Printable View
Well Platini has pretty much confirmed this will happen. I'm torn on this one as we will be in a position where we should qualify for each tournament but the tournaments will be weaker. On balance I'm probably in favour but I know that is just because we will be one of the big winners.
You reckon?...Quote:
Originally Posted by cavan_fan
When addressing the point that increasing to 24 teams might adversely affect the quality of the football, Platini's said:
"I am not worried about the quality by increasing the number of teams. Countries like England, Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Belgium, Serbia, Ukraine and Bulgaria all have the ability to participate in a European Championship."
Taking into account how bad Switzerland and Austria were at this year's tournament, I'm not convinced the quality will remain high by allowing 3rd tier teams to qualify.
in an unbiased view, i think its a bad idea. It will only lower the standard of a good competition, thats arguably of better quality than the world cup, this years tournament was a great one, and much better than the world cup of 2 years ago.
In terms of Ireland, its a great idea as it means we stand a much better chance of qualifying, but i still have my doubts..
How would 24 teams work? Similar to Heineken Cup in rugby, 6 groups, top 2 qualify for quarters and two best runners up?!
Yes, since 1996 the Euro's have had 16 teams and we have never qualified. Let's look at what would have happened if there had been 24 teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint_Charlie
1996 - Definitely would have qualifed. We were actually the 17th team for this one, as we lost out to Holland for the last place.
2000 - Definitely would have qualified. As one of 4 teams to lose out in a play off we were ranked 17-20 and probably wouldnt have even needed a play off.
2004 - Might have qualified. We finished 3 in one of 10 groups. As such we didn't even get into the play off's. The structure would have differed but we were in effect ranked somewhere between 22-31. Unlikely we would have got through but not impossible
2008 - Definitely would have qualified (unbelievably) - We finished 3rd in one of 7 groups therefore were ranked 17-23rd.
So we would have made 3 out of the last 4 championships and maybe even all four. My god, under this system Stan would have been managing in the European Championships.
So from a qualifying point of view this is a huge advantage for us.
Thats what I was thinking about. How will teams have too get out of there group. 6 winners and 2 best second place would leave things very hard for the 3rd tier teams to get out and if that were case I would rather it stay at 16 teams. I would be in favour more of 20 teams rather then 24.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabs88
24 for me is too many teams. Not sure if it would benfit teams like Ireland tbh. 20 might just be ok and we might still see the quality of games that we have seen in Euro 2008.
Also will this mean thats the top 3 teams qualify from there group from now on? I suppose we will have too wait and see.
Also with 24 teams you wont see the likes of Poland and Ukraine and for that matter joint bid from Ireland and Scotland getting the games as with so many teams more suitable stadiums will be needed so the big countries like spain itlay and england will get to be hosts.
When the World Cup had 24 teams, they had 6 pools of 4. For the first while the top 2 teams in each group qualified for one of four 3 team groups, with the winner of each of these second phase groups making the semi finals. (This was the case with NI in 1982, when the claim is made that they made the quarter finals, it isn't strictly true as they were in the last 12 although their match against France was effectively a quarter final as had they won they would have made the semis.)Quote:
How would 24 teams work? Similar to Heineken Cup in rugby, 6 groups, top 2 qualify for quarters and two best runners up?!
By the 90s, 16 teams were qualifying from the 6 groups (top 2 and 4 best 3rd placed sides) and it went to straight knock out after the groups. This may well be what they'd go for though it would mean extending the tournament in length to almost as long as the world cup.
You can't all be too young to remember world cups between 1982 and 1998 when there were 24 teams?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernian
Personally a bad idea myself, leaving aside the fact that Ireland would qualify more often (which I'm obviously in favour of). I'd prefer a euro every two years like in South America, with the world cup qualifiers qualifying for the next euro.
why change what has been a very good format for this championship.Of course the quality will go down if weaker teams qualify.Chasing the euro i suppose
lopez was 1998 not the first competition with 32 teams?Quote:
You can't all be too young to remember world cups between 1982 and 1998 when there were 24 teams?
It was. I suppose I was trying to say that it went to 32 teams in 1998.:oQuote:
Originally Posted by HolylandsMan
Nah. Overkill, I think. Plus you'd get punished twice for losing a match. Every four years is grand. 24 teams is too many.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I'll remind you all about this in November 2015, when a Tardelli-managed, McShane-captained Ireland have just finished 3rd in a group behind France and Romania to qualify for the Italia '16. Actually I wont because I'll have forgotten but you know what I meanQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I agree that it's beneficial to us. But it's still too many teams.
I agree too many teams and too messy, you've two options from the groups
A - as Italia 90?
Group winners, runners up and 4 best 3rd place teams to the round of 16, i.e 36 matches to knock out 8 teams, not ideal.
B - as Heineken Cup
Group winners and 2 best 2nd placed teams to qualify for quarters, this would however do away with a lot of the meaningless last group games as in the current tourmanent. This is much tougher to come out of and no 2nd chances for most teams if you lose a game.
while this is on the Irish International thread Im going to be completely biased and say I dont care about what standard that it brings the tournament to, I just care that it will make it easier for us to qualify.
I dont actually think that it will have any adverse affect on the tournament at all because I dont think at the moment there is a huge gulf in class between the countries that have qualified and those that were very close to it. it is not like Luxemborg or San Marino are going to make it and games will be lost by 10 nil
Totally agree, who cares what standard the other teams games are, personally i could'nt give a dam what standard the games are, tbh if Ireland/GUFC are'nt involved in a game i'd only watch it if i have nothing to do, so personally could'nt care about ''the standard''.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razors left peg
From the perspective of a country who've only ever qualified once, why would we care so much about the standard?, what relevance does it have to us?, after all it should only matter been a neutral!
The only teams who will benefit from this are all countries of a decent standard, ourselves, Norway,Denmark etc.....
If anything it would improve the tournament overall as you'll have another 5/6 countries with a fighting chance of getting somewhere!
Delighted with the expansion, pity it isn't happening now. Anyone who cares what kind of games will be, should look at how good Austria, Poland, France, and Russia were in the semi-final second half in this tournament.
Every tournament has poor teams and matches, but the majority are competitive. It also increases our chances of qualifying for not just the tournament stage, but with a great chance of qualifying for the knockout stage, as a 3rd place group team if necessary.
Totally opposed (even though NI would presumably have qualified for these finals). As others have mentioned, variously,
a) you simply wouldn't be able to stage the tournament anywhere beyond the big five in Western Europe (Germany, Italy, France, England, Spain)
b) assuming six groups, four best third place finishers qualifying and a round of 16, there'd be 20 extra matches (and the tournament would likely last an extra 10 days, as per WC 1994)
c) the quality would inevitably be diluted with half the teams in the finals
d) the bigger countries wouldn't necessarily want to continue with qualifying groups of six and three qualifying. They're under pressure from their bigger clubs to cut international football, not expand it. You might find qualifying cut to say, eleven groups only four or five teams. So only six matches per qualifying- could be a significant loss of income
e) since the Euros expanded top 16 finalists, 24 different teams (I'll check) have qualified anyway. You don't need to increase the size of the finals to have a wide spread of teams over three or four tournaments.
Not sure which I'd favour. Using the first round to go from 24 to 16 teams always seemed a bit pointless to me and I think you'll get more meaningless matches. On the other hand going from 24 to 8 is ruthless. The difference with the rugby is that that is a home and away group (with bonus points) which means that there is some way back from a single defeat. I'd like the World Cup circa '82 model of 6 groups of 4, top 2 into 4 groups of 3 and then winners of each into the semis. It's a bit less knock out football but groups of 3 are exciting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever