That'll probably mean the top 3 teams from each qualifying group should get there with the tournament having the same format as the World Cup from 1986-1994, i.e. 6 groups of 4, the top 2 and 4 best 3rd places going through to the last 16. Should mean a tournament for us at least every 4 years...
I think overall the standard of the competition will suffer in the early stages and it may make the qualifying less interesting. But from an Irish point of view this is brillant, based on recent qualifying, we should qualify for each tournament which can only be good for the promotion of the game here. Not to mention the trips to major tournaments!!!
I'm all for it...It'll mean we qualify more often (we should qualify every time) and that there'll be a few more poor games but still not as poor as the worst games in the world cup, to be honest even the current format can serve up some poor games....
It'll be ok though each team will have 3 group games like now and then a second round, and then into the quarters... it's just one more game for teams that come out of the groups.
We now have no chance of co-hosting ever (did we ever?) A tournament that size will mean countries with bigger and better leagues will host it all the time... looks like Spain, England, Portugal, Germany, France and Italy will dominate the hosting from now on... co-hosting will still mean each country will have to have at least 6 good quality stadiums.
The sponsors will love it too... my cousin works for Carlsberg in the UK and they lose big money when England don't qualify, England getting to a finals is a huge money spinner for the sponsors, us the Scots and the Danes also go beer crazy for a month as well whenever we qualify...
Last edited by SalvadorSanchez; 25/09/2008 at 12:15 PM.
innit though??
We'd need the GAA on board to co-host with e.g. Scotland/Wales. Croker, Lansdowne, Semple, Thomond, Parc ui Caoimh, etc. Surely by 2020 we'd have 4 stadiums with at least 30,00 seats and then Lansdowne and Croker then the same for the co-hosts. A bit of government backing to re-fit the stadiums, some sweeteners for the GAA. Who knows...
More than fine with that too, we never really had a chance to co-host any tournaments but I'd say the Scotlands etc may have had a good chance to host in the future, probably not now.
'Fascists dress in black and go round telling people what to do, where as priests.....'
I'm stuck in two minds over this. The thing I love about the Euro's is that rarely they are crap teams in it. unlike the world cup. There is little margin of error for teams in the euro's either. This allows lesser teams in the euro's.
On the flipside 53 European teams complete for sometimes 14 (especially if its co hosted) qualifying spots. For the amount of european teams maybe the amount of teams that qualify is too low. It should be interesting but does anyone get the feeling that future championships could be hosted by up to 4 countries at one time
Long Live King Kenny
If it means we are more likely to qualify than I am all for it. We are only a short time on this planet and I have never gone to a tournament yet that Ireland have been in, so if this makes it more likely that I am all for it.
I think fans who go to all the Ireland games home and away will be all for it. Those that like to watch their football on TV, maybe against it as it does reduce the quality but whenyou have 3 weeks away from work and you are drinking and singing and watching football and chatting up the local ladies who cares about the quality of the football being played by Ukraine and Switzerland and Latvia.
In Trap we trust
Quality may deteriorate but it'll never be as bad as Tunisia v Saudi Arabia in
'06, Jamaica v Japan in '98, China v Costa Rica in '02, etc. On the other hand there'll be every possibility of the Republic of Ireland v Northern Ireland in the Nou Camp or the San Siro. Now that'd be the dogs b*llocks!
Originally Posted by gwhite
Hmm. On another current thread, most posters here don't seem to want to play Northern Ireland (or Scotland, or Wales), in Dublin (or Belfast, Cardiff or Glasgow). In a tournament which, although small-scale, at least offers all the participating teams a realistic chance of winning.
Most NI fans (including those to go to every game) I know are against expansion, ditto those in Wales. Of course this may be unduly negative- we don't expect to finish in the top 24 in Europe in most tournaments- but there you go. I wonder what most fans of the biggest countries think? They generally don't need qualifying to be made easier, but might be irritated with having to play an extra game in a much longer tournament.
I'm totally opposed (even though NI would presumably have qualified for the last finals). As others have previously 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 European 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 of 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 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.
Last edited by Gather round; 25/09/2008 at 10:36 AM.
a) you simply wouldn't be able to stage the tournament anywhere beyond the big five in Western Europe (Germany, Italy, France, England, Spain)
Not true, Russia can handle it alone and maybe Greece, Turkey, Portugal. They can continue with co-hosting meaning a couple of Balkan nations, the Nordics, Belgium/Holland, and maybe a few more by the time 2016 comes round. And if Ireland qualify, who cares where it's being held?
As for extra matches, if the players don't fancy it, they can always retire from international football. Just ask Stephen Ireland, Paul Scholes, Jamie Carragher et al.
Not sure why you have my quote in there as its not relevant to the points you make after it.
In Trap we trust
It's relevant to my reply that most NI and Wales fans I know (including those who attend every game) are opposed to expansion.
Russia doesn't have 10 or 12 stadia capable of staging the Euro finals. Portugal would need significantly more than they had in 2004, ditto Belgium and Holland. All Greece's suitable facilities are in one city. Do you really think Scandinavia is going to spend on 12 30,000-seat modern stadia.
Rumours from UEFA's politbuo (meeting today) suggests Ukraine may lose 2012, which would be a shame. But given their size hardly suggests smaller Balkan countries are likely to do any better.
I was thinking of the organisers. They have to fit in 20 extra games in four extra venues- even if any individual player only looks forward to one extra.As for extra matches, if the players don't fancy it, they can always retire from international football. Just ask Stephen Ireland, Paul Scholes, Jamie Carragher et al
How are they going to work the groups though. A 3rd place team from a group of 4 should never qualify, but this was the case when the world cup was 24 teams. Think 20 teams would have been a good number but. 4 groups of 5 and the top 2 qualify.
But this is not in World Football its in the Ireland forum so its about the impact will have on our team and our fans. I could not give a damn how the Welsh or Northern Irish fans feel about it.
In Trap we trust
What about the othe 51 European Countries. I said before that I'm in two minds about this but every euro championship there has been playoffs between the 2 best finished countries. This is hugely unfair on those countries and a creul way to decide if they make it or not due to a two legged play off.
We may say that its easier to qualify but we said that probably for qualification for Euro '96 when it was expanded to 16 and we've never qualified for euro when it was 16 teams in it. So for it to be 24 it wouldn't be foregone conclusion that we'd qualify
Long Live King Kenny
Well the Celtic cup us offers the chance to play only mediocre teams in venues we know well, for no prestige. A local derby in a major championships in a good venue abroad with half the world watching and something at stake would be much more fun... can't compare the situations I'm afraid!
Just look at the rugger...... compare the Celtic league with Heineken cup..... doesn't get the pulse racing does it?
innit though??
Ulster says No..............World carries on turning.
Quoting years at random since 1975
Have to agree with Carloz there. Why increase it to 24 teams? Increasing it to 20 would have been a much better idea and then have 4 groups of 5. This would only increase the number of games in the tournament by 8 which should be sustainable by any of the previous hosts and would only extend it by one week.
Increasing it to 24 teams would mean 40% of the countries in the qualifiers would go through to the Championship. Hardly a show case for the cream of the crop!!!
Here's the top 24 European teams, in order, according to the current FIFA rankings. Let's assume they all qualify (and one of them is hosting) and they're seeded that way.
Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, Croatia, Czech Rep.,
France, Russia, Portugal, Turkey, Romania, England,
Scotland, Bulgaria, Greece, Israel, Ukraine, Poland,
Sweden, N. Ireland, Serbia, Norway, Denmark, Ireland.
Ireland could get a group containing Spain, France and the Ukraine. Hardly a cakewalk is it? And MOST teams there, on their day, are capable of beating each other. I know it's all theoretical but it looks an ok tournament to me.
Current 16 team finals in four groups of four: 31 matches
Proposed 24 finalists in six group of four with a round of 16: 51 matches
Proposed 20 in four groups of five: 47 matches (ie, still a big exapnsion to the tournament, infrastructure etc.)
Fine. I referred them merely to suggest that not everyone everywhere is in favor of the idea. Even a few of your own fans.
I just did. Scotland v Wales in Glasgow or Cardiff to win a four team tournament might JUST attract more attention than the same two teams trying to avoid a group wooden spoon in Barcelona or Milan (or more realstically, Albacete or Bari etc.). I'm asuming you don't seriously think any of the local countries are going to challenge seriously?
What are the alternatives? Either a larger number of smaller groups with only one qualifying, or the weakest countries having to pre-qualify? The first might mean you're drawn in a group of four with Spain, Belgium and Montenegro, and only two qualifying; the latter would be arguably even more unfair on Liechtenstein etc.
Actually, Ulster has said yes (the IFA, like FAI and the other 51 countries) have all supported the idea to date. I think they're all ill-advised.
The same get-together this week is rumored to be about to drop Ulraine as a co-host for 2012. If the fourth-sized country in Europe can't be trusted to run half of a 16-team set-up, it hardly suggests much confidence in anyone bar the big five in Western Europe staging a bigger tournament.
In the existing four team groups, there are six matches per group. A five team group would have 10 matches. So the four groups together would mean 16 extra games.
Last edited by Gather round; 25/09/2008 at 3:21 PM.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks