When the euro's expand to 24? [Archive] - Page 3

DannyInvincible

23/11/2011, 8:34 PM

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.

To further delve into metaphor, the existence of a pleasure-pain dichotomy is essential to the human experience of euphoria. There is, by its essence, no pleasure without pain. Running down a hill all the time will eventually lose its novelty too. We'll no longer be able to experience the special joy associated with qualification if we don't have the recurring pain of non-qualification with which to contrast it. Thus, the once-rare and celebrated feat/spectacle/surprise of qualification becomes a devalued, regular and much-less-exciting likelihood/expectation.

Edit: Obviously, the reality won't be so black and white, but you get the drift; the fact that qualification will be made significantly easier and our chances of realising it will increase massively will take the lustre off the process somewhat. Personally-speaking, anyway... ;)

legendz

23/11/2011, 8:47 PM

SwanVsDalton

23/11/2011, 10:17 PM

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?

I can see the good points/bad points in both. What can't see is a major disadvantage in one over the other.

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.

It's easy to take each team individually and pick holes - could do that with almost every team in the world. But relatively the quality of unqualified teams who just missed out are good enough to play next year - you could sub them for half a dozen qualified teams and the tournament next summer would be just as good (if not better).

For that reason I think the quality can be sustained with eight extra teams. The matches will still be good, the groups still fantastically competitive. It remains to be seen, but I don't see any reason to panic.

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.

Qualification's a different argument but it still won't be relatively easy for all but the top seeds. Could be argued it's already fairly easy for those guys, but every group this year below the top one was cutthroat stuff.

The trend has been for teams to improve and close the gap with some of the perceived 'second tier' sides. With qualification a realistic prospect for more lesser teams, I expect that trend will continue.

Anyway can't say much more than that. No reason to change, sure, but it mean the change is going to be a disaster. The 2016 tournament (and qualification) has every chance of being a great.

I'm pretty sure significant numbers of fans and officials opposed the expansion from and eight for just the same reasons...not to mention the WM formation, the 4-2-4, the 4-4-2, the 4-3-3 etc ;)

French Toasht

23/11/2011, 10:20 PM

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

Amen.

As an Ireland fan, clearly we stand to benefit from such an expansion.

As a football purist, I think this expansion will diminish both the tournament and competitiveness in qualification.

BonnieShels

23/11/2011, 10:40 PM

Everyone's getting ahead of themselves. We qualify for or first euro's since '88 and we're expected to finish top two no problems in the next qualifiers. We'll be doing well to make the top 2 in our next qualifying group for WC '14.

What an odd statement. We will of course have a tough time qualifying for the WC 2014 but that has nothing to do with the almost inevitable qualification for Euro 2016.

So let's take the qualifiers for 1992, if it were 16 teams we would have qualified. We didn't as it was 8.
A shambolic qualifying tournament saw one team withdrawing from the qualifiers after one game (East Germany), one team being disqualified after qualifying (Yugolavia) enabling the eventual winner, Denmark to qualify and another replacing a qualified team as the qualified team had dissolved (CIS replacing USSR).
Also the match between Albania and Spain was forfeited by Albania. Though Spain never received the customary 3-0 win. Though it would have been academic at that stage.
As there was seven groups in this case it makes sense to assume it would have been Sweden (hosts) plus top 2 in each group and the best third placed team which from my reckoning would have been Poland. (Once we remove the fifth place teams results from all 5 team groups)

In Euro96 we were beaten in a play-off by the Netherlands. If it were 24 teams we would have easily qualified.

Euro2000 saw us defeated on away goals in a play-off against the best ranked second place team who would finish 3rd at the succeeding World Cup.
Not to mention avoiding the concession either of Suker's goal in 90+1 in Zagreb or Stavrevski's equaliser in Skopje in the 90th minute we would have qualified automatically.

Euro2004 was a disastrous campaign which we don't need to be reminded of.
In a 24 team tournament we would have had Portugal qualifying automatically as hosts leaving 23 places taken up in the crudest way by 10 group winners, 10 group runners-up and the 3 best third teams we still wouldn't have qualified.
We were the sixth best team, however, we still wouldn't have qualified automatically on the basis of our results.

If I applied an arcane system of 1 Host, 10 Qualifiers as winners and the best 6 second places with the final 7 places via play-offs going to the 4 worst second placed teams and the 10 third-placed teams, we may have qualified but as you can see that would have been bull.

Euro 2008 saw the top two qualify automatically. Again we finished 3rd by some distance.
If there were 24 teams at this tournament we still wouldn't have qualified.

