This 6 group format needs to go

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
17,155
Location
Flagg
England are in the semi finals having won 1 game in 90 minutes, which was a lucky 1-0 vs the mighty Serbia.

France are in the semi finals having scored i think 2 goals.

It's an utter mess really. Nearly every team has played conservatively because all you have to do to get to the knockouts is win 1 game vs the weakest team in your group and then after that there's no incentive to be expansive or take chances.

Back when it was 16 teams you'd have at least 1 good team in your group you'd have to try and beat and then as soon as you're through you're only against opponents who have set up to win games. You'd have at least 1 and usually 2 groups with 3 good teams in them, at least one of who would go out. Now you get groups with 1 or 0 good teams, and even if there are 3 there's a 2/3 chance they'll all go through anyway.

I hate it. The last 3 euros have all bored me to tears. England amd Portugal got to the finals of the last two by doing absurdly feck all. This one we could easily end up with England vs France despite both teams being utter garbage for the whole tournament. Best case scenario in terms of who deserves it on merit, a team who's best forward is Weghorst will be in the final.

Formats
 
180707204231-gareth-southgate.jpg
 
Have to agree. The best games were in the first matchday. Total dross afterwards, with the exception of Spain and in parts Netherlands games.

Unfortunately the amount of games will only increase, unless some dramatic outcry from the federations which I don't see happening.
 
They have to go to a 32 team euros really. Theres not really any going back to 16 now, especially with the added finance. I don’t think adding eight teams would make it worse. If you think of the teams who haven’t qualified. Sweden, Norway, Ireland etc are decent enough names/teams to not further dilute the competition.
 
World Cup is going to be even worse. 32 out of 48 teams making it out of groups that will likely include illustrious footballing nations like Guatemala, Sudan, and Iraq.
 
Honestly Euros are boring. The conservative disciplined style euro teams play is boring. You've got 24 teams playing a similar way. Hopefully a non-euro team wins WC again so Euro teams can try less boring football.

It's not just this Euro. Think back to almost all recent Euros. There haven't been many classic Euro tournaments. The football is mostly terrible including from the strong sides who are usually good to watch in the WC. There's been some good early round games in recent Euros but even that has not really occurred this time. Usually teams that don't play the most exciting football progress and often win.

Italy weren't great and in one of their worst NT periods still won, Portugal lucked their way through, the 2012 Spain team was a boring overpassing version of tiki taka with 6 mids and no centre forward, Greece 2004 bus parkers, backpassing to goalie winners Denmark in the 90s almost killed football so the rules had to change. 2008 was probably the last quality euro tournament. There's some good underdog stories in Euros but the football quality is horrible when these surprise team wins. Things like England hype and Ronaldo hype carried the interest in the last 2, but the football was dreadful.

The hipsters who try to say Euros has better football then WC are so far off. Every WC has classic entertaining games and even with 48 teams there should continue to be. International teams of lesser known countries aren't pushovers anymore and bring their own style to keep things interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rood
After watching the match between Brazil and Uruguay I partially take back what I said. Football in general needs an overhaul to produce more entertainment.
 
Worst football tournament I can recall in 2+ decades of having watched the game and I find international football boring and low quality in general. These teams make last season's United look not-so-terrible. It can't end soon enough.
 
Last edited:
First of all, I think there's a kind of arrogance to say 'mighty Serbia' ironically.

Serbia are always competitive pretty much whenever they play. They may not have that same individual quality as in previous years but Vlahovic, Kostic, Milinkovic-Savic and Mitrovic are all good players.

It's very easy to look at these teams that England have played against and just dimiss them as substandard but the reality is different. They are representing their country and the world is watching them, it's a chance to be remembered far greater than they will have in club football. It just means a lot more. International football is more competitive than club football because the stakes are a lot higher for the less fancied teams.

