I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it, but I'm a real fan of the format they had in the 1982 world cup with 24 teams, where they had a second group stage. The top two teams from six groups of four went into four groups of three in the second round, with only the top team from each group playing in the semi-finals. Honestly can't think of a downside to it. Means the top teams play each other more, and the second group stage is high stakes with only one team going through. I feel this is a much better format for a 24 team tournament than putting through teams who finish third in their groups.
Which format do you prefer?
- Thread starter Dirty Schwein
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Wembley just felt flat and lifeless, whereas the other home nations stadiums seemed more buoyant. Are less fans allowed into Wembley?
The game was flat and lifeless. Not really sure what there was to cheer outside the first 15 minutes and the goal.
The problem is FIFA and UEFA's greed. They want more teams, more matches and more income. But with the bigger tournament format, it really, really limits the possibilities for single country hosting. If FIFA and UEFA don't limit the number of number of teams participating, I think this kind of transnational tournament will become the norm.
I think playing in the middle of the day didn't help.
The 2pm games end soon. I think those games will always be a bit shit for atmosphere
The bigger tournament size is decent but the no home nation thing is shite. It was always going to be rubbish too.
Not only does it lose the atmosphere but it is a massive advantage to certain teams. Some of the things Uefa come up with are odd to say the least.
Not only does it lose the atmosphere but it is a massive advantage to certain teams. Some of the things Uefa come up with are odd to say the least.
Having your group games all at home is a massive advantage. I much prefer the usual one host country approach.
I think the majority here agree.
One nation hosts gives it a special feeling. It also makes the games involving the host nation more fun. But I understand the financial implications. Maybe UEFA can help Nations with some of the upfront cost for the chance of a better tournament? Although that's as likely as Millwall taking the knee.
Secondly, the 24 teams with third place qualifications has ruined the intensity of the competition with the smaller teams all playing for a draw but yet the obvious outcomes still happening. There is so little chance of the big teams missing out and it's very predictable. Look at the group of death, back in the day, one of Portugal, Germany or France would be out after the groups... How fun would those games have been!
One nation hosts gives it a special feeling. It also makes the games involving the host nation more fun. But I understand the financial implications. Maybe UEFA can help Nations with some of the upfront cost for the chance of a better tournament? Although that's as likely as Millwall taking the knee.
Secondly, the 24 teams with third place qualifications has ruined the intensity of the competition with the smaller teams all playing for a draw but yet the obvious outcomes still happening. There is so little chance of the big teams missing out and it's very predictable. Look at the group of death, back in the day, one of Portugal, Germany or France would be out after the groups... How fun would those games have been!
I'm not bothered about there being multiple host countries but the way that some teams have such a home advantage is pretty nuts.
It would have been cool to have the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain & UK host. With none of those teams playing at home.
It would have been cool to have the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain & UK host. With none of those teams playing at home.
I'm not as anti is as I thought, it's certainly unique there being lots of 'host' games, and in the current times it probably works quite well for at least some fans being able to see their country without having to travel.
Like, if it had been actually hosted by someone this year it would have been a bit of a damp squib due to a lack of fans/had to have been called off.
Once things are back to normal (fingers crossed) obviously I don't want it to happen again, but I think it's somewhat fortuitous for this edition.
Like, if it had been actually hosted by someone this year it would have been a bit of a damp squib due to a lack of fans/had to have been called off.
Once things are back to normal (fingers crossed) obviously I don't want it to happen again, but I think it's somewhat fortuitous for this edition.
I prefer a mixed hosting over a single host that's shitty and I'd always want knockout games to be in a single country. Obviously this euro also lacks atmosphere quality due to rona, so not sure if it's really the mixed nations where those games take place
Wasn't 2020 an anniversay of uefa or euros and that's why it was being played across the continent?
the new format is a load of shite designed to make more money for UEFA.
One host country (or two smaller ones) is objectively better than bankrolling UEFAs greed.
One host country (or two smaller ones) is objectively better than bankrolling UEFAs greed.
I don't care too much about that. There are other issues with the format that matters more I think.
What's good about spreading it around is that the tournament has now gotten so big that it's becoming difficult for any one, or even two, nations to host it. The bad thing is that it forces both teams and large numbers of fans to do far too much travel, over much too great distances. The environmental impact alone is problematic (perhaps not so much this year, but certainly in a normal year). Also, it's home advantage bonanza for far too many teams. Maybe it could be approached instead on the basis awarding it to a hub of cities - ie, 10-12 cities with suitable facilities and situated close enough to each other that you could feasibly travel between most of them in 2-3 hours without flying, without them necessarily being in the same country. And no host nation.
For example, Prague, Bratislava, Budapest, Vienna, Cracow, Munich, Leipzig, Frankfurt, Berlin, Warsaw, Salzburg. Or Milan, Turin, Zurich, Bologna, Nice, Marseille, Lyon, Basel, Genoa, Florence.
One nation under a groove.
Multi nation hosting is rubbish as we all knew it would be. Might as well increase teams for future Euros to 32 and have a straight knockout competition.
