Euro 2016

Euro 2024, World Cup 2026, etc.
User avatar
rmsg
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 17:26
Location: Coimbra, Portugal

Post by rmsg »

Euro 2016 Qualifying:

9 groups (5/6 teams - the same system as 2012):

- France (1 team);
- 9 winners + 9 runners-up (18 teams);
- Best 3rd (1 team);
- Play-offs - remaining eight third-place (4 teams).
fillow
Senior Member
Posts: 1023
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 14:57
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Post by fillow »

Let's imagine we had 24 teams for Poland/Ukraine 2012

2 hosts + 9 group winners + 9 runners-up = 20 teams
8 best 3rd places into play/off = 4 more teams

3rd teams ranking by points (excluding games with team #6):

16 Norway
13 Hungary
11 Armenia
11 Switzerland
11 Scotland
10 Israel
9 Belgium
9 Serbia
------------
8 Romania

Romania as worst 3rd-placed team is eliminated

p/o seeding
27975 Serbia
27745 Switzerland
27093 Norway
26942 Israel
------------
26110 Hungary
24426 Scotland
22539 Belgium
19746 Armenia

Assuming best seeds qualify by win+draw (which is the way teams win European playoffs the most often during 1998-2010), we have these pots for finals:

28785 Ukraine
22784 Poland
43116 Spain
40860 Netherlands
40446 Germany
34357 Italy
------------
33563 England
33212 Russia
32723 Croatia
32455 Greece
31675 Sweden
31205 Denmark
------------
31202 Portugal
30508 France
28715 Switzerland
28705 Serbia
28203 Republic of Ireland
27982 Czech Republic
------------
27602 Israel
27601 Turkey
27558 Norway
27198 Bosnia-Herzegovina
21876 Montenegro
20354 Estonia
User avatar
Richie
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 19:56
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Richie »

Lusankya wrote:
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.
Brilliant idea to increase participation in major tournaments for Europe's growing teams though, rather than having the same teams always qualify for the WC and Euros. :)

Does anyone really mind Bosnia etc qualifying??
User avatar
Lusankya
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 15:20
Location: Germany

Post by Lusankya »

Richie wrote:
Lusankya wrote:
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.
Brilliant idea to increase participation in major tournaments for Europe's growing teams though, rather than having the same teams always qualify for the WC and Euros. :)

Does anyone really mind Bosnia etc qualifying??
It's not about Bosnia qualifying or not (they don't need the extra help anyway), it's about the now very boring qualifying and the boring group stage of the FT.
User avatar
Richie
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 19:56
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Richie »

Why would the group stage be boring? At least we'll have less of the dead R3 games that usually happen everytime.

Pretty much every team would be able to qualify still on the last matchday.
User avatar
Forza AZ
Senior Member
Posts: 6663
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 16:57
Location: Alkmaar, Netherlands

Post by Forza AZ »

Richie wrote:Why would the group stage be boring? At least we'll have less of the dead R3 games that usually happen everytime.

Pretty much every team would be able to qualify still on the last matchday.
The group stage will probably be boring for the top teams fans, since they would have to mess up extremely not to qualify. For the fans of the teams that are new with the 24 teams field it will be interesting for sure.

If qualifying will get boring that depends on how UEFA will play the qualifying. With the current system it will be boring for the top teams since a place in the top 2 will be enough to qualify directly. If UEFA goes ahead with there plan to have 2 rounds in qualifying (first 13 groups of 4 and then 10 groups of 3/4 with the drop-outs from round 1) then it should be interesting since you have to finish 1st and 1 bad result can put you out since it is only 6 matches.
User avatar
Richie
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 19:56
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Richie »

Groups I reckon will be more interesting and open than before. Hate having dead last round games.

Qualifying is just a means to an end, I like Platini's suggestion.
User avatar
Friesland
Senior Member
Posts: 1650
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 21:15
Location: Heerenveen, Friesland, the Netherlands

Post by Friesland »

Richie wrote:Groups I reckon will be more interesting and open than before. Hate having dead last round games.
Well, there were only four during the last 4 editions: Netherlands - France and Denmark - Czech Republic both in 2000 and Switzerland - Portugal and Spain - Greece in 2008. In 1996 and 2004 all matches in round 3 were important for qualification. So, not to many dead matches.

