Russia 2018

[Galfon]

Bit of a ton-up for the books..

[rowan]

Kiss me if I'm wrong, but I think that might have been a record win for the opening game...

[Galfon]

Your demand is unreasonable, however..
It is the biggest opening game win, edging Brazil's 4 - 0 trouncing of Mexico in 1950.
The highest scoring game remains Germany's 4 - 2 win over Costa Rica in 2006.
Many of the others, before the various rule & ball changes, and array of player conditioning packages, were dire.

[rowan]

Actually, I took a quick peek at Wiki and discovered that in in 1934 the tournament commenced with 8 straight knock-out games involving 16 teams, all kicking off at exactly the same time. Among them was a 7-1 win for Brazil over the US. So that would rank as the biggest win in an opening game. 20 years later the tournament commenced with 4 games being played at exactly the same time, among them a 5-0 win for Brazil over Mexico, so that would be second-equal (tied today). But today's result is a record for the opening game, in the singular.

[Galfon]

You would be wrong with that interpretation of 'Opening game', but Colonel Nitpick might be impressed.
All good for the hosts thus far - lets see if the Ultras stay in the woods when the genteel Ingerland beeryguts roll up.

[rowan]

I hope they give the beeryguts a good kicking - again

[rowan]

3 evenly poised games on today. The highlight will be the Iberian derby between Spain & Portugal at 9, obviously, but Egypt v Uruguay should also be a cracker, while Morocco v Iran could easily go either way. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a couple of draws, but I hope Egypt beats Uruguay!

[Galfon]

Spain looking good - Costa a real threat.
Ronaldo, despite his mercurial talent is such a poser.

[Galfon]

Well you can be when you are..phenomenal free kick.
3-3 ..51st hat-trick for mr R.

[rowan]

Indeed. Ronaldo is a phenomenon. Portugal could go a long way in this tournament, perhaps all the way to the final. Spain, too, of course, but I think they were probably happy to settle for the draw in the end. I said there would be three even games today, but that wasn't quite the case with Uruguay - Egypt, where Salah's absence tipped the scales firmly in the South American's favor. They should've won by a couple more. Meanwhile, injury time heartbreak for the Moroccans, who certainly aren't going to progress beyond the group stages now, but Iran can keep on dreaming. Can't see how they'll upset either Spain or Portugal though.

[rowan]

France, Argentina, Croatia and Denmark in action tomorrow against Australia, Iceland, Nigeria and Peru, respectively. Hopefully we'll see an upset. Could it be the Super Eagles?

[cashead]

Actually, I took a quick peek at Wiki and discovered that in in 1934 the tournament commenced with 8 straight knock-out games involving 16 teams, all kicking off at exactly the same time. Among them was a 7-1 win for Brazil over the US. So that would rank as the biggest win in an opening game. 20 years later the tournament commenced with 4 games being played at exactly the same time, among them a 5-0 win for Brazil over Mexico, so that would be second-equal (tied today). But today's result is a record for the opening game, in the singular.

That "straight into the knock-outs" was retained until 1950 (so only 2 further tournaments, both won by Italy by the way, before it was all interrupted by WWII breaking out and being a bit of an inconvenience for everyone). 1950 was full on fuck-tarded, with one giant round-robin, so the "final" between the champions Uruguay and runners-up Brazil was actually the decisive game of the tournament. Brazil needed to win, Uruguay only needed a draw.
1954 is where FIFA finally settled on a sensical format of group stages and knock-outs. FIFA still felt the need to stick their dick into proceedings though with 1974~1982 featuring a secondary group stage, 86~94 offering life-lines to 3rd placed teams in the groups that would allow them to progress based on competition points (which benefited Argentina in 1990 and Italy in 1994, as both teams would make it to the finals, ending up as runners-up). FIFA only returned to the "top two teams in each group progresses" in 1998. It's simple, and makes sense, without any need for further calculations.

[rowan]

Actually, I took a quick peek at Wiki and discovered that in in 1934 the tournament commenced with 8 straight knock-out games involving 16 teams, all kicking off at exactly the same time. Among them was a 7-1 win for Brazil over the US. So that would rank as the biggest win in an opening game. 20 years later the tournament commenced with 4 games being played at exactly the same time, among them a 5-0 win for Brazil over Mexico, so that would be second-equal (tied today). But today's result is a record for the opening game, in the singular.

