The Better Team wins???
Today I was in the middle of a conversation with some buddies on how the world cup is run. And how it favors upsets over any other soccer tournament. For example the arguement was would it be better to run it like the Champions League setup be better. Meaning after the group stage you would play 2 games(home/away in champions league…And the arguement was that the better teams usually move on and eventually win..(obviously its not full proof nothing is) My arguement was that the 1 game in the world cup was better because than any team can “upset” for that 1 moment in time which makes soccer so great..But i understood where my “opponents” were coming from saying the better usually prevails in a 2 game setup saying that than you can see who truly is the BEST in the world with less “flukes”.
I just thought it would be interesting to throw it out there to hear other peoples ideas..
What do you think???Would it favor top teams like Brazil, Argentina, England,etc…(u kno who the powers of soccer are)..Would it be unfair to the smaller countries??(who are kind of mysterious)
-
http://lol.com lol
-
JP
-
argiebargie
-
Debasish Dutta Roy
-
http://B619A Pugnate
-
http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-cup-2006/the-blog-goes-on-0328.html The Blog Goes on 03.28 – FIFA World Cup 2006 – World Cup 2006 Blog
-
http://www.viuasfotos.com/euler.htm Euler
-
Kris
-
http://B619A Pugnate
-
JP
-
Bidinho
-
http://www.originalrudeboy.com/ Tomislav Chagall
-
http://dfdf thagermany
-
http://dfdf sack

World










