trgf Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 That was a perfectly sensible number though and expansion beyond it has been a mistake. I can't see it getting yet bigger, but I also imagine it would be difficult to undo what's happened. There's no way they'll go back now. We're stuck with it forever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 I also really don't believe the football has been as negative as people are making out. You can't have watched that game tonight and still think that. That was the best example you could get of how the new format is directly making the tournament more negative. Slovakia had no intention whatsoever of scoring a goal tonight, instead being happy to scrape a 0-0 and qualify in 3rd. And I'm not looking to moan for the sake of it, I'm looking forward to the knock-out stages and the one pay-off from this system is that there are an extra 8 knock-out games where you are usually guaranteed drama of some sort in each game. But the groups have been dreadful so far, largely influenced by the new format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polomoney Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 Could keep it at 24 teams but only the group winners and top 2 second placed teams go through to the QF's. At least then it wouldn't be quite so defensive. Bit of a bummer though if you finish second in your group and fail to qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
accies1874 Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 They won't take groups needing 5 matchdays and only 2 of 5 progressing. Coupled with the 4 playoffs being as late as March - 16 teams in them, 4 progressing and each also hosted in 1 city - and you wonder if it will feel like a "proper" finals tournament at all certainly for the fans actually attending. Stockholm wasn't successful, btw. There will be some kind of "geographic approximation" but that will clearly wane in KO stages and look at the spread of venues: British Isles Glasgow Dublin + London (SFs & Final) Iberia Bilbao Benelux Brussels Amsterdam Scandanavia Copenhagen Central Europe Munich (inc QF) Southern Europe Rome (inc QF) Eastern Europe Budapest Bucharest former USSR St Petersburg (inc QF) Baku (inc QF) I don't like that at all. It's going end up being far too expensive for fans. At least Scotland won't qualify, so I don't need to worry about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moo Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 2020 is just fucking ludicrous. Baku ffs? No thoughts about the fans at all. So potentially Bibao to Rome to Baku for all your group games. Mental. Edit: this will never happen but now Platini is away they should restructure the whole tournament. Give it to a country like Germany or England who have the hotels, stadia, transport available to host a competition. But too short notice would be the excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted June 20, 2016 Share Posted June 20, 2016 2020 is just fucking ludicrous. Baku ffs? No thoughts about the fans at all. So potentially Bibao to Rome to Baku for all your group games. Mental. Is that any different than when the world cup is held in Russia or America? FWIW, I'd imagine they'll do what they did in Euro 2008 and assign each group to be held in just two stadiums. One team will play all three of its matches in the same city whilst the others will rotate to the second city The six pairs would likely be Glasgow and Dublin Bilbao and Brussels Copenhagen and Amsterdam Munich and Rome Budapest and Bucharest St Petersburg and Baku That would give each stadium its quota of three group games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 The current system isn't the only way they could do things with 24 teams - a few alternatives are possible. 6 groups of 4 Top 2 + best 3rd placed teams make up last 16 This is the current system. It has the advantage of being fairly easy to understand, and guarantees everyone at least 3 games. However, it can lead to some cagey games later in the group, and gives an advantage to teams in the later groups. The 3rd place system could also be affected by having a complete diddy in a group, which is particularly important for the next tournament. If there's someone like the Faroes in a group, then you can all but assure a spot in the next round simply by pumping them and then either scraping a draw in one other game. Top 2 through. Best 4 group winners straight to QF This is the system I prefer. The top 2 teams in each group qualify for the knockouts. The 4 best group winners get a direct bye to the quarter-finals, while the other 8 teams play an extra knockout round to join them. This has all of the advantages of the current system, but avoids the situation of 3 teams out of 4 qualifying from some groups. The advantage given to group winners should also help ensure that teams play full strength sides in the final group match, even if they've won the first two games. It also gives an extra rest to the group winners, thus handing them another advantage. There is still a slight advantage to being in a later group, but it least it's only to secure a bye rather than progression to the next round. There are slightly fewer games in this format, which could be a problem for UEFA in terms of finance. Group winners + 2 best runners up to QF The Champions League used this format for a few years in the late 90s. The main advantage of this format is that everyone has to basically go all out to win nearly every game. Scraping 2nd place with a win and two draws is unlikely to get you anywhere. However, I think this is overly harsh and eliminates too many teams early on. It also has the same issues as the current format in terms of favouring teams in later groups. 4 groups of 6 I'm not sure this is really a goer. It requires far too many matches in the group stage, and would lead to loads of dead rubbers. You would probably have the following options. Group winners to SF Would be very competitive, but there would be lots of pointless fixtures near the end. Top 2 in each group to QF A slight improvement in terms of competitiveness, but makes the tournament even longer. Top 3 through, group winners straight to QF Most teams would have something to play for until the end, but it would be a really long tournament. Top 4 in each group to Last 16 The tournament would take about 2 months to complete. 8 groups of 3 Uneven groups are unlikely to be popular - leaves teams at a disadvantage if they are playing last. Group winners through to QF Substantial reduction in the number of games. Could create some dead rubbers if a team wins their first two matches, and then the other two have to play their last fixture with no chance of going through. Open to Argentina v Peru style suspicious matches if a team who are already out play a team who need a big win. Top 2 through to Last 16 Even more open to collusion - would be a lot of situations where teams would know that a particular result would get them both through. Two-tier system This is something which might work if it was done properly. The best teams from qualifying could be handed some form of advantage in the final tournament, thus incentivising teams to keep going at full strength even after qualification is assured. Best 8 from qualifying go straight to last 16 knockout. 