Euro 2016

amirbachar · Post by **amirbachar** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 21:21

Kaiser wrote:6 groups of 4 disgust me.

I cannot see how UEFA would hold playoffs after the group stage: will there be a draw after groups to determine pairs? Or what?

6x4 is just irrational...

On this matter there is no problem.
The draw will depend on the combination of the 4 groups with the best 3rd place teams. So 2 teams from the same group won't meet until the semi-final with the first 2 in the group until the final.
See what FIFA did in the U20 Championship.

martinjt · Post by **martinjt** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 00:16

Another possibility:

Top 2 teams from each group of 4 qualifies to give 12 teams left.

Teams ranked 5-12 play-off one round, then join best 4 group winners in quarter-finals.

This would encourage a strong performance in group stage, as you would play one game less later on.

spoonman · Post by **spoonman** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:39

The problem is: The best 4 group winners would have a very long break (7 days at least) between their last group match and the quarterfinal. That would probably be a nightmare for teams and coaches. The result of such a long pause is called "Lagerkoller" in German. It's "cabin fever" in English, I think.

badgerboy · Post by **badgerboy** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:28

It's happening again. First on forum 1 & now here. Have I been sent to the internet equivalent of "Coventry" (where people just pretend I'm not here):

badgerboy wrote:One possible (if unlikely) variation would be to have the top two in each group qualifying (better than some 3rds going through) but with the best four group winners qualifying directly for the quarter-finals with the other 8 teams entering a preliminary KO round.

This would have the added bonus of giving the group winners something important to play for in their last match.

The main negative - looking at this year's tournament - is that it might actually be a disadvantage to have the extra gap between winning your group & playing the quarter-final...

Ricardo · Post by **Ricardo** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:49

Here badgerboy I read it. And it is a (dis) advantage that I don't see happening. I can't imagine that there will be different number of matches for teams to get in a next stage

amirbachar · Post by **amirbachar** » Tue Jul 01, 2008 23:49

badgerboy wrote:It's happening again. First on forum 1 & now here. Have I been sent to the internet equivalent of "Coventry" (where people just pretend I'm not here):

badgerboy wrote:One possible (if unlikely) variation would be to have the top two in each group qualifying (better than some 3rds going through) but with the best four group winners qualifying directly for the quarter-finals with the other 8 teams entering a preliminary KO round.

This would have the added bonus of giving the group winners something important to play for in their last match.

The main negative - looking at this year's tournament - is that it might actually be a disadvantage to have the extra gap between winning your group & playing the quarter-final...

I don't like it that a team could have one more round than another team even though it finished its group as the winner.

Michele · Post by **Michele** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 01:21

Does anyone actually like any of these systems or are we just trying to find the most acceptable system from a format that gives room for no good options? For me, there's no doubt it's the latter of these options.

But if I have to accept that there will most likely be 24 teams in 2016, I haven't really made up my mind about what version I prefer, but let me list the options given so far and give them a reality check.

20 teams
4 groups of 5 teams The two best teams of each group will go to the quarter finals. 7 games to win the tournament. Major issue: rest days (also on the final match day).

5 groups of 4 teams Winners plus the best runner up goes to QF's; remaining four runner ups play off for the final two QF spots. 6/7 games to win the tournament. Major issues: separation of teams in the same position across groups, teams will play a different number of games to reach a certain stage, rest days.

5 groups of 4 teams Winners to QF's, runner ups and 3rd's play off for QF spots. 6/7 games to win the tournament. Major issues: teams will play a different number of games to reach a certain stage, rest days.

24 teams
4 groups of 6 teams 2 best to QF's or best 4 to round of 16 (not specified). 8/9 games to win the tournament depending on system. Major issues: match congestion, number of games per team.

6 groups of 4 teams 2 best and 4 best 3rd placed teams to round of 16. 7 games to win the tournament. Similar to WC86-94. Major issue: separation of teams in the same position across groups.

6 groups of 4 teams 2 best to reach a new group stage with 4 groups of 3 teams. Second round group winners to semi final. 7 games to win the tournament. Similar to WC82. Major issues: two group phases, rest days (also on the final match day).

6 groups of 4 teams 4 best group winners to QF's, remaining 2 group winners and all second placed teams will play off for 4 QF spots. 6/7 games to win the tournament. Major issues: separation of teams in the same position across groups, teams will play a different number of games to reach a certain stage, rest days.

I think I've covered all suggested systems now. I don't think 20 teams is an option, but I've included them for the sake of completion. Let me now look at the issues and give my opinion on them.

Major issue: rest days (also on the final match day). With this issue, one team will have a bye day in every round and one team will therefore have finished its schedule before the last match day. Teams will be unequally rested for games. This allows some teams to play on results and some teams can just sit helpless on the final match day crossing their fingers for right results in other games.

Major issue: separation of teams in the same position across groups. Here we compare incomparable teams. It is rather common to do this, but it's still a horrible idea; you can be punished for being in an evenly balanced group.

Major issue: teams will play a different number of games to reach a certain stage. In such a short competition, it might have a major impact on results that teams will have to play a different number of games in order to reach a certain stage, and this is not an obvious advantage for the teams who have done well early on as numerous examples from teams who have rested players in the final group match show (among this 3 out of 4 in the recent EURO).

Major issue: match congestion. This gives a lot of games every day and some matches will have to be played at the same time. This takes away some of the charm of being able to watch (almost) all games live during such a tournament.

Major issue: number of games per team. Playing more than 7 games would either mean that the tournament is prolonged or that teams will have to play a lot of games in a very short time span. This comes on top of a long club season.