We have qualified for Euro 2012. Having also missed out in a play-off for WC2010 due to that goal I reckon there is enough evidence above plus our WC campaigns to hazard that we may qualify for subsequent Euros fairly regularly.

Or this was a complete waste of time. Meh. :)

BonnieShels

23/11/2011, 10:41 PM

Amen.

As an Ireland fan, clearly we stand to benefit from such an expansion.

As a football purist, I think this expansion will diminish both the tournament and competitiveness in qualification.

Also with Stutts and Frenchy here. The Euros are actually perfect the way they are.

SwanVsDalton

23/11/2011, 11:16 PM

Also with Stutts and Frenchy here. The Euros are actually perfect the way they are.

Why don't some of you guys just take the Euro's and MARRY it then?!

BonnieShels

23/11/2011, 11:27 PM

Why don't some of you guys just take the Euro's and MARRY it then?!

Maybe we will. And you're not invited.

Must ask Alex Bruce for tips on marrying multiple cultures at the same time.

SwanVsDalton

23/11/2011, 11:47 PM

Maybe we will. And you're not invited.

Must ask Alex Bruce for tips on marrying multiple cultures at the same time.

Fine. Me, Belgium, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Romania, Serbia and Turkey will have our own wedding. With those guests it'll be some booze up.

BonnieShels

23/11/2011, 11:56 PM

Fine. Me, Belgium, Scotland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Romania, Serbia and Turkey will have our own wedding. With those guests it'll be some booze up.

Lord... all kinds of xenophobic ideas ruminating in my head!

SwanVsDalton

24/11/2011, 12:02 AM

Lord... all kinds of xenophobic ideas ruminating in my head!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upJuupWjcx8

mypost

24/11/2011, 2:54 AM

the fact that qualification will be made significantly easier and our chances of realising it will increase massively will take the lustre off the process somewhat. Personally-speaking, anyway... ;)

I just want us to qualify, and as easily as possible. Qualifying for the finals is an achievement, no matter how it's done.

England failed to get out of an automatic-qualification group last time, there were instant resignations, wholesale recriminations, and national depression over there* as a result.

As great as the Estonia result was, the results in Russia and Slovakia were just as important in getting us to the finals imo. I was there last week. I hate playoffs, but it was a huge relief going into a game with such a large margin in our favour, in a game with a party atmosphere. I'd take that every time, over what we normally get.

*we enjoyed it though over here. It made the last finals much more bearable, without every break in play resulting in us having to find out "what's going on in the England squad".

Charlie Darwin

24/11/2011, 6:50 AM

nigel-harps1954

24/11/2011, 8:30 AM

For me, it's the joy and excitement of qualifying for the major finals, the anticipation and anxious wait for the finals to come. Heartache of the play-offs, the final group game to secure your place in the finals or in the play-offs. The whole country cheering the team on the get that far and then reach the final hurdle of the finals. This would all be lost if the competition expanded. If it became routine to qualify, almost too easy to qualify, then it simply wouldn't be worth watching.
I'd lose all joy in watching the qualifying campaign personally.
I say leave it as 16 teams. The tournament is perfect as it is. After all, you can't fix what isn't broken.

DeLorean

24/11/2011, 8:46 AM

Just reading through a lot of the opposing views and there are obviously pros and cons on both sides. However, I have reached my decision...

The Europeans, in my opinion, get a seriously raw deal in terms of qualification for the World Cup, especially those in our own bracket (2nd-4th seeds). Qualification for the Euros, as it stands, isn't any easier. The Euros offering something more achievable can only be a good thing. I think it would be great for the likes of Estonia getting rewarded for their rare high level campaigns, as they probably won't be able to maintain it for very long. It's all very well and good being objective and saying the tournament might suffer as a result. We're Irish though, so there's no need to be objective. If we miss out narrowly for qualification for the World Cup, it'd be nice to have the Euros to fall back on with a degree of confidence. Proper footballing nations deserve to be involved in major tournaments from time to time, but the current formats make it too difficult for too many (and too easy for too many in the case of the WC!!).

SwanVsDalton

24/11/2011, 9:27 AM

This isn't really that dramatic an expansion. We're going from slightly less than 1/3 teams going to slightly less than 1/2. The European Championships is still the most competitive tournament in the world. Sure everybody gets into the Copa America and that still threw up a load of surprises this year.

Agreed. With the teams in Europe I just don't think it'll make all that much difference, possibly aside from qualifying.

If it became routine to qualify, almost too easy to qualify, then it simply wouldn't be worth watching. I'd lose all joy in watching the qualifying campaign personally.

I just find that a bit bizarre tbh. We're Ireland - even if it's easier, even if we qualify more regularly, it won't actually be particularly easy. We never make things particularly easy.

As for losing all the joy - really? I'll always take joy from watching Ireland no matter what the circumstances. I mean if, by some odd chance, we became world beaters for a couple of decades and qualified for everything, would people be complaining we're not as exciting to support anymore?

After all, you can't fix what isn't broken.

It ain't broken but it could be pimped up!

http://imagecache.blastro.com/images/feat/Lastfm_Xzibit.jpg

mypost

24/11/2011, 9:43 AM

I just find that a bit bizarre tbh. We're Ireland - even if it's easier, even if we qualify more regularly, it won't actually be particularly easy. We never make things particularly easy.

As for losing all the joy - really? I'll always take joy from watching Ireland no matter what the circumstances. I mean if, by some odd chance, we became world beaters for a couple of decades and qualified for everything, would people be complaining we're not as exciting to support anymore?

Some people would prefer us to get through the hard nail-biting way against Estonia rather than win 5-1, as evidenced by all the "I feel sorry for the Estonians" posts, but there you go. It was us against the world in that fixture, nobody else wanted Ireland to win, but class told in the end. I would love if we won like that (and more) every game, but as long as we win and get the results we need, I don't care. Results pay the bills, and we're knocking on the World Top 20 now. Onwards and upwards.

nigel-harps1954

24/11/2011, 11:07 AM

pineapple stu

24/11/2011, 2:52 PM

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.
None of which, as per usual, has any relevance to the point I made. Wales are better than you're making out, and dismissing them as sixth seed "for a reason" is stupid in the light of recent results.

SwanVsDalton

24/11/2011, 2:58 PM

Honestly, yes, I prefer the nail biting games, the tension, joy, frustration and everything that comes with it is what football is all about for me.
Maybe I'm just used to it growing up with Harps in play-offs, relegations, promotions, and all this sort of thing.

Fair enough. Talking about Ireland, I still think there will be plenty of that in qualifying even if we've got a much better chance of getting through. We'll still be scoring late winners in Macedonia! Or conceding them...

boovidge

24/11/2011, 3:11 PM

The qualifying procedure for the top seeds will be even more pointless than it is now. The teams that get to the quarter finals of the previous tournament should get automatic qualification for the next.

Charlie Darwin

24/11/2011, 3:12 PM

And not play any competitive games for 2 years? What would be the point of that?

DeLorean

24/11/2011, 3:24 PM

And not play any competitive games for 2 years? What would be the point of that?

They could play each other in an eight team league, home and away. 14 high level games over two years. We could name it... The UEFA Champions League of Nations. The top eight could even qualify for the quarter finals, 1st v 8th, 2nd v 7th, etc... ok, maybe not.

boovidge

24/11/2011, 3:34 PM

And not play any competitive games for 2 years? What would be the point of that?

Spain v San Marino is hardly a competitive game. It would improve the qualification process if they either got rid of the dead wood (Andorra/San Marino/Northern Ireland etc) through preliminary rounds or they simply let the likes of Spain/Germany through. There's no way theyre not going to qualify for a tournament of 24 teams.

SkStu

24/11/2011, 3:50 PM

Charlie Darwin

24/11/2011, 4:05 PM

We'd probably see a spectacular rise in the number of glamour friendlies taking place in the UAE and China.

SwanVsDalton

24/11/2011, 4:36 PM

it would be interesting to see what difference, if any, would be made to the teams that qualified if the top 8 seeds (or previous quarter-finalists) from the previous championships automatically qualified.

The qualification process would have to be totally different, for sure, but if 24 teams were chosen for 2012, and eight got through as quarter-finalists, it might look something like this.

Hosts: Poland, Ukraine
Auto Qualifiers: Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Croatia, Germany, Holland, Italy, Russia
Group winners [calculated by taking out already qualified teams and taking away any points gained against them]: Belgium, Ireland, Estonia, France, Sweden, Greece, England, Denmark, Czech Rep
Best Runner-up: Norway
Play-offs [first four seeded]: Slovenia, Bosnia, Hungary, Israel, Austria, Armenia, Montenegro, Scotland

Going by UEFA co-efficients play-off draw something like:
Slovenia vs Austria
Bosnia vs Armenia
Hungary vs Montenegro
Israel vs Scotland

The Belgium and Austria results are off, because Germany and Turkey from their group both went straight through. In reality the seedings and group make-up would be totally different but it's just a bit of craic anyway shure.

EDIT - Taking out the previous quarter-finalists and taking off points gained against them made only one change to eventual standings - Slovenia would come second in their group on goal difference and get into these imagined play-offs.

But not having those eight there would surely put a different complexion on things, particularly in groups such as Estonia's where the margins were very tight (I'd imagine without Italy there, Serbia, Slovenia and NI would've fancied their chances a whole lot more).

Gather round

24/11/2011, 4:42 PM

It would improve the qualification process if they either got rid of the dead wood (...Northern Ireland etc) through preliminary rounds or they simply let the likes of Spain...through.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fkg4ME9TEabF/610x.jpg

boovidge

24/11/2011, 4:59 PM

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01737/faroes_1737778c.jpg

It's true that there are shock results every now and then (I'm not knocking the achievement btw). However the final outcome was that Spain qualified and Northern Ireland didn't.

French Toasht

24/11/2011, 4:59 PM

None of which, as per usual, has any relevance to the point I made. Wales are better than you're making out, and dismissing them as sixth seed "for a reason" is stupid in the light of recent results.

I tend to see Wales as middle of the road. They are better than their 6th placed seeding but that, regretably is the legacy that Toshack has left them. They have proven since that they are far better than the seeding FIFA gave them.

But I don't by into the hype that Gary Speed has changed them over night and they will ....

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

Gary Speed in fairness is trying to change the footballing philosophy in Wales and their style of play but I think its way too early to make statement like they are nailed on to qualify. In my view, Speed has not really been tested yet in a competitive game, and what I mean by that is, whilst they have won competitive games under his reign, they weren't really competitive games per se, as when he took over, Wales were already out of contention for qualification and the remaining group games were effectively friendlies.

The difference between Wales and Ireland is that they do have the odd super stars, but no strength in depth. We are the opposite, a team without a real super star, but the squad depth is stronger than it ever was and we are greater than the sum of our parts. Certainly they have their Ramseys, Bales and Bellamys; all great individuals, but do they have a squad that can qualify? Doubt it. Will they be able to get the requisite number of points away from home against Croatia, Serbia, Belguim, Scotland and Macedonia? I can't see it. I think ultimately they will do well if they can come 4th in that group and progress from there to hopefully qualify for the not at all controversial, 24 team Euro 2016!

Gather round

24/11/2011, 5:06 PM

It's true that there are shock results every now and then (I'm not knocking the achievement btw). However the final outcome was that Spain qualified and Northern Ireland didn't

So every non-qualifying team is dead wood then? Kicking all of them out would certainly have freed up the calendar for 1996, 1998, 200, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010...

French Toasht

24/11/2011, 5:16 PM

I never understand why NI fans speak so fondly of a result 5 years ago, that meant nothing. That was a campaign that ended in failure to qualify and defeats to Iceland and Latvia. I fail to see how the campaign generates as much affection among the fans. I suppose its a mentality thing.

So every non-qualifying team is dead wood then? Kicking all of them out would certainly have freed up the calendar for 1996, 1998, 200, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010...

Yes effectively for me all those campaigns are meaningless. We played great games in those times against a Croatia side that came third in the WC, a French side that were runners up and an Italian side that were champions. But at the end of the day they meant nothing in the grander scheme of things.

legendz

24/11/2011, 5:25 PM

What an odd statement. We will of course have a tough time qualifying for the WC 2014 but that has nothing to do with the almost inevitable qualification for Euro 2016.

Or this was a complete waste of time. Meh. :)

Complete waste of time I'd say! After qualification for '02 we were expected to qualify for many finals but didn't. There's no guarantee in the next euro's that we'll finish in the top 2 of whatever group we're in. Finish 3rd, anything can happen in the play-offs. Countries who've consistently won their qualifying groups can be confident.

boovidge

24/11/2011, 5:30 PM

So every non-qualifying team is dead wood then? Kicking all of them out would certainly have freed up the calendar for 1996, 1998, 200, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010...

No, I'm saying that they eliminate the very worst and/or qualify the very best teams before the qualifying group stage starts to actually make it interesting. This can be done through playoffs or previous tournament performance. If you can qualify by finishing third in the group there's absolutely no point in Spain or Germany going through the charade. If anything it will devalue international football further as matches will be even more meaningless. All the other teams outside of the very best and worst can give each other competitive games.

Gather round

24/11/2011, 5:36 PM

I never understand why NI fans speak so fondly of a result 5 years ago, that meant nothing

Er, it was only our best win since the 1980s? So it meant quite a lot both at the time (the second of a 12 game series), and since. Particularly as Spain won the tournament.

That was a campaign that ended in failure to qualify and defeats to Iceland and Latvia. I fail to see how the campaign generates as much affection among the fans

Best tournament for 12 years; beat Sweden and Denmark as well, all coming from behind; beat Latvia and Iceland's points total combined despite being seeded behind them, etc. etc.

I suppose its a mentality thing

Aye, we prefer being competitive to the alternative.

Yes effectively for me all those campaigns are meaningless

Each to his own. Is that a mentality thing too?

But at the end of the day they meant nothing in the grander scheme of things

Very profound. As one of our old prime ministers Arthur Balfour said, "Nothing really matters very much. And most things don't matter at all".

Gather round

24/11/2011, 5:44 PM

No, I'm saying that they eliminate the very worst and/or qualify the very best teams before the qualifying group stage starts to actually make it interesting

You suggested that all that mattered was that NI didn't qualify, and so by implication everyone who didn't was dead wood. In practice 29 teams got less qualifying points than us in that tournament. So hardly among the very worst.

boovidge

24/11/2011, 5:50 PM

No, the Northern Ireland as "dead wood" bit was a throwaway joke. I'm sorry this wasn't clearer and that you took the time to check how many teams got less points than NI.

mypost

24/11/2011, 6:42 PM

No, I'm saying that they eliminate the very worst and/or qualify the very best teams before the qualifying group stage starts to actually make it interesting. This can be done through playoffs or previous tournament performance. If you can qualify by finishing third in the group there's absolutely no point in Spain or Germany going through the charade. If anything it will devalue international football further as matches will be even more meaningless. All the other teams outside of the very best and worst can give each other competitive games.

This is rubbish I'm afraid.

You can't qualify by coming third. If you come third, you go into a two-legged playoff, where your whole campaign can be derailed by bad luck, controversies, injuries, suspensions, or all kinds of unforeseen potholes.

In the finals, you can qualify by finishing third in the group stage, but not all of them qualify, and various things such as goal difference, head-to-heads, and even World Rankings can send you through or send you home.

Spain and Germany must go through qualifying, as while qualification may be straightforward depending on what group they get, they still need coefficient points for World Rankings and seeding pots in future tournaments.

France were top of the pile 10 years ago and Top Seeds for everything. They've qualified for everything since, but they're now in the same pot as us for the coming tournament. Spain are European and World Champions, but they couldn't simply take the past 4 years off. They had to prove themselves then, and they have to defend themselves now.

Sullivinho

24/11/2011, 7:06 PM

It would improve the qualification process if they either got rid of the dead wood (Andorra/San Marino/Northern Ireland etc)

Heh. :D

You were never gonna get a statement like that by without tripping the alarm.

Gather round

24/11/2011, 10:05 PM

No, the Northern Ireland as "dead wood" bit was a throwaway joke. I'm sorry this wasn't clearer and that you took the time to check how many teams got less points than NI

No problem, I merely looked at the chart on a previous page of the thread.

You were never gonna get a statement like that by without tripping the alarm

Just think of me as your sub-editor.

mypost

25/11/2011, 1:08 AM

None of which, as per usual, has any relevance to the point I made. Wales are better than you're making out, and dismissing them as sixth seed "for a reason" is stupid in the light of recent results.

Whether you admit it or not, Wales have been terrible for most of the past 20 years. They were regularly 4th and 5th seeds for tournaments. Maybe being among the makeweights for the next campaign has given them a kick up the backside they need, but that is a poor side that have been well beaten by England, Ireland, Scotland and others in the past 12 months, and I don't see them coming anywhere near a playoff position at the end of the next series.

legendz

25/11/2011, 2:39 PM

If we do become Euro regulars, I'm sure our goals will change to getting out of the groups and getting by the round of 16 etc. That'll be a good boost to the game here while other countries get the boost of making the finals when otherwise they might not have.

mandrake

25/11/2011, 3:53 PM

51 team 24 qualiiers, why do they need groups, prelimanry round of 5 games then one round of 23 games top 23 seeds v bottom 23 seeds, winner qualifies..!!!!

pineapple stu

25/11/2011, 4:36 PM

Whether you admit it or not, Wales have been terrible for most of the past 20 years.
The past is irrelevant in this context. You said -

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've already gone a long way (from bottom of Europe to middle of Europe). SvD is right to include them in the list of countries who could make an expanded Euros, and with the players they have (in their full squad, not the stripped down 4-nations squad), they wouldn't necessarily detract from it.