4 groups of 6?

[evilC]

With the results we've seen tonight - Greece & Czech Republic going through - doesn't this go to show that the 4-team group system throws up unrepresentative results?

Now, with the tournament expanding to 24 teams next time round, wouldn't it be better to switch to 4 groups of 6, meaning that teams had to play 5 games each, before going straight through to the semi-finals?

Would that produce fairer ultimate results, or would the possible predictability of the semi-final participants outweigh the benefits of the qualifying groups producing worthy winners?

[Janik]

4 groups of 6?

Obviously it's never going to happen due to the extra length of the tournament that it would neccesitate. But to consider the suggestion, the first thought that arises is you would need to send either two or four sides through from your set of six, so there would also be a larger number of dead rubbers or matches between a side with something to play for against a side already eliminated (or already through if it's four of six progressing). I can't see how that would add to fairness.
You will be able to see how this works at the Olympics, where many of team sports (Basketball, Handball, Volleyball, etc.) choose to operate with pools of six teams.

But in general, I would ask; was tonight not entertaining enough for you?

Edit - Cricket world cups have also used groups of 6, haven't they? And they those have often felt like they are dragging on interminably.

[Hofzinser]

4 groups of 6?

What do you mean by 'unrepresentative' results, exactly?

You seem to be suggesting that tonight's matches exposed some sort of flaw in the current system - surely it did precisely the opposite?

[Kettle]

4 groups of 6?

How are the post groups matches going to work in 2016? Is it going down the Espana 82 route of four groups of three, or the Mexico 86-USA 94 route of best losers (3rd places)?

But the pressure from clubs to UEFA about their players playing even more football outside their jurisdiction would prevent groups of 6 happening straight away.

[linus]

4 groups of 6?

I agree with Hof, Russia did not deserve to go through.
The bigger groups would also further aggravate the issue of group imbalance and the flaws with the group seedings.

[imp]

4 groups of 6?

Yes, today was a perfect illustration of the four-team group working perfectly - tense and entertaining until the final whistle, with any goal changing the permutations in a second.

[Jimmy Bignutz]

4 groups of 6?

They pointed this out on last night's Guardian podcast - this whole tournament is an example of how perfect the format is, just as they're about to change it.

[Jimmy Bignutz]

4 groups of 6?

Kettlist Kharkiv wrote: How are the post groups matches going to work in 2016? Is it going down the Espana 82 route of four groups of three, or the Mexico 86-USA 94 route of best losers (3rd places)?

It'll be the best 4 third placed teams.

[RobM]

4 groups of 6?

Russia pulled out one hounding of the Czech Republic and then looked very average while the Czechs regrouped and done the business, I can't see why there was a lack of competition here.

Watching it in the pub with both games on and the possibility of things changing with a goal in either game lent an air of excitement to it all.

Let's not get all Champions League on the Euros or the World Cup, it's do or die and that's what makes it good.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

4 groups of 6?

I'm not a fan of formats where only group winners progress.

However I'm also not a fan of third-placed teams from groups of 4 progressing. In the context of a 24-team Euros that means we'll play 36 matches to reduce it to er, 16 teams.

So if the tournament is not to be 8 games long,as it would be with groups of 6 followed by QF, my only solution to the 24-team finals would be 6 groups of 4, all group winners progress with all runners-up, but the "best 4" group winners go straight into the quarter-finals, to sit out a round to await the winners of 4 second round ties.

Ideally of course these "best 4" winners would be determined by results in the groups themselves, but if - as I suspect - there was a need to structure things with a little more preordination than that, I'd seed the initial draw so that there were 4 top seeds, 8 second seeds, and 12 "others".

Groups A, B, C and D would contain 1 top seed and 3 "others" each, and the winners of those groups would be the ones getting a bye into the QFs. Groups E and F would be the ones containing the 2nd seeds.

I think this would mean E and F would be "groups of death" and similarly A to D would each provide 3 lesser teams with a chance to grab the scalp of a seed, and fight it out among themselves for a 2nd round place.

Plus, the coaches of players from the clubs of eg Spain, Germany, Italy and Holland would be assured that if their stars performed as expected they'd only be playing 6 games, not 7, as they would in a 16-game finals.

[Guest]

4 groups of 6?

Where do you strike the balance between clubs not wanting their players to play too many games, and countries wanting their teams to have a number of them guaranteed? Is three guaranteed games at a finals a sacrosanct number? Is two too few? Is four too many?

I'm not advocating this, necessarily, but does 24 teams suggest eight groups of three? With the top seed in each group in the final game to lessen the possibility of dead rubbers? Each group based entirely in one city? And why so many questions in this post?

[Guest]

4 groups of 6?

If groups of four is a given, then probably either leave it as at is at 16 or else go for 32 and massively scale down the qualifying competition.

[Janik]

4 groups of 6?

Groups of three leave far too much room for West Germany-Austria style stitch ups. Any set of circumstances where the fate of the inactive team is undecided prior to the final game will leave room for a mutually convienient result.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

4 groups of 6?

Certainly true if top two of the three qualify, less so if only group winners went through.

If only winners go through, groups of 3 can maintain drama to the end, but only if the winners of the first game are made to wait to play in the last game, otherwise one team can win the first 2 games and create a dead rubber. Or, if the match result between 2 sides is the prime tiebreaker, then if A beat B and then A draw with C, then B are already out, and C will qualify by beating B more heavily than A did, which sets up the potential for Argentina-Peru type games.

Ideally in a group of 3 you want it that both teams in the last game know they will go through if they win, as happened with Italy-Brazil in 1982. It may be that one side always gets the advantage of knowing they go through with the draw, too (like Brazil in 82) but it's better than any game where either side knows it has nothing to play for.

[Belhaven]

4 groups of 6?

Rogin Chorzow wrote:
Ideally in a group of 3 you want it that both teams in the last game know they will go through if they win, as happened with Italy-Brazil in 1982. It may be that one side always gets the advantage of knowing they go through with the draw, too (like Brazil in 82) but it's better than any game where either side knows it has nothing to play for.

Actually, all the groups in the second round in Spain were decided only in the last game. This was ensured by letting the loser in game one always play game number two. So, Argentina played Brazil as game number two after having lost to Italy in the first game, and, ditto, Belgium and Austria played the Soviet Union and Northern Ireland respectively in the second game after having lost to Poland and France in the first game.

I thought the system worked fine, and much better than letting four third placed teams through.

[Dalef65]

4 groups of 6?

Belhaven wrote:

Ideally in a group of 3 you want it that both teams in the last game know they will go through if they win, as happened with Italy-Brazil in 1982. It may be that one side always gets the advantage of knowing they go through with the draw, too (like Brazil in 82) but it's better than any game where either side knows it has nothing to play for.

Actually, all the groups in the second round in Spain were decided only in the last game. This was ensured by letting the loser in game one always play game number two. So, Argentina played Brazil as game number two after having lost to Italy in the first game, and, ditto, Belgium and Austria played the Soviet Union and Northern Ireland respectively in the second game after having lost to Poland and France in the first game.

I thought the system worked fine, and much better than letting four third placed teams through.

But was this planned or was it a happy coincidence(that the loser in game one always played in game two......?)?

I havent given too much thought to this matter but surely nowadays for reasons of security, logistics and indeed TV planning, games have to be planned somewhat in advance.
Would it be possible to wait for the result of game one before you know who is playing in game two....??

[Dubstar Belgrade]

4 groups of 6?

Would those problems be any harder to deal with than in a knockout phase?

Take the forthcoming Quarter-Finals; we know a runner-up will go into one match and the group winner another. A week ago this could have been any of four teams (or any combination of eight)

If you think of a three team group as;

Match 1: Team A v B
Match 2: Team C v Loser of Match 1
Match 3: Team C v Winner of Match 2

Then arguably it looks easier to plan for than the Quarter-Final line-up or the Round of 16 at a World Cup. Especially if as Rogin suggests all matches are played in the same city.

From a TV perspective, if the team with the largest potential audience was 'seeded' as Team C, then there's no ambiguity over when their matches are played - only the order in which they meet the opposition.

Of course, the real issue is... what happens if Match 1 is a draw?

[multipleman78]

4 groups of 6?

i agree that the tournament should be expanded as i feel Europe has enough sides to make up a tournament that would still be competitive. However i agree with an earlier post that it should not be 24 teams and should instead be 32.

The 24 teams to 16 teams always seemed a bit ridiculous to me. Group stages should always look to lose anyone who finishes in the bottom half of a group not promote them.

32 teams can certainly be achieved. I am biased as i want to see my team have a better chance of qualifying. Mind you there is no guarantee the Scots would still make it.

Look at sides not there from qualifying. Group A - Turkey, Belgium and Austria. C - Estonia and Serbia. D - Bosnia and Romania. E - Hungary and Finland. F - Israel and Latvia G - Montenegro, Switzerland, Wales and Bulgaria. H - Norway and Iceland. I - Scotland.

Now that is just me picking teams who i think could put up a decent fight given a kind draw. I would like to share the love. Let as many teams as possible enjoy the big finals atmosphere but make them have to earn the last 16 spot by finishing in top two.

[Belhaven]

4 groups of 6?

Dalef65 wrote:

Actually, all the groups in the second round in Spain were decided only in the last game. This was ensured by letting the loser in game one always play game number two.

But was this planned or was it a happy coincidence(that the loser in game one always played in game two......?)?

Yes, it was planned that way, and with different results the schedule would also have changed.

The logistics problem was overcome by having all three games in each group played at the same ground. Brazil, Argentina and Italy played their matches at Espanyol's old Sarria Stadium, while Poland, USSR and Belgium played all their's at Camp Nou.

I suppose that if you'd bought a ticket for, say, Brazil vs Italy, it would have two alternative kick-off times printed at it.

[dalliance]

4 groups of 6?

I've always enjoyed the European Championships because the overall quality at the lower end is much higher than the equivalent at the World Cup, so even when you have had unlikely qualifiers like Latvia, they have brought something to procedings.

I'm not really sure that Spain apart we are in a golden age for the international game anyway. It's been an interesting tournament with moments of excitement, but that's a bit different from it being an interesting and high quality tournament like Euro 2000 for example.

Changing it to 24 teams will dilute things horribly, on that basis Estonia would be here had the change happened for this tournament and any team that is 4 goals e than Ireland is not going to illuminate any competition.

Regarding the group structures, well I think the current two from four format is as good as it gets. Group A generated a lot of excitement primarily because of the cut throat format, not because of the quality of the teams and their football. So a bigger tournament with lesser overall quality and a different and more compromised group format to fit is a horrible double whammy.

[imp]

4 groups of 6?

There's no doubt that the move to 24 teams will screw this tournament completely. There will be many, many more crap games like Spain-Ireland with the likes of Scotland stinking the tournament up with dire, negative play.

It also discourages individual FAs from nurturing proper development programs. Instead of encouraging schools of excellence and decent club academies, I'd guess (and it is a guess and a broad generalization, I'll concede) there will be a feeling that qualifying for 'a major tournament' counts as a success for administrations, regardless of how shite the team is when they get there. So they'll take the income from that and continue to get by on complacency and a little extra cash.

Scotland could have qualified even for this tournament by beating only Lichtenstein and Lithuania if the Czechs had screwed up their final game - through a tied playoff over two games and then a win on penalties. So they'll be able to scrape in with 24 teams much more easily. I don't want them there until they have a team that can actually contribute something. I've spent most of this tournament relieved that we didn't make it.

[dalliance]

4 groups of 6?

double post.

[imp]

4 groups of 6?

You mean you typed in exactly as the same thoughts and opinions as me? I always knew the day would come when dalliance would mentally synchronise with a superior intellect, finally dropping the condescending tone, cutting the tactical hogwash, and developing a crowd-rousing sense of humour. Congratulations!

[Satchmo Distel]

4 groups of 6?

In 1982, I think if the first game was drawn, it would have been the highest team in the group stage that played last. Thus England played last as they finished higher than West Germany in the first group.

The weakness of that system is that Spain were already out when England played them, and West Germany could have done nothing had England got the 2-0 that was there for the taking.