Fox92 Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 It's a stupid format, if they wanted more teams just create another group(s). And yeah I agree it's made teams sit back a bit. Look at Slovakia yesterday, if they wanted to finish top two then they would have had to come at us. Would have been a better game.
Footballwipe Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 ESPN journo just said Iceland guaranteed to go through with a 1-1 draw. So 1-1, 1-1, 1-1 is going to get them through. Sterling format, top notch.
The Doctor Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 the extra teams is cool but the way they're going through is a bit shit. not sure of a better way to turn 24 into 16 without some mad play off situation which is probably not fair to add an extra game in, though. but the fact 0-1, 0-1, 1-0 almost deffo has you through is a bit gay, as slovakia/norn ireland etc have shown. Don't go to 16. Go to twelve and have another set of 4 groups, 3 in each - winner of each goes through to the semis. Or expand it to 32 teams so Scotland can bravely miss out on qualification to the faroe islands.
lildave3 Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 ESPN journo just said Iceland guaranteed to go through with a 1-1 draw. So 1-1, 1-1, 1-1 is going to get them through. Sterling format, top notch. Imagine if they kept winning on penalties and won the tournament without actually winning a game...
Manwell Pablo Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 i would not say it's "ruined" it. But I'm not a massive fan of the format.
ScouseFox Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 are turkey in a legit position to qualify after scoring 1 goal all group stage? scenes. this is a great format.
The Railway Man Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 It's total jizz, turned a lot of the final round into a joke. If I have a shit on 67 minutes Turkey are through apparantly.
Mikey Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 I like it 'cos there's more football to watch. But when it was only top 2 going through teams had to really go for it. Obvious examples being Slovakia and Northern Ireland. Probably preferred it with the 16 teams tbf, overall.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 The tournament starts for proper in the next round. The fact that Turkey could well go through is a joke.
Footballwipe Posted 21 June 2016 Posted 21 June 2016 Imagine if they kept winning on penalties and won the tournament without actually winning a game... There was something before the tournament that technically, if results actually went the right way, a team could have qualified through the group with 0-0, 0-0, 0-0 Then like you said, imagine them penalty winning the knockouts after 0-0. That would make a mockery of the whole format in one go.
RonnieTodger Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 It's not been ruined, but it hasn't worked. Teams like Wales, Northern Ireland and Iceland would've qualified if it were 16 teams anyway (surely Wales would've won the play-off). MattP's bye idea is pretty solid.
spudungeyee Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 For me this intial stage has been a bit rubbish, with teams not to worried and just doing enough to qualify. The media has tried to create drama and it hasn't really happened. Lots of games with one team just sitting back and trying to soak up the pressure while the other just attacks.
Kitchandro Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 Most of the games have been awful. Really difficult to watch at times. Teams are not only playing for draws, they're playing for losses at times. They don't deserve to go through. The great thing about the Euros as opposed to the world cup was that it condensed the strongest continent into 16 teams, making it really competitive in the group stages and with big games even early on.
Nick Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 I think it has a bit yeah - containment football isn't the best spectacle but it does appear to have levelled the playing field - I mean who'd of though this England side would have made it through to play the likes of Hungary? Phenomenal achievement.
Footballwipe Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 Most of the games have been awful. Really difficult to watch at times. Teams are not only playing for draws, they're playing for losses at times. They don't deserve to go through. The great thing about the Euros as opposed to the world cup was that it condensed the strongest continent into 16 teams, making it really competitive in the group stages and with big games even early on. Great point. Teams going 1-0 down and thinking "boy don't wanna ruin my goal difference and be one of the two third-place who don't qualify. Let's play it safe and take the 1-0 loss." And despite what a pro footballer might tell you about pride and there's no way that would happen, it's absolutely true. Low defeats mean you're through, so even when behind it's a cautious approach. I'm only frustrated because the quality of this tournament has been dire at times, absolutely dire. I feel come 2020 we'll get to a point where we're not excited for the groups anymore. We expect it from the first group games but not all the way through. Knockout stages can be notoriously dull, with teams paralysed with fear to not lose, so the groups are great freedom. Not in the 24-team format.
Will1981 Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 if they are going to stick with 24 teams surely it would be better with 4 groups of 6 teams with the top 2 from each group going into the quarter finals.
MC Prussian Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 I don't necessarily consider it a bad idea, but it's been done for the first time and there's nothing to fall back upon for comparison. I also think it could work, it's just executed somewhat poorly and people tend to accept changes only gradually, reluctantly and with time. Despite the system with 16 teams out of 24 progressing to the next stage, it does add some excitement to the last group stage round, because unless you have 0 points and an abysmal goal difference, you're still within reach of making the Round of 16. In the end, effort and end product keep being rewarded. Let's also not forget that most tournaments have seen the initial phase being a bit of a bore-fest, with the latter stages usually providing more excitement (as seen today or yesterday, for example). Four best third-placed teams wouldn't change that a bit.
MC Prussian Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 should be 32 teams like the World Cup tbh That could potentially mean Scotland qualifying, as well. Might as well set up a Home Nations tournament instead. At least England would have a chance of winning a trophy.
Corky Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 That could potentially mean Scotland qualifying, as well. Don't be ridiculous. San Marino will qualify before Scotland do again.
Great Boos Up Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 It's ruined now with Germany, Italy/Spain, France/possibly Belgium V's ENGLAND to win the thing; whilst Wales have to beat Hungary and the Swiss to get to final !?!?
MC Prussian Posted 22 June 2016 Posted 22 June 2016 Don't be ridiculous. San Marino will qualify before Scotland do again. I thought you'd use Gibraltar as a prime example, now you've spoilt it.
Donut Posted 23 June 2016 Posted 23 June 2016 Having teams qualify having lost 2 of the 3 games and scabbing a 1-0 in the other is pretty daft. The group stage of the world cup was more fun than the knockouts just in terms of excitement in games. Apart from the 7-1 Germany Brazil game, every game was cagey, 0-0, 1-0, extra time lots of games. This tournament will have a bad group stage AND boring knockout too
Nalis Posted 23 June 2016 Posted 23 June 2016 Better idea would be put the top 2 through, and give byes to the best 4 group winners. Good idea, only issue with that the TV companies/sponsors would have the big guns playing one less game and therefore less revenue.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.