That "straight into the knock-outs" was retained until 1950 (so only 2 further tournaments, both won by Italy by the way, before it was all interrupted by WWII breaking out and being a bit of an inconvenience for everyone). 1950 was full on fuck-tarded, with one giant round-robin, so the "final" between the champions Uruguay and runners-up Brazil was actually the decisive game of the tournament. Brazil needed to win, Uruguay only needed a draw.
1954 is where FIFA finally settled on a sensical format of group stages and knock-outs. FIFA still felt the need to stick their dick into proceedings though with 1974~1982 featuring a secondary group stage, 86~94 offering life-lines to 3rd placed teams in the groups that would allow them to progress based on competition points (which benefited Argentina in 1990 and Italy in 1994, as both teams would make it to the finals, ending up as runners-up). FIFA only returned to the "top two teams in each group progresses" in 1998. It's simple, and makes sense, without any need for further calculations.

It certainly took them a while to find the right formula. But it's easy to be the hindsight expert. As rugby fans, we're just lucky that football has already blazed the trail for us, so that our administrators can learn from their successes and mistakes. 32 teams leading to the second round knockouts seems like a winning formula, so why they've decided to move on to 48 so quickly - with a drastically changed group stage, apparently - is beyond me. But that's the thing about football. They've always been willing to try new things. Rugby is basically just the same tournament with the same format and mostly the same teams every four years, with only the results providing any variation - & not a hell of a lot at that

[cashead]

Actually, I took a quick peek at Wiki and discovered that in in 1934 the tournament commenced with 8 straight knock-out games involving 16 teams, all kicking off at exactly the same time. Among them was a 7-1 win for Brazil over the US. So that would rank as the biggest win in an opening game. 20 years later the tournament commenced with 4 games being played at exactly the same time, among them a 5-0 win for Brazil over Mexico, so that would be second-equal (tied today). But today's result is a record for the opening game, in the singular.

That "straight into the knock-outs" was retained until 1950 (so only 2 further tournaments, both won by Italy by the way, before it was all interrupted by WWII breaking out and being a bit of an inconvenience for everyone). 1950 was full on fuck-tarded, with one giant round-robin, so the "final" between the champions Uruguay and runners-up Brazil was actually the decisive game of the tournament. Brazil needed to win, Uruguay only needed a draw.
1954 is where FIFA finally settled on a sensical format of group stages and knock-outs. FIFA still felt the need to stick their dick into proceedings though with 1974~1982 featuring a secondary group stage, 86~94 offering life-lines to 3rd placed teams in the groups that would allow them to progress based on competition points (which benefited Argentina in 1990 and Italy in 1994, as both teams would make it to the finals, ending up as runners-up). FIFA only returned to the "top two teams in each group progresses" in 1998. It's simple, and makes sense, without any need for further calculations.

It certainly took them a while to find the right formula. But it's easy to be the hindsight expert. As rugby fans, we're just lucky that football has already blazed the trail for us, so that our administrators can learn from their successes and mistakes. 32 teams leading to the second round knockouts seems like a winning formula, so why they've decided to move on to 48 so quickly - with a drastically changed group stage, apparently - is beyond me. But that's the thing about football. They've always been willing to try new things. Rugby is basically just the same tournament with the same format and mostly the same teams every four years, with only the results providing any variation - & not a hell of a lot at that

I have absolutely no problem with increasing the number of teams. 48 may be a bit much, but there is a clear imbalance in the pathway for teams depending on where they happen to be. The OFC qualification route, for example, seems like it's geared against any Oceanian teams qualifying, and it's no coincidence that Australia only started getting regular time at the tournament when they switched to the AFC, and that literal decades pass between having an OFC representative at the event.

Consistent exposure at the World Cup has substantially benefited the Asian Big 3 of South Korea, Japan and Australia as a result, such as a viable and robust domestic league (K-League, J-League, A-League) as well as an increase in Korean, Japanese and Aussie players plying their trade in Europe. Look at the 1998 Japan squad - all 22 players were in the J-League. 20 years on, only 7 of the 23 play in Japan, with an equal number playing in the Bundesliga - the remainder playing in the Lige 1, La Liga, Premier League, and 1 each from the Turkish Super Lig and Liga MX.

If an increase to 48 teams means a more equitable qualification route for the "lesser" regions like CAF, CONCACAF and OFC, allowing for more consistent exposure to the higher level domestic leagues for the players, then that's a small price to pay, if it even is one.

[rowan]

I guess so, provided those teams do some from Asia and Africa. It would be absurd to increase Europe's representation much further, while South America already has half its nation's qualify. Of course, the qualification process itself is updated for every tournament, and while it is generally tough for Oceania due to the sheer quantity of matches they have to play (not the quality, apart from the inter-continental playoff(s)), they sure got a break in 2010 with direct qualification after the Germans had bribed the Scotsman Charlie Dempsey to go against the wishes of his Oceania organization on the hosting rights for 2006 and hand the pivotal vote to Germany ahead of SA.

[twitchy]

That spain v portugal game was incredible. Total box office. Ronaldo is a god amongst men. Imagine being that good at 33 it defies belief.

[rowan]

That spain v portugal game was incredible. Total box office. Ronaldo is a god amongst men. Imagine being that good at 33 it defies belief.

There were more goals in that game (6) than the 9 non-European teams to have played so far have produced collectively (4). I must say that Argentina really should have had at least a couple more penalties tho. Why this was the one game where the ref decided to ignore the video replay technology (used to help France beat Aussie), I really don't know. But it's not surprising the European teams are dominating. That's been the case at the last few World Cups and, again, they're playing pretty close to home. Hopefully Brazil hits the ground running, and either Mexico or Costa Rica spring a surprise today...

[Galfon]

Sombreros 1 Lederhosen 0 at HT but could have been more. Looks like the flying-tiddler secret has been bought from Spain but no shortage of skill and desire to be fair.
Upset on the cards but 'you can never write off the G...'

[rowan]

Yes, Mexicans full value for their lead. Both teams creating plenty of chances and defending well, but for my money the difference has been the Mexican keeper, who has saved some thunderous shots.

FT Mexico 1 Krauts 0

[rowan]

3 of the big guns fail to impress in their first hit-out: Brazil, Germany and Argentina. The 12 non-European teams have now accounted for a combined six goals, or half a goal a match. Mexico's win and the Iberian thriller have been the highlights for me so far. But football really is 90% tedium and disappointment. So I'll be happy to return to the office tomorrow and see the results in the headlines.

[Galfon]

Grand jamboree it may be the WC is that in name only
( Wino ) given the relative merits of many European teams that don't reach the final stages.
The Euros are much tougher from first to last.
I don't know why the top dozen or so nations in the world don't buddy up and form an elite league, vying for the global title annually...they could just sack the FIFA / UEFA
malarkies.
Spain have been tops for me so far - forgot how many top players were still together in the national team.

[rowan]

Grand jamboree it may be the WC is that in name only
( Wino ) given the relative merits of many European teams that don't reach the final stages.
The Euros are much tougher from first to last.
I don't know why the top dozen or so nations in the world don't buddy up and form an elite league, vying for the global title annually...they could just sack the FIFA / UEFA
malarkies.
Spain have been tops for me so far - forgot how many top players were still together in the national team.

Yes, the Euros are tougher than the WC in the same way The Rugby Championship is tougher than the RWC, but the WC & RWCs are necessary to give the rest a chance. Elsewhere it's been suggested that expansion to 48 is necessary to give more African and Asian teams a chance - and withal regular exposure to the highest level of opposition. Personally I would've stuck with 32 for a few more tournaments.

Still very early, and if I cast my mind back to previous tournaments I find that opening games rarely if ever provided an accurate indicator to what was to come at the business end of the tournament. Those who start with a bang in the group stages often fizzle out early in the knock-out rounds. But it would certainly be fair to say Spain and Portugal have set the benchmark so far, while Russia, Serbia and Croatia are also on top of their game. & how about Mexico, the tournament's perennial underachievers? Could this be their year?

[rowan]

Swedes beat Korea 1-0. Predictably enough. Is this the lowest scoring start to a World Cup ever??

Belgium should beat Panama by 2 or 3 next up, and then it's England in the late game against Tunisia, which the Poms should come through with a win.

[Galfon]

Eng. 1 up with early tap in from Kane.
Need more goals, The Tuna's look quite fleet of foot, and rattling ankles a bit...Lingards just missed a sitter.
Eng will get lots of chances.

[Galfon]

That's why it's called 'Wendyball'..hilarious.
1-1 pen after 35 min.