Euro 2016 - 24 Teams not a bad thing

[rcoobc]

The only change I'd have liked them to make is to qualifying, put the group winners straight through, and put all of the 2nd place and as many 3rd place teams as necessary into the playoffs.

In the Euro Qualifying just gone; Sweden went straight into the Euros despite finishing 2nd because they were the "best runner up". In my opinion they should have gone into the play-offs alongside the "best 3rd place" team. That would have put Norway into the Play-Offs as they finished on 16 points (+6 points for being in an 5 team group), which is the same amount of points that Estonia finished in despite finishing 2nd.

Giving the "best 3rd place team" the chance to complete in the Euros would have meant that qualifying would have remained relevant for teams like Scotland, Hungary, Norway, Switzerland, etc with only a few games to go, the same teams that are set to benefit from the expanded Euros. In a Euro year where there is only 1 host, there would be 3 slots for the "best 3rd place teams".

It would also mean that there was greater emphasis on attacking football, because getting more points is more important than denying your opponents them.

 

[lysglimt]

After giving this some thought - I think it's a good thing.

I am basing this on the following:

1) It gives the smaller teams a chance of qualifying. As it is now - they have very little chance simply because of the seeding in the play-offs.
The top teams are given every advantage - first they are given the advantage when the teams are drawn, and if they finish 2nd and have to participate in the play-off finals - they get a huge advantage there as well as they are guaranteed to play one of the weaker sides. So the smaller teams either have to win their group or win 2 match play-off against a very strong side (where the strong side win 9 times out of 10)

2) In addition you have the problem with 2 "weak" sides qualifying as hosts - that leaves 14 spots. 8-9 of these are more or less reserved to some of the best clubs in the world (Spain, Italy, Holland, Germany, France, Croatia, Portugal to name some - you could add England as well even if they screw up once in a while) - These teams are so good that they will qualify 4 times out of 5. There simply are very few spots left that the smaller teams realistically fight for.

3) Quality is higher. If you look at this years Euro - Ireland apart, no team has looked out of place. Even Ukraine and Poland whom I dare say, wouldn't have qualified if they werent hosts. I can easily mention 10-12 countries that are at more or less the same standard as these 2 clubs (Belgium, Bosnia, Serbia, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Bulgarian, Rumania, Switzerland, Slovakia, Slovenia to mention some). None of these sides would be cannon fodder in the Euros (apart from possibly against Germany and Spain which imo have a higher potential than the other sides). Would the quality go down with 8 more clubs - yes, but not as much as you would assume.

4) It would make qualification groups prior to the championships much more interesting. With 8 groups where the best 1 and 2 + some of the best 3's qualify the group would be a lot more interesting. There would be a lot more to play for than there is today where 1 or 2 teams usually run away with it - and the only exciting is which team will be the best number 2 and qualify.

 

[Sarni]

As a Pole I don't mind it, at least we will have a better chance of qualifying for a major tournament even if we're going to end up finishing last in our group at the tournament. Love those big international competitions when we're in it.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

It will just reduce the level of competence whilst adding games.

 

[Feeky Magee]

I will just reduce the level of competence whilst adding games.

Why would you do that? Bellend.

 

[Stretch]

After giving this some thought - I think it's a good thing.

I am basing this on the following:

1) It gives the smaller teams a chance of qualifying. As it is now - they have very little chance simply because of the seeding in the play-offs.
The top teams are given every advantage - first they are given the advantage when the teams are drawn, and if they finish 2nd and have to participate in the play-off finals - they get a huge advantage there as well as they are guaranteed to play one of the weaker sides. So the smaller teams either have to win their group or win 2 match play-off against a very strong side (where the strong side win 9 times out of 10)

2) In addition you have the problem with 2 "weak" sides qualifying as hosts - that leaves 14 spots. 8-9 of these are more or less reserved to some of the best clubs in the world (Spain, Italy, Holland, Germany, France, Croatia, Portugal to name some - you could add England as well even if they screw up once in a while) - These teams are so good that they will qualify 4 times out of 5. There simply are very few spots left that the smaller teams realistically fight for.

