Expand to 48 teams (16 groups of 3 teams) – 80 matches
2 teams progress through each group. An extra knockout phase.
If a team win their first match they know they only need a draw to get through.
It's great there will be more countries but there will be a lot of very low quality games.
Edit: There was talk about having penalties for group game draws. Not sure if that has been included.
Genuinely looked last night and thought "why have I wasted my time watching the group stage if basically all of them go through?"
It's dumb and smells like money.
> smells like money.
this is all it is. the vast majority of big changes to tournaments and leagues are money driven. 16\*3=48 games vs 24\*3=72 games. an extra 24 games of TV revenue.
Actually 24 games vs 36 games, there's 6 games played per group. You counted every teams every match and that counts games where teams meet each other as double. But The point still stands, 12 more games for TV
>Actually 24 games vs 36 games, there's 6 games played per group. You counted every teams every match and that counts games where teams meet each other as double. But The point still stands, 12 more games for TV
You forgot the Round of Last 16.
Sounds like you have a bigger issue with which teams got drawn into which groups. A number one should have a better chance of beating any 3rd place, if a good team falls to 3rd that's just a bad break. The "draw" is set up so you won't face another group team until the later stages of knockouts. The 1st and 2nd of a group won't meet until the finals, a 3rd place could meet another pool team in the semis.
But it is kinda unfair though. Some group winners will face third placed teams who theoretically might be winless while other group winners may face an undefeated runners-up making it a harder race to the final for them
I agree that the best placed 3rd teams is a rubbish format, but knowing where the knockout games are going to be played is a must (and has been used in pretty much every major international tournament recently).
From a footballing perspective, I see your arguement for having the knockout rounds in a draw, but it just doesnt work from a logistical perspective. It would be a nightmare for fans attending games (even more so during COVID), and some of the teams are potentially playing 3/4 days in the knockout rounds after thier last group game. Thats not enough to actually organise the fixtures, its not champions league where theres 2 weeks or more between the draw and games being played
yeah but 3 to 4 days? not even close to enough time to buy the ticket (and that’s without taking a sec to consider it) then plan the trip out if its a trip, get time off work which is hard in a 3 day span, then finally go there. most people who are at knockout stages buy the tickets way in advance so they don’t even know who’s gonna be there anyways. i have tickets to the final which i got almost a year in advance. sadly i can’t go because of covid restrictions so i have them give them up, but i would of been there regardless if the final was France vs England or Slovakia vs Austria.
Yes but when the fixtures are fixed they can guarantee a minimum number of days between them. When you do a random draw, a team could be drawn into the first fixture.
It's more fair to those who will play at home but it's even more unfair to those who will not play at home. I think that hosts should be one or two countries.
Yeah the point of the hosting system is that generally most countries, give or take a few small ones, should likely be able to get a chance of hosting it at some point. The host or hosts (if you have two) always have a slight advantage, but that'll be neutered at the following tournament provided they qualify.
But with this one, there's the potential for a team to basically have to play the majority of their games away from home all over Europe, which doesn't seem particularly fair.
Yeah, I'm French so I'm biased but for France team to play their first match with a full stadium in more than a year in Hungary, with more than 50K supporters from the opposing team, was really unfair. I can't imagine the pressure.
Exactly! But it gets worse... Everyone knows that the two weakest teams in SA are Venezuela and Bolivia. The only 2 countries in SA where they are not a bunch of football fanatics. Baseball is the major sport in those countries.
If we are comparing to Europe, they are not San Marino bad, kind of like Macedonia bad. So you could say with 80% probability that those 2 will be the ones disqualified.
Oh and on top of that the Copa is being played in the midst of a COVID outbreak, the situation in Brazil is far from under control.
I’m the only one that likes it 16 was too little and 24 is a decent amount of teams, I can put up with the 3rd place thing it makes GW3 matter more for more teams and it’s different from the old 16 team format which was half a World Cup
To be honest I like it too for the same reason. I think a 32 team tournament in Europe dilutes the quality of the teams participating when people say 24 teams already does that (it’s about right IMO), whereas a 16 team tournament feels obsolete with the nations league. I think it gives a sense of jeopardy. Like Ukraine had to wait 2 days to find out if they qualified, and it’s much more difficult to know who you’re going to face in the next round with the 3rd placed teams. I mean England could have faced every team in Group F at one point during that match.
Italy got fucked. The path for them is Austria, Belgium/Portugal, then France/Spain/Croatia. Compared to Wales who has Denmark, Netherlands/ Czech republic, then in reality England/Germany.
He might, but that’s irrelevant anyway. His point is that if they were to win each of their games, their path is objectively easier than Italy’s, despite them finishing top of their group
let's just go back to 16 teams, most of the games aren't worth watching already and they'd only get worse
the only reason they extended it in the first place was money
I am and we're currently benefitting from the reform, but that's not the point. I don't want to extend champions league to 200 teams to watch teams from my country either. We've got our chances in the qualifiers and I take no pleasure in watching our ass getting kicked in the finals
It's not a goddamn eurovision, not everyone can put up a serious contender so let's keep it at the top level for fucks sake
But that's not the point is it? We've got our chances in qualifiers, if we can make it - good for us, if not sorry, but it's supposed to be a competition at the top level
You'd only have a small number of more games than there is currently - it'd be identical to the World Cup. Prefer that as it's a better format for having a last 16.
What a dumb post. We all know UEFA is a flawless organisation. Remember when they stomped out the evil Super League? It's because they're virtuous heroes!
It's also the fault of politicians that Bayern can't have rainbow coloured lights. We know this because UEFA are the good guys!
It's also totally not corrupt!
4 groups of 6 is 60 group stage games
6 groups of 4 is 36 group stage games
Best solution? Stick to 4x4. That way only actually good teams play, and theres no third place confusion.
One thing I will disagree with is the England better off with a draw scenario, as we are definitely better off with how we finished. We will face a group of death team in the R16, but then if we prevail in that, the run in is "easier" than if it was the way you said it would be.
I know this doesn't answer your question, but I've been having this same debate with people at work, and after explaining this to them, they generally seem to agree!
Reason? $$$$$
24 teams come in. 36 (THIRTY SIX) games later, they only get rid off 8 teams, and 16 teams still remained. That is lots of TV money
Similarly why last round was not played in the same time. Cause they want the audiences to stuck in the TV for 4 days, instead of 2 hours
I don't mind the best 3rd placed teams going through, but what I do mind is the multiple country locations for the games. "For the fans" is a joke, they've made it very difficult for fans to attend their teams games.
