5 Nations Tournament in the summer?

[onenilgameover]

I've heard this mentioned a few times. Could it be on? Revenue for England etc? Would be a huge money spinner..

[Cymro]

May as well do it to give us something to keep us occupied. Hard to believe there'll be no home nations at the finals, first time since the 70s if I recall.

[Student Mullet]

May as well do it to give us something to keep us occupied. Hard to believe there'll be no home nations at the finals, first time since the 70s if I recall.
I think it happened in USA 1994 as well.

[onenilgameover]

May as well do it to give us something to keep us occupied. Hard to believe there'll be no home nations at the finals, first time since the 70s if I recall.

nobody good enough..felt sorry for the scots..they were the only ones that deserved it...I've heard that england arent too keen on the 5 nations thing. Cant really see why though...would be good..

[onenilgameover]

I think it happened in USA 1994 as well.

spot on mullet i missed the ''home'' line....

[Cymro]

I think it happened in USA 1994 as well.

I count the ROI as a home nation. If that offends you, I.......don't really care. :p

No, seriously, no offence intended.

[Student Mullet]

Someone was going to mention it but [back on topic] I think the tournament is a great idea.

[Supreme feet]

Here's an idea - how about making it an 8-team tournament, and invite Australia, Nigeria and Ghana along, and have 2 groups of 4, two semis and a final, like the pre-96 European Championships? Or a straight knock-out system? I'm not sure if the teams I've mentioned have other engagements, but if they're free, I think it would be a nice idea. They all regularly play friendlies in England anyway, so it's not unfeasible.

[shaneker]

Here's an idea - how about making it an 8-team tournament, and invite Australia, Nigeria and Ghana along, and have 2 groups of 4, two semis and a final, like the pre-96 European Championships? Or a straight knock-out system? I'm not sure if the teams I've mentioned have other engagements, but if they're free, I think it would be a nice idea. They all regularly play friendlies in England anyway, so it's not unfeasible.

That would be wicked, a genuine tournament which would have some merit as a footballing exercise. Plus, since it would mean nothing, we'd probably win it.

Never going to happen though, the clubs despise international football and would prefer if it didn't exist, so there is no way players would be released for the summer for a competition that isn't a Euros or World Cup.

[Dodge]

Never going to happen though, the clubs despise international football and would prefer if it didn't exist, so there is no way players would be released for the summer for a competition that isn't a Euros or World Cup.

They wouldn't have a say.

In saying that an 8 team tournament is stoopid IMO

[Colbert Report]

I think a five nations tourney would be great. Everyone plays everyone once, it would give our new manager some time to get familiar with the players before the real games start next September. It may be tough to convince England to join in though, they can make more money playing other friendlies against teams on their way to the proper tourney and they have little to gain by playing against the likes of us and Wales.

[shaneker]

They wouldn't have a say.

In saying that an 8 team tournament is stoopid IMO

Surely they would have a say if it wasn't a FIFA sanctioned competition? Its not like they have to release players for charity matches or testimonials, why would this be any different? Just because it would be called a tournament wouldn't change the fact that it was meaningless and not a proper 'international competition'. (If I'm wrong on this, I apologise, I am assuming a bit).

I'd much prefer a tournie with 8 teams than 5, it would do us more good in terms of international experience to play the non-British teams IMO.

[irishfan86]

Surely they would have a say if it wasn't a FIFA sanctioned competition? Its not like they have to release players for charity matches or testimonials, why would this be any different? Just because it would be called a tournament wouldn't change the fact that it was meaningless and not a proper 'international competition'. (If I'm wrong on this, I apologise, I am assuming a bit).

I'd much prefer a tournie with 8 teams than 5, it would do us more good in terms of international experience to play the non-British teams IMO.

Basically it would just be a string of FIFA sanctioned friendlies...meaning the players would have to go.

[shaneker]

Ahhhh...I stand corrected.

[CollegeTillIDie]

There was a headline on SKY NEWS this morning that England's failure to qualify could cost their economy up to 1 Billion Quid. A 5- nations tournament if there was home games against say Scotland and the Republic Of Ireland would at least generate some money for England at least, which means the return of the Britain and Ireland Championship could happen now very easily. And as an occasional thing when none or most of the nations in these islands don't qualify for major tournaments ( which less face it from now on will be most of the time,) would not earn the wrath of the major clubs in the Premier League. So it will probably be biennial in some shape or form. And years that England qualify it will be the other four, or if Scotland make it and England don't etc.

As regards an 8 nation tournament. The following teams didn't qualify, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iceland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Belgium, that's just a sample I am sure three of that lot wouldn't mind being in the tournament as regards organsing it. The four so called home nations go into pool A and the Republic and the other three go into poll B. And there is a semi-final between the winners of Pool B the winners of the '' Home '' Championships and the respective runners-up of both pools.

