Discussion in 'Pure Football' started by Hunk, Jun 12, 2012.
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].
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
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.
And your problem is?
More games, more beer & less soaps on telly.
Get the fuck in!
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, so it'd be 36 games or 60 games played to eliminate 8 teams.
Which will allow the minnows to hang around for a bit longer and get to play a few more matches on an international stage.
If you want lesser teams who are already knocked out to play more games all of the teams that get beaten in the first knock out stage could play each other in a ninth place play off.
Twas a fairly standard response I thought, you should be pleased !!
Should only be 16 teams for me. But UEFA never let sense get in the way of making more money. Same for FIFA.
I agree that there are good teams out there not at the tournament but the problem is that it will render the group stages almost pointless. I bet at Euro 2016 pretty much anyone will be able to accurately predict who will progress to the last 16. There'll be no situations like 2012's group B where one of Holland, Germany and Portugal won't qualify so you're guaranteed some important games early on, and there'll be less chance of upsets in the groups that should be easier for the top teams.
So yes, you're getting more games. The problem is that half the tournament is no longer as exciting as it used to be. The extra games come at the price of massively devaluing the group stages which to me, is not a price worth paying.
It's a bloody stupid idea but what do we expect from Platini and the like? It will mean 24 out of 53 nations qualifying for the finals; that's almost half. It's ridiculous. The standard will be diluted and the idea of 3rd placed teams qualifying either for the finals or for the knockout stages is crazy.
What about 8 groups of 3?
Separate names with a comma.