World Cup 2018

[Gordon]

Bleedin' 'ell! We couldn't even win the third-place play-off!

Never mind that: love the new name!

[SteveH]

Never mind that: love the new name!

Good! I wanted to use  Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle- dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz- ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer- spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein- nurnburger-bratwustle-gernspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut- gumberaber-shonedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm, but that was too long even if I used the signature as well.

[Gordon]

Good! I wanted to use  Johann Gambolputty de von Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-crasscrenbon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle- dongle-dungle-burstein-von-knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz- ticolensic-grander-knotty-spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer- spelterwasser-kurstlich-himbleeisen-bahnwagen-gutenabend-bitte-ein- nurnburger-bratwustle-gernspurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut- gumberaber-shonedanker-kalbsfleisch-mittler-aucher von Hautkopft of Ulm, but that was too long even if I used the signature as well.

I thought that was an opera by Mozart.

[SteveH]

https://youtu.be/Dzn0tIy3dzM

[ad_orientem]

Bleedin' 'ell! We couldn't even win the third-place play-off!

They looked jaded and I don't think anyone wanted to risk getting injured just for a third place play-off four weeks before the start of the Premier League season.

[Gordon]

https://youtu.be/Dzn0tIy3dzM

I don't recall ever seeing that one: I have now though!

[jeremyp]

Bleedin' 'ell! We couldn't even win the third-place play-off!

Who cares?

I don't know why they even bother. Well, I do, it's to bring in more money, but nobody cares who came third.

[Rhiannon]

Just reading about how this will be the last WC as we know it. The next one will be in winter and the one after will be much larger and with more poor standard teams, so the knockout stages will take longer to come around and there will be quite some wait before the big teams g=finally meet. And it won't be hosted by one nation but three - the US, Canada and Mexico, which will remove that feel of a 'host nation' that is so important. Although I guess you could argue that the joint effort of those three countries working together in any capacity is an achievement at present.

[ProfessorDavey]

On viewing figures, the reports are that 26.5M watched last night - not sure whether that includes those watching on streaming services or just traditional tv. Certainly doesn't include all those watching on big screens in public spaces or pubs etc.

The figures have been revised.

26.6M watching at home on traditional tv
Plus an additional 4.3M watching on ITVs streaming service making a total of 30.9M

And that doesn't include anyone watching in public places, whether in pubs or big public outdoor screening.

This means it is the 3rd most watch event (or tv programme) ever, after the 1966 world cup final and Princess Diana funeral and the highest ever on a single channel.

[SteveH]

It won't be hosted by one nation but three - the US, Canada and Mexico...

None of which are major football nations*, but probably more so than Quatar.

*Unless Mexico is - I don't really follow the game.

[jeremyp]

None of which are major football nations*, but probably more so than Quatar.

*Unless Mexico is - I don't really follow the game.

Mexico was in this World Cup and has hosted it on its own. The infamous Hand of God incident was in Mexico.

[Rhiannon]

Mexico was in this World Cup and has hosted it on its own. The infamous Hand of God incident was in Mexico.

And the USA have played in the World Cup on numerous occasions (even beating England once); it was unusual for them not to qualify. They also hosted it in 1994.

[jeremyp]

They also hosted it in 1994.

When England failed to qualify.

[Rhiannon]

When England failed to qualify.

And Diana Ross scored a penalty.

Or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mexico was in this World Cup and has hosted it on its own. The infamous Hand of God incident was in Mexico.

Mexico have hosted the World Cup twice already, in 1970 and 1986.

[SteveH]

And the USA have played in the World Cup on numerous occasions (even beating England once); it was unusual for them not to qualify. They also hosted it in 1994.

Doubtless, but they're still not a major footballing nation. The USA excells at sports that no-one else plays: American "football", baseball, and basketball.

[Nearly Sane]

Doubtless, but they're still not a major footballing nation. The USA excells at sports that no-one else plays: American "football", baseball, and basketball.

There are very few major footballing nations in that sense, certainly less than 10 and all would be in either Sth America or Europe. Football while still not not huge in the US is simply because of the size and diversity something important to many many millions. Combined with Mexico for which football is huge and generally both qualify and get out of the group stage, you have a huge audience. If you want to expand it as a global brand you cannot just play it on 2 continents

The other thing is that it will be the first world cup of 48 teams, and very few countries will manage that easily on their own. And yes, even with the expansion I doubt Scotland will qualify at the moment.


Qatar is a farce.

[jeremyp]

Doubtless, but they're still not a major footballing nation. The USA excells at sports that no-one else plays: American "football", baseball, and basketball.

The USA women's team seems to be one of the best in the World judging from their results.

What is the definition of "major footballing nation"?

[ad_orientem]

The USA women's team seems to be one of the best in the World judging from their results.

What is the definition of "major footballing nation"?

Size of fan base and success at senior mens level.

[jeremyp]

Size of fan base and success at senior mens level.

Why the senior men’s level?

anyway, sidestepping the sexism on the grounds that the fan base is usually much bigger for the men’s game, could you put some figures on your criteria please. How big does the fan base have to be? How successful does the team have to be? Is Italy a major footballing nation given that its team is so unsuccessful it failed to qualify for the World Cup?

[ad_orientem]

Why the senior men’s level?

anyway, sidestepping the sexism on the grounds that the fan base is usually much bigger for the men’s game, could you put some figures on your criteria please. How big does the fan base have to be? How successful does the team have to be? Is Italy a major footballing nation given that its team is so unsuccessful it failed to qualify for the World Cup?

Womens football has less money and less fans because it's basically crap. Same with hockey, except perhaps in Canada. Same can be said of U23's which is just kids football.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why the senior men’s level?

I guess because we are discussing the men’s world cup, not the women's.

How successful does the team have to be? Is Italy a major footballing nation given that its team is so unsuccessful it failed to qualify for the World Cup?

Sure even the most successful of nations have blips. So we aren't talking about a snap-shot of success, but over a long period. In which case Italy certainly qualify as a major footballing nation.

[jeremyp]

I guess because we are discussing the men’s world cup, not the women's.

This is in the context of defining a "major footballing nation".

Sure even the most successful of nations have blips. So we aren't talking about a snap-shot of success, but over a long period. In which case Italy certainly qualify as a major footballing nation.

How long a period? How successful? I feel that, if we are going to be categorising nations by how footballing they are, we need some solid empirical rules, especially if that is a criterion for judging whether they deserve to host the World Cup or not.

[ProfessorDavey]

This is in the context of defining a "major footballing nation".

The starting point of which was discussion over which countries should be able to host the men’s world cup, with Genial Harry Grout asking whether any of the 2026 hosts were major footballing nations.

How long a period? How successful? I feel that, if we are going to be categorising nations by how footballing they are, we need some solid empirical rules, especially if that is a criterion for judging whether they deserve to host the World Cup or not.

I never made any claim that only 'major footballing nations' should be able to host the world cup. My claim was that Italy are a 'major footballing nation', regardless of the fact that they failed to qualify for the 2018 world cup.

[jeremyp]

I never made any claim that only 'major footballing nations' should be able to host the world cup.

I don’t believe I ever claimed you did.

My claim was that Italy are a 'major footballing nation', regardless of the fact that they failed to qualify for the 2018 world cup.

Do you agree with ad’s criteria of size of fan base and success at the senior men’s level? If so, I’d like to see some proper quantification so we can objectively decide who is a major footballing nation.