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.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: The Sublime and the Ridiculous
Edit
Reply
Quote
