StanSP Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Is there a international break for the playoffs? yeah. first or second week of November. England have friendlies against France and Spain I think. And then Germany in March. I think I have that the right way round!
The Doctor Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Is there a international break for the playoffs? Yes, mid-November, usually the weekend around armistice day.
shen Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Obviously the expansion of the Euros next year provided the perfect opportunity for some less fancied teams to make it. But surely few expected Northern Ireland, Wales, Iceland, Austria, Albania and most likely Hungary would qualify outright, while Netherlands look like not even making the play-offs!
Alf Bentley Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Obviously the expansion of the Euros next year provided the perfect opportunity for some less fancied teams to make it. But surely few expected Northern Ireland, Wales, Iceland, Austria, Albania and most likely Hungary would qualify outright, while Netherlands look like not even making the play-offs! Maybe, in part, this is because there are now more "low-ranked" international teams that are well-organised, have good fitness and adopt suitable tactics. That combination can be pretty effective against all but the best opposition. That could be the other part of the equation: how many top quality international teams are there in Europe at the moment? The Dutch have struggled, the Germans have spluttered recently, England are very limited, Spain aren't the force they were, the French never seem to quite gel, the Italians don't seem to be anything special.... I wouldn't expect any of the countries you've named to win the tournament, but another outsider win is quite possible (like Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Greece in the past).
shen Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Maybe, in part, this is because there are now more "low-ranked" international teams that are well-organised, have good fitness and adopt suitable tactics. That combination can be pretty effective against all but the best opposition. That could be the other part of the equation: how many top quality international teams are there in Europe at the moment? The Dutch have struggled, the Germans have spluttered recently, England are very limited, Spain aren't the force they were, the French never seem to quite gel, the Italians don't seem to be anything special.... I wouldn't expect any of the countries you've named to win the tournament, but another outsider win is quite possible (like Czechoslovakia, Denmark and Greece in the past). I guess I'm most astounded that NI, Iceland and Austria would have qualified outright for any tournament as group winners. You see the odd playoff surprise in previous qualifying campaigns (Estonia, Montenegro last Euros; Iceland last WC; Slovenia and B&H before that), but for the aforementioned countries to finish top is a big achievement. Why should the "low-ranked" teams be better organised, have higher fitness levels and superior tactics to the "high-ranked" ones? I recognise this trend of counterattacking football and defending in numbers (hey ho, look at Leicester) but what is so different now to say... 10 years ago? How can these "low-ranked" teams consistently perform at the same level as the "high-ranked" ones? "The gap between the big and small football nations is narrowing"... That phrase is so worn now, but is it, like you insinuate, because the traditionally strong teams are no longer super powers? Have seedings merely delayed the development we are currently seeing?
Alf Bentley Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I guess I'm most astounded that NI, Iceland and Austria would have qualified outright for any tournament as group winners. You see the odd playoff surprise in previous qualifying campaigns (Estonia, Montenegro last Euros; Iceland last WC; Slovenia and B&H before that), but for the aforementioned countries to finish top is a big achievement. Why should the "low-ranked" teams be better organised, have higher fitness levels and superior tactics to the "high-ranked" ones? I recognise this trend of counterattacking football and defending in numbers (hey ho, look at Leicester) but what is so different now to say... 10 years ago? How can these "low-ranked" teams consistently perform at the same level as the "high-ranked" ones? "The gap between the big and small football nations is narrowing"... That phrase is so worn now, but is it, like you insinuate, because the traditionally strong teams are no longer super powers? Have seedings merely delayed the development we are currently seeing? I wasn't suggesting that low-ranked teams are better organised, fitter or more tactically prepared than high-ranked teams. I was suggesting that many of them are better organised, fitter and more tactically prepared than they were 10-20 years ago. That is then enough for them to cause problems for all but the top-quality teams....of which there aren't many at the moment, as we seem to agree.
bovril Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I wasn't suggesting that low-ranked teams are better organised, fitter or more tactically prepared than high-ranked teams. I was suggesting that many of them are better organised, fitter and more tactically prepared than they were 10-20 years ago. That is then enough for them to cause problems for all but the top-quality teams....of which there aren't many at the moment, as we seem to agree. A few them only just existed 20 years ago.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 A few them only just existed 20 years ago. Northern Ireland, Wales, Iceland, Austria, Albania and Hungary have all existed for a lot longer than 20 years. It's not so much the ex-USSR or ex-Yugoslav/Czechoslovak countries that have come through this time. Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine & Slovakia have been qualifying for tournaments for some time now and the others didn't really break through, though 1 or 2 came close.
