Jump to content

24 teams next time


BoroPhil

Recommended Posts

I'm sure this has already been commented on, but it's going to really devalue not only the actual competition, but qualifying as well. In the tournament proper, almost certainly no more groups of death, 3 out of 4 going through in some groups and in qualifying 2 or 3 going through out of 5, which will render meaningless a lot of the final games. Ok, it will give some of the smaller nations a chance to qualify but that's about the only positive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Its a ridiculous idea. You are effectively allowing half the teams in the continent into the Finals so the qualifying stages are a total procession for the stronger nations as they're under absolutelyno pressure to get to, not only the Finals, but (barring Dutch like collapses) the last 16 (which will take 14 odd matches in total). The Finals themselves will have 36 games in the groups - that's over 2/3's of the games in the tournament to eliminate 1/3 of the teams.

Just think back to Italia 90 and England and Ireland's group to understand how bad this group format can be. 5 draws, and 7 goals in 6 games and yet three teams still progressed. Awful, awful format that should have never have been resurrected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that after 2/3 tournaments of it being 24 teams that people will be loving it. People have always said that a tournament will be devalued whenever it increases (WC and the Euros) and yet with more and more teams and countries the interest and viewing figures rise.

There are bound to be more boring matches as there will simply be more matches, but overall, especially with the way Europe has grown over the last 20 years, taking it from 16 teams to 24 is not a problem for me (although I do agree that having 3 qualify from a group of 4 is poor). Would actually prefer a shorter qualification period and then a bigger tournament than the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I rather keep it to sixteen than see the likes of Scotland or Estonia in the Euros. The Euros will become another WC :/

Oh go and bury your head,That will be the Scotland team that again went so close and only lost out at the end?

Spain 8 8 0 0 26 6 24

Czech Republic 8 4 1 3 12 8 13

Scotland 8 3 2 3 9 10 11

Lithuania 8 1 2 5 4 13 5

Liechtenstein 8 1 1 6 3 17 4

This competition got better when they added more teams before and I believe regardless if Scotland do progress or not will just make the competition better.

I heard a few players saying the Euro's are harder to win than the World cup as in the World cup you always have an easy team to play.....How did England fair against Algeria in the World cup group?

There is always upsets and I think it will do a great thing for this competition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh go and bury your head,That will be the Scotland team that again went so close and only lost out at the end?

Spain 8 8 0 0 26 6 24

Czech Republic 8 4 1 3 12 8 13

Scotland 8 3 2 3 9 10 11

Lithuania 8 1 2 5 4 13 5

Liechtenstein 8 1 1 6 3 17 4

This competition got better when they added more teams before and I believe regardless if Scotland do progress or not will just make the competition better.

I heard a few players saying the Euro's are harder to win than the World cup as in the World cup you always have an easy team to play.....How did England fair against Algeria in the World cup group?

There is always upsets and I think it will do a great thing for this competition.

Have to agree there really...can think of 8 teams off the top of my head that would make a good shout of being in the competition and be able to hold their own (for a bit at least)...

Belgium

Scotland

Norway

Serbia

Slovakia

Bosnia

Wales

Slovenia

Surely most of those would give most teams a game...especially seeing what the Czech's have gone and done tonight. They maybe wouldn't win it (pretty sure of that)...but tournament football is always great pitting the likes of these teams against one another like we see in the world cup. I don't mind a Euro tournament of 24 at all...just hate the fact 3 would qualify from a group of 4...but 32 would probs be just too much.

Good argument this though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also if you look at the fact the way they have it now Spain were only 1 goal away from being out of the Euro's at the group stage,a win and a draw and a defeat would would see them out.

Now unless your thought is "get rid of the best teams so my team can win"then this format is pretty poor.

Most fans want to see the best teams play each other,also it is always said that you should not start a competition on your best form but build up as you go through the competition it is quite hard in the Euro's at the moment as 1 mistake and you are done.

Sick of hearing "you don't want to lose your first game".

Now this Euro's has been great but imagine if the teams did not have the pure pressure of having to make sure you did not lose this game or you are basically done.

I honestly think this is a very good step for the Euro's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 3rd team out of 4 having a chance to qualify makes no sense. There will be no drama for the big teams.

I know it's difficult to find a compromise for this, but I expect UEFA to improve the format in the future when they see a team draw all 3 matches and still qualify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the 3rd team out of 4 having a chance to qualify makes no sense. There will be no drama for the big teams.

I know it's difficult to find a compromise for this, but I expect UEFA to improve the format in the future when they see a team draw all 3 matches and still qualify.

Maybe not as they will go through but again they will have to win those games and make sure they finish top of the league for a better draw,again there is always upsets.

Also can you really put your hand on your heart and say "ok it is France versus Turkey,easy win for France"? or indeed "mah Scotland versus Russia,easy win for Russia"?

They are not that clear,even with the extra teams the Euro's will still be very difficult to win and the extra 8 teams are not like bringing in really poor teams,they are teams that can on a given day beat the other team or give them a very good game.

Belgium have a great young team with so many good players and I would have loved to have seen them at these Euro's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the tournament will have 51 games (assuming there is no 3rd place play off). 36 of those games will be played in a first phase group to eliminate 8 teams - one third. I don't care if the group stages throw up more entertaining/open games as there's less risk, past WC's that used this format suggest this would not be the case anyway, as its a bloated format which sees far too many games before the tournament reaches a sudden death format.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe not as they will go through but again they will have to win those games and make sure they finish top of the league for a better draw,again there is always upsets.

Also can you really put your hand on your heart and say "ok it is France versus Turkey,easy win for France"? or indeed "mah Scotland versus Russia,easy win for Russia"?

They are not that clear,even with the extra teams the Euro's will still be very difficult to win and the extra 8 teams are not like bringing in really poor teams,they are teams that can on a given day beat the other team or give them a very good game.

Belgium have a great young team with so many good players and I would have loved to have seen them at these Euro's.

Of course the matches will still be intersting, but A) There will be no group of death B) 3 points can be enough to qualify, which means, for example, France lose to Turkey and Denmark but manage to beat Latvia in the last match so they are ok.

It will almost guarantee that big teams go trough, groups like this year's group B won't exist, so Holland will be fine in 2016.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to do some goals-per-game analysis of the '86, '90 and '94 World Cups (these were the 3 WCs with 24 teams going into a sixteen team knockout) and compare it with the 16-team and 32-team tournaments. My vague memory is that group games were typically tighter and low-scoring affairs. When you can finish 3rd in the group and still get through, I think the emphasis is on avoiding defeat rather than winning, even more so than it is at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be interesting to do some goals-per-game analysis of the '86, '90 and '94 World Cups (these were the 3 WCs with 24 teams going into a sixteen team knockout) and compare it with the 16-team and 32-team tournaments. My vague memory is that group games were typically tighter and low-scoring affairs. When you can finish 3rd in the group and still get through, I think the emphasis is on avoiding defeat rather than winning, even more so than it is at the moment.

Italia '90 has the lowest goals per game ratio of any World Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does, but probably not caused by the competition format. Other competitions back then also had very low goals per game ratio.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the goals to game ratios for the the World Cup's from 1990 to 2010 don't really vary too much regardless of there being 24 or 32 teams. All in and around the 2.5 per game mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh go and bury your head,That will be the Scotland team that again went so close and only lost out at the end?

So, because they got sooo close, they deserve to be in there?

Bottom line is, Scotland aren't good enough for a 16-team tournament. And until they are, I would rather not see them in the Euros. Keep it at 16 and leave the crappy teams out, please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrendous decision. The past 2 Euros have been first class in quality and entertainment. No need to change it. And 24 teams just doesn't work logistically 3rd place team qualifying is stupid. 16 (perfect for Euro)or 32 teams (works for CL and World Cup

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, because they got sooo close, they deserve to be in there?

Bottom line is, Scotland aren't good enough for a 16-team tournament. And until they are, I would rather not see them in the Euros. Keep it at 16 and leave the crappy teams out, please.

I seem to remember Denmark never qualified but this "crap" team went on to win it when they took Yugoslavia'a place....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, Denmark were the runners up to Yugoslavia and were hardly a poor side regardless. Scotland are absolute mince, have been for years, and couldn't even grab the runners up spot in a group which contained possibly the poorest Czech side since that country came into existence. Your Denmark 92/current Scotland comparison is so out of whack as to be hilarious. More apt would be comparing the current Scotland side to the Finnish national side of the Euro 92 era. Both countries are roughly of the same stature and quality in their respective era, i.e. dreadful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the Denmark '92 comparison is ridiculous. Good teams missed out on the 84, 88, 92 Euros because there were fewer spots than there were decent teams - you only had 7 teams qualifying alongside the hosts. The reason they expanded to 16 teams at Euro 96 is because it had become easier to qualify for the World Cup than to qualify for UEFA's own tournament. Many teams were capable of a good showing in a World Cup and weren't even then qualifying for the following Euros. Just isn't the case at the moment. Look at the teams that missed out on Euro 2012, you only have a handful of countries that have qualified for a recent tournament. Probably only Switzerland that you could class as 'regulars'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, the Denmark '92 comparison is ridiculous. Good teams missed out on the 84, 88, 92 Euros because there were fewer spots than there were decent teams - you only had 7 teams qualifying alongside the hosts. The reason they expanded to 16 teams at Euro 96 is because it had become easier to qualify for the World Cup than to qualify for UEFA's own tournament. Many teams were capable of a good showing in a World Cup and weren't even then qualifying for the following Euros. Just isn't the case at the moment. Look at the teams that missed out on Euro 2012, you only have a handful of countries that have qualified for a recent tournament. Probably only Switzerland that you could class as 'regulars'.

Not to mention

steve_mcclaren_34126t.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of best 3rd place teams going through, so why not just go from 24-team group stage to 8-team quarter finals? Only the group winners qualify, with the 2 best second place teams also going through. This would be much more competitive, much less playing for draws.

Also I disagree with the OP saying there will be more meaningless matches in qualifying, I would think it was the opposite with more teams still having the chance to qualify going into the final games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 4 groups of 5 might have been better. Much more group games, and a stronger indicator which teams ought to go through.

However, 24 teams is quite cool.Part of the thrill is the minnows. Not just the same old Spain-Germany-Holland-France etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of elitist tripe going on here. No way that a shoit team like Slovakia could get a result against Italy amirite? :rolleyes:

For me: the more the merrier. I love seeing 'exotic' teams. That's why I rate the WC more than the EC, even though, theoretically, the quality of the EC would be higher or something.

Not to mention: more teams, more matches. More matches = win.

Who's to say that for example Austria vs Estonia would potentially not be a cracker of a match? But nooo, we're spoilt fans and we only want to see football played by famous players else it isn't 'quality'. (We just make an exception for the best team in the world because they play 'boring'...)

Get a grip guys. Do like football or would you rather skip the whole competition and dish out the prizes based on reputation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eh, Denmark were the runners up to Yugoslavia and were hardly a poor side regardless. Scotland are absolute mince, have been for years, and couldn't even grab the runners up spot in a group which contained possibly the poorest Czech side since that country came into existence. Your Denmark 92/current Scotland comparison is so out of whack as to be hilarious. More apt would be comparing the current Scotland side to the Finnish national side of the Euro 92 era. Both countries are roughly of the same stature and quality in their respective era, i.e. dreadful.

I was not comparing Denmark to Scotland <sigh>

If you read what I quoted and what I wrote I was referring to Leppard's comment that if the team did not qualify then they were "crap" and should not be in the competition,what I wrote totally rubbished his comment as Denmark did not qualify but went on to win the whole damn thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is also if you look at the fact the way they have it now Spain were only 1 goal away from being out of the Euro's at the group stage,a win and a draw and a defeat would would see them out.

Now unless your thought is "get rid of the best teams so my team can win"then this format is pretty poor.

Most fans want to see the best teams play each other,also it is always said that you should not start a competition on your best form but build up as you go through the competition it is quite hard in the Euro's at the moment as 1 mistake and you are done.

Sick of hearing "you don't want to lose your first game".

Now this Euro's has been great but imagine if the teams did not have the pure pressure of having to make sure you did not lose this game or you are basically done.

I honestly think this is a very good step for the Euro's.

scotland finished 3rd in a 5 team group that included lithuania and leichtenstein

3rd wasn't exactly impressive

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of elitist tripe going on here. No way that a shoit team like Slovakia could get a result against Italy amirite? :rolleyes:

For me: the more the merrier. I love seeing 'exotic' teams. That's why I rate the WC more than the EC, even though, theoretically, the quality of the EC would be higher or something.

Not to mention: more teams, more matches. More matches = win.

Who's to say that for example Austria vs Estonia would potentially not be a cracker of a match? But nooo, we're spoilt fans and we only want to see football played by famous players else it isn't 'quality'. (We just make an exception for the best team in the world because they play 'boring'...)

Get a grip guys. Do like football or would you rather skip the whole competition and dish out the prizes based on reputation?

It's not that I want to see only the elite teams. Don't England count as elite? Because Euro 08 was brilliant without them. The point is that I'd like to keep it to 16 so that the best teams from qualifying make it, not the also-rans. If that means France, England, Germany, Spain, and Italy miss out, that's cool. I rather keep the dross out, regardless of who the dross is.

Edit: also, more matches isn't automatically a good thing, especially if those matches are like Czech vs Portugal from last night.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not comparing Denmark to Scotland <sigh>

If you read what I quoted and what I wrote I was referring to Leppard's comment that if the team did not qualify then they were "crap" and should not be in the competition,what I wrote totally rubbished his comment as Denmark did not qualify but went on to win the whole damn thing.

*sigh*

Go see how many teams played in Euro 92. Then go see how many will play in Euro 16. Or read Rob's post. Maybe that should give you an indication why comparing Denmark 92 to the current Scotland team is ridiculous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not comparing Denmark to Scotland <sigh>

If you read what I quoted and what I wrote I was referring to Leppard's comment that if the team did not qualify then they were "crap" and should not be in the competition,what I wrote totally rubbished his comment as Denmark did not qualify but went on to win the whole damn thing.

*sigh*

Go see how many teams played in Euro 92. Then go see how many will play in Euro 16. Or read Rob's post. Maybe that should give you an indication why comparing Denmark 92 to the current Scotland team is ridiculous.

Gap between 'crap' non-qualifying Denmark '92 and the other 7 teams at that tournament; <-->

Gap between the current Scotland side and the 16 teams who qualified this time around; <--------------------------------------> umpteen other sides who also didn't qualify <----------------------------->

Hope that helps explain why your point is still an utter nonsense. :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned Scotland would get threw in any of my posts,neither did I say they should be there,My only mention of Scotland and the next Euro's was " I believe regardless if Scotland do progress or not will just make the competition better."

The "go bury your head post was in reply to Leppard's post of "Yeah, I rather keep it to sixteen than see the likes of Scotland or Estonia in the Euros. The Euros will become another WC :/"

The only team I have mentioned I would have liked to have seen at this Euro's was Belgium as I think they have a good young squad and could have done well in this competition.

Not sure why you keep making posts about Denmark compared to Scotland as that was never mentioned until you started posting this dribble.

Again I will say(try to pay attention)..Denmark never qualified for the '92 Euro's and went on to win it so the post of Leppard saying if a team don't qualify then they are not good enough to be in the competition as they are "crap" is pure nonsense.

Quite a few teams that are not in the Euro's this time could have done really well and on any given day the likes of Belgium(example) could beat the like's of England,Greece,Czech's etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a 16-team tournament. IN A 16-TEAM TOURNAMENT.

Euro 92 had 8 teams. Some of the best teams were left out because there were only 8 teams who could it make it through.

There are currently 53 members of UEFA. Expanding it to 24 means almost half of UEFA would be in the tournament. I don't think half the teams in Europe are good enough for the Euros.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are currently 53 members of UEFA. Expanding it to 24 means almost half of UEFA would be in the tournament.

Yeah, to think the equivalent would be a 96-team World Cup. 24 groups of 4, top two and the 16 best third-place teams into the 'Round of 64' :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...