⚽ FIFA World Cup 2022: Tournament Discussion Thread for Qatar 2022

[laurenB7742]

Still we have four months to go for the main tournament, and given how unpredictable these matches have been in the past editions, I don't want to proceed any further with this debate. At this point, I agree with the odds being provided by the sportsbooks. They have Brazil as the favorites and most of us have the same opinion as well. My personal preference is for Argentina, but they seems to be overdependent on Messi. I want the final match to be played between these two teams. Let's see whether it happens or not.

Four months will run as if like two days. Already majority of the tickets for the World Cup matches were sold. By now 1.8million match tickets were sold in two batches. The next set of sale is goin on and it is expected to close by the end of August. Most of them have made Brazil to be the favourite, but I have a different opinion on some small teams making big wins same as that we experienced in the qualifiers.

Brazil seems to be the favorite team, at the same time Belgium is not a weak team. However, the Brazilian team has a lot of young star players. Brazil has talented strikers like Neymar, Raphinha, Jesus and Vinicius. On the other hand, Argentina's forwards seem to be a bit weak without Di Maria and Aguero. However, they will not depend only on Messi. Lautaro Martinez is a good enough player. Argentina's chances of becoming champions are not low.

[JollyGood]

The current Belgium team reminds me of the golden generation England team - both failed to live up to expectations.

That England team had fantastic players consisting of Ashley Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Gary Neville, Lampard, Gerarrd, Scholes, Owen and a little later Rooney.... on top of all that they had captain Beckham too but as a team the furthest they progressed in a tournament was the quarter-finals. The managers had to be blamed for not bringing the best out of them since the midfield could not accommodate Gerrard and Lampard successfully and Scholes was not happy too. Beckham fitted in seamlessly on the right wing but Scholes ended up retiring from international football because he was being played out of position.

Belgium have so much talent at their disposal too but they were knocked out by by eventual winners Italy in the quarter-finals in the delayed Euro 2020 tournament. I think the Qatar 2022 tournament will be their last attempt at making an impact with their present golden generation of players because they might not be able to leave a mark in next European Cup or World Cup with an ageing squad.

Brazil seems to be the favorite team, at the same time Belgium is not a weak team. However, the Brazilian team has a lot of young star players. Brazil has talented strikers like Neymar, Raphinha, Jesus and Vinicius. On the other hand, Argentina's forwards seem to be a bit weak without Di Maria and Aguero. However, they will not depend only on Messi. Lautaro Martinez is a good enough player. Argentina's chances of becoming champions are not low.

[kamvreto]

Talking further about the Qatar 2022 World Cup, of course the technology used for world football events must be really the latest and sophisticated and can help make the match better and more sporty.

FIFA has finally announced about semi-automatic Offside technology, This technology is expected to be a support tool for referees and match officials on the field and in the Video Assistant Referee (VAR) control room to help make decisions on offsides quickly and more accurately.
Sensors are mounted on the ball used for the match and will be connected to the semi-automatic Offside technology.

Similar technology was also used at the 2018 Russia world cup and of course this technology continues to be developed and is more sophisticated than before.
Previously also tested the 2022 FIFA Arab Cub tournament and 2021 FIFA Club World Cup

~snip~

Oh man, to be honest I think all these new technologies applied to football are not doing anything positive to it in my view. Making everything more robotic like doesn't make the sport more attractive, it lessens the experience.
~snip~

if you only look at the negative impact, of course it's not fair. The positive impact of using advanced technology in sporting events will further help the game run more fairly. We also have to be aware, in the modern era like today, technological developments are growing rapidly, so that every sport or whatever follows the existing technology. more like a robot, I don't think so. Sports are still played by humans and the use of technology is only to support the game.

~snip~
After that VAR came along and after many bumps in the road it still is not a perfect piece of advancement yet as there have been many dubious decisions that were taken and still do even though several years have passed. I hope the latest technology to enter the game at a crucial tournament (such as a world cup) does not become a hindrance which damages the enjoyment factor fans expect.