3) Quality is higher. If you look at this years Euro - Ireland apart, no team has looked out of place. Even Ukraine and Poland whom I dare say, wouldn't have qualified if they werent hosts. I can easily mention 10-12 countries that are at more or less the same standard as these 2 clubs (Belgium, Bosnia, Serbia, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Bulgarian, Rumania, Switzerland, Slovakia, Slovenia to mention some). None of these sides would be cannon fodder in the Euros (apart from possibly against Germany and Spain which imo have a higher potential than the other sides). Would the quality go down with 8 more clubs - yes, but not as much as you would assume.

4) It would make qualification groups prior to the championships much more interesting. With 8 groups where the best 1 and 2 + some of the best 3's qualify the group would be a lot more interesting. There would be a lot more to play for than there is today where 1 or 2 teams usually run away with it - and the only exciting is which team will be the best number 2 and qualify.

I agree with this. I can see what some are saying wrt to quality but you have to admit there are quite a few fringe teams that are indeed good enough to play at the Euros. It's also a bit of a catch 22, because if you add these fringe nations into the picture the overall tournament quality might drop but one of the ways for these fringe nations to become better would be to qualify for tournaments like Euro and through that learn.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Why would you do that? Bellend.

 

[Randall Flagg]

It will just reduce the level of competence whilst adding games.

Indeed. My reasons for wanting it is purely selfish. Gives IReland a great chance to qualify every 4 years.

But then again I also love the World Cup which has a host of poor sides.

 

[Cold_Boy]

Top teams don't necessarily mean top games. Just look at England - France, Germany - Portugal and tonight's Spain game for instance. If anything group A with the less favoured sides was probably the most exciting group in this tournament.

This.

Plus their are very good teams like Belgium, Swiss, Turkey who are as good as few teams qualified this season.

 

[Claymore]

Would be great for the UK if all Eng, Scot, Wales, Nor + republic were in the next Euro championship, just as long as they have a go and not play McCleish. Even putting points total aside, Irleand were real poor this year and you wonder if it'd been better another team being there. But as I say, the country(s) would be buzzing, loads of Scottish, Irish etc live and work here.

 

[Snow]

The whole "more poor sides competing" argument is rubbish. Netherlands were shit this year. France were awful last WC. Italy and England were sub par. Portugal only managed to score in one of their 7 games. The size of the nation or their ranking does in no way guarantee you an entertaining match or high quality football.

In a tournament anything can happen. The qualifiers are a mini league so the strongest survive it. There are rarely any upsets. More teams won't make the competition any worse.

 

[The Boxer]

I would still prefer 16, but no more co-hosts. 1 host nation on the automatic is enough. We should go for quality not quantity. Even the WC, I think the no of teams should be scale down.

 

[ricky-romeo]

24 teams is a bit too many imo. if uefa want to increase the number of teams i prefer 20.

i tend to agree that one country should host the euros which means they are 19 other qualifiers.

keep the 4 group with each group consisting of 5 teams. that means a team will play at least 4 games rather than 3 in the group stages. only the group winners and runners up make it to the next stage which is the quarterfinals.

 

[antihenry]

24 countries is basically half the Europe. Making it easier to qualify isn't going to make things better, it's like lowering the passing grade.

I always thought the whole point of qualifiers is to figure out which teams are the best and Euros are there for those teams to compete at the final stage, it makes sense. The only benefit in increasing the number of teams would be for UEFA to make more money. I don't think the quality of football will improve.

 

[mo0]

same reason why the 39th game was mooted. same reason why the Premier League is full of foreign managers and 'superstars from abroad'. same reason why Bendter got charged for his Paddy Pants.

money talks.

 

[Sarni]

24 countries is basically half the Europe. Making it easier to qualify isn't going to make things better, it's like lowering the passing grade.

I always thought the whole point of qualifiers is to figure out which teams are the best and Euros are there for those teams to compete at the final stage, it makes sense. The only benefit in increasing the number of teams would be for UEFA to make more money. I don't think the quality of football will improve.