[RogerMilla]

get a cup made , play Scotland NI and Wales for it , win it and stick it in the cabinet beside the Iceland trophy !!

[reder]

It may be tough to convince England to join in though, they can make more money playing other friendlies against teams on their way to the proper tourney and they have little to gain by playing against the likes of us and Wales.

I beg to differ. England are going to lose a fortune on merchandising etc as a result of not qualifying. Games against the home nations are guaranteed sell outs which would help recoup some of the loses. The pay-off for McClaren and the costs of hiring Mourinho or bouncy O' Neill will also send the budget for the year into the red.

On the field, I think it would be an excellent opp for us. The new manager can guage exactly where we stand far better than he would in games against Brazil etc.

[ifk101]

I don't think Ireland should enter a competition with the "home nations". I rather if we are going to enter some sort of tournament that it is against quality opposition with a different style of play to ourselves. It would be a good money spinner for the FAI but other than that I don't see what benefit it would give the development of the national squad.

Anyways where would we play our home games?

[CollegeTillIDie]

If England host a '' tournament'' we don't. They host everybody. The appeal for the FA in all this is, it proves they can host international tournaments and would not harm their bid to stage future World Cups.

[Lionel Ritchie]

When it's considered that UEFA began organising European Championship qualification and finals, at least in part to satiate the frustrations of countries not doing well in/qualifying for the World Cup ...It could easily be construed as somewhat p1ssy-eyed that a localised clique of non-qualifiers decide to go off and organise their own mini-event.

[endabob1]

Reminds me of the crap competition the US used to host every time we missed a world cup.
Can't see the point as a one off, England wouldn't want to be involved in a long term arangement (as they would think themselves above it) a 4 team Celtic tournament might work, if arranged properly.

[Ireland4ever]

Lets face it, its not gonna happen. Why would the players bother there arse supporting it, it would be a farce with massive pull-outs.

[as_i_say]

Last time neither 4 brits nor us qualified for something was the 1984 euros apparently.

[Colbert Report]

I think we should go off to America in the summer and do a US cup type thing. Four teams, play everyone once, the winner of the group gets a spot in the final, the second and third place team would play in the semi. We'd get anywhere from three to five games, invaluable to our new manager. I'm thinking teams like us, the USA, Australia, and Bolivia. What do we have to lose? Except for points in the world ranking apparently.

[Stuttgart88]

I'd prefer us to host a tournament if we had the facilities available.

4 teams: Ireland A, Ireland B, Poland (for the wedge) and another good team.

Semi final / final format with a third place playoff.

[tetsujin1979]

I'd prefer us to host a tournament if we had the facilities available.

4 teams: Ireland A, Ireland B, Poland (for the wedge) and another good team.

Semi final / final format with a third place playoff.

Eircom League selection?
If nothing else, it'll give the new manager a look at some players in a competitive environment, Charlton did the same thing in Iceland before the qualifiers for Euro '88.

[Dodge]

I'd prefer us to host a tournament if we had the facilities available.

4 teams: Ireland A, Ireland B, Poland (for the wedge) and another good team.

Semi final / final format with a third place playoff.

Poland have qualified for the EUROs

As a general rule friendly tournaments are rubbish. Also UEFA won't allow a competing tournament to be held in europe next year.

Best thing to do is let the players have a break IMO

[Stuttgart88]

I'm aware Poland qaulified!

A full international and a game against our B team may suit them as part of their warm up is what I was thinking.

In genearl give the players a break is a good idea but we'll have a new guy in charge and the more chances he has of getting his ideas across the better. Still, USA 2007 - with the exception of maybe Potter & O'Halloran - was a generally daft exercise.

[colster]

I think the 5 nation tournament would be a good idea. It would be more than a friendly tournament. The local rivalries would ensure that. With the progress the likes of Scotland and Northern Ireland have made I think it would be very competitive.
IIRC FIFA were considering local competitions as a solution for meaningless friendlies.

[jmurphyc]

I'd prefer us to host a tournament if we had the facilities available.

4 teams: Ireland A, Ireland B, Poland (for the wedge) and another good team.

Semi final / final format with a third place playoff.

How about Ireland A, Ireland B, Ireland U23 LOI selection and Ireland U21. :p We can guage how good each team is and maybe include some of the players who do well in the other teams in the senior squad afterwards. And the winner could get a really lucrative trophy after the tournament.

[Cymro]

People saying this competition would be of poor standard are wrong in my opinion. Scotland failed by a whisker to qualify from a group containing the World Champions, World Cup runners up and a quarter finalist. Northern Ireland did the same from a group containing a q/f and a 2nd round. England are usually good enough to qualify for anything going, the ROI regularly finish top 3 in groups and we have some decent young players coming through.

If it doesn't happen, it will be because of club power, not because it wouldn't be a good enough standard. What's the alternative? Meaningless friendlies? Might as well do it.