Of course, VAR technology or other technology adapts to the match, so it will not reduce the enjoyment of watching the match. goal line technology, VAR and others are certainly a positive value, some like this technology, some don't like it because they think it's like a robot.

[nullama]

~snip~
if you only look at the negative impact, of course it's not fair. The positive impact of using advanced technology in sporting events will further help the game run more fairly. We also have to be aware, in the modern era like today, technological developments are growing rapidly, so that every sport or whatever follows the existing technology. more like a robot, I don't think so. Sports are still played by humans and the use of technology is only to support the game.

Yeah, but can you really stop every play and review it on the computer?, not really.

So that means you trust the human interaction in the game with the players and the referee involved. Sometimes maybe something was wrong but everyone continued to play, and that's fine.

Should we need to check every single interaction of the ball with a computer?.

I rather not.

And if so, like in tennis, do we want to have a maximum amount of "challenges"? I mean, I would much rather have a normal human football interaction rather than bringing in any of this technology

[RealMalatesta]

~snip~
if you only look at the negative impact, of course it's not fair. The positive impact of using advanced technology in sporting events will further help the game run more fairly. We also have to be aware, in the modern era like today, technological developments are growing rapidly, so that every sport or whatever follows the existing technology. more like a robot, I don't think so. Sports are still played by humans and the use of technology is only to support the game.

Yeah, but can you really stop every play and review it on the computer?, not really.

So that means you trust the human interaction in the game with the players and the referee involved. Sometimes maybe something was wrong but everyone continued to play, and that's fine.

Should we need to check every single interaction of the ball with a computer?.

I rather not.

And if so, like in tennis, do we want to have a maximum amount of "challenges"? I mean, I would much rather have a normal human football interaction rather than bringing in any of this technology

I think there shouldn't be a maximum of challenges, I believe it should be based on VAR refs and that's it. Teams shouldn't challenge anything, if there is a big uproar, the VAR team checks the replay and if they see something then they will let the ref know and the ref will watch it, if they do not see anything wrong it will continue even if the other team still goes on to make noise.

If the whole power is in the refs, and not the players then there is no worry. Look at NBA, the challenge system has been put in place and yet it's not used much. Plus if a ref gives a wrong decision, more often than not they will keep the decision unless it is a hugely obvious result.

[Sithara007]

Brazil seems to be the favorite team, at the same time Belgium is not a weak team. However, the Brazilian team has a lot of young star players. Brazil has talented strikers like Neymar, Raphinha, Jesus and Vinicius. On the other hand, Argentina's forwards seem to be a bit weak without Di Maria and Aguero. However, they will not depend only on Messi. Lautaro Martinez is a good enough player. Argentina's chances of becoming champions are not low.

Still if I need to classify the teams based on dominance on a few players, then I would place Argentina in the first group (where the team is overdependent on one or more players). Brazil will fall within the second group, although they have heavyweights such as Neymar. France, Portugal and Belgium will definitely be placed in the first group. But as per my calculations and assumptions, Spain and England will be in the second group. All that said, I don't have the opinion that one group is better than the other. Both of them have their own advantages and disadvantages.

[Daniel91]

Still we have four months to go for the main tournament, and given how unpredictable these matches have been in the past editions, I don't want to proceed any further with this debate. At this point, I agree with the odds being provided by the sportsbooks. They have Brazil as the favorites and most of us have the same opinion as well. My personal preference is for Argentina, but they seems to be overdependent on Messi. I want the final match to be played between these two teams. Let's see whether it happens or not.

Four months will run as if like two days. Already majority of the tickets for the World Cup matches were sold. By now 1.8million match tickets were sold in two batches. The next set of sale is goin on and it is expected to close by the end of August. Most of them have made Brazil to be the favourite, but I have a different opinion on some small teams making big wins same as that we experienced in the qualifiers.

Brazil seems to be the favorite team, at the same time Belgium is not a weak team. However, the Brazilian team has a lot of young star players. Brazil has talented strikers like Neymar, Raphinha, Jesus and Vinicius. On the other hand, Argentina's forwards seem to be a bit weak without Di Maria and Aguero. However, they will not depend only on Messi. Lautaro Martinez is a good enough player. Argentina's chances of becoming champions are not low.

I think we are in for a very uncertain and exciting world championship.
In the South American qualifiers, Brazil was very dominant and they are clearly one of the main favorites for the world title.
It seems to me that Argentina still has less chance than Brazil, but maybe Messi will show his magic again.
The Belgian team is old and I think their prime has passed in Russia.

[rozak]

Brazil seems to be the favorite team, at the same time Belgium is not a weak team. However, the Brazilian team has a lot of young star players. Brazil has talented strikers like Neymar, Raphinha, Jesus and Vinicius. On the other hand, Argentina's forwards seem to be a bit weak without Di Maria and Aguero. However, they will not depend only on Messi. Lautaro Martinez is a good enough player. Argentina's chances of becoming champions are not low.

Still if I need to classify the teams based on dominance on a few players, then I would place Argentina in the first group (where the team is overdependent on one or more players). Brazil will fall within the second group, although they have heavyweights such as Neymar. France, Portugal and Belgium will definitely be placed in the first group. But as per my calculations and assumptions, Spain and England will be in the second group. All that said, I don't have the opinion that one group is better than the other. Both of them have their own advantages and disadvantages.

each country has its star who will be the strength of the team. I agree with Brazil which is a strong team this year. Brazil's performance in the preliminary round is also not bad. it's just that the game displayed by Neymar and his friends looks untidy. I'm sure when in Qatar Brazil will play a more interesting game.
Brazil is still my favorite this year.

[buwaytress]

Anyone else notice women's football getting a lot of coverage lately? My go-to news sites almost completely filled with news items. Even clicked on a few to find out it was not men's football as they report without mentioning the distinction. All good for me, better for the sport.

Concacaf ongoing now and four tickets to the Women's WC in Aus/NZ next year.

Bet on them occassionally but just wondering if it is time to also start following. Odds are wild in some games!

[Sithara007]

Anyone else notice women's football getting a lot of coverage lately? My go-to news sites almost completely filled with news items. Even clicked on a few to find out it was not men's football as they report without mentioning the distinction. All good for me, better for the sport.

Concacaf ongoing now and four tickets to the Women's WC in Aus/NZ next year.

Bet on them occassionally but just wondering if it is time to also start following. Odds are wild in some games!

Being a woman, for me it is great news that women's football is increasing in popularity. But at the same time, I don't think that it can be compared to the popularity and money power of the men's game. Viewership for the women's events may be 1/10th or lower when compared to the respective event for males. The biggest problem is that women themselves are not that interested in sports and games. At least in my country (India) that is the case, and I don't know about other countries (especially the developed nations).

[JollyGood]

There is s lot of coverage in the media regarding the European games. Women have started playing better and better football as the years pass by and they have entered professional contracts too therefore their coverage has been increasing too. Nowadays men and women football news is reported on the same parts of websites and print media.

Anyone else notice women's football getting a lot of coverage lately? My go-to news sites almost completely filled with news items. Even clicked on a few to find out it was not men's football as they report without mentioning the distinction. All good for me, better for the sport.

Concacaf ongoing now and four tickets to the Women's WC in Aus/NZ next year.

Bet on them occassionally but just wondering if it is time to also start following. Odds are wild in some games!

[buwaytress]

Anyone else notice women's football getting a lot of coverage lately? My go-to news sites almost completely filled with news items. Even clicked on a few to find out it was not men's football as they report without mentioning the distinction. All good for me, better for the sport.

Concacaf ongoing now and four tickets to the Women's WC in Aus/NZ next year.

Bet on them occassionally but just wondering if it is time to also start following. Odds are wild in some games!

Being a woman, for me it is great news that women's football is increasing in popularity. But at the same time, I don't think that it can be compared to the popularity and money power of the men's game. Viewership for the women's events may be 1/10th or lower when compared to the respective event for males. The biggest problem is that women themselves are not that interested in sports and games. At least in my country (India) that is the case, and I don't know about other countries (especially the developed nations).

