Heard Alan Shearer say on MOTD...

[timcreggan]

Originally Posted by AlpineExile

Shame that they're going for six groups of four, I'd have prefered four groups of six.

The group stages would only take two days longer [assuming only one group plays on any one day].

shirley the groups would be 8 days longer? two extra days per group.

[AlpineExile]

Originally Posted by timcreggan

shirley the groups would be 8 days longer? two extra days per group.

Than now, but two fewer groups than the proposal, and those two extra groups would add three days each, so eight days longer than now compared to six days longer [plus whatever spare days they need to sort out potential problems if there are not four clear 'best third placed' teams].

[SteveB]

This whole 'best 3rd placed team' thing is shite

Its practically impossible for a decent team to get knocked out rendering the group phases almost meaningless for half the teams

[Pink Panther]

Originally Posted by AlpineExile

Than now, but two fewer groups than the proposal, and those two extra groups would add three days each, so eight days longer than now compared to six days longer [plus whatever spare days they need to sort out potential problems if there are not four clear 'best third placed' teams].

Six groups of four would be 36 games.
Four groups of six would be 60 games.

In 1990 they were going to draw lots for the whole group if England had drawn with Egypt.

[AlpineExile]

Originally Posted by Pink Panther

Six groups of four would be 36 games spread over 18 days.
Four groups of six would be 60 games spread over 20 days.

In 1990 they were going to draw lots for the whole group if England had drawn with Egypt.

And your problem is?

[super-niall]

More games, more beer & less soaps on telly.

Get the fuck in!

[Pink Panther]

Originally Posted by AlpineExile

And your problem is?

I haven't got a problem. Although I do get accused of repeating myself.
But I haven't got a problem.

I think groups of 6 will produce too many dead/pointless games if only the top two go through and too many games if top four go through.

[Gucci Massive]

Completely shit idea.

They should just leave it at 16. Perfect number and format.

If they're going to increase it, why not to 32 then and have the same number as the World Cup?

You could then always increase the World Cup to 64 and make it a six week long tournament. The Jocks might even qualify then.

[Pink Panther]

Originally Posted by Gucci Massive

Completely shit idea.

They should just leave it at 16. Perfect number and format.

If they're going to increase it, why not to 32 then and have the same number as the World Cup?

You could then always increase the World Cup to 64 and make it a six week long tournament. The Jocks might even qualify then.

But not get past the group stage.

[AlpineExile]

Originally Posted by Pink Panther

I haven't got a problem. Although I do get accused of repeating myself.
But I haven't got a problem.

I think groups of 6 will produce too many dead/pointless games if only the top two go through and too many games if top four go through.

But with six groups of four leading to the top two going through by right plus the four 'best third placed' ones there will be a round of 16 prior to the quarter-finals anyway, so that's the same as the top four going through from four groups of six.