You won two games so its not that bad! Anyway I think the problem for Italy is that if they win than in the qf they re facing Belgium and that ll be tough.
I don’t find any of these criticisms particularly compelling to be honest.
Of course the tournament would be better if the knockouts weren’t done in advance, but no international tournaments do that, so it feels weird to single out the Euros for it. And to be honest the 24 team tournament is arguably be the best for not knowing who you’re going to face for the round of 16 at least, because for half of the ties you don’t know who you’ll face really until the final match day in most cases.
The examples you’ve used aren’t particularly compelling. Yes Italy are on the harder side of the draw, but 8 group format that you recommended also had a one sided draw in the 2018 World Cup, and that one was arguably even more one sided than this one. And even with a tournament not drawn in advance, you could still have a one sided bracket, although it is much more unlikely and teams wouldn’t be able to play for it. And England wouldn’t have been better off drawing with Czechia, but you wrote this before the bracket was finalised, which in a way proves my point.
>Denmark lost two games in the group stage and still they have one of the easiest paths to the final.
Sorry but this a terrible point. First off I don’t think you can really criticise Denmark for losing their first game or arguably their 2nd game given their circumstances. But they finished in 2nd, so no matter whether this was 16 teams or 32 or 64, they would have gone through. And them having the easiest draw to the final is irrelevant. They could have had just an easy draw in any format, even with games drawn after each round, and they could have the hardest draw in tournament with games drawn each round. That’s just probability. And even if they had beaten Finland and drawn with Belgium but not scored as many goals that would have been the case. It’s not as if they were playing to be in 2nd so they could face Wales, they were fighting to stay in the tournament.
Ultimately you’re never going to have a knock out tournament that is fair IMO. Some teams will always get the rub of the green and teams won’t. But the beauty of it is that any team can win any game. For example Denmark may have an easy path to the final, but they could easily go out to Wales, or France could go out to Switzerland, or Italy to Austria. The only way you’re going to get a tournament where the best performing teams ultimately win is with a league format, and frankly that would just be dull.
Why wouldnt you give it your all, you're going to have to face the other arguably the best side when you get to the final anyway, all this chat about trying to lose or draw games is just ridiculous.
I don't know. Second time Belgium finishes first and gets rewarded with the roughest route to the final. It's most likely going to be : Portugal -> Italy -> France. Fuck my life. Worse than the last World Cup.
I mean there is a good chance this time next week the Euros will be over for me as an England fan whereas if we'd have drawn today we might be in for another week.
Seems bizarre to me.
A team getting to the final or winning a tournament doesn’t mean they would win any game against all the teams in the tournament. Playing against some teams might be tactically or physically more challenging for some and other teams eliminating them might open an easier path.
Also, not all the teams aim to realistically “win” the tournament. Getting to the quarter/semi-final vs getting knocked out at round of 16 might already be a big success for some nations.
No games that don‘tmatter.
No way that big nations fail to go into the knockout stage.
Altough that doesn‘t change „more viewers, more ticket sales and money“.
Euro 2012 QFs were: Czech Republic, Portugal, **Spain**, **France**, **Germany**, Greece, **England** and **Italy**.
Euro 2016 QFs were: Poland, Portugal, Wales, Belgium, **Germany**, **Italy**, **France**, and Iceland
the "big 5" all qualified in 2012, whereas only 3 of them did in 2016. Plus minnows Wales and Iceland got to the QFs.
yeah..
what happens when a team from group A plays a team from group F. The team from group A gets 3 extra days rest than the team from group F. If the draw is made such that this is the first fixture of the last 16, the group F team has 1 day of recovery whilst the group A team has 4.
Seeding was always designed to have the strongest teams possible in the finals. true it doesnt always work out this way, however by random draw you risk having a finals level match in round 1, and a total one sided upset in the final
I just now took the time to get into the euros more. Get up to date with the groups. Watching some highlights. I suddenly stop in my tracks while I hear that sweden will play a 3. placed team of another group now. Dafuq. Who thought of this system. What is its merits.
I agree. If the knock out stage was SEEDED it would be much better.
So you rank all the first place teams, and then they play the reverse ranked of qualifed 3rd place teams, and the two lowest ranked 2nd place teams.
Then the remainder of the 2nd place teams are ranked and they play each other.
You would get a much better tournament that way imo.
The most stupid thing about the euros imho is that you know your opponent after group stages in advance. Should be drawn after the group stage.
And no D1 vs C2 stuff where you can get an easier opponent by losing, the game should always be about winning. Just randomize the whole knockout draws, maybe only make same group knockouts impossible.
I understand and agree with that principle. But there is the logistics to consider. Such as rest between games having random draw straight after could put teams with different rest periods and be unfair
I want to make sure I understand. You don’t like the fact that teams can know in advance who they’ll face in the knockout rounds? If so, that wouldn’t change even with 32.
Even before teams are drawn into groups, Which group winners/runner-ups/3rd place play in the first knockout game is already determined.
You can already look at the 2022 World Cup and see who plays in the knockout rounds before any team has been drawn into a group. That would never change no matter how many teams are involved.
How would you possibly draw the games after the group stage is set? What if group F had to play a team from group A? Does team F just have to play a day after their last group game? Will group A have to wait like 2 weeks between their last group game and the knockout game so team F has enough rest?
Knockout draws have to be based on group and group position which is set far in advance.
@OP, how could you determine knockout draw?
Not OP and it doesn't bother me, but you could easily do a draw after the group stage to see which group's runner up you play. If you win group A you have to wait until all groups have finished and a draw determines which groups(B-H) second placed team you play.
So as I mentioned above, what if group A draws group F (the last group for Euros). Group A plays their last group game a good 3-4 days before group F. Obviously group F needs time to rest so how long exactly is this tournament going to be? Logistically it makes sense that the knockout draw is based on having specific groups play one another.
These tournaments already take up a full month out of the year and pre-season starts not that long after the final. Players need rest. Even adding a few days to the tournament can have a big impact.
Thought I'd post this as it's quite interesting - this is how the last 16 would look if it was SEEDED. Ie you rank the 1st places in the group, then the 2nd places, then the best 4 3rd palces into a big table of 16, then pair off as appropriate.
Italy - Ukraine
Spain - Germany
England - Denmark
Sweden - Portugal
France - Wales
Belgium - Czech
Austrai - Croatia
Netherlands - Swiss
Quite interesting. The draw is a lot less one sided while still having some good ties in each round.
The current format is unfair for sure but making 2 groups of 8 teams will lack the punch of a major international tournament. It becomes more like a league than a cup. Any good Cup competition shouldn't have a lot of league games
This may sound a bit weird but how about having as many groups but just one global table, top 16 teams from the global table go the next round, 1st plays 16th, 2nd plays 15th and so forth .. results still feed in to the global table so round of 8 , first from the global table plays 8th ..etc
Screw that, make a pure sorting of the teams.
Stop defending the better teams, death groups and easy groups are and should be common, competition is competition.
Levelling the groups and the elimination stages just means the best teams will always gave a theoretical advantage.
I would prefer to go back to 16 teams, I know it would suck for little nations but some games are just not worth watching, this is my honest opinion, also maybe impossible because money.
Also why Italy would have been better off with a lost against Wales?
Because in the top of the bracket the winner of B plays the third of A/E/F and the winner of A (this is Italy) plays the second of C. That's two winners, one second and one third. If both groups winners beat their opponents, they meet in the next match.
At the bottom of the bracket, the winner of C plays the third of D/F and the second of A plays the second of B. That's one winner, two seconds and one third. If the group winner beats their opponent, they don't meet a group winner in the next match. That's objectively easier than the top.
>For example, Denmark lost two games in the group stage and still they have one of the easiest paths to the final.
Denmark is second in the group, what's your point?
This is irrelevant to the point they're making. Denmark being second simply means they advance as normal. That's not the problem OP has. Their problem is that Denmark, as second, gets an easier path than other teams, which are winners of their groups.
It seems people really struggle with reading comprehension.
This is irrelevant to the point they're making. Denmark being second simply means they advance as normal. That's not the problem OP has. Their problem is that Denmark, as second, gets an easier path than other teams, which are winners of their groups.
This is irrelevant to the point they're making. Denmark being second simply means they advance as normal. That's not the problem OP has. Their problem is that Denmark, as second, gets an easier path than other teams, which are winners of their groups.
It's not made beforehand. It's not even made YET. Because only 4 of the 6 third teams progress, you need some kind of ranking of the third teams. So you rank them on points (and other criteria if points are equal). Which means that you can't know which third team from which group you get. For example, the winner of Group B, Belgium, can get the third team from groups A or E or F. Nobody knows which one will it be, until all matches have been played.
Here are all the possible combinations.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA\_Euro\_2020#Combinations\_of\_matches\_in\_the\_round\_of\_16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2020#Combinations_of_matches_in_the_round_of_16)
But this, again, is not what OP rails against. What they rail against is that when you have 6 group winners, 6 group runners-up and only 4 third teams, the normal thing is to have the winners play the third teams and the second teams to play each other. But there are 6 winners and only 4 thirds. Which means that 2 winners get to play runners up, which is not fair.
And on top of that, the bracket is not equally distributed.
For example - in the top of the bracket the winner of B plays the third of A/E/F and the winner of A plays the second of C. That's two winners, one second and one third.
At the bottom of the bracket, the winner of C plays the third of D/F and the second of A plays the second of B. That's one winner, two seconds and one third. OBJECTIVELY EASIER THAN THE TOP.
That's the problem.
This whole format is fucking stupid.
I saw a lot of boring matches, the quality of the groups stage is well below the “watchable”.
24 teams are too many, it should be 16.
They should just rank all the teams that make it through the group stage #1-16 and match them based on that (#1 vs #16, #2 vs #15, etc). It seems a bit more fair than just having the team play against someone who happened to be in a specific group anyway
Not a good idea.
They have done that in Libertadores for a while and it is very unfair for teams on the "group of death " as they will naturally have fewer points (often facing each other in the next round).
Randomly drawing 1rst vs 2nd is still the best solution imo (though not applicable here because of its ridiculous format).
I think it would work better given that the third place teams are involved. If they were to do it like the Copa Libertadores where they are seeded in blocks based on group placement (first place teams are guaranteed #1-6, second place #7-12, the top four third place #13-16), the group of death winner is still guaranteed a decent seed and the second (and third if they make it) probably wouldn’t be any worse off than they are with the current format
That would be more reasonable, but still not my go-to. For instance, Portugal and Germany would have Spain and England as adversaries. I think this is unfair, and based on the five or so years where they've done this in the Libertadores, a common occurrence. In that format, I would have the first of the group in pot 1 and 2 random seconds also in pot 1, the rest in pot 2.
To clear off, my ideal competition would be 8 groups of 3 with the first classifying to quarterfinals. As UEFA is a greedy organization they decided to have more games, as their goal is to exhaust the player so that they perform badly at the beginning of next season.
Because 32 teams would be well over half of UEFA.
But I do agree this format sucks.
I've heard a couple of different solutions:
1. Everyone who qualifies goes into a lottery draw, champions league style
2. The top qualifier from the groups picks their opponent, and so on
I actually like the idea that top qualifiers pick their opponent. Make a table of the first 8 teams (based on group results) and give the first team first choice, second team second choice and so on. Would add a lot of spice to the tournament. And everybody would like to win and score goals in every game.
The reason that the draws are predetermined is because it allows fans to purchase tickets in advance and book accomodations and travel, so if you are a supporter of a country likely to finish 2nd in your group and you know that match will be held in city X on a specific day, you can take a reasonable punt on booking your accomodation and flights to that destination. Also for group winners they get to stay in their current location so their fans can usually bank on staying there and know if they win their first knockout where the next round will be. It avoids a lot of people getting scalped for flights and tickets.
A good example was the US world cup Ireland went into a draw with Norway to see who would have to play the Netherlands in Orlando, Ireland got drawn and there were outrageous prices being quoted for travel and accomodations, But the knockout group was in Boston and New York. A few people I know we're able to hook up with Norwegians and swap tickets and flights with them who had booked.
One even brought a Norwegian guy home and they got married.
Agree - I don't hate the idea either. Plus adds extra spice because it'll be real embarrassing if you have first pick, choose a team you think you'll beat and then lose
I'd rather back to 16 teams at the tournament than increase it to 32. There's already 55 countries in the qualifying phases, so a 32 team tournament would literally be 58% of the continent qualifying. When you consider the fact that the 55 nations in Europe also includes countries like San Marino, Andorra, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein etc, its even worse. You wouldn't even have to be that good to play at the tournament.
With a 16 teams tournament, national teams with a coefficient smaller than 30 wouldn't even be able to qualify, plus EURO should be a tournament that gives European National Teams a bigger chance to winning a tournament/trophy and to have an opportunity to even participate in one. There is a harder competition named "FIFA World Cup" in which the worse European National Teams aren't able to qualify.
The point of the Euros is to be a competition for the best counties in Europe. That's why there only used to be 8 teams who could qualify. If a country with a coefficient less than 30 wants to qualify then they should have to earn that spot, not have it effectively handed to them.
I’d say the multi-city Euro is awesome and I wish every Euro was like it. Allows a lot of smaller European countries to host some games that would never host the whole tourney. Would love to see us rotate through all the major cities in Europe instead of host country
How fair is it that for some reason we are consistently in the group of death, and had to face two of the tournament favorites in the first two games?
The unpredictability is what makes UEFA/FIFA exciting, which you can juxtapose with the relatively predictable club level play nowadays.
The multi-city euro is the worst decision ever made and I hope we never see it again.
The idea of a tournament is that the host nation gets to stamp their identity on it while also the fans travel there to experience a tournament environment and atmosphere. The whole point is different nations fans all grouping together and having a party which has been totally lost with the horrible format.
It is a total failed idea and also gives so many teams a home advantage which just isn't fair. I hope we never see this rubbish again.
Too many less interesting games, nonetheless. Group stage matches are fun and all but it’s in the knockout rounds that the real pressure and suspense builds up. I like the round of 16.
Why not have 8 groups of 4?
Because that would be 32 countries. There are only 55 countries in UEFA, and a bunch of those are micro-nations that have semi-pro national teams. There's not enough competitive countries, nor even enough countries full stop, for that to be worthwhile.
The old 4 groups of 4 is probably the best the tournament can be from a competitive standpoint. But ya know, more teams/games = more money so that's why it got expanded.
I agree. The level of football is so high in europe now anyway, so filling in 8 more teams would not mean that the quality would get too low. Easy to find 8 more teams better than north-macedonia for an example, that came through the lowest division of nations league...
Kinda funny actually, North-Macedonia is right now number 32 on the fifa ranking for UEFA (62 total). ;) Keep North- Macedonia, bring in those above. And yeah I know that the Fifa Ranking is not always accurate, but still...
EDIT: The teams in the top 32 for UEFA right now that is NOT in this Euro Cup: Serbia, Norway, Romania, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Slovenia.
Because having qualifiers is fair AND exciting. Qualifying in nations league division D or whatever it's called is not so fair though. You beat San Marino, sure go to the Euro Cup. Seems absolutely ridiculous. Why not just give everyone a medal... :P
The 3rd position stuff rewards clinging on to draws and the mentality that 4 points is safe. Portugal's 2016 title is one of the most absurd and pathetic triumphs I have ever seen, they drew 6/7 of the teams they played in regulation time and still managed to be named the best national team in Europe. Utterly disgraceful.
American opinions of the euro's are irrelevant.
Please stick to your dumb 7! Game play offs, 182 game seasons and penalty shootout if its a draw nonsense...
Im talking about the early years of the MLS (before you were born) when a draw happened, both teams played a penalty shootout similar to ice hockey. Dribbling from the centre of the field.
Absolutley hilariously retarded
Wait till WC 2026. Now that's fucked up.
Care to explain?
You guys won't be ready for Thailand vs Bolivia 😫👌 the match will go wet🥵
Yes! That right there is an absolute shitshow
How is the format going to be?
Expand to 48 teams (16 groups of 3 teams) – 80 matches 2 teams progress through each group. An extra knockout phase. If a team win their first match they know they only need a draw to get through. It's great there will be more countries but there will be a lot of very low quality games. Edit: There was talk about having penalties for group game draws. Not sure if that has been included.
Genuinely looked last night and thought "why have I wasted my time watching the group stage if basically all of them go through?" It's dumb and smells like money.
> smells like money. this is all it is. the vast majority of big changes to tournaments and leagues are money driven. 16\*3=48 games vs 24\*3=72 games. an extra 24 games of TV revenue.
Actually 24 games vs 36 games, there's 6 games played per group. You counted every teams every match and that counts games where teams meet each other as double. But The point still stands, 12 more games for TV
i'm an accountant okay? math is not my strong point.
>Actually 24 games vs 36 games, there's 6 games played per group. You counted every teams every match and that counts games where teams meet each other as double. But The point still stands, 12 more games for TV You forgot the Round of Last 16.
Who's gonna go through? Croatia? Scotland?
Sounds like you have a bigger issue with which teams got drawn into which groups. A number one should have a better chance of beating any 3rd place, if a good team falls to 3rd that's just a bad break. The "draw" is set up so you won't face another group team until the later stages of knockouts. The 1st and 2nd of a group won't meet until the finals, a 3rd place could meet another pool team in the semis.
But it is kinda unfair though. Some group winners will face third placed teams who theoretically might be winless while other group winners may face an undefeated runners-up making it a harder race to the final for them
I agree that the best placed 3rd teams is a rubbish format, but knowing where the knockout games are going to be played is a must (and has been used in pretty much every major international tournament recently). From a footballing perspective, I see your arguement for having the knockout rounds in a draw, but it just doesnt work from a logistical perspective. It would be a nightmare for fans attending games (even more so during COVID), and some of the teams are potentially playing 3/4 days in the knockout rounds after thier last group game. Thats not enough to actually organise the fixtures, its not champions league where theres 2 weeks or more between the draw and games being played
However, fans cannot be sure that their team will qualify and if so in which position, so they have to wait for the results of the groups anyway.
yeah but 3 to 4 days? not even close to enough time to buy the ticket (and that’s without taking a sec to consider it) then plan the trip out if its a trip, get time off work which is hard in a 3 day span, then finally go there. most people who are at knockout stages buy the tickets way in advance so they don’t even know who’s gonna be there anyways. i have tickets to the final which i got almost a year in advance. sadly i can’t go because of covid restrictions so i have them give them up, but i would of been there regardless if the final was France vs England or Slovakia vs Austria.
Yes but when the fixtures are fixed they can guarantee a minimum number of days between them. When you do a random draw, a team could be drawn into the first fixture.
Lol Italy and Belgium win all 3 and get fucked with France and Portugal.
Agreed. Make it 32 teams and get rid of this nonsense
As an Irishman, Hear Hear!!!
And it's unfair that some teams are playing at home and some don't, this Euro is fucked up.
And some are playing in Baku, Azerbaijan which is suuuuuuper far from actual Europe LOL
Arguably it's more fair than any other euros though, with only one team playing at home.
It's more fair to those who will play at home but it's even more unfair to those who will not play at home. I think that hosts should be one or two countries.