I'm not against the format because it creates a longer and more memorable tournament. Ultimately, there have been a few shocks such as Italy going out which kind of gives the lie to the idea that teams can just coast through. It's just been a poor year football-wise and yes, there haven't been so many entertaining games. I would pesevere with it though and see how it pans out next time.
 
Last edited:
Football is just boring now. You have the striker, standing 1m away from the defender who has the ball, and he won't try to tackle.
 
We're in the final the semi's by winning 3 games and scoring 9 goals (but finishing 3rd in our group). This format is fine. Don't worry though, we'll boot you out of the tournament in a few days.
 
4 groups of 6 would be best, but 'truncated' groups where everyone only plays 3 out of the 5 other teams.

That way, it's not any longer, but you avoid this whole "4 best third placed teams out of 6" milarkee.

It also gives a big benefit to finish higher up; your playing the team that came 4th.

Code: 
4 groups of 6 (truncated to 3 games)

L16:

A1 v B'4, A2 v B3, A3 v B2, A4 v B1
C1 v D4, C2 v D3, C3 v D2, C4 v D1

QF:

A1B4 v C2D3, A2B3 v C1D4,
A3B2 v C4D1, A4B1 v C4D1

SF:

A1B4C2D3 v A4B1C4D1
A2B3C1D4 v A3B2C4D1

F
 
Last edited:
Agree. The matchday 3 games were so boring because most teams were happy with a 0-0 draw. And the knockout games have mostly followed suit with some exceptions.
 
JogaBonitoRooney said:
Honestly Euros are boring. The conservative disciplined style euro teams play is boring. You've got 24 teams playing a similar way. Hopefully a non-euro team wins WC again so Euro teams can try less boring football.

It's not just this Euro. Think back to almost all recent Euros. There haven't been many classic Euro tournaments. The football is mostly terrible including from the strong sides who are usually good to watch in the WC. There's been some good early round games in recent Euros but even that has not really occurred this time. Usually teams that don't play the most exciting football progress and often win.

Italy weren't great and in one of their worst NT periods still won, Portugal lucked their way through, the 2012 Spain team was a boring overpassing version of tiki taka with 6 mids and no centre forward, Greece 2004 bus parkers, backpassing to goalie winners Denmark in the 90s almost killed football so the rules had to change. 2008 was probably the last quality euro tournament. There's some good underdog stories in Euros but the football quality is horrible when these surprise team wins. Things like England hype and Ronaldo hype carried the interest in the last 2, but the football was dreadful.

The hipsters who try to say Euros has better football then WC are so far off. Every WC has classic entertaining games and even with 48 teams there should continue to be. International teams of lesser known countries aren't pushovers anymore and bring their own style to keep things interesting.
Click to expand...

Disagree completely. Historically, Euro competitions have been better.

The Danes did indeed overdo back-passing, but the rules were being reviewed beforehand anyway. Euro 92 was admittedly terrible but mainly because of political developments in Eastern Europe.

The USSR became the CIS (not a real country) whilst Yugoslavia being banned meant we were deprived of another top side (Italy and Spain did not qualify).

However, Euro 76, 84, 88, 2000 and 2008 were all quality tournaments. Exceptional matches involved. Superb individual performances. Euro 2000 remains the best international tournament I have seen.

The WC in 2018 was quality, despite a lopsided knockout stage pitting the likes of Croatia in the final. The last one in Qatar had a classic final but precious else. 2006, 10 and 14, be honest, were godawful. 2002 a corrupted mess.

This Euros is just an indicator of many things. Too many sides dependent on one or two players. Defensive tactics. Another lopsided 'easy side of the draw'. A febrile atmosphere of wolf symbols, booed anthems and thrown beer. Too many penalty shootouts already. Own goalden boot.

It's been a poor tournament but unfair to tar the tournament per se, and to suggest people promoting the Euros are 'hipsters'.
 
Last edited:
doubleohseven said:
Disagree completely. Historically, Euro competitions have been better.

The Danes did indeed overdo back-passing, but the rules were being reviewed beforehand anyway. Euro 92 was admittedly terrible but mainly because of political developments in Eastern Europe.

The USSR became the CIS (not a real country) whilst Yugoslavia being banned meant we were deprived of another top side (Italy and Spain did not qualify).

However, Euro 76, 84, 88, 2000 and 2008 were all quality tournaments. Exceptional matches involved. Superb individual performances. Euro 2000 remains the best international tournament I have seen.

The WC in 2018 was quality, despite a lopsided knockout stage pitting the likes of Croatia in the final. The last one in Qatar had a classic final but precious else. 2006, 10 and 14, be honest, were godawful. 2002 a corrupted mess.

This Euros is just an indicator of many things. Too many sides dependent on one or two players. Defensive tactics. Another lopsided 'easy side of the draw'. A febrile atmosphere of wolf symbols and thrown beer. Been too many penalty shootouts already. Own goal golden boot.

It's been a poor tournament but unfair to tar the tournament per se, and to suggest people promoting the Euros are 'hipsters'.
Click to expand...
I 7hough1 2014 was pretty memorable.

That Van Persie header alone is enough to make it a classic.
 
whitbyviking said:
If you think this is bad imagine what a 48 team World Cup will look like
Click to expand...
Teams from outside Europe, Africa and Asia specifically don't know how to play defensive football, they are more reckless and will go fwd so World Cup games will be entertaining in the least. This defensive, cowardice football is very much an European team, they call it "tactical football".
 
It's quantity over quality.

When you have 3 teams qualifying out of a group of 4 draws suits too many teams in the last group games to qualify. It would be the same if it was 8 groups of 3.

They either need to go back to 16 teams or move it up to 32.

Overall it's been a poor tournament, but I wouldn't put it down to structure, there's just not enough top quality players in Europe and not enough teams willing to play entertaining football.
 
doubleohseven said:
A great goal, but one swallow does not make a summer.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that saying existed in English :lol:

Well, Robbens goal was also a swallow... I agree though; Germany Brazil and us against Spain aside it was cack.
 
It’s a hard problem to solve - I can see them trialling something awful like a shot clock in a few years if it keeps on this way because it will be an issue.

Biggest difference now is most teams are a similar level of fitness even if ability is still quite all over the shop. So you get a clued up manager with an average team and they can pose a great enough threat on the counter for 90mins that it makes managers set up as Deschamps, Southgate etc do.

Maybe it’s time we looked at the actual rules themselves for tournaments to make winning/scoring more valuable - maybe losses and draws should both be worth nothing and you just get how many goals you score as points, so scoring becomes more important than not conceding. So you can lose 3-2 but that’s better than winning 1-0. Would be chaos but I think it would force teams to be less dull.
 
Ludens the Red said:
They have to go to a 32 team euros really. Theres not really any going back to 16 now, especially with the added finance. I don’t think adding eight teams would make it worse. If you think of the teams who haven’t qualified. Sweden, Norway, Ireland etc are decent enough names/teams to not further dilute the competition.
Click to expand...
Has to happen eventually and with improving quality of smaller nations teams it should be fine. Qualifiers will be a problem because you are letting more than half the teams in, and after you’ve filtered out teams that will never make it like Liechtenstein, San Marino, Gibraltar etc. It’s probably only 45 teams that will ever have a realistic shot at making it to the tournament, but the tournament itself will be better.
 
LDUred said:
First of all, I think there's a kind of arrogance to say 'mighty Serbia' ironically.

Serbia are always competitive pretty much whenever they play. They may not have that same individual quality as in previous years but Vlahovic, Kostic, Milinkovic-Savic and Mitrovic are all good players.

It's very easy to look at these teams that England have played against and just dimiss them as substandard but the reality is different. They are representing their country and the world is watching them, it's a chance to be remembered far greater than they will have in club football. It just means a lot more. International football is more competitive than club football because the stakes are a lot higher for the less fancied teams.

I'm not against the format because it creates a longer and more memorable tournament. Ultimately, there have been a few shocks such as Italy going out which kind of gives the lie to the idea that teams can just coast through. It's just been a poor year football-wise and yes, there haven't been so many entertaining games. I would pesevere with it though and see how it pans out next time.
Click to expand...

Serbia is shite. Before every tournament they participate in, i rate them and think they do well. They never do. They always disappoint or i expect too much of them. They have good players but for some reason it doesnt work at all in their national team. Vlahovic was crap. Kostic was out with an injury before half time. Tadic sat on the bench. Their Saudi league players didnt do anything. Mitrovic took a lot of shots but never even came close to scoring a goal. They are a bad team. Could very well be their tactics because they started crossing after taking Mitrovic off during one game. Denmark has been England their best opponent so far.
 
Cant we just scrap all the qualification matches during the season and invite (almost) everyone to a longer lasting Euros? A format like the new CL will be. A league phase followed by a knock out phase.
 
The 16 team format was the perfect balance. Euro 2000 and 2008 were brilliant tournaments. Going to 32 teams and only the top two teams qualifying would be better than this current mess.
 
I would rate this tournament a 6/10.
There's been a few good games and goals but overall I've found the whole thing rather underwhelming/meh so far.
 
The level of football and entertainment on offer has been extremely poor.
 
Need to go back to top 2 qualifying. I mean imagine Netherlands win the euros after finishing 3rd in their group and getting the easiest route to the final. How does that make sense?
 
noodlehair said:
England are in the semi finals having won 1 game in 90 minutes, which was a lucky 1-0 vs the mighty Serbia.

France are in the semi finals having scored i think 2 goals.

It's an utter mess really. Nearly every team has played conservatively because all you have to do to get to the knockouts is win 1 game vs the weakest team in your group and then after that there's no incentive to be expansive or take chances.

Back when it was 16 teams you'd have at least 1 good team in your group you'd have to try and beat and then as soon as you're through you're only against opponents who have set up to win games. You'd have at least 1 and usually 2 groups with 3 good teams in them, at least one of who would go out. Now you get groups with 1 or 0 good teams, and even if there are 3 there's a 2/3 chance they'll all go through anyway.

I hate it. The last 3 euros have all bored me to tears. England amd Portugal got to the finals of the last two by doing absurdly feck all. This one we could easily end up with England vs France despite both teams being utter garbage for the whole tournament. Best case scenario in terms of who deserves it on merit, a team who's best forward is Weghorst will be in the final.

Formats
Click to expand...
Aye, and for some reason it grates me - the fact that teams who finished third in their groups can actually go on and win the whole tournament....Netherlands now, and Portugal who ended up doing it in 2016 iirc. What's the point of having groups then, just make it a few warm up matches and then head straight to a knockout format based on rankings. It's just going to become more tedious with expanded tournaments in the future.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
World Cup is going to be even worse. 32 out of 48 teams making it out of groups that will likely include illustrious footballing nations like Guatemala, Sudan, and Iraq.
Click to expand...

I know the point you’re trying to make regarding the expanded WC slots and diluted quality, but CAF is actually a federation that can add 4 more quality teams (up from 5 today) and keep a high level of play.

Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Cameroon, Tunisia, Morocco, Senegal, Cote D’Ivoire

That’s 9 nations that could all qualify from their WCQ groups, make the 2026 WC and I don’t think anyone would consider them minnows or nations without proper footballing history.

If anything CONCACAF and AFC will bring in fewer quality teams

Ludens the Red said:
If you think of the teams who haven’t qualified. Sweden, Norway, Ireland etc are decent enough names/teams to not further dilute the competition.
Click to expand...

I think the issue with these nations is when they have a good cycle, they produce respectable teams whereas a bad cycle is nothing to write home about.

Different for the Frances, Germanys and Spains of the world. Even a bad cycle has very respectable teams.

Abraxas said:
The level of football and entertainment on offer has been extremely poor.
Click to expand...

Very much so.
 
Last edited:
The problem with 16 out of 24 teams making the knockout stage is there's no jeopardy in the group stages like there would be if there were 16 teams and only 8 made the knockouts. Unfortunately, something similar will happen in the 2026 FIFA World Cup - 32 of the 48 teams will make the knockouts.
 
Big Ben Foster said:
World Cup is going to be even worse. 32 out of 48 teams making it out of groups that will likely include illustrious footballing nations like Guatemala, Sudan, and Iraq.
Click to expand...
WC will be shambles. My country
qualified once, 2014, it was fecking amazing... Now with 100 teams, couldn't care less. Its just who ever wins leafue when Pep rides in the sunset.
 
World cup for everyone with every team going through in knockout phase is the future.
 
noodlehair said:
England are in the semi finals having won 1 game in 90 minutes, which was a lucky 1-0 vs the mighty Serbia.

France are in the semi finals having scored i think 2 goals.

It's an utter mess really. Nearly every team has played conservatively because all you have to do to get to the knockouts is win 1 game vs the weakest team in your group and then after that there's no incentive to be expansive or take chances.

Back when it was 16 teams you'd have at least 1 good team in your group you'd have to try and beat and then as soon as you're through you're only against opponents who have set up to win games. You'd have at least 1 and usually 2 groups with 3 good teams in them, at least one of who would go out. Now you get groups with 1 or 0 good teams, and even if there are 3 there's a 2/3 chance they'll all go through anyway.

I hate it. The last 3 euros have all bored me to tears. England amd Portugal got to the finals of the last two by doing absurdly feck all. This one we could easily end up with England vs France despite both teams being utter garbage for the whole tournament. Best case scenario in terms of who deserves it on merit, a team who's best forward is Weghorst will be in the final.

Formats
Click to expand...
tl;dr: it's coming home
 
noodlehair said:
England are in the semi finals having won 1 game in 90 minutes, which was a lucky 1-0 vs the mighty Serbia.

France are in the semi finals having scored i think 2 goals.

It's an utter mess really. Nearly every team has played conservatively because all you have to do to get to the knockouts is win 1 game vs the weakest team in your group and then after that there's no incentive to be expansive or take chances.

Back when it was 16 teams you'd have at least 1 good team in your group you'd have to try and beat and then as soon as you're through you're only against opponents who have set up to win games. You'd have at least 1 and usually 2 groups with 3 good teams in them, at least one of who would go out. Now you get groups with 1 or 0 good teams, and even if there are 3 there's a 2/3 chance they'll all go through anyway.

I hate it. The last 3 euros have all bored me to tears. England amd Portugal got to the finals of the last two by doing absurdly feck all. This one we could easily end up with England vs France despite both teams being utter garbage for the whole tournament. Best case scenario in terms of who deserves it on merit, a team who's best forward is Weghorst will be in the final.

Formats
Click to expand...

Bit of an exaggeration.

Can’t you just enjoy it and embrace it?

The possession-based obsession will end soon enough anyway. But watch football from the 80s and 90s, it wasn’t any better.
 
MrWilliams said:
I know the point you’re trying to make regarding the expanded WC slots and diluted quality, but CAF is actually a federation that can add 4 more quality teams (up from 5 today) and keep a high level of play.

Nigeria, Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Cameroon, Tunisia, Morocco, Senegal, Cote D’Ivoire

That’s 9 nations that could all qualify from their WCQ groups, make the 2026 WC and I don’t think anyone would consider them minnows or nations without proper footballing history.

If anything CONCACAF and AFC will bring in less quality teams
Click to expand...
Totally agree on CAF, I was being hyperbolic for dramatic effect.
 
Juicy Juiced said:
WC will be shambles. My country
qualified once, 2014, it was fecking amazing... Now with 100 teams, couldn't care less. Its just who ever wins leafue when Pep rides in the sunset.
Click to expand...
Bosnia right? I went to that first game in 2014 against Argentina at the Maracanã. Brilliant atmosphere from you guys!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.