Major issue: two group phases. It takes a long time before we get to the knock out matches.

For me, all of these issues are negative as compared to what we have now. Having looked at all of the propsed systems, I'm split between two. Either the WC86-94 system or the system with play offs between 2 group winners and the second placed teams. However, I don't like that you single out group winners as having performed worse than other group winners, I think I prefer this to happen to 3rd placed teams as none of them can hardly claim to have performed brilliantly, no matter what. This leads me to prefer the WC86-94 system (did I just write that???) even with all the flaws it has. One that I didn't mention is that the group phase eliminates very few teams, so you can scrape through with very mediocre results (Italy, anyone?)

The fact that I prefer the WC86-94 system is great evidence that expanding the EURO to 24 teams is an idea so stupid that it actually makes Sepp Blatter look relatively sane with some of his proposals

Actually, my preferred system is the one with 20 teams in 5 groups and 2nd and 3rd placed teams playing off for QF spots, but since I don't see a tournament with 20 teams, I didn't consider it much.

amirbachar · Post by **amirbachar** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 01:30

Michele wrote:
5 groups of 4 teams Winners to QF's, runner ups and 3rd's play off for QF spots. 6/7 games to win the tournament. Major issues: teams will play a different number of games to reach a certain stage, rest days.

It's 4 groups of 5 in this system so it's 7/8 matches to win.

amirbachar · Post by **amirbachar** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 01:38

Michele wrote: For me, all of these issues are negative as compared to what we have now. Having looked at all of the propsed systems, I'm split between two. Either the WC86-94 system or the system with play offs between 2 group winners and the second placed teams. However, I don't like that you single out group winners as having performed worse than other group winners, I think I prefer this to happen to 3rd placed teams as none of them can hardly claim to have performed brilliantly, no matter what. This leads me to prefer the WC86-94 system (did I just write that???) even with all the flaws it has. One that I didn't mention is that the group phase eliminates very few teams, so you can scrape through with very mediocre results (Italy, anyone?)

The fact that I prefer the WC86-94 system is great evidence that expanding the EURO to 24 teams is an idea so stupid that it actually makes Sepp Blatter look relatively sane with some of his proposals

Actually, my preferred system is the one with 20 teams in 5 groups and 2nd and 3rd placed teams playing off for QF spots, but since I don't see a tournament with 20 teams, I didn't consider it much.

I really hate both systems you mentioned with 24 teams (although the WC 86-94 is still better).
The system you mentioned with 20 teams is as good as the current one, maybe even better IMO.

Please see my (and Ricardo's) levels suggestion in the other thread. I think you will like that one

cinebelul · Post by **cinebelul** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 03:02

The NFL system or other American sports could also be a suggestion, the 24-25 teams could be divided in however groups of 3, 4 or 5, playing agianst each other in their group but olso against teams from the other groups, aleatoric but according to the pots of the draw, so that every team have at the end of the GS 7, 8 or 9 games, winners qulified for QF, then RU, 3rd or 4th for playoff according to points system over all remaining teams. We would have guaranteed 2 months of football or more, why not?

Kjello · Post by **Kjello** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 04:16

Even expanding to 32 teams and the current World Cup system is better than any American system.

Kjello · Post by **Kjello** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 04:16

Hmm, I don't like double posts...

amirbachar · Post by **amirbachar** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:16

I have another proposal with 24 teams -
first GS - 6 groups of 4, first 2 qualify for next round.
second GS - both teams from the same group join team from another group, and take the score they had in the first stage against the other team that qualified. each team have 2 more mathes
So we have 3 groups of 4. Then the group winners and the best RU goes to the semi finals.
Problem - a team that was group winner could start the 2nd GS with 0 points while the RU starts with 3 points.
Another option for 2nd GS - mix things up:
Group 1 - A1,B2,C2,D1
Group 2 - A2,B1,E1,F2
Group 3 - C1,D2,E2,F1
But they have to make sure that if 2 teams won their first matches then they would not meet in the 2nd match, to keep things interesting until the last moment.

I actually don't think it's a good format after thinking about it a little bit more.

mistral · Post by **mistral** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 15:44

amirbachar wrote:I actually don't think it's a good format after thinking about it a little bit more.

I also don't think there are any really good 24 team formats. As I've said elsewhere, I'd prefer to keep it at 16 teams but it doesn't look as if that's an option anymore. Therefore, as Kjello suggests, if Uefa want expansion, perhaps we'd just be better off going to a WC 32 team format? Like 16 teams, it's a straightforward and understandable system. The expanded format could also allow 3 smaller countries (e.g. Norway, Denmark and Sweden) to host the tournament.

The big downsides are 1. that the qualifying competition would become far easier for the bigger countries and 2. there would be far more 'tourists' (I do like that phrase

) at the Finals but are those prices that are worth paying?

amirbachar · Post by **amirbachar** » Wed Jul 02, 2008 16:32

mistral wrote:
amirbachar wrote:I actually don't think it's a good format after thinking about it a little bit more.
I also don't think there are any really good 24 team formats. As I've said elsewhere, I'd prefer to keep it at 16 teams but it doesn't look as if that's an option anymore. Therefore, as Kjello suggests, if Uefa want expansion, perhaps we'd just be better off going to a WC 32 team format? Like 16 teams, it's a straightforward and understandable system. The expanded format could also allow 3 smaller countries (e.g. Norway, Denmark and Sweden) to host the tournament.

The big downsides are 1. that the qualifying competition would become far easier for the bigger countries and 2. there would be far more 'tourists' (I do like that phrase ) at the Finals but are those prices that are worth paying?

These are not prices worth paying. 32 is way-way-way too many for EURO.