England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? 21:08 - Jun 21 with 1115 views | Trequartista | Or has my maths failed me? | |
| | |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 21:14 - Jun 21 with 1075 views | Butterbing | Presumably because we are guaranteed at least third and would have more points than Ukraine and third in group B? | | | |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 21:22 - Jun 21 with 1001 views | BloomBlue | They said earlier on the BBC if Finland or Russia lose then England guaranteed place in last 16, soni guess the same as you said | | | |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 21:25 - Jun 21 with 986 views | pointofblue | England through as scores stand. If Russia state a comeback to claim a draw then four points may not be enough. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 21:27 - Jun 21 with 971 views | Nthsuffolkblue | I think any team finishing third on 4 points would be very unfortunate to fail to go through. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:07 - Jun 22 with 665 views | Radlett_blue |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 21:27 - Jun 21 by Nthsuffolkblue | I think any team finishing third on 4 points would be very unfortunate to fail to go through. |
yet another example of how poor a 24 team finals is. IT means we are currently playing 36 games purely to eliminate 8 poor sides who shouldn't be there in the first place. It makes the tournament over-long as well as making the group stage a complete yawn. However, it keeps the corrupt UEFA regime in place as it pleases the many smaller nations. It also makes the qualification process much less interesting. But it keeps the corrupt UEFA leadership in place because it pleases the smaller nations. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:28 - Jun 22 with 641 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:07 - Jun 22 by Radlett_blue | yet another example of how poor a 24 team finals is. IT means we are currently playing 36 games purely to eliminate 8 poor sides who shouldn't be there in the first place. It makes the tournament over-long as well as making the group stage a complete yawn. However, it keeps the corrupt UEFA regime in place as it pleases the many smaller nations. It also makes the qualification process much less interesting. But it keeps the corrupt UEFA leadership in place because it pleases the smaller nations. |
I've quite enjoyed the group stage myself. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:31 - Jun 22 with 629 views | pointofblue |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:28 - Jun 22 by The_Flashing_Smile | I've quite enjoyed the group stage myself. |
I agree, and it keeps nearly every side involved heading into the final matches - I think North Macedonia were the only team knocked out after the second round of games. Admittedly even with two teams qualifying I think at least one of the spots would have been up for grabs going into the final matches. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:39 - Jun 22 with 600 views | clive_baker |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:07 - Jun 22 by Radlett_blue | yet another example of how poor a 24 team finals is. IT means we are currently playing 36 games purely to eliminate 8 poor sides who shouldn't be there in the first place. It makes the tournament over-long as well as making the group stage a complete yawn. However, it keeps the corrupt UEFA regime in place as it pleases the many smaller nations. It also makes the qualification process much less interesting. But it keeps the corrupt UEFA leadership in place because it pleases the smaller nations. |
I don't mind having some 'poor' sides at the tournament, it should help them improve by being involved at this level, and have generally given a good account of themselves eg. Scotland and Hungary. I don't like the 24 side format though with 3rd places going through, I think it should either be 16 or 32, a straight top 2 progressing. To finish 3rd of 4 and qualify is a bit of a nonsense IMO. Why not just have the likes of Norway, ROI, NI, Romania, Serbia etc involved and follow the WC format of 8 groups of 4. I love the group stages, with games on every day etc, but this halfway house doesn't work for me. | |
| | Login to get fewer ads
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:50 - Jun 22 with 580 views | rickw |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:39 - Jun 22 by clive_baker | I don't mind having some 'poor' sides at the tournament, it should help them improve by being involved at this level, and have generally given a good account of themselves eg. Scotland and Hungary. I don't like the 24 side format though with 3rd places going through, I think it should either be 16 or 32, a straight top 2 progressing. To finish 3rd of 4 and qualify is a bit of a nonsense IMO. Why not just have the likes of Norway, ROI, NI, Romania, Serbia etc involved and follow the WC format of 8 groups of 4. I love the group stages, with games on every day etc, but this halfway house doesn't work for me. |
I agree - I'd prefer 32 teams than this format where most go through. I did like the 16 team format though - you know then there are no easy games unlike this where you can play North Macedonia or Finland or in the World Cup where you know certain teams will struggle before it starts. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 10:20 - Jun 22 with 540 views | Radlett_blue |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:50 - Jun 22 by rickw | I agree - I'd prefer 32 teams than this format where most go through. I did like the 16 team format though - you know then there are no easy games unlike this where you can play North Macedonia or Finland or in the World Cup where you know certain teams will struggle before it starts. |
The 24 team concept was obviously a compromise as the UEFA cronies wanted more votes, but realised a jump from 16 to 32 would have been too big for some. Yes, if if has to be bigger, 32 teams makes more sense, but if you have 32 European teams it's more about who doesn't qualify than does and the qualification process - which is already long and tortuous - becomes even worse. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 10:32 - Jun 22 with 514 views | The_Last_Baron |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 21:27 - Jun 21 by Nthsuffolkblue | I think any team finishing third on 4 points would be very unfortunate to fail to go through. |
Third place and four points has always been enough to qualify for the last 16 under this format of competition. The only side which got four points and missed out was Norway at the 1994 World Cup, because the finished fourth. Mexico, Rep Ireland, Italy and Norway all got four points, 0 goal difference so goals scored separated them (and lots in Ireland/Italy case). In the 1986 World Cup Uruguay qualified with 2 points. and a goal difference of minus 5. In this tournament, Finland are highly unlikely to make it, Ukraine have a better than 50 per cent chance the way I see it. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 10:35 - Jun 22 with 502 views | The_Last_Baron |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 09:39 - Jun 22 by clive_baker | I don't mind having some 'poor' sides at the tournament, it should help them improve by being involved at this level, and have generally given a good account of themselves eg. Scotland and Hungary. I don't like the 24 side format though with 3rd places going through, I think it should either be 16 or 32, a straight top 2 progressing. To finish 3rd of 4 and qualify is a bit of a nonsense IMO. Why not just have the likes of Norway, ROI, NI, Romania, Serbia etc involved and follow the WC format of 8 groups of 4. I love the group stages, with games on every day etc, but this halfway house doesn't work for me. |
the 24 team 1982 World Cup worked much better by the 24 becoming 12 after the first round. Then we had de-facto quarter finals with four groups of three teams - these produced several classic matches. Then to the semi-finals. This would be a much better format. The only downside is a lack of straight knock-out games but you could correct that by going from 12 teams to 8. | |
| |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 10:37 - Jun 22 with 501 views | The_Last_Baron |
England are through if Belgium or Denmark win? on 10:32 - Jun 22 by The_Last_Baron | Third place and four points has always been enough to qualify for the last 16 under this format of competition. The only side which got four points and missed out was Norway at the 1994 World Cup, because the finished fourth. Mexico, Rep Ireland, Italy and Norway all got four points, 0 goal difference so goals scored separated them (and lots in Ireland/Italy case). In the 1986 World Cup Uruguay qualified with 2 points. and a goal difference of minus 5. In this tournament, Finland are highly unlikely to make it, Ukraine have a better than 50 per cent chance the way I see it. |
1986 and 1990 it was 2 points for a win but I've translated that into the 3 points for a win system. | |
| |
| |