In 86, Uraguay drew two games and lost 6-1 to Denmark and they still made the Second Round. In 1982 Italy drew 3 group games and then went on to win it. in 1990 we know that Ireland drew 3 games and went through. In 94 Italy came third in our group and went on to the final.Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
The success of the Euros has been because it only has 16 teams,the Euros of 2000 and 2008 were two of the best tournaments ever.
Quality over quantityI say.
"Football is a game you play with your brain".
How exactly do those examples prove the tournaments weren't competitive?
I can't fathom what is people's problem with this?
The qualifying round will probably be 7 groups of 6 teams, and 2 of 5 teams. The finals will probably be 6 groups of 4, with the top 2 and 4 best 3rd-placed going through. You have 16 left for the knockout ties.
When 24 teams qualified for the WC from 82-90, 14 of the finalists were European, from 35-odd countries. I am delighted with the move, as it makes it easier for Ireland to qualify, and barring a catastrophe, we will. I just wish it was in place for the coming qualifiers.
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
but the number of teams is increasing by 8 from that joint hosted tournament. the next joint hosts ukraine, and to a lesser extent poland, are finding it hard to come up with the required number of stadia and thats for the smaller 16 team tournament. ukraine and poland are also very big countries with big populations and if they are struggling what chance is there for smaller countries?
From the perspective of Ireland being more likely to qualify for the tournament, it's great.
But the argument being made was that it wouldn't dilute the quality of football in the tournament, which in my opinion is wrong.
Having watched most of the WC quals (and games to date in S.Africa), more is less.
16 is easily enough for the Euros Finals.
Personally don't give a toss whether we reach the Finals or not. Though it's good to put in a respectable showing. The WCF's are where it's at for me.
At the end of the day if Ireland qualify why should we even care where it's held or whether matches between other teams will be good or not as long as Ireland will be there i'll be tuning in
As an Irishman, my first priority is Ireland's campaign. If having more teams helps us qualify for the finals, then I don't care how it affects the quality of the tournament. You will get wonderful and rubbish games in every finals, whether there's 16 teams or double that.
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
But the point is you get even more sh*t games if the standard's more mediocre, Ireland included.....
I don't care, if Ireland are involved. The 7-month build-up, the feelgood factor, the edge of the seat entertainment, is much more important than watching the likes of Italy sleepwalk their way to a 2-0 win in the finals over whatever rubbish is put in front of them.
NL 1st Division Champions 2006
NL Premier Division Champions 2010
NL Premier Division Champions 2011
Keep Tallaght Tidy, Throw your rubbish in the Jodi
Ten Years Not Out
More teams in it means more potential for upsets....
The "poor" teams in this tournament haven't let anybody down.
South Africa beating France. Serbia beating Germany. New Zealand tying Italy. North Korea making Brazil work for its victory. Algeria tying England.
I don't see how having more teams has reduced the quality of the matches. Personally, I blame the terrible ball and the altitude, the combination of which means the players can't keep the ball down when shooting. Given the fact that the games are being played at higher altitude, Adidas should have tried to make the ball a tad heavier to counteract the effect a higher altitude has on the ball. With the lower air density at that height, the ball just flies.
You're either English or French, which is it?
These guys can't control a football and peddle every excuse under the sun, train with the f--king thing for a couple of weeks and then see how hard it is to control. Every world cup you get this rubbish. The ball has been commercially available for almost a year, why is it now a shock to highly paid professional players?
"Your guilty conscience may move you to vote Democratic, but deep down you long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king"
Sideshow Bob
To be honest there's far far too much football, internationals (including Ireland)....rather a World Cup every three years or something.
It's been used as an excuse but the ball is rubbish - you don't have to be a physicist to see that. It's good in the sense that the players will delicate technique (mainly the south Americans) are benfiting while those with a tendency to leather it are struggling. I think it has contributed overall to a lack of accuracy in the tournament and I really hope it's destroyed come the end of the tournament.
that would be two international tournaments every 6 years instead of three in the same period (just counting european championships). The more the better in my opinion. You cant beat the buzz of the finals of a major tournament.
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
Yeah, but all these Finals are just perpetuating mediocrity, especially in the opening stages.
I love football/soccer but these WCF and the last few major championships have been largely a yawnfest certainly in their opening stages.
40% of games minimum are instantly forgettable.
Again, far far too much unnecessary stuff. At all levels.
How many free kicks have we seen hit the target? I think I can count on one hand the shots that have actually hit the keeper from direct free kicks. Everything else has soared miles over. How many cross field balls, corners and crosses have we seen totally "overhit?"
These are world-class players that score tonnes of free kicks in domestic football. All of a sudden they're in South Africa and not one player can score a free kick goal that doesn't involve a slice of luck?
Call the players whiners all you want, but it's pretty clear to me that the ball is absolutely brutal. It's a balloon.
have to be honest here - originally i very much had the opinion that endabob has about the ball but as the tournament has progressed and the more ive seen of the ball, im starting to come around to irishfans way of thinking.
Keepers seem to have a real problem with it and it isnt just a few.....ive seen so many problems with it.
the latest been mark scharwzers error for the serbia goal tonite.
Its still a difficult call to make - as my mate says " a ball is still a ball no matter how fancy it is made" but there just seems to have been an awful lot of mistakes made in the tournament so
Anyway weve gone off topic a bit i think
Guess we will be able to give a better verdict on it as the tournament progresses
Last edited by back of the net; 23/06/2010 at 11:04 PM.
I don't think Schwarzer's was related to the ball - he just took his eye off it.
If ever their was a good argument for not increasing the Euros its this world cup. Just after watching Denmark in the Wcup. Pure muck. European teams arent really doing the business - not yet anyway.
For me its always quality over quantity
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks