24 Team Format Pros and Cons

[Satchmo Distel]

IIRC the format did not spoil Euro 2016 and may even have enhanced it by dangling a carrot to nations like Iceland and Wales, who took full advantage in the matches that are most remembered from that tournament. Although they may also have qualified for a 16 team finals, I don't think we can say for sure that they'd have felt as confident about building a successful campaign.

OTOH Portugal's path to winning it feels unsatisfactory and there were many crushingly dull games where teams knew they only needed to avoid being one of the 8 worst of 24 to get out of their group.

This year it's clearly compounded by the lack of a single host and the feeling that the players would prefer a rest.

[Satchmo Distel]

8 and 16 team events could also be shit, of course, if teams have decided to grind out results, as at Euros 92 and 96.

[ursus arctos]

I don't think you can look at the finals tournament in isolation

One of the major drawbacks of the 24 team format is that it makes the qualification process for the top dozen or so teams a completely foregone conclusion that saps interest (both in the matches and the national team in general).

[Satchmo Distel]

Do viewing figures for qualifiers bear that out? I stopped watching them after I moved to the US (so each finals tournament has an unfamiliar England side to me, no more familiar than any other regular qualifier) but I think there's a ritualistic aspect where people will still watch a win over Andorra because it's a live England game.

OTOH I can see how these matches are far less attractive than the genuinely competitive club matches one can watch (albeit only after Xmas in the CL and EL).

[ursus arctos]

I know that they have on the Continent (particularly Italy).

There is a certain pathology to England support that is thankfully unique and to my mind not very relevant to the broader question.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

There are no pros, other than you do get a few entertaining games sometimes, before the proper stuff begins. Like England stuffing Wales with a last minute goal five years ago.

[Satchmo Distel]

A pro is if you have a couple of dull groups, it doesn't kill the group stage. A con is we are seeing some weak sides here already, whereas the Euros used to be quality v quality in most matches (as distinct from the World Cup). OTOH again, today we've seen a group containing 4 sides with lots of weaknesses but their games have been belters, and it's wide open.

[Discordant Resonance]

The one positive in terms of the group stage dynamics is that generally, finishing on three points won't see a team progress as one of the four best third-placers, so as we saw with Wales yesterday, and both of today's matches, once an "unfancied" team goes behind, they have to pursue an equaliser straight away, rather than in recent World Cups, where the underdogs seem resigned to their fate, as they sense little prospect of finishing in the top two.

[Duncan Gardner]

we are seeing some weak sides here already, whereas the Euros used to be quality v quality in most matches

Do you mean relatively recently, ie 1996-2012? If you accept that there are usually about 6 or 8 dominating teams at any given moment, with 16 finalists that's a lot of mismatches

[Patrick Thistle]

I don't think you can look at the finals tournament in isolation

One of the major drawbacks of the 24 team format is that it makes the qualification process for the top dozen or so teams a completely foregone conclusion that saps interest (both in the matches and the national team in general).

I think that's what UEFA were trying to counter with the Nations League.

[Flynnie]

It should be noted that the Netherlands failed to qualify in 2016, which is probably the biggest single slip up in qualification by any big side since the Euros went to 16 teams (I’d rank them over McClaren’s England since they finished third in the previous World Cup), so a truly dysfunctional team can still blow it.

It’s also just bloody nice that Scotland have qualified.

OTOH Portugal's path to winning it feels unsatisfactory and there were many crushingly dull games where teams knew they only needed to avoid being one of the 8 worst of 24 to get out of their group.

To be fair, the 24 team World Cup threw up some similar examples. Italy actually finished second in their group in 1982, but were fucking woeful in their three draws. They just happened to make up for it by running the gauntlet successfully in the second group phase. Argentina in 1990 and Italy in 1994 were also third place advancees (although they both had four points from the group) and got pretty close to winning the thing, with Argentina in 1990 winning just two games without resorting to penalties.

[Satchmo Distel]

Italy had to finish 2nd in that 1982 group, though (12 went through not 16). 1986 is when you started to have absurdities like the shite Uruguay and Bulgaria teams going through with two points.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

It was 2 points for a win in 1986, though. Had it been 3 points for a win Uruguay would have gone into that final game against Scotland knowing they had to win to beat Hungary's 3 points in another group, so might have at least tried to play some football.

[Flynnie]

Italy had to finish 2nd in that 1982 group, though (12 went through not 16). 1986 is when you started to have absurdities like the shite Uruguay and Bulgaria teams going through with two points.

I did mention that Italy finished 2nd. The point is that very unsatisfactory Portugal advanced from their group with three draws and so did Italy. And at least Ronaldo played a successful pass in the Euro 2016 group stages, which is more than Paolo Rossi did.

[longeared]

UEFA could resolve that problem by making wins a tiebreaker before goal difference, as then it'd be harder for teams to qualify with three draws rather than those who won one, lost two and have a negative GD as happened in 2016. That'd also potentially make the matches better as it'd switch the emphasis from "not losing" to "winning".

[Jah Womble]

Well, the obvious 'pro' is that, in many cases, it keeps things alive for the third match (ie, if the top two have won both previous matches - viz England's group at the last World Cup) and eliminate the 'dead rubber'/'wooden spoon derby'.

If this occasionally means that you get an anomaly like Uruguay in 1986 - who did very nearly beat eventual finalists Germany - well, so be it. They'll likely get found out soon enough.

[Satchmo Distel]

Is GD above HTH in this tournament? I could see pros and cons in that.

[Satchmo Distel]

I've really enjoyed the first week of this so I can't say the format has damaged the entertainment. Has it even enhanced it? Very few teams are playing for draws.

I agree with longeared that one win and two defeats should automatically finish above three draws irrespective of GD, although it appears here that nobody is playing for 3 draws so it may be a non-problem.

[imp]

It certainly makes for fewer dead rubbers in the final round of group games.

[Duncan Gardner]

Indeed, but alternatively this format gives more mediocre teams with little realistic chance of winning the tournament an extra game. By giving greater access to the 'festival of football' you are diluting and delaying the elite competition.

Best way to achieve the former? 32 finalists, abolish round of 16, group Winners- only progress and treat the 'dead rubbers' as exhibition, not chore

[imp]

That's quite the worst suggestion I've ever heard with regard to competition format. You should apply for a job with Fifa.

[Duncan Gardner]

[imp]

Yup, on that level.

[Duncan Gardner]

the basic idea (let everyone into enjoy it, before quickly kicking out the non-elite) works well enough elsewhere. And the Olympics are finished in less than 3 weeks

[imp]

Good idea for the U9s Recreational World Cup.