When the euro's expand to 24?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

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/z...ro-ranking.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swan vs Dalton

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

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

---

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 French Toasht

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.

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

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

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.

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

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

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.