4 groups of 4 for the rest. The 8 best teams from qualifying (or best 7 plus the hosts) could bypass the group stage and go straight into the last 16. The remaining 16 nations would play in 4 groups of 4, with the top 2 in each group going through. This has a lot of advantages in terms of streamlining the tournament, but would affect TV and sponsorship revenue with some of the bigger teams not involved until the latter stages. There would also be a risk of teams turning up and being knocked out after one game. Best 8 from qualifying go straight to last 16 groups. Knockout tie for the rest. The reverse of what was outlined above. The 8 best qualifiers would get straight into a group stage, while the other 16 teams would play off in a knockout round, with the 8 winners reaching the group stage. This might work well in terms of TV revenue, but would lead to 8 teams going home after a single game. Two-tier group system This would still have 6 groups of 4, but would be seeded differently. The best qualifiers could be drawn together in two "supergroups", while the other nations are drawn together in the other four groups. The winners of the supergroups would get some form of bye, while the losers from the supergroups would face the qualifiers from the other groups in a knockout round. There are loads of different ways that this system could be done. It has the major advantage of pitting the big teams against each other early on, while still giving everyone else a shot at making it through. However, it could be difficult to get a working format to fit into the tournament time frame, and it might be confusing. You also run the risk of the bigger teams taking the earlier games lightly since they know they're not going out anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Top 2 through. Best 4 group winners straight to QF This is the system I prefer. The top 2 teams in each group qualify for the knockouts. The 4 best group winners get a direct bye to the quarter-finals, while the other 8 teams play an extra knockout round to join them. This has all of the advantages of the current system, but avoids the situation of 3 teams out of 4 qualifying from some groups. The advantage given to group winners should also help ensure that teams play full strength sides in the final group match, even if they've won the first two games. It also gives an extra rest to the group winners, thus handing them another advantage. There is still a slight advantage to being in a later group, but it least it's only to secure a bye rather than progression to the next round. There are slightly fewer games in this format, which could be a problem for UEFA in terms of finance. Aye, this has to be the best way forward. They're obviously not going to reduce the number of teams as much as I'd like to see a return to 16, and moving up to 32 would guarantee a further dilution in quality. This would add much more excitement to the group stage and make it far less likely for teams to sneak through with just one win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classick Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 The current system isn't the only way they could do things with 24 teams - a few alternatives are possible. Among those 24 teams systems I prefer the one of 4 groups of 6: Top 3 through: - group winners get a direct bye to the quarter-finals - runners-up face third-placed teams playing an extra knockout round to join QF PROS: -Most teams would have something to play for until the end. -it guarantees everyone at least 5 games. -it rewards group winners with a by to QF, (even if some teams already qualify before the last group match, they should need a result until the last match to win the group) -No advantage to the teams who play later (just compete against group members, not depending on the results of the other groups) CONS: -it would be a longer group stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 This set up is a joke. Surely they will face pressure to revert back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Among those 24 teams systems I prefer the one of 4 groups of 6: Top 3 through: - group winners get a direct bye to the quarter-finals - runners-up face third-placed teams playing an extra knockout round to join QF PROS: -Most teams would have something to play for until the end. -it guarantees everyone at least 5 games. -it rewards group winners with a by to QF, (even if some teams already qualify before the last group match, they should need a result until the last match to win the group) -No advantage to the teams who play later (just compete against group members, not depending on the results of the other groups) CONS: -it would be a longer group stage 60 Group Stage Games 4 playoffs 4 Quarter Finals 2 Semifinals 1 final 71 games By comparison the 32 team World Cup is 48 Group Stage 8 2nd round 4 Quarter Finals 2 Semifinals 1 3rd/4th play off 1 final 64 games overall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roker Rover Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Leave it as 6 groups of 4 and send the best 4 group winners straight to the QF's. The other 2 group winners and the 6 runners up play a round to produce the other 4 quarter finalists. Keeps it at 24 and eliminates anybody but the top two in each group thereby eliminated negative play, It also gives an incentive to winning the group well. The best 4 group winners could play two exhibition/friendly matches (1 match each) while the extra round is taking place to keep them on the boil and partly make up for the loss of 4 round of 16 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 I'm sure someone's already done it in the thread, but say we were to expand to 32 for this tournament we're in now, and qualifying played out as it did, the top 3 in every group would have qualified, plus four winners of playoffs between the teams in 4th. That would mean the following teams that aren't there now would be... Bosnia and Herzegovina Norway Denmark Slovenia No real massive drop in quality there. Then the eight best 4th place sides would go into a playoff... Scotland Holland Israel Belarus Estonia Finland Montenegro Bulgaria Serbia One of those would drop out as the worst, but I really can't be arsed taking off the results against the bottom placed teams to adjust for Serbia being in the 5 team group. Let's just say that Serbia drop off, because their total of 4 points was absolutely houfing. No idea who the seeds would be for the above, but suspect Scotland and Holland would be in there. It's in that group of 4th placed teams that you'd really start to dilute the quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 Did we not just vote to prevent all of this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 England and Wales to be turfed out for being ungrateful. Strachan's putting up the bat signal to get the squad together to replace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troopio Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 Even with a 32 team Euros we still wouldn't qualify through a play off let alone automatically. Until we get rid of the Dinosaurs in the SFA and Strachan we have no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moo Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 Even with a 32 team Euros we still wouldn't qualify through a play off let alone automatically. Until we get rid of the Dinosaurs in the SFA and Strachan we have no chance. Erm we probably would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.