Lining up 1 through 16: An idea to avoid boring World Cup snoozefests
For those who watched France vs. Denmark or Belgium vs. England, you know just how boring a final group-stage game can be.
Initially lined up as entertaining European showdowns that could determine two separate World Cup groups, both matches were letdowns, as all four teams had already qualified going into the matches. As a result, managers instead chose to heavily rotate their squads, leaving their stars on the bench, and those who played put in a lackadaisical shift.
The wrinkle of the now well-discussed two halves of the bracket played a big role. By topping their respective groups, France and Belgium sent themselves into a difficult half of the bracket with Uruguay, Portugal, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, while Spain is arguably the biggest threat in the other half, joined by Croatia, Colombia, and England.
Related: World Cup bracket is complete, and one side is absolutely loaded
Lopsided brackets have drawn criticism before, most recently in Portugal's path to glory at Euro 2016. The Iberian side faced Croatia, Poland, and Wales in the knockout stages before edging France in the final, while Germany, Italy, and England were all grouped with the French on the other side. Of course, you can only defeat the teams in front of you, and you'll be hard-pressed to find Portuguese fans who care how it happened as opposed to the fact it did.
But in an attempt to bring tournament parity and eliminate snoozefests on the final group-stage matchday, a potential start would be to disband the notion of having group winners face their neighbouring runner-up in the paired groups format.
Instead, rank the entire round-of-16 field through an overall table, and like the play-off formats used in the National Basketball Association and Major League Soccer, pair the best team with the worst available side, going down the list until eventually matching the two in the middle. The system is also reminiscent of the one used in the EFL Championship play-offs, though on a scale four times as large.
First, here's how the 16 teams still standing in the World Cup would stack up, with the current priority of FIFA tiebreakers in effect:
| Rank | Team | PTS | GD | GF | GA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Belgium | 9 | 7 | 9 | 2 |
| 2 | Croatia | 9 | 6 | 7 | 1 |
| 3 | Uruguay | 9 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| 4 | Brazil | 7 | 4 | 5 | 1 |
| 5 | France | 7 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| 6 | England | 6 | 5 | 8 | 3 |
| 7 | Russia | 6 | 4 | 8 | 4 |
| 8 | Sweden* | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| 9 | Colombia | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| 10 | Mexico | 6 | -1 | 3 | 4 |
| 11 | Spain | 5 | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| 12 | Portugal** | 5 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | Switzerland | 5 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| 14 | Denmark | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 15 | Japan | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| 16 | Argentina | 4 | -2 | 3 | 5 |
* Sweden finishes above Colombia due to fair play points (-5 for Sweden and -7 for Colombia)
** Portugal finishes above Switzerland due to fair play points (-4 for Portugal and -7 for Switzerland)
Once the teams are classed, each matchup is then assigned to alternating halves of the bracket: No. 1 vs. 16 and 3 vs. 14 would be on one half, while 2 vs. 15, 4 vs. 13, and so on would be on the other. But unlike MLS, teams aren't re-seeded after each round. The predetermined bracket structure would stay, and much like the NBA postseason, the best team in either half of the bracket would avoid the next-highest-ranked teams.
Based on the new system, here's how the round of 16 would shape up:
| Half A | Half B |
|---|---|
| Belgium (1) vs. Argentina (16) | Croatia (2) vs. Japan (15) |
| Uruguay (3) vs. Denmark (14) | Brazil (4) vs. Switzerland (13) |
| France (5) vs. Portugal (12) | England (6) vs. Spain (11) |
| Russia (7) vs. Mexico (10) | Sweden (8) vs. Colombia (9) |
Belgium or Argentina would then play Russia or Mexico, and Uruguay or Denmark would move on to face the winner between France and Portugal. The same logic applies to the other half.
You can already make some positive deductions. Both halves of the bracket are much more even and no contender has an "easy" route to the final. Furthermore, since there always seems to be a contender that fails to live up to expectations in its group (sorry, Argentina), the fear of giving the top-ranked nations an easier path is subsided some.
It also promotes competing in your final match. Taking Belgium vs. England into consideration, the latter had a minor fair play advantage over the Red Devils, meaning a draw likely would have forced Belgium to play Spain and England to take on Portugal - opponents you can argue both sides would rather avoid. But a win would pair the victor with the worst team in the tournament, which, in this case, just so happens to be a visibly vulnerable Argentina.
There is one issue with matchups, though. In this specific example, Brazil and Switzerland would immediately square off again after having just come out of the same group together. While it's not an ideal situation, losing the guarantee of not facing a fellow group side until the final may be a small price to pay to avoid boring finishes to the opening round.
The bigger concern involves scheduling, which would have to adapt to an entirely new model. It would be unfair, for instance, if No. 1 Belgium had to face Argentina with just one day of rest, while Lionel Messi and Co. had five nights off. A possible remedy would be to implement a longer break between the group stage and the round of 16 to give every side a minimum three or four days rest. That would, in theory, replicate the midseason demands of playing in the different continental Champions Leagues or South America's Copa Libertadores.
Supporters travelling across the world might feel a little hard done by if they don't know exactly when their side plays in the knockout stages. But if their country makes it through the group at all, that small dissatisfaction should dissipate quickly.
(Photos courtesy: Getty Images)