European Championships - France 2016

[geysir]

I think we have a chance, it's a small chance but it was always going to be that. 2012 required two major and one minor miracle from the off, this group doesn't quite call for that and we are in better shape going in also, there's is more to us in terms of adapting how we set up for different opponents for a start. It will be very fine margins I feel, and the smart money is probably on a group stage return home, but only just. Even if this transpires, I am confident it wont be in the manner of 2012, and that, coupled with the group we managed to come out of to get there, victories in must win games against bigger reputations, represents progress.

And I cannot wait for it. Great times.

A small chance? I'd say it's either green or yellow, we have a 50/50 to come out winners against Sweden and that would be enough, either enough to be a good third or enough to have the momentum to scrap for one draw elsewhere. And there's actually not that much difference in the quality of the possible last 16 opponents for the group e qualifiers.

[ifk101]

A small chance? I'd say it's either green or yellow, we have a 50/50 to come out winners against Sweden and that would be enough, either enough to be a good third or enough to have the momentum to scrap for one draw elsewhere. And there's actually not that much difference in the quality of the possible last 16 opponents for the group e qualifiers.

There are three possible result scenarios; a green win, a yellow win or a draw. Therefore to say it's either green or yellow, or we have a 50/50 chance to come out winners against Sweden would be incorrect.

To say that "there is actually not much difference in the quality of possible last 16 opponents" is actually a wild generalisation, a subjective opinion lacking in factual basis.

[DeLorean]

Yeah at best we have a 33% chance of beating Sweden really. There are many that will give us close to no chance against Belgium and Italy, so to say we've only a small chance of going through is a reasonable enough opinion I think. I'd be slightly more hopeful than that maybe but not much, we are up against it. I think we can get at point from Belgium and/or Italy though so a win against Sweden would definitely do the trick in that scenario. It's got 1-1 written all over it though

[Deckydee]

Hi,

Feedback from the competition. Took this from 'Het Laatste Nieuws' the most popular paper here in Flanders. Just thought some of you would like to see what they think of us.The first part speaks about the Irish bears and that the Belgians are going to need a 'breaking device' if they are going to break us down. For what we lack in footballing ability this is where we are strongest, according to the Belgians.

The next part speaks about our players. The first part they mention is that there no possible comparison between their players and our players. The say that (unlike all of their players) none of our players are playing at the 'top' of the premier league and that 'most' of our players are playing in the 'second league' in England. They mention about John O'Shea playing 12 years for Man U (but has since left) and that our top striker Robbie Keane and the fact that he only scored 5 goals for us recently 'sums them up really'

The last section on the right says 'So where are they are danger to us' - Well, it says, ask the Germans! They then go and discuss that it is the decision of MON and Roy Keane to stick 9/10 men behind the ball in each game and that when 'we' play against 'them' we can expect that Ireland will do the same. This tactic coupled with long ball will be difficult for the more technical Belgians. A good performance from Hazard/De Bruyne/Mertens should be sufficient to break this ultra-defensive tactic down and once this has been achieved they will be nothing standing in our way.

[Lionel Ritchie]

I like it. Give 'em enough rope I say. Give 'em enough rope.

[Wolfman]

Sure we'll win it, no bother.

[geysir]

Yeah at best we have a 33% chance of beating Sweden really. There are many that will give us close to no chance against Belgium and Italy, so to say we've only a small chance of going through is a reasonable enough opinion I think. I'd be slightly more hopeful than that maybe but not much, we are up against it. I think we can get at point from Belgium and/or Italy though so a win against Sweden would definitely do the trick in that scenario. It's got 1-1 written all over it though

If you were prepared to offer 3/1 on Ireland beating Sweden, then I'd wager you would be subject to an avalanche of offers, even Tricky might be tempted to break his bank (60 cents).
6/4 or 5/4 would be more accurate. Both teams know a draw is féck all use and both teams will be targetting 3 points and will not settle for a point. And in that scenario I'd say we have a 50% chance of beating Sweden. If you only think we have a 1/3 chance of beating Sweden, that equates to having a very low opinion of our team or/and inflated opinion of Sweden. 3 points might well be enough to get through. Getting a point either from Italy or Belgium is something that can happen in gritty circumstances.

[Stuttgart88]

33% chance = 2/1 in betting parlance, no?

2/1 against means one chance in three positive, two chances in three negative

50% chance = evens

[geysir]

There are three possible result scenarios; a green win, a yellow win or a draw. Therefore to say it's either green or yellow, or we have a 50/50 chance to come out winners against Sweden would be incorrect.

I have explained my reasoning on my 50/50 prediction, which makes more football sense than your maths

To say that "there is actually not much difference in the quality of possible last 16 opponents" is actually a wild generalisation, a subjective opinion lacking in factual basis.

My opinion is based on viewing likely group e opponents, Czech Republic/Croatia, Portugal or France over a period of time.
All my opinions are subjective and these opinions are based on the fact that I have viewed them in play. If you want scientific football facts, then Charlie is the man.
I opine that we will have to wait until the tournament is over in order to have facts.

[DeLorean]

If you were prepared to offer 3/1 on Ireland beating Sweden, then I'd wager you would be subject to an avalanche of offers, even Tricky might be tempted to break his bank (60 cents). 6/4 or 5/4 would be more accurate.

I've said nothing about betting odds, one doesn't necessarily translate to the other, well not in the way you have presented it anyway. 3/1 would be generous for an Ireland victory, but that has zero to do with what I said. My logic is that ourselves and Sweden are fairly evenly matched, they may be slightly better because of their one world class player. There are three possible outcomes in the game: Ireland win 33.33%, draw 33.33%, Sweden win 33.33%. That would be assuming we are completely even in terms of our chances.

