must admit:
- The corner fail is a referee fail, but did not affect the Spanish goal because Holland intercepted the ball in between. Can't blame the goal on the missing corner.

- Iniesta was indeed not offside (neither the first time, nor the 2nd time he got the ball) (first time the ball was intercepted, which doesn't matter)

conclusion: the Spanish goal was legal.

I maintain the position that Holland should have gotten a penalty. (Robben)
But Holland was lucky when Nigel de Jong got only a yellow card instead of a red one. Bottom line: The referee made big mistakes (corner, yellow card, penalty) and he destroyed the game. But this did not disadvantage Holland more then Spain.

[Al B. Sure!]

Thanks germanos. Here's some more info:

The origins of the word Dutch go back to Proto-Germanic, the ancestor of all Germanic languages, *þeudiskaz (meaning "national/popular"); a cognate of Old Dutch diets, Old High German duitsch, Old English þeodisc and Gothic þiuda all meaning "(of) the common (Germanic) people". As the tribes among the Germanic peoples began to differentiate, its meaning began to change. The Anglo-Saxons of England for example gradually stopped referring to themselves as þeodisc and instead started to use Englisc, after their tribe. On the continent *theudo evolved into two meanings: Diets (meaning "Dutch (people)" [9]) and Deutsch (German, meaning "German (people)"). At first the English language used (the contemporary form of) Dutch to refer to any or all of the Germanic speakers on the European mainland (e.g. the Dutch, the Flemings and the Germans). For example, in Gulliver's Travels, German is called "High Dutch", whereas what we call Dutch today is called "Low Dutch". Gradually its meaning shifted to the Germanic people they had most contact with, both because their geographical proximity, but also because of the rivalry in trade and overseas territories: the people from the Dutch Republic, the Dutch.[10]

Also, what siron pointed out also explains "Teutons" and "Teutonic" as being references to Germans derived from a Latinized version of Deutsche

What's also interesting is that this idea that to the English Dutch and Deutsche were the same is repeated here in the US, in my home state of Pennsylvania where we have "Pennsylvania Dutch" who were actually Germans who immigrated here in the late 17th century.

[MikeH]

The Dutch destroyed the game with the way they played. The refereeing team did as well as he could to keep up with the constant stream of fouling.