Discussion in 'Euro 2016' started by Onket, Jun 25, 2014.
Is b) Gail Emms? Something like that. Partnered with Nathan Robertson/Robinson? I actually did read something about the squash player not that long ago but can't recall her name now.
Don't be silly. Obz it's a current Euros 2016 competitor. Otherwise why are we discussing it here?
Was it Gareth Bale?
Squash player's name will be known only to squash fans, I would think. In addition to second at the Olympics, Emms also won the world champs once, but that's not what brought her fame.
Ok, the amount of sports disciplines in the Olympic is probably irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it in the context (i.e: a european football tournament with qualifying from the off and not just "finals"), but the amount of nations participating is of course the salient point (for this very hypothetical context).
I've only seen one* case put forward as to why only 16 teams should be there - the defensive play of the smaller clubs. And as I said, I'm not really convinced it's an issue because you'll get that with 16 teams too (maybe even more so as the stakes are higher)
*there was another point raised that it's only being done for tv money, which just seems irrelevant to. Just watch the days highlights if that's the problem
You know what? We already do have this kind of tournament. They call it the UEFA Euro qualifying.^^
I'm a bit sceptical about this, because it was just Italian Reserves they played against, but tbh I didn't watch the game, so maybe… But against Belgium they played rather crappy and the Sweden match was extremely uninspired by two very limited teams as well. I don't think you definitely deserve progressing to the knockouts, just because you played one of three games "brilliantly".
So what? This happens every time. For example Spain were top of their group in the World Cup 2014 qualifying, yet dropped out in the group stage. And everybody I know thought they deserved it. Nobody said "OMG, poor Spain! Why can't 3rd placed teams progress to the next round as well? They defeated Australia! Isn't this enough?"
They didn't really scrape. They even got one point taken away by adminitrative decision, yet qualified in spite of this.
Yeah, but they didn't manage to beat Scotland at least once, otherwise they probably would've gotten ahead of Poland. And Scotland would have trumped Ireland, if they hadn't lost against Georgia. That's how football competitions work.
Yeah, but whats the actual problem with having 24 teams?
Too much football?
Mrs Pocketscience was already moaning by the 3rd day, but she's not a football fan and wants me to help with cooking dinner?
You could just avoid watching the group games and start from the round of 16.
The problem is not exactly the number of teams, but this crappy mode. You let 24 teams play more than ⅔ of all matches just to sort out a handful of really not competitive ones, and everyone else able to deliver maybe one decent half of a match gets progressed anyway. The only purpose of this bloated group stage seems to be to randomize the schedule for the knockout stage, with rather unexpected (and probably unwanted) outcome this year.
I already pointed out how I probably would have less problems with 24 teams: Euro 2016
you said yourself
Otherwise we may as well reduce the premier league to half a dozen teams.
There's a lot of football because a lot of people like to watch the stuff.
r.e your suggestion about the top 4 group teams getting a bye straight to the quarter finals; how would that would stop a less capable team parking the bus against a better teams?
Maybe it wouldn't stop them, but it wouldn't reward such behaviour either. If you have to reach the 2nd place in your group to progress to the next round, you probably need at least 4, maybe 5 points. (Some rather exotic constellations, like every match ends in a tie, aside.) That means you have to actually win games. A couple of draws aren't enough. Of course you can still park the bus and hope you get really lucky with some hail mary counter-attacks, but this is more of a desperate tactics, and if you're so unconfident in your ability to play, you probably should rather enjoy being there in the first place and don't care as much about the actual results.
Additionally it deters teams from doing like Italy. Just winning the first two games may be enough to win the group, but probably not to become one of the best group winners, earning some additional days of rest and skipping one chance of misfortune. The top teams would be encouraged to take every match seriously and don't distort the competition. (You wanted less irrelevant matches, didn't you?)
I think the consensus is that the group stage was pretty dull. Not many goals. Not many games that seemed to matter that much. It's possible they've got the format wrong. I vaguely remember the World Cup in '82 having a weird group format at 2 stages that was never repeated.
Portugal's knock-out stage tactic of boring their opposition to death working well today, I see.
Whereby these last 16 games have really set the continent alight with attacking football so far?
Croatia have mysteriously become very boring all of a sudden.
That's cause what we're having now should be the proper group stage games.
Something like groups of 4 for the first stage and groups of 3 for the next. England had 2 draws in the second stage if I remember correctly.
That was the one... late double substitution of Trevor Brooking and Kevin Keegan to save the day..
This is the format, from wiki, something they could have used for the present euros
The wiki page also reminded me that England went through the 2 stages of group games without ever losing a match - but still got kicked out.
... though it's just struck me why they couldn't have used this format for Euro 2016. Having 3 teams in the second phase groups meant you couldn't have all the teams within a group playing their final matches at the same time.
European championship finals were always fairly boring affairs. 24 teams or 16. Italy were famous for their 1-0 wins. Germaby too
I remember 2008 as a great tournament of high quality matches.
Pure coincidence that England weren't there...
Exactly the same with less matches.
*With the exception that Germany had its new found attcking game through Löw
Come on, Iceland!
Bye bye fucktards!
You cant have a good memory then. Euro 2000 (the high watermark) and 2008 were noticeably superior footballing tournaments than this unnecessary, diluted and bloated exercise.
The Euros have been brilliant so far.
I didn't actually see last night's match, but am delighted that Iceland got through. I hope they win. Not impossible!
I've only dipped into this thread, but one thing that's spoiling the Euros for me is the incessant constant professional fouls. Creative player beats you to the ball, trip him up or pull his shirt or push/pull him over.
Three of them by a player = yellow card? Hardly excessive I think, would still leave nearly 50 professional fouls in a game with nobody booked.
Two things have spoilt it for me so far - one of them is the England band, who are thankfully on their way back home. Just the Barry Horns to go now.
Separate names with a comma.