I've heard this mentioned a few times. Could it be on? Revenue for England etc? Would be a huge money spinner..
Printable View
I've heard this mentioned a few times. Could it be on? Revenue for England etc? Would be a huge money spinner..
May as well do it to give us something to keep us occupied. Hard to believe there'll be no home nations at the finals, first time since the 70s if I recall.
I think it happened in USA 1994 as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
nobody good enough..felt sorry for the scots..they were the only ones that deserved it...I've heard that england arent too keen on the 5 nations thing. Cant really see why though...would be good..Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
spot on mullet i missed the ''home'' line....Quote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
I count the ROI as a home nation. If that offends you, I.......don't really care. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Student Mullet
No, seriously, no offence intended.
Someone was going to mention it but [back on topic] I think the tournament is a great idea.
Here's an idea - how about making it an 8-team tournament, and invite Australia, Nigeria and Ghana along, and have 2 groups of 4, two semis and a final, like the pre-96 European Championships? Or a straight knock-out system? I'm not sure if the teams I've mentioned have other engagements, but if they're free, I think it would be a nice idea. They all regularly play friendlies in England anyway, so it's not unfeasible.
That would be wicked, a genuine tournament which would have some merit as a footballing exercise. Plus, since it would mean nothing, we'd probably win it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme feet
Never going to happen though, the clubs despise international football and would prefer if it didn't exist, so there is no way players would be released for the summer for a competition that isn't a Euros or World Cup.
They wouldn't have a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by shanekerins
In saying that an 8 team tournament is stoopid IMO
I think a five nations tourney would be great. Everyone plays everyone once, it would give our new manager some time to get familiar with the players before the real games start next September. It may be tough to convince England to join in though, they can make more money playing other friendlies against teams on their way to the proper tourney and they have little to gain by playing against the likes of us and Wales.
Surely they would have a say if it wasn't a FIFA sanctioned competition? Its not like they have to release players for charity matches or testimonials, why would this be any different? Just because it would be called a tournament wouldn't change the fact that it was meaningless and not a proper 'international competition'. (If I'm wrong on this, I apologise, I am assuming a bit).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
I'd much prefer a tournie with 8 teams than 5, it would do us more good in terms of international experience to play the non-British teams IMO.
Basically it would just be a string of FIFA sanctioned friendlies...meaning the players would have to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by shanekerins
Ahhhh...I stand corrected.
There was a headline on SKY NEWS this morning that England's failure to qualify could cost their economy up to 1 Billion Quid. A 5- nations tournament if there was home games against say Scotland and the Republic Of Ireland would at least generate some money for England at least, which means the return of the Britain and Ireland Championship could happen now very easily. And as an occasional thing when none or most of the nations in these islands don't qualify for major tournaments ( which less face it from now on will be most of the time,) would not earn the wrath of the major clubs in the Premier League. So it will probably be biennial in some shape or form. And years that England qualify it will be the other four, or if Scotland make it and England don't etc.
As regards an 8 nation tournament. The following teams didn't qualify, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iceland, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Belgium, that's just a sample I am sure three of that lot wouldn't mind being in the tournament as regards organsing it. The four so called home nations go into pool A and the Republic and the other three go into poll B. And there is a semi-final between the winners of Pool B the winners of the '' Home '' Championships and the respective runners-up of both pools.
get a cup made , play Scotland NI and Wales for it , win it and stick it in the cabinet beside the Iceland trophy !!
I beg to differ. England are going to lose a fortune on merchandising etc as a result of not qualifying. Games against the home nations are guaranteed sell outs which would help recoup some of the loses. The pay-off for McClaren and the costs of hiring Mourinho or bouncy O' Neill will also send the budget for the year into the red.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colbert Report
On the field, I think it would be an excellent opp for us. The new manager can guage exactly where we stand far better than he would in games against Brazil etc.
I don't think Ireland should enter a competition with the "home nations". I rather if we are going to enter some sort of tournament that it is against quality opposition with a different style of play to ourselves. It would be a good money spinner for the FAI but other than that I don't see what benefit it would give the development of the national squad.
Anyways where would we play our home games?
If England host a '' tournament'' we don't. They host everybody. The appeal for the FA in all this is, it proves they can host international tournaments and would not harm their bid to stage future World Cups.
When it's considered that UEFA began organising European Championship qualification and finals, at least in part to satiate the frustrations of countries not doing well in/qualifying for the World Cup ...It could easily be construed as somewhat p1ssy-eyed that a localised clique of non-qualifiers decide to go off and organise their own mini-event.
Reminds me of the crap competition the US used to host every time we missed a world cup.
Can't see the point as a one off, England wouldn't want to be involved in a long term arangement (as they would think themselves above it) a 4 team Celtic tournament might work, if arranged properly.
Lets face it, its not gonna happen. Why would the players bother there arse supporting it, it would be a farce with massive pull-outs.
Last time neither 4 brits nor us qualified for something was the 1984 euros apparently.
I think we should go off to America in the summer and do a US cup type thing. Four teams, play everyone once, the winner of the group gets a spot in the final, the second and third place team would play in the semi. We'd get anywhere from three to five games, invaluable to our new manager. I'm thinking teams like us, the USA, Australia, and Bolivia. What do we have to lose? Except for points in the world ranking apparently.
I'd prefer us to host a tournament if we had the facilities available.
4 teams: Ireland A, Ireland B, Poland (for the wedge) and another good team.
Semi final / final format with a third place playoff.
Eircom League selection?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
If nothing else, it'll give the new manager a look at some players in a competitive environment, Charlton did the same thing in Iceland before the qualifiers for Euro '88.
Poland have qualified for the EUROsQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
As a general rule friendly tournaments are rubbish. Also UEFA won't allow a competing tournament to be held in europe next year.
Best thing to do is let the players have a break IMO
I'm aware Poland qaulified!
A full international and a game against our B team may suit them as part of their warm up is what I was thinking.
In genearl give the players a break is a good idea but we'll have a new guy in charge and the more chances he has of getting his ideas across the better. Still, USA 2007 - with the exception of maybe Potter & O'Halloran - was a generally daft exercise.
I think the 5 nation tournament would be a good idea. It would be more than a friendly tournament. The local rivalries would ensure that. With the progress the likes of Scotland and Northern Ireland have made I think it would be very competitive.
IIRC FIFA were considering local competitions as a solution for meaningless friendlies.
How about Ireland A, Ireland B, Ireland U23 LOI selection and Ireland U21. :p We can guage how good each team is and maybe include some of the players who do well in the other teams in the senior squad afterwards. And the winner could get a really lucrative trophy after the tournament.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
People saying this competition would be of poor standard are wrong in my opinion. Scotland failed by a whisker to qualify from a group containing the World Champions, World Cup runners up and a quarter finalist. Northern Ireland did the same from a group containing a q/f and a 2nd round. England are usually good enough to qualify for anything going, the ROI regularly finish top 3 in groups and we have some decent young players coming through.
If it doesn't happen, it will be because of club power, not because it wouldn't be a good enough standard. What's the alternative? Meaningless friendlies? Might as well do it.
They're 100% right. British teams failed to qualify because they were played off the park in the big games by technically far superior teams. Playing each other won't help themQuote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
Not true. Scotland were pretty unlucky to lose to Italy at home, England were very unlucky to lose to Russia away, and Northern Ireland didn'tchoke in the big games but rather the 'little' games where they were expected to win.
No, no you dont. I sorry to be blunt, but no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
Well then nor do France, clearly, because our u-21s beat them 4-2 last week. Bear in mind this French side was captained by Kaboul Spurs' £7m signing and had first teamers at top clubs all over the pitch.
Then there's the young players in our first team squad, like Gareth Bale, who sold for £10m in the summer, and David Cotterill, £2m to Wigan. They must be awful I suppose. Bear in mind that these players are still young enough to play for the under-21s too.
Optically yes, but on closer inspection Italy were validly 2-0 up, Scotland's goal was offside and only a minute before Panucci scored he missed a total and utter sitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
I will concede that by and large they were competitive against them alright and once you're competitive a game can go either way.
England were lucky to beat Macedonia away, Scotland were steeped in Paris (if you want to pick out individual matches, even if I disagree with you summaries)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
None deserved to qualify, and all are far far behind the rest of europe in technical terms
Exactly, and this nonsense that a team 'deserved' to qualify is rubbish. The teams that qualified, deserved to qualify, the teams that didnt, didnt, simple as.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/eur...ngs/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Ireland4ever
Considering the disparity between the standard of the different Groups, it is a reasonable stance to consider e.g. that by finishing 3rd in the toughest Group, Scotland are a "better" team than, say Russia or the Czechs, who each qualified in 2nd place in easier Groups. Indeed, I would argue that 4th placed Ukraine aren't much worse than either of those two.
And if you look at the final tables, there are other discrepancies, such as Bulgaria gaining 25 points, but finishing 3rd, whilst Turkey and Russia both qualified in 2nd place on 24 points and ROI also managed a 3rd place on 17 points.
Germany topped their Group on 27 points, the same as Portugal, who had two games extra (8 team Group).
So whilst each of the 14 qualifiers "deserved" to do so by virtue of finishing in the top two places in their Group, that is not the same as saying that the best 14 teams in Europe qualified. Therefore, you might argue that some teams failed to qualify who were more "deserving" than one or two of those who did. And in case you're wondering who else beside Scotland I had in mind, it's Northern Ireland, of course. ;)
Actually, the two examples you choose disprove your thesis, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Scotland's performances against really tough opposition would have seen them qualify had they been drawn in at least three or four of the other Groups.
Yet they still finished in 3rd place, the same as a mediocre England, who didn't deserve to qualify by any standard. Worse still, had England managed to hold out at 2-2 for the last 20 minutes of their last game, at home to an already qualified Croatia, then they'd have qualified in 2nd on 24 points - the same as Scotland got in a far harder Group.