Euro 2016

[Chris2K]

Tough draw for my Italians, particularly as I really dislike Ibrahimovic (as a person, as a player he's annoyingly phenomenal) and I can see Sweden causing a surprise.

[Matt]

We should probably qualify as one of the best 4 third placed teams.

[gunnar hendershow]

My first thought when I saw the draw was "Oh man, England vs. Wales will have a special atmosphere."

Group F is great, I'm excited to see Iceland AND Hungary play in a major tournament.

[MDK]

I'm excited for England/Wales and Poland/Germany. Italy/Ireland will be great if the micks can summon the spirit of '94 and beat the Italians. Ray Houghton <3

[METALMAN]

6 hours ago, metalman said:

It's not really as exciting as previous Euros, is it?

They should bring it back down to sixteen teams.

I agree. More people should agree with these sentiments. What a wise poster (I've found his posts in the politics forum to be incredibly intelligent too). We've gone from having the most competitive and exciting international football tournament to an exhibition of nonsense where the third teams gets through rule means that the group stages are a boring irrelevance.

[Lineker]

I think 24 is a good number of teams to have. With so many more countries in qualifying, since the Soviet and Yugoslav break-ups particularly, it makes sense to me to expand the number of finals places somewhat. 

Any more than 24 though would seem like a bit of a stretch to me.

[9 to 5]

Anyone who agrees with themselves like that has issues. But I love you all the same.

[FestiveJack]

1 hour ago, metalman said:

I agree. More people should agree with these sentiments. What a wise poster (I've found his posts in the politics forum to be incredibly intelligent too). We've gone from having the most competitive and exciting international football tournament to an exhibition of nonsense where the third teams gets through rule means that the group stages are a boring irrelevance.

When did we have the Copa America?

[METALMAN]

Stop being flippant or I will ban you.

[FestiveJack]

5 hours ago, metalman said:

Stop being flippant or I will ban you.

Most competitive is something that is testable. Since the creation of the European Championships in 1960, there has only been 9 different winners (assuming Germany is a continuation of West Germany) from a confederation that has always numbered between 40 and 54 members in that time. Comparatively, 8 different teams have won the Copa America since 1959, this from a confederation of just 10 members, although seven nations from outside the confederation have also competed in the competition, the best result for them being Mexico's two second place finishes in 1993 and 2001 (indeed, from 1993 to 2011 when they crashed out in the group stage, Mexico competed in every Copa in that time, never finishing below the quarter finals).

 

[Colly]

Is 'most winners from smallest field' really the definition of competitive?

Outside of that argument I agree with keeping it to 16, there's something sensible about losing half the teams per round. If you want to extend just go to 32, maybe consider inviting some non-European teams, then just fuck it and have the World Cup every two years.

[TCO]

24 teams is silly alright, playing all those games to eliminate 8 teams. We have the 'group of death' but nicking a win against Sweden in the first game would make it very difficult for us not to go through, knowing that 1 point in the last two games would seal it.

[stokeriño]

Regardless of how many different countries are in UEFA, 'only' 9 different winners in a competition that has taken place a grand total of 14 times doesn't seem that low on competition to me.

[Colly]

Roy Hodgson says he's already started working on how to handle Gareth Bale. Cattermole to Valencia in January presumably.

[9 to 5]

1 hour ago, stokeriño said:

Regardless of how many different countries are in UEFA, 'only' 9 different winners in a competition that has taken place a grand total of 14 times doesn't seem that low on competition to me.

Aye that is kinda a silly point.

[FestiveJack]

1 hour ago, stokeriño said:

Regardless of how many different countries are in UEFA, 'only' 9 different winners in a competition that has taken place a grand total of 14 times doesn't seem that low on competition to me.

Sure, which is why my point is not "the Euros aren't competitive".

[Dan]

I'm not keen on the 3rd place teams going through but I do like the number of teams. I think 4 groups of 6 would have been better with the top 2 advancing.

 

Imagine these groups:
 

Group A
France
England
Russia
Romania
Albania
Switzerland

Group B
Germany
Wales
Poland
Ukraine
Slovakia
Northern Ireland

Group C
Belgium
Spain
Czech Republic
Turkey
Croatia
Republic of Ireland

Group D
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Iceland
Austria
Hungary

 

[Liam]

15 minutes ago, Dan said:

I'm not keen on the 3rd place teams going through but I do like the number of teams. I think 4 groups of 6 would have been better with the top 2 advancing.

 

Imagine these groups:
 

Group A
France
England
Russia
Romania
Albania
Switzerland

Group B
Germany
Wales
Poland
Ukraine
Slovakia
Northern Ireland

Group C
Belgium
Spain
Czech Republic
Turkey
Croatia
Republic of Ireland

Group D
Italy
Portugal
Sweden
Iceland
Austria
Hungary

 

I know you could make the argument about squad depth, but that is too many games in too short a time for the big teams. A team that got to the final would play 9 games in a relatively short period of time, at the end of a long season for many.

[Colly]

I only count 8, which would be one more than the current setup? 5 group, quarter, semi, final versus 3 group, round of 16, quarter, semi, final?

Meh, just give me 16.

[MDK]

All of the European teams in a knock out tourney and scrap qualification. England get a bye to the final.