So with a different system, for example - one that picks players randomly, you'd accept that the best players could eliminate each other in the early rounds with some close matches, and the final could be the top seed completely crushing a much lower seeded player... and you think that would be preferable to having the crunch matches later in the tournament?
Just curious, because if the World Cup Final comes down to Brazil vs Saudi Arabia, and Brazil win 13-0... people would think it a farce.
If Saudi Arabia get to the final it will be on merit, by beating all the teams on the way. Therefore they will have deserved to get to the final. If it did happen I would expect that it wold be the largest TV audience ever.
The groups in the World Cup that generate the most interest are the "groups of death" where the big names meet each other early on.
Would you prefer something like this?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-c...i-admits-fixing-1998-world-cup-draw-increase/
Michel Platini fixing the initial seeding to generate a favourable draw to get the 'best' final.
Or do you mean a farce like Germany beating Brazil 7-1 in the Semi last World Cup.
Or are you comparing Peter to Sepp Blatter?
To get away from Football, because there are just too many differences to make any reasoned argument.
There is no seeding applied before the competition in the German Open, Belgian Open, Flip Expo, Xmas Cracker, World Cup Revisited, UK Cup, Shine Charity Competition, Play Expo Pinball Battle, UKCS Hangover, As Yet Unnamed, or any other number of competitions. I don't think you can say that these are "knock about fun comps with your mates" or that the formats produced a Brazil-Saudi Arabia scenario.
The winner of everyone single one of these comps played the best on the day, or 2 days, and merited their win, they didn't need seeding, If they knocked out the "favourite" before the final what difference does that make?