Future of the Euro's / Euro 2012 with 24 teams

Kidchameleon

With the Euro's expanding to 24 teams from 2016, I thought it would be interesting to see what this years tournament would have looked like with 24 teams.

Note. I'm assuming the qualifying criteria and group stage format. UEFA have still to announce this information. I'm also assuming there will be a round of 16 before the quarter finals. I have used the same UEFA coefficient that was used for the real tournament throughout to determine seedings.

The following 18 teams would have qualified automatically as group winners and runners up.

Germany, Turkey, Russia, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Estonia, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Croatia, England, Montenegro, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic.

Poland and Ukraine qualify as hosts.

Play off's would consist of the 8 best third place teams...

Seeded:

Serbia
Romania
Israel
Switzerland

Unseeded:

Belgium
Armenia
Norway
Hungary

(Scotland would have just missed out on a playoff on goal difference )

For arguments sake ill put Romania, Switzerland, Belgium and Armenia through (Armenia had great momentum at the end of our group).

So there we have our 24 teams...

Assuming there would be 6 groups of 4 teams in the finals, we could end up with a group stage like so:

Group A:

Poland
Greece
Czech Republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina

Group B:

Germany
Portugal
Denmark
Estonia

Group C:

Spain
Croatia
Romania
Republic of Ireland

Group

Netherlands
France
Turkey
Belgium

Group E:

Italy
Russia
Switzerland
Montenegro

Group F:

Ukraine
England
Sweden
Armenia

Top two from each group and the four best third place teams go through to a round of 16...


So for those who dident TL;DR, what do you think the future of the Euro's will be? Will it be a more diluted tournament with a poorer standard? Would Ireland qualify for every tournament? Would a round of 16 make the tourney too long?

Discuss...

Beefy78

I've been thinking about this a little earlier. Six groups of four with 16 going through will be very dull so I'd personally go for three groups of six. Top two and the two best third places go through to the last eight. Would mean a minimum of five games per team but the winner would only play eight which is only one more than the World Cup finalists play.

Not ideal but the least bad option, IMO.

Kidchameleon

Beefy78 wrote: »

I've been thinking about this a little earlier. Six groups of four with 16 going through will be very dull so I'd personally go for three groups of six. Top two and the two best third places go through to the last eight. Would mean a minimum of five games per team but the winner would only play eight which is only one more than the World Cup finalists play.

Not ideal but the least bad option, IMO.

Not a bad idea. I suppose the format will really depend on how much money UEFA can make out of it!

kitakyushu

Beefy78 wrote: »

I've been thinking about this a little earlier. Six groups of four with 16 going through will be very dull so I'd personally go for three groups of six. Top two and the two best third places go through to the last eight. Would mean a minimum of five games per team but the winner would only play eight which is only one more than the World Cup finalists play.

Not ideal but the least bad option, IMO.

Three groups of 6. I make that a total of 45 group games. 6groups x4 would give 36 games. UEFA area already concerned at the amount of games a 24 team tournament would have so adding group games would be a non-starter.

Further I think you actually mean "4 groups of 6" (rather than 3 as 3x6 = 18) so that would make 60 group games.

One possible solution would be 6 groups of 4 but only 8 qualifiers rather than the presumed 16. That would make the groups ultra-competitive rather than almost a formality for most teams.

JerryHandbag

I remember reading somewhere recently that UEFA is having a lot of trouble working out how to get the last 16 teams from the 6 groups of 4 - in other words the scenario that worked in the world cups when it was 24 teams (top 2 qualify plus 4 best 3rd place teams) doesn't appear to be the preferred route.

Trouble is I can't see any other way of doing it.

losthorizon

Having 24 teams in the finals is crazy - its virtually half the membership of UEFA! That's plain idiotic.

Beefy78

kitakyushu wrote: »

Three groups of 6. I make that a total of 45 group games. 6groups x4 would give 36 games. UEFA area already concerned at the amount of games a 24 team tournament would have so adding group games would be a non-starter.

Further I think you actually mean "4 groups of 6" (rather than 3 as 3x6 = 18) so that would make 60 group games.

One possible solution would be 6 groups of 4 but only 8 qualifiers rather than the presumed 16. That would make the groups ultra-competitive rather than almost a formality for most teams.

Three groups of six is 18, isn't it? Don't know what I was thinking to be honest. It seemed to make sense in my head.

kitakyushu

losthorizon wrote: »

Having 24 teams in the finals is crazy - its virtually half the membership of UEFA! That's plain idiotic.

If they were 24 quality teams I'd be fine with it. But even UEFA doesn't have that many decent sides.

G.K.

I think today showed you don't have to be 'decent' to put on a good show.

Let's face it, Poland, bar 4/5 of their players aren't particularly outstanding at all.

Don't forget Armenia - they were a nice side yet only one player of theirs could realisticly play for a top club.

I like the Euros as they are but I don't think a reduction in quality will reduce the entertainment, unless both sides contesting a match play like Greece/England.

ArmaniJeanss

losthorizon wrote: »

Having 24 teams in the finals is crazy - its virtually half the membership of UEFA! That's plain idiotic.

It brings it into line with what the other confederations do.
e.g., Venezuela, Togo, Canada and UAE will rarely qualify for a World Cup with the amount of places available (5 or 6), perhaps once in 50 years they can expect to qualify.
But their 'local' confederation tournament is either a 12 or 16 team affair, so another 8 teams can qualify and the teams I listed now have a realistic chance of qualifying for tournaments (or guaranteed in Venezuelas case).

UEFA, at this moment has a tournament with either 14 or 15 qualification places, basically identical to the World Cup (13 places for UEFA).

So increasing it to 24 teams means that teams like Cyprus, Faroes, Finland, Wales, Lithuania, Armenia etc now have a realistic chance of qualifying for a tournament if they make some investment in playing resources, which is surely a case of UEFA correctly looking after its members.

No-one can argue that there won't be a reduction in quality, but I think its clearly a fundamanetally good thing for football in Europe in the lesser tiers. It gives another 20 teams a realistic chance.

mike65

I suppose the fact Scotland still wouldn't have qualified even with a hypothetical 24 teams gives some cause for hope.

Its a fecking scandal verging on "one for everyone in the audience".

If UEFA are that desperate they should hold a minnows tournament with two groups, the top two of each going forward to the main competition.

tolosenc

Plus, it'll allow countries like Ireland a chance to build better squads. For us, it's hyper competitive and we need to be at our best to get a playoff spot. When it goes to 24, we should have the playoff spot in the bag, so we can experiment a bit in competitive games.

People who are saying it's too many teams are off their rockers. No other confederations has anything like a 1:1 ratio between WC spaces and continental championship places. It'll give a much richer flavour to the tournament. The likes of Armenia, Estonia, Montenegro, Belarus, Hungary, Belgium, Scotland and Turkey Wouldn't lower the calibre of the competition by much.

While I like the idea of the 6 group winners and 2 best runners up getting through, it does leave excuses for easy/hard draws. Germany and Holland and only 1 spot from the group if one beats the other is a bit harsh.

Don't see any real issue with the former World Cup format. Maybe a second group stage would be an option? Or 8 groups of 3 and straight into quarters?

CSF

Looking at those groups, I don't think it'd actually be so bad if it weren't for the logistics of getting to 16 or 8 from 24.

monkey9

I'm all for the 24 team tournament. I love these big summer tournaments and the groups provided above aren't as bad as i thought a 24 team team tournment would provide!

When is the Euro's expanding? Is it 2016 or 2020?

Deeper Blue

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm all for the 24 team tournament. I love these big summer tournaments and the groups provided above aren't as bad as i thought a 24 team team tournment would provide!