shen Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I wasn't suggesting that low-ranked teams are better organised, fitter or more tactically prepared than high-ranked teams. I was suggesting that many of them are better organised, fitter and more tactically prepared than they were 10-20 years ago. That is then enough for them to cause problems for all but the top-quality teams....of which there aren't many at the moment, as we seem to agree. The fitness thing, I just cannot really quantify. Even top players (look at Chelsea this season) can look unfit despite stringent diets and physical demands. I suppose some teams, like Iceland and Albania, have more players playing in better leagues than before, which might explain higher fitness levels and higher tactical nous. Yet, you can forgive the odd result going in the low-ranked teams' favour, but at least three of such teams have outperformed more illustrious teams over an entire qualifying campaign. This I struggle to explain really...
Dan Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 It's because Norway only have 13 points if you take away the points they have taken from the sixth place team, in this case Malta. The only way it isn't going to be Hungary is if both Ukraine and Slovakia win their games tonight. Basically Hungary have only gained one point from their two games against the sixth place team (Greece), so they have 15 now. Ukraine 13. As far as I can see, Hungary appear to have benefitted massively from Greece losing twice to the and thereby finishing bottom. Edit: Actually it looks like only Ukraine need to win as Slovakia already have 16 points and will stay on that amount. Basically, if Ukraine beat Spain, they are through. I think. Correct. It would mean they either finish 2nd or as best placed 3rd team. I think it's... any of Slovakia or Ukraine win tonight, then they go through. Slovakia are at Luxembourg so you'd fancy them. Any of them fail to and Hungary are there, if both fail to then Slovakia and Hungary go through with Ukraine third, unless Ukraine better their result. I quite like working it all out but Hungary should they go through must have turned in quite possibly the worst campaign ever that resulted in automatic qualification.
Dan Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I absolutely love France's chances. Germany will no doubt start the tournament favourites, but the France squad is packed with quality. When you can call upon the most complete midfielder in the world in Pogba, put players like Matuidi around him for example, one of the hottest prospects in Martial pushing Benzema for a place, Varane playing centre back, the flair of Griezeman, that isnt far behind anyone in Europe. Theyve looked consistently good in their friendlies, which admittedly arent competitive games but frankly i wouldnt call competitive games against San Marino any kind of barometer for success. But on the subject of not paying too much attention to points scored in the group, you just know Germany are going to hit top gear when the tournament kicks off. Also, can someone explain why the best 3rd placed team is likely to be Hungary? Why is it not one of Slovakia or Ukraine who will have the most points of any 3rd placed team in the group? Assuming Croatia beat Malta, Norway will also have 19 points. Seems counter intuitive I said at the start of qualifying they had a lot of quality young players who were coming into their own and it's all unfolding quite well for them. I'm struggling to see past them. Germany have been a bit dodgy since the world cup and Spain aren't what they were. I'd have France down as probably slight favourites even if it wasn't in France but home advantage... you'll surely see them make the final. You've also not got the ultimate party poopers in Greece going
Donut Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Correct. It would mean they either finish 2nd or as best placed 3rd team. I quite like working it all out but Hungary should they go through must have turned in quite possibly the worst campaign ever that resulted in automatic qualification. Where i have got things confused is i always assumed it was the points scored against the pot 6 team that were cancelled, not the team finishing 6th, if that makes sense
Dan Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Obviously the expansion of the Euros next year provided the perfect opportunity for some less fancied teams to make it. But surely few expected Northern Ireland, Wales, Iceland, Austria, Albania and most likely Hungary would qualify outright, while Netherlands look like not even making the play-offs! The most amazing thing about this is the fact that most of those sides would've qualified in a 16 team tournament as well. How Holland are likely to not even make the top three is beyond me. Embarrassing. If Turkey beat Iceland tomorrow then it's curtains for them and given the way Iceland have performed since qualifying (I should know, cost me twice ) I'd imagine Turkey will win it.
purpleronnie Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Although its great to see home nations doing well it has diluted the Euro's. 16 team championships were very competitive and often at a very high standard....can't see that being the case next year. I do now wonder with the non competitive qualifying/tournaments it will mean that more than ever the champions league will be viewed as the ultimate prize in football.
