The expanded version should mean it is easier for Scotland and other home nations to qualify but Smith added: "It will make it easier for other countries such as England who failed to qualify for Euro 2008.
Rosicky wrote:So it will be 24 out of 53 countries reaching the finals?
Whats the point in that?
kroesius wrote:So three months after Euro 2008, the most entertaining and competitive football tournament in recent memory, UEFA react by changing the format of the competetion to allow weaker teams to qualify? Utterly stupid and damaging to the tournament's credability.
It´s like the Championsleague for national teams.Effenberg wrote:More games, more profit, more injuries, less quality.
kroesius wrote:It´s like theEffenberg wrote:More games, more profit, more injuries, less quality.ChampionsleagueUEFA Cup for national teams.
And Scotland!The Easter Bunny wrote:Atleast England should qualify now
Rosicky wrote:So it will be 24 out of 53 countries reaching the finals?
Whats the point in that?
De Guzman wrote:They should seed the top 10 countries, so the amount of games can be reduced
Top 10 can play friendlies v eachother, while the others play qualification.
Rosicky wrote:If 24 teams had been at Euro 2008 the following teams would have also competed:
Finland, Serbia, Scotland, Norway, ROI, England, Norn Ire, Bulgaria.
Hands up who thinks having those teams in Switzerland/Austria would have made the tournament better?
@ EMP
Why use the example of Andorra they are NEVER going to be good at football no matter how many times they play decent teams, they are bunch of part timers ffs!
Rosicky wrote:If 24 teams had been at Euro 2008 the following teams would have also competed:
Finland, Serbia, Scotland, Norway, ROI, England, Norn Ire, Bulgaria.
Hands up who thinks having those teams in Switzerland/Austria would have made the tournament better?
@ EMP
Why use the example of Andorra they are NEVER going to be good at football no matter how many times they play decent teams, they are bunch of part timers ffs!
Rosicky wrote:If 24 teams had been at Euro 2008 the following teams would have also competed:
Finland, Serbia, Scotland, Norway, ROI, England, Norn Ire, Bulgaria.
Hands up who thinks having those teams in Switzerland/Austria would have made the tournament better?
@ EMP
Why use the example of Andorra they are NEVER going to be good at football no matter how many times they play decent teams, they are bunch of part timers ffs!
EMP wrote:You can have eight groups of three and play eachother twice in group stage. Then only winner goes through to quarter finals.
Allez les rouges wrote:As with certain comparable situations, it depends whether you take the view that we/UEFA owe something to the smaller nations, whether the priority is to build up the historically weaker ones by giving them experience, or the quality and competitiveness of the final tournament.
Being an altruistic type I think the smaller/weaker nations need experience. Te question is how to give them that. If it was suggested that a couple of stronger nations have places withdrawn from them to allow a weaker one in well imagine the furore on here, or perhaps a last chance play-off? Again hardly a need to imagine the response, so this really is all that is left to give them experience and in the long run strengthen the competition. It requires time to see the effects.
So far I haven't heard any solutions. If not this, then what? Preserve the status quo and the richer better ferderations get richer, more experienced and better at least for now. Then what? Where does that Latvia or Montenegro or Macedonia for example, let alone the real minnows.
It looks like this is just a money-making exercise.
Gone wrote:EMP wrote:You can have eight groups of three and play eachother twice in group stage. Then only winner goes through to quarter finals.
And do you think this will happen? Or 1 place + the best 2 second places? Or the 1 place + second place + best 4 3rd place?
Home