When the euro's expand to 24?

[Charlie Darwin]

The problem the Heineken Cup faces with expansion is that there aren't enough teams, period. They can only expand into England and France really.

[legendz]

I don't think anyone is suggesting the H-Cup expand. It's grand as it is and the groups have more of an edge to win them that the CL. I'd only suggest regards runners-up, instead of the best 2 going through, that the best 4 runners-up play-off for the last two places.

[mypost]

The European championships are excellent as they are; the quality of football is really good, there are fewer dud matches, and to me it pees all over the WC. However like others have said, the quality is not going to be diminished by adding (in theory) the next 8 teams. The tournament might get even better - Would a 24 team tournament ever lead to a L16/QF/SF/F situation? Probably not.

I'm for the move.

You will get that knockout scenario. 3 teams got out of our group in Italy 1990, yet the group situation was on a knife edge until 10 minutes left of the Ireland-Holland game. Holland settled for the draw and paid the price, getting a harder second round draw and duly losing to the Germans.

In the Euros last time, some teams didn't perform, and one team was eliminated after 5 days. You'll always get that, no matter what format you have.

[French Toasht]

I have always considered Ireland the perennial fallers at the last hurdle when it came to qualification, ie we are the team that if there were 14 qualification spots available, we would be the 15th or 16th best team in Europe. The stat the Ireland have been involved in more playoffs than any other country in the world prooves that. When the Euros expand, we should be comfortable qualifiers, and to be honest that will take the sense of achievement out of it. It will also dillute the standard of football at the championships by opening the tournament up to the third tier teams like Finland and Belerus.

Also I presume it will follow the Heineken Cup format of (6X4, best two runners up qualify), which will actually make getting out of the group harder. Imagine getting Spain in your group, it makes automatic qualification for the quarters almost impossible and the margin for error when it comes to getting a best second place, would be so minimal.

[mypost]

The top two and the 4 best placed 3rd placers qualify for the knockout rounds.

Opening up to "third tier teams" is a great chance for them to build a platform for the future. 20 years ago, Greece and Turkey were nowhere. Look at them now.

[legendz]

World Cups '86, '90 and '94 can be used a case study for the format being brought in. Ireland haven't always qualified for play-off easily. If that pattern continues, we'll be battling for the second place or else play-offs as opposed to play-off or no qualification. With few World Cup spots available, the euro's won't lose any attractions for some who might qualify a bit more easily.

[French Toasht]

The top two and the 4 best placed 3rd placers qualify for the knockout rounds.

Opening up to "third tier teams" is a great chance for them to build a platform for the future. 20 years ago, Greece and Turkey were nowhere. Look at them now.

That just constitutes a weak, uncompetitive group stage. Greece and Turkey climbed within the the framework that existed (yes the Euros used to be 8 teams but I think everyone would agree that was too small) and it wasn't the expansion that aided them, rather a talented generation of footballers. Gifted generations come in cycles, look at Hungary, once one of the power houses of Europe, haven't done a thing 30 years.

[legendz]

The Copa America has 3 groups of 4 with 8 going through. 6 groups of with 16 going through is obviously twice that format. Groups are still competitive. Over 3 games as it is it's workable. It'd be less so in the Champions League over 6 games.


The Euro's are only held every 4 years. Europe could see a tighter squeeze on it's number of World Cup spots so a tournament with 8 more teams every 4 years is going to take away from the competition. The 4 play-off losers could eaily have slotted into next years Euro's along with 4 third placed teams from the qualifiers without taking away from it. It's a long way down the road but I think have more knock-out games in the finals will be great.


Ireland could win a game and draw two in next years finals and be on the plane home before the quarter-finals. Results like that with best placed third placed teams going through won't take anything away from the competition under the format it'll take.

[SwanVsDalton]

It will also dillute the standard of football at the championships by opening the tournament up to the third tier teams like Finland and Belerus.

Weird examples and, even then, Belarus were quite close to topping their group this year. They wouldn't disgrace themselves at the Euros.

But anyway, I pointed out already on this thread some of the teams not involved in this tournament: Switzerland, Slovenia, Serbia, Slovakia, Turkey, Bosnia, Montenegro, Norway and Scotland.

First four went to the last World Cup, next three knocked out in play-off and the other two are decent sides. None of the above would disgrace themselves at next year's tournament.

Personally I would extend that list to Armenia (very good side as our group demonstrates), Belgium (excellent young team will come good in the next few years) and Romania (always a tough team to play). I'd almost add in Wales too just because they have some excellent young talent coming through.

That's 12-13 teams who would be tough teams to play in any tournament. Most of these lost out to qualification by a point or two, and it only goes to show how close European international football is. Fine margins. Any eight teams from that list would be a game for anyone, with no detrimental effect on the overall tournament. And no mention of Finland or Belarus.

But if they did manage to qualify, they'll be in by right.. There isn't a huge gap between the 'second tier' and 'third tier'. It's not like Ireland, Poland, Ukraine etc are much farther ahead than these guys.


Gifted generations come in cycles, look at Hungary, once one of the power houses of Europe, haven't done a thing 30 years.

We benefited with a second wave of talent emerging post 1990, no doubt influenced by the exploits of Jack's army (as attested by Keane, Dunne, Duff etc). If so called 'third tier' teams make it, then no reason why they can't benefit in the same way.

