Euro 2016

[elroy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/8711016.stm

France :mad: awarded the tournament. As it is the first Euros to be extended to 24 countries, you would really hope that we qualify for the tournament. As it is of close proximity, this has the potential to be the best tournament for Irish fans since 1990.

[Arnold Layne]

If they don't qualify with almost half of Europe getting there, they should give up football. 24 countries from 53 in UEFA. Crazy stuff.

[jbyrne]

If they don't qualify with almost half of Europe getting there, they should give up football. 24 countries from 53 in UEFA. Crazy stuff.

agree. completely devalues qualifying. having said that, i was in france for the RWC in '07 and it is a super place for a tournament

[tricky_colour]

Well I make it there are 18 non-European Countries ranked above us (41st) in FIFA so that makes the 23th best country in Europe!!
(assuming I counted correctly), so we are right on the cusp of qualifying, however having said that one would think we would qualify,
however take a look at the European teams ranked above us and it is clear that it will not be a formality.

[Crosby87]

agree. completely devalues qualifying. having said that, i was in france for the RWC in '07 and it is a super place for a tournament

lol. It doesnt completely devalue it for goodness sakes. There will still be all the good teams there.
But can we worry about 2012 first?

[wrestler313]

agree that its too big, but it will be nice to be there

[endabob1]

Much and all as I am looking forward to the increased chance of us qualifying, 24 teams is a farce. 16 is the right number and they should stick with it.
36 games to lose 8 teams, madness. it was an awful system in the 3 world cups it was used in, I've no idea why they would want to revisit it.

[newrynyuk]

36 games to lose 8 teams, madness. it was an awful system in the 3 world cups it was used in, I've no idea why they would want to revisit it.

Clue: MONEY!!!

[jbyrne]

lol. It doesnt completely devalue it for goodness sakes. There will still be all the good teams there.
But can we worry about 2012 first?

if something is easier to come by then it is devalued. simple really

[endabob1]

Clue: MONEY!!!

Sadly, probably the truth.

[Crosby87]

if something is easier to come by then it is devalued. simple really

So the ability to go to a store and get food means the whole food thing is completely devalued? Years ago It used to be a lot more difficult to get food right? But now that you can eat things from all over the world is the experience not full of value? What about medicine, certainly easier to come by than even 20 years ago. Is the medical world devalued? Some might say the exact opposite. Talk to anyone with small pox lately?
I think some people just are always afraid of change. At this point I would rather make an expanded tournament then constantly missing one. I agree it will be good to top the group for 2012 and feel all good about it like we deserve to be there, but no one says Ireland cant do that in 2016. Even if they let 50 teams in, you can still top the group and earn it.
Besides, it makes things interesting. Israel is going to qualify for something one of these years, (maybe this devalued 2016 tourney) and just watching the tournament hosts deal with that will be worth its weight in gold.

[boovidge]

If the supply of food and medicine increases then yes, their market value would decrease.

[elroy]

If anything is likely to be devalued it will be qualifying campaign. Realistically all the big teams should qualify easily every time so the prospect of shocks ala England in 2008 is much less likely. However, for Irish football to have a really strong chance of participating in a top international tournament every 4 years can only be good news.

[gilberto_eire]

Much and all as I am looking forward to the increased chance of us qualifying, 24 teams is a farce. 16 is the right number and they should stick with it.
36 games to lose 8 teams, madness. it was an awful system in the 3 world cups it was used in, I've no idea why they would want to revisit it.

24 teams is still 8 less then the WC, i don't see too many people complaining about the WC where just about every group has two stand out teams, one or two have a 3rd seed who might sneak through and the 4th seeds are just making up the numbers. 24 teams from Europe wouldn't mean a less competitive competition, as many countries like ourselves, Sweden, Denmark etc.... will fill the extra places.

This is about the only thing done in World/European football that actually favours smaller countries(look at the shambles of the ''european club'' comps where even the 3rd placed team out of the Champions league gets into the Europa to knock out the smaller clubs, places held from leagues like our own to increase TV revenue.

This move should see us qualify for a major competition, which with some success should lead to a stronger squad in years to come(and increased WC potential) as more kids get sucked into the summer festivities.

How anyone from here could think this ''devalues'' the comp' must love watching other countries play as Ireland missing out means a nothing event to someone like me, i couldn't care if Denmark are playing Scotland or if Italy are playing Spain if we don't make it

[Jicked]

How will qualifying work - top two go through and third place goes in to a play-off or less groups and the top three all go through? How boring will the qualifying stages be - when was the last time a top seed didn't finish in the top three in their group, if that has ever happened?

[Gather round]

How will qualifying work - top two go through and third place goes in to a play-off or less groups and the top three all go through? How boring will the qualifying stages be - when was the last time a top seed didn't finish in the top three in their group, if that has ever happened?

I'm guessing there will be 11 groups (eight with five teams, three with four). Top two from each group qualify, plus the best third place calculated from results against the three other highest placed teams in their group.

Obviously everyone will have a greater chance than at present, but qualification won't be a formaility as just finishing third won't be enough.

Alternatively: nine groups as now (seven with six teams, two with five). Top two in each case qualify plus best third place. Eight other third placed sides play off for remaining four places.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Knowing the gnones of Zurich they'll go for any option that involves play-offs and/or as many qualifiers as possible, no matter how meaningless there are.
They need less cr*p internationals than now, not more, as there's far too many games in general. They have compromised any chance of quality, over quantity. This will apply to the Finals of Euro 2016 & beyond, If they keep 24 teams.

[Lenny82]

Nobody would have had a problem with this system if it was in place for 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, and allowed Ireland to qualify!!! Now that we are on the cusp of great things under Trapatoni with a genuinely great chance of automatic qualification for future tournaments, people come out and say it is devaluing the tournament.

As we all know, many great European teams (Well better than the likes of Honduras, North Korea, Algeria) have missed out on the World Cup and likewise would miss out on the Euro's aswell.

It gives countries like NI, Wales, Lithuania, Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro and Cyprus a genuine opportunity to qualify or at least make the play-off's which will make the competitiveness of mediocre games greater. I don't see this as a bad thing.

Making it easier to qualify won't make it any easier to win the competition so I am all for it!!!

[Ciaran W]

This just sets us up perfectly to beat france in the final with a handball from a slightly aged robbie Keane and from that day he would be known as ''the thief of saint denis'' ;)

[DaveyCakes]

Euro 2016 in a nutshell!

Cut to RTE studio after ad break:

Bill O'Herlihy: Okey-dokey. Well, Switzerland and Norway didn't manage a shot on target between them in 90 minutes there in Toulouse, but I'm sure that this evening's match between Belgium and Bulgaria will be a thriller. What do you reckon Eamonn?

[DaveyCakes]

As we all know, many great European teams (Well better than the likes of Honduras, North Korea, Algeria) have missed out on the World Cup and likewise would miss out on the Euro's aswell.



Great???? Half of the European teams who have qualified are bloody awful.



It gives countries like NI, Wales, Lithuania, Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro and Cyprus a genuine opportunity to qualify or at least make the play-off's which will make the competitiveness of mediocre games greater. I don't see this as a bad thing.



They don't qualify because they're crap. And why stop there? Why not just let all 53 countries into the finals so San Marino and Andorra have a genuine chance to qualify.

[elroy]

Well we all rave and are happy to watch a world cup with many teams that are sub standard to many European teams. So in many ways an increased Euros will be more competitive than the early stages of a WC.

In any case, the most important thing from an Irish perspective is an increased chance of a top international tournament every 4 years, that sells it for me! At best, its going to be 10 years since we last qualified for a major tournament before we do it again, we need regular qualification so to ensure that the upcoming generations also get to enjoy tournaments like we have been fortunate to experience in the last 20 odd years.

[Lenny82]

Great???? Half of the European teams who have qualified are bloody awful.




They don't qualify because they're crap. And why stop there? Why not just let all 53 countries into the finals so San Marino and Andorra have a genuine chance to qualify.


Ireland, Russia, Croatia, Sweden are better than alot of teams that are at the World Cup which iswhy I feel more teams in the Euro's would make it better. The standard of the European teams so far has been poor, granted, but that's not the point I was making in my pre-world cup post!!!

With regards to the second point you made, this was just Stupid!!!

[osarusan]

Ireland, Russia, Croatia, Sweden are better than alot of teams that are at the World Cup which iswhy I feel more teams in the Euro's would make it better.

The teams you mentioned may be better than the New Zealand or Cameroon team (for example) but that's because European football is of a higher standard in general than football from the regions those teams are from, and the WC is a competition for teams of all regions.

With a tournament for teams who are all from only one region, the comparison is no longer relevant, and I don't see how adding teams 17-24, who were too weak to qualify under the old system, will make the Euro Champs 'better'.

It'll make it easier for teams to qualify, and dilute the overall quality of the competition.

[Wolfie]

24 teams. Eurovision are diversifying into football it appears.

[pineapple stu]

The teams you mentioned may be better than the New Zealand or Cameroon team (for example) but that's because European football is of a higher standard in general than football from the regions those teams are from, AND the WC is a competition for teams of all regions.
Don't forget there's only 13 (I think?) european teams in the World Cup, so straight away you get the next three best teams into the Euros.

