Euro 2020 General Discussion

[Lillian Thomson]

What’s the “big advantage” in that?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure a 32 team tournament would dilute the quality that much.

There's probably enough semi-competent teams who missed out who aren't significantly worse than the poorest 8 teams to qualify.

There's (say) Serbia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Norway, Iceland, Eire & Northern Ireland. Perming any 8 from them stacks up reasonably well against (say) North Macedonia, Turkey, Finland, Scotland, Austria, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland.

Will make qualification a farce, but lessen the potential for carve ups and the need for slide rules in the actual tournament group stages.

 

[Pothas]

Because 3rd should never be enough to go through, it is messy with not all of them going through and removes loads of jeopardy. I know Uppercut has done this already but 8 extra teams of a similar standard to what we already have is definitely worth it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

That’s all a big fat nothing. It makes it fairer if only the results in your own group matter but it’s not improving the tournament at all.

 

[Pothas]

Making the group stages better does not improve the tournament?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It’s not improving the quality of the tournament.

 

[Pothas]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure a 32 team tournament would dilute the quality that much.

There's probably enough semi-competent teams who missed out who aren't significantly worse than the poorest 8 teams to qualify.

There's (say) Serbia, Slovenia, Bosnia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Norway, Iceland, Eire & Northern Ireland. Perming any 8 from them stacks up reasonably well against (say) North Macedonia, Turkey, Finland, Scotland, Austria, Ukraine, Slovakia and Poland.

Will make qualification a farce, but lessen the potential for carve ups and the need for slide rules in the actual tournament group stages.

Yeah qualification would be awful but everyone hates it anyway. Maybe they could just fully incorporate it into the nations league? Not sure how that would actually work.

 

[JOJOXI]

I'm going to go against the grain and say I don't mind this format as much as others do. Given many sides will not know their travel plans until their final group games anyway I think there is a case for delaying the knockout draw until right after the final group games.

Best 2 2nd placed sides get seeded along with group winners, adds a sense of peril as you know winning the group will get you a 2nd placed or 3rd placed side. It would make Austria v Ukraine a big game as a draw might not be enough to be a seeded side and it gets rid of odd situations where a side might not be devastated to lose their final game and finish 2nd/a well placed 3rd because it gets them a perceived easier draw.

I think such a system also ensures that a group isn't dead after 2 games. With this tweak there would be little incentive to play out a draw in most cases as it could mean an unseeded spot instead of a seeded spot. Additionally, if you have 2 sides on 6pts and another 2 on 0pts, it means that the game between the 2 teams on 0pts still has something riding on iit.

Having said all of that I wasn't against 16 - although one thing I do like about 24 is the opportunity it gives to sides to qualify for first time though whilst still making it an achievement.

 

[wpdavid]

Yeah groups of 3 are the absolute worst. Which is great because the World Cup is going to have that from 2026

You're kidding; that had completely slipped through my radar. How many teams will take part from 2026?

 

[speirz]

You're kidding; that had completely slipped through my radar. How many teams will take part from 2026?

48. They were nearly going to try and push it through for 2022 as well.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It’s going to be 16 groups of 3 but only one per group is eliminated giving a last 32 knockout stage.

 

[wpdavid]

Thanks. So no stitch-ups or unfair advantages at all in the final group games then.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Thanks. So no stitch-ups or unfair advantages at all in the final group games then.

Ha, quite.

It's madness. If (say) team A and team B draw 0-0 in the first game, then team A and team C replicate the result it really doesn't take too much of a leap in imagination to think that when team B and team C meet in the final decider they'll both be pretty content with the scoring draw that lets them advance.

 

[wpdavid]

I'm staggered. You'd think that the Austria/West Germany pact in 1982 would still be remembered by the people making these decisions.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The Germany/Austria game wasn't a three team group. The problem was that the last group games weren't played simultaneously. Even then the fact that that one match is so often quoted shows how these collusions hardly happen anyway.

 

[wpdavid]

The Germany/Austria game wasn't a three team group. The problem was that the last group games weren't played simultaneously. Even then the fact that that one match is so often quoted shows how these collusions hardly happen anyway.

Yeah, I know, and you probably know that there haven't been those collusions since then because that match ensured that the final group games have been played simultaneously since 1982. Peru/Argentina in 1978 the other obvious example of course. So even if there weren't cases before then, having two examples in successive WCs suggests to me that the age of innocence had long since passed. Thinking about it, the 1962 England/Bulgaria game belongs in this discussion too. England needed a point to progress past the group stage and Bulgaria were happy with a draw having lost their previous two games. It finished 0-0 and, according to Bobby Moore, was the worst game he ever played in as circumstances dictated that a goalless draw suited both teams.

It will be interesting to see how the Austria/Ukraine game pans out this week. With both teams on 3 points, a scoreless draw may seem an attractive option.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I'm staggered. You'd think that the Austria/West Germany pact in 1982 would still be remembered by the people making these decisions.

The 2026 tournament will be held in North America, where the prevailing opinion is nothing of interest in the round ball code happened before 1992

 

[sledger]

I have no problem with an expanded tournament. There are enough compelling possible reasons for it. Sadly though I suspect the actual reason for it is purely financial/greed related though. And so for this reason it does jar with me.

 

[Uppercut]

48 teams in 3-team groups is an absolute abomination. I feel guilty for having ever complained about any other format.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah, I know, and you probably know that there haven't been those collusions since then because that match ensured that the final group games have been played simultaneously since 1982. Peru/Argentina in 1978 the other obvious example of course. So even if there weren't cases before then, having two examples in successive WCs suggests to me that the age of innocence had long since passed. Thinking about it, the 1962 England/Bulgaria game belongs in this discussion too. England needed a point to progress past the group stage and Bulgaria were happy with a draw having lost their previous two games. It finished 0-0 and, according to Bobby Moore, was the worst game he ever played in as circumstances dictated that a goalless draw suited both teams.

It will be interesting to see how the Austria/Ukraine game pans out this week. With both teams on 3 points, a scoreless draw may seem an attractive option.

The England/Bulgaria game doesn't sway any sort of argument for anything though. That was the most generic 16 team, 4 group tournament format ever. There is nothing you can do to eliminate every possible situation where the last group games might throw up the odd game where a particular result suits both teams. All you can do is do away with groups altogether and just have a straight knock out tournament.