By Martin Ziegler, PA Sport
Last updated - June 23

Just about everyone, from Pele to the person on the Berlin U-bahn, is of the same opinion: the Cote d'Ivoire (known as the Ivory Coast in Britain though they insist on their French title in all World Cup publications) deserve to be in the last 16.

They are not of course; in fact they have already flown home with only a personal letter of congratulations from Franz Beckenbauer in recognition for playing their part in a fascinating start to the tournament.

It was the Cote d'Ivoire's misfortune to be drawn in the Todes Gruppe (aka the group of death) with two possible challengers Argentina and Holland, as well as Serbia and Montenegro, also tough nuts to crack.

Pele summed up the feelings in an interview on the official World Cup site saying: "Argentina have played really well, but the team that have really impressed me haven't qualified.

"I'm talking about Cote d'Ivoire. They went up against two very good sides, and matched them. They just didn't get the luck they needed to win."

There have been fairly predictable grumbles that FIFA need to start seeding every team for future World Cups rather than, as now, just picking the top eight and splitting the rest so that no group is over-represented from a particular continent.

Would it make more sense to seed teams so that there are not four sides in one group who would all be viewed as realistic prospects for the last 16?

The answer is, no, it would not.

There are many things that it is possible to criticise FIFA for, but overall they have the balance of the World Cup just about right.

The top eight teams should be kept apart but, beyond that, the distinctions in quality are blurred anyway and form often plays as big a part as anything.

The current format means there is more opportunity for an unfancied team to make it into the knockout phases. There would be no weaker groups, no groups of death, each would have two strong teams and two weak teams, and the tournament's predictability would increase and its fascination would suffer.

The Champions League is already in danger of doing that, as every team is rigorously seeded, and we should not let the World Cup go the same way.

We all loved the Cote d'Ivoire after their fantastic opening match against Argentina but do they really deserve to be in the last 16 and Ghana or Ecuador not?

Of course not. Those sides are in the knockout round because they have got the results when it really mattered.

If there is one thing that should be changed, it perhaps could be how they decide on the seedings for the top eight.

France, for example, really do not deserve to be there but are still living off the fact they won the World Cup in 1998.

In football terms that is ancient history, and in the future FIFA should look to devise a system which takes into account results over the previous four years only.

Pele has also been unimpressed by the French.

He said: "I have been disappointed with France, because they came here with the responsibility of rectifying the lacklustre impression they left behind at the last World Cup, when they arrived as world champions and didn't even get through to the second phase. Up to now, they still haven't done that."

Quite. France's performances have highlighted the fact they should not be among the top seeds: they have scored one World Cup goal since 1998 and yet are regarded as one of the leading eight countries.

Although critics of Sven-Goran Eriksson might say the same about England at least they have won two and drawn one of their group games, and scored goals to boot.

But far better to change nothing than risk ruining a great sporting event.

If Germany 2006 has proved anything, it is that the World Cup ain't broke - so don't fix it.