[osarusan]

Don't forget there's only 13 (I think?) european teams in the World Cup, so straight away you get the next three best teams into the Euros.

Sorry, I don't follow your point.

[pineapple stu]

Lenny was saying that there's teams at home that would improve the World Cup, so it's right to exapnd the Euros. But the 16-team Euros will allow more European teams than the World Cup anyway, so his point is diluted.

[gilberto_eire]

It'll make it easier for teams to qualify, and dilute the overall quality of the competition.

Who cares what the overall standard is like if Ireland aren't present?, isn't the whole point of it to watch your own country... or other countries if your bored and hanging around the house during the summer(i wouldnt put other things off to watch any of these games).

Basically every game in this WC so far has been complete garbage, the only way i could happily sit through one of these games is if Ireland were playing.

I don't understand why people are against this on the basis of quality of the other games, do people prefer to watch other countries play then Ireland?

[Lenny82]

Don't forget there's only 13 (I think?) european teams in the World Cup, so straight away you get the next three best teams into the Euros.

Not necessarily, as Poland and Ukraine qualify automatically as hosts for 2012.

Look, adding 8 extra places for the Euro's will not drastically affect the quality or watchability as alot of the games won't be any worse than say Honduras v Chile today. If anything, it will make the latter stages of the qualifiers more entertaining as teams that would normally be out of contention, may still have a shot of qualification and instead of trying out youngsters to build for the future, their last few qualifiers will be competitive affairs!!! Thats just my opinion.

[Cymro]

I'm not too hot on the change to 24 teams. I'd align myself with those such as endabob who see it as devaluing the achievement. Qualification from third place in a group of five or six wouldn't really be an achievement at all, especially if you just happen to get lucky in the play-offs. Let's consider what the ROI or NI, as current third seeds, might possibly be able to qualify with.

Ireland's group for Euro 2012: Russia, Slovakia, Rep. Ireland, Macedonia, Armenia, Andorra.

Ireland could feasibly get 14 points from that group, finish third, and beat another third placed team (Northern Ireland, perhaps) 1-0 over two poor quality legs, to qualify. By the way, I'm not trying to make any point by using Northern Ireland and the Republic as examples, I simply used them because they are familiar to all who use this board.

To take Wales's group (we have a group of five with England, Switzerland, Bulgaria, and Montenegro), I reckon maybe eight or nine points could be enough to finish third in that, if England and Switzerland win most of their games as expected. I wouldn't want to qualify with that, it would be a joke.

However, in support of it, you'd have to say it probably won't significantly dilute the quality of the finals. The teams who don't make the cut at the moment may have very bad campaigns or be in bad form, but they are not necessarily bad teams as such. I reckon we'd put up a decent show if we were at the World Cup (assuming we had everyone fit), despite finishing a distant fourth in our group. In major tournaments the form book goes out the window.

[Cymro]

Euro 2016 in a nutshell!

Cut to RTE studio after ad break:

Bill O'Herlihy: Okey-dokey. Well, Switzerland and Norway didn't manage a shot on target between them in 90 minutes there in Toulouse, but I'm sure that this evening's match between Belgium and Bulgaria will be a thriller. What do you reckon Eamonn?

It's a bit silly to assume that matches between smaller nations will necessarily be less exciting. Some of the dullest games you'll see are between two top teams who won't give an inch.

[bennocelt]

It's a bit silly to assume that matches between smaller nations will necessarily be less exciting. Some of the dullest games you'll see are between two top teams who won't give an inch.


But isnt it better to see quality footballers playing decent football, rather than a game littered with bad defending and jokey football?

[Cymro]

Well, as a neutral, whilst I enjoy watching good football, watching exciting, end-to-end football, where both sides attack and are desperate to win for national pride, and where drama and tension are high, is generally more important, regardless of the standard.

However, as I said, I don't think expanding the Euros will really affect the overall quality all that much. Most of the teams that'll come in won't be any worse than the smaller teams that are making the grade at the moment. The main argument against expanding the Euros, in my view, is that it will make the achievement of qualifying cheaper.

[Stuttgart88]

and it'd make the chances of a big team not qualifying like England in '08 zero.

[jbyrne]

and it'd make the chances of a big team not qualifying like England in '08 zero.

it also makes the chances of smaller nations staging the tournament almost zero

[endabob1]

My beef with the 24 team system is that you play so many games to lose just 8 teams in the first round, once you win a group game you're virtually sure to be in the last 16 which will lead to teams resting players, and lots of room for uncompetitive games.

The argument put forward that because we should qualify more often will lead to us having improved standards is a moot one, the same can be said for all the other teams at our level, so while we might improve relative to the weaker teams we will be no different to Scotland, Norway etc.... in that regard imo.

The last point about hosting it is a good one. It means were likely to see either more dual hosts which I hate, because it gives countries like Poland & Austria free reign when in reality they would struggle to qualify by rights or else you effectively limit the hosting to 5 or 6 countries which is again far from ideal.

Obviously I want Ireland to qualify so from that perspective its great I just think from the bigger picture perspective, it's a bad idea.

[Charlie Darwin]

My beef with the 24 team system is that you play so many games to lose just 8 teams in the first round, once you win a group game you're virtually sure to be in the last 16 which will lead to teams resting players, and lots of room for uncompetitive games.
Dunno about that. The World Cups from 86-94 were held the same way and they were hardly uncompetitive.

[Serb]

it also makes the chances of smaller nations staging the tournament almost zero

The joint-host system will allow some of the smaller nations to host games. Austria and Switzerland hosted Euro 2008 and neither would be considered big teams. Austria had never qualified for the Euros before that tournament.

[pineapple stu]

Not necessarily, as Poland and Ukraine qualify automatically as hosts for 2012.
Ukraine, quarter-finallists at the last World Cup but missing this time cos they lost a play off? Sounds exactly like the kind of country you want to add to the competition.

[stojkovic]

Dunno about that. The World Cups from 86-94 were held the same way and they were hardly uncompetitive.
In 86, Uraguay drew two games and lost 6-1 to Denmark and they still made the Second Round. In 1982 Italy drew 3 group games and then went on to win it. in 1990 we know that Ireland drew 3 games and went through. In 94 Italy came third in our group and went on to the final.

The success of the Euros has been because it only has 16 teams,the Euros of 2000 and 2008 were two of the best tournaments ever.

Quality over quantityI say.

[Charlie Darwin]

How exactly do those examples prove the tournaments weren't competitive?

[mypost]

I can't fathom what is people's problem with this?

The qualifying round will probably be 7 groups of 6 teams, and 2 of 5 teams. The finals will probably be 6 groups of 4, with the top 2 and 4 best 3rd-placed going through. You have 16 left for the knockout ties.

When 24 teams qualified for the WC from 82-90, 14 of the finalists were European, from 35-odd countries. I am delighted with the move, as it makes it easier for Ireland to qualify, and barring a catastrophe, we will. I just wish it was in place for the coming qualifiers.

[jbyrne]

The joint-host system will allow some of the smaller nations to host games. Austria and Switzerland hosted Euro 2008 and neither would be considered big teams. Austria had never qualified for the Euros before that tournament.

but the number of teams is increasing by 8 from that joint hosted tournament. the next joint hosts ukraine, and to a lesser extent poland, are finding it hard to come up with the required number of stadia and thats for the smaller 16 team tournament. ukraine and poland are also very big countries with big populations and if they are struggling what chance is there for smaller countries?

[osarusan]

I can't fathom what is people's problem with this?

The qualifying round will probably be 7 groups of 6 teams, and 2 of 5 teams. The finals will probably be 6 groups of 4, with the top 2 and 4 best 3rd-placed going through. You have 16 left for the knockout ties.

When 24 teams qualified for the WC from 82-90, 14 of the finalists were European, from 35-odd countries. I am delighted with the move, as it makes it easier for Ireland to qualify, and barring a catastrophe, we will. I just wish it was in place for the coming qualifiers.

From the perspective of Ireland being more likely to qualify for the tournament, it's great.

But the argument being made was that it wouldn't dilute the quality of football in the tournament, which in my opinion is wrong.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Having watched most of the WC quals (and games to date in S.Africa), more is less.
16 is easily enough for the Euros Finals.
Personally don't give a toss whether we reach the Finals or not. Though it's good to put in a respectable showing. The WCF's are where it's at for me.

[briancool21]

At the end of the day if Ireland qualify why should we even care where it's held or whether matches between other teams will be good or not as long as Ireland will be there i'll be tuning in

[mypost]

But the argument being made was that it wouldn't dilute the quality of football in the tournament, which in my opinion is wrong.

As an Irishman, my first priority is Ireland's campaign. If having more teams helps us qualify for the finals, then I don't care how it affects the quality of the tournament. You will get wonderful and rubbish games in every finals, whether there's 16 teams or double that.

[ArdeeBhoy]

But the point is you get even more sh*t games if the standard's more mediocre, Ireland included.....

[mypost]

I don't care, if Ireland are involved. The 7-month build-up, the feelgood factor, the edge of the seat entertainment, is much more important than watching the likes of Italy sleepwalk their way to a 2-0 win in the finals over whatever rubbish is put in front of them.