When is the Euro's expanding? Is it 2016 or 2020?

It's 2016

murpho999

Do none of you remember that the World Cup used to have 24, and it was 6 groups of 4.

Top 2 automatic and 4 of the best 3rd places through to make final 16.

Not ideal, 16 as it is now is perfect symmetry and I also think the Euros is actually a better tournament than the world cup as better teams qualify but I supppose it does give smaller countries a bigger opportunity to qualify and improve their levels.

_blank_

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

It brings it into line with what the other confederations do.
e.g., Venezuela, Togo, Canada and UAE will rarely qualify for a World Cup with the amount of places available (5 or 6), perhaps once in 50 years they can expect to qualify.
But their 'local' confederation tournament is either a 12 or 16 team affair, so another 8 teams can qualify and the teams I listed now have a realistic chance of qualifying for tournaments (or guaranteed in Venezuelas case).

UEFA, at this moment has a tournament with either 14 or 15 qualification places, basically identical to the World Cup (13 places for UEFA).

So increasing it to 24 teams means that teams like Cyprus, Faroes, Finland, Wales, Lithuania, Armenia etc now have a realistic chance of qualifying for a tournament if they make some investment in playing resources, which is surely a case of UEFA correctly looking after its members.

No-one can argue that there won't be a reduction in quality, but I think its clearly a fundamanetally good thing for football in Europe in the lesser tiers. It gives another 20 teams a realistic chance.

This is a brilliant post, and actually has changed my mind on this issue.

Kidchameleon

SuperEagle wrote: »

It's 2016

Believe it or not, they were on the verge of doing it for 2012.

Father Damo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The following 18 teams would have qualified automatically as group winners and runners up.

Germany, Turkey, Russia, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Estonia, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Croatia, England, Montenegro, Denmark, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic.

Poland and Ukraine qualify as hosts.

Play off's would consist of the 8 best third place teams...

Seeded:

Serbia
Romania
Israel
Switzerland

Unseeded:

Belgium
Armenia
Norway
Hungary

(Scotland would have just missed out on a playoff on goal difference )

For arguments sake ill put Romania, Switzerland, Belgium and Armenia through (Armenia had great momentum at the end of our group).

So there we have our 24 teams...

Assuming there would be 6 groups of 4 teams in the finals, we could end up with a group stage like so:

Group A:

Poland
Greece
Czech Republic
Bosnia and Herzegovina

Group B:

Germany
Portugal
Denmark
Estonia

Group C:

Spain
Croatia
Romania
Republic of Ireland

Group

Netherlands
France
Turkey
Belgium

Group E:

Italy
Russia
Switzerland
Montenegro

Group F:

Ukraine
England
Sweden
Armenia

Top two from each group and the four best third place teams go through to a round of 16...

tbh Estonia are the only auto qualified team there that would, IMO, be unworthy quality wise and would show up the new rule.

As for the play off teams half of them have fairly recent tournament experience. Really I think this list shows that it wouldnt really be an atrocious filler loaded tournament in all truth. Of the 24 teams I can only see Estonia, Israel and maybe Hungary as the ones who shouldnt really be there. For its size Montenegro has been putting in one hell of an effort for a new country!

One concern might be a decline in fan interest in Ireland until we have actually qualified, seeing as part of the reason we watch every game so closely is because our qualification is decided as much on how we play a Georgia as it is a Germany. A good few of the top dogs often suffer from underattended matches and poor away support in numbers. I used to know a few Italians and Spaniards in Dublin who would only make the effort to watch Italy vs one of the tougher sides in their qualifying group- no way they would be getting on a bus into town on a cold night and drinking 40 quid worth of pints to watch the Azzuri beat the Faroe Islands 1-0 in a casual kickabout (obviously, I dont know, maybe back home the whole of Italy is watching, but abroad the small games to them just were not worth the effort,). Whereas even in our worst days the Irish fans are behind every match no matter who the opposition, mainly because we are punching above our weight and every single result is so important.

Fr Tod Umptious

They may try the 1982 world cup format.
6x4 team groups.
Top 2 go through to 4x3 team mini leagues.
4 league winners into semis.
You loose the one knock out round, but it make the origional groups more competitive than having 66% of third placed teams qualify.

Edit - actually you loose two lockout rounds, but play the same amount of games.
I'm not if I like it or not.

PHB

I don't know why you'd be against it, bar the logistical problems. Will grow the game of football in Europe, especially in the small countries. Will lead to some reduction in quality, but not a huge amount. The knockout stages will still be top quality, and the group games will be almost as interesting as they are now. There's not a huge gap between the teams who just qualified and those who didn't. Bringing them in won't change a huge amount.

Unearthly

I'm all for it, more games, more football and a very good chance Ireland will have something to look forward to every 4 years.

Never understimate the influence an Ireland particiption in a tournament can have on your overall opinion on the standard of the competition, eg 1990 and 2002.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I'm all for it anyways, it means a piss-up once every four years barring a disastrous qualification campaign.

Fr Tod Umptious

THFC wrote: »

I'm all for it anyways, it means a piss-up once every four years barring a disastrous qualification campaign.

People said the same when it went from 8 to 16

Kidchameleon

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People said the same when it went from 8 to 16

Yeah I'm too young to remember the change from 8 to 16. I wonder if it works really well at 24 teams will they consider expanding to 32 :eek:

tolosenc

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Yeah I'm too young to remember the change from 8 to 16. I wonder if it works really well at 24 teams will they consider expanding to 32 :eek:

Nah. They'd need a fair few countries in Europe to break up into independent states before that'd happen. The most likely is Spain, but I doubt that'd happen.

the realpigiron

Daft decision to expand the Euros and dilute the quality.

batistuta9

why are kazakhstan playing with UEFA? is it because they used to be part of the USSR & therefore allowed because of this or i heard this one time; because part of part of it above the caspian sea is in europe

Kidchameleon

batistuta9 wrote: »

why are kazakhstan playing with UEFA? is it because they used to be part of the USSR & therefore allowed because of this or i heard this one time; because part of part of it above the caspian sea is in europe

Australia are in AFC (Asia) and I don't think it has anything to do with geography...

dsmythy

People are looking at how it helps the lesser teams but ignoring how it effects the biggest teams. Many already coast through qualifiying and this would only make it worse. I have seen Platini sounding out making it a two stage qualifying campaign to combat this. Only other positive way of looking at it is that instead of extra friendlies the top teams could use the qualification campiagn for experimentation instead.

One effect this could have on future Euros is to take away from the finals. The finals would mesh a lot more with the qualifying campaign. The qualifying rounds, group stages and knockout phase could almost be considered as one giant UEFA wide championship. Only difference being the latter two stages take place in one country.

Could they ultimately end up making a good three qualifying stages followed by a host country taking a final 16 teams in a knockout round format? Or would it take away the appeal and prestige of hosting the tournament both on this point and on the increased qualifiers?

monkey9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People said the same when it went from 8 to 16

Yeah, but there's a lot more countries in Europe than there was back then!

batistuta9

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Australia are in AFC (Asia) and I don't think it has anything to do with geography...

were they not moved because they were sort of a special case - hammering everyone else in the federation and moving there would also be better for their own development/have a chance at qualifying automatically for WC's

kazakhstan weren't walking the AFC the way australia were in oceania

tolosenc

batistuta9 wrote: »

why are kazakhstan playing with UEFA? is it because they used to be part of the USSR & therefore allowed because of this or i heard this one time; because part of part of it above the caspian sea is in europe

It has little to do with anything really. Israel were in Asia, then Oceania, and now Europe. Politics comes in to that. Suriname competes in CONCACAF, Oz in the AFC.

Kazakhstan, Turkey and Russia, though, I don't get why they don't opt to be part of Asia. I know Russia is traditionally European, and that modern Kazakhstan and Turkey see themselves as European, but it'd make life a lot easier on themselves if they tried to qualify for the World Cup through Asia rather than Europe.

tolosenc

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, wasn't there talk of Australia competing as part of UEFA before they moved to the AFC?

batistuta9

tolosenc wrote: »

It has little to do with anything really. Israel were in Asia, then Oceania, and now Europe. Politics comes in to that. Suriname competes in CONCACAF, Oz in the AFC.

Kazakhstan, Turkey and Russia, though, I don't get why they don't opt to be part of Asia. I know Russia is traditionally European, and that modern Kazakhstan and Turkey see themselves as European, but it'd make life a lot easier on themselves if they tried to qualify for the World Cup through Asia rather than Europe.

it has to do with something you even gave the reason for israel - politics/war

suriname play in CONCACAF because their mince, same for guyana & french guiana

turkey have played in europe for years

plus for both russian & turkish FA's i'd say UEFA is more lucrative, especially for it's clubs and is of a higher standard than the AFC

maybe money/level of competition was the reason kazakhstan changed

you can't just go around choosing what federation you play in there are always a certain circumstance in these cases, like derry city or monaco etc.

batistuta9

googled "why do kazakhstan play in uefa" & this is the first result http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056417267 :pac:
the best answers on page 2 post #17

monkey9

monkey9 wrote: »

I'm all for the 24 team tournament. I love these big summer tournaments and the groups provided above aren't as bad as i thought a 24 team team tournment would provide!

When is the Euro's expanding? Is it 2016 or 2020?

The problem with the increase is that beyond the 16 nations that would qualify, the standard greatly declines and you might have a situation where poor teams end up in a tournament use spoil tactics to get results. 16 teams of quality is better then 24 teams that vary from quality to rubbish. if ireland are outside the 16 then so be it (provided we are knocked out fairly )

Dub13

Format confirmed here

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/PressRelease/uefa/UEFAMedia/75/42/19/754219_DOWNLOAD.pdf

6 groups of 4. Top two qualify from each group + 4 best 3rd place teams.

So by my calculations. The number of matches in the next tournament would increase by 20 games to 51.

This is also bound to have an increase in the lenght of the tournament even if the competition has 3 matches per day at the group stages.

noodler

kitakyushu wrote: »

If they were 24 quality teams I'd be fine with it. But even UEFA doesn't have that many decent sides.

I think thats bullsh1t tbh.

Lets assume you agree the 16 sides who qualified are decent (minus Poland and Ukraine if you really want) but there is easily another 8 decent sides.

Slovakia
Belgium
Bosnia
Serbia
Norway
Montenagro
Turkey

Even the likes of:

Wales
Scotland
NI
Finland
Estonia

Have shown they either are decent are have been in recent years (EDIT: I agree you have to go back 8 years to show Wales putting in a realistic shout at qualifying for 2004).

Dub13

noodler wrote: »

I think thats bullsh1t tbh.

Lets assume you agree the 16 sides who qualified are decent (minus Poland and Ukraine if you really want) but there is easily another 8 decent sides.

Slovakia
Belgium
Bosnia
Serbia
Norway
Montenagro
Turkey

Even the likes of:

Wales
Scotland
NI
Finland
Estonia

Have shown they either are decent are have been in recent years (EDIT: I agree you have to go back 8 years to show Wales putting in a realistic shout at qualifying for 2004).

Its the finial's you SHOULD be leaving good teams behind,otherwise it makes a joke of the 2 year qualifying process.

noodler

Dub13 wrote: »

Its the finial's you SHOULD be leaving good teams behind,otherwise it makes a joke of the 2 year qualifying process.

More than 50% of the UEFA countries won't be there.

I think its a simple fact that the quality of world football is such that we a larger proportion of decent teams now than we had in the past.

Maybe this is down to coaching rather than talent but I wouldn't be making the previous poster's argument that the quality will somehow be drastically affected.

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

People said the same when it went from 8 to 16

8 was too small, 24 is too big, but 16 is ideal imo

Stinicker

I can't believe people are so on their high horse about this, Ireland are a poor team and with alot of luck and drawing Estonia we made it to the Euros for the 1st time in 24 years, just because we are there this year doesn't make us some great team, we got lucky and the best we can hope for tomorrow is a draw and hope Italy and Spain will show some mercy and keep the scoreline respectable.

We haven't a snowballs chance in hell of making Brazil 2014 unless Sweden gets disqualified or something so this will at least allow us to make the next European championships again which is something to look forward to.

A good move by UEFA and as the weakest team in this years tournament we can look forward to more tournaments because of it.

kitakyushu

Stinicker wrote: »

A good move by UEFA and as the weakest team in this years tournament we can look forward to more tournaments because of it.

Nah we're not the worst team in this years tournament. We haven't even seen everyone yet but I'm already convinced Poland and Czech Rep are worse than us.

Dub13

Stinicker wrote: »

We haven't a snowballs chance in hell of making Brazil 2014 unless Sweden gets disqualified or something so this will at least allow us to make the next European championships again which is something to look forward to.

Sweden are no great shakes,Ireland have every chance of a runners up spot.

Stinicker wrote: »

A good move by UEFA and as the weakest team in this years tournament we can look forward to more tournaments because of it.

Poland (60),Ukraine (52) & Czech Republic (27) are all ranked well below us.

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

I can't believe people are so on their high horse about this, Ireland are a poor team and with alot of luck and drawing Estonia we made it to the Euros for the 1st time in 24 years, just because we are there this year doesn't make us some great team, we got lucky and the best we can hope for tomorrow is a draw and hope Italy and Spain will show some mercy and keep the scoreline respectable.

We haven't a snowballs chance in hell of making Brazil 2014 unless Sweden gets disqualified or something so this will at least allow us to make the next European championships again which is something to look forward to.

A good move by UEFA and as the weakest team in this years tournament we can look forward to more tournaments because of it.

Spain are a class side and may well stuff us. No shame in it but we'll worry about it if and when it happens if it even will happen.

Sweden are beatable and wouldn't need disqualifying. Additionally we'll hopefully add a few more to the squad after the tournament. McClean and Coleman are the future and hopefully Wes Houlihan, Anthony Pilkington, and Ciaran Clarke will get a try out.

Italy and Croatia are all beatable in my opinion. Ireland haven't the best footballers in the world it goes without saying but we are certainly hard to beat hence the fact we haven't been beaten since Russia beat us in Sept 2010. Yes we have our flaws but there is good team spirit there and a fairly shrewd manager who has us playing to our strengths.

Hell, you go on about us being weak but take Holland for example. They were a shambles at the back today. Ireland's defense is definitely better as a unit

Stinicker

Deleted User wrote: »

Spain are a class side and may well stuff us. No shame in it but we'll worry about it if and when it happens if it even will happen.

Sweden are beatable and wouldn't need disqualifying. Additionally we'll hopefully add a few more to the squad after the tournament. McClean and Coleman are the future and hopefully Wes Houlihan, Anthony Pilkington, and Ciaran Clarke will get a try out.

Italy and Croatia are all beatable in my opinion. Ireland haven't the best footballers in the world it goes without saying but we are certainly hard to beat hence the fact we haven't been beaten since Russia beat us in Sept 2010. Yes we have our flaws but there is good team spirit there and a fairly shrewd manager who has us playing to our strengths.

Hell, you go on about us being weak but take Holland for example. They were a shambles at the back today. Ireland's defense is definitely better as a unit

Football is a funny old game and anything can happen but I am just pessimistic so forgive me on that! I am planning to go to Brazil in 2014 with or without the team either way.