Let's be honest, this has been the biggest disaster since Michael Jackson's face.
What was once 4 groups of 4 teams, where you had t be at your best in every game, has now become a joke where essentially qualifying in 3rd place for 4 out of 6 teams will see them progress to the knock-out round
Who came up with this retarded idea? Especially as it has resulted in shit games.
It should have just been expanded to 20 with an extra group round.
Fucking gay lords.
All the football associations voted and only 2 opposed the idea - England and Germany
One win is pretty much enough to get you out of the group it seems. Hungary are 1/7 to make it through and all they did was work hard as fuck for 90mins against a team that were still getting used to each other
>Typical group in Euro 2016
Hungary, Portugal, Iceland, Austria
>Typical group in Euro 2012
Germany, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands
>Typical group in Euro 2008
Netherlands, Italy, Romania, France
>Typical group in Euro 2004
France, England, Croatia, Switzerland
>Typical group in Euro 2000
Portugal, Romania, England, Germany
At least we get one more week of football
this I guess
>being this retarded
It has actually been pretty good desu. It gives good chances to teams like Wales, Iceland or Sweden to at least do something. Also, since the groups are a bit more shit, it makes extra hype for the next rounds. Also muh shekels
>It has actually been pretty good desu
No it hasn't, it's been shit. Giving teams that finish third out of a group of four an opportunity to progress to the next round in fucking moronic.
Plus, Wales and Iceland would have qualified for the Euros under the old format anyway, you silly bender.
>Implying the best third places haven't been used before in big tournaments (say the WC) and being good for competition
>implying Wales or Iceland could get into the Euros under the old format in any other edition of the Euros
>Implying teams like Wales, Iceland, Sweden, Hungary, Turkey, Ireland or Switzerland could get through to the next round in any other edition under the old format
Best third place system makes teams that lost their first 2 games fight for the victory in their last group game, instead of just not giving a fuck because they were already eliminated. God, autism is strong here.
I can't see your problem mate. The more matches the better it gets.
Why would you be upset about more teams participating?
If you only want to see the strong teams you can start watching after the group stage.
I find it quite funny that even if we lose to Wales today, we'll still qualify for the next round if we beat Slovakia.
would you be more welcoming to the idea of 24 teams if only the top two from each group advanced? that way it would be 12 team knockouts instead of 16, and because 12 isn't a multiple of 2 it means you'd need bye weeks. with 12 teams, it means the top 4 teams would skip the first round of the knockout stage and play the winners from the other 8. that way, winning your group also has more to play for since only the top 4 of the 6 group winners would get a bye, so performing better and not sleeping on anyone becomes even more important.
>Implying the best third places haven't been used before in big tournaments (say the WC) and being good for competition
It was abandoned because it was a dreadful idea
>implying Wales or Iceland could get into the Euros under the old format in any other edition of the Euros
They literally finished second in their qualifying group which would have been automatic qualification to the Euro finals under the previous format. I have just fucking told you this, you stupid cunt
>Implying teams like Wales, Iceland, Sweden, Hungary, Turkey, Ireland or Switzerland could get through to the next round in any other edition under the old format
Well Turkey reached the semis in 2008. That's not the point though, which being an ignorant shitskin has flown over your head. This devalues and weakens what was a strong competition and has now lost one of its better qualities.
>The more matches the better it gets.
Literal nonsense.
>Why would you be upset about more teams participating?
Because it doesn't necessarily make it a better competition.
16 was the perfect amount but these greedy Jews only care about shekels
>They literally finished second in their qualifying group which would have been automatic qualification to the Euro finals under the previous format.
Weren't there less qualifying groups back then, meaning they'd get like 3rd or 4th instead?
Should just have the top 2 in each group make the knock-out rounds, with the top 4 point-getters receiving a bye to the quarters. The same format as the NFL playoffs, basically.
Or can Yuros just not into byes?
You seem pretty autistic
>would you be more welcoming to the idea of 24 teams if only the top two from each group advanced?
No, because that simply doesn't work, which is why I stated in the opening post, which you've quoted, that if UEFA wanted to extend the competition, then do 20 teams and add an extra one in each on the four groups.
You've tried to be a clever cunt and failed.
>don't even need to win a game to make it out the group stage
No. For example in qualifying for Euro 2008, the top two placed sides qualified for the Euro finals.
Euro should be played with 4 teams how it was until 1976.
No, that's fucking awful.
Thank god for the 24 team format. We never manage to qualify for the WC because we suck, its depressing to always see the big nations and their huge talent pools qualify for every tournament and go deep into the playoffs.
With the 16 team format in the Euros we would probably never qualify for that either. I would literally become so depressed I'd a allahu snackbar against UEFAs headquarter.
Better than third-place teams with 3 points making the knockout rounds though, right?
RARE
A
R
E
>i lived in jutiapa as a child, where u from?
I could watch this for days
>You've tried to be a clever cunt and failed.
no, I just saw the thread and was curious, so I came in to ask a question about possible alternatives, since I can't speak on behalf of europeans just like you can't presume to say what my intent was.
in any case, the "It should have just been expanded to 20 with an extra group round" was phrased poorly, since it sounds like you're saying that after the group round, some teams would advance to another group round, and the knockout round comes after that.
4 groups of 5 teams sounds good to me too, and it would help test the waters for the organizers to decide if they want to let more than 20 teams into the tournament or 8 teams into the knockout stage in the future, since they could expand either in multiples of 4. that would help sell it to UEFA I think, even if it never changed from those numbers. also, it would mean 40 group stage games and 8 knockouts, which I think is a better ratio compared to the current 36 group stage games and 16 knockouts. maybe that's just me but I like having exciting group stage races, and a 5-team race for 2 spots is slightly more interesting and unclear than 4-team groups.
Wall
>We never manage to qualify for the WC because we suck
You qualified in 2006, 2002, 1994, 1990, 1978, 1974, 1970, etc.
>With the 16 team format in the Euros we would probably never qualify for that either
The last Euros Sweden failed to qualify for were in 1996.
No, it's fucking awful. Byes are fucking silly Americunt nonsense.
Okay but if there were less groups back then, then a 2nd place team now wouldn't always be 2nd place back then since there were more competitive teams per group.
That's because you're a retard.
>this has been the biggest disaster since Michael Jackson's face
hellooooooo reddittttttttttt
are you trying to be a ruseman or something? cause it's not working. the thread is made for getting input on the topic, which I gave, yet you're dismissing it out of hand without ever addressing it. for example in here you say "No, because that simply doesn't work" and then go on to repeat that only your plan works and insult me for not saying it, but then when I agree that your plan could work too, you insult me again. I'm really questioning your ability to rationally process conversations right now.
>since there were more competitive teams per group
Which is not true at all, it's simply been reduced from 7 teams per group to 6
It wasn't worth addressing as it was a complete fucking nonsense post.
>go to /po/ there is a massive shitstorm happening
>im a citizen
>im german and spanish
>good point i hate this country's goverment but not the coutnry itself
Okay that's why I was asking if there were less groups. Thanks for clearing that up.
BASED
L
U
E
just because you disagree with the idea doesn't make it complete fucking nonsense, however stating only that doesn't make the nature of your disagreement clear. if you want to make your stance clear, you gotta explain it instead of just going "no, shut up" when someone seriously replies with a point that's on-topic to the thread. not only does failing to do so make you sound like a petulant child, it also implies that you're trying to create a hugbox where the only replies allowed are people echoing your own opinions and nothing else is allowed so that you can talk to "yourself", both of which make your idea sound less credible since its most vocal proponent cannot form a coherent response.
I'm still holding out on the belief that you can start responding intelligently, but you're not giving me much to go on here.
It's nonsense. Byes are for fucking retards.
Is that clear enough?
slightly better, but still not close enough. you're implying that your point is self-evident, but you still haven't explained your issue with it.
>Byes are for fucking retards.
It's really that simple.
so basically you don't like it because you don't like it. fine, I guess that is simple enough, but it really doesn't help your overall argument, since it implies that the only ones you'd like are the ones you like, not ones that could be good for some other reason. in which case this thread is rather pointless.
Just realised that I'm conversing with a fucking tripfag
FFS.
>It was abandoned because it was a dreadful idea
No, it was abandoned because they just wanted more teams in.
>They literally finished second in their qualifying group which would have been automatic qualification to the Euro finals under the previous format. I have just fucking told you this, you stupid cunt
You missed the point idiot, Iceland and Wales have been historically shit. Wales for example hadn't ever qualified until they had Bale, Ramsay, Williams and Allen in the team. When will they ever get these players again?
>which being an ignorant shitskin has flown over your head
Using insults as arguments... No surprises here tbhwyf.
hey familia, Im from guatemala city
It doesn't matter if they've been historically shit. Changing from 16 to 24 teams wouldn't have made a difference to them through qualifying, you thick ape.
>>Typical group in Euro 2016
>Hungary, Portugal, Iceland, Austria
>the undeniably weakest group in 2016 and the undeniably strongest group in 2012 are both typical
Literally stop drinking bleach.
The "more games is always a good thing" is a fucking dreadful argument. This new format has completely ruined the group stages with all this bus parking against any half decent team. It literally encourages it actually.
In the past the group stages used to be better than the actual knockout stages at times. The Belgium-Italy match that everyone has been praising was a typical game in the past Euros group stages.
Don't blame the 24 teams, blame the fact that international football is now shit
club teams are stacked to hell and the club schedule has been the most rigorous it's ever been, players are pushed to their limits and get injured left and right, then after all that they're expected to travel to their home land, practice for 2 weeks and start producing with players they don't see for 330 days of the year.
Bollocks. The strongest group in 2016 in probably Spain's. That's ONE out of SIX.
>blame the fact that international football is now shit
No it's not though. WC 2014 was based as too 2006. Literally every Euros since 1996 has been top drawer, even when Greece won.
>I need to use 4 posts to make you understand a simple point
Holy shit... I am not talking about only this Euro. Is that simple enough for you? great, now try to understand this: Ignoring the great team they have in 2016, they would not qualify to any other Euros ever because they are shit. Hard enough for you, isn't it? Ok, third and last part: Not considering this euro (because they have great players), they wouldn't ever qualify again because they have been historically shit if the old 16 team system was still used
>Belgium, Italy, Ireland and Sweden
We're talking about the expansion from 16 to 24 teams, you greasy cunt.
Wales have qualified now because they have a decent side, not because of the expansion. The expansion has not helped them in the way you think. Do you understand this?
>europes best game so far was a 1-0 between italy and belgium, two meme teams, italy making it 2-0 in the last minute after belgium full pressed
>but then you realize even france is dogshit, and germany wasn't convincing. and pique had to save spain. England did nothing, wales is small time, etc etc etc
face it, international football is not what it used to be but the worst part is having a team like fuking albania or northern ireland parking the bus for 90 minutes and me having to sit through that shit.
I don't even wake up at 9am anymore to watch it, it's not worth my time. In fact give me peru vs venezuela any day, at least that is entertaining because they play to win, not play not to lose.
fuck europe.
Kek. Ireland and Sweden are shit tier. both only finished third in their qualification group.
Belgium are overrated. Massively
Italy are decent, but that doesn't make it a strong group.
>Not considering this euro (because they have great players), they wouldn't ever qualify again because they have been historically shit if the old 16 team system was still used
What does this even mean??
I understand your point and agree. But it's still Italy, a very young and talented Belgium side, a Swedish team with the 3rd best player of the last 10 years and an Irish side with some decent players from the PL.
this tournament isn't shit because of the amount of teams, the tournament is shit because all of this kids are memes, the only true star that's not a defender is Bale, european football is at its lowest point ever
Means nothing. It's not a strong group at all.
>Euros are expanded to include literally who teams
>Englel can't even beat those
That's a very big "if".
It is still the strongest group out there and that shows the lack of quality this tournament has
Ronaldo, Muller, Kane, Lewandowski, Ibrahimović, Pogba, Griezmann, De Bruyne, Payet, Iniesta,
Nah, Spain's in the strongest group.
The expansion isn't the problem, the problem is the fact many of the traditionally good teams were reduced to dogshit. Czech republic is crap, Italy is absolutely nothing like the world champions from 10 years ago, Portugal has went down the toilet and their only good player is a glorified penalty specialist, Netherlands didn't even qualify.
>The expansion isn't the problem
Nah, it is. It was fin how it was with 16 teams. No over saturation of the game, not to long, great games, strong teams. If you wanted to get out of the group, you had to play to win..
Now you can fucking draw all your games and still reach the knockouts
>start producing with players they don't see for 330 days of the year
It was like this previously, too.
The problem is that those players are now called Gignac, Oscar and Palacio instead of Henry, Ronaldinho and Batistuta.
Do you really think so? Spain, Croatia, Czechia and Turkey?
I think people overhype Croatia right now and Czechia and Turkey aren't as strong as they used to be.
Our group could possibly even be considered decent in those because Poland is perhaps even the strongest team that is not one of those big four - Spain, France, Italy and us. Ukraine is okay, but nothing special and Northern Ireland is meme tier, so... thinking such a group might even be considered among the strongest says everything, doesn't it?
And what about the others?
Portugal's group is a joke and so is England's. The French group... has France in it. Yay, I guess? This group is so totally unappealing.
And in contrast to this, our group in 2012 - Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Denmark - was awesome. Four really strong sides and exciting football in every single match. I don't really know about the other groups in 2012 anymore, though.
Even if you're right, you don't fix that by diluting the competition.
My point is that the tournament would be pretty shit even if they didn't expand it.
oh well.
nothing we can do now
>europe
>quantity over quality
>declining
whoda thunk
(You)
>it has resulted in shit games
If you thought most of the games with lower people were shit football might not be the sport for you. Most of the shitty country matches were actually quite good.
Teams are getting eliminated once the knockout stages begin, so what's the problem?
He's being an edgy teen. I was skeptical about it too but I've had quite a lot of fun actually.
Muy bien Mexico. I think it's great more countries get to compete. Teams like Hungary have a chance to shine and grab their moment of glory. And don't get me started about the non English teams from the islands they're fucking awesome
With the way Wales played they would have made it anyways. I do agree with OP that substantially weaker teams in the tourney has led to more defensive matches. There are teams who know they only need a win or three draws to go on to the knockout round. If they can they will just squeeze out results and wing it in knockouts because everything is decided in a single match. In the old format there was no such luxury.
>I do agree with OP that substantially weaker teams in the tourney has led to more defensive matches.
International tournaments are always like this, the weaker team will play defensively, how many games went to penalties in the past world cup and the one before that? How many games had more than 3 goals in the last EURO?
Anyone blaming the format for the boring matches is just now old enough to realize that international football isn't all that exciting (Unless it's your nation the one grinding out wins)
More Knockout round = Less chance for another Greece
I think i am okay with this
as a casual fan, I think it is really fun to have these teams that wouldn't have otherwise made it in. We all know the final will be Germany v France or whatever but it is fun to watch the Icelands and Wales of the tourney.
>People complaining about Iceland being in the Euros
They finished second in their group ahead of Turkey and the Neverlands. They beat Czech Republic, Neverlands(TWICE) and Turkey in their qualifiers. Fuck you.
this
based Icebros
>2012
>that fucking group of death
Don't talk shit about iceland tho.
They're a country of 200+k people and managed to scramble a qualifying football team while Scotland, half of Scandicucks, and almost entire balkan peninsula didn't.
would have won the group too, but drew to latvia and kazakstan at home after qualifying (beat both 0-3 away)
Group A in 2012 was a very 2016-ish group
But yeah, blame the Irish/Scots for expanding the tourney
I'd like to see 2020 revert but I doubt it.
THANKS BASED SWEDEN
>I think people overhype Croatia right now and Czechia and Turkey aren't as strong as they used to be.
Which highlights how weak the tournament is now they've messed with the format
>non English teams from the islands they're fucking awesome
No.
It's nice for countries who wouldn't normally qualify.
I think there's two separate problems we need to address:
-The fact that football has changed, players used to be able to shine more than they are now and relatively speaking, we have less "star players"
-That the rule of "best 3rd pass" is an incentive for small teams playing against good/decent teams to park the bus for 90 minutes because a draw is nearly as good as a win
>Hungary, Portugal, Iceland, Austria
english group is literally, unmemeically stronger.
>Hamsik fueled Slovakia
>Bale fueled Wales
>Delusion fueled England
>Pride fueled Russia
24 team World Cups are great tho
There's nothing wrong with more European teams getting to show their worth at the big stage
I'm ok with it because even after 2 losses a team can feel like they have a chance
in 16 team euros there were always 3-4 teams that were just happy to be there and never felt like doing anything
>the games are bad because of bad teams parking the bus
when will this meme die?
On the plus side there are teams England has a chance of beating now.