The thing about a European super league is, wouldn't there need to be like 30 teams in it? The top teams play 60+ fixtures right now.
Printable View
The thing about a European super league is, wouldn't there need to be like 30 teams in it? The top teams play 60+ fixtures right now.
What I think is paradoxical is how the clubs want to reduce the international calendar so they can play more club games, to generate more income. But they spend all their income anyway, so what matter?
Was it a European Super league they are alluding to or Champions league reform? It seems to be Real-Barca driven if anything. Would there be an appetite for more Champions League games or whatever format they would look for? The Champions League had to back track from the double group stage to the round of 16 knock-out currently offered after Christmas.
This is what I was referring to.
Total pull out of UEFA control by the top clubs who will run their own competitions and will not be obliged to release players for internationals. Agenda driven by 9 European clubs.
Probably just posturing to get better representation in decision making, to shorten the international calendard and to drive forward the issue of UEFA providing insurance for players injured on international duty, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Smacks of postering alright. In fariness UEFA are making moves to revamp the qualifiers. It's expected issues regards friendly dates will be addressed as well. November and February friendly dates are likely to be combined with the August friendly scrapped. Questions have to be asked of the major leagues as well though. 20 teams is a bit much. Italy used to be 18 and the talk in England was of reducing to 18 at one stage. Italy itself went the opposite way.
International football does a lot for the game. The World Cup is massive, great promotion of the game. I couldn't imagine the game without it. It good for the players and the profile of the game as a whole. There are issues with insurance that have to be addressed. It's frustrating for any club to have a player injured while on international duty, there has to be fair compensation for clubs paying players wages.
If footballers are so fragile - why pay them so much? It's just like the argument that because there's so much money in the game now we need more technology to make decisions. Surely the best way to look at it is: if so much rides on potential human error, don't have so much money riding on it!
The EPL originally promised to reduce the league to 18 teams. At the time the FA and the Football League were in a fierce battle over control of the game. The FL had little interest in the national team whereas it was the FA's key property, along with the FA Cup. The FA went along with the EPL because it meant the big teams withdrawing from the FL - the FA wanted to "smash" the FL - and on the promise of an 18 team league. This never materialised and the FA has so little impact on the EPL now that the EPL can now do what they want with the game. The club v country conflict that the FA wanted to resolve actually got worse.
I'm the same as you in a way. I agree with you on the above too.Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
As for your post a few posts back, I read the same when i heard that the tournament was expanding -> a reshuffling of the seedings -> more qualifying groups -> less qualifying games -> less international dates. Which will appease the clubs (although Stuttgart makes a fair case against having to appease the clubs anyway)
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.
What would worry me is that if the Euro's expand, it will be the deathknell of the EC going to any but the major powers (i.e. France 2016, England 2020, Italy 2024, Spain 2028, Russia 2032, Germany 2036 <repeat>) - the only alternative would be a Scandinavian championships or a Celtic Championships, again unlikely given that 3 qualifying places would be lost, while the spread would be too great perhaps?
I'm for the move.
This would only be a two year period though.
Scotland and Ireland pushed for the Euro's to be expanded. Scotland accepted at the time it could be at the cost of their chances of hosting the competition.
Regards the Champions League, I'm more interested in football than rugby but have to say the Heineken Cup offers a more entertaining group stage. I wouldn't agree with going back to entire knock-out. Allowing third placed teams enter the EL is bit too much of a safety net. It's a tough one though, how can they make more of an incentive to win a group when runner-up get through as well? I know there's the second leg away but is it enough?
Some of the H-Cup first two rounds have been brillliant. Leinster v Glasgow was a damp squib but most of the rest was really interesting. Northampton's concession of a late try to Scarlets just after they hit the upright with a penalty even bordered on hilarious (Ashton was at fault!). So many close games. To think that there is a strong lobby claiming that competitive balance isn't essential for sport to thrive.
My main gripe with the H-Cup is the 6 groups with 8 qualifiers (is that right?). I hate the arbitrary door that lack of symmetry opens.
Symmetry can be bad thing as well though and too perfect in some respects, if there can be such a thing? If all competition had the same groups of 4 etc., tournaments would lack a bit of character.
It's 6 groups of 4 alright with 8 qualifiers. If they had any room for slight manoeuvre they could possibly have the 4 best placed runner-up playing off for the last 2 quarter-final places, with the two losers going to the Amlin Challenge along with the winner of a play-off between the 5th v 6th placed runner-up.
In groups of 4 in 86' to '94 world cups and the euro's in 2016, the groups can be relatively competitive even with 3 teams getting through. On a home and away basis with twice as many games, the H-Cup has the edge on the CL with winning the group being more important. Finish outside the top 2, there are no safety nets either.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingdom
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
Weird examples and, even then, Belarus were quite close to topping their group this year. They wouldn't disgrace themselves at the Euros.Quote:
Originally Posted by French Toasht
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by French Toasht
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
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.
It's speculative, of course, I named a slew of teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.
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??
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.
Had the draw been made in the customary November/December slot, they'd have been third seeds. Presumably that's for a reason too?Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by French Toasht
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by French Toasht
Also, Wales will qualify for the next world cup. Mark my words.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
Croatia, Serbia, Belgium, Scotland, Macedonia, Wales... think it will be a seriously tall order but would love if they pulled it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/z...ro-ranking.jpg
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Swan vs Dalton
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
But simply by looking at the latest rankings, 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
Aye, agreed it's silly. I'd have fancied you to have beaten either Serbia or Slovenia in the play-offs.Quote:
Originally Posted by French Toasht
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
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?
Because of the players that have switched allegiance? Surely it was closer it's peak in 1993?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
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.
Water under the bridge at this stage, in my mind anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
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.
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.Quote:
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
Yes it secured our qualification for the 1994 WC. Hello! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
True in relation to the patronising bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I don't mind when England win but do enjoy it when they lose. I'm OK with it.