Euro Championships to be increased to 24 teams from 2016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwhite

Here's the top 24 European teams, in order, according to the current FIFA rankings. Let's assume they all qualify (and one of them is hosting) and they're seeded that way.
Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Croatia, Czech Rep.,
France, Russia, Portugal, Turkey, Romania, England,
Scotland, Bulgaria, Greece, Israel, Ukraine, Poland,
Sweden, N. Ireland, Serbia, Norway, Denmark, Ireland.

Ireland could get a group containing Spain, France and the Ukraine. Hardly a cakewalk is it? And MOST teams there, on their day, are capable of beating each other. I know it's all theoretical but it looks an ok tournament to me.

---

Looks a good tourney to me. Personally I was thinking of games like Lithuania V Austria or Finland V Wales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Current 16 team finals in four groups of four: 31 matches

Proposed 24 finalists in six group of four with a round of 16: 51 matches

Proposed 20 in four groups of five: 47 matches (ie, still a big exapnsion to the tournament, infrastructure etc.)



Fine. I referred them merely to suggest that not everyone everywhere is in favor of the idea. Even a few of your own fans.

---

Ok the tournament increases by 50% but still looks on paper a decent tournament.
where infrastructure is concerned this allows co hosting by a possible 4 countries.

If you took for example 2008 and the countries that didn't make it.
Serbia- Missed by 3 points
Scotland- Missed by 2 points
Norway- Missed out by 1 pt
Ireland- Missed by 10
England- Missed by 1
North Ireland- Missed by 6 pts
Bulgaria- Missed by 1.
With the exception of ireland and the North the 6 remaining sides probably would of deserved to be in the tournament judging that they missed out by 3 or less points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

where infrastructure is concerned this allows co hosting by a possible 4 countries

---

I'd be amazed if UEFA considered four countries co-hosting. They're still struggling with getting two to do it successfully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

I'd be amazed if UEFA considered four countries co-hosting. They're still struggling with getting two to do it successfully.

---

FIFA have said they will more than likely never have another World Cup join hosted by two countries

It will obviously hugely increase the likelihood of Ireland qualifying (and of course increase the shame heaped upon the nation if we don't...)

I'd still be against it personally.

More teams, more games, more travelling fans, ching-ching. I think it was inevitable that this expansion would happen.

My preference would have been to leave it at 16 teams and leave the finals format exactly as is. It makes the qualifying campaign more challenging (and therfore interesting), helps ensure better quality finalists, and makes each game in the finals tournament more signifcant, with little margin for error.

I agree with previous posters that a compromise should have been made between quantity and quality and the ceiling should have been set at 20 teams. 4 groups of 5 with the top two in each group going through to the last 8. Just like the RWC. One issue with this structure that maybe UEFA wish to avoid is having one team not playing in the final set of group games, allowing an extra possibility of result fixing on the last day.

If they go with a WC90/WC94 type format I think it would be a real shame, 36 games to eliminate just 8 teams is a very American like regular season. If instead UEFA opt to have 6 groups of 4 with the winners and top 2 runners-up go through to the quarter-final then the group game become a whole lot more interesting, bear in mind that no team can be eliminated until they've played at least 180 minutes of football, so the first 2 rounds of matches would be cracking and more than make up for some dead rubbers in the last round of group games. That might make a 24 team finals palatable.

To be honest, if it had to change from 16 I'd have prefered a reduction to 12 teams, with 2 healthy groups of 6 fighting to go straight to the semis. It would also allow more countries the possibilty of hosting. But I don't think I'd get many takers for that

Donadoni are you Irish or Italian. Cause if you are Irish why would you want it reduced to 12. I know the only time that we qualified was when it was 8 but surely the more places available the better it is for fans for the Irish footballing team.

The rest is all pseudo footballing intellectual meandering. I cannot see how fans of mid ranking teams like ourselves cannot be all for this.

This is garbage. What makes qualifiers so special is that you get one bad result and you're likely out. If this had been brought earlier we would have been in with a shout for qualifying after being stuffed by Cyprus - twice! Total garbage. Teams like France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, etc would qualify every time no matter what if they only had to finish third.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colbert Report

This is garbage. What makes qualifiers so special is that you get one bad result and you're likely out. If this had been brought earlier we would have been in with a shout for qualifying after being stuffed by Cyprus - twice! Total garbage. Teams like France, Italy, Spain, Germany, England, etc would qualify every time no matter what if they only had to finish third.

---

They do qualify every time with the exception of England who seem to blow one qualifier every 12 years. There are too many games in the qualifiers. Really the groups should be cut down to at leat 5 teams

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinxy lilywhite

They do qualify every time with the exception of England who seem to blow one qualifier every 12 years. There are too many games in the qualifiers. Really the groups should be cut down to at leat 5 teams

---

What? They play 10-12 times over a two year period and you think thats too much?

It'll mean that Ireland will qualify every time but if anything that'll probably hurt the quality of the national team as some will still point to qualifying for every 2nd major competition as a sign we're doing OK. When the reality would be quite different (if we got through in 3rd place) and we wouldn't have the same impetus to improve.

Middle ranked countries associations want it because they need the money. UEFA/Sponsors want it because it means guarenteed big TV markets get through.

Still a rubbish decision, even if it does increase the likelihood of a great big irish **** up every 4 years

Gather_round
You can't honestly say that a "Celtic League or Empire Cup" or whatever they'll call it will mean more to British/Irish fans than meeting each other in a European Champs game with 500million people watching worldwide?
I'm sorry but consider the scenario of 15,000 bored Irish and Welsh fans in a final in say Murrayfield with the rain ****ing down in March... it isn't going to get the pulse racing is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwhite

We'd need the GAA on board to co-host with e.g. Scotland/Wales. Croker, Lansdowne, Semple, Thomond, Parc ui Caoimh, etc. Surely by 2020 we'd have 4 stadiums with at least 30,00 seats and then Lansdowne and Croker then the same for the co-hosts. A bit of government backing to re-fit the stadiums, some sweeteners for the GAA. Who knows...

---

There's no way on earth the isolationist GAA would ever get involved in anything like the European Championships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SalvadorSanchez

I'm sorry but consider the scenario of 15,000 bored Irish and Welsh fans in a final in say Murrayfield with the rain ****ing down in March... it isn't going to get the pulse racing is it?

---

Do you think his example of a wooden sppon decider between Wales and Ireland in bari would have the masses heaving?

It does seem to be purely about money, like others I think it should of been left as it was, obviously UEFA want their 'big guns' there and England missing out last time surely influenced their decision although practically everybody else breathed a sigh of relief.

It will obviously make it easier for us, but it will certainly devalue qualifying as any sort of major achievement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

Do you think his example of a wooden sppon decider between Wales and Ireland in bari would have the masses heaving?

---

Probably. Because they'd have at least 20,000 fans each at a major championships in Europe.

I don't see why it needs a change. There'll be plenty of meaningless matches in the qualifiers when the bigger teams qualify with ease.

The finals will be better assuming we qualify, i think 20 teams wouldve been better than 24 however. We would still stand of good chance of making the 20 each four years. I think qualifiers will suffer the most, the 'bigger' nations are almost guaranteed to qualify now.

It's curious that on OWC, only one poster out of twelve (so far) is completely enthusiastic about this change; the rest either have reservations, and/or are dead against it, since it will severely devalue the standard and competitiveness which made the 2008 Finals so compelling.

Moreover, most people on this forum are concentrating on the Qualification process, but one OWC poster made a great point about the effect on the Finals themselves:

"And as for the finals themselves, well you just despair at UEFA. Euro 2000 and 2004 wee the best tournaments in years and Euro 96 and 2004 were hardly shabby either. We [NI] were absolute balls in World Cup 86 but if we'd nicked an equaliser against Spain we'd have been through to the second round, despite not winning a game and being completely shown up against Brazil. Because we didn't, Uruguay progressed with the stellar record of two draws and a 6-1 defeat. That's a taste of why a 24 team tournament is so crap, it removes virtually all the excitement from the group games because nearly everyon goes through. You can lose your first two games, win the third handily enough against one of the weak teams that will inevitably clog up this bloated competition and bingo, you're alive again. Probably the worst decision a football governing body has ever made and Platini's pandering to the "little nations" that got him elected to the detriment of his organisation's showpiece international competition is truly disgusting."

I know it increases my own team's chances of qualifying considerably; nonetheless, competitions like this should be about merit, not money, so I have to say it's a regressive step.

Down with this sort of thing! :mad:

The point was made to me that under the new guidelines, Staunton's Ireland may well have qualified. if that doesn't send shivers donw the spine of europe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

The point was made to me that under the new guidelines, Staunton's Ireland may well have qualified. if that doesn't send shivers donw the spine of europe...

---

"Here's Alan O'Brien running down the left side. Kicks it past his man, and crosses it in...HE'S DONE IT! JOSEPH LAPIRA! We're into the next round! Goodbye Belarus, hello Armenia!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by irishfan86

"Here's Alan O'Brien running down the left side. Kicks it past his man, and crosses it in...HE'S DONE IT! JOSEPH LAPIRA! We're into the next round! Goodbye Belarus, hello Armenia!"

---

Classic.

Also John Motson:
"And Ireland have managed to progress from this group of death featuring the Faroe Islands, Malta and Andorra under the guidance of their manager Stephen Staunton due to other results going their way. Their central midfield pairing of Johnathan Douglas and Lee Frecklinton have been particularly impressive in this tournament thus far.