24 countries at Euro 2016

Roger Hunt wrote:The logistics of the number of games are pretty scary.

6 groups of 4 playing once each is 36 games
8 groups of 3 playing twice is 48 games, isn't it? That's a lot more cost, and time, given that you'd need at least 2 clear days between games.

Khadrim wrote:

But smaller nations are getting better. Finland, Northern Ireland, even Bosnia at one point were in serious contention to qualify. You have given Andorra as an example of a team improving to which the argument can be made why change what is working.

Because they can make further and more rapid progress if they have more of a chance. They are developing through qualifiers, but I think further development would occur if they got tournament experience as well.

Also tournament experience is overrated. How many times had Greece qualified when they won. How many have times have England qualified and never won

.

Sheffield gunner wrote:I can understand the idea of wanting smaller countries to experience these occasions, but I've got to say I disagree. These tournaments are for the elite, and I think they benefit from maintaining as high a standard as possible. Expanding the tournament weakens it in my opinion. It may sound harsh, but this should be a highly competitive tournament, where ideally every team has a chance of winning. It's one of the biggest draws of the European Championships. If some countries aren't good enough, then they don't deserve to be there - whether they are an under-performing 'big' country, or a 'plucky' little country. It may be harder for these smaller countries to make it because of their size, but it isn't impossible. Croatia did well with a small population, as have a number of other countries. They just need to be good enough. They may be at a disadvantage, but in my opinion that is just tough, it's competitive sport, the idea isn't for everyone to 'win'. I probably come across as a typical arrogant supporter of a 'big country' in saying this, but that isn't my intention. The tournament this summer benefited from keeping the standard high. Would it have been better in a 24 team format with under-performing teams like England, and smaller countries which lack quality? In my opinion, no.

Also, this move lowers the pressure on the top sides to keep their standards high. They can afford to play below par, because there is more leniency. The price of failure isn't as high when the safety net is greater like it will be now.

Sheffield gunner wrote:I can understand the idea of wanting smaller countries to experience these occasions, but I've got to say I disagree. These tournaments are for the elite, and I think they benefit from maintaining as high a standard as possible. Expanding the tournament weakens it in my opinion. It may sound harsh, but this should be a highly competitive tournament, where ideally every team has a chance of winning. It's one of the biggest draws of the European Championships. If some countries aren't good enough, then they don't deserve to be there - whether they are an under-performing 'big' country, or a 'plucky' little country. It may be harder for these smaller countries to make it because of their size, but it isn't impossible. Croatia did well with a small population, as have a number of other countries. They just need to be good enough. They may be at a disadvantage, but in my opinion that is just tough, it's competitive sport, the idea isn't for everyone to 'win'. I probably come across as a typical arrogant supporter of a 'big country' in saying this, but that isn't my intention. The tournament this summer benefited from keeping the standard high. Would it have been better in a 24 team format with under-performing teams like England, and smaller countries which lack quality? In my opinion, no.

Also, this move lowers the pressure on the top sides to keep their standards high. They can afford to play below par, because there is more leniency. The price of failure isn't as high when the safety net is greater like it will be now.

EMP wrote:It may not have improved the quality this time, but why judge by one tournament? It will take a few tournaments to measure its impact? I chose Andorra, partly because they have made progress. For them losing 2-0 to England was progress that they can build on. Eventually they can look to keeping a clean sheet and then nicking a result. And then they can build further. Never is a long time. A few years ago I'll bet you would have said Greece would NEVER win the European Championship, but they did. As Andorra makes progress they can become better if they join a Spanish or French league or get to play friendlies against top teams near them. Why deny them the chance to improve? Why bully poor little Andorra? They have different targets and can only improve with qualification against the best of Europe. Belarus or Macedonia for example is an example of teams that could improve or regress depending on opportuntinies. The time to judge this isn't now. It's effect won't be seen for at least three or four tournaments.

anglophileHedgehog wrote:

Sheffield gunner wrote:I can understand the idea of wanting smaller countries to experience these occasions, but I've got to say I disagree. These tournaments are for the elite, and I think they benefit from maintaining as high a standard as possible. Expanding the tournament weakens it in my opinion. It may sound harsh, but this should be a highly competitive tournament, where ideally every team has a chance of winning. It's one of the biggest draws of the European Championships. If some countries aren't good enough, then they don't deserve to be there - whether they are an under-performing 'big' country, or a 'plucky' little country. It may be harder for these smaller countries to make it because of their size, but it isn't impossible. Croatia did well with a small population, as have a number of other countries. They just need to be good enough. They may be at a disadvantage, but in my opinion that is just tough, it's competitive sport, the idea isn't for everyone to 'win'. I probably come across as a typical arrogant supporter of a 'big country' in saying this, but that isn't my intention. The tournament this summer benefited from keeping the standard high. Would it have been better in a 24 team format with under-performing teams like England, and smaller countries which lack quality? In my opinion, no.

Also, this move lowers the pressure on the top sides to keep their standards high. They can afford to play below par, because there is more leniency. The price of failure isn't as high when the safety net is greater like it will be now.

*signs with a flourish* You said it much better than I could.

EMP wrote:It may not have improved the quality this time, but why judge by one tournament? It will take a few tournaments to measure its impact? I chose Andorra, partly because they have made progress. For them losing 2-0 to England was progress that they can build on. Eventually they can look to keeping a clean sheet and then nicking a result. And then they can build further. Never is a long time. A few years ago I'll bet you would have said Greece would NEVER win the European Championship, but they did. As Andorra makes progress they can become better if they join a Spanish or French league or get to play friendlies against top teams near them. Why deny them the chance to improve? Why bully poor little Andorra? They have different targets and can only improve with qualification against the best of Europe. Belarus or Macedonia for example is an example of teams that could improve or regress depending on opportuntinies. The time to judge this isn't now. It's effect won't be seen for at least three or four tournaments.

Comparing Andorra and Greece is like comparing apples and pears as we say in Germany, starting with the fact that Greece have a fully professional side (and have a statistically bigger talent pool simply because the population is bigger) and that Andorra's players are mostly amateurs, who, if I remember Sid Lowe's comments from before England's qualification match correctly, were playing in the Spanish third division if they really 'made' it.

Look I'm not looking for an argument. I think it is a legitimate comparison, because many years ago Greece was hopeless to and it looked like they would never qualify, let alone win it. I wasn't comparing their current positions. I meant historically. Andorra can progress if given the opportunity, but they need to gain experience first in qualification and eventually further, but they need a lot of help. There is no chance of a professional league in Andorra ever - it is too small, but their players can gain experience and get better. Perhaps it needs a fundamental rethink and investment, but denying them a chance to develop is unfair in my opinion.

If the Andorran league doesn't get stronger or if they aren't able to send more players to higher leagues, progress at international level will be hard to gain. Greece, e.g., have teams competing in the UEFA Cup and the CL (see Piräus last season) and there is a number of Greek players playing in the Bundesliga.

And to do that they need help. Cypriot teams recently eliminated one of the best in Greece. They too are a small nation that has made progress. Some of them also play in the Greek league. I don't think the Greek leagues are particularly strong - something Greeks I have spoken to agree with. Beyond Panathinaikos, AEK and Olympiacos, most would struggle to name another PAOK, perhaps, but any others. Andorra is a long term think. Their players need the opportunity to develop in better leagues. Perhaps they are in lower divisions, but they still held England at bay for a half and only lost 2-0. There is a chance to make further progress, but it will take many years before they can stun Europe. They will in time nick a result and that will be significant progress. How many Macedonians play in top leagues, or Kazakhs or even Belarus? How may Greeks played in European Cup teams, or top leagues forty years ago or even twenty? My comparison wasn't saying Andorra was as good as Greece and that should have been obvious.

"Why bully poor little Andorra?"--That statement was so unnecessary.

I was responding to the following comment from another poster that I consider excessive and unnecessary: '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!' They can get better and showed it, but it will take time to get a result. Eventually they will.

There will always be "bottom feeder teams"--the situation where only equally-skilled and equally-levelled teams play each other is utopian and idealistic.

Don't get this. I obviously wasn't suggesting that Andorra was going to qualify if it was expanded to 24.

And, as someone already mentioned, there are quite a few teams who are improving already, see Finland, see Scotland, see Northern Ireland, so it's not as if the current conditions were totally discriminating against them.

Where did I say it was discriminating against them? I think they need experience at top level and expansion would help. I don't think I said that it discriminates against them. I think it would be fairer and give them a chance to improve and ultimately increase the level of competition in the whole continent. Others don't. We agree to disagree. I don't have problem with that. It isn't the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last time that people disagree with me.

However, as Sheffield Gunner already sort of mentioned, you have to keep the balance. It's like at school--you have to decide whether you want to get everyone through the exams and, as a consequence, neglect the top-set pupils and lower the standards or whether you can live with some people falling through the cracks or staying behind, i.e. that in the end, there will be winners and losers.

EMP wrote:And to do that they need help.

Sheffield gunner wrote:16 is a good size considering the overall strength of football in Europe, and also has the added advantage of actually providing a path to the final that doesn't require ridiculous distinctions like only a fraction of third placed sides in the group making it through.

It's a figure that works both from the point of view of the tournament structure and also for maintaining high standards.

I think it would soon rise again and possibly even give an unexpected winner on merit. What ranking did Greece have before they qualified and won it. Was there really that much difference between them and the seventeenth team in Europe?

Sure I'm being elitist, because I want the elite to be at a tournament.

And they will be.

I don't care where they come from, how big a country they are, how prestigious their footballing pedigree, I enjoy seeing a competition with as few weak links as possible. I'm not discriminating on size or any other issue, although smaller countries are at an obvious disadvantage, but as far as I'm concerned that is just their misfortune.

Why do people keep using the word discrimination as if I said it. I haven't. I never said anyone was discriminating on basis of size. I think the smaller nations need to gain experience and eventually the whole tournament will benefit from it. There is sufficient quality in Europe to justify it without a significant drop in quality.

If they can produce the quality then they will be good enough and welcome, regardless of size. Croatia may not be a typical small nation, but why should a typical small nation make it into the tournament if they aren't good enough as it is?

Because that same argument applied previously as well if you use it now. By it there should never have been any expansion. It should be the original four as in 1960. Not in top four you don't go. That is real elitism and guarantees top quality doesn't it?

That teams like Croatia can make it shows that population isn't a decisive factor. There have been a number of teams with relatively small populations who have done well over the years (Greece and Denmark being two who have won it, and yes I'm aware mentioning Denmark invites a valid response seeing as they weren't originally meant to be there).

They had some history, leagues, and pedigree. Bar Croatia, which really inherited Yugoslavia's position, no other small nation made it quickly. Greece took time and so did Denmark, which as you say did not deerve to be there on merit. My argument isn't based on population. I meant in football terms - teams that are not considered top drawer, but on the cusp of it. I don't think there is that much difference in quality between the 14th to 18th teams in Europe for example, possibly more.

I don't see a particularly strong argument for having 24 teams, and I don't think 'giving minor countries a chance' is a good enough reason on its own. Taking part in the final stages of the European Championship should be a privilege, and something that really requires quality and hard work, no matter which country it is. Nations shouldn't have an entitlement to be there, and that is one of the things I fear happening. I know how harsh what I'm saying sounds, but it's competition at it's fiercest. Yes, some countries are heavily disadvantaged because they have small populations, but they shouldn't be helped out just because of this, if they earn a place they will have deserved it, and I worry that with 24 places not enough of the additional 8 teams will have earned the right to be there. For those that are disadvantaged by population, that is just their misfortune, and something for them to overcome. Just my opinion, and as I've said, I think the high competitive level is one of the selling points of the EC over the World Cup. I don't want to see that go

.

Lesley wrote:EMP,

EMP wrote:And to do that they need help.

Excuse me?

They need help developing their own football in their own country? Their own talents? They only can help themselves there.

As anglo pointed out, there's the problem of the small population in comparison to for example Greece. So the talent pool is of course smaller. But, well, all they could then is encouraging more children/youths to play football. They need to build up some sort of professional scouting system, if theirs ain't good enough at this point. Then help the most talented ones develop and bring them into one of the bigger leagues.

Only if they manage to do that, the national team can improve. Progresses like that got to start at the base, which is the football in the respective leagues at home. The national team should be the result of the good work there. Not the other way round.

How do you think Greece did it? How do you think basically EVERYONE is doing it?

EMP wrote:Their players do play in better leagues

Lesley wrote:EMP,

EMP wrote:And to do that they need help.

Excuse me?

They need help developing their own football in their own country? Their own talents? They only can help themselves there.


As anglo pointed out, there's the problem of the small population in comparison to for example Greece. So the talent pool is of course smaller. But, well, all they could then is encouraging more children/youths to play football. They need to build up some sort of professional scouting system, if theirs ain't good enough at this point. Then help the most talented ones develop and bring them into one of the bigger leagues.

Only if they manage to do that, the national team can improve. Progresses like that got to start at the base, which is the football in the respective leagues at home. The national team should be the result of the good work there. Not the other way round.

How do you think Greece did it? How do you think basically EVERYONE is doing it?