This baffling Fifa decision could ruin the World Cup’s famous group stage drama | OneFootball

Over the next few days, the concept of head-to-head is going to be easy to grasp, but its use will still be difficult to actually get your head around.

Fifa have needlessly, and very suddenly, taken away some of the excitement of their own expanded World Cup.

Consider Thursday alone, which might have been one of the most wondrous days of the tournament.

There could have been six matches with almost everything on the line, all of them invigorated by the intensity of emotion that comes with just trying to get out of a group.

Just consider the alternative situations.

Germany could have still been caught by Ivory Coast, as Ecuador would have hoped to capitalise on such jeopardy by maybe beating Julian Nagelsmann’s team to also try and leapfrog Ivory Coast themselves.

USA would otherwise have to beat Turkey to secure a much more favourable first place in their group, but Turkey could still have claimed three points to actually beat either Australia or Paraguay to third.

Tunisia could have done the latter with Sweden.

Instead, none of this applies.

open image in gallery

Scotland could yet qualify despite a heavy defeat to Brazil (PA)

Germany are confirmed as top, competitively compromising that match against Ecuador, and possibly putting Ivory Coast at a needless disadvantage.

USA are meanwhile locked in to first and Turkey to fourth, as both Paraguay and Australia work out what to do with a game where they know a point will put both through.

Tunisia’s defeat to Sweden has meanwhile been afforded more importance over their other two games… so they’re already out. Which begs the question over why is it of more value to lose to them, when they could potentially beat a team that Sweden have lost to?

Tunisia have consequently lost the chance to go through, and Fifa have lost the opportunity of a proper game.

And it is like this through the entire third round of group games.

The rules mean eight of their 48 teams already have their positions fixed, let alone just qualification secured.

And all of this is because Fifa have incomprehensibly opted for a tie-break system first determined by head-to-head rather than the traditional system of goal difference.

open image in gallery

USA are locked into top spot with a round of games to go (Getty)

It is hard to overstate how unnecessary and inexplicable this is, especially when this World Cup has been so good.

So much potential excitement has been abruptly killed. So many possible end-to-ends from frantic group finishes have been prematurely stopped.

This isn’t to say it won’t be good. Scotland still have to try and get some kind of result against Brazil. Sweden v Japan could be mayhem. Cabo Verde v Saudi Arabia could be history. All of Group G will still be great - albeit due to the amount of draws between the sides already.

And that’s the frustration. It’s that it could have been so much more. Look at the first games up on Wednesday.

Mexico have six points in Group A but would still have had to claim a point to ensure their next knockout game is at the Azteca, rather than Houston, and that against a Czech Republic who can still win to qualify. Instead, Mexico can play a second XI as they’re confirmed top.

At a stroke, a match just feels more muted.

open image in gallery

Turkey are out and unable to influence their group (Getty)

The system has been used by Uefa for the Euros for years and it’s always been demonstrably bad there, so why have Fifa opted for it, especially when they’ve talked so much about being in the home of entertainment? You can’t justify their ticket prices in any context, but when it’s a dead rubber?

The rule means more teams are needlessly locked in place, and there isn’t any space for unexpected excitement, or for late flurries.

Fifa have just closed that off.

Gianni Infantino insisted on keeping four-team groups after the gloriously chaotic way the 2022 third round ended, so why are Fifa now actively setting the system against that?

Do they understand what they’re overseeing? Anyone could have told them these would be the problems.

This isn’t just about excitement, either. There are questions of sporting integrity.

Why is one match in a short group stage given more importance over another given how disproportionate the effect of that can be in such a short system?

What if you just have one bad day?

open image in gallery

Ecuador could hold an unfair advantage over Ivory Coast (PA)

The change - which has only come in for this World Cup - is all the more inexplicable when the system has been expanded.

You’re insisting on more games… but simultaneously ensuring fewer of them matter?

It’s worse when the third-place system - where eight of the 12 go through - brings other problems.

Is it really fair to rank qualifiers like this when groups can be so different?

As has already been pointed out in Scotland, they could get utterly humiliated by Brazil by a scoreline of, say, 6-0, and yet they could still qualify ahead of a Cabo Verde team that have claimed historic draws against both Spain and Uruguay.

There are then the further convolutions necessary to even incorporate third-placed teams, that consequently skew the last 32. Rather than straight first against second in all games, it’s more lopsided.

Austria v Algeria involves the absurd possibility of the two probably preferring to finish third because that brings a game against Egypt or Belgium, whereas second is a likely match against favourites Spain.

Some of this might just be luck of the draw but the draw looks unnecessarily lopsided there, too. Norway and France have already come through the hardest group of all but their face-off for first might bring similar questions of preference. One has a path with a potential match against Germany as early as the last 16, the other against either Brazil or Morocco.

open image in gallery

Algeria face a dilemma over whether to try win or settle for a draw and an arguably easier knockout tie (Getty)

Put simply, this tournament model conditions against simply playing to win these last games to a much greater degree than the old one.

The Independent actually posited a superior system back in December, where you could still have the expansion but could keep all of the competitive intensity of the old system.

Rather than allow eight third-placed teams go through, just flip it so that it’s still only the top two who go through, but the eight best group winners go straight into the last 16 - as in the Champions League. An intervening mezzanine round for the remaining 16 sides would also have the value of incentivising trying to win your last game, especially in a tournament that is going to be so physically demanding. You’d get that crucial game off.

The Independent asked Fifa how the current model was chosen and why.

The reality is so much of it can’t be properly explained.