Liverpool FC Forum

by **Number 9** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:31 am

Before I start...feck all to do with Ireland,they lost my chant when Bono started gtiving out!

Look at the world cup...Spain cannot meet Argentina...England cannot meet Italy,Germany cannot meet Brazil?

Surely it would be better to just throw in 8 pots of balls and see what comes of it?

by **shanklygates** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:34 am

england wont get very far anyway so it doesnt matter who we get to play

by **Number 9** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:36 am

shanklygates wrote:england wont get very far anyway so it doesnt matter who we get to play

quarters at least because of seeding....absolute joke

by **Big Niall** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:56 pm

you need seeding as if the best teams get knocked out early then it is bad for the tournament.

Imagine Brazil/Argentina/Germany/Italy in the one group. Okay it'd be a great group but to be guarnteed that two of them wouldn't be in the last 16 would be a disaster.

Different if they get beaten fairly.

by **Number 9** » Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:57 pm

Big Niall wrote:you need seeding as if the best teams get knocked out early then it is bad for the tournament.

Imagine Brazil/Argentina/Germany/Italy in the one group. Okay it'd be a great group but to be guarnteed that two of them wouldn't be in the last 16 would be a disaster.

Different if they get beaten fairly.

Bono knows

by **JoeTerp** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:34 am

If the yanks got to run the show, we would seed the whole thing from 1-32

I don't see how there could be an argument against seeding. Maybe I could understand wanting seeding to be done on a different criteria

by **Yossi_Benaloon** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:09 pm

I think seeding is necessary, but there are always going to be some sides which see is as an injustice, and this time it seems to be France if you read this

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:16 pm

Besides the seeding only guarantees the top 8 don't meet in the group stages, from there on it is a ladder system.

by **Ben Patrick** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:19 pm

I dont necessarily thing that seeding is definately required.
We seem to do ok with our FA cup without it being seeded.
Yes some of the top teams might go out earlier than usual do to this but thats football.

I dont think it would be the end of the world if countries that are weaker got lucky draws and managed to get to the latter stages.
Might make it a bit more interesting.

But obviously FIFA for revenue would prefer to have the larger better supported and more marketable nations in the final stages.

by **SupitsJonF** » Mon Dec 07, 2009 11:15 pm

Seed countries 1-64, and have one knockout tournament. Screw the groups

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:20 am

SupitsJonF wrote:Seed countries 1-64, and have one knockout tournament. Screw the groups

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:31 am

Ben Patrick wrote:I dont necessarily thing that seeding is definately required.
We seem to do ok with our FA cup without it being seeded.
Yes some of the top teams might go out earlier than usual do to this but thats football.

I dont think it would be the end of the world if countries that are weaker got lucky draws and managed to get to the latter stages.
Might make it a bit more interesting.

But obviously FIFA for revenue would prefer to have the larger better supported and more marketable nations in the final stages.

Difference is the FA Cup is every year not every four, it makes a significant difference. But primarily watching the bigger sides with the best players produces the invariably the best viewing experience. I don't want to be watching a Greece v Mexico world cup final if I can help it.

by **JoeTerp** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:37 am

THe only way that a Greece vs. Mexico final would be worth watching would be if both of them had to beat sides like SPain, Brazil, France, and Argentina on the way to the final, thus earning their spot.

by **Ben Patrick** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:04 pm

SouthCoastShankly wrote:
Ben Patrick wrote:I dont necessarily thing that seeding is definately required.
We seem to do ok with our FA cup without it being seeded.
Yes some of the top teams might go out earlier than usual do to this but thats football.

I dont think it would be the end of the world if countries that are weaker got lucky draws and managed to get to the latter stages.
Might make it a bit more interesting.

But obviously FIFA for revenue would prefer to have the larger better supported and more marketable nations in the final stages.

Difference is the FA Cup is every year not every four, it makes a significant difference. But primarily watching the bigger sides with the best players produces the invariably the best viewing experience. I don't want to be watching a Greece v Mexico world cup final if I can help it.

Come on mate thats not at all likely.

I see what your saying about the every 4 years comment but at the end of the day if you want to win the world cup, you should beat whoever is put in front of you.

For your game to come true one or both of those countries would have to knock out a top nation anyway at some point.

I am not saying definately change it, just that it wouldnt be such a bad thing if the odd team got a decent draw and made the latter stages.
Like championship clubs getting to the FA cup semis and even the final the odd time.

I can see arguments for both sides to be honest.

But we would never see a Greece Mexico final if the seedings where scrapped.

by **Owzat** » Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:37 pm

Seeding and region protection meant there was little prospect of big sides going out too early. I can see where #9 is coming from, all teams should be equal and a lot of the qualifiers already have seedings to get sides there in the first place. Why not 'luck of the draw'? Worst case scenario you get Brazil, Italy, Spain and Argentina in the same group and you are guaranteed two go through.

To be honest the draw was a bit of a damp squib, the claims of "groups of death" etc make me laugh with African teams like Ghana and Ivory Coast referred to as if they were as good as Brazil or something. Groups with one of Portugal, France or Serbia were bound to be over-hyped as tough, unless they happened to drop into farce seeded South Africa's group.

Here's a better idea, why not seed the groups according to their qualifying record? If Ivory Coast did better (as a percentage of wins say) than Brazil, why not seed them among the top seeds?

Have Oirland given up the ghost? They're not pushing it through civil courts or anything are they and just keeping it quiet? (for a change)

Liverpool FC Forum

Is seeding fair? - I dont think so

Who is online