Also the Hungary example is misleading - that country was one of the progenitor's of the modern game for all sorts of sociological reasons, they were at the vanguard of football as it spread across the continent. It wasn't because they just happened to be talented crop of players.

In fact that's just the point - it's rare talented crops of players simply emerge out of thin air. There's often other factors, such as first time qualification for a major tournament, at work.

[mypost]

Personally I would extend that list to Armenia (very good side as our group demonstrates), Belgium (excellent young team will come good in the next few years) and Romania (always a tough team to play). I'd almost add in Wales too just because they have some excellent young talent coming through.

Wales were 6th seeds in the WC draw for a reason. There's a long way to go before their young talent comes through, if ever.

The quality of the tournament doesn't matter to me, you get good and bad games everywhere. My first interest is seeing Ireland qualify and do ourselves justice. My second interest is to see England go out. Expanding the Euros will greatly help Ireland make major tournaments, and that is something we should all welcome.

[SwanVsDalton]

Wales were 6th seeds in the WC draw for a reason. There's a long way to go before their young talent comes through, if ever. Armenia's record in the last group, had as much to do with the other top 3 teams making a dogs breakfast of qualifying, as their good performances did. In a normal group with the established teams all cleaning up, it's doubtful if their results would be the same.

It's speculative, of course, I named a slew of teams.

But Wales' have been playing below themselves as they transition, I think their improvement recently is more indicative of where they are than the sixth seeding. They're primed to get better.

As for established teams cleaning up, who are you referring to? Germany, Spain, Netherlands, maybe England and Italy? There's not that many established teams and they don't always clean up. That's not particularly normal. However the scrap our group disintegrated into is increasingly common as lower teams improve and the margins shrink.

Moreover there's no need for what if's - Armenia hammered Slovakia twice, a side fresh out of the World Cup who beat Russia, group winners, and drew twice with us. They largely played very well, with attacking intent and scored 22 goals - easily the best tally in the group and fifth best in the campaign. More respect due. I really don't think they'd diminish Euro 2012 never mind Euro 2016.

[French Toasht]

When I say third tier teams its not a disparaging reference, its an objective classsification of where they stand in European football. Lets look at the third tier teams for WC 2014 qualification. There are some good teams there no doubt but what has always made things interesting and competitive is that they have had to push themselves to attain second tier status in order to qualify. Ourselves being a prime example.


Expanding WC tournaments to 24 and 32 and even perhaps 36 as has been proposed, are all things that I endorse, because as it stands only 32 countries of the 206 FIFA competing countries can take part. When the Euros are expanded to 24, that will be almost half of the European countries partaking in the championships. Qualification is simply far less competitive.

I personally have always preferred the Euros (in its current format) as a spectacle and the standard of football has always been vastly superior to that of the World Cup. With the WC, inevitably teams like Saudi Arabia qualify and offer nothing in terms of raising the standard of football at the tournament. With the Euros its really like the business end of the WC, every game from start to finish is an absolute cracker.

With the proposed format for this new 24 team tournament, it will take two and a half weeks or so to finish the 6 groups and then and only then get you from 24 to 16 teams. Two weeks or so to eliminate 8 teams? In the majority of groups 3 out of the 4 teams will qualify for the knock outs. That reminds me of how uncompetitive the Munster Championship is in GAA, whereby you can win 2 games and be provincial champions. Every game will simply not have the edge that it currently has. You can lose your first two games and still be very much in contention to qualify for the final 16.


My first interest is seeing Ireland qualify and do ourselves justice. My second interest is to see England go out. Expanding the Euros will greatly help Ireland make major tournaments, and that is something we should all welcome.

My first interest is the same as yours but I want us to qualify by virtue of being in the top 16 teams in Europe, not by virtue of being ranked from 17 to 24.

As regards your second interest, I think England are one of the elite teams in Europe and thus I want to see them compete at the top level in Europe. If Ireland are not playing and Englands result is of no consequence to our qualification prospects from any group, then their results are as inconsequential to me as a match between Italy and Russia. The "anyone but England brigade" in Ireland are about as cringey in my opinion as the NI fans writing articles rueing their defeat to Estonia as it effectively handed us qualification. Its bitter and pathetic in my opinion.

[mypost]

I don't care how we get there tbh. You can't have 6 months here of national anticipation and excitement, millions of merchandise sold, or hold welcome back parties, just to watch Spain-Italy on tv again. I want England out, as they're our biggest rivals. Always was the case. If it sounds bitter and pathetic, well then it does. I'm not going to apologise for it.

It will take 2 weeks to play the group phase, and 2 weeks to decide the knockout rounds. Plenty of excitement, thrills and spills in there. If you lose two games, your chances of qualifying are seriously affected, as is the case now. Qualification will be how it used to be, top two go through. (before playoffs) If you finish second, you deserve to go through imo.

The CL has 32 teams in the group phase, and takes 8 months to play. Everyone sees that as the best club tournament in the world. Yet 24 teams in the biggest international tournament in Europe over an extra week is too much??

[Charlie Darwin]

Unless I'm mistaken, the 6 x 4 with 16 qualifiers is the same format as the 1994 World Cup and we came out of an incredibly competitive group there.

[pineapple stu]

Wales were 6th seeds in the WC draw for a reason.
Had the draw been made in the customary November/December slot, they'd have been third seeds. Presumably that's for a reason too?

[DeLorean]

With the WC, inevitably teams like Saudi Arabia qualify and offer nothing in terms of raising the standard of football at the tournament

This is my major gripe with the WC. I get the fact that it's a 'World' Cup and everybody deserves the opportunity to qualify, but I feel that you should have to reach a certain global standard to make the cut. Teams like the Saudi's qualifying, almost by default, bacause they are geographically advantaged really bothers me. For the 2002 WC, we knew we would have to knock out either Portugal or Holland (both European Semi Finalists is 2000) to have a chance of qualifying. Having done that we still needed to win a playoff, which if the draw had been less kind would have been against another top European team. For the last WC, as things transpired, we had to either finish our group ahead of the World Champions or eliminate the runners-up in the playoff. Madness, in my opinion, when you consider New Zealand qualified by beating New Caledonia and Bahrain.

[nigel-harps1954]

The "anyone but England brigade" in Ireland are about as cringey in my opinion as the NI fans writing articles rueing their defeat to Estonia as it effectively handed us qualification. Its bitter and pathetic in my opinion.

100% with you on this one. I'm not a 'support England if Ireland aren't there' guy, but at the end of the day, this petty 'Anyone but England' thing ****es me off. They're effectively the same people who give out about N.Ire crying over players lost to Republic, I see no sense.


Also, Wales will qualify for the next world cup. Mark my words.

[nigel-harps1954]

This is my major gripe with the WC. I get the fact that it's a 'World' Cup and everybody deserves the opportunity to qualify, but I feel that you should have to reach a certain global standard to make the cut. Teams like the Saudi's qualifying, almost by default, bacause they are geographically advantaged really bothers me. For the 2002 WC, we knew we would have to knock out either Portugal or Holland (European Semi Finalists is 2000) to have a chance of qualifying. Having done that we still needed to win a playoff, which if the draw had been less kind would have been against another top European team. For the last WC, as things transpired, we had to either finish our group ahead of the World Champions or eliminate the runners-up in the playoff. Madness, in my opinion, when you consider New Zealand qualified by beating New Caledonia and Bahrain.

I recall Australia qualifying for the 2002 World Cup by beating some minnow of a country 23-0 or something. Themselves and New Zealand play in the Asia section now though don't they? The thing about your argument is though, areas like that only get 4 or 5 qualifying places, theres 10 or 12 or whatever it is from Europe.

[DeLorean]

100% with you on this one. I'm not a 'support England if Ireland aren't there' guy, but at the end of the day, this petty 'Anyone but England' thing ****es me off. They're effectively the same people who give out about N.Ire crying over players lost to Republic, I see no sense.

To be fair, I don't think the hatred is anywhere near the same, certainly not amongst the people I know anyway. It's just the big brother little brother syndrome really and the fact that we're so close to their manic media. I tend to sway (heavily if I'm honest) towards whoever the English are playing, but I don't have a deep hatred for them and I get over it pretty fast if they do win. The fact that their sides are rarely, if ever, of the glamorous variety probably doesn't help them either, in a similar way to the Germans.


Also, Wales will qualify for the next world cup. Mark my words

Croatia, Serbia, Belgium, Scotland, Macedonia, Wales... think it will be a seriously tall order but would love if they pulled it off.

[pineapple stu]

Themselves and New Zealand play in the Asia section now though don't they? The thing about your argument is though, areas like that only get 4 or 5 qualifying places, theres 10 or 12 or whatever it is from Europe.
Australia moved to Asia; New Zealand stayed in Oceania. They still have to play-off with I think a South American team this time. In terms of quality, Europe is under-represented in the World Cup, I think (only have to look at the amount of non-European teams getting to the latter stages). But it has to be beneficial to the game around the world to have smaller nations qualifying from time to time. Don't know how you'd get around that, unless you went with another expansion (which hardly seems possible).

[DeLorean]

Maybe if the second placed Europeans played off against the New Zealand's, Mexico's, USA's, Saudi's, etc. instead of playing each other it would help for a start. You wouldn't be taking away these countries opportunity to qualify, you'd just be ensuring they have reached some kind of a decent level before they do. I'm not saying Mexico and the US aren't at a decent level by the way, I just think they get a free ride in terms of qualification. If it turns out that the best 24 teams in the world are European or South American then so be it. I was jokingly called a "bully" recently for suggesting something similar to this... killing the romance for the little guys, but under the current system it's very difficult to see the romance for the likes of Macedonia, Armenia, etc.

[Gather round]

Wales were 6th seeds in the WC draw for a reason. There's a long way to go before their young talent comes through, if ever

They were unlucky that the draw was made before the qualifiers ended. They could quite easily be in the top half of pot four (see table).

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz196/BillMcComish/euro-ranking.jpg


It's not like Ireland, Poland, Ukraine etc are much farther ahead than these guys [in the 'third tier'

Based on their last qualifying series, Poland aren't much ahead of anybody. They barely matched NI's record this time and finished well behind us then. But, as per the table, things can change quickly...

[SwanVsDalton]

They were unlucky that the draw was made before the qualifiers ended. They could quite easily be in the top half of pot four (see table).

Would Wales not sneak into pot three then (28th best in Europe, ninth seed in pot three)? EDIT - Sorry my maths is all over the show there, Wednesday brainlessness, scrap that.

But simply by looking at the latest rankings (http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html), are Wales not the 27th best team in Europe? Isn't this what would be used if the draw was now? If so, that'd make em pot three by my working.


Based on their last qualifying series, Poland aren't much ahead of anybody. They barely matched NI's record this time and finished well behind us then. But, as per the table, things can change quickly...

I only mentioned Poland (and Ukraine) as Euro 2012 participants, even if it is only as hosts. I wouldn't necessarily include them in my list of Euro 2016 possibles but I still remember them playing Ireland off the park in a friendly not so long ago. As you say, the landscape changes quickly.

[Gather round]

But simply by looking at the latest rankings (http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html), are Wales not the 27th best team in Europe? Isn't this what would be used if the draw was now? If so, that'd make em pot three by my working

Aye, that's right. They're a bit unlucky, but on the other hand are probably glad to not be the worst Brit team in qualifying for the first time since 2004 :)


The "anyone but England brigade" in Ireland are about as cringey in my opinion as the NI fans writing articles rueing their defeat to Estonia as it effectively handed us qualification. Its bitter and pathetic in my opinion

Aye, agreed it's silly. I'd have fancied you to have beaten either Serbia or Slovenia in the play-offs.


To be fair, I don't think the hatred is anywhere near the same, certainly not amongst the people I know anyway. It's just the big brother little brother syndrome really and the fact that we're so close to their manic media. I tend to sway (heavily if I'm honest) towards whoever the English are playing, but I don't have a deep hatred for them and I get over it pretty fast if they do win

There's a (hopefully temporary) peak of angst at the moment, but longer-term the hatred (I'd prefer rivalry) is pretty much the same. You (plural) see England as your cloest rival and most of your fans usually want them to lose. And- at risk of lapsing into whataboutery- much as the other Brit teams share that dislike of JT and the boys, none of us have had to abandon a game against them in recent years.

[legendz]

With the euro's going from 16 to 24, would there be a place for the World Cup to go from 32 to 48. Just putting it out there. Not sure that would get much support?

[DeLorean]

There's a (hopefully temporary) peak of angst at the moment

Because of the players that have switched allegiance? Surely it was closer it's peak in 1993?


You (plural) see England as your closest rival and most of your fans usually want them to lose


I'd find it difficult to justify calling them a rival to be honest. They have no problem in the world with us a generally only wish us well. Like I say, it's just the little brother syndrome and, for the most part, wouldn't be overly hositile.


And- at risk of lapsing into whataboutery- much as the other Brit teams share that dislike of JT and the boys, none of us have had to abandon a game against them in recent years.

Water under the bridge at this stage, in my mind anyway.

[Gather round]

Because of the players that have switched allegiance? Surely it was closer it's peak in 1993?

This things tend to be one-sided. The 1993 game would be largely forgotten by our fans were it not for some of yours regularly dragging it up, prompted by various journalists, playwrights etc.

Here's some context: the Irish Republic's football manager tried to get an away game swtiched to an advantageous neutral venue imediately following a particularly notorious atrocity by the IRA. The Southern media then accused the NI manager of stirring up sectarian tension at the game (when in reality he was encouraging the crowd to get behind the home team). Only one of the two managers enthused in his autobiog about leading paramilitary singsongs on the team coach, btw.

But of course an NI-RoI game will always be tense, no matter the wider atmosphere, the crapness of one team or the preference of another's fans to watch a British club game on TV rather than trek out to Lansdowne.


I'd find it difficult to justify calling them a rival to be honest. They have no problem in the world with us a generally only wish us well

Speak for yourself: I doubt you are typical to be honest. Just because their fans and media patronise a smaller team doesn't mean that many of your fans aren't obsessed with them.

[ifk101]

The 1993 game would be largely forgotten by our fans were it not for some of yours regularly dragging it up, prompted by various journalists, playwrights etc.

Yes it secured our qualification for the 1994 WC. Hello! :rolleyes:

[Wolfie]

Speak for yourself: I doubt you are typical to be honest. Just because their fans and media patronise a smaller team doesn't mean that many of your fans aren't obsessed with them.

True in relation to the patronising bit.

How else could an Ireland 1 - England 0 in 1988 or a Northern Ireland 1 -0 England 0 set of results have come about without the crucial elements of a patronising underestimation of who they were dealing with.

[SwanVsDalton]

And- at risk of lapsing into whataboutery- much as the other Brit teams share that dislike of JT and the boys, none of us have had to abandon a game against them in recent years.

It's not whataboutery to point out that had zero to do with the attitude of Irish fans and everything to do with poor policing, poor ticketing arrangements and a large right-wing hooligan element travelling from England explicitly to cause trouble.

I don't mind when England win but do enjoy it when they lose. I'm OK with it.

[Gather round]

Yes it secured our qualification for the 1994 WC. Hello! :rolleyes:

Hello you. All the more reason for you to look back on it fondly, rather than gurning about those nasty NI fans.


id love to know what great sporting football anthem the crowd were singing at the time BB started conducting them??!!
just curios

I imagine some of them were singing a mrror image of wor Jackie's literary effort.

[Wolfie]

Where's Ealing G these days, by the way???

I'm still waiting on the hearty congratulations on our qualification.

[ifk101]

Hello you.

Hello!


All the more reason for you to look back on it fondly

Trust me I do!


rather than gurning about those nasty NI fans.

NI fans speak of us with fondness?


Where's Ealing G these days, by the way???

Writing letters no doubt.

[DeLorean]

This things tend to be one-sided. The 1993 game would be largely forgotten by our fans were it not for some of yours regularly dragging it up, prompted by various journalists, playwrights etc.

Here's some context: the Irish Republic's football manager tried to get an away game swtiched to an advantageous neutral venue imediately following a particularly notorious atrocity by the IRA. The Southern media then accused the NI manager of stirring up sectarian tension at the game (when in reality he was encouraging the crowd to get behind the home team). Only one of the two managers enthused in his autobiog about leading paramilitary singsongs on the team coach, btw.

But of course an NI-RoI game will always be tense, no matter the wider atmosphere, the crapness of one team or the preference of another's fans to watch a British club game on TV rather than trek out to Lansdowne

I was only wondering what the reason would be for the angst being at it's peak now?! (if that is actually the case, I honestly wouldn't know but would have assumed it was worse during the troubles)


Speak for yourself: I doubt you are typical to be honest. Just because their fans and media patronise a smaller team doesn't mean that many of your fans aren't obsessed with them.

I was speaking for myself! I completely accept that, for the majority, they are the nation we are most concerned about after ourselves. I just think it's a bit too uneven to be considered a real rivalry.

[French Toasht]

Ireland and Czech Republic are the two lowest ranked teams at next summers euros. These two teams fairly easily dispatched of Estonia and Montenegro by substantial scorelines. Under the new 24 team framework, Estonia and Montenegro would be automatic qualifiers. Who genuinely believes Estonia would be a good addition to the tournament and would raise the standard in comparison to the status quo?

[Tipp Townie]

Going back to the discussion about the standard of European teams at world cups compared with other regions - i don't think WC 2010 particularly enhanced the view that the European zone is strong. Yes, the top 3 europeans ended up the top 3 in the tournament - but that doesnt mean there's strength in depth.
France, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia, Denmark, Italy and Switzerland - ALL failed to progress beyond the group stage. More than half the european contingent. Most of those teams were very poor. You can add to that the fact that england completely stunk the place out with their inept performances.

I'll agree that New Zealand had a very fortunate qualifying route, but they performed admirably when there - way better, relatively speaking, than most of the europeans. And Asia isnt as weak as some make out either - South Korea and Japan both being unlucky to exit in round 2.

[SwanVsDalton]

Ireland and Czech Republic are the two lowest ranked teams at next summers euros. These two teams fairly easily dispatched of Estonia and Montenegro by substantial scorelines. Under the new 24 team framework, Estonia and Montenegro would be automatic qualifiers. Who genuinely believes Estonia would be a good addition to the tournament and would raise the standard in comparison to the status quo?

This isn't really my argument. I believe several teams (I named a dozen) would be fairly competitive at the Euros but, regardless, my point isn't that the competition would be enhanced with 24 teams but simply that it won't be diminished. Given the relatively small gap between a huge number of sides in Europe, I don't see how eight extra teams would damage the quality of the Euros.

Perhaps it can be argued the ease of qualification will diminish it, but I think that really only affects the 'elite' (top 5-6) teams in Europe. Another argument is there will be uncompetitive games but at the last World Cup the only side to beat Spain were Switzerland (and they haven't even qualified). One-off shocks happen all the time in tournaments and I'd expect the first 24 team Euros to be similar.

As for your actual question on Estonia - no I don't think they'd raise the standard but who would? And ultimately, no, I don't think they'd be a good addition (although, as I said, that's not my point anyway) on the pitch as they'd be fairly uncompetitive. But they'd bring colour, novelty and excitement. They'd be like Latvia in 2004, a one-off who proved to be a worthy but outclassed participants. I don't see much wrong with that tbh.

But if we're talking about 'raising the standard' seems Ireland, Czech Rep and anyone else considered unworthy should be locked out. Or the tournament should go back to a four-team event like it was at the beginning. Ok ok, that's a bit flippant - but I still don't see how 24 would be a tournament ruiner.

[pineapple stu]

Going back to the discussion about the standard of European teams at world cups compared with other regions - i don't think WC 2010 particularly enhanced the view that the European zone is strong.
You're spot in in what you post alright, although go back a World Cup and you find ten of 16 teams in the knock-outs being European, and no European team lost to a non-European in the knock-outs. 2002 was 9/16 for Europe (granted, they didn't do as well) and 1998 (the first 32-team competition) was 10/16 (2010, by contrast, was 6/16). But by and large, European teams have been making up more than half of the last 16, but typically about 14/32 (less than half) of the qualifiers. So purely on a strength basis, it does seem Europe is a bit under-represented.


Ireland and Czech Republic are the two lowest ranked teams at next summers euros. These two teams fairly easily dispatched of Estonia and Montenegro by substantial scorelines.
The Czechs beat Montenegro 3-0 on aggregate. That's not a substantial scoreline.

[French Toasht]

This isn't really my argument. I believe several teams (I named a dozen) would be fairly competitive at the Euros but, regardless, my point isn't that the competition would be enhanced with 24 teams but simply that it won't be diminished. Given the relatively small gap between a huge number of sides in Europe, I don't see how eight extra teams would damage the quality of the Euros.

I think a two week group stage to eliminate a mere 8 teams from 24 is uncompetitive, no matter how you look at it. People will source the 24 team World Cup as an example, but that included teams from all over the world. It was very difficult to get there and when you throw in a South American or African team into your group, it was very difficult to get out of. Here you have almost 50% of European teams making the Euro finals and 66% of the qualified teams getting out of the group. It's simply uncompetitive. If we are going to go to 24, why not have the Heineken Cup format. 6 group winners and 2 runners up. In the Heineken Cup, there is literally no margin for error and every game is crucial, under the proposed system for the Euros, there simply isn't the same edge to the games and absolute neccessity to win.



As for your actual question on Estonia - no I don't think they'd raise the standard but who would? And ultimately, no, I don't think they'd be a good addition (although, as I said, that's not my point anyway) on the pitch as they'd be fairly uncompetitive. But they'd bring colour, novelty and excitement. They'd be like Latvia in 2004, a one-off who proved to be a worthy but outclassed participants. I don't see much wrong with that tbh.

Really? They didn't take up their ticket allocation for the Dublin leg. They were happy enough to sell their tickets to Irish fans for supposedly the big match in their history in Talinn. And according to the Newstalk lads on the ground in Talinn, you couldn't really sense there was a football match of huge importance going on.


But if we're talking about 'raising the standard' seems Ireland, Czech Rep and anyone else considered unworthy should be locked out. Or the tournament should go back to a four-team event like it was at the beginning. Ok ok, that's a bit flippant - but I still don't see how 24 would be a tournament ruiner.

But we ARE the requisite standard this time though. We are worthy. We have proven over the campaign that we deserved one of the 14 qualification spots on offer. No lets not go back to 4 or 8 teams but keep it at 16, thats the optimum figure.

If everyone simply took off the green tinted glasses and looked at this situation objectively, I don't think too many people would say increasing the tournament to 24 teams will make it a better footballing spectacle.

[SwanVsDalton]

I think a two week group stage to eliminate a mere 8 teams from 24 is uncompetitive, no matter how you look at it. People will source the 24 team World Cup as an example, but that included teams from all over the world. It was very difficult to get there and when you throw in a South American or African team into your group, it was very difficult to get out of. Here you have almost 50% of European teams making the Euro finals and 66% of the qualified teams getting out of the group. It's simply uncompetitive. If we are going to go to 24, why not have the Heineken Cup format. 6 group winners and 2 runners up. In the Heineken Cup, there is literally no margin for error and every game is crucial, under the proposed system for the Euros, there simply isn't the same edge to the games and absolute neccessity to win.

I have no problem with 50% of teams getting in if those teams are all of a decent standard. Which I think they would be. The quality of European international football is pretty good and there's about two dozen teams - below the top five but above the bottom level - who are very competitive against each other. This competitiveness would only be increased in tournament football.

The format is more problematic. But every game would still be crucial, probably even more so. If there's a dead rubber it's because teams are already through/out (which currently happens). And as has been pointed out our groups in '94 and '90 were uber-competitive. In fact the likelihood is you'll see even more excitement as teams have an even greater chance of qualifying come the final round. A win and a couple of goals could throw them straight back into the reckoning, even after two defeats.


Really? They didn't take up their ticket allocation for the Dublin leg. They were happy enough to sell their tickets to Irish fans for supposedly the big match in their history in Talinn. And according to the Newstalk lads on the ground in Talinn, you couldn't really sense there was a football match of huge importance going on.

If they made the tournament, they'd be over-the-moon. It POSSIBLY could be transformative to Estonia as a footballing nation (in some ways the play-off was). Latvia were a similar case and even if they only play at a slightly higher level than they did previous, it's still a higher level.

Or maybe we should applaud the Estonians for not being quite so bandwagon - we couldn't even sell-out a crucial qualifier against Slovakia sure...;)


But we ARE the requisite standard this time though. We are worthy. We have proven over the campaign that we deserved one of the 14 qualification spots on offer. No lets not go back to 4 or 8 teams but keep it at 16, thats the optimum figure.

With the overall competitiveness for qualifying spots, and the sheer number of teams of a similar level, those who qualify for 2016 will certainly be worthy too imo.


If everyone simply took off the green tinted glasses and looked at this situation objectively, I don't think too many people would say increasing the tournament to 24 teams will make it a better footballing spectacle.

I certainly haven't been green-tinted and haven't mentioned Ireland once. My point's still the same - not sure if it'll improve the tournament, but I really don't think it'll damage it. AND if so called 'lesser' nations get a shot at a big occasion and earn a place, I think that's a plus for expansion. The quality of football in this continent can sustain a great tournament with 24 teams.

[legendz]

If the current 16 were in the knock-out phase of the next euro's in 2016, it'd be a fairly interesting round of 16.

[mypost]

Had the draw been made in the customary November/December slot, they'd have been third seeds. Presumably that's for a reason too?


They were unlucky that the draw was made before the qualifiers ended. They could quite easily be in the top half of pot four (see table).

Based on their last qualifying series, Poland aren't much ahead of anybody. They barely matched NI's record this time and finished well behind us then. But, as per the table, things can change quickly...

And we probably would have made second seeds as well.

The draw was made when it was, everyone had good notice when it was going to be. Wales were happy enough with their schedule at the time, and they didn't get enough results in that schedule to stay as 5th seeds. 20 years ago they were 4th seeds, they've spent most years since as 4th, 5th, and now 6th seeds. As long as they beat Scotland in the next qualifiers, they'll be happy with that.


100% with you on this one. I'm not a 'support England if Ireland aren't there' guy, but at the end of the day, this petty 'Anyone but England' thing ****es me off. They're effectively the same people who give out about N.Ire crying over players lost to Republic, I see no sense.

The Croats don't support the Serbs, the Baltic states don't support the Russians, the Argentineans don't support the Brazilians, the Dutch and the English don't support the Germans, we don't support the English, etc. That's the way football rivalry works the world over.


Ireland and Czech Republic are the two lowest ranked teams at next summers euros. These two teams fairly easily dispatched of Estonia and Montenegro by substantial scorelines. Under the new 24 team framework, Estonia and Montenegro would be automatic qualifiers. Who genuinely believes Estonia would be a good addition to the tournament and would raise the standard in comparison to the status quo?

We have a rigid 4-4-2 system that is used all the time, we are the lowest ranked team in Europe, and the lowest seed of the qualifiers, so should we be thrown out? We met the standard required, we earned the right to be there, and if Estonia or Montenegro met that standard, so would they.

I think 16 teams is too few for a major tournament like this, you can't have 20, so 24 is a fair number. 16 teams will make the knockout rounds and there'll be plenty of ifs buts and maybes for the strugglers going into the last group games. More teams, more games, more tension, and more excitement. When it comes in, we'll wonder why we didn't bring it in sooner.

[French Toasht]

I have no problem with 50% of teams getting in if those teams are all of a decent standard.

Well then do you think Estonia are the requisite standard? They are absolutely shocking in footballing terms and if they couldn't get their fans behind them for the biggest match in their history, then they are not going to add anything to the tournament.

Under the proposed scheme, Ireland under Stan could have featured at the Euros in 2008. I wouldn't have wanted to inflict that standard on the European stage and thus don't expect other teams of similar standing to be represented at the finals.



A win and a couple of goals could throw them straight back into the reckoning, even after two defeats.

Surely by that reckoning, it renders a teams first two games less competitive if you know a win in the final game might get you over the line.





I certainly haven't been green-tinted and haven't mentioned Ireland once. My point's still the same - not sure if it'll improve the tournament, but I really don't think it'll damage it. AND if so called 'lesser' nations get a shot at a big occasion and earn a place, I think that's a plus for expansion. The quality of football in this continent can sustain a great tournament with 24 teams.

The current system isn't broken why fix it? As a neutral observer the World Cup does not get going till the dead wood like Honduras, Algeria and Saudi Arabia have been eliminated and then the games, really begin. The beauty of the Euros in its current format is their is no dead wood. Every game in the group is a cracker between teams of a very high standard. Introducing the Estonias of this world into the Euros will diminish the competition as a spectacle and replicate the problems of the World Cup.

[jbyrne]

Well then do you think Estonia are the requisite standard? They are absolutely shocking in footballing terms


while i agree with most of your post Estonia are far from "shocking"



and if they couldn't get their fans behind them for the biggest match in their history, then they are not going to add anything to the tournament.


our last qualification game for Euro 88 was against Bulgaria in front of a half empty stadium at best. 2 years later people were camping out to queue for home tickets. its amazing what qualification will do for your attendances!

[mypost]

Under the proposed scheme, Ireland under Stan could have featured at the Euros in 2008.

Great.


I wouldn't have wanted to inflict that standard on the European stage.

Don't care.


Surely by that reckoning, it renders a teams first two games less competitive if you know a win in the final game might get you over the line.

You can't see it that way. If you win the last game, you might go through, and if you lose, you may well go home, so the sooner you qualify, the sooner you can relax and experiment.


The beauty of the Euros in its current format is their is no dead wood. Every game in the group is a cracker between teams of a very high standard.

I remember plenty of poor games and teams in the group phase of the 16 Euro finals, let alone knockout rounds. No matter what system you have, there'll always be good games, and games that make you want to move your thumb to stop you falling asleep.

[SwanVsDalton]

Well then do you think Estonia are the requisite standard? They are absolutely shocking in footballing terms and if they couldn't get their fans behind them for the biggest match in their history, then they are not going to add anything to the tournament.

Why do you keep banging on about Estonia? That's one team in a continent with loads who could qualify. I've named at least a dozen (of which only eight are needed) who I think would be competitive in the tournament and Estonia wern't amongst them. They are an exceptional case this year but odd exceptions don't contradict my general point.

And I maintain - if Estonia qualified by right next time out then they deserve a place as much as anyone. After all hey earned a place in the play-off's and were duly outclassed. But it's far more realistic to suppose sides like Switzerland, Slovakia, Belgium, Serbia, Bosnia, Norway, Slovenia, Scotland, Romania, Turkey and even Montenegro and Armenia would offer competitiveness and variety to the Euro Championships.


Under the proposed scheme, Ireland under Stan could have featured at the Euros in 2008. I wouldn't have wanted to inflict that standard on the European stage and thus don't expect other teams of similar standing to be represented at the finals.

Again Stan's Ireland - an exception. Would Norway, a point behind eventual semi-finalists, be a poor addition to that tourney? What about Scotland who beat France home and away? England maybe? Serbia? Or even Northern Ireland who beat Denmark, Sweden and Spain, the eventual champs, at home? These guys wouldn't have been competitive? All of them?

