Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

[Satchmo Distel]

When you only have 16 teams, won't it be a big problem if Ukraine suck as bad as Poland did in that second half?

[G-Man]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

The uninspiring performances of Austria and Switzerland in 2008 did nothing to devalue that tournament.

[Janik]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

Nor did the early eliminiation of South Africa in World Cup 2010 (Sorry, G).

If anything, having hosts with mediocre teams probably means a country that is delighted to have such (potentially) high quality football taking place there. Which means that games not involving their side will also get full houses of enthusiastic fans, irrespective of whether the hosts are challenging. Rather than half-full or worse stadiums as we had in Euro '96, for example.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

I think sometimes it's nicer that less brash hosts can enjoy their party early on and then retire to the kitchen to concentrate on the job of being hosts, serving hors d'ouevres and pouring the champagne, rather than demanding to be the centre of everyone's attention right to the bitter end. Especially when, like with South Korea in 2002, it's clear everyone else was being just a bit too keen to make sure the hosts stayed in the event anyway so as not to ruin things. There's also always a sense of huge anticlimax when hosts who are strong favourites to win in front of their own fans bugger it up by freezing against inferior sides, as happened with Italy in 1990 and Portugal in 2004.

[Ray de Galles]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

No

[Bored Of Education]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

It's a bit too early to call when, as with yesterday, you have what many people regarded as the most mediocre group and it produced two great matches to watch.

As has been said, the elimination of Austria and Switzerland did not lessen 2008 a bit. I think that, since the World cup 94, these tournaments can concentrate a bit too much on how much football can be introduced into different territories rather than just having a month of summer football that happens to be played in one country or the other.

Having said that, World Cups do tend to have a rather different feel depending on the host country - I'm thinking of South Africa, USA, Japan and Korea. I am not sure whether the Euros do. I can't honestly say that 1996, 2000 and 2008 seemed any different

[EIM]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

Totally. Brazil should host the European Championships every year.

[Sam]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

Have to disagree with Rogin about Portugal in 2004 (I'm too young to remember 1990). Anti climax? I thought it was highly amusing.

Bored, did you go to any of those World Cups? Because if not, I wonder whether the 'different feel' depending on host country was in fact (if you were watching on TV from the UK) just a different feel depending on what time of day it was for you? Timezone-wise, that could explain why all the Euros feel similar to you...

[dalliance]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

I think one of the benefits of having hosts with mediocre teams is that it throws real chaos into the draw for the group with them being given top seedlings.

You end up with a great mix of the awful group of teams from yesterday and the ridiculously good group of teams from today. Makes the group stages less formulaic.

[mafu]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

In terms of a 'different feel' a lot of it probably comes down to homogenisation. Euro tournaments are probably starting to feel a bit similar because one european city or country is now often much more like any other, superficially at least.

and even on a worldwide scale there is now a certain amount of homogenity across stadiums (two bland curved tiers of seating wrapped in a multicoloured lightweight shell? you are spoiling us!),official beer, official debit card, kickoff times where possible etc etc etc

this is a tv-centric sort of view though. on the ground and going to the games it's obviously a bit different

[Harbinger of Hope]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

I don't mind mediocre hosts. The real problem is making them 1st seeds, especially when there's two mediocre hosts. A lucky draw then becomes overly important. Comparing Group A with Group B this time is a clear example of this.

So basically the opposite of Dalliance.

[Bored Of Education]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

Bored, did you go to any of those World Cups? Because if not, I wonder whether the 'different feel' depending on host country was in fact (if you were watching on TV from the UK) just a different feel depending on what time of day it was for you? Timezone-wise, that could explain why all the Euros feel similar to you...

That's pretty much exactly the reason. What's your point?

[jason voorhees]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

If anything, I think Belgium-Swiss-Austria-S.Africa all going out in the first round now took the pressure off of everybody. Like rogin said, when a host nation gets a bunch of horseshit calls in a row, it smells bad. Now host nations can see that it's not the end of the world if they lose, and the stadiums will be packed anyway for quarterfinals and semifinals.

Not sure how it will work with an extra round when it expands to 24 teams, but who knows. At least Poland-Swiss-Austria-Ukraine all had decent World Cup runs at one point, so it's not like they never had success in a major tournament before they hosted as well.

So no, they would not devalue a tournament.

[Valentino Mazzola]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

mafu wrote:

In terms of a 'different feel' a lot of it probably comes down to homogenisation. Euro tournaments are probably starting to feel a bit similar because one european city or country is now often much more like any other, superficially at least.

and even on a worldwide scale there is now a certain amount of homogenity across stadiums (two bland curved tiers of seating wrapped in a multicoloured lightweight shell? you are spoiling us!),official beer, official debit card, kickoff times where possible etc etc etc

this is a tv-centric sort of view though. on the ground and going to the games it's obviously a bit different

I agree. I increasingly find it hard to separate finals and matches and assign them to a year within a blink of an eye.

[Satchmo Distel]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

Expanding to 24 teams will blur the tournaments even more. The one distinctive feature of the Euros is fewer makeweight sides and less clutter in the schedule.

Furthermore, teams who currently have rarity value (Slovenia, Slovakia, Ireland (!)) will start to become over-familiar, like Greece have done.

Finally, a weak host means a weak quarter-finalist: 2002 obviously had that in spades, and we have the prospect of Greece and maybe Ukraine parking the bus in the QFs here.

[Bored Of Education]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

Sorry, Sam, that was an especially stroppy reply on my part

[E10 Rifle]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

Euro 96 laboured a bit, with England as hosts.

But the answer to the original post is no, overall.

[Satchmo Distel]

Do Mediocre Hosts Devalue A Tournament?

dalliance wrote: I think one of the benefits of having hosts with mediocre teams is that it throws real chaos into the draw for the group with them being given top seedlings.

You end up with a great mix of the awful group of teams from yesterday and the ridiculously good group of teams from today. Makes the group stages less formulaic.

Yes, it made the group stages far less formulaic but arguably was a strong factor in making the QFs so unbalanced.