QuoteWhere's Ealing G these days, by the way???
I'm still waiting on the hearty congratulations on our qualification.
Hello you. All the more reason for you to look back on it fondly, rather than gurning about those nasty NI fans.Originally Posted by ifk101
Yes it secured our qualification for the 1994 WC. Hello!
I imagine some of them were singing a mrror image of wor Jackie's literary effort.
Where's Ealing G these days, by the way???
I'm still waiting on the hearty congratulations on our qualification.
Quoting years at random since 1975
Hello!
Trust me I do!
NI fans speak of us with fondness?
Writing letters no doubt.
I was only wondering what the reason would be for the angst being at it's peak now?! (if that is actually the case, I honestly wouldn't know but would have assumed it was worse during the troubles)
I was speaking for myself! I completely accept that, for the majority, they are the nation we are most concerned about after ourselves. I just think it's a bit too uneven to be considered a real rivalry.
Last edited by DeLorean; 23/11/2011 at 1:53 PM.
Ireland and Czech Republic are the two lowest ranked teams at next summers euros. These two teams fairly easily dispatched of Estonia and Montenegro by substantial scorelines. Under the new 24 team framework, Estonia and Montenegro would be automatic qualifiers. Who genuinely believes Estonia would be a good addition to the tournament and would raise the standard in comparison to the status quo?
Going back to the discussion about the standard of European teams at world cups compared with other regions - i don't think WC 2010 particularly enhanced the view that the European zone is strong. Yes, the top 3 europeans ended up the top 3 in the tournament - but that doesnt mean there's strength in depth.
France, Greece, Slovenia, Serbia, Denmark, Italy and Switzerland - ALL failed to progress beyond the group stage. More than half the european contingent. Most of those teams were very poor. You can add to that the fact that england completely stunk the place out with their inept performances.
I'll agree that New Zealand had a very fortunate qualifying route, but they performed admirably when there - way better, relatively speaking, than most of the europeans. And Asia isnt as weak as some make out either - South Korea and Japan both being unlucky to exit in round 2.
This isn't really my argument. I believe several teams (I named a dozen) would be fairly competitive at the Euros but, regardless, my point isn't that the competition would be enhanced with 24 teams but simply that it won't be diminished. Given the relatively small gap between a huge number of sides in Europe, I don't see how eight extra teams would damage the quality of the Euros.
Perhaps it can be argued the ease of qualification will diminish it, but I think that really only affects the 'elite' (top 5-6) teams in Europe. Another argument is there will be uncompetitive games but at the last World Cup the only side to beat Spain were Switzerland (and they haven't even qualified). One-off shocks happen all the time in tournaments and I'd expect the first 24 team Euros to be similar.
As for your actual question on Estonia - no I don't think they'd raise the standard but who would? And ultimately, no, I don't think they'd be a good addition (although, as I said, that's not my point anyway) on the pitch as they'd be fairly uncompetitive. But they'd bring colour, novelty and excitement. They'd be like Latvia in 2004, a one-off who proved to be a worthy but outclassed participants. I don't see much wrong with that tbh.
But if we're talking about 'raising the standard' seems Ireland, Czech Rep and anyone else considered unworthy should be locked out. Or the tournament should go back to a four-team event like it was at the beginning. Ok ok, that's a bit flippant - but I still don't see how 24 would be a tournament ruiner.
Last edited by SwanVsDalton; 23/11/2011 at 2:24 PM.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
You're spot in in what you post alright, although go back a World Cup and you find ten of 16 teams in the knock-outs being European, and no European team lost to a non-European in the knock-outs. 2002 was 9/16 for Europe (granted, they didn't do as well) and 1998 (the first 32-team competition) was 10/16 (2010, by contrast, was 6/16). But by and large, European teams have been making up more than half of the last 16, but typically about 14/32 (less than half) of the qualifiers. So purely on a strength basis, it does seem Europe is a bit under-represented.
The Czechs beat Montenegro 3-0 on aggregate. That's not a substantial scoreline.
I think a two week group stage to eliminate a mere 8 teams from 24 is uncompetitive, no matter how you look at it. People will source the 24 team World Cup as an example, but that included teams from all over the world. It was very difficult to get there and when you throw in a South American or African team into your group, it was very difficult to get out of. Here you have almost 50% of European teams making the Euro finals and 66% of the qualified teams getting out of the group. It's simply uncompetitive. If we are going to go to 24, why not have the Heineken Cup format. 6 group winners and 2 runners up. In the Heineken Cup, there is literally no margin for error and every game is crucial, under the proposed system for the Euros, there simply isn't the same edge to the games and absolute neccessity to win.
Really? They didn't take up their ticket allocation for the Dublin leg. They were happy enough to sell their tickets to Irish fans for supposedly the big match in their history in Talinn. And according to the Newstalk lads on the ground in Talinn, you couldn't really sense there was a football match of huge importance going on.
But we ARE the requisite standard this time though. We are worthy. We have proven over the campaign that we deserved one of the 14 qualification spots on offer. No lets not go back to 4 or 8 teams but keep it at 16, thats the optimum figure.
If everyone simply took off the green tinted glasses and looked at this situation objectively, I don't think too many people would say increasing the tournament to 24 teams will make it a better footballing spectacle.
I have no problem with 50% of teams getting in if those teams are all of a decent standard. Which I think they would be. The quality of European international football is pretty good and there's about two dozen teams - below the top five but above the bottom level - who are very competitive against each other. This competitiveness would only be increased in tournament football.
The format is more problematic. But every game would still be crucial, probably even more so. If there's a dead rubber it's because teams are already through/out (which currently happens). And as has been pointed out our groups in '94 and '90 were uber-competitive. In fact the likelihood is you'll see even more excitement as teams have an even greater chance of qualifying come the final round. A win and a couple of goals could throw them straight back into the reckoning, even after two defeats.
If they made the tournament, they'd be over-the-moon. It POSSIBLY could be transformative to Estonia as a footballing nation (in some ways the play-off was). Latvia were a similar case and even if they only play at a slightly higher level than they did previous, it's still a higher level.
Or maybe we should applaud the Estonians for not being quite so bandwagon - we couldn't even sell-out a crucial qualifier against Slovakia sure...
With the overall competitiveness for qualifying spots, and the sheer number of teams of a similar level, those who qualify for 2016 will certainly be worthy too imo.
I certainly haven't been green-tinted and haven't mentioned Ireland once. My point's still the same - not sure if it'll improve the tournament, but I really don't think it'll damage it. AND if so called 'lesser' nations get a shot at a big occasion and earn a place, I think that's a plus for expansion. The quality of football in this continent can sustain a great tournament with 24 teams.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
If the current 16 were in the knock-out phase of the next euro's in 2016, it'd be a fairly interesting round of 16.
https://foot.ie/forums/117-Kerry-FC
A Championship: 4 years - 8 first teams - 0 financially ruined. First Division '14: 7 first teams.
Opportunity lost for new clubs/regions to join the LoI family.
And we probably would have made second seeds as well.
The draw was made when it was, everyone had good notice when it was going to be. Wales were happy enough with their schedule at the time, and they didn't get enough results in that schedule to stay as 5th seeds. 20 years ago they were 4th seeds, they've spent most years since as 4th, 5th, and now 6th seeds. As long as they beat Scotland in the next qualifiers, they'll be happy with that.
The Croats don't support the Serbs, the Baltic states don't support the Russians, the Argentineans don't support the Brazilians, the Dutch and the English don't support the Germans, we don't support the English, etc. That's the way football rivalry works the world over.
We have a rigid 4-4-2 system that is used all the time, we are the lowest ranked team in Europe, and the lowest seed of the qualifiers, so should we be thrown out? We met the standard required, we earned the right to be there, and if Estonia or Montenegro met that standard, so would they.
I think 16 teams is too few for a major tournament like this, you can't have 20, so 24 is a fair number. 16 teams will make the knockout rounds and there'll be plenty of ifs buts and maybes for the strugglers going into the last group games. More teams, more games, more tension, and more excitement. When it comes in, we'll wonder why we didn't bring it in sooner.
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
Well then do you think Estonia are the requisite standard? They are absolutely shocking in footballing terms and if they couldn't get their fans behind them for the biggest match in their history, then they are not going to add anything to the tournament.
Under the proposed scheme, Ireland under Stan could have featured at the Euros in 2008. I wouldn't have wanted to inflict that standard on the European stage and thus don't expect other teams of similar standing to be represented at the finals.
Surely by that reckoning, it renders a teams first two games less competitive if you know a win in the final game might get you over the line.
The current system isn't broken why fix it? As a neutral observer the World Cup does not get going till the dead wood like Honduras, Algeria and Saudi Arabia have been eliminated and then the games, really begin. The beauty of the Euros in its current format is their is no dead wood. Every game in the group is a cracker between teams of a very high standard. Introducing the Estonias of this world into the Euros will diminish the competition as a spectacle and replicate the problems of the World Cup.
while i agree with most of your post Estonia are far from "shocking"
our last qualification game for Euro 88 was against Bulgaria in front of a half empty stadium at best. 2 years later people were camping out to queue for home tickets. its amazing what qualification will do for your attendances!
Last edited by jbyrne; 23/11/2011 at 5:58 PM.
Great.
Don't care.I wouldn't have wanted to inflict that standard on the European stage.
You can't see it that way. If you win the last game, you might go through, and if you lose, you may well go home, so the sooner you qualify, the sooner you can relax and experiment.Surely by that reckoning, it renders a teams first two games less competitive if you know a win in the final game might get you over the line.
I remember plenty of poor games and teams in the group phase of the 16 Euro finals, let alone knockout rounds. No matter what system you have, there'll always be good games, and games that make you want to move your thumb to stop you falling asleep.The beauty of the Euros in its current format is their is no dead wood. Every game in the group is a cracker between teams of a very high standard.
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
Why do you keep banging on about Estonia? That's one team in a continent with loads who could qualify. I've named at least a dozen (of which only eight are needed) who I think would be competitive in the tournament and Estonia wern't amongst them. They are an exceptional case this year but odd exceptions don't contradict my general point.
And I maintain - if Estonia qualified by right next time out then they deserve a place as much as anyone. After all hey earned a place in the play-off's and were duly outclassed. But it's far more realistic to suppose sides like Switzerland, Slovakia, Belgium, Serbia, Bosnia, Norway, Slovenia, Scotland, Romania, Turkey and even Montenegro and Armenia would offer competitiveness and variety to the Euro Championships.
Again Stan's Ireland - an exception. Would Norway, a point behind eventual semi-finalists, be a poor addition to that tourney? What about Scotland who beat France home and away? England maybe? Serbia? Or even Northern Ireland who beat Denmark, Sweden and Spain, the eventual champs, at home? These guys wouldn't have been competitive? All of them?
I mean where does these arbitrary notions of standards come from? If we're talking about quality, Ireland earned their place this year but lots of people are concerned, and already making jokes, about the kind of football we're going to inflict on people next year. But to me the quality argument doesn't really come in to it. There's a lot of teams similar to us - loads - who could be in this tournament and won't damage a 24 team tourney. Simple.
Side point - we don't know how qualification for 2016 will work yet, but Stan's Ireland had 17 points by far the lowest of the third place teams. And even IF they made a play-off, they'd have almost certainly been easy beat.
What? Since when did teams go into a tournament thinking it was OK to scrape in third on the last game? Some teams may take a defensive outlook depending on the quality of opposition, and target certain games in the group, but that already happens. But no one's going to wait until the last game - that'd be madness. If anything they'd go harder at the first game because a good first results would make you odds on to qualify.