I mean where does these arbitrary notions of standards come from? If we're talking about quality, Ireland earned their place this year but lots of people are concerned, and already making jokes, about the kind of football we're going to inflict on people next year. But to me the quality argument doesn't really come in to it. There's a lot of teams similar to us - loads - who could be in this tournament and won't damage a 24 team tourney. Simple.

Side point - we don't know how qualification for 2016 will work yet, but Stan's Ireland had 17 points by far the lowest of the third place teams. And even IF they made a play-off, they'd have almost certainly been easy beat.


Surely by that reckoning, it renders a teams first two games less competitive if you know a win in the final game might get you over the line.

What? Since when did teams go into a tournament thinking it was OK to scrape in third on the last game? Some teams may take a defensive outlook depending on the quality of opposition, and target certain games in the group, but that already happens. But no one's going to wait until the last game - that'd be madness. If anything they'd go harder at the first game because a good first results would make you odds on to qualify.

The beauty of a four team group, no matter how many qualify, is every action has a reaction - if a team is cruising the group then guaranteed the others will be tight to qualify. If one team is getting easily beaten then the others will all be scrapping for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. No one's going to want a difficult second round draw. Again just look at World Cup '90 and '94. The quality wasn't great, but you can't say those groups were not totally competitive.

Just as an example - say we're in a group in 2016 with Spain, Croatia and Romania. Us, Croats and Romania won't fancy Spain, but all three will think they can come second and, failing that, third. No one's going to ease up and that'll be the case across the tournament imo.


The current system isn't broken why fix it? As a neutral observer the World Cup does not get going till the dead wood like Honduras, Algeria and Saudi Arabia have been eliminated and then the games, really begin. The beauty of the Euros in its current format is their is no dead wood. Every game in the group is a cracker between teams of a very high standard. Introducing the Estonias of this world into the Euros will diminish the competition as a spectacle and replicate the problems of the World Cup.

It's not about improvement, it's about opening the tournament up to more teams, creating a bigger spectacle and, of course, making more dough. All that can be possible without hurting the competition because there won't be much dead wood, if any. Europe has a bunch of very decent footballing nations who don't get a look-in. If Belgium and Serbia played in Euro 2012, it could be a fantastic game. If they were in a group with Holland and Croatia, it'd be even better.

I wouldn't have advocated changing the tournament but I simply don't agree that'll do much damage, certainly not to the extent you're naysaying. There are just so many fairly strong teams in Europe and, even with a few extra, the football would be just as competitive, the rivalries just as fierce and the spectacle just as interesting imo.

After all the last tournament was great but there was some dud games, and with us, Poland, Czechs etc kicking around there will be probably be some duds next year too. That'll happen no matter how many teams are in it. Point is there's no reason why 2016 won't maintain the general standard of the tournament - even if Estonia do qualify ;).

[French Toasht]

I wouldn't have advocated changing the tournament but I simply don't agree that'll do much damage, certainly not to the extent you're naysaying. There are just so many fairly strong teams in Europe and, even with a few extra, the football would be just as competitive, the rivalries just as fierce and the spectacle just as interesting imo.


So do you want the tournament to stay at 16 or go to 24? I am not predicting a doomsday scenario if it does go to 24, but just think the current system is not broken, so why the need to fix it?

Of the teams you have mentioned, Slovakia as we know ourselves are no great shakes, Romania are not nearly the team they once were and have really fallen into middle tier mediocrity in the last few years. Scotland, can't score goals and really have done pretty abysmally in their last two groups where a playoff in both groups was seriously attainable. Turkey? Another team in decline, got a very low points total for a second placed team and if Guus Hiddink can not seem to generate some sort of competitiveness in them, you really have to wonder are they capable. Switzerland are in a transitionary phase under Ottmar Hitzfeld, this tournament came too soon, but I expect them to qualify outright for future competitions within the existing framework. Belguim, up and coming team, if the potential they have is unleashed, they are more than capable of qualifying in future for a 16 team tournament. As for Serbia and Slovenia, I have to wonder about their credentials when Estonia are beating them.

I think the above teams are healthy competition for us in terms of qualification, lets keep it like that. Qualification for the Euros will be greatly weakened if the gate to the Euros is widened and these teams stroll relatively easily in.

[mypost]

Every campaign, we complain that we don't do things the easy way and we make life hard for ourselves, then when things begin to look just a little bit easier for us, people complain that it isn't hard enough.

Some people seem to enjoy running up a hill all the time.

[Stuttgart88]

Totally objectively, I think the tournament would be better with 16 teams.

[legendz]

We weren't certain of our play-off berth going into the Armenian game. If we were attempting qualification for a tournament of 24, we'd have been in a battle for either an automatic place or the play-offs.
If it applied to this qualification, 9 group winners and 8 best runners-up would've joined the 2 hosts at the finals. The remaining 5 places would've been made up of the play-off winners from:

Serbia 16
Turkey 18
Switzerland 17
Norway 20
Israel 22
Hungary 23
Romania 25
Scotland 27
Belgium 33
Armenia 38


Ranked based on National Team Coefficient Ranking, Matches considered up to 12/10/2011.

I wouldn't say 5 from this 10 would take away from the competition.