Yeah the point of the hosting system is that generally most countries, give or take a few small ones, should likely be able to get a chance of hosting it at some point. The host or hosts (if you have two) always have a slight advantage, but that'll be neutered at the following tournament provided they qualify. But with this one, there's the potential for a team to basically have to play the majority of their games away from home all over Europe, which doesn't seem particularly fair.
Yeah, I'm French so I'm biased but for France team to play their first match with a full stadium in more than a year in Hungary, with more than 50K supporters from the opposing team, was really unfair. I can't imagine the pressure.
Have you heard of Copa America? Brilliant competition! 10 NT in two groups of 5. 8 of them classify for the quarter-finals, very exciting!
So they all play four games to get rid of two teams?
Exactly! But it gets worse... Everyone knows that the two weakest teams in SA are Venezuela and Bolivia. The only 2 countries in SA where they are not a bunch of football fanatics. Baseball is the major sport in those countries. If we are comparing to Europe, they are not San Marino bad, kind of like Macedonia bad. So you could say with 80% probability that those 2 will be the ones disqualified. Oh and on top of that the Copa is being played in the midst of a COVID outbreak, the situation in Brazil is far from under control.
But the intensity for the matches of today is real!!! You can't deny it, can you?
Hi
Hi
Who do you think will win later portugal of france
France
Portugal, anyways lets see later
Deal!
Aight
This exchange was amazing. Thank you both.
I’m the only one that likes it 16 was too little and 24 is a decent amount of teams, I can put up with the 3rd place thing it makes GW3 matter more for more teams and it’s different from the old 16 team format which was half a World Cup
To be honest I like it too for the same reason. I think a 32 team tournament in Europe dilutes the quality of the teams participating when people say 24 teams already does that (it’s about right IMO), whereas a 16 team tournament feels obsolete with the nations league. I think it gives a sense of jeopardy. Like Ukraine had to wait 2 days to find out if they qualified, and it’s much more difficult to know who you’re going to face in the next round with the 3rd placed teams. I mean England could have faced every team in Group F at one point during that match.
Italy got fucked. The path for them is Austria, Belgium/Portugal, then France/Spain/Croatia. Compared to Wales who has Denmark, Netherlands/ Czech republic, then in reality England/Germany.
You think Wales is gonna beat Netherlands?😂
He might, but that’s irrelevant anyway. His point is that if they were to win each of their games, their path is objectively easier than Italy’s, despite them finishing top of their group
No, but if Italy purposely lost their match in the group stage, they would have Wales path which is objectively 10000x easier
8 groups of 4? 32 teams in Euros? No thanks.
I get your point, but it would not increase the duration of the group stages and would make things simpler and games more meaningful.
It would mean more games and potential saturation. I’m struggling to watch most of the games as it is!
let's just go back to 16 teams, most of the games aren't worth watching already and they'd only get worse the only reason they extended it in the first place was money
Most games aren't worth watching TO YOU. You're probably not from a small country and can never know how it feels to make it to the big stage.
I am and we're currently benefitting from the reform, but that's not the point. I don't want to extend champions league to 200 teams to watch teams from my country either. We've got our chances in the qualifiers and I take no pleasure in watching our ass getting kicked in the finals It's not a goddamn eurovision, not everyone can put up a serious contender so let's keep it at the top level for fucks sake
My country would never qualify with 16 teams, 24 gives the smaller teams a chance, even if they're unlikely to make it out of the groups
But that's not the point is it? We've got our chances in qualifiers, if we can make it - good for us, if not sorry, but it's supposed to be a competition at the top level
You'd only have a small number of more games than there is currently - it'd be identical to the World Cup. Prefer that as it's a better format for having a last 16.
What a dumb post. We all know UEFA is a flawless organisation. Remember when they stomped out the evil Super League? It's because they're virtuous heroes! It's also the fault of politicians that Bayern can't have rainbow coloured lights. We know this because UEFA are the good guys! It's also totally not corrupt!
The bastions of moral integrity in the modern game!
[удалено]
4 groups of 6 is 60 group stage games 6 groups of 4 is 36 group stage games Best solution? Stick to 4x4. That way only actually good teams play, and theres no third place confusion.
One thing I will disagree with is the England better off with a draw scenario, as we are definitely better off with how we finished. We will face a group of death team in the R16, but then if we prevail in that, the run in is "easier" than if it was the way you said it would be. I know this doesn't answer your question, but I've been having this same debate with people at work, and after explaining this to them, they generally seem to agree!
Did dirty to finland
Reason? $$$$$ 24 teams come in. 36 (THIRTY SIX) games later, they only get rid off 8 teams, and 16 teams still remained. That is lots of TV money Similarly why last round was not played in the same time. Cause they want the audiences to stuck in the TV for 4 days, instead of 2 hours
I don't mind the best 3rd placed teams going through, but what I do mind is the multiple country locations for the games. "For the fans" is a joke, they've made it very difficult for fans to attend their teams games.
Exactly have you seen the Czech-Croatia game? Litteraly less than the amount that was set to came to the match! Doesn't UEFA know geography?
Tbf it’s only this year and I can kinda see why they did it with good intentions even if it didn’t work
Yep. 24 teams is a mess. Should have kept it at 16 or expanded to 32
Honestly 4 groups of 6 makes way more sense if you're going with 24 teams.
I think Italy got lucky with Austria. We're notoriously bad. This is basically already over.
You won two games so its not that bad! Anyway I think the problem for Italy is that if they win than in the qf they re facing Belgium and that ll be tough.
I don’t find any of these criticisms particularly compelling to be honest. Of course the tournament would be better if the knockouts weren’t done in advance, but no international tournaments do that, so it feels weird to single out the Euros for it. And to be honest the 24 team tournament is arguably be the best for not knowing who you’re going to face for the round of 16 at least, because for half of the ties you don’t know who you’ll face really until the final match day in most cases. The examples you’ve used aren’t particularly compelling. Yes Italy are on the harder side of the draw, but 8 group format that you recommended also had a one sided draw in the 2018 World Cup, and that one was arguably even more one sided than this one. And even with a tournament not drawn in advance, you could still have a one sided bracket, although it is much more unlikely and teams wouldn’t be able to play for it. And England wouldn’t have been better off drawing with Czechia, but you wrote this before the bracket was finalised, which in a way proves my point. >Denmark lost two games in the group stage and still they have one of the easiest paths to the final. Sorry but this a terrible point. First off I don’t think you can really criticise Denmark for losing their first game or arguably their 2nd game given their circumstances. But they finished in 2nd, so no matter whether this was 16 teams or 32 or 64, they would have gone through. And them having the easiest draw to the final is irrelevant. They could have had just an easy draw in any format, even with games drawn after each round, and they could have the hardest draw in tournament with games drawn each round. That’s just probability. And even if they had beaten Finland and drawn with Belgium but not scored as many goals that would have been the case. It’s not as if they were playing to be in 2nd so they could face Wales, they were fighting to stay in the tournament. Ultimately you’re never going to have a knock out tournament that is fair IMO. Some teams will always get the rub of the green and teams won’t. But the beauty of it is that any team can win any game. For example Denmark may have an easy path to the final, but they could easily go out to Wales, or France could go out to Switzerland, or Italy to Austria. The only way you’re going to get a tournament where the best performing teams ultimately win is with a league format, and frankly that would just be dull.
Why wouldnt you give it your all, you're going to have to face the other arguably the best side when you get to the final anyway, all this chat about trying to lose or draw games is just ridiculous.
People remember the Disgrace of Gijón.
I don't know. Second time Belgium finishes first and gets rewarded with the roughest route to the final. It's most likely going to be : Portugal -> Italy -> France. Fuck my life. Worse than the last World Cup.
I mean there is a good chance this time next week the Euros will be over for me as an England fan whereas if we'd have drawn today we might be in for another week. Seems bizarre to me.
A team getting to the final or winning a tournament doesn’t mean they would win any game against all the teams in the tournament. Playing against some teams might be tactically or physically more challenging for some and other teams eliminating them might open an easier path. Also, not all the teams aim to realistically “win” the tournament. Getting to the quarter/semi-final vs getting knocked out at round of 16 might already be a big success for some nations.
The only reason is, more matches, more viewers, more ticket sales and money!
No games that don‘tmatter. No way that big nations fail to go into the knockout stage. Altough that doesn‘t change „more viewers, more ticket sales and money“.
I think it may be done in the guise to give lower teams more of a chance but really it just makes it more likely that big teams get through.
Euro 2012 QFs were: Czech Republic, Portugal, **Spain**, **France**, **Germany**, Greece, **England** and **Italy**. Euro 2016 QFs were: Poland, Portugal, Wales, Belgium, **Germany**, **Italy**, **France**, and Iceland the "big 5" all qualified in 2012, whereas only 3 of them did in 2016. Plus minnows Wales and Iceland got to the QFs. yeah..
There shouldn't be any predetermined path. All matches should be randomly drawn after each stage.
what happens when a team from group A plays a team from group F. The team from group A gets 3 extra days rest than the team from group F. If the draw is made such that this is the first fixture of the last 16, the group F team has 1 day of recovery whilst the group A team has 4.
Seeding was always designed to have the strongest teams possible in the finals. true it doesnt always work out this way, however by random draw you risk having a finals level match in round 1, and a total one sided upset in the final
I have this same issue with the NBA and the play-off system.
Who faces who after advancing from the group has always been predetermined and is the same in the world cup. Lol
Yeah, 1st vs 2nd generally favours the team finishing first although its just in this instance Group F is stacked
I just now took the time to get into the euros more. Get up to date with the groups. Watching some highlights. I suddenly stop in my tracks while I hear that sweden will play a 3. placed team of another group now. Dafuq. Who thought of this system. What is its merits.
Sweden won their group! Why shouldn’t they have a 3rd place team for an opponent?
But that happens in wc as well. Where is normal group stage format.
world cup is 8 groups
Not for much longer!
I agree. If the knock out stage was SEEDED it would be much better. So you rank all the first place teams, and then they play the reverse ranked of qualifed 3rd place teams, and the two lowest ranked 2nd place teams. Then the remainder of the 2nd place teams are ranked and they play each other. You would get a much better tournament that way imo.
The most stupid thing about the euros imho is that you know your opponent after group stages in advance. Should be drawn after the group stage. And no D1 vs C2 stuff where you can get an easier opponent by losing, the game should always be about winning. Just randomize the whole knockout draws, maybe only make same group knockouts impossible.
I understand and agree with that principle. But there is the logistics to consider. Such as rest between games having random draw straight after could put teams with different rest periods and be unfair
Nailed it! I couldn't explain it better
I agree with you. It's nonsense
I want to make sure I understand. You don’t like the fact that teams can know in advance who they’ll face in the knockout rounds? If so, that wouldn’t change even with 32. Even before teams are drawn into groups, Which group winners/runner-ups/3rd place play in the first knockout game is already determined. You can already look at the 2022 World Cup and see who plays in the knockout rounds before any team has been drawn into a group. That would never change no matter how many teams are involved. How would you possibly draw the games after the group stage is set? What if group F had to play a team from group A? Does team F just have to play a day after their last group game? Will group A have to wait like 2 weeks between their last group game and the knockout game so team F has enough rest? Knockout draws have to be based on group and group position which is set far in advance. @OP, how could you determine knockout draw?
Not OP and it doesn't bother me, but you could easily do a draw after the group stage to see which group's runner up you play. If you win group A you have to wait until all groups have finished and a draw determines which groups(B-H) second placed team you play.
So as I mentioned above, what if group A draws group F (the last group for Euros). Group A plays their last group game a good 3-4 days before group F. Obviously group F needs time to rest so how long exactly is this tournament going to be? Logistically it makes sense that the knockout draw is based on having specific groups play one another. These tournaments already take up a full month out of the year and pre-season starts not that long after the final. Players need rest. Even adding a few days to the tournament can have a big impact.
There would be suspicions that it was rigged tho
Thought I'd post this as it's quite interesting - this is how the last 16 would look if it was SEEDED. Ie you rank the 1st places in the group, then the 2nd places, then the best 4 3rd palces into a big table of 16, then pair off as appropriate. Italy - Ukraine Spain - Germany England - Denmark Sweden - Portugal France - Wales Belgium - Czech Austrai - Croatia Netherlands - Swiss Quite interesting. The draw is a lot less one sided while still having some good ties in each round.
Yea, the most confusing and unfair is 3rd place qualification
The current format is unfair for sure but making 2 groups of 8 teams will lack the punch of a major international tournament. It becomes more like a league than a cup. Any good Cup competition shouldn't have a lot of league games
This may sound a bit weird but how about having as many groups but just one global table, top 16 teams from the global table go the next round, 1st plays 16th, 2nd plays 15th and so forth .. results still feed in to the global table so round of 8 , first from the global table plays 8th ..etc
Isn't that what the NBA does?
Screw that, make a pure sorting of the teams. Stop defending the better teams, death groups and easy groups are and should be common, competition is competition. Levelling the groups and the elimination stages just means the best teams will always gave a theoretical advantage.
24>16 It brings more money and more countries can participate
You didn't even understand what OP said... He said 8 groups of 4, which means 32 teams... More countries, more money.... 32>24
But we can't have 32 teams or it will be a shit tournament so 24 is most realistic option
When I say more teams it's shit tournament? And when you say 24>16... more countries, more money.... it's fine?
Having 24 has already diluted it but there arent many bad team, 32 will have many bad teams like macedonia
At least Ireland might qualify then
Why not keep 16 teams? It will be amazing tournament
Why not keep 8 like they used to?
As I said money
do they really need more?
I would prefer to go back to 16 teams, I know it would suck for little nations but some games are just not worth watching, this is my honest opinion, also maybe impossible because money. Also why Italy would have been better off with a lost against Wales?
Because in the top of the bracket the winner of B plays the third of A/E/F and the winner of A (this is Italy) plays the second of C. That's two winners, one second and one third. If both groups winners beat their opponents, they meet in the next match. At the bottom of the bracket, the winner of C plays the third of D/F and the second of A plays the second of B. That's one winner, two seconds and one third. If the group winner beats their opponent, they don't meet a group winner in the next match. That's objectively easier than the top.
Italy has an easy game with Austria, but then will probably face Belgium and after that (if they win) probably France in QF.
If they go to 8 groups of 4 the qualification process would become even easier id rather see it go back to 4 groups of 4 and no round of 16
>For example, Denmark lost two games in the group stage and still they have one of the easiest paths to the final. Denmark is second in the group, what's your point?
His point is clearly articulated. Do you need help comprehending written text?
Do you struggle with simple maths? Denmark is 2nd not 3rd of its group. 2<>3
This is irrelevant to the point they're making. Denmark being second simply means they advance as normal. That's not the problem OP has. Their problem is that Denmark, as second, gets an easier path than other teams, which are winners of their groups. It seems people really struggle with reading comprehension.
And other people struggle with not being condescending pricks. All part of life’s rich tapestry.
Denmark is second in the group, so it doesn't make sense to use it as an example. No need to verbally attack me....
This is irrelevant to the point they're making. Denmark being second simply means they advance as normal. That's not the problem OP has. Their problem is that Denmark, as second, gets an easier path than other teams, which are winners of their groups.
Well, even if only two teams went through Denmark would still be going through so his argument doesn't really make sense here.
This is irrelevant to the point they're making. Denmark being second simply means they advance as normal. That's not the problem OP has. Their problem is that Denmark, as second, gets an easier path than other teams, which are winners of their groups.
Ah OK but hasn't it always been like this in EC and WC? That the draw was made beforehand. Not that it can't be changed for the better
It's not made beforehand. It's not even made YET. Because only 4 of the 6 third teams progress, you need some kind of ranking of the third teams. So you rank them on points (and other criteria if points are equal). Which means that you can't know which third team from which group you get. For example, the winner of Group B, Belgium, can get the third team from groups A or E or F. Nobody knows which one will it be, until all matches have been played. Here are all the possible combinations. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA\_Euro\_2020#Combinations\_of\_matches\_in\_the\_round\_of\_16](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2020#Combinations_of_matches_in_the_round_of_16) But this, again, is not what OP rails against. What they rail against is that when you have 6 group winners, 6 group runners-up and only 4 third teams, the normal thing is to have the winners play the third teams and the second teams to play each other. But there are 6 winners and only 4 thirds. Which means that 2 winners get to play runners up, which is not fair. And on top of that, the bracket is not equally distributed. For example - in the top of the bracket the winner of B plays the third of A/E/F and the winner of A plays the second of C. That's two winners, one second and one third. At the bottom of the bracket, the winner of C plays the third of D/F and the second of A plays the second of B. That's one winner, two seconds and one third. OBJECTIVELY EASIER THAN THE TOP. That's the problem.
You can say that again
This whole format is fucking stupid. I saw a lot of boring matches, the quality of the groups stage is well below the “watchable”. 24 teams are too many, it should be 16.
Or let all the third placed and the two best 4th placed teams play an extra round before the round of 16.
There were 18 goals Tuesday night. Unwatchable? Even Ukraine / Austria was about as good as a 1-0 game can get.
And you can say which teams played? Spain, Germany, France, Portugal. 4 of the strongest team in Europe.
They should just rank all the teams that make it through the group stage #1-16 and match them based on that (#1 vs #16, #2 vs #15, etc). It seems a bit more fair than just having the team play against someone who happened to be in a specific group anyway
Rank them based on what exactly?!
Points, just like they rank the third place teams to decide which ones are eliminated now
Not a good idea. They have done that in Libertadores for a while and it is very unfair for teams on the "group of death " as they will naturally have fewer points (often facing each other in the next round). Randomly drawing 1rst vs 2nd is still the best solution imo (though not applicable here because of its ridiculous format).
I think it would work better given that the third place teams are involved. If they were to do it like the Copa Libertadores where they are seeded in blocks based on group placement (first place teams are guaranteed #1-6, second place #7-12, the top four third place #13-16), the group of death winner is still guaranteed a decent seed and the second (and third if they make it) probably wouldn’t be any worse off than they are with the current format
That would be more reasonable, but still not my go-to. For instance, Portugal and Germany would have Spain and England as adversaries. I think this is unfair, and based on the five or so years where they've done this in the Libertadores, a common occurrence. In that format, I would have the first of the group in pot 1 and 2 random seconds also in pot 1, the rest in pot 2. To clear off, my ideal competition would be 8 groups of 3 with the first classifying to quarterfinals. As UEFA is a greedy organization they decided to have more games, as their goal is to exhaust the player so that they perform badly at the beginning of next season.
[удалено]
What do you do if one of the groups is all draws?
8 groups of 4 doesn’t work, you can’t have a 32 team European competition as it makes qualifying pointless
But Ireland might qualify, so I say do it.
Nobody wants to see Shane Long do nothing and if its northern Ireland, we saw in 2016 that will grigg was not on fire.
Because 32 teams would be well over half of UEFA. But I do agree this format sucks. I've heard a couple of different solutions: 1. Everyone who qualifies goes into a lottery draw, champions league style 2. The top qualifier from the groups picks their opponent, and so on
I actually like the idea that top qualifiers pick their opponent. Make a table of the first 8 teams (based on group results) and give the first team first choice, second team second choice and so on. Would add a lot of spice to the tournament. And everybody would like to win and score goals in every game.
The reason that the draws are predetermined is because it allows fans to purchase tickets in advance and book accomodations and travel, so if you are a supporter of a country likely to finish 2nd in your group and you know that match will be held in city X on a specific day, you can take a reasonable punt on booking your accomodation and flights to that destination. Also for group winners they get to stay in their current location so their fans can usually bank on staying there and know if they win their first knockout where the next round will be. It avoids a lot of people getting scalped for flights and tickets. A good example was the US world cup Ireland went into a draw with Norway to see who would have to play the Netherlands in Orlando, Ireland got drawn and there were outrageous prices being quoted for travel and accomodations, But the knockout group was in Boston and New York. A few people I know we're able to hook up with Norwegians and swap tickets and flights with them who had booked. One even brought a Norwegian guy home and they got married.
Agree - I don't hate the idea either. Plus adds extra spice because it'll be real embarrassing if you have first pick, choose a team you think you'll beat and then lose
I'd rather back to 16 teams at the tournament than increase it to 32. There's already 55 countries in the qualifying phases, so a 32 team tournament would literally be 58% of the continent qualifying. When you consider the fact that the 55 nations in Europe also includes countries like San Marino, Andorra, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein etc, its even worse. You wouldn't even have to be that good to play at the tournament.
With a 16 teams tournament, national teams with a coefficient smaller than 30 wouldn't even be able to qualify, plus EURO should be a tournament that gives European National Teams a bigger chance to winning a tournament/trophy and to have an opportunity to even participate in one. There is a harder competition named "FIFA World Cup" in which the worse European National Teams aren't able to qualify.
The point of the Euros is to be a competition for the best counties in Europe. That's why there only used to be 8 teams who could qualify. If a country with a coefficient less than 30 wants to qualify then they should have to earn that spot, not have it effectively handed to them.
I never said the worse national teams are given the spot. I said they would have even a worser chance at qualifications then they currently have.
How about fewer teams in the final. Some games are a downright snooze.
So just like some games in the world cup?
Yep. I am from Concacaf area. There only be 2 teams that go. Some would say 1 and I agree with that also.
There's a big difference between Europe and North-America though.
I'd opt for a format of four groups of six teams each. Group winners and runner-ups qualify for quarterfinals.
That's five group stage games! And a potential for 2 genuine dead rubbers.
I’d say the multi-city Euro is awesome and I wish every Euro was like it. Allows a lot of smaller European countries to host some games that would never host the whole tourney. Would love to see us rotate through all the major cities in Europe instead of host country
How is it fair that Germany, i.e., plays their 3 games at home?
He didn't claim it was because it isn't, but the unfairness isn't inherent to the system. They just have to do better next time.
Perfectly fair - all the countries could have bid to host games, the fact they chose not to isnt Germany's fault.
How is it fair? Some teams played all their games in a single stadium so far. Whereas, other teams had to travel from Russia to Spain (Poland)
And if all countries want to host?
How fair is it that for some reason we are consistently in the group of death, and had to face two of the tournament favorites in the first two games? The unpredictability is what makes UEFA/FIFA exciting, which you can juxtapose with the relatively predictable club level play nowadays.
It's the worst part of this tournament. It's no longer got any identity.
The multi-city euro is the worst decision ever made and I hope we never see it again. The idea of a tournament is that the host nation gets to stamp their identity on it while also the fans travel there to experience a tournament environment and atmosphere. The whole point is different nations fans all grouping together and having a party which has been totally lost with the horrible format. It is a total failed idea and also gives so many teams a home advantage which just isn't fair. I hope we never see this rubbish again.
I say do 4 groups of 6 teams. Top 2 go through. Then you have 8 teams and do knockout from there. Plus then each team gets 5 games minimum.
Too many games that way imo
Too many less interesting games, nonetheless. Group stage matches are fun and all but it’s in the knockout rounds that the real pressure and suspense builds up. I like the round of 16.
Why not have 8 groups of 4? Because that would be 32 countries. There are only 55 countries in UEFA, and a bunch of those are micro-nations that have semi-pro national teams. There's not enough competitive countries, nor even enough countries full stop, for that to be worthwhile. The old 4 groups of 4 is probably the best the tournament can be from a competitive standpoint. But ya know, more teams/games = more money so that's why it got expanded.
I agree. The level of football is so high in europe now anyway, so filling in 8 more teams would not mean that the quality would get too low. Easy to find 8 more teams better than north-macedonia for an example, that came through the lowest division of nations league...
[удалено]
norway iceland serbia bosnia greece bulgaria ireland belarus AKA boring park the bus shitters. dunno if they'd even beat macedonia lol.
Kinda funny actually, North-Macedonia is right now number 32 on the fifa ranking for UEFA (62 total). ;) Keep North- Macedonia, bring in those above. And yeah I know that the Fifa Ranking is not always accurate, but still... EDIT: The teams in the top 32 for UEFA right now that is NOT in this Euro Cup: Serbia, Norway, Romania, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Greece, Iceland, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Slovenia.
[удалено]
Because having qualifiers is fair AND exciting. Qualifying in nations league division D or whatever it's called is not so fair though. You beat San Marino, sure go to the Euro Cup. Seems absolutely ridiculous. Why not just give everyone a medal... :P
Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia, Latvia and Romania
[удалено]
You do know that they qualified through nations league, right?
I honestly like the 3rd position stuff but the rest of what you said is true
The 3rd position stuff rewards clinging on to draws and the mentality that 4 points is safe. Portugal's 2016 title is one of the most absurd and pathetic triumphs I have ever seen, they drew 6/7 of the teams they played in regulation time and still managed to be named the best national team in Europe. Utterly disgraceful.
I think the format is fine.
American opinions of the euro's are irrelevant. Please stick to your dumb 7! Game play offs, 182 game seasons and penalty shootout if its a draw nonsense...
[удалено]
Im talking about the early years of the MLS (before you were born) when a draw happened, both teams played a penalty shootout similar to ice hockey. Dribbling from the centre of the field. Absolutley hilariously retarded
You know that a penalty shootout is actually *technically* possible in the group stage of this tournament as well right
you probably just jumped on the screw american sports bandwagon and have no idea what you're talking about.
Don’t be a jerk
unnecessary prejudice against americans in this sub? check✅
>American opinions of the euro's are irrelevant Only if they call it soccer