Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 18, 2012 22:59:30 GMT 1
4 groups of 6 would be a lot more exciting.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 18, 2012 23:00:56 GMT 1
Not sure about that. You could end up with a lot of dead matches towards the end of the group stage.
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 18, 2012 23:04:21 GMT 1
True.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 18, 2012 23:10:41 GMT 1
The down side with the 6 groups of 4 format is that it gets quite messy with the top 2 in each group plus the best 4 3rd placed teams qualifying for the knockout stages but with 24 teams, there isn't really a better option.
The 1982 World Cup just had the top 2 going through to a second group stage with 4 groups of 3 and it just didn't work.
It would be easier with 32 teams but that would reduce the quality of the tournament, especially with only 53 members of UEFA.
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 18, 2012 23:13:43 GMT 1
Could have 4 groups of 5, 20 goes nicely into the second round.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 18, 2012 23:25:26 GMT 1
It seems to work OK in the Rugby World Cup. One issue in a football tournament would be the possibility of engineered results, but given UEFA's tie-break format also raises that possibility, they shouldn't be too concerned. Some would also argue that going from 20 to 8 in one go is too harsh.
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 18, 2012 23:33:36 GMT 1
I don't think it is. The top 2 go through, why the need for more then that...
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jun 19, 2012 0:28:11 GMT 1
Increasing the number of teams to 24 is a barmy decision. Whatever format is adopted for the qualifiers is bound to lead to a lot of dead matches and the same will happen in the main tournament. There is no satisfactory way of reducing 24 teams to 16 or 8.
A system that takes 36 games (six groups of four with six games per group) to eliminate eight teams is ridiculous and UEFA are unlikely to go for a format that reduces 24 teams to eight.
As I've said before, a 20 team format could work. That would mean four groups of five with the lowest seed missing the final game on the assumption that they will already have been eliminated.
A 24 team tournament means that nearly half of the initial entrants will qualify. That means that too many countries will be almost guaranteed to make it to the finals.
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Jun 19, 2012 1:19:09 GMT 1
Just to show how different this tournament could've been if it had had 24 teams, let's see who else would've qualified and how it would've affected the seedings.
Playoff losers: Turkey, Bosnia, Estonia and Montenegro would all have qualified by finishing 2nd in their respective groups.
Playoff qualifiers: The playoffs would then have shifted to the 3rd placed teams but we would have to lose one to get them down to 8.
The 3rd place teams table would've looked like this: 1. Norway 16 (+3) 2. Hungary 13 (-3) 3. Armenia 11 (+5) 4. Switzerland 11 (+2) 5. Scotland 11 (-1) 6. Israel 10 (-2) 7. Belgium 9 (+1) 8. Serbia 9 (-4) ----------------------- 9. Romania 8 (0)
So Romania miss out and the other 8 go into the playoffs.
Based on the UEFA's coefficients at the end of qualifying, our last 4 qualifiers would be: Serbia, Switzerland, Norway and Israel
Using UEFA's coefficients, that would've given us the following pots for the draw.
POT 1: Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Holland, Germany, Italy POT 2: England, Russia, Croatia, Greece, Portugal, Sweden POT 3: Denmark, France, Czech Republic, Ireland, Serbia, Switzerland POT 4: Turkey, Norway, Israel, Bosnia, Montenegro, Estonia
So Spain and Italy would've avoided each other, as would Holland and Germany, England and Sweden and Russia and Greece.
England could've ended up with Spain/Germany, France and Turkey as group of death opponents, or could've ended up with Poland, Switzerland and Estonia.
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 19, 2012 1:22:58 GMT 1
But we also know a pot 3 team can beat a pot 1 team, as shown by Denmark beating Holland, and to some extent Switzerland beating Germany beforehand. Norway wasn't THAT bad in the friendly either. Also, as if Turkey have slipped to a pot 4 team?
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Jun 19, 2012 12:19:40 GMT 1
I’m tired of hearing about what Rooney is going to do this evening! Why do we always expect him to delivery when he never does! My prediction is he’ll flop tonight, and if we get through it will be despite having Rooney in the time, not because of it!
|
|
|
Post by o on Jun 19, 2012 12:21:06 GMT 1
We've done alright without him to be honest. And to be fair it's the papers hyping him up, as the papers like to do, just so they can knock him down, it's not his fault is it?
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 19, 2012 12:44:32 GMT 1
I'd much rather have seen him stay at home! He IS NOT that good. He has moments of brilliance about 0.000001% of the time and that is for Man U, England he hasn't scored in a tournament since 2006? or was it 2004?
Pundits last night were on about his x-factor... yes of losing his cool and being sent off.
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Jun 19, 2012 12:50:28 GMT 1
Recent stats (which I don't have to hand) did prove that we have a better win ratio without Rooney than with him!
|
|
Paddy
Member
*Pick up a P..P...P.. Paddy*
Best newcomer 2009
Posts: 19,422
|
Post by Paddy on Jun 19, 2012 12:52:39 GMT 1
Probably because they work as a team without him, not expecting one person to astonish the world. Look at Portugal they don't rely on Ronaldo anymore like they used too.
|
|
|
Post by o on Jun 19, 2012 15:51:10 GMT 1
Ronaldo who scored two goals in their last game? I rate Rooney, and I might be alone in that, but his work ethic and skill off the ball are incredible, I dont get the hate.
|
|
ligerdog7
New Member
hollyyyyyyyyyyyy..... ages get bak post laters
Posts: 1
|
Post by ligerdog7 on Jun 19, 2012 16:43:17 GMT 1
I'd much rather have seen him stay at home! He IS NOT that good. He has moments of brilliance about 0.000001% of the time and that is for Man U, England he hasn't scored in a tournament since 2006? or was it 2004? Pundits last night were on about his x-factor... yes of losing his cool and being sent off. i ant aggreing diss aggreing but in way 1p says if his only goale scoreur 2night scores more 1 might change mind bit ;D commmmmmmmmmmmmmm on england sweden out arnt day hooo mooooooooooooooooo damm skippy uppppppppppppppppppppppp
|
|
|
Post by wonderwall on Jun 19, 2012 17:35:37 GMT 1
People saying Rooney should not play or get in the squad get real.He is the one world class we have he has to play under any circumstances.
|
|
ligerdog7
New Member
hollyyyyyyyyyyyy..... ages get bak post laters
Posts: 1
|
Post by ligerdog7 on Jun 19, 2012 19:31:44 GMT 1
respict wonderwall tru dat little birrdy told me england win get trough keep doing so all games bee bbc1 yessssssssssss add free commmmmmmmmmmmm onnnn englandd moooooooo moo ligers wuffyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy wuz\uppppppppppppppp ;D
|
|
|
Post by o on Jun 19, 2012 20:39:15 GMT 1
Poor so far.
|
|