The beauty of a four team group, no matter how many qualify, is every action has a reaction - if a team is cruising the group then guaranteed the others will be tight to qualify. If one team is getting easily beaten then the others will all be scrapping for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. No one's going to want a difficult second round draw. Again just look at World Cup '90 and '94. The quality wasn't great, but you can't say those groups were not totally competitive.
Just as an example - say we're in a group in 2016 with Spain, Croatia and Romania. Us, Croats and Romania won't fancy Spain, but all three will think they can come second and, failing that, third. No one's going to ease up and that'll be the case across the tournament imo.
It's not about improvement, it's about opening the tournament up to more teams, creating a bigger spectacle and, of course, making more dough. All that can be possible without hurting the competition because there won't be much dead wood, if any. Europe has a bunch of very decent footballing nations who don't get a look-in. If Belgium and Serbia played in Euro 2012, it could be a fantastic game. If they were in a group with Holland and Croatia, it'd be even better.
I wouldn't have advocated changing the tournament but I simply don't agree that'll do much damage, certainly not to the extent you're naysaying. There are just so many fairly strong teams in Europe and, even with a few extra, the football would be just as competitive, the rivalries just as fierce and the spectacle just as interesting imo.
After all the last tournament was great but there was some dud games, and with us, Poland, Czechs etc kicking around there will be probably be some duds next year too. That'll happen no matter how many teams are in it. Point is there's no reason why 2016 won't maintain the general standard of the tournament - even if Estonia do qualify
Last edited by SwanVsDalton; 23/11/2011 at 6:20 PM.
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
So do you want the tournament to stay at 16 or go to 24? I am not predicting a doomsday scenario if it does go to 24, but just think the current system is not broken, so why the need to fix it?
Of the teams you have mentioned, Slovakia as we know ourselves are no great shakes, Romania are not nearly the team they once were and have really fallen into middle tier mediocrity in the last few years. Scotland, can't score goals and really have done pretty abysmally in their last two groups where a playoff in both groups was seriously attainable. Turkey? Another team in decline, got a very low points total for a second placed team and if Guus Hiddink can not seem to generate some sort of competitiveness in them, you really have to wonder are they capable. Switzerland are in a transitionary phase under Ottmar Hitzfeld, this tournament came too soon, but I expect them to qualify outright for future competitions within the existing framework. Belguim, up and coming team, if the potential they have is unleashed, they are more than capable of qualifying in future for a 16 team tournament. As for Serbia and Slovenia, I have to wonder about their credentials when Estonia are beating them.
I think the above teams are healthy competition for us in terms of qualification, lets keep it like that. Qualification for the Euros will be greatly weakened if the gate to the Euros is widened and these teams stroll relatively easily in.
Every campaign, we complain that we don't do things the easy way and we make life hard for ourselves, then when things begin to look just a little bit easier for us, people complain that it isn't hard enough.
Some people seem to enjoy running up a hill all the time.
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
Totally objectively, I think the tournament would be better with 16 teams.
We weren't certain of our play-off berth going into the Armenian game. If we were attempting qualification for a tournament of 24, we'd have been in a battle for either an automatic place or the play-offs.
If it applied to this qualification, 9 group winners and 8 best runners-up would've joined the 2 hosts at the finals. The remaining 5 places would've been made up of the play-off winners from:
Serbia 16
Turkey 18
Switzerland 17
Norway 20
Israel 22
Hungary 23
Romania 25
Scotland 27
Belgium 33
Armenia 38
Ranked based on National Team Coefficient Ranking, Matches considered up to 12/10/2011.
I wouldn't say 5 from this 10 would take away from the competition.
https://foot.ie/forums/117-Kerry-FC
A Championship: 4 years - 8 first teams - 0 financially ruined. First Division '14: 7 first teams.
Opportunity lost for new clubs/regions to join the LoI family.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks