... But they didn't qualify for the tournament. Thats my point.
Printable View
... But they didn't qualify for the tournament. Thats my point.
In South America, you qualify for the World Cup if you come fourth in your group, something that Argentina struggled to do for World Cup 2010 thanks to their shocking away record. They finished behind Brazil, Paraguay and Chile in qualifying. You might be surprised at how some of the bigger teams perform when the perceived pressure is off.
More on topic, I don't think the expansion to 24 teams is a bad thing. Teams like Germany, Holland and Spain will probably qualify every time with ease—they qualify with ease every time as it is—but they should still have to go out and get the points they need just like everyone else. Once their place in the tournament is booked, we'll probably see more experimental teams from the bigger nations in the later games, which may lead to a few shocks as the teams who face them later on in qualification are likely to face weakened teams.
I'm also in favour of any change that benefits Ireland's qualification hopes; I don't think it devalues anything if we're in every tournament. The Rugby World Cup certainly hasn't suffered despite Ireland featuring every time. We also saw some minnow teams having a growing impact this year — if Samoa had managed to beat Canada, they would have qualified out of their group ahead of France.
Are you suggesting that finishing 4th or 5th in qualification and progressing to the tournament is a handy means of qualification? SA is the most competitive qualifying series of all the FIFA conferations. Ireland's chances of qualifying for the WC out of South America would be substantially lower than their chances of qualifying out of the European groups. Teams like Columbia and Ecuador that frequently just miss out, would find it considerably easier to qualify in Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serb
I don't think Colombia or Ecuador would find it any easier in Europe, considering the likes of Russia, Ireland, Turkey, Croatia and Bosnia failed to qualify last time. Ecuador and Colombia used to get a handy advantage from playing their games at high altitude but that's been banned now.
Agreed. I'd see Ecuador and Colombia as about the level of Turkey, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bosnia, none of whom qualified this time. I don't think they'd be guaranteed even in expansion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I think for a team with the kind of players Argentina traditionally have, they should be finishing well ahead of teams like Paraguay and Chile — and normally they do. I agree that qualification for everyone other than Brazil and Argentina is competitive in Concaf, but that also means that every team (bar Venezuela) have had a chance at a major tournament. The expansion of the Euros will give a lot of our smaller nations a chance too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
So they reached the last 8. And then lost. So what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
And the play-off point is valid, as that was the rules of the competition at the time...
Ireland reached the quarter-finals of Euro '64, losing to Spain who won the competition. Ireland's first tournament was in 1988.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
So by reaching the last eight I think most would agree they were relatively successful- contrary to the suggestion earlier in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
The implication that a play-off to make the last four is similar as one to make the last 16- even allowing for there being 20 fewer teams taking part in the 70s- is a bit odd, don't ye think?Quote:
And the play-off point is valid, as that was the rules of the competition at the time...
This is nitpicking. There was a tournament in 1964, even if its rules were different to those in 1988.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
I thought qualifying for a tournament meant getting to the finals? i.e. not playing home and away legs.
Why are you trying to argue Wales qualified for a tournament that they patently didn't qualify for?
I don't think GR has really argued that they got to the finals.
GR's original point was in response to mypost's claim that Wales haven't been successful in football since 1958. GR was pointing out that they had topped their qualifying group in 1976. This was countered by the argument that they hadn't actually qualified for the (then 4-team) tournament, but GR hadn't claimed they had.
His point was only that Wales were one of the last 8 teams remaining in the competition, and he would consider that to have been relatively successful, and an argument against mypost's statement. They were still involved after the stage where among others, France, Italy, England and Ireland had been eliminated.
The issue is whether they have been 'successful at anything since 1958', and given that the 1976 finals consisted of only 4 teams, I think it is fair to argue that qualifying for the finals and considering Wales' qualification efforts successful are not mutually exclusive.
I think success can only be measured in qualification to be honest. Acknowledging anything else is endorsing failure.
Yes Wales came close to WC 94 (missed penalty against Romania in the final qualifier) and Euro 2004 (Playoff defeat to Russia), just like we came close in 96, 98, 2000, 2006 and 2010, but at the end of the day it doesn't mean anything unless you are packing the rosary beads and sanwiches and jumpleads for the van.
It's throwing the same argument back at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Having seen the 4 groups of 4 in action, is it a good idea for the next tournament being expanded to 24? Qualification is going to be easier. 4 third placed teams are going to be going through to the knock-out stages.
Is the format of third placed teams going through confirmed?
That's what I heard too. Not a good idea in my opinion, even if it benefits us in theory. Great tournament as it is, bloody great.
Expanding to 20 should've been s far as they went with 5 group runners-up and best 3rd team playing off to join 5 group winners in the quarter-finals.
What else could it be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
24 was a nonsense from the start...
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
16 Teams is perfect and adding to that total only dilutes the competition.
If they want to change anything, why not focus on something of real benefit. For example - say goal line technology at the finals????
Group winners and 2 runners up? Not adding an extra roundQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
It is broke given the size of our regional tournament proportional to strength of our region. No other continent in the world has teams the quality Bosnia, Belgium etc who continuously miss their regional tournament. What is the point of another tournament to face off the same elite nations who'll be facing off again in 2 years time and previously 2 years ago in the world cups? The Euros needs greater coverage of the continent and not just being a world cup minus the non-euro teams. No other region has their regional tournament entry numbers practically identical to their world cup allocation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
An easier way would be to have 12 groups ( 4 of 5 and 8 of 4) Group winners and runners up to qualify apart from the 2 worst 2nd placed teams who play-off for the last spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Draw could look something like this…..(based on Seeding today)
Would be short but not boring I think.Code:Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6
Spain Germany Netherlands Engalnd Croatia Denmark
Switzerland Norway Czech Rep Bosnia Slovenia Hungary
Armenia Romania Ukraine Belgium Estonia Austria
Lithuania Bulgaria Georgia Macedonia N Ireland Azerbaijan
Malta Liechtenstein Andorra San Marino
Group 7 Group 8 Group 9 Group 10 Group 11 Group 12
Portugal Italy Russia Greece Sweden Rep of Ireland
Turkey Serbia Wales Slovakia Scotland Montenegro
Poland Belarus Finland Latvia Albania Isreal
Luxembourg Faroe Is Cyprus Iceland Moldova Kazahkstan
Bosnia and Belgium have the same opportunity to qualify as everyone else has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
Most of these additional nations will be eliminated early and the same elite nations will face off regardless.
If we've learned anything from the last couple of weeks -just getting to these things and performing poorly when you get there is not enough.
Bosnias "opportunity" to qualify for the WC in 2010 was to knock out either Spain or Portugal. For Euro 2012 their opportunity was to knock out France or Portugal. The demands are justified for a world cup but not for a regional championships. Are chile, Peru or Ecuador asked to eliminate Brazil to qualify for the Copa America? Well they're all ranked lower then Bosnia and yet have far greater opportunities to exist frequently in a major tournament purely because of geographical location.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
"Belgium, Bosnia etc." are mediocre at best. That's why they continuously fail to qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
Four of the 13 European teams at the last World Cup didn't qualify for the Euros. Five of the 14 qualifiers (plus the 2 hosts) for the Euros weren't in the World Cup....Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
Nobody has to qualify for the Copa America because there are only 10 member countries in COMNEBOL. They even invite teams from other federations to make up the numbers for a 12-team turnament, so you comparison is meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
You have no idea what Bosnia's level is other than its lower than France, Portugal, Spain and higher than everyone else they've faced.
I don't know a huge amount about them but a team with Mignolet, Vermaelen, Fellaini, Vertonghen and Hazard can't be too bad. I'd have all of them in our team.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyCakes
Don't forget Kompany. I read before there's a lot of mistrust in Belgian sides between players from the French and Dutch sides of the country, along with the native Walloons, who often don't speak the same language as their team matesQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
There's a saying that the only thing that unites Belgians is the King and the football team.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
There are some talented footballers winding their way through for Belgium. I'd have them in my certs to qualify for the next world cup and to do well at the next Euros. You heard it here first.
Dembele is an excellant footballer. He'll get a big move soon. Lukaku on his way up toQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Can't agree with that. Belgium are on the up and if they reach their undoubted potential, they could be a truly world class side. Bosnia have some very good players too and they deserve more tournament opportunities. Some very good international teams didn't make this tournament, so it reduces this happening in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyCakes
Some very good Irish players and Irish teams have been denied their opportunity to play in tournaments and at least this gives them more opportunity to test themselves at the highest level. The despair I felt in Poland was balanced by my hope that whatever about Brazil 2014, our young guys like McCarthy, McClean, Wilson, Brady and Coleman could be very good players in 2016.
To be fair, it is good that fans from Wales and the North will also have a better chance of getting to tournaments. Ultimately, the bigger nations will still be at the business end of the tournament anyway.
Hardly a bold prediction, everyone has been predicting them to make waves for the past 4 years and it hasn't happened yet. Though as the names of Kompany and Hazard who most people have known about for half a decade begin reaching the uncultured masses no doubt many will have their own "clever" prediction of Belgium achieving something and pass it off as something sagely.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
On paper right now they have a team thats better than portugal and top 10 in the world, its young and it'll get better. Forget about qualifying, they could win things although why they've not shown any signs of that so far may very well be an attitude problem that holds them back.
Oh Murf. :-) You're great.
funny. So true :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
They are badly short of a prolific striker. If Lukaku develops as well as they would hope they will be a force to be reckoned with again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Murfinator
that was their problem against England, no finisher up front to convert the chances Hazard was creating. They were mainly limited to long shots.
Belgium if things go according to plan are going to be unreal. Remember a few years ago, they were like 70th in the rankings!! The depth of their playing pool is absolutely staggering for such a small country. The only thing is a few of them might be a bit overhyped and not really as good as we're led to believe. On paper, or in a game like football manager they would be awesome. On paper I'd put them on same level as Portugal!
I know a few Belgian lads, most of them put their underachievement in recent years down to bad management. Plenty potential there alright, no real great full backs thou and lacking a striker, until Luka grows up a little, he was a far better (more confident) player pre Chelsea, still just a baby thou, plenty of time for him. Theres 4 Belgians in the Chelsea 1st team squad now, 3 if you leave out the keeper who will probably be sent out to Madrid again. let alone the likes of Vermalen, Kompany, Fellani and whoever I'm forgetting. I wish we had a pool of talent like that! I suppose having a decent domestic league has its advantages.
That lad at(who was at?) Fulham, looked great V the English.