When the euro's expand to 24?

[French Toasht]

... But they didn't qualify for the tournament. Thats my point.

[Serb]

In South America, you qualify for the World Cup if you come fourth in your group, something that Argentina struggled to do for World Cup 2010 thanks to their shocking away record. They finished behind Brazil, Paraguay and Chile in qualifying. You might be surprised at how some of the bigger teams perform when the perceived pressure is off.

More on topic, I don't think the expansion to 24 teams is a bad thing. Teams like Germany, Holland and Spain will probably qualify every time with ease—they qualify with ease every time as it is—but they should still have to go out and get the points they need just like everyone else. Once their place in the tournament is booked, we'll probably see more experimental teams from the bigger nations in the later games, which may lead to a few shocks as the teams who face them later on in qualification are likely to face weakened teams.

I'm also in favour of any change that benefits Ireland's qualification hopes; I don't think it devalues anything if we're in every tournament. The Rugby World Cup certainly hasn't suffered despite Ireland featuring every time. We also saw some minnow teams having a growing impact this year — if Samoa had managed to beat Canada, they would have qualified out of their group ahead of France.

[French Toasht]

In South America, you qualify for the World Cup if you come fourth in your group, something that Argentina struggled to do for World Cup 2010 thanks to their shocking away record. They finished behind Brazil, Paraguay and Chile in qualifying. You might be surprised at how some of the bigger teams perform when the perceived pressure is off.

Are you suggesting that finishing 4th or 5th in qualification and progressing to the tournament is a handy means of qualification? SA is the most competitive qualifying series of all the FIFA conferations. Ireland's chances of qualifying for the WC out of South America would be substantially lower than their chances of qualifying out of the European groups. Teams like Columbia and Ecuador that frequently just miss out, would find it considerably easier to qualify in Europe.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't think Colombia or Ecuador would find it any easier in Europe, considering the likes of Russia, Ireland, Turkey, Croatia and Bosnia failed to qualify last time. Ecuador and Colombia used to get a handy advantage from playing their games at high altitude but that's been banned now.

[SwanVsDalton]

I don't think Colombia or Ecuador would find it any easier in Europe, considering the likes of Russia, Ireland, Turkey, Croatia and Bosnia failed to qualify last time. Ecuador and Colombia used to get a handy advantage from playing their games at high altitude but that's been banned now.

Agreed. I'd see Ecuador and Colombia as about the level of Turkey, Slovenia, Slovakia and Bosnia, none of whom qualified this time. I don't think they'd be guaranteed even in expansion.

[Serb]

I think for a team with the kind of players Argentina traditionally have, they should be finishing well ahead of teams like Paraguay and Chile — and normally they do. I agree that qualification for everyone other than Brazil and Argentina is competitive in Concaf, but that also means that every team (bar Venezuela) have had a chance at a major tournament. The expansion of the Euros will give a lot of our smaller nations a chance too.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Actually they won their qualifying group for Euro 76. Winning five of their six games, before going out to the Yugoslavs (who eventually finished fourth) in the quarters.

Technically, artistically or however else you prefer to analyse it, they variously

a) won a qualifying group of six games, and

b) as a result advanced to the last eight of the tournament, so

c) comparing that with a play-off simply to make the last 16 is a bit odd. They were clearly two stages better than that.

So they reached the last 8. And then lost. So what?
And the play-off point is valid, as that was the rules of the competition at the time...

[mypost]

Actually they won their qualifying group for Euro 76. Winning five of their six games, before going out to the Yugoslavs (who eventually finished fourth) in the quarters.

Ireland reached the quarter-finals of Euro '64, losing to Spain who won the competition. Ireland's first tournament was in 1988.

[Gather round]

So they reached the last 8. And then lost. So what?

So by reaching the last eight I think most would agree they were relatively successful- contrary to the suggestion earlier in the thread.

And the play-off point is valid, as that was the rules of the competition at the time...

The implication that a play-off to make the last four is similar as one to make the last 16- even allowing for there being 20 fewer teams taking part in the 70s- is a bit odd, don't ye think?

Ireland reached the quarter-finals of Euro '64, losing to Spain who won the competition. Ireland's first tournament was in 1988

This is nitpicking. There was a tournament in 1964, even if its rules were different to those in 1988.

[Charlie Darwin]

I thought qualifying for a tournament meant getting to the finals? i.e. not playing home and away legs.

[French Toasht]

Why are you trying to argue Wales qualified for a tournament that they patently didn't qualify for?

[osarusan]

I don't think GR has really argued that they got to the finals.

GR's original point was in response to mypost's claim that Wales haven't been successful in football since 1958. GR was pointing out that they had topped their qualifying group in 1976. This was countered by the argument that they hadn't actually qualified for the (then 4-team) tournament, but GR hadn't claimed they had.

His point was only that Wales were one of the last 8 teams remaining in the competition, and he would consider that to have been relatively successful, and an argument against mypost's statement. They were still involved after the stage where among others, France, Italy, England and Ireland had been eliminated.

The issue is whether they have been 'successful at anything since 1958', and given that the 1976 finals consisted of only 4 teams, I think it is fair to argue that qualifying for the finals and considering Wales' qualification efforts successful are not mutually exclusive.

[French Toasht]

I think success can only be measured in qualification to be honest. Acknowledging anything else is endorsing failure.

Yes Wales came close to WC 94 (missed penalty against Romania in the final qualifier) and Euro 2004 (Playoff defeat to Russia), just like we came close in 96, 98, 2000, 2006 and 2010, but at the end of the day it doesn't mean anything unless you are packing the rosary beads and sanwiches and jumpleads for the van.

[mypost]

This is nitpicking.

It's throwing the same argument back at you.

[legendz]

Having seen the 4 groups of 4 in action, is it a good idea for the next tournament being expanded to 24? Qualification is going to be easier. 4 third placed teams are going to be going through to the knock-out stages.

[Murfinator]

Is the format of third placed teams going through confirmed?

[Stuttgart88]

That's what I heard too. Not a good idea in my opinion, even if it benefits us in theory. Great tournament as it is, bloody great.

[legendz]

Expanding to 20 should've been s far as they went with 5 group runners-up and best 3rd team playing off to join 5 group winners in the quarter-finals.

[Dodge]

Is the format of third placed teams going through confirmed?

What else could it be?

24 was a nonsense from the start...

[Wolfie]

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

16 Teams is perfect and adding to that total only dilutes the competition.

If they want to change anything, why not focus on something of real benefit. For example - say goal line technology at the finals????