Really not looking forward to a winter world cup in Qatar where the heat will be stifling, games will be very slow and dull and there are 48 teams. #Fifa/Uefa greed
Really not looking forward to a winter world cup in Qatar where the heat will be stifling, games will be very slow and dull and there are 48 teams. #Fifa/Uefa greed
One host nation, but this is after all the times of Corona... so... understandable.
If there's no country that wants to host it (small chance) they could just split it into 2 or even more. Hardly a barrier when teams are going across Europe on Weekly basis for CL and even Local competition.
WC was remarkable and memorable for the colors that the host nations brings, from the vuvuzelas (urgh) to the Mexican wave, it brings memorable distinction compared to the dross served now
If there's no country that wants to host it (small chance) they could just split it into 2 or even more. Hardly a barrier when teams are going across Europe on Weekly basis for CL and even Local competition.
WC was remarkable and memorable for the colors that the host nations brings, from the vuvuzelas (urgh) to the Mexican wave, it brings memorable distinction compared to the dross served now
This is it, basically. The tournament size (having 1/8 finals instead of straight to the quarters) is nice and it means more games, but the downside is that it's basically impossible for a top country to get knocked out in the group stages.
Tournaments need to have one (or two) home nation(s) though, this is shit and doesn't add to the athmosphere. Also gives unfair advantages to certain countries.
Spain's night game in Seville was easily was the most flat in atmosphere I felt. Doesn't help with the running track and probably had fans more spaced out.
I didn't know that. It's definitely a better option than the 3rd place team going through in a 24 team tournament.
24 teams is too many, most of them don't even bother attacking. There is also less incentive to push forward as third placed can go through.
I also hate the multi-nation hosts, has a feel of a league format, not a tournament one.
Hopefully the knockout stages give us some better football and improve the vibe.
I also hate the multi-nation hosts, has a feel of a league format, not a tournament one.
Hopefully the knockout stages give us some better football and improve the vibe.
Quite a few things wrong with this tournament:
1. Multiple countries hosting means lack of festival atmosphere (COVID would have taken this away regardless). A rubbish experience for the fans, unfair advantage for quite a few teams. More accessible in non COVID times and a rare chance for smaller nations to host games are some of the minor positives
2. Expansion to 24 teams since 2016. Less jeopardy in the groups. I can understand the expansion to an extent as with just 16 teams the groups were stacked and you had great teams that could get knocked out early but the new structure whereby some 3rd place teams get through and others don’t is confusing and less just. Portugal getting through in 2016 without winning a game was daft.
3. The seedings. Current world champions France in pot 2 and Nations League champions Portugal in pot 3. Together in a group with Germany. With the 2nd place team likely to face England at Wembley in the 2nd round. Don’t expect to see the best teams all make the latter stages.
1. Multiple countries hosting means lack of festival atmosphere (COVID would have taken this away regardless). A rubbish experience for the fans, unfair advantage for quite a few teams. More accessible in non COVID times and a rare chance for smaller nations to host games are some of the minor positives
2. Expansion to 24 teams since 2016. Less jeopardy in the groups. I can understand the expansion to an extent as with just 16 teams the groups were stacked and you had great teams that could get knocked out early but the new structure whereby some 3rd place teams get through and others don’t is confusing and less just. Portugal getting through in 2016 without winning a game was daft.
3. The seedings. Current world champions France in pot 2 and Nations League champions Portugal in pot 3. Together in a group with Germany. With the 2nd place team likely to face England at Wembley in the 2nd round. Don’t expect to see the best teams all make the latter stages.
The playing at home advantage many teams have along with allowing some 3rd place teams an opportunity to go through to knockout hurts the competitiveness of the competition for me.
This is a one off to celebrate Euro 60th anniversary, then it will go back to normal. They could have chosen better locations. Group F has games in Sevilla and St Petersburg, Group A has games in Rome and Baku, its bonkers. Also the home teams advantages is very unfair.
This format is dog shit and UEFA should switch back to 16 teams.
One of the strengths of major international tournaments is one host country becoming planet football for a month. A proper festival for the fans. And the best hosts flavour the tournament with their own style and culture which is really important in giving each tournament a distinctive feel. The current format feels like a generic characterless Euroball.
I really don't agree with that. I found the system of 3 teams fighting over one spot on the basis of three games, with all the tactical implications of goal differentials and the advantages of playing the last game in the group, to be really awful. You never knew what the results of the first two games meant until the last one was played. Much less attractive than a straight knockout phase, in my view.
Gotta admit the current EURO format confuses the hell out of me. why can't football be a simple game anymore??
This, best example was Euro 2004, 30 days long party here.
I don’t mind having more teams. It’s great for countries that will never qualify for the World Cup for example. The elite will remain the elite even if smaller nations are improving.
The groups are the main issue, but I don’t know how they’d sort it with 24 teams. The copa america is also shite with the 2 groups of 5 with 1 team being eliminated.
Just wait for the nonsense of the World Cup when it’s 48 teams. Can qualify with a point from the group.
The groups are the main issue, but I don’t know how they’d sort it with 24 teams. The copa america is also shite with the 2 groups of 5 with 1 team being eliminated.
Just wait for the nonsense of the World Cup when it’s 48 teams. Can qualify with a point from the group.