In the new format, only Denmark - Czech Republic would have been a live match, unless there'd already be four third place teams with 4 points.

On the other hand, matches are live matches in the current format could become dead matches, e.g. Sweden - Russia at the last edition. If there were six groups Sweden and Russia would have secured at least a "best third" position.

i.e. In the new format more dead matches should be expected.
User avatar
Michele
Senior Member
Posts: 2593
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 23:53
Location: Copenhagen

Post by Michele »

Friesland wrote: i.e. In the new format more dead matches should be expected.
Yes, but we get the great fun of teams having to wait several days after their final match before they know whether they have qualified or not. :wink:
User avatar
Richie
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 19:56
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Richie »

Friesland wrote:
Richie wrote:Groups I reckon will be more interesting and open than before. Hate having dead last round games.
Well, there were only four during the last 4 editions: Netherlands - France and Denmark - Czech Republic both in 2000 and Switzerland - Portugal and Spain - Greece in 2008. In 1996 and 2004 all matches in round 3 were important for qualification. So, not to many dead matches.

In the new format, only Denmark - Czech Republic would have been a live match, unless there'd already be four third place teams with 4 points.

On the other hand, matches are live matches in the current format could become dead matches, e.g. Sweden - Russia at the last edition. If there were six groups Sweden and Russia would have secured at least a "best third" position.

i.e. In the new format more dead matches should be expected.
I disagree with your analysis, that Sweden - Russia match would have counted for placings going into the last 16.

And it'll mean many less teams eliminated before R3, only need a point from the first 2 games to be in contention.
User avatar
1
Senior Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 06:56
Location: Istanbul

Post by 1 »

i liked the idea of 24-team euro championship... there are enough feel-superior EuroSnobs who always keep saying european c'ships are more difficult than world cups. now with the addition of even 8 weaker teams, let's see how it looks like 8)

btw, another contribution of platini to the french. they've had difficult times to qualify major tournaments lately, and only could succeed with push from referees... this time that push came from platini himself. i hope they cant pass group stages...
User avatar
Edgar
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09
Location: 47°10'20.97"N 27°32'17.13"E
Contact:

Post by Edgar »

1 wrote:btw, another contribution of platini to the french. they've had difficult times to qualify major tournaments lately, and only could succeed with push from referees... this time that push came from platini himself. i hope they cant pass group stages...
It actually has to do more with the Scots and Irish.
User avatar
1
Senior Member
Posts: 1047
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 06:56
Location: Istanbul

Post by 1 »

no i mean the selection of hosts, not the expansion... it was purely political. platini obviously wants a new excitement for his country. france already hosted a big tournament in 1998. they host another one before even two decades pass. anyway there's another point which i'm quite glad. their biggest rivals for 2016 were turkey.. i'm glad that the city i live in isnt going to be flooded by shallow, clownish, childish national team fans with their stupid patriotic feelings from 23 countries 8) including proud-colonialist hypocrites who looks down on, and discriminate "minorities" in social life but dont hesitate to support the national team they play for (like platini's guys)... but i fear 2020 is coming here :oops:
User avatar
Lusankya
Senior Member
Posts: 2180
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 15:20
Location: Germany

Post by Lusankya »

The news are from march, but I am happy that UEFA actually agrees with most of us (that 24 teams aren't an ideal number for a FT).

Uefa admit expansion of European Championships to 24 teams 'not ideal'
Infantino said: "This will be done by the end of this year. It is 24 teams and that is a problem - it is not an ideal final tournament because you will have to have a few of the third ones who qualify as well [for the knockout stage]. The question is how you make it in a way that results cannot be organised and you don't know in advance what you need to be the best."
Infantino said UEFA would also review the Euro 2016 qualification competition to ensure that it was not "boring".
I still think they should have come up with a solution, before they decided to expand the final tournament.
User avatar
Edgar
Posts: 487
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 11:09
Location: 47°10'20.97"N 27°32'17.13"E
Contact:

Post by Edgar »

Interesting. Thanks Lusankya!
Post Reply