The benefit of a 48 team tournament. It'll set (WC) game with most goal record as well as tournament with most goals.
What does anyone gain watching Spain drub New Zealand 14-0?
The reality, Rita, is that the World Cup as a contest will only begin in the last 32 round at the earliest - and mainly only because of the jeopardy of knockout. Most games in that round will still be predictable. The group stage will be a Frankenstein's monster of "participation". Even the qualifiers now, as we saw last night, are almost meaningless.
I thought England played very well last night against a team that allowed them to and who, simply, were way off the standard. One would hope that the European qualifiers, for all their faults, will weed out the likes of Serbia. People slagged off England at the weekend for their narrow - but inevitable - win over Andorra. But I have some sympathy for the England players and management. What is really to be gained by hitting them for double figures? Players, subconsciously, simply want to avoid injury in such games and will usually just do enough. The time to judge England will be in the last 16 of the finals onwards. That's the luxury - and curse - of the major contenders (who really, this time, are Spain, France, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, and England).
The World Cup finals is now an "event" rather that the distillation of pure quality it was up until 1978 whilst still maintaining a "world" representation. The expansion in 1982 could be justified and was by the performances of most of the minnows. A globalised game made the expansion to 32 in 1998 inevitable, but at the cost of quality. The fascination now is only in seeing how giants on hard times (Germany and Italy) can navigate their current inadequacies and throw a spanner in the works of the contenders. Because, really, that's all that the contenders have to worry about: one of those two improving enough, bucking the seeding, and landing in direct opposition in an early knock-out game.