• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Format

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Design your own. I've probably done this before in other tournaments. But the 24 team format does produce some oddities.

When used in Italia 90 and USA 94, the losing finalists in each had finished third in their group (it was also used in 86. And tbf was probably an improvement on the three team second group stage of 82). Validation of the format or an insult to those who'd bothered their arses to show up for their group games?

Anyway. How many teams should be in the Euros? And either way, with 24 or however many you'd choose, what should the format be?
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
It was fine. 16 is a good number, it also means the players won't be too exhausted come the business end.

If we are to have relentless expansion then the club leagues would have to be cut by a month and 2-4 teams.

It also means the lower FAs really have very little incentive to improve their player education programme, as they basically have a 50-50 chance at the lottery of tournament money.

I'm not entirely sure who is to blame for this but I believe it was the Celtic FAs who pushed hard for this at the UEFA congress, it wasn't a plan hatched in the dark lairs of Infantino/Platini.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
To be fair though, it's only one extra game per finalist. Surely shouldn't add a fatigue factor?
 
Last edited:

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I've always felt that 16 was the sweet spot, surprisingly the standard this tournament hasn't felt worse but I think that's because the teams from about 14 to 24 are much of a muchness whereas in the 16 team format the worst couple of teams really stand out like a sore thumb.

The group stage has suffered for it as there's been absokutely no tension whatsoever. Like I said elsewhere, if you want to stick to 24 then fine, but only the top 2 should qualify for knock out rounds. Best 4 winners to the quarters, other 8 teams play off for a place in the last 8.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Tbh I don't like anything where your record in your group gives you an advantage over other groups.
 

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
16 for euros is fine and 32 in a world cup while being more sees the world covered with qualifiers quite well.

I dread the day when they make the euros a 32 team competition making qualifying almost pointless.
 

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
I don't dislike the current format. But I think what makes it good also makes it bad. You can lose your first two games and still qualify for the next round. I think that's good from the point of view of keeping most matches meaningful, but it also just seems wrong.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
To be fair though, it's only one extra game per finalist. Surely shouldn't add a fatigue factor?
Might be wrong on this one but the competition doesn't appear to be much longer than normal.

It also ****s teams and players for the start of the season proper, not relevant at the moment because Scotland are pish but Rangers have gone back into pre-season after a 4 week break and our first competitive game is the 15th of July. Just when exactly are the top players meant to have a holiday?
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Might be wrong on this one but the competition doesn't appear to be much longer than normal.

It also ****s teams and players for the start of the season proper, not relevant at the moment because Scotland are pish but Rangers have gone back into pre-season after a 4 week break and our first competitive game is the 15th of July. Just when exactly are the top players meant to have a holiday?
Pretty sure the Euros was three weeks in the old format so it's an extra week long

We play Liverpool before the tournament is even over. Looks like it will be a strong side :laugh:
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Really doesn't sit right with me that Portugal, who failed to win a game, have advanced when Albania, who did win a game, have been eliminated.

The bracket's just ended up weird as **** as well, all the major nations are in the same half. Spain or Italy's "easiest" match (on paper) is likely to be in the final.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Just as well the Italy v Belgium group game isn't tonight. Reckon both sides would be trying to lose that one, although it's bizarre thinking that (assuming they get the job done vs Sweden) Belgium have actually benefitted from losing to Italy.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Sweden win and Italy not losing would see France v Belgium, just to make the bottom half of the draw even more fiendish.
 

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So far we have:

Left half of the draw

Switzerland v Poland
Croatia v Portugal

and

Wales v N Ireland/Turkey
Hungary v Group E 2nd place


Right half

Germany v Slovakia
Italy v Spain

and

France v 3E or N Ireland
England v Iceland
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
If anything needs fixing it's the knockout rounds, 2 of the 3 worst games so far were yesterday. The group stage games were low scoring but they were fairly open, yesterday was just bad (although in NI's case they were playing quite positively, just lacked talent).

The World Cup had absolute ****e knockout games after some really good stuff in the group stages. A situation where neither side needs to score seems to lead to a lot of negative football. It's also convincing me that eliminating away goals in the CL would be a bad idea.
 

Top