That's where you're wrong and probably need to look into the game in Europe, not money power but popularity anyway! Barcelona has been setting new records match after match this year with women's football (same stadium, and yes some tickets were given away but most were paid for) and I believe Netherlands actually also has more turnout for their women's national team.

It's a cherry waiting to be picked by sponsors etc.

My problem with that has been the quality -- and I risk sounding sexist but it's still to me in general not competitive enough. The gulf between the strong teams and the bad ones are just so big, both at club and international level. That is slowly getting fixed as more clubs focus on their development at academy level (have to say my own club has been behind in this respect).

[Sithara007]

~~~
My problem with that has been the quality -- and I risk sounding sexist but it's still to me in general not competitive enough. The gulf between the strong teams and the bad ones are just so big, both at club and international level. That is slowly getting fixed as more clubs focus on their development at academy level (have to say my own club has been behind in this respect).

That is understandable. The number of women players (i.e those who play regularly at club or university level) is much lower when compared to that of men. And the actual numbers may be less than 1/10th of that in the men's game. So the player pool is much smaller to start with. On top of that, despite all the talk about gender equality, most of the women regard football as a sport that is more suitable to men. Women (at least in my country) prefer sports such as badminton, tennis, field hockey and swimming, which are considered as "more suitable" for women.

[buwaytress]

~~~
My problem with that has been the quality -- and I risk sounding sexist but it's still to me in general not competitive enough. The gulf between the strong teams and the bad ones are just so big, both at club and international level. That is slowly getting fixed as more clubs focus on their development at academy level (have to say my own club has been behind in this respect).

That is understandable. The number of women players (i.e those who play regularly at club or university level) is much lower when compared to that of men. And the actual numbers may be less than 1/10th of that in the men's game. So the player pool is much smaller to start with. On top of that, despite all the talk about gender equality, most of the women regard football as a sport that is more suitable to men. Women (at least in my country) prefer sports such as badminton, tennis, field hockey and swimming, which are considered as "more suitable" for women.

Again, I'm sure we're underestimating just how many women are playing football now -- where there are developments in facilities and training and salaried positions, it's actually really higher than we're used to knowing.

Even in Malaysia where I used to play, in 2007 we'd see more than a third of teams/players signed up for tournaments were women. There was huge demand then, I think now 15 years later it's probably gotten bigger.

I think I know where your country is, but that's more cultural and peer pressure than what women really think themselves -- I think if they made more safer spaces like they did where I come from (as I said, facilities, training, salaried positions, like the men have instead of relying on goodwill and voluntary action), you might be surprised.

I mean if Afghanistan had droves of women footballers the moment facilities and staff cropped up...

[Daniel91]

~~~
My problem with that has been the quality -- and I risk sounding sexist but it's still to me in general not competitive enough. The gulf between the strong teams and the bad ones are just so big, both at club and international level. That is slowly getting fixed as more clubs focus on their development at academy level (have to say my own club has been behind in this respect).

That is understandable. The number of women players (i.e those who play regularly at club or university level) is much lower when compared to that of men. And the actual numbers may be less than 1/10th of that in the men's game. So the player pool is much smaller to start with. On top of that, despite all the talk about gender equality, most of the women regard football as a sport that is more suitable to men. Women (at least in my country) prefer sports such as badminton, tennis, field hockey and swimming, which are considered as "more suitable" for women.

I think that the main difference between men's and women's soccer is the level of professionalism and finances.
There is a lot more media and public interest in men's football, which therefore has a lot more sponsors, money, and men's football players are paid much better and they can live from football.
There is much less interest in women's football from the media and sponsors, as well as fans, women are paid much less and can't make a living from football like men.
Because of this, very few women can play football professionally, and most of them have to find a job to make a living.
Until the financial conditions for women and men in football are equalized, we can't expect women's football to reach the level of men's football.

[Sithara007]

Again, I'm sure we're underestimating just how many women are playing football now -- where there are developments in facilities and training and salaried positions, it's actually really higher than we're used to knowing.

Even in Malaysia where I used to play, in 2007 we'd see more than a third of teams/players signed up for tournaments were women. There was huge demand then, I think now 15 years later it's probably gotten bigger.

I think I know where your country is, but that's more cultural and peer pressure than what women really think themselves -- I think if they made more safer spaces like they did where I come from (as I said, facilities, training, salaried positions, like the men have instead of relying on goodwill and voluntary action), you might be surprised.

I mean if Afghanistan had droves of women footballers the moment facilities and staff cropped up...

Maybe in your country things are different. Here in India, the only instance when I see women playing football is when I travel to the north-eastern states such as Manipur and Nagaland. Apart from that women's football is confined to universities and colleges. There has been no change in the situation for the last few decades. And being a woman, I can say that among my friend circle very few are actually interested in football. Again, this maybe something unique to India and in western nations the situation maybe different.

[buwaytress]

Top news for WC is jerseys, weirdly enough. Mexico looks nice, England is questionable.

Iran also fired their coach so that's weird to do before the tournament!

Mancini promised yesterday to lead Italy to glory, but nah...

Maybe in your country things are different. Here in India, the only instance when I see women playing football is when I travel to the north-eastern states such as Manipur and Nagaland. Apart from that women's football is confined to universities and colleges. There has been no change in the situation for the last few decades. And being a woman, I can say that among my friend circle very few are actually interested in football. Again, this maybe something unique to India and in western nations the situation maybe different.

I'm not from the West, we're in the same global South, and it also was the same in Malaysia, women confined to the sports you mentioned (my mom played hockey, too).

It required a change in the things I mentioned above to switch things around and once that started, the wave was pretty quick too. Even in "the West", a prime example is Netherlands, who initially banned women's football decades ago! But since the late 1990s at least, started being invested in women's football (facilities, coaches, paid positions) and especially the past ten years they've seen a dramatic improvement in quality and performance. Plus they'll also be the first to introduce mixed football teams.

It does happen fairly quickly if the right things are in place, so that's just how it is in India, and rest of the world. Football in India anyway is underdeveloped even for men. You're a cricket country

[Sithara007]

I'm not from the West, we're in the same global South, and it also was the same in Malaysia, women confined to the sports you mentioned (my mom played hockey, too).

It required a change in the things I mentioned above to switch things around and once that started, the wave was pretty quick too. Even in "the West", a prime example is Netherlands, who initially banned women's football decades ago! But since the late 1990s at least, started being invested in women's football (facilities, coaches, paid positions) and especially the past ten years they've seen a dramatic improvement in quality and performance. Plus they'll also be the first to introduce mixed football teams.

It does happen fairly quickly if the right things are in place, so that's just how it is in India, and rest of the world. Football in India anyway is underdeveloped even for men. You're a cricket country

In India during the last one or two decades, women are becoming more and more active in different fields of life (politics, scientific research, army.etc). But sports is one field where the participation is still low. And it is wrong to blame the administrators for all this. From what I have seen, the interest from women is quite low in physical activities. And although the society has become more progressive, in some cases the parents and relatives may not be supportive of the decision by the females to participate in sports.

[JollyGood]

In a news report it shows Qatar having made stunning base camps for the participating teams and for the match officials which would otherwise cost approximately £5000-£6000 per room per night.

The players and officials will be pampered and their every need taken care of but will this reflect with on field performances? 

[Gianluca95]

In a news report it shows Qatar having made stunning base camps for the participating teams and for the match officials which would otherwise cost approximately £5000-£6000 per room per night.

The players and officials will be pampered and their every need taken care of but will this reflect with on field performances? 

Hope it yes, but anyway for me it is absolutely no sense to play a world cup in a country like Qatar. Players with most probability will be tired because they will come from their leagues and they won't give their better

performance (another mistake was to play this cup in winter). Anyway, it is better for him to have more entertainment and comfortable structure.