Euro 2016

Euro 2024, World Cup 2026, etc.
User avatar
Forza AZ
Senior Member
Posts: 6664
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 16:57
Location: Alkmaar, Netherlands

Post by Forza AZ »

Lusankya wrote:I fail to see how Platini's plan is in any way unfair to any country. :?:
I agree. Teams that don't qualify in round 1 will even have more qualifying matches then now (10 or 12 in Platini's plan, 8 or 10 now) and still have the chance to be drawn against top countries.
Top countries will have only 6 matches (if they qualify in round 1), and can then arrange some interesting friendly matches if they want.

And there will be more important matches as there are 2 stages with only 3 or 4 teams, while with the current system you would have 1 stage with 5 or 6 teams, resulting in a lot of uninteresting matches near the end because a lot of countries will already have qualified or eliminated.
That might even result in teams fielding a lesser team to test new players and that can be to the disadvantage of a team who did play the full strength squad of that top team earlier in the group. With the new system it is far less likely that will happen, and it will at least happen in much less games.
User avatar
Friesland
Senior Member
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 21:15
Location: Heerenveen, Friesland, the Netherlands

Post by Friesland »

fillow wrote:OK, let's imagine they introduce this stupid new system for Euro 2016.

Next we have WC 2018. Russia qualifies as host, and there will be (most likely) 13 spots (not counting Russia) for other teams. The logical step will be to do 13 groups of 4 with winner advance to the finals... and that's it? Qualification is over in just 6 matchdays?
Well, long ago it was normal to have just 6 match days, or even 4 match days. Groups of 5 (or more) were first introduced in 1980.

If 23 out of 53 countries will qualify and you use the current system, the qualification becomes unexcited. So, something has to be done to make it more exciting. With groups of 4 or 3; there are only 4 or 6 matches a team has to play. So, there will be less unimportant matches. Furthermore, with less matches the factor of luck, will be more important, which mean smaller nations will have more chance to qualify. However, a first place is required in either the first or the second phase. So, a 2nd place is not enough any more.


Talking about the World Cup. You can make a similar system for the WC, but then just the other way around. The small countries are out after round 1, in stead of the big countries. Here's how I think it could work:

Round 1: 14 groups, 10 (or 11) groups of 4, 4 (or 3) groups of 3.
Group winners and runners up qualify for round 2.

Round 2: 7 groups of 4.
Teams from the same round 1 group will be placed in the same round 2 group.
Results for round 1 will be transferred to round 2.
Group winners and the 5 best runners up qualify for the World Cup.

Round 3: play offs [not needed if 14 European teams would qualify]
The two remaining runners up will play a play-off against each other.
The winner of the play off will qualify for the World Cup.
JK
Senior Member
Posts: 3854
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 22:15

Post by JK »

fillow wrote:OK, let's imagine they introduce this stupid new system for Euro 2016.

Next we have WC 2018. Russia qualifies as host, and there will be (most likely) 13 spots (not counting Russia) for other teams. The logical step will be to do 13 groups of 4 with winner advance to the finals... and that's it? Qualification is over in just 6 matchdays?
This qualification should only be used for the Euro. There will be 22 or 23 places, depending on how many countries are the host.
JK
Senior Member
Posts: 3854
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 22:15

Post by JK »

Forza AZ wrote:That might even result in teams fielding a lesser team to test new players and that can be to the disadvantage of a team who did play the full strength squad of that top team earlier in the group. With the new system it is far less likely that will happen, and it will at least happen in much less games.
Might? I am sure about this! I bet that for example Löw will experiment in the last two German qualifying games. He loves it (in my opinion a little too much).
badgerboy
Senior Member
Posts: 6441
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 16:25
Location: Buckingham, England

Post by badgerboy »

When I first read about this I wasn't keen but - having read the posts here - especially Forza AZ's first one about the compromise element - I'm much more in favor.

I think I usually agree quite a lot with BalkanTourist but here I'm not really sure what the problem is for the "smaller" nations.

If the idea had been that there was a pre-qualifying for (say) 39 nations with the top countries getting a bye to a second stage I could have understood the ire. But here everyone starts equal.

I might be proved wrong but it might also be slightly easier for a decent second (or third) seed to oust a (big name) top seed by performing better in the head-to-head games. Now there are so many other games that a big name team might have won psychologically before kick-off which the lower ranked team could easily drop points in.

Of course it isn't perfect. I guess no system can be.

First - I guess the spread of seeds within each pot will throw up even more extremes in quality between the groups than we get now. Now it tends to notice more at the top - when the likes of Norway gets into Pot 1 but I guess there's a fair range within the bottom pot in this new system with some groups having a complete no-hoper where any point dropped is a humiliation & other Pot 4 teams being very competitive.

Second - I guess the weakness of a system with 2 teams qualifying from each group might be the attitude of the strongest once qualified. Under this system I guess the problem is more likely to be the attitude of the 3rd (& in some cases 4th) team after they can no longer qualify as against their attitude at the start of the campaign. I suppose in theory that's no different to now - when a lot of teams in bigger groups are realistically out long before qualification ends - but it feels like it might be more of an issue in smaller groups.

From the friendly aspect - I don't care. I'm not really interested in seeing more friendlies - but then I'm not that interested in relatively meaningless qualifiers either.

I wonder if there might be a way for FIFA to set up some kind of "competitive" friendly system - so that the top 8/10/12/16/number dependent on the number of official friendly dates - countries in the FIFA ranking at a given point - all play each other over a 4 year period. I don't follow it closely but I think there's a similar system in test cricket (though obviously it's much easier there because there are only 9 or 10 test playing nations in total).
User avatar
Overgame
Senior Member
Posts: 4545
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 23:58

Post by Overgame »

22 qualified (easier to compute :p) :

22 groups of 3/2 and 1 qualified per group ? ROFLMAO.
11 groups of 4/5 and 2 qualified per group ? Decent, but not really good.
7 groups of 6/7 and 3 qualified per group ? Really awful.

What Platini has said seems good :

1) You get a chance to qualify if you can win your group.
2) If you cannot, you have a second chance.

If you are really unlucky in the draws, you will now have 2 chances to qualify. I like it.
User avatar
Lusankya
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 15:20
Location: Germany

Post by Lusankya »

The problem will be the FIFA ranking. Most of the good teams will qualify after 6 matches and then will play only friendlies until the EURO.
During these friendlies the top teams will lose many ranking points compared to teams, who actually failed to qualify.
That wouldn't be a problem, but FIFA will use this distorted ranking to seed the teams for the World Cup qualification and the World Cup itself.
ignjat63
Senior Member
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 08:32
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Post by ignjat63 »

There is a saying that states - if you get on the wrong train, every station along the way is wrong.

The football has taken the wrong train by UEFA in mid90s and the cancer has grown to spread to the national teams' level.

Twenty four teams in the final stage - Platini can't be serious. That is half the UEFA members, half the Europe! Does no one here think it too much? An absurdly big ratio? And look at the complicated suggested qualification system? A good compromise? Am I the only person here who thinks that the fact that we talk about compromises in competitions that have to decide the best club/national team mean that the system is sick?

Two stage qualifications? 13+10 ? In a perverted way, I am actually enjoying being in minority about such obvious stupidities.
User avatar
Lusankya
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 15:20
Location: Germany

Post by Lusankya »

ignjat63 wrote:
Twenty four teams in the final stage - Platini can't be serious. That is half the UEFA members, half the Europe! Does no one here think it too much?
You may want to take a look at this thread. Nearly everyone here hates the expansion of the EURO, but the problem is, that it's already decided and won't change.
User avatar
Forza AZ
Senior Member
Posts: 6664
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 16:57
Location: Alkmaar, Netherlands

Post by Forza AZ »

ignjat63 wrote: Twenty four teams in the final stage - Platini can't be serious. That is half the UEFA members, half the Europe! Does no one here think it too much? An absurdly big ratio? And look at the complicated suggested qualification system? A good compromise? Am I the only person here who thinks that the fact that we talk about compromises in competitions that have to decide the best club/national team mean that the system is sick?
24 is indeed to much, but that has been decided already, so no point in discussing that any more. UEFA will never go back from 24 to 16 teams.

So as we have this 24 final tournament now, what will be the "best" qualifying system? The Platini-idea is better then the current system used for determining 13-15 qualifiers.
ignjat63
Senior Member
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 08:32
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Post by ignjat63 »

I would suggest one qualification stage, 12 groups or so, with 4 or 5 participants, top two qualify. Or something similar, to allow for titleholder and/or host(s) participation. No second chances to qualify. It undermines the dignity of competition and is not fair to the teams already qualified (sounds familiar, now where have I heard it before...).

The format of the final stage? Like WC in 1982.
User avatar
Executor
Senior Member
Posts: 5354
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 18:38
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Executor »

I agree with Lusankya and Forza-AZ, that everybody dislikes the future format, BUT the damage is already done. The milk is already spilt. All we can do now is minimize the losses, i.e. find a qualifying format that is at least interesting.

The current qualifying format will result in a lot of dead games, cause there'll be 3 teams from each group going to FT.

The one with an excessive number of groups will mean zero chance for underdogs. There'll be no excitment.

The one proposed by Platini has a huge flaw: the teams qualified after the first stage would spend a year and a half without any official game, which is horrible. They'll be out of shape by the time of the FT. However, IMO that would only balance the odds a bit. Just like in July/August in Eurocups, when teams from strong championships that start late have a difficult task against low profile teams from leagues in full run. Who knows, the FT could actually be interesting.

And I'm sure FIFA will adjust their rankings accordingly, so the friendlies of Top teams will count as much as official games.
ignjat63 wrote:It undermines the dignity of competition and is not fair to the teams already qualified (sounds familiar, now where have I heard it before...).
Yes, it sounds familiar to me, too :grin1: I take it you are against "repechage". But it's not always bad. I would give this format a chance.
badgerboy
Senior Member
Posts: 6441
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 16:25
Location: Buckingham, England

Post by badgerboy »

ignjat63 wrote:I would suggest one qualification stage, 12 groups or so, with 4 or 5 participants, top two qualify. Or something similar, to allow for titleholder and/or host(s) participation. No second chances to qualify. It undermines the dignity of competition and is not fair to the teams already qualified (sounds familiar, now where have I heard it before...).
I agree that 24 teams is too many. I guess I said it more than once on the thread someone linked to.

I disagree that Platini's proposed qualification system undermines the dignity of the competition. Everyone knows at the start that there are 2 chances to qualify.

On the other hand I'd be equally content with/indifferent to the one qualification stage. I'd probably go with 11 groups of 4 or 5 with the best 3rd team qualifying as well. I guess results against the 5th placed team in 5 team groups would be disregarded as in the current systems.

I'd actually have thought that the two-stage system would be more interesting to a lot of the lower-ranked countries. I'm not overly fussed either way.
ignjat63
Senior Member
Posts: 2130
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 08:32
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Post by ignjat63 »

Actually, it is all the same for me, too. Maybe it seems that I get overly excited over not very important things. It is just the way I argue about everything. But I look at this "downfall of football" with some humor. The way we get excited over some people spending time chasing a round object across the green green grass of the pitch, ritually dressed, with the sole intention of placing it at the back of something that fishermen use.

No point in taking all that seriously, really.
User avatar
catalunec
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 10:38
Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

Post by catalunec »

The best solution IMO:

1. 11 groups of 4/5 teams, the 11 winners + 2 best runners-up qualify directly (the matches agains the fifth teams don't count for the runners-up standing, as it is now)
2. The other 9 second teams + the 11 third teams play play-offs for the remaining 10 spots. The second teams + the best 3rd team are staged for the draw, the other 10 third teams are not staged. The staged teams are hosts in the second play-offs.

This is the best system for me in terms of minimum pointless matches.
Само Левски, оле!
Post Reply