|
Post by Shireblogger on Jun 17, 2021 9:04:03 GMT 1
I'm not that keen on the 24-team format with 3 teams qualifying through many groups. I'd rather have 32 teams with 2 qualifying from each group like it is in the World Cup. Maybe you should write to UEFA suggesting your rules. The qualifying tournament would be really thrilling. Start with 55 nations, and play hundreds of games to whittle them down to just 32, eliminating the Faroes, Kosovo, Andorra, Gibraltar and a handful of others along the way.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jun 17, 2021 9:09:23 GMT 1
I'm not that keen on the 24-team format with 3 teams qualifying through many groups. I'd rather have 32 teams with 2 qualifying from each group like it is in the World Cup. Maybe you should write to UEFA suggesting your rules. The qualifying tournament would be really thrilling. Start with 55 nations, and play hundreds of games to whittle them down to just 32, eliminating the Faroes, Kosovo, Andorra, Gibraltar and a handful of others along the way.
Did you not see how the qualifying process for Euro 2020 went into various play-off groups with knockouts? Scotland won 2 penalty shoot-outs in theirs to get through. Republic Of Ireland lost in extra time to Slovakia in the final of theirs.
We'd be seeing teams like Republic Of Ireland, Serbia, Norway, Romania, Iceland, Bosnia and maybe Greece or Slovenia who didn't get into the play-off phases despite finishing above others in their group who did (and I have no idea why).
The qualifying format has to remain such that any country affilliated with UEFA has a chance of qualifying, i.e. they are part of the qualifying competition.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 17, 2021 10:18:57 GMT 1
Maybe you should write to UEFA suggesting your rules. The qualifying tournament would be really thrilling. Start with 55 nations, and play hundreds of games to whittle them down to just 32, eliminating the Faroes, Kosovo, Andorra, Gibraltar and a handful of others along the way. We'd be seeing teams like Republic Of Ireland, Serbia, Norway, Romania, Iceland, Bosnia and maybe Greece or Slovenia who didn't get into the play-off phases despite finishing above others in their group who did (and I have no idea why). It's because the playoffs were based on the standings from the first edition of the Nations League with one qualifying spot for each tier (hence the presence of North Macedonia in this tournament).
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jun 17, 2021 10:40:16 GMT 1
Yes, that makes some sense.
My main point is that if it were extended to 32 the extra teams we'd see would be those on my list or similar, not hopeless teams like Faroe Islands, but even countries like them have to have a route to qualification.
32 teams gives you the same format the World Cup is now, and just 2 qualifying from each group, which I think is better than 3.
|
|
Robbie
Member
*Funky!*
Posts: 24,826
|
Post by Robbie on Jun 17, 2021 11:28:58 GMT 1
I think 32 teams is far too many for the Euro finals. Fine perhaps for the World Cup where there is (or should be) more strength in depth.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 17, 2021 11:40:13 GMT 1
And the 2022 World Cup will be the last with 32 teams as it's expanding to 48 from 2026 with 16 groups of 3.
|
|
Robbie
Member
*Funky!*
Posts: 24,826
|
Post by Robbie on Jun 17, 2021 11:48:22 GMT 1
^ I'd forgotten about that. 48 is far too high. How many national teams are there in the world?
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jun 17, 2021 11:55:15 GMT 1
Yes, that makes some sense. My main point is that if it were extended to 32 the extra teams we'd see would be those on my list or similar, not hopeless teams like Faroe Islands, but even countries like them have to have a route to qualification. 32 teams gives you the same format the World Cup is now, and just 2 qualifying from each group, which I think is better than 3. Thirty-two qualifiers would mean far too many countries would be almost guaranteed a place. It would make it almost impossible for the likes of France, Germany, England, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain to miss out. If you split it into, say, nine groups of six (with the hosts qualifying automatically), that could mean the top three all getting through automatically with paly-offs for the remaining places. A format like that would mean a lot of dead matches at the end of the league stage. Twenty-four is too many. Twenty could work with four groups of five and the top two each going into the knock-out stage. In each group, the fifth-ranked team would miss the final round of fixtures by which time they would probably have been eliminated.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 17, 2021 12:21:29 GMT 1
^ I'd forgotten about that. 48 is far too high. How many national teams are there in the world? FIFA currently has 211 members. There are a few others that are members of confederations but not FIFA and so they can't play in the World Cup. The number of slots for the 2026 tournament is: Asia: 8 (previously 4.5) Africa: 9 (5) CONCACAF: 6 (3.5) Europe: 16 (13) Oceania: 1 (0.5) South America: 6 (4.5) plus 2 spots through a 6-team playoff tournament featuring one team from every confederation except Europe, plus one additional team from the host confederation (CONCACAF in 2026).
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jun 17, 2021 12:31:39 GMT 1
Yes, that makes some sense. My main point is that if it were extended to 32 the extra teams we'd see would be those on my list or similar, not hopeless teams like Faroe Islands, but even countries like them have to have a route to qualification. 32 teams gives you the same format the World Cup is now, and just 2 qualifying from each group, which I think is better than 3. Thirty-two qualifiers would mean far too many countries would be almost guaranteed a place. It would make it almost impossible for the likes of France, Germany, England, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain to miss out. If you split it into, say, nine groups of six (with the hosts qualifying automatically), that could mean the top three all getting through automatically with paly-offs for the remaining places. A format like that would mean a lot of dead matches at the end of the league stage. Twenty-four is too many. Twenty could work with four groups of five and the top two each going into the knock-out stage. In each group, the fifth-ranked team would miss the final round of fixtures by which time they would probably have been eliminated. The "big" teams qualifying is almost guaranteed anyway. When it was 8, like it was from 1980 up to 1992, there were many big nations that missed out, like England in 1984, France in 1988 and Italy and Spain in 1992 (So did Denmark, actually..). Once it became 16 that was more rare but England still failed to qualify in 2008.
Not only do we see all the big ones qualify now, but they also easily get through their groups. England can draw one and lose one of the remaining 2 games and will almost certainly still get through, even if we are 3rd.
When England failed to qualify for the 1978 World cup, we won all but one game in the qualifying group, and lost out to Italy on goal-difference. Only one went through from each group. We qualified 4 years later finishing 2nd in a group with Hungary, Romania, Switzerland and Norway, with a record of W 4 D 1 L 3. Yet that was seen as "success" compared to the "failure" of 4 years earlier.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jun 17, 2021 13:19:19 GMT 1
But the likes of England and Netherlands have missed out on tournaments in the fairly recent past. That's my point. As for England's chances of getting through the group stage in this tournament, that is exactly why I don't like 24-team formats and why I proposed a format that would work with 20 teams.
|
|
|
Post by smokeyb on Jun 18, 2021 21:54:05 GMT 1
So happy Scotland got a draw, pity I didn't have the confidence to predict it.
|
|
Robbie
Member
*Funky!*
Posts: 24,826
|
Post by Robbie on Jun 18, 2021 22:02:14 GMT 1
Good result for Scotland and they were the better team. England just never got going.
|
|
|
Post by o on Jun 18, 2021 22:26:36 GMT 1
A draw was a fair result, but we were totally woeful, no creativity, no passion, no press, nothing.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 18, 2021 22:46:45 GMT 1
I don't think England were terrible, just very average. But aside from Italy and Belgium, I don't think any of the so-called "contenders" have looked particularly good in this tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Jun 18, 2021 23:03:11 GMT 1
It went about as well as expected, Kane ambling around like a big lump 30 yards to deep, Sterling running into defenders, Mount refusing to defend or drop back and create play and Foden doing his best poundland Gazza impression, they might all be talented players but the chemistry between them 4 just isn't there, never has been, never will be. Sometimes we get lucky and it clicks once, other times it doesn't click at all. It's just boring to watch 80m-150m players constantly run backwards towards their own goal and play it backwards the entire game. Think we put in one cross of any note, not my idea of entertainment, bring back Big Sam and atleast get it in the mixer.
|
|
Pablo
Member
*With Great Power comes Great Responsibilty*
Posts: 8,021
|
Post by Pablo on Jun 18, 2021 23:30:37 GMT 1
Scotland were the better team and had the better chances. Clearly did their homework picking out the weaknesses from England's first match. Against Croatia, it took a Kalvin Phillips run to provide an assist but that threat was neutralised and there was little creativity elsewhere.
Feel the occasion may have got the better for England.
|
|
|
Post by o on Jun 19, 2021 9:52:54 GMT 1
Scotland were not the better team, just had this argument with my son. The best chance of the whole game was Stones free header which should have been in the back of the net, there was no better chance than that. O Donnell's shot was a good save, and then there's Mount shot which the Scottish gk almost saved into his net. The header off the line was going wide, I make that 2-2 for good chances? Lots of scrammbles and a horrible shot wide at the end by Scotland, also early on Mount and Foden had good chances. Scotland played well, but still have 1 point and need to beat Croatia to progress, we played poorly but hopefully can sort ourselves for the Czech Rep, but could play out a draw and both go through. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51197603
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 19, 2021 10:26:15 GMT 1
With 4 points, chances are England are through anyway, even if they lose to the Czech Republic.
Finishing 2nd in the group potentially gives England an easier last 16 game (and that worked really well in 2016 didn't it?) but then potentially France in the quarters. Winning the group possibly means Portugal or Germany next, then possibly Spain (who look to have the same problem as England).
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 19, 2021 10:33:09 GMT 1
England's place in the last 16 will be confirmed before their final group game if two of the following happen:
Switzerland fail to beat Turkey Denmark beat Russia There is a winner in the Ukraine-Austria game Hungary and Germany both lose today
|
|