That's the price you pay. You can't call it a World Cup if you exclude parts of the world from participating. It's like the Americans calling their baseball tournament 'The World Series'.Ivory Coast
Burkina Faso
Uganda
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Zambia
Syria
Uzbekistan
United Arab Emirates
Honduras
United States of America
Trinidad & Tobago
New Zealand
Chile
Paraguay
Italy
Northern Ireland
These are the additional sides who'd have likely made it to this tournament had it been in the new format. I don't think that would exactly help it as a spectacle.
Golovin is good, rumored to be off to Juve. The kind of player we should be looking for in midfield.
There'll be a very real price to pay for FIFA too as I can't see the viewing figures for that lot being great. I think the existing 32 team format is far better than that.That's the price you pay. You can't call it a World Cup if you exclude parts of the world from participating. It's like the Americans calling their baseball tournament 'The World Series'.
On that score, I agree. For me, the 32 team format works well. I disagree with the expansion idea, but agree with setting Europe's slots at 16 (thanks for the info, btw).There'll be a very real price to pay for FIFA too as I can't see the viewing figures for that lot being great. I think the existing 32 team format is far better than that.
Golovin is good, rumored to be off to Juve. The kind of player we should be looking for in midfield.
Pretty harmless comment, no? I'm not saying we should go all out for him and have to have him.And so it begins.
The two Cheryshev goals were class. The freekick... Well, the guy on the end of the wall is a bit of a wimp and how does the keeper get beaten from there by a right footer.
Far too easy and not a great quality spectacle, but five goals isn't a bad start to the tournament.
Not sure exactly how you could figure that.Golovin ain't half as good as Grealish, who you despise
Pretty harmless comment, no? I'm not saying we should go all out for him and have to have him.