Football 2015/16

[Gucci Piggy]

What is the new format for the finals? 4 groups of 6 with 4 teams progressing from each?

[mrtourette]

Same as the old World Cup (probably before your time) - six groups of four, top two go through and then the four best third place teams.

Edited October 13, 2015 by mrtourette

[mrtourette]

Three years old but still:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/uefa-admit-expansion-of-european-championships-to-24-teams-not-ideal-7594801.html
 

Uefa are struggling to devise a format for the 24 teams in the finals of Euro 2016, it was conceded today.

The final tournament has been expanded from 16 teams and organisers are now wrestling with the best way of having a group stage going into a knock-out phase.

Gianni Infantino, UEFA's general secretary, admitted the final tournament was "not ideal" and that some teams who finish in third place in the four-team groups will go through to the round of 16 knock-out stage.

Organisers also want to avoid teams being able to collude in a match so that both qualify at the expense of another team in the group.

Infantino said: "This will be done by the end of this year. It is 24 teams and that is a problem - it is not an ideal final tournament because you will have to have a few of the third ones who qualify as well [for the knockout stage].

"The question is how you make it in a way that results cannot be organised and you don't know in advance what you need to be the best."

Infantino said UEFA would also review the Euro 2016 qualification competition to ensure that it was not "boring".

 

[TheGayTent]

Old monkey head going back to Sunderland? No idea why, but always quite liked him. Might be a sensible idea from Allardyce. Interesting to note he's as good as admitted he only took the job because of a massive bonus payment on offer for keeping them up.

[Gucci Piggy]

Same as the old World Cup (probably before your time) - six groups of four, top two go through and then the four best third place teams.

Oh right, so 16 teams don't get out of the group, then?

[mrtourette]

Oh right, so 16 teams don't get out of the group, then?

 

Work it out again.

[mrtourette]

I hate Allardyce but I'm hoping he's going to keep talking and fill the void left by Rodgers:

 

"If I am doing exceptionally well when Roy [Hodgson] decides he doesn't want to be there, then I have got a chance."

[pink_triangle]

Well of course it bloody would, which nation would turn down a greater opportunity to qualify? .

In that case why go against the views of the majority to appease fans of a few select nations who always qualify and therefore get little benefit from the change. We already have a system of two sets of seeding during qualification to look after the big boys, maybe its right to also look after the rest of us.

To me the smaller nations should benefit from tournament experience. The european championship should look to reward the best, but also to develop football throughout the continent. If people don't want to watch albania then don't watch them.

[mrtourette]

In that case why go against the views of the majority to appease fans of a few select nations who always qualify and therefore get little benefit from the change.

So you're saying that because everyone wants to take part then everyone should be allowed to take part? What's the point of having qualifying at all? I don't care whether my nation that 'always qualifies' (Boo! Hiss! Always treading on the plucky upstart!) gets any benefit out of it (which they would, as it makes their path to the knockout phase easier), it still devalues the tournament. It's not about denying small nations the opportunity to take part, it's about wanting every game to be competitive and mean something, whether it's between established nations or first-time qualifiers. Size doesn't matter, it's whether a team is good enough, and (from a qualifying pool of 53) 24 teams is to too big a group to have each team able to compete with the others.

We already have a system of two sets of seeding during qualification to look after the big boys, maybe its right to also look after the rest of us.

And looking after is increasing the number of places available so that it's easier to qualify? That's a real lovely sentiment, maybe we can all hold hands and celebrate the socialist experiment that is Uefa for bringing us more together as a continent. Except it isn't, it's designed to maximise income and profit. Don't try and pretend there's another motive behind it, ot pitch this as the evil big-boys wanting to protect their own interests. The romanticism of tournament play is important but there has to be discipline as well.

To me the smaller nations should benefit from tournament experience. The european championship should look to reward the best, but also to develop football throughout the continent. If people don't want to watch albania then don't watch them.

I don't doubt that smaller nations benefit from the experience, and I have no problem watching Albania in a competitive football match, however the expansion of the format (as with the World Cup) means that while it allows 'smaller' nations s greater chance of qualification when you get to the tournament proper there is still a significant gap in the quality of the teams, and that devalues the tournament.

I know it probably means I'm not a proper football fan, but the prospect of watching Switzerland against Ukraine (two tedious teams at the best of times) play a dead rubber at the end of the tournament when they're both already out doesn't appeal to me. And yes you're right, I can choose not to watch it, and Swiss and Ukrainian fans do love the fact that at least they're there, but it makes for a weaker tournament.

[TheGayTent]

Ultimately viewing figures, advertising and TV revenue will decide whether the new format is successful.

What the average football supporter wants is neither here nor there.

Just look at how fucked Euro 2020 is. I only hope the mess Platini is now in will change things - I won't be holding my breath mind.

[Gucci Piggy]

Work it out again.

Went back to thinking there were 4 groups when working out the top 2 from each group.

[pink_triangle]

Fans of 6 or 7 nations think the tournament shouldn't be expanded, fans of 40 plus nations think it should. To me an increase to 24 is a fair compromise between the opinions of both groups. The expansion has made the likes of northern ireland and wales go into qualifying believing they had a chance and that has translated on the pitch. Previously we knew we could have a great qualification and come second, then uefa would seed the play offs with a view to keeping an underperforming big team in.

[mrtourette]

Ultimately viewing figures, advertising and TV revenue will decide whether the new format is successful.

What the average football supporter wants is neither here nor there.

Just look at how fucked Euro 2020 is. I only hope the mess Platini is now in will change things - I won't be holding my breath mind.

