Discussion in 'Euro 2016' started by Onket, Jun 25, 2014.
Because they got so close.
Well Sweden have stunk this tournament out.
and guess who I have in the sweepstake!
2 matches and no shots on target. Cheers for coming boys....
the swedish fans look lovely in their yellow shirts.
Oh dear, all going a bit off in the Croatia/Czech republic game
How fucking stupid are these Croatian Nazis? 2-1 up with 5 minutes to go and you think it's a good idea to throw a dozen flares at the Czech defence?
Definition of moronic.
Clattenburg points to the spot and the Czechs equalise, the Croatian team were rattled by all the pyrotechnics.
Anyone watching Spain v Turkey? We are but are considering turning it off for PS4 action as despite the scoreline we can't really rouse much enthusiasm for it.
*this post has been brought to you by boring posts ltd*
Yeah I know what you mean - not even a hint of a firecracker or a fight in the stands. Rubbish.
I'm with Ronaldo... this group stage is a bit pants really. Get the tournament back to 16 teams and get on with it.. There's only so many David v Goliath matches you can watch. Shouldn't be what a final tournament is about... blah, blah.
If Ronaldo's "Goliaths" had beaten the "Davids" in his first game you might have a point.
I'm afraid you're missing the point...
Maybe I'm missing Ronaldo's point then. I only caught his petulant remarks about Iceland being a small nation and not going far in the tournament due to them being small minded,
What am I missing?
That Goliath didn't beat David.
Lets not get too hung up about Ronaldo... my point is that these group stages... two things...
16 out of the 24 teams are going to progress to the next stage.
While i appreciate the odd mismatch you get in the World Cup, Europe is smaller, and so with the enlarged group structure you just end up with teams who might have their runs, might occasionally draw or beat a 'big team'... but so what, ultimately its not that interesting when its the main focus of the round..
To put it in context, 53 teams were in the qualifiers. Going straight to 16 teams instead of 24 seems to be too much of a compromise for me, just to avoid enduring a couple of unbalanced games in the group stages.
Its all to do with TV revenues..
Euro 2016 devalued by Michel Platini's mad 24-team expansion plan
Hahaha. Iceland and Albania qualified and Holland didn't.
If you want to reduce the schedule, ban International friendlies.. they're a waste of time.
Is that Iceland or Ireland you are referring to?
ETA I realise it is Iceland.
Apparently this guy was right:
Expanded field will make Euro 2016 group stage a defensive battle
And Iceland is not the country to talk about here. They nearly won their qualification group and finished on a good 2nd place, so they totally deserve being there.
But look at all those teams finishing 3rd in the qualification:
Romania scored two goals via penalties and got 1 point out of two matches somehow. They also profit from being in the same group as Albania, who finished qualification 2nd only because of some CAS decision giving them 3 points against Serbia.
Ukraine – two losses, already out.
Turkey – started with two defeats, too.
Sweden and Ireland ended up in the same group and tied their first match against each other, so one of them will probably progress to the next round, but Sweden's performance against Italy wasn't particularly thrilling as well. Additionally the Swedes accomplished the questionable achievement of not having delivered a single shot on target themselves in two matches.
These are the teams 19–24 who qualified for this tournament. Who would seriously miss them, if they were missing?
Edit: Sorry, wasn't Romania but Hungary, who qualified as a 3rd place. They indeed managed to win their first match. Wouldn't miss them anyway.
Soz. Auto correct
I dunno. I prefer to have a few "exotic" teams in.
It's a bit like in world cup when you get Saudia Arabia or North Korea. It's good for their players, fans and the sport in general.
OMG! Spain are really on form. Either that or Turkey are really really shit. Last night The Spanish team were incredibly fast paced, like Barcelona but on buckets of amphetamines.
But Turkey, Ukraine, Sweden and the like are not "exotic" from my point of view. They're fully integrated in the European football framework, their top players play for top teams in the club competitions, they even had remarkable success with the national team in the past. (E.g. Turkey reaching the semi-finals at World Cup 2002 and Euro 2008.) But at the moment, they are just not good enough.
Furthermore the FIFA has got 211 members, with 32 World Cup participants being roughly 15%, not nearly 50% as 24 are at the UEFA Euro.
By the way, the problem is in my opinion not exactly, that these teams take part of the tournament. There are always teams that are better, and those that are worse. But the modus operandi is a problem. Of 24 teams, probably half of them at max, really aim to get to the quarter-finals or better. The other half of the teams just want to survive the group stage somehow, and then see how far they can get. This means, they really don't care this much, if they end up 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the group stage, as long as they don't drop out. On the other hand, there're no teams who just enjoy getting there, without any particular expectations. And this is the reason, why it is so tempting for these teams to park the bus in front of their goal, because three ties, or one victory and two narrow defeats, are probably good enough.
There would be a possibility to change that with 24 teams, though. Let's just let the best 4 group winners directly progress to the quarter-finals, while the other 8 teams finishing group stage at least 2nd place play against each other for the remaining 4 spots. But that would probably conflict with UEFA marketing strategies, because of all teams just the best and most attractive would have to play one match less.
Has anyone talked about the rule changes? The bbc commentator said that the offside law has changed so that the free kick is given from where the ball was kicked rather than where the bloke was offside. But in the Sweden Italy match the goalkeeper kicked the ball upfield while one of the swedish players was offside. The free kick wasn't given inside his penalty area - are the special rules for goalkeepers?
I thought Vardy's goal was a nice illustration of the offside rule - he wasn't offside when Sturridge? crossed but moved offside just after, and that didn't matter because the defender had headed it (and another new rule that it can't just hit the defender he has to play it?).
No, that is wrong. Under the new rules, the free kick is given where the offside player interferes with the play. (I.e. chased after the ball, played the ball, obstructed the keeper's view, etc.) This is just a precision of the old rules, where the exact location of the free kick was not clearly defined, because it could've been the location where the offside player stood at the time the pass was played.
This is not a new rule. A player in an offside position doesn't commit an offence, if the ball is played by an opponent. Merely deflecting the ball isn't "playing" in this sense, though, it has to be "deliberately", as the officials call it. The line between deliberate play and undeliberate reflection is open to interpretation though, as it is with deliberate handplay.
Still not buying it. using a bye round just repeats the qualifiers play-off in a different configuration.
Hungary are showing the reason for the expansion. if only one team make it, then it's worth it.
I'll repeat: ban the useless pre tournament friendlies and cut to the chase with a lower risk group round to get into the flow of the comp, then the last 16 starts the comp in earnest.
Separate names with a comma.