If England were playing sparkling football then we wouldnt see this thread.
The 24 teams Euros is a terrible system
- Thread starter Kasper
- Start date
Although I get your point, it's benefitted us thus far.
Im just being a grumpy old man. I think in general the group stages at all tournaments can be a bit hit or miss and the real action starts once the knock out games kick in
Whining about a 24-team tournament is going to look pretty silly in hindsight when we're watching terrible group-stage football in a 48-team World Cup...
Oh yes, that will be horrible.
Just get rid of qualifications and let everybody take part straight to knockouts.
For me. I liked it a lot better. That's all that matters.
I’d like it if we just dispensed with the qualifying and invited every team. No seedings, no group games, no making the shit teams pick up the extra games at the start to get to the right number of teams, just random knockout football. Same with the World Cup.
Edit: @elmo beat me to it
Edit: @elmo beat me to it
It's good because you get to see more nations get behind their team in the festive spirit. It's not like there's any teams that are easy to beat and can fold quickly in matches.
The third place in group but can still qualify seems a bit off. It feels as if those teams should be doing more to make the next round. They should have their own playoffs maybe.
The third place in group but can still qualify seems a bit off. It feels as if those teams should be doing more to make the next round. They should have their own playoffs maybe.
That's a massive difference in the number of draws
You're literally just proving that the current format heavily incentives going for draws.
That's a massive difference in the number of draws
You're literally just proving that the current format heavily incentives going for draws.
Its less than one extra draw per group, which is based only on 2 sets of stats. Its almost certain that other previous euros averaged 2 draws per group too. 'going for draws' isn't new or extra incentivised, in previous tournaments setting up to draw with the top seed gave a massive chance of qualifying.
It just strikes me that there simply hasn't been any drop off in quality of the tournaments to justify people's extreme responses. Euro 2016 was a great tournament. So was the last euros in England. People love to moan, and i share the scepticism about changing tournament formats - the new wc for example sounds awful as does the CL. The euros just isn't one of the cases where it's suffered and every single final day match had something riding on it. It can't be avoided that sometimes a team will have already qualified.
Let's add some more data sets then:
Euro 2024 - 14 draws = 2.33 draws per group on average. 7 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 2020 - 8 draws = 1.33 draws per group on average. 2 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 2016 - 11 draws = 1.83 draws per group on average. 3 in the final round of fixtures.
Overall 24 team format average = 1.83 draws per group on average.
Euro 2012 - 5 draws = 1.25 draws per group on average. 0 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 2008 - 3 draws = 0.75 draws per group on average. 0 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 2004 - 6 draws = 1.5 draws per group on average. 1 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 2000 - 3 draws = 0.75 draws per group on average. 1 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 1996 - 6 draws = 1.5 draws per group on average. 1 in the final round of fixtures.
Overall 16 team format average = 1.15 draws per group on average.
Euro 1992 - 4 draws = 2 draws per group on average. 0 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 1988 - 2 draws = 1 draw per group on average. 0 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 1984 - 3 draws = 1.5 draws per group on average. 0 in the final round of fixtures.
Euro 1980 - 5 draws - 2.5 draws per group on average. 3 in the final round of fixtures.
Overall 8 team format average = 1.75 draws per group on average.
So, not only was there not a 16 team Euros averaging 2 draws per group (there were however two tournaments averaging less than a draw per group), you actually have to go all the way back to 1980, the first tournament with a group stage, to find the only other one. Currently, the only 24 team Euros that fits in with the others in terms of draws is the weird Covid one where half the teams were essentially playing home games.
Also, going for draws is absolutely incentivised in a format where only 8 teams are eliminated, and we've now seen two teams progress, finishing third in their group, without a single group stage win. This literally didn't happen until 2016. The point isn't even about the "average" number of draws (which is the highest it's ever been under this format), but simply the number of draws. We saw more draws in this supposedly extremely exciting final round of fixtures as we'd seen in any individual 16 team group stage, in half the number of matches. Draws are generally dull affairs.
I'm also not sure how you've decided the new WC format sounds awful when it's literally going to be the same as a 24 team Euros, but with more teams. By your own logic, it should be just as, if not more exciting than the 32 team format.
I think its been good, we still get the knockouts which will always matter no matter who is in them, and the final group games mattered for once. The quality of football and games has largely been utter shite compared to the last World Cup but that has nothing to do with the amount of teams in the tournament.
It's not the amount of teams, it's the format. As plenty of us have said, just make it 32 teams if the aim is for more nations to take part.
Some amusing takes on here, but definitely my favourite one is the guy that says 16 teams is elitism and Super League, to then almost immediately suggest top teams qualifying by principle, fixed hosts and finally, to sprinkle around some clubs with no internationals to make for a 64 teams tournament.
This looks like a short blanket problem with the tournament, where no solution is really ideal. 16 teams is good for quality but bad for business. 32 decreases quality and makes qualifiers redundant. 24 with teams qualifying to 2nd round while being 3rd in their group makes group stages a glorified qualifier.
In the current 24 teams scenario you could have only top 2 from each group qualifying, then have 4 groups of 3 in the second round, then semis then the final. But that would eliminate most of the playoffs, which are maybe the most interesting games. And not all teams finishing their group participation at the same time is a recipe for disaster, which would also be an issue in a 20 teams, 4 groups of 5 format which would have been my preference. In the end, we can't have it all.
The "look at the upsets" argument is pointless to me. There have been upsets with 4 teams (Czechoslovakia), 8 teams (Denmark) and 16 teams (Greece). You could even say that small achievements like getting out of the group stage are diminished by almost everyone doing it. But , as we saw, there's no perfect solution either.
This looks like a short blanket problem with the tournament, where no solution is really ideal. 16 teams is good for quality but bad for business. 32 decreases quality and makes qualifiers redundant. 24 with teams qualifying to 2nd round while being 3rd in their group makes group stages a glorified qualifier.
In the current 24 teams scenario you could have only top 2 from each group qualifying, then have 4 groups of 3 in the second round, then semis then the final. But that would eliminate most of the playoffs, which are maybe the most interesting games. And not all teams finishing their group participation at the same time is a recipe for disaster, which would also be an issue in a 20 teams, 4 groups of 5 format which would have been my preference. In the end, we can't have it all.
The "look at the upsets" argument is pointless to me. There have been upsets with 4 teams (Czechoslovakia), 8 teams (Denmark) and 16 teams (Greece). You could even say that small achievements like getting out of the group stage are diminished by almost everyone doing it. But , as we saw, there's no perfect solution either.
That can happen in other formats, too. Denmark and Sweden famously finished 2-2 and both qualified at the expense of Italy in 2004. Back then, the Euro had 16 teams.
I don’t like moving from the group stage to the QF. The current format is better.
In Match Day 3, France wanted to win, but didn’t. Belgium wanted to win, but didn’t. Germany barely held to their top spot. People think that this format is the reason for the poor third games; no. Third games have always produced either very exciting or meh games, at the Euro and the WC. That’s what we got this time around.
The problem of this Euro is the low quality of finishing, build up and defense. The world doesn’t produce great players as before. I’m not that excited at that Georgian guy. Who would I take to United? I don’t know. Low quality everywhere. Players cannot hit the target without being under pressure, and not just in the third game.
Last edited:
So 1.83 vs 1.15 average draws per group. Can't understand why you're so wound up
And no of course the more teams there are there is a risk of quality loss. I just don't think it's happened at the euros
Yes, across 6 games, meaning we've seen, on average, an extra 11% of matches as draws. In this Euros, the one you're claiming to have been full of excitement, over a third of the games have been draws. Half of the draws came in the supposedly scintillating last round of fixtures.
You've exposed yourself as not knowing what you're on about when you claimed that it was "almost certain that other previous euros averaged 2 draws per group". I suppose you were correct in that it's happened once, over 40 years ago, but given we were comparing to the 16 team format, it doesn't really even count.
You also exposed yourself as not knowing what you're on about when you said you think the new World Cup "sounds awful" when it will be using the exact same format as the Euros currently uses, just with twice as many teams.
Last edited:
At this point, just push EUROs to 32 teams and have a clean group stage.
16 teams was a better tournament in that there was some stake in qualifiers and the GS was tight.
Only thing for me is getting out the group and jumping straight into the QF. Always seemed off to me.
I’d have been fine with a 32 team WC if there was a reallocation of spots. CAF could do with at least 7 spots and CONMEBOL another one as well.
16 teams was a better tournament in that there was some stake in qualifiers and the GS was tight.
Only thing for me is getting out the group and jumping straight into the QF. Always seemed off to me.
I’d have been fine with a 32 team WC if there was a reallocation of spots. CAF could do with at least 7 spots and CONMEBOL another one as well.
That seems like the worst of both worlds to me - still way too many teams in the tournament, but with fewer knockout games.
Where are you taking these spots from?
There are 10 CONMEBOL nations and they already had the potential for half of them to qualify with 4 automatic and 1 play-off spot. Peru failed to beat Australia to qualify for the last world cup.
Should make the groups more exciting though, as teams will actually need to win games to progress.
Over half of the final group games were draws this year, and Slovenia have got through without winning a game.
Truthfully, I'd prefer a return to the 16 team format or a further expansion to 32 teams, if we're set on more teams.
Been one of the most boring tournaments I’ve seen in ages and this explains it.
Over a third of the matches have been draws.
There were more draws in just the final round of fixtures (7 in 12 matches) than there were in any group stage of the 16 team format (the highest was 6 in 24 matches).
Three points and a goal difference of zero is enough to get you through to the next round, so there's almost no incentive to go for goals.
Why not just have the top 4 winners (best results) go directly to the quarters and the 2 worst group winners and 2nd placed teams play each other in a playoff round. That way you'll have all the sides wanting to contest every game.
'exposed yourself'
Buddy, you're not investigating 9/11 you're arguing relentlessly over the format of a football tournament. I disagree with you and have given plenty of time to the conversation, but won't keep going through old euros to find decimal place differences in draw percentage between groups for the decades of competition history. What you're arguing isn't a matter of fact, its a matter of opinion and i can see myself that I'm enjoying the tournament and think that the final day games all had something at stake for at least one of the teams. Ive repeatedly pointed out that so many of your problems are things that happen in other tournaments and you continually squeeze the discussion into narrower and narrower parameters, happily ignoring your previous gripes. I don't quite understand the intensity with which you're going after this, if i say im not enjoying it will you breathe a sigh of relief? Or can we just agree to disagree and you can keep not enjoying it and I'll hope for your sake there isn't another draw
If you can't understand why the world cup is different then i can't help you
I don’t have a problem with 24 teams qualifying, it has actually allowed some smaller nations to qualify and experience big tournament which they wouldn’t have been able to get in a 16-team format where it was much harder to qualify (especially as 7-8 spots go to the same top nations every time anyway).
It’s just that the 6x4 format is inherently flawed, you can’t have a format where a certain place in your group may or may not allow you to progress. 8x3 with two top teams progressing would be much more fair but then you have only 24 group games as opposed to 36 now, meaning less revenue. I think eventually they will move on to a 32-team format, there are enough decent sides in Europe to fill out the remaining 8 spots when you look at teams being eliminated like Norway, Sweden, Wales, Bosnia and Greece, however that will also mean that qualifiers will be virtually pointless as there are only 55 nations in UEFA and at least 7-8 of them will never ever qualify.
It’s just that the 6x4 format is inherently flawed, you can’t have a format where a certain place in your group may or may not allow you to progress. 8x3 with two top teams progressing would be much more fair but then you have only 24 group games as opposed to 36 now, meaning less revenue. I think eventually they will move on to a 32-team format, there are enough decent sides in Europe to fill out the remaining 8 spots when you look at teams being eliminated like Norway, Sweden, Wales, Bosnia and Greece, however that will also mean that qualifiers will be virtually pointless as there are only 55 nations in UEFA and at least 7-8 of them will never ever qualify.
Over two thirds of the group games have been draws. Over half of the final fixtures were draws. The format quite obviously lends itself far more to rewarding draws than it did before, as evidenced by two teams having qualified from the group stage without a win since it came in. As evidenced by the number of draws.
I'm also enjoying the tournament, but there has been a higher proportion of "dull" games than the World Cup or 16 team Euros had.
The World Cup is literally the same format. If you can't understand that then I can't help you.
2012 was the last sixteen team tournament.
Personally, as a Scottish person, I prefer the 24 team format.
That would be fun. A bit like the original format of the European Cup, where Real Madrid could play against the champions of San Marino or Manchester United could play against the champions of Luxembourg.
The problem with the world cup is not the format, it's 48 teams taking part. 48. There is simply no way there won't be some teams of a really poor standard at it. That's not the case at the euros. I appreciate you're saying it's 4 teams per group etc, but 48 teams is literally double the number.
The amount of thick idiots I've seen in the past few days saying a team who finished last in their group should have gone through to the next round, simply because they had more points than a team who finished 3rd in a different group, is blowing my mind.
Basically substituting quantity over quality.
It certainly feels too long and we are only now heading into the KOs.
Imagine what the World Cup will be like?
They will surely just scrap the qualifiers and just do everything with the nations league which has now established itself in the calendar.
If there was any logic in football that would be the obvious solution. No different to anyone in the top 2 divisions is automatically in the 3rd round of FA cup each year.
Take the UEFA rankings a month after the Euros and top 16 automatically qualify for next one but they obviously still play nations league for preparation. Then other 15 or so places come from finishing 2nd in the groups and/or play offs as now.
To potentially go to 32 teams, play Nations league AND the qualifiers feels so idotic given the demands on players that it will probably happen.
Agree. Ideally Nations League replaces qualifiers for both World Cup and Euro.
The point of the Nations League was to scrap friendlies. If you do away with the qualifiers then you need to expand the number of Nations League games. That would homogeonize the international window as small teams would only play small teams and big teams would only play big teams. Don't think that's something people would favor.
No different than the last two Euros. Were they also boring?
I found the last one to be more entertaining.
All this carries over to the knockout stages.
This is the worse Euros ever.
This is the worse Euros ever.
Last edited: