worldsoccer
member
Reged: 08/06/2006
Posts: 237
|
|
Brian's latest column can be found here.
Please post your comments here.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 314
|
|
Quote:
UEFA mean to do the same misbegotten things with the European finals, come 2016. Every god forsaken Euro country, no doubt hoping to be among the 32 elect, has voted for the idiotic Scottish proposal. Which means, alas, that more and more mediocre or worse teams will compete in the Euro finals, just as they clutter up the World Cup. Mind you, the Euros were a nice little tournament when only the last four survived to the last Stages. Then it was eight, now sixteen. Gigantism rules and reigns.
It used to be a nice little tournament. Now it's an even nicer big tournament, with lots of fun and good football, and teams who'd never qualify for 4 or 8-team finals playing memorable games.
As for teams that clutter Finals, one of them, more often than not, is England. The proposal to enlarge might suit them.
And besides, more teams mean that things get decided where they should: on the field. 24 is an awkward number which involves best third-placed teams going through or three-team mini groups like at Spain 82. So I say: go directly to 32 for the next Euros. Besides the 16 who just took part (and the weakest, Austria and Switzerland, didn't disgrace themselves), you still have very respectable teams like England, Denmark, Bulgaria, Belgium, Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Serbia, Ukraine, etc not qualifying. All for the price of one game more for the finalists, which is what happens at the World Cup.
I say bring it on.
('Every God-forsaken Euro country?' So much for standing against racism.)
|
barney
member
Reged: 08/06/2006
Posts: 235
|
|
It would render the qualifying campaign pretty meaningless though with over half of the countries guaranteed qualification.
I agree with Glanville here; big is not necessarilly better. It tends to dilute the overall quality of the tournament and leads to some awful matches being played.
I think the overall standard at the Euros is higher than at the World Cup - mainly because there are fewer sub-standard teams. Of the countries you mention, I can't think of any - with the possible exception of England on a an exceedingly rare good day - who would bring anything to the party.
I'd even be happy for the World Cup to be cut to 16. 6/7 from Europe, 3/4 from South America, 1 from central/north America, 2/3 from Africa, 1 from Asia and 1 from the ROW.
I know this is very unfair on some continents but I think that the overall quality would be improved and the tournament wouldn't be the bloated long drawn-out affair it is at the moment.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 314
|
|
The question is that a qualifying campaign will never tell you where the quality is going to come from in the finals. France and Italy were disappointments, while who could have predicted the excitement Turkey brought? These things can only happen if you give teams the chance. Also, often what's dull to neutrals doesn't have to be lacking emotion for those involved. I bet the Romanians were following every kick.
The qualifying campaings could be made shorter this way. With 32 qualifiers for the euros you could need smaller groups and less games.
As for watching a 16-team tournament, nothing easier: skip the group phase and switch on at the second round. Or pick and choose your games.
It's a matter of judgement, I know. But the guys who organise the party want to admit more people. I say welcome.
|
barney
member
Reged: 08/06/2006
Posts: 235
|
|
Quote:
The question is that a qualifying campaign will never tell you where the quality is going to come from in the finals. France and Italy were disappointments, while who could have predicted the excitement Turkey brought? These things can only happen if you give teams the chance. Also, often what's dull to neutrals doesn't have to be lacking emotion for those involved. I bet the Romanians were following every kick.
The qualifying campaings could be made shorter this way. With 32 qualifiers for the euros you could need smaller groups and less games.
As for watching a 16-team tournament, nothing easier: skip the group phase and switch on at the second round. Or pick and choose your games.
It's a matter of judgement, I know. But the guys who organise the party want to admit more people. I say welcome.
But on that basis you might as well invite every country in case there's a slim chance that one of them might turn out to be surprisingly good. I bet most Romanians fell asleep during their game with France.
Incidentally, the guys who organise the party have extended it because it brings in more money, and because the person currently running it had to repay the voters who put him in charge in the first place.
I can't skip the group phase because it's an integral part of the tournament. I just don't want more meaningless games.
I say more quality less quantity.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 314
|
|
You have to stop somewhere, and I believe 32 is the perfect number. Three games minimum, and the top two from each group qualify, with no more fuss. There are no meaningless games, unless groups get decided early, which could happen with less teams too, so it's not a matter of number of teams. Then, knockout rounds and seven games maximum for the finalists. It is working for the World Cup. There were rumours of going up to 36 for the World Cup, but that would involve qualification problems for the second round, and I don't agree with it.
'More quality, less quantity', but how do you guarantee the quality? Less teams does mean less quantity, but it doesn't have to mean less quality. Another way of seeing it is that more teams add to the show, rather than take away from it.
|
RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 534
|
|
I personally prefer 16 teams being in it. Considering the World Cup (that's the whole world, remember) has 32 teams and even that seems bloated at times, to have 32 teams in the finals for one continent seems way over the top. Look at the World Cup, where utter dross get through and provide entertainment for no-one. How often do these lesser teams actually provide any real shocks or watchability? (Cameroon 90 and Senegal 02 aside, there have been few real upsets and no real value has been added). Yes there are a lot more nations now in europe compared to 20 years ago (the break up of the soviet bloc / independence of several european nations), however, most of these are small in football terms. what have Latvia, Georgia, Belarus et al contributed to the overall European Championships? Nothing more than numbers to be brutally honest. The expansion of a tournament does not make it better as the teams you bring in are theoretically poorer. so there may be a few 'surprises', but generally all that happens is the talent pool becomes diluted and it acts as a bye for the better known teams into the next round. and surely the point of a finals is the pinnacle of the tournament, the best of the best. By letting everyone have a slice of the pie, the cachet of the whole event diminishes. Still, as barney said, more teams = more cash...pure and simple.
|
dologhlin
member
Reged: 27/06/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
I am split down the middle on this one. If and when the number goes up to 24 the quality will be diminished, not by the "lower" teams coming into it, because in fairness, there was many a team that wasnt involved in euro 2008 who couldve excelled, the likes of Scotland, Bulgaria, etc, who were extremely unlucky to miss out. But the lowering of quality would be that the best teams would have to play an extra game and thus when it comes to business end of the tournament we will see alot more russia-style performances (i.e. out on their feet).
Im an Irish fan, I was only three when ireland got to its one and only European Championships. The level of excitement was palpable and I would sincerely doubt the arguments made that romanians would be sleeping through their game with france. for as it was a boring game for the neutral... if i were romanian that day i wouldve been delighted to get a draw, no matter how boring, against the world cup finalists of 2006.
In conclusion, I am for the expansion, as the cream will rise to the top as they always do, it doesnt increase much the probability of meaningless matches... hell, it only comes around every four years i want to experience as much of it as i can. although 32 teams would be ridiculous, in my opinion, because alot of teams would not have to earn their way to the finals. thats my one complaint with the whole expansion, it devalues the qualifying tournaments... when a team gets to a major tournament these days through a qualifying section it is because they deserve it, if god forbid, 32 european teams were to picked for the finals, hell we might as well just allow andorra and the faroes to host the bloody thing.
|
badgerboy
member
Reged: 26/03/2007
Posts: 727
Loc: Bucks, England
|
|
I don't think that there's any intention to enlarge to 32 teams.
I've seen 20 - or far more likely - 24.
I suppose that will mean six groups of 4 with four of the best 3rds progressing to the KO rounds.
Personally I'd prefer to stick at 16.
One benefit might have been to see a massive reduction in the number of qualifying games but if Mihir Bose is correct that wont be happening.
"I am told the formula being worked on is to have eight groups: four groups of seven and four groups of six teams, with the top two from each qualifying automatically.
The third-placed team would go into a play-off and, depending on whether Euro 2016 is hosted by a single country or two, a certain number of third-placed teams qualify to make up the 24 for Euro 2016".
Which will probably mean there will still be plenty of dead qualifying games & worse some of the 3rds will be decided by who gets to play Germany, Italy etcs. "experimental sides" once they are comfortably qualified with two or three games left to play.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 314
|
|
Quote:
Look at the World Cup, where utter dross get through and provide entertainment for no-one. How often do these lesser teams actually provide any real shocks or watchability? (Cameroon 90 and Senegal 02 aside, there have been few real upsets and no real value has been added).
Some of the 'utter dross' has been played by teams that went on to become champions or by teams perceived to be in the top bracket in terms of 'watchability'. Besides, the value of the 'lesser teams' cannot be decided on how many upsets they provide only. If that's the case, let's weigh England's value looking only at how often they beat someone bigger than them, for example.
Quote:
What have Latvia, Georgia, Belarus et al contributed to the overall European Championships? Nothing more than numbers to be brutally honest. The expansion of a tournament does not make it better as the teams you bring in are theoretically poorer.
One can argue the same about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only they have been doing it for longer. As long as the argument keeps being the same, I'll give the same answer: sometimes it's the big teams who just contribute only 'numbers'. Shouldn't we cull them too? And there's no way of knowing when will this happen or to whom. Look at France this time or in 2002, for example. On the other hand, a theoretically poorer team often surprises positively by giving their all in a historic opportunity. Sometimes it doesn't happen. But many other times it does. We will only know if they're allowed to play. And I don't mean everybody. I mean 32.
Quote:
all that happens is the talent pool becomes diluted and it acts as a bye for the better known teams into the next round.
A bye? England didn't even get that in qualifying from Croatia and Russia. Or, now that Latvia has been mentioned, neither did Germany four years ago.
I think that maybe the situations in the Champions League and in the international game are being mixed up. In the Champions League we can see very poor Greek or Portuguese champions, because even being the best teams in their countries they can't have access to their own best players. So a cream of 10-12 clubs from England, Italy and Spain get a superior pool of players to choose from, and they also have the means to take away the best talent coming from the rest of the teams year after year. This does produce very unequal games. Let Sporting Lisbon keep the players they produce, though, and we'll see where the famous 'balance of power' swings.
This, however, is hardly the case in the international game in Europe. Unless we go very low to the bottom of the barrel (Andorra, San Marino and so on), most international teams in Europe can give any other a good run for their money or achieve good results against the top teams. See Macedonia against England or Northern Ireland against Spain, for example. Whereas the best will win in the long run (usually), and the qualifying tournaments prove that, certainly there are at least 32 teams in Europe who do not guarantee 'byes' to their opponent. And those teams who forget this kind of respect are the ones who tend to be surprised on an off day.
Quote:
more teams = more cash...pure and simple.
This is very true. And a good thing, and compatible with more teams in.
Quote:
If and when the number goes up to 24 the quality will be diminished, not by the "lower" teams coming into it, because in fairness, there was many a team that wasnt involved in euro 2008 who couldve excelled. But the lowering of quality would be that the best teams would have to play an extra game and thus when it comes to business end of the tournament we will see alot more russia-style performances (i.e. out on their feet).
Thank you, that's the point I'm making too. However, one more game for just two countries (I'd scrap the 3rd place game at World Cups) is a small price to pay. The way to go would be to give an extra day or two of rest to the finalists. Sorted.
Quote:
Im an Irish fan, I was only three when ireland got to its one and only European Championships. The level of excitement was palpable and I would sincerely doubt the arguments made that romanians would be sleeping through their game with france.
Very true, and I don't think anyone has to come from a 'lesser' footballing nation to appreciate this (England runs the risk of being dragged down into being one of these, by the way). The benefits for the game in countries that do not usually make it to finals with the current system would be enormous, as they are now whenever that happens. (How was Euro 2008 followed in Ireland, by the way, with not even England in to wish ill to?) 
Quote:
if god forbid, 32 european teams were to picked for the finals, hell we might as well just allow andorra and the faroes to host the bloody thing.
Or Ireland
I insist I see nothing wrong with enlarging. Let teams play, that's all.
|
RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 534
|
|
Quote:
Some of the 'utter dross' has been played by teams that went on to become champions or by teams perceived to be in the top bracket in terms of 'watchability'. Besides, the value of the 'lesser teams' cannot be decided on how many upsets they provide only. If that's the case, let's weigh England's value looking only at how often they beat someone bigger than them, for example.
Woah woah woah…I never once mentioned England in all this and was certainly never claiming that all football played by the ‘bigger’ nations is entertaining…I’ve only recently mentioned how Italy bored their way to the WC final.
My point was, how often have the smaller teams (who, and this is just fact, are only at the finals due to expansion) actually added anything of any worth. That doesn’t mean that all the bigger teams DO give worth, rather the expansion per se has added nothing of note.
Quote:
Quote:
What have Latvia, Georgia, Belarus et al contributed to the overall European Championships? Nothing more than numbers to be brutally honest. The expansion of a tournament does not make it better as the teams you bring in are theoretically poorer.
One can argue the same about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only they have been doing it for longer. As long as the argument keeps being the same, I'll give the same answer: sometimes it's the big teams who just contribute only 'numbers'. Shouldn't we cull them too?
2 things:
1) I never mentioned ‘culling’ (which suggests an active ‘exclusion’)…by your reasoning, England were ‘culled’ from Euro 2008, which they were not, they simply didn’t qualify.
2) If a team doesn’t reach the finals, they shouldn’t be there…simple really. If that team happens to be England, Italy or France then c’est la vie. That’s what the qualifiers are there for…France didn’t qualify for several world cups in the 90s and England failed to reach USA 94 / Euro 2008…the reason? They weren’t good enough.
In this case, would Euro 2008 have been ‘better’ had England qualified in 3rd place? I’d say no as they are poor and would not have added anything in terms of quality.
The main thrust of my argument was about quality, rather than quantity. It’s good to have a mix of supposed top dogs and minnows as it provides the contrast that football thrives on. Double the amount of teams and the only place you can get them from is further down the qualifiying tables…ergo, the teams who were ‘not good enough’.
You seem to think I’m trying to prevent so called smaller nations from participating, whereas I’m purely arguing against letting in poorer quality teams (be they Latvia or Germany) as the overall quality drops.
Quote:
Quote:
all that happens is the talent pool becomes diluted and it acts as a bye for the better known teams into the next round.
A bye? England didn't even get that in qualifying from Croatia and Russia. Or, now that Latvia has been mentioned, neither did Germany four years ago. .
England? Who mentioned them?
|
badgerboy
member
Reged: 26/03/2007
Posts: 727
Loc: Bucks, England
|
|
What expanding to 24 really does is makes sure that none of the "big countries" can possibly miss out on qualification. Unless that is they are really, really bad.
So if Euro 2008 had been a 24 team competition England would have qualified comfortably - might have done "OK" in the Finals (who can say) and McClaren would probably have still been the manager.
What about the other teams that might have qualified? Well it's difficult to say but even with just 16 teams there were some: the two hosts, Romania, Greece & Poland spring immediately to mind - that lacked either the quality or the tactical ambition (sometimes both) to add a great deal to the competition. Arguably, one or two of the eight extra teams might have added more (I mean Russia were great and were relatively fortunate to make it to the finals) but probably at least six out of the eight wouldn't have added much at all. I mean let's take Scotland. They had a great qualifying campaign given their draw but their two wins over France were - I believe - similar in style to Romania v France but with a goal from one of their few attacks in the game. Hardly riveting tactics for the neutral. And France - despite their "name" - were another who added nothing apart from one decent performance against a rampant Dutch side.
So 8 more teams - 5 or 6 of whom might see three 0-0's & third in their group & hence making the KO round a "fantastic achievement" - which it probably would be (just not an achievement that would entertain the casual viewer). I can hardly wait...
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 314
|
|
Quote:
I never once mentioned England in all this and was certainly never claiming that all football played by the ‘bigger’ nations is entertaining.
I'll just clarify that I only use England as an example of a team perceived to be big, and also because they're well known. Insert any team you want there.
Quote:
My point was, how often have the smaller teams (who, and this is just fact, are only at the finals due to expansion) actually added anything of any worth. That doesn’t mean that all the bigger teams DO give worth, rather the expansion per se has added nothing of note.
Just their presence in the tournament involves whole nations, some of them very passionate about football and others in need of giving football some exposure in their countries. But depending on what you call small, you have things like Croatia, South Korea or Turkey reaching semi-finals, and results such as Nigeria beating Spain or Senegal and Denmark beating France. These can't happen if those teams aren't there.
I suppose that in any random collection of 64 games you're going to find more bad games than in 31, by pure mathematical law. But you will also find more good ones, and I choose to look at it from that point of view. Memorable games? Those, by definition are going to be very few and far-between, no matter if you play many or not. And I repeat: you never know where those games and moments are going to come from.
Quote:
You seem to think I’m trying to prevent so called smaller nations from participating, whereas I’m purely arguing against letting in poorer quality teams (be they Latvia or Germany) as the overall quality drops.
No, I think, and I suppose I'm correct, that you are trying to prevent MORE nations from participating, be they bigger, smaller or sleeping giants.
Why? Qualifying and finals are always very different kettles of fish. A team labelled a failure because they didn't qualify might have done very well if they had gone through, and teams with brilliant qualifying records then crash or underperform. We've seen it happening lots of times. So why not let more of those teams make their final point where it's due, on the pitch?
The main reason why I'm for enlarging to 32 (I don't like the enlargement to 24) is that I think expanding to 32 does very little damage to the competition, adding just one game for the finalists, and in exchange you get double the number of countries and more people interested in football for a month. Right now, it's like having a big bus and only using half of its space, while you leave people at the stop. In European Championship terms, 32 works because:
a) there are in Europe that many teams which are at least able to hold their own,
b) you leave the really dead wood out, no San Marinos,
c) the organisation and layout of the tournament is very easy: 16 teams fall after 3 games, then elimination matches until the final.
However, I'm equally forceful in being against expansions to 36 or more because the organisation and the rules would be more muddled and would have to use some third-placed teams going through, which is too weak a requirement.
|
RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 534
|
|
In purely selfish terms, I'm actually in favour of expanding competitions as I love to watch the matches no matter who is involved...but in terms of the quality, and more so, meaningfulness, I'm not so keen as I do think it devalues the overall competition a la the 'Champions (insert relevant apostrophe) League' (don't get me started on that again!)...which by definition it does as expansion means letting in the teams who previously weren't good enough.
That said, altruism has its downsides...sod it...expand and let the 4 weeks of football roll! 
|
dologhlin
member
Reged: 27/06/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
I agree with most of the points laid out by rogorn but my personal stance would be to oppose a 32 team european championships. if we look at the qualification for euro 2008, we had (not sure about the exact figures) eight groups of 6 or 7 teams, i think it was 6 groups of six and 2 groups of seven or something like that. Thus, my point being that there are around 50/52 countries trying to qualify for the european championships, with two teams from each group going through making sixteen. if you were to base a 32 team qualification on that system, you're looking at 4 out of six teams going through in six groups and four out of seven teams in two groups leaving eighteen teams not qualifying. OK, past the mathematics, which quite obviously isnt my strong suit, my point is a 32 team european championship renders the two year qualification process, which in effect acts as a national teams "season", pointless.
I do not think it would be so much of a problem for the tournament itself with regards quality, ie. out of englands qualifying group you wouldve had four decent teams: croatia, russia, england and israel. but it does take away from the enthusiasm of the so-called smaller nations as it no longer becomes an achievement to qualify for a european championships, it becomes a privilege. What makes the european championships and world cups so special in ireland for example, is that it doesnt happen every four years for us, now of course, we would love to be there every single time, but at least with the hard qualification process that is in place now, we are there on merit and because at that period we have reached a certain high standard of play.... taking away would significantly decrease the passion shown by smaller nations fans once the tournament commences.
|
Rogorn
member
Reged: 24/03/2007
Posts: 314
|
|
You mean you'd rather qualify less often, so that in comparison 1988 or 1994 stand taller in the imagination? I find most people would prefer to qualify as often as possible. The standard of play will show itself in the real arena, the finals. How many teams left out of the last tournament felt that with just a little bit more luck they could have held their own in it, or even done quite well once quelification was achieved? That would be the ultimate chance to prove it.
If 32 for the Euros was accepted, a good look would need to be taken at the qualification process, yes. Having groups of six or seven from where up to four qualify would lack in competitive tension. The way to go would be more groups and smaller.
|
RichieC
member
Reged: 17/07/2006
Posts: 534
|
|
More, smaller groups would still have the same problem however as the same proportion would still qualify from the group. Take say, 64 teams, out of which 32 qualify...no matter how you break up the groups, the top half of that group would qualify...8 groups of 8 would have 4 qualify from each group...and 16 groups of 4 would have the top 2...so having smaller groups would make no difference to the competitive element of each group. The only way to increase (or maintain) competitiveness would be to have fewer qualifiers overall...or increase the number of teams in the qualifiers in line with the finals...so we'll need some new countries...
Also, smaller groups would mean fewer matches = less cash...(unless you make them play each other 4 times...which would surely make the whole thing ever more farcical)
|
dologhlin
member
Reged: 27/06/2008
Posts: 5
|
|
The point i was tring to make is, if a team like ireland are not there on merit, or any team for that matter it would lower thae standard inherently. for example it wouldve been great if four teams went thru to euro 2008. meaning ireland would get there. but my problem is ireland didnt deserve to be there. they came third in their group and were absolutely awful throughout the qualification process and without doubt they wouldnt have had a successful euros.
i agree with richie, 32 teams for a european championships is completely unfeasible and i couldnt see it been brought in in the next 20/30 years. it would be impossible to formulate any kind of a competitive qualification process. 24 teams i agree with but anywhere past that and you may as well not have qualifiers and just one massive tournament with everybody involved.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
