A&H

Euros 2024

RefereeX said:
Can’t stand the system myself, I think the Euros was a far better tournament with 4 groups of four teams from which the top 2 qualify. Having the 3rd place thing means teams can be poor and still get through, like Portugal in 2016 who are the most underserved winners of any tournament ever 🤣.
If they want to increase it, then make it a 32 team tournament, but then that almost renders qualifying similarly pointless where anyone who’s anyone will qualify. Either way, for me group stages should only have 2/4 to go through. It’s the biggest part of tournament, so when it only takes out 1/3 of the teams its abit of an anticlimax.
Click to expand...
36 Group games this tournament and 16 Knockouts
FIFA/UEFA's only formula is to increase the number of games of football played in all competitions and to increase coverage in more countries. Nothing else matters. Arguably, I enjoy the groups more than the Knockouts because we see the Minnows doing their best to progress. From now on, the level of hype (and all the aspects of elite football I don't really like) will take precedent
Looking at the draw, England could continue to be awful and fluke there way to another final. It couldn't really be any easier (again)
 
A&H International
Big Cat said:
36 Group games this tournament and 16 Knockouts
FIFA/UEFA's only formula is to increase the number of games of football played in all competitions and to increase coverage in more countries. Nothing else matters. Arguably, I enjoy the groups more than the Knockouts because we see the Minnows doing their best to progress. From now on, the level of hype (and all the aspects of elite football I don't really like) will take precedent
Looking at the draw, England could continue to be awful and fluke there way to another final. It couldn't really be any easier (again)
Click to expand...
You little ray of sunshine you!! :D
 
Seen on two other threads (match respective) that Danny Makkelie and Istvan Kovacs have been sent home. I saw this morning that Jesus Gil Manzano, his assistants, and Alejandro Hernandez (VAR) have also been sent home from the tournament. It was rumoured also that Facundo Tello (the CONMEBOL exchange ref) had been sent home but he has an appointment as 4th official in the last 16 so that obviously isn't true.
 
Big Cat said:
36 Group games this tournament and 16 Knockouts
FIFA/UEFA's only formula is to increase the number of games of football played in all competitions and to increase coverage in more countries. Nothing else matters. Arguably, I enjoy the groups more than the Knockouts because we see the Minnows doing their best to progress. From now on, the level of hype (and all the aspects of elite football I don't really like) will take precedent
Looking at the draw, England could continue to be awful and fluke there way to another final. It couldn't really be any easier (again)
Click to expand...
But that's the thing with the 3rd place teams also qualifying.

I get 2 went into one side of the bracket, and 2 into the other side,
But when you get games like Slovakia and Romania both just needing a draw to ensure qualification (a defeat for either meant they would go home, if the other game ended a draw) then the group games can become very boring.
In fact, that game.. a draw was actually the "favourite" in regards to the bookies. It was 11/10 in my shop. Whilst the shortest odds to win was 7/2. Even the bookies expected a draw.
All that, just to see a "minnow" progress, to have 8 extra games (1 extra round) of games for TV/sponsorship.

If we didn't have those 4 teams qualifying, we'd probably also would have seen more urgency to win games. Would England have settled for a point (that's what it potentially could have been, a defeat and a Danish win would have sent us home, whilst we were actually guaranteed passage through regardless of results)?
The Slovakia game would probably have seen 1 of the teams desperate for a win too as a win in the other game would, again, have knocked them out.
Even Netherlands would probably have put more of a fight in their last group game. They knew a defeat didn't matter as they were qualifying anyway. If they'd have drawn that, would they have finished 2nd, ahead of France? And if so, would they have been on the "harder" side of the draw?

The last group games, for me, because of the 3rd place thing, meant that teams could potentially fix where they finish more than actually qualify.
And you'd probably find having 8 teams qualifying (top 2 of 4 groups) would have provided a much harder route to final than what we have now.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
But that's the thing with the 3rd place teams also qualifying.

I get 2 went into one side of the bracket, and 2 into the other side,
But when you get games like Slovakia and Romania both just needing a draw to ensure qualification (a defeat for either meant they would go home, if the other game ended a draw) then the group games can become very boring.
In fact, that game.. a draw was actually the "favourite" in regards to the bookies. It was 11/10 in my shop. Whilst the shortest odds to win was 7/2. Even the bookies expected a draw.
All that, just to see a "minnow" progress, to have 8 extra games (1 extra round) of games for TV/sponsorship.

If we didn't have those 4 teams qualifying, we'd probably also would have seen more urgency to win games. Would England have settled for a point (that's what it potentially could have been, a defeat and a Danish win would have sent us home, whilst we were actually guaranteed passage through regardless of results)?
The Slovakia game would probably have seen 1 of the teams desperate for a win too as a win in the other game would, again, have knocked them out.
Even Netherlands would probably have put more of a fight in their last group game. They knew a defeat didn't matter as they were qualifying anyway. If they'd have drawn that, would they have finished 2nd, ahead of France? And if so, would they have been on the "harder" side of the draw?

The last group games, for me, because of the 3rd place thing, meant that teams could potentially fix where they finish more than actually qualify.
And you'd probably find having 8 teams qualifying (top 2 of 4 groups) would have provided a much harder route to final than what we have now.
Click to expand...
Generally agree with all of that
The third round of games were strange affairs. Very high number of tactical fouls and teams not turning up when they didn't need to.
England have had it handed on a plate (again). We'll be fairly clear favs to beat Italy and Netherlands (worst case scenario) and could stumble all the way to the Final without being anywhere near impressive. Whilst I think reaching the Final (by any means) is always worthy of merit, anything less is gonna be vilified. It's been entertaining however. Minnows playing with a lot of heart. VAR not too heavily involved (got lucky so far). And I think everyone secretly 'enjoys' lambasting Southgate and endlessly dictating formations and team selection. Seems to be in our DNA
I don't think I'll care much if/when they lose. But I kind of enjoy the soap opera and I doubt I'll ever be able get off the 'elite football mouse wheel' even though I'm not emotionally invested in it the way I once was
 
Big Cat said:
Generally agree with all of that
The third round of games were strange affairs. Very high number of tactical fouls and teams not turning up when they didn't need to.
England have had it handed on a plate (again). We'll be fairly clear favs to beat Italy and Netherlands (worst case scenario) and could stumble all the way to the Final without being anywhere near impressive. Whilst I think reaching the Final (by any means) is always worthy of merit, anything less is gonna be vilified. It's been entertaining however. Minnows playing with a lot of heart. VAR not too heavily involved (got lucky so far). And I think everyone secretly 'enjoys' lambasting Southgate and endlessly dictating formations and team selection. Seems to be in our DNA
I don't think I'll care much if/when they lose. But I kind of enjoy the soap opera and I doubt I'll ever be able get off the 'elite football mouse wheel' even though I'm not emotionally invested in it the way I once was
Click to expand...
We should reach the final, not being big headed but as you said the route is easier, but it will be like previous competitions where we've not played anyone of note and by the time that happens the players mentality is not as focused as it would be if they played top teams throughout. They're professionals and should have that mindset all the time but we all know you can easily switch off when not challenged and the teams on the "bad side" will be switched on.
 
ladbroke8745 said:
We should reach the final, not being big headed but as you said the route is easier, but it will be like previous competitions where we've not played anyone of note and by the time that happens the players mentality is not as focused as it would be if they played top teams throughout. They're professionals and should have that mindset all the time but we all know you can easily switch off when not challenged and the teams on the "bad side" will be switched on.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I just think it's a simple case of Southgate playing the best 11 names and he can't make it work
He's not at all adventurous, will almost certainly persevere with this approach (albeit making very small tweaks to his approach, like Gallagher or Manu), but I'm sure we'd have done better if he'd have left some big names out to play the rest in the positions they play for their clubs.

He could have done this in the last game. He had nothing whatsoever to lose by giving everyone what they wanted to see. But that opportunity has been and gone now and I'd be really surprised if he does anything drastically different tomorrow. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is madness. By definition! Maybe somebody will get injured. Maybe something else will trigger change. We don't have a crystal ball, we only expect past experience to keep on happening (without reason to expect something else)
 
Big Cat said:
FWIW, I just think it's a simple case of Southgate playing the best 11 names and he can't make it work
He's not at all adventurous, will almost certainly persevere with this approach (albeit making very small tweaks to his approach, like Gallagher or Manu), but I'm sure we'd have done better if he'd have left some big names out to play the rest in the positions they play for their clubs.

He could have done this in the last game. He had nothing whatsoever to lose by giving everyone what they wanted to see. But that opportunity has been and gone now and I'd be really surprised if he does anything drastically different tomorrow. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is madness. By definition! Maybe somebody will get injured. Maybe something else will trigger change. We don't have a crystal ball, we only expect past experience to keep on happening (without reason to expect something else)
Click to expand...
Largely what I have been saying...

During the Scottish game the commentators were talking about having to get Tierney and Robertson into the team. No. No. And triple No. You play the best players in their positions and if that means a "name" misses out then hopefully that spurs the players on to perform.

It was also a mistake to leave all of Rashford Grealish and Sancho behind. We needed at least one of those so that we at least had a player to make an impact.
 
I think they should just go to 32 for the Euros. We know the 16 team tournament isn't coming back but 24 just causes too many issues with the 3rd place sides. You can probably cut out a couple of qualifiers and then guarantee a couple of spots for the League C and D sides in the Nations League.
 
cwyeary said:
I think they should just go to 32 for the Euros. We know the 16 team tournament isn't coming back but 24 just causes too many issues with the 3rd place sides. You can probably cut out a couple of qualifiers and then guarantee a couple of spots for the League C and D sides in the Nations League.
Click to expand...
I know where you are coming from but I don't think anyone wants to watch a tournament full of sides like Andorra and San Marino. Scores would get close to double digits in some matches.
 
Gabriel said:
I know where you are coming from but I don't think anyone wants to watch a tournament full of sides like Andorra and San Marino. Scores would get close to double digits in some matches.
Click to expand...

Of course. Maybe you make it two spots for League C/D (Georgia was the side who got into the playoffs on their NL ranking and look at what happened) and then six extra from qualifying which would have been the likes of Wales, Norway, Sweden, etc.
 
Nice to see it's not just at grassroots where corner flags are in the wrong position.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20240629_180912.jpg
    IMG_20240629_180912.jpg
    6.4 MB · Views: 20
Gabriel said:
I know where you are coming from but I don't think anyone wants to watch a tournament full of sides like Andorra and San Marino. Scores would get close to double digits in some matches.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be the likes of Andorra and San Marino though, it would be much higher ranked teams. People said the same about the Euros being expanded, and look how that is playing out. Albania held their own, rank outsiders Georgia are in the last 16, Slovakia and Slovenia both qualified. There's every chance one of the semi-finals will be Austria vs Switzerland, and ten years ago that would have been unthinkable.
 
Genuine question from an American-in Europe, how “conservative” are you in terms of stopping games because of lightning like what happened in Dortmund? (Conservative=being very safe).

I’ll say that in the US, we are generally very conservative in this approach. If we see any lightning or hear thunder (meaning lightning is generally no more than 30 miles away), we halt play for a minimum of 30 minutes. We have to wait a minimum of 30 minutes with no lightning signs before we can restart. If we see a new sign, the 30 minute clock restarts.

I know we have more severe weather instances in the Midwestern US, and our general guidelines are conservative. I absolutely prefer to be too conservative than too risky for this.
 
RefIADad said:
Genuine question from an American-in Europe, how “conservative” are you in terms of stopping games because of lightning like what happened in Dortmund? (Conservative=being very safe).

I’ll say that in the US, we are generally very conservative in this approach. If we see any lightning or hear thunder (meaning lightning is generally no more than 30 miles away), we halt play for a minimum of 30 minutes. We have to wait a minimum of 30 minutes with no lightning signs before we can restart. If we see a new sign, the 30 minute clock restarts.

I know we have more severe weather instances in the Midwestern US, and our general guidelines are conservative. I absolutely prefer to be too conservative than too risky for this.
Click to expand...
This conservative...

Post in thread 'Lightning during the game' https://refchat.co.uk/threads/lightning-during-the-game.21739/post-236827
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top