Dan Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Be class if it was England, Wales and NI in a 16 team tournament.
shen Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I guess I'm most astounded that NI, Iceland and Austria would have qualified outright for any tournament as group winners. You see the odd playoff surprise in previous qualifying campaigns (Estonia, Montenegro last Euros; Iceland last WC; Slovenia and B&H before that), but for the aforementioned countries to finish top is a big achievement. The most amazing thing about this is the fact that most of those sides would've qualified in a 16 team tournament as well. How Holland are likely to not even make the top three is beyond me. Embarrassing. If Turkey beat Iceland tomorrow then it's curtains for them and given the way Iceland have performed since qualifying (I should know, cost me twice ) I'd imagine Turkey will win it. Yup, totally agree. And Turkey only have to draw against Iceland to send the Dutch (not) packing.
Alf Bentley Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Correct. It would mean they either finish 2nd or as best placed 3rd team. I think it's... any of Slovakia or Ukraine win tonight, then they go through. Slovakia are at Luxembourg so you'd fancy them. Any of them fail to and Hungary are there, if both fail to then Slovakia and Hungary go through with Ukraine third, unless Ukraine better their result. I quite like working it all out but Hungary should they go through must have turned in quite possibly the worst campaign ever that resulted in automatic qualification. All the permutations here: http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/qualifiers/news/newsid=2292874.html#trio+targeting+hungary+third+place+race Seems like the final automatic qualification place could still go to any one of Hungary, Ukraine, Slovakia and Turkey, partly also depending on other results like Macedonia v Belarus and Kazakhstan v Latvia. My head hurts!
Jordan Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Some of the reasons for the "minnows" qualifying have been listed above, but in a small tournament (well, much smaller than a league season, anyway), sometimes a team needs a little bit of luck/good fortune, too. I've posted a few times about how high I am on the Iceland side, and think they're worthy qualifiers. This time around, they've gotten a few referee calls their way (especially early in qualifying), getting a few penalties and having opponents sent off. These were calls they may not have gotten in the past. Albania has benefitted from building a strong defense (de Biasi has really made them very organized, and Lorik Cana is like a second manager out there), and they've done very well to recruit foreign-raised players of Albanian/Kosovar birth/descent to strengthen their team. But they've had good fortune. Their 1-0 win at Portugal was highway robbery (Portugal were all over them, it was hilarious), but sometimes that's football. And they perhaps wouldn't have qualified without the drone shitshow.
shen Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 Some of the reasons for the "minnows" qualifying have been listed above, but in a small tournament (well, much smaller than a league season, anyway), sometimes a team needs a little bit of luck/good fortune, too. I've posted a few times about how high I am on the Iceland side, and think they're worthy qualifiers. This time around, they've gotten a few referee calls their way (especially early in qualifying), getting a few penalties and having opponents sent off. These were calls they may not have gotten in the past. Albania has benefitted from building a strong defense (de Biasi has really made them very organized, and Lorik Cana is like a second manager out there), and they've done very well to recruit foreign-raised players of Albanian/Kosovar birth/descent to strengthen their team. But they've had good fortune. Their 1-0 win at Portugal was highway robbery (Portugal were all over them, it was hilarious), but sometimes that's football. And they perhaps wouldn't have qualified without the drone shitshow. They have certainly had margins on their side, but over a 8/10-game league, this should not be such a pronounced difference. You could say luck evened itself out with Portugal getting a added time winner in Albania. Even if you account for more fortune, they still needed to capitalise on it. It's quite something that three sides have managed to top their groups. The mental resilience they have shown is very impressive considering their inexperience of finding themselves in such positions. You could have expected some wobbly legs in Armenia after Albania experienced that deflating defeat to rivals Serbia in added time. Instead they produce their most commanding performance of the entire campaign! Northern Ireland have never been terrible, but to see them win 6 out 10 games in possibly the most evenly matched group is something I would not have expected. Amazing will and determination to succeed. In Albanias case, it's more of a case that Denmark have failed twice to beat them, just like the Dutch failed against Iceland. Belgium taking just one point from Wales (Beside the point, but they're ranked #1 in the world now I believe after Argentina's and Germany's defeats, haha!), Sweden and Russia combined only picking up a single point against Austria. Why have all these supposedly good sides underperformed?