Both teams know a draw is féck all use and both teams will be targetting 3 points and will not settle for a point. And in that scenario I'd say we have a 50% chance of beating Sweden.

Yes but that's just a nonsense scenario where you have removed a draw as a possibility to justify your point. A draw is a huge possibility. Just because both teams want to win doesn't mean that one of them will. The last thing either will want is a defeat.

If you only think we have a 1/3 chance of beating Sweden, that equates to having a very low opinion of our team or/and inflated opinion of Sweden.

No it doesn't. I think we have a one in three chance because they are two evenly matched teams with three possible outcomes. I think we have (at best) a 2/3 chance of not losing the match, which sounds much better. Sweden only have a 1/3 chance of winning too so how is my opinion of them inflated and my opinion of us very low?

[geysir]

33% chance = 2/1 in betting parlance, no?

2/1 against means one chance in three positive, two chances in three negative

50% chance = evens

Yep, 2/1 means a 33% chance of winning, so De Lorean would not be offering 3/1 on Ireland winning and Tricky would be hesitating.

[DeLorean]

De Lorean would not be offering 3/1 on Ireland winning

You conjured that 3/1 figure out of thin air.

[geysir]

I've said nothing about betting odds, one doesn't necessarily translate to the other, well not in the way you have presented it anyway. 3/1 would be generous for an Ireland victory, but that has zero to do with what I said. My logic is that ourselves and Sweden are fairly evenly matched, they may be slightly better because of their one world class player. There are three possible outcomes in the game: Ireland win 33.33%, draw 33.33%, Sweden win 33.33%. That would be assuming we are completely even in terms of our chances.

Mathematically correct, but chances in football odds do not follow such logic, they are affected by a myriad of factors.

Yes but that's just a nonsense scenario where you have removed a draw as a possibility to justify your point. A draw is a huge possibility. Just because both teams want to win doesn't mean that one of them will. The last thing either will want is a defeat.

I did not remove the possibility of a draw, I lessened the value of that possibility.
I lessened its value because my football opinions (being better than my maths) at this time do not agree that a draw is a huge possibility, far from it.
I would however concur that a draw would be a huge possibility in other circumstances

No it doesn't. I think we have a one in three chance because they are two evenly matched teams with three possible outcomes. I think we have (at best) a 2/3 chance of not losing the match, which sounds much better. Sweden only have a 1/3 chance of winning too so how is my opinion of them inflated and my opinion of us very low?

You are correct and that means you have a less low opinion of our chances of beating Sweden and a less inflated opinion of their chances of beating us, than I first thought.

[DeLorean]

I did not remove the possibility of a draw, I lessened the value of that possibility.

So how do we have a 50% chance? Unless you are saying that we are better than Sweden, the other 50% must be made up of a potential Sweden victory and a draw, seeing as you haven't removed it as a possibility.

I lessened its value because my football opinions (being better than my maths) at this time do not agree that a draw is a huge possibility, far from it.
I would however concur that a draw would be a huge possibility in other circumstances

Just one fairly recent example I can think of is Iran v Nigeria in their opening game at the WC. With Bosnia and Argentina being the other teams in the group I'm sure both would have sighted that as a game they really needed to win. They played out a 0-0 borefest. As it turned out, Nigeria beat Bosnia in their next game anyway but you get the point. Not losing will be the priority, I'd be surprised if MON doesn't mention that himself. Do you really see us going gung-ho?

[CraftyToePoke]

Ah look what I have started, all I wanted was to shine a gentle light of positive possibility and now look at us lunatics

[DeLorean]

I'm not going unless I know exactly what chance we have! (To the nearest decimal point obviously)

[DeLorean]

3 points might well be enough to get through.

Just having a look at the three times the same format applied in the World Cup (i.e. 1986-1994).

It's interesting that no third placed team ever qualified with just one win (and two defeats). Of course, this was at a time when there were only two points on offer for a win.

If the current criteria applied Hungary would have made the knock-out stage in 1986 with their sole victory, as it would have bettered Bulgaria and Uruguay's two draws and a defeat.

Austria and Scotland missed out in 1990, both recording one win and two defeats. This was bettered by the third placed teams in all of the other groups. Under the current criteria of three points for a win, they would have still been knocked out, on goal difference as they would have been level on points with Netherlands, who drew their three matches (like ourselves).

Three points for a win was in place for the 1994 competition, where Russia missed out having recorded one win and two defeats. Again, no team went through win just one win and nothing else.

I reckon there's a bigger chance we'll be eliminated with just one win than go through. GD could be crucial too.

[SkStu]

So how do we have a 50% chance? Unless you are saying that we are better than Sweden, the other 50% must be made up of a potential Sweden victory and a draw, seeing as you haven't removed it as a possibility.



Just one fairly recent example I can think of is Iran v Nigeria in their opening game at the WC. With Bosnia and Argentina being the other teams in the group I'm sure both would have sighted that as a game they really needed to win. They played out a 0-0 borefest. As it turned out, Nigeria beat Bosnia in their next game anyway but you get the point. Not losing will be the priority, I'd be surprised if MON doesn't mention that himself. Do you really see us going gung-ho?

[Crosby87]

AIB taking heat for loaning Irish fans money to make it to Euro 16. Tricky borrowed at 22.5%.

http://www.independent.ie/business/a...-34294987.html

[BonnieShels]

They haven't loaned any money at all. They are just offering loans. Like a bank does. God I hate the fupping Indo. I also hate AIB, but the Indo more right now.