[Dodge]

People saying this competition would be of poor standard are wrong in my opinion

They're 100% right. British teams failed to qualify because they were played off the park in the big games by technically far superior teams. Playing each other won't help them

[Cymro]

Not true. Scotland were pretty unlucky to lose to Italy at home, England were very unlucky to lose to Russia away, and Northern Ireland didn'tchoke in the big games but rather the 'little' games where they were expected to win.

[Ireland4ever]

... we have some decent young players coming through.



No, no you dont. I sorry to be blunt, but no.

[Cymro]

Well then nor do France, clearly, because our u-21s beat them 4-2 last week. Bear in mind this French side was captained by Kaboul Spurs' £7m signing and had first teamers at top clubs all over the pitch.

Then there's the young players in our first team squad, like Gareth Bale, who sold for £10m in the summer, and David Cotterill, £2m to Wigan. They must be awful I suppose. Bear in mind that these players are still young enough to play for the under-21s too.

[Stuttgart88]

Scotland were pretty unlucky to lose to Italy at homeOptically yes, but on closer inspection Italy were validly 2-0 up, Scotland's goal was offside and only a minute before Panucci scored he missed a total and utter sitter.

I will concede that by and large they were competitive against them alright and once you're competitive a game can go either way.

[Dodge]

Not true. Scotland were pretty unlucky to lose to Italy at home, England were very unlucky to lose to Russia away, and Northern Ireland didn'tchoke in the big games but rather the 'little' games where they were expected to win.

England were lucky to beat Macedonia away, Scotland were steeped in Paris (if you want to pick out individual matches, even if I disagree with you summaries)

None deserved to qualify, and all are far far behind the rest of europe in technical terms

[Ireland4ever]

None deserved to qualify, and all are far far behind the rest of europe in technical terms

Exactly, and this nonsense that a team 'deserved' to qualify is rubbish. The teams that qualified, deserved to qualify, the teams that didnt, didnt, simple as.

[EalingGreen]

Exactly, and this nonsense that a team 'deserved' to qualify is rubbish. The teams that qualified, deserved to qualify, the teams that didnt, didnt, simple as.

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/euro/standings/index.html
Considering the disparity between the standard of the different Groups, it is a reasonable stance to consider e.g. that by finishing 3rd in the toughest Group, Scotland are a "better" team than, say Russia or the Czechs, who each qualified in 2nd place in easier Groups. Indeed, I would argue that 4th placed Ukraine aren't much worse than either of those two.

And if you look at the final tables, there are other discrepancies, such as Bulgaria gaining 25 points, but finishing 3rd, whilst Turkey and Russia both qualified in 2nd place on 24 points and ROI also managed a 3rd place on 17 points.

Germany topped their Group on 27 points, the same as Portugal, who had two games extra (8 team Group).

So whilst each of the 14 qualifiers "deserved" to do so by virtue of finishing in the top two places in their Group, that is not the same as saying that the best 14 teams in Europe qualified. Therefore, you might argue that some teams failed to qualify who were more "deserving" than one or two of those who did. And in case you're wondering who else beside Scotland I had in mind, it's Northern Ireland, of course. ;)

[EalingGreen]

England were lucky to beat Macedonia away, Scotland were steeped in Paris (if you want to pick out individual matches, even if I disagree with you summaries)

None deserved to qualify, and all are far far behind the rest of europe in technical terms

Actually, the two examples you choose disprove your thesis, imo.

Scotland's performances against really tough opposition would have seen them qualify had they been drawn in at least three or four of the other Groups.

Yet they still finished in 3rd place, the same as a mediocre England, who didn't deserve to qualify by any standard. Worse still, had England managed to hold out at 2-2 for the last 20 minutes of their last game, at home to an already qualified Croatia, then they'd have qualified in 2nd on 24 points - the same as Scotland got in a far harder Group.

[danonion]

Exactly, and this nonsense that a team 'deserved' to qualify is rubbish. The teams that qualified, deserved to qualify, the teams that didnt, didnt, simple as.

No. Scotland deserved to qualify. Two wins against France cannot be argued with.

[backstothewall]

6 team competition. 5 home nations, and an invited guest. 2 pots of 3, 2 winners play in a final. 2 runners up play off for 3rd. All played in a host city or region with 3 decent stadiums.

Everyone gets at least 2 games. Job done in a fortnight. Exclusively live on Sky.

EalingGreen, any chance your guys would put up the old trophy?? Would the IFA risk loosing it?

[Ireland4ever]

No. Scotland deserved to qualify. Two wins against France cannot be argued with.

How does losing a third of your qualifying games merit qualification. The system in place is the fairest there is.

[jmurphyc]

Considering the disparity between the standard of the different Groups, it is a reasonable stance to consider e.g. that by finishing 3rd in the toughest Group, Scotland are a "better" team than, say Russia or the Czechs, who each qualified in 2nd place in easier Groups.

Germany topped their Group on 27 points, the same as Portugal, who had two games extra (8 team Group).


It doesn't defeat your argument but I think if you want to argue that certain teams are weaker than others and less deserving of a place at the finals then you should at least get your facts right. Germany actually finished 2nd on 27 points behind Cxech Republic on 29 points. They didn't go full pelt in their last few games because they'd already qualified but this was probably the case for a few teams. And I think whether you're in a tough or an easy group 29 points and 27 points are very respectable finishes so you can't really say that Czech Republic or Germany aren't deserving of places in the final.

[Dodge]

Actually, the two examples you choose disprove your thesis, imo.

Scotland's performances against really tough opposition would have seen them qualify had they been drawn in at least three or four of the other Groups.

Yet they still finished in 3rd place, the same as a mediocre England, who didn't deserve to qualify by any standard. Worse still, had England managed to hold out at 2-2 for the last 20 minutes of their last game, at home to an already qualified Croatia, then they'd have qualified in 2nd on 24 points - the same as Scotland got in a far harder Group.

No point hypothisizing on hard various groups are. France would certainly have expected to gain 4 points from their games with Scotland but results dicaatate otherwise. The only barometer you can use is to finish in the top two of your group and none of the team mentioned did, and none of them deserved to. The points gained doesn't really come into it as various teams had their fate sealed some time ago and have experimented with selections since.

Some, like NI and Scotland will be relatively happy that they seem to be making progress. Others will be unhappy at having regressed.

[Newryrep]

no interest in this at all,

wont be any benefit in a football sense, cant see it passing of peacefully and do not have any interest in seeing us playing friendlies against England, Scotland etc,

Doubt it will happen, let them revive their Home Nation championship for all the good it did them on a world stage.

[Ceirtlis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7107705.stm

An article about this.

[EalingGreen]

It doesn't defeat your argument but I think if you want to argue that certain teams are weaker than others and less deserving of a place at the finals then you should at least get your facts right. Germany actually finished 2nd on 27 points behind Cxech Republic on 29 points. They didn't go full pelt in their last few games because they'd already qualified but this was probably the case for a few teams. And I think whether you're in a tough or an easy group 29 points and 27 points are very respectable finishes so you can't really say that Czech Republic or Germany aren't deserving of places in the final.

Sorry, don't know quite how I transposed the Czechs and Germans; nonetheless, it doesn't alter the basis of my case. Which is that those were the only two decent teams in that Group, all the rest being (no disrespect) mediocre at best.

Whereas, a fast-improving Scotland found themselves in a Group with three other more-than-decent teams (2 x WC Finalists and a QFist) i.e. four decent teams in total.

Or, to put it another way, ROI achieved third place in their Group on the basis of 4 victories - vs San Marino (twice), Wales and Slovakia; whereas, Scotland only finished third, despite 8 victories, incl. France (twice), Ukraine and Lithuania (twice).

Of course, there is no perfect way to eliminate the "luck of the draw", but it ought to be acknowledge that some teams who qualified were helped by getting a fortunate draw, whilst some others failed to qualify largely, due to a difficult draw.

That's all, really.

[EalingGreen]

EalingGreen, any chance your guys would put up the old trophy?? Would the IFA risk loosing it?

Would ROI really be interested in competing for the "British Championship Trophy"? ;)

I'm not sure you can rename these things and besides, that was a trophy contested by different teams from those proposed for this new competition.

But if the trophy were acceptable and this new competition were seen as a "continuation" of the former BC, then I say: "Bring it On!" - why should we fear losing it? :)

[Dodge]

Sorry, don't know quite how I transposed the Czechs and Germans; nonetheless, it doesn't alter the basis of my case. Which is that those were the only two decent teams in that Group, all the rest being (no disrespect) mediocre at best.

Whereas, a fast-improving Scotland found themselves in a Group with three other more-than-decent teams (2 x WC Finalists and a QFist) i.e. four decent teams in total.

Or, to put it another way, ROI achieved third place in their Group on the basis of 4 victories - vs San Marino (twice), Wales and Slovakia; whereas, Scotland only finished third, despite 8 victories, incl. France (twice), Ukraine and Lithuania (twice).

Of course, there is no perfect way to eliminate the "luck of the draw", but it ought to be acknowledge that some teams who qualified were helped by getting a fortunate draw, whilst some others failed to qualify largely, due to a difficult draw.

That's all, really.
But you're not talking about teams who qualified. You're talking about teams that didn't qualify. With 7 group, there's always going to be a top ranked 3rd seed and a 7th ranked 3rd seed. As it happened at the last draw we were higher ranked than the Scots so it was actually Germany/Czechs who got the harder draw. The fact we underperformed so badly is immaterial