Alf Bentley Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 They have certainly had margins on their side, but over a 8/10-game league, this should not be such a pronounced difference. You could say luck evened itself out with Portugal getting a added time winner in Albania. Even if you account for more fortune, they still needed to capitalise on it. It's quite something that three sides have managed to top their groups. The mental resilience they have shown is very impressive considering their inexperience of finding themselves in such positions. You could have expected some wobbly legs in Armenia after Albania experienced that deflating defeat to rivals Serbia in added time. Instead they produce their most commanding performance of the entire campaign! Northern Ireland have never been terrible, but to see them win 6 out 10 games in possibly the most evenly matched group is something I would not have expected. Amazing will and determination to succeed. In Albanias case, it's more of a case that Denmark have failed twice to beat them, just like the Dutch failed against Iceland. Belgium taking just one point from Wales (Beside the point, but they're ranked #1 in the world now I believe after Argentina's and Germany's defeats, haha!), Sweden and Russia combined only picking up a single point against Austria. Why have all these supposedly good sides underperformed? No doubt various factors come into play - and you may well have identified an important one in commenting on the "will and determination to succeed" of these supposedly inferior teams. With the exception of Bale and 1 or 2 others, very few Welsh, Northern Irish, Austrian, Albanian or Icelandic players will play for teams that are competitive in the Champions League or top European leagues. The finals of the Euros or World Cup will probably be the biggest stage to which they can aspire, so their motivation is not surprising. In contrast, how motivated are some of the players from the supposed "big boy" countries, when they're already competing for the Champions League and Premiership/La Liga/Serie A/Bundesliga? Maybe it's a bit similar to the way so many big English clubs don't bother about domestic cup competitions or under-perform in the Europa League - their motivation is elsewhere?
Donut Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 No doubt various factors come into play - and you may well have identified an important one in commenting on the "will and determination to succeed" of these supposedly inferior teams. With the exception of Bale and 1 or 2 others, very few Welsh, Northern Irish, Austrian, Albanian or Icelandic players will play for teams that are competitive in the Champions League or top European leagues. The finals of the Euros or World Cup will probably be the biggest stage to which they can aspire, so their motivation is not surprising. In contrast, how motivated are some of the players from the supposed "big boy" countries, when they're already competing for the Champions League and Premiership/La Liga/Serie A/Bundesliga? Maybe it's a bit similar to the way so many big English clubs don't bother about domestic cup competitions or under-perform in the Europa League - their motivation is elsewhere? When the tournament proper kicks off, there will be no lack of motivation from the big boys. QUalifying is just to get you there. Dont go overboard about Germany not getting out of 2nd gear, just the same as not going overboard about Englands 100% record
Dan Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I really do wonder how we'd have done if you put us in Germany's group, in their place obviously.
ScouseFox Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I really do wonder how we'd have done if you put us in Germany's group, in their place obviously. won it pretty comfortably.
Donut Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I really do wonder how we'd have done if you put us in Germany's group, in their place obviously. Probably would have scored the same amount of points as them. Wed have been the strongest team in the group still, we would take the obligatory 6 off Gibraltar, 6 off Georgia and 6 off Scotland (youd hope). Or say 4 off Scotland. If 4 off Scotland, a win at home v Ireland and Poland would give 22 points from 10. But you always get the impression with the Germans that they were kind of cruising through that group. I saw them play in the game v Poland and they looked impressive, they looked like a well oiled unit. It gives you the impression that when the tournament kicks off properly, they will find their stride and the quality will rise to the top. We go there with hope rather than expectation. This group weve had gives us no idication of where we are though. No one has tested out our back 4, And goals have been easy to come by. The two Swiss games were the best weve got to go on. To be fair though, England did impress me in the friendly with Scotland, which is as close to a competitive game as you can have as a friendly.
Stevosevic Posted 12 October 2015 Posted 12 October 2015 I really do wonder how we'd have done if you put us in Germany's group, in their place obviously. We'd have won it.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.