Cricket Player Manager
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Euro 2016

  1. #1
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Remembering The Prince - 63*
    Posts
    49,380

    Euro 2016

    Only realised today that the next tournament is going to have 24 teams, following the same format as the 86, 90 and 94 World Cups.

    I'm not a huge fan of this for a couple of reasons.

    Firstly, the Euros are generally, as a rule, of a decent standard on the group stage because there aren't as many 'minnow' sides as the WC. Adding 8 sides will dilute that and make for a less entertaining group stage.

    Secondly, it is a format where 4 3rd place teams from the group stage go through. Not keen on that.

    It does make us more likely to qualify though so its not all bad

    Thoughts?
    Phillip Hughes 1988-2014

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Only realised today that the next tournament is going to have 24 teams, following the same format as the 86, 90 and 94 World Cups.

    I'm not a huge fan of this for a couple of reasons.

    Firstly, the Euros are generally, as a rule, of a decent standard on the group stage because there aren't as many 'minnow' sides as the WC. Adding 8 sides will dilute that and make for a less entertaining group stage.

    Secondly, it is a format where 4 3rd place teams from the group stage go through. Not keen on that.

    It does make us more likely to qualify though so its not all bad

    Thoughts?
    Yea the four 'best' 3rd place teams going through sounds absolute bollocks. Has to be two group stages or all the 3rd place teams play off against each other.

    Should have stuck with 16.
    World Scrabble Champion 2014. National Scrabble Champion 2009, 8th, 11th and 5th in 2009/2011/2013 World Championships, gold medal (team) at Causeway, 2011 Masters Champion
    Australia’s Darren Lehmann is a ‘blatant loser’ insists Stuart Broad
    Countdown Series 57 Champion
    King of the Arcade
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in public:
    Reply from mods to my prank bans in private:


    MSN - evil_budgie @ hotmail.co.uk

  3. #3
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    32,700
    Not a fan of this structure at all. Strikes me as being an unnecessary way to elongate the the tournament, whilst lowering the overall quality. But more games = more money I suppose, I guess that's the motivation behind it.

    Isn't the Qatar World Cup going to be structured like this as well?

  4. #4
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    #banblocky
    Posts
    20,466
    It's a terrible format for 2 reasons:

    1. The current format makes the European Championships a tougher tournament to win than the World Cup.

    2. It makes the competition too big for the smaller nations to host.
    ​63*


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member TT Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    .
    Posts
    16,588
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    It's a terrible format for 2 reasons:

    1. The current format makes the European Championships a tougher tournament to win than the World Cup.

    2. It makes the competition too big for the smaller nations to host.
    Think that is actually a positive. Even a proud footballing nation like Portugal couldn't handle a 16 team Euro comp without creating economically not viable stadia. There shouldn't be any White Elephants in France 2016. France as a host were criticized for winning that over Turkey but France has hosted a hugely successful WC, two previous European Championships, has great infrastructure and has stadia which is sustainable. Turkey have three football clubs in one city. No-brainer.

  6. #6
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    45,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    Yea the four 'best' 3rd place teams going through sounds absolute bollocks. Has to be two group stages or all the 3rd place teams play off against each other.

    Should have stuck with 16.
    Two group stages is arse tho. Best thing about tournaments is the knock-out stage. First tournament I propery remember in the 82 world cup and England managed to get themselves knocked-out without actually losing a game.

    The four best third-placed teams going through isn't ideal, but if we have to have 24 teams it's a better option.
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
    - Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Two group stages is arse tho. Best thing about tournaments is the knock-out stage. First tournament I propery remember in the 82 world cup and England managed to get themselves knocked-out without actually losing a game.

    The four best third-placed teams going through isn't ideal, but if we have to have 24 teams it's a better option.
    My preferred option is an extra knockout round for the 3rd place teams. It's just wrong to give the best 3rd placed teams a route through. It will inevitably be teams who've been drawn in a group with a pathetic 4th team. You will have piss easy groups with 3 teams going through and tough groups with 2 teams going through.

  8. #8
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    Two group stages is arse tho. Best thing about tournaments is the knock-out stage. First tournament I propery remember in the 82 world cup and England managed to get themselves knocked-out without actually losing a game.

    The four best third-placed teams going through isn't ideal, but if we have to have 24 teams it's a better option.
    The other problem with a 2nd group stage, if they are groups of 3, is that we have an Argentina vs Peru in 1978 situation: the team playing the final match knows exactly what they need to do to go through and the team that's already out is demotivated / open to corruption (delete as appropriate).

    There is no footballing justification for this decision at all. 16 is absolutely fine for the euros - why on earth would we want 8 more moderate european teams? If they want to do something interesting, increase it to 32 and get rid of large swathes of the qualifying matches. 24 is just the worst of all worlds.

    EDIT
    Turns out that the 2nd stage in 1978 had groups of 4, but the point remains.
    Last edited by wpdavid; 12-06-2012 at 05:35 AM.

  9. #9
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Scaly piscine View Post
    My preferred option is an extra knockout round for the 3rd place teams. It's just wrong to give the best 3rd placed teams a route through. It will inevitably be teams who've been drawn in a group with a pathetic 4th team. You will have piss easy groups with 3 teams going through and tough groups with 2 teams going through.
    OK in principle, but how would you use knock out to choose 4 teams from 6?

  10. #10
    International Coach Pothas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Surbiton, UK
    Posts
    12,121
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    It's a terrible format for 2 reasons:

    1. The current format makes the European Championships a tougher tournament to win than the World Cup.

    2. It makes the competition too big for the smaller nations to host.
    1 is just not true though. yeah the group stages may be tougher but when was the last Denmark or Greece won the World Cup? People can be a little snooty about the quality of the World Cup but it remains a competition that relatively few countries have actually been able to win.

    Would still stick to 16 though, makes it competitive and entertaining from the outset.

  11. #11
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Pothas View Post
    1 is just not true though. yeah the group stages may be tougher but when was the last Denmark or Greece won the World Cup? People can be a little snooty about the quality of the World Cup but it remains a competition that relatively few countries have actually been able to win.
    Beat me to it. It strikes me as fairly obvious that the presence of the South American teams as well as the european ones makes the WC tougher to actually win, even if it's easier to get past the group stage.

  12. #12
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Remembering The Prince - 63*
    Posts
    49,380
    I'd go 4 groups of 6, drag the tournament out that way

  13. #13
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,861
    I'm definitely in favour of more football, especially when it gives Ireland a better chance of qualifying. The format works out a little awkwardly but it's probably worth it. No one watches international football for its high quality anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  14. #14
    Spanish_Vicente sledger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Refreshingly Unconcerned With The Vulgar Exigencies Of Veracity
    Posts
    32,700
    If you're a neutral it's pretty much the only reason you would watch it I'd say. At the last World Cup how many people can honestly say they were thrilled at the prospect of watching Slovenia vs Algeria?

  15. #15
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by TT Boy View Post
    Think that is actually a positive. Even a proud footballing nation like Portugal couldn't handle a 16 team Euro comp without creating economically not viable stadia. There shouldn't be any White Elephants in France 2016. France as a host were criticized for winning that over Turkey but France has hosted a hugely successful WC, two previous European Championships, has great infrastructure and has stadia which is sustainable. Turkey have three football clubs in one city. No-brainer.
    Good job it wasn't a WC, or the Turks would have walked it.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Euro Cup 2012 Is Underway
    By Inarra in forum Euro 2012
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 15-04-2012, 12:21 PM
  2. The European Union and the Euro
    By stephen in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 28-06-2010, 10:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •