Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

16 to 24 teams



lawros left foot

Glory hunting since 1969
Jun 11, 2011
13,673
Worthing
Has extending the number of teams in the Euro finals improved it?
Personally, I don't think so, it used to be the best international tournament, because it was the 16 best teams in the continent, and in the opening rounds they generally had to play to win. Now, it's 24, there are teams there who aren't up to it, and are just playing not to get hammered, and sneak into a third place.
The quality of the football, and the excitement of it has dropped, go back to 16 qualifiers please, UEFA.
,
 


jonny.rainbow

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2005
6,576
Has extending the number of teams in the Euro finals improved it?
Personally, I don't think so, it used to be the best international tournament, because it was the 16 best teams in the continent, and in the opening rounds they generally had to play to win. Now, it's 24, there are teams there who aren't up to it, and are just playing not to get hammered, and sneak into a third place.
The quality of the football, and the excitement of it has dropped, go back to 16 qualifiers please, UEFA.
,

Look, it was a tough night for England, but they earnt their place at this tournament fair and square.
 




Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patreon
Jul 16, 2003
57,842
hassocks
It's a joke system - Slovakia had no need to attack as 4 points will see them through.

Plus how is it fair that the last 2 groups will know what they need to get through.

May as well have each game at a different time again.
 






Pavilionaire

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
30,521
There will probably be at least one team that wins one and loses two that goes through, and that can't be right.
 




lawros left foot

Glory hunting since 1969
Jun 11, 2011
13,673
Worthing
Look, it was a tough night for England, but they earnt their place at this tournament fair and square.

It's not really England I'm on about, we usually only come second, it's Switzerland last night as well, no ambition to score, if France had scored they still had the fall back off third place, and to be honest, there's not been a good game since the first round of games. This tournament used to be the best, now it's a bloated bore fest
 




WhingForPresident

.
NSC Patreon
Feb 23, 2009
16,025
Marlborough
They did finish second in their qualifying group to their credit- beating Spain in the process- but the 'plucky underdogs' with their 'stick 10 on the line and try to scrape through in third' strategy makes for pretty poor viewing and tonight won't be the last time we see it.

If they'd been fighting for second place, that could've been a decent game.
 








studio150

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2011
29,553
On the Border
Yes they did but lawro has a point. That was an appalling display by Slovenia.

If you are a Slovakia supporter you would be happy with that defensive display and securing a point against a better team. England just didn't have the required quality to score against a team which was set up to secure a point (which they are permitted to do).
 


Brovion

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 6, 2003
19,322
If you are a Slovakia supporter you would be happy with that defensive display and securing a point against a better team. England just didn't have the required quality to score against a team which was set up to secure a point (which they are permitted to do).
Completely correct. People here sounding a bit like Ronaldo when he complained that Iceland didn't play an expansive, attacking game.

That being said the OP has a point. At these Group stages more teams qualify than go out, so we have seen a lot of damage limitation with the weaker teams playing for one of the third-placed slots. If Slovakia had needed a win to secure second they wouldn't have been quite so defensive - certainly not in the last 10 minutes or so. Anyway, pointless moaning about it as them's the rules and it won't go back to 16. Also it has given nations like Iceland and Albania their first taste of the finals of an international tournament.
 










warmleyseagull

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2011
4,201
Beaminster, Dorset
Completely correct. People here sounding a bit like Ronaldo when he complained that Iceland didn't play an expansive, attacking game.

That being said the OP has a point. At these Group stages more teams qualify than go out, so we have seen a lot of damage limitation with the weaker teams playing for one of the third-placed slots. If Slovakia had needed a win to secure second they wouldn't have been quite so defensive - certainly not in the last 10 minutes or so. Anyway, pointless moaning about it as them's the rules and it won't go back to 16. Also it has given nations like Iceland and Albania their first taste of the finals of an international tournament.

Agree with most of this except the last point. Heard it a few times, but the reality is Iceland & NI won their groups so would have qualified in a 16 tournament. Albania and Wales were second and would have had best 2nd place/PO scenario, so certainly might have made a 16 team tournament.

Whatever, less than two goals per game on average is not great. France and Engalnd games were a bore. All we can say is that everyone seems to be having trouble winning easily
 


Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
12,898
Central Borneo / the Lizard
From England's persepctive, yes.it has spoiled it. Its made the group stage boring (although probably not for Slovakia fans) and it certainly made the qualifiers boring (but not for Wales, Iceland and Albania fans).
 




Two Professors

Two Mad Professors
Jul 13, 2009
7,617
Multicultural Brum
I think it's great watching the minnows like Iceland and Albania causing so many problems for the 'big' teams-bit like watching the FA Cup.
 





Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here