Oh I've no doubt that by those terms it will be a roaring success, and also that the supporters of Slovakia, Northern Ireland, Wales, Albania, etc. will consider it a success and an event whether or not the tournament is compelling and exciting (a not-so-accidental secondary benefit for Uefa desperate for credibility and goodwill). I'm basing my judgement on whether I enjoy the tournament or not, which like you say doesn't matter one little bit to anyone other than me.

[pink_triangle]

Ultimately viewing figures, advertising and TV revenue will decide whether the new format is successful.

.

Its hard to see a huge drop in either. Its also hard to ever see uefa going back to 16 teams. I also am not a fan of the 2020 and hope its a one off.

As for fan enjoyment, most won't give a crap if their own nation is doing well. Euro 96 was a poor quality tournament yet the english look back on it fondly.

[TheGayTent]

Fans of 6 or 7 nations think the tournament shouldn't be expanded, fans of 40 plus nations think it should.

Is this a fact or supposition?

[pink_triangle]

I'm basing my judgement on whether I enjoy the tournament or not, which like you say doesn't matter one little bit to anyone other than me.

I think that's fair enough as a welshman and an englishman we look at the tournament through very different eyes, I suspect if I was spanish and you albanian we would have very different views to those we hold now.

[pink_triangle]

Is this a fact or supposition?

I think its a safe bet knowing most fans are happy with rules that work in there favour,

[TheGayTent]

I think its a safe bet knowing most fans are happy with rules that work in there favour,

I'm not sure the revised rules make it in any way harder for the supposedly more established sides.

I don't know of any English fan who is against the revised format because the new rules work less in England's favour.

Edited October 13, 2015 by TheGayTent

[pink_triangle]

I'm not sure the revised rules make it in any way harder for the supposedly more established sides.

I don't know of any English fan who is against the revised format because the new rules work less in England's favour.

I agree for the established qualifiers it makes very little difference as they (almost) always qualify anyway. Fans of these nations therefore look at what they want from a tournament very differently to fans who don't.

[TheGayTent]

I'll take your word for it

[mrtourette]

Fans of 6 or 7 nations think the tournament shouldn't be expanded, fans of 40 plus nations think it should. To me an increase to 24 is a fair compromise between the opinions of both groups. The expansion has made the likes of northern ireland and wales go into qualifying believing they had a chance and that has translated on the pitch. Previously we knew we could have a great qualification and come second, then uefa would seed the play offs with a view to keeping an underperforming big team in.

Why the hell does there need to be a compromise? Of course there are 40+ teams who want the competition expanded! "You know what guys, the teams that aren't good enough to qualify are complaining because they aren't qualifying, let's make it so that more of them can qualify". Brilliant.

They don't care about the quality of the tournament, they just want in. Which is perfectly reasonable, why wouldn't they, why should Welsh fans give a shit if the tournament is weakened by opening up places? As long as they get to say they've finally qualified again what does it matter if it's when there are more places available than all the times they failed. It's great that the smaller teams felt they had a better chance to qualify, but it still means that there will be a greater range of quality in the first and second rounds and that big nations will be able to sleepwalk through to the knock-outs.

Any finals that have nearly 50% of the original entrants is too bloated and will suffer as a result, and the romanticism of seeing Northern Ireland or Hungary back in a major tournament won't make up for it. 16 teams was a perfect amount for a tournament structure and as a percentage of the entrants, and if a small nation got in then they really earned it. There were 207 teams entered into qualifying for the last World Cup, can imagine the mess if they opened the finals up to 96 teams? Still at least it would give plenty of smaller nations the experience.

Anyway we're coming at it from different angles, you want your team to quality no matter what, I want to watch competitive matches between equally-balanced teams. The solution to your problem affects mine, and vice versa. I'm sure if I was in your shoes just qualifying for the top table would be my main focus, but I'm not. To me a group stage of France, Spain, Belgium and the Czech Rep is better than France, Northern Ireland, Albania and Cyprus, whether England qualify or not.

[mrtourette]

I'm not sure the revised rules make it in any way harder for the supposedly more established sides.

I don't know of any English fan who is against the revised format because the new rules work less in England's favour.

It doesn't, it makes it easier. Four out of six groups will have three nations going into the knock-out stage. It's better for stuttering big nations as they will have more opportunity to get into the swing of things as there's a better chance of getting into the second round and a better chance of meeting a smaller/less-experienced nation there.

In a way I'd rather see England go toe-to-toe with three top nations in the group stage and go out that them be allowed to back into the knock-outs without any effort, get a lucky draw and a dull 2-0 win in the second round and then have their arses handed to them on a plate by Germany, Spain or Italy. I don't think I can handle another four games like the qualifying campaign before we get to play someone meaningful.

Edited October 13, 2015 by mrtourette

[Chris Lfc]

Really hoping netherlands can come out on top and turkey get beat, unlikely but i have faith! I need my second country to fall back on if england don't get anywhere lol

[ThomThomDrum]

RVPs own goal...friggin hilarious! Amazing to think the Dutch could not qualify let alone not qualify with the be easier system! 

[pink_triangle]

 

16 teams is perfect if you support one of the 16 teams who always qualifies.

 

In my view Wales, Iceland and Albania have really earned their places in the tournament.  Every bit as much as top seeds in previous qualification campaigns who have underachieved in coming second and then qualified on the basis of the disgraceful play off seeding which has handed them a plum tie.

Never have I said I want my team to qualify come what may, I am not in favour of 100% qualification. I believe European football has enough strength in depth to accommodate 24 teams. 

Edited October 13, 2015 by pink_triangle