Yeah but with 16 teams you have little place for the likes of Poland, Scotland, Norway etc. I know we're not good enough for Euros and won't add much quality but I don't mind the 24-team tournament as it means we'll get in more often and have the experience of a major tournament every 4-6 years which is great. Of course you can't have everyone in it because it'd be silly but I think there are 24 teams in Europe solid enough.

 

[rcoobc]

At least the 24 team tournament means 15 knock-out games instead of 7.

7 seems too few.

 

[vuc]

Yay Serbia will qualify!

We should have done it this year anyway, but in any case I don't think the increase is that bad of an idea. The Euro's are over way too soon in my eyes, why not have a little more fun?

 

[Cling Bak]

Indeed. My reasons for wanting it is purely selfish. Gives IReland a great chance to qualify every 4 years.

But then again I also love the World Cup which has a host of poor sides.

And the tournaments since moving to 32 haven't been better for it, I don't think.

 

[Bryan_Munich]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[antihenry]

Yeah but with 16 teams you have little place for the likes of Poland, Scotland, Norway etc. I know we're not good enough for Euros and won't add much quality but I don't mind the 24-team tournament as it means we'll get in more often and have the experience of a major tournament every 4-6 years which is great. Of course you can't have everyone in it because it'd be silly but I think there are 24 teams in Europe solid enough.

If you're not good enough, you shouldn't be there, that's the whole point.

Euros is the final phase of the world's second biggest football competition, where truly best teams fight for the honor of being the top football country of the continent.

It's not a charity to make as many countries as possible to feel good about being involved.

Also, with such a busy regular season, extending the Euros would make it even harder for players to get any rest and avoid injuries.

 

[rcoobc]

Also, with such a busy regular season, extending the Euros would make it even harder for players to get any rest and avoid injuries.

By one game and may reduce the need to play first teamers in the group phase. And may reduce the need to play first teamers in qualification. And may reduce the number of qualification games anyway!

Karl-Heinz Rummenigge wants the UEFA qualifiers to go down to 4 team groups which I am completely against, but is totally possible with 24 team Euros.

13 groups of 4 with the majority of the runners up and all the group winners going through.

I'm not sure you can make that argument.

 

[Sarni]

If you're not good enough, you shouldn't be there, that's the whole point.

Euros is the final phase of the world's second biggest football competition, where truly best teams fight for the honor of being the top football country of the continent.

It's not a charity to make as many countries as possible to feel good about being involved.

Also, with such a busy regular season, extending the Euros would make it even harder for players to get any rest and avoid injuries.

It's one more game for most of them, it won't make much difference.

 

[rcoobc]

To add to what I said:

UEFA has not confirmed the format for the qualification, but Infantino stated in March 2012 that UEFA would review the qualification competition to ensure that it was not "boring".[11] Russia were given a suspended six point reduction for qualifying as a result of fan violence in Poland during Euro 2012.

To me there is little they can do to stop it being, at least a little bit more, dull. They have finally (from Brazil 2014 Qualification) fixed the problem of dull qualifiers by spreading them out from Thursday-Tuesday and having games on weekends again which should massively reduce public apathy for the National Teams in my opinion: When England are playing on a Saturday or Sunday as families sit down together to watch it on a weekend, that is how you get people to care.

But 2016 will be more dull: 4 team groups means only 6 games spread out over 2 years. That is dull. 6 team groups means the group winner and runner up could qualify automatically with play-offs for the 3rd and maybe 4th place teams? That is dull.

How will they fix that?

 

[Arruda]

At least the 24 team tournament means 11 knock-out games instead of 7.

7 seems too few.

15, not 11.

 

[rcoobc]

I'm actually rather sick of "news" papers talking about this. We all know the reasons behind this, we knew it 6 years ago when UEFA announced the enlarged format. We know there are good and bad parts to having a 24 team tournament. We know they are struggling to find a host for Euro 2020. We know.

These Euros have so far been great, which seems to be the main reason for not expanding them. If they had been dire would we be embracing the exapnsion with open arms?

 

[Count Orduck]

It'd be fantastic if this means teams like Ireland and Scotland can qualify regularly.

 

[Count Orduck]

15, not 11.

Aye, it'll add a "first knockout round" just like the World Cup has, before the quarter-finals.

 

[Nobby style]

They should invite a couple of outside countries like they do for the South American Cup. The US and Mexico have played in a few cups, as well as Costa Rica. Japan and Spain were invited last year but Japan pulled out cause of the Tsunami and Spain didn't come cause I guess the players didn't want to miss their vacations. Canada was invited as well one year, but pulled out cause they were afraid to play in Colombia (Argentina refused as well that year to come to Colombia).

In fact, you could just invite Brazil and Argentina, and maybe Uruguay to the Euro cup, and just call off the whole world cup bollocks.

 

[Carl]

Great idea.

More teams = more matches = more football on tele in the Summer = good thing :thumbs up:

 

[Suedesi]

From 2016 onwards the Euros will have 24 team competing, in my view that's not a bad thing, first and foremost, it will take a disaster to not qualify, so that is a good thing. Secondly, imagine Euro 2012 with the current 16 teams plus Serbia, Bosnia, Belgium, Turkey, Switzerland, Slovakia, Romania and Israel. It would still be a great tournment, no pushovers.

This tournament has been poor - lots of low quality games - and adding more crap teams in the mix is not going to increase the overall quality of the tournament.

 

[rcoobc]

A European Competition which doesn't give the chance to qualify for the majority of European teams is, almost by definition, a bit stupid.

This tournament has been poor - lots of low quality games - and adding more crap teams in the mix is not going to increase the overall quality of the tournament.

Why? It's been great. We've had 1 knockout game so far (which was a bit dull) but most competitions dont get good until the knockouts.

 

[Suedesi]

A European Competition which doesn't give the chance to qualify for the majority of European teams is, almost by definition, a bit stupid.



Why? It's been great. We've had 1 knockout game so far (which was a bit dull) but most competitions dont get good until the knockouts.

It's been competitive and tight, but the quality of the games has been imho relatively poor.

 

[Crustanoid]

They should use the format of the 1982 world cup

 

[Bross]

Boo, I say, boo.

Allowing more shit teams in will surely lead to more shit games. The World Cup always has loads of stinkers in the group stages, whereas you can probably count the poor games from this tournament on one hand so far.

Obviously it's good for the shit teams and their fans.

The best games in this tournament have featured the "almost shit" teams, not the best teams. Spain - Italy, Spain - France, France - England have been the worst games in the tournament, while the worse teams have almost exclusively played some good football and entertaining matches. Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and Ireland, the teams you would probably pick out as the "worst" have made this tournament better for the neutrals.

I say its a good thing, overall, and Norway's chances of getting in increasing is a nice bonus of course !

 

[Suedesi]

The best games in this tournament have featured the "almost shit" teams, not the best teams. Spain - Italy, Spain - France, France - England have been the worst games in the tournament, while the worse teams have almost exclusively played some good football and entertaining matches. Poland, Ukraine, Sweden and Ireland, the teams you would probably pick out as the "worst" have made this tournament better for the neutrals.

I say its a good thing, overall, and Norway's chances of getting in increasing is a nice bonus of course !

Spain Italy for me has been one of the best game of the tournament. At least one team who was not afraid of Spain, and for large periods outplayed them, albeit they tired a bit in the end. Agree with you on Spain - France and France England.

Poland was pants - they played great for 45 minutes every game, only to tire int he second. No real quality in that side other than the Dortmund trio.

Ukraine, again no quality there. Lucky against Sweden, but when it mattered toothless against the French and English.

Sweden was alright.

Ireland were the poorest team of the tournament. They added nothing

All in all, still a poor tournament.

 

[rcoobc]

All in all, still a poor tournament.

What tournaments would you class as good then?

 

[I'm always right]

All in all, still a poor tournament.

What

It's been a cracking tournament.

 

[Hellboy]

More teams parking the bus

 

[rcoobc]

More teams parking the bus

Probably not in the group phase

1 win more likely to get them through than 2 draws, can come 3rd and get through...

"Attack, attack. Attack, attack attack!"