posted Jun 13, 2008

Since when have there been 24 major teams in Europe?

England was about the only "big" nation that did not qualify, I was using England as an example for the fact that qualification would be devalued to a large extent. You do realise you can mention the name England without implying that we should be there. We shouldn't. The whole point of qualification is to challenge all the teams, not just motivate smaller nations.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 13, 2008

"you should stop being so confrontational and rude and maybe your points would come across a little better. Your not always right.... yelling and swearing doesn't make your opinion any more valid."

It doesn't make them any less valid either! If you go back you'll see that kheruvim started the rudeness... Besides, this isn't about being right or wrong at all, its about debate...views and opinions.


And in reply to kheruvim's last post...Exactly! This brings us back to my original point which you disagreed with, and now seem to have changed your mind...
Switzerland and Austria and NOT major teams. They are there at the expense of major teams however, whether its England or not.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 13, 2008

And in reply to kheruvim's last post...Exactly! This brings us back to my original point which you disagreed with, and now seem to have changed your mind...
Switzerland and Austria and NOT major teams. They are there at the expense of major teams however, whether its England or not.
---------------
They are the host nations. You mentioned motivation for small teams, well now you want to take away motivation by saying only major nations can host the tournament... Ok we'll increase the number of places at the Euros "Small" Nations, so you have slighty better odds of qualifying, BUT you may never apply to host it!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 13, 2008

One point, and I apologise if it's been made before, is that the Euro of 8 years ago was also hosted by two countries. Holland made as far as the semis, but Belgium were dumped out in the group phase- was there a huge controversy about their involvement? Some countries (the smaller ones) may well feel they cannot hold the tournament by themselves, and so plan to host it with a neighbour. With others (like Greece and Turkey who bid against Austria-Swiss) it actually has some meaning- I would have liked to see the Greeks and Turks co-operate on something for a change! But if a country wants to host, and cannot do it alone, is it really fair to say "You may not host as your team is not good enough to be involved". What happens if Euro 2004 had been hosted by Germany- probably the worst team in the competition (and I'm German!)? Would one then have said that one space was too much for the hosts? The bottom line is that those who are footing the bill, organising the matches and accomodating the fans should get at least the opportunity to watch their team play! In their own way (I agree not by their team) they have earned the right to be represented. What if a nation like Latvia with no chance qualifies and loses every game- do we say they should have been barred because they were too bad?

Also, increasing the competition to 24 teams might be a different matter, but I don't think England would have had a better chance if Swiss and Austria had been ordered to qualify. Honestly I think they would struggle to beat the former and the latter would have been an easy 4-6 points for all of England, Croatia, Russia- where would be the difference? I know not everyone is arguing this view, but to take cheap shots at the hosts because England did not qualify is sour grapes.

Also don't be too harsh on the hosts. They have not played that badly and have no luck at all. Remember the Euro is a harder competition than the World Cup (or the qualifier!)- so I don't think it makes either host completely hopeless if they don't take 9 points from groups that contain Czech Republic and Portugal on one side, and Germany and Croatia on the other. Even Turkey and Poland are good teams.

Give the hosts a chance- someone always has to go out first!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 13, 2008

If there are only 16 'major' teams, that allows for 64 years of hosting!!

By then, some of the smaller countries will have progressed and will 'earn' the right to have the competition at home.

Note that Switzerland and Austria's poor results are DESPITE the home advantage that helps teams do well.

Spain, Italy and France all won it at home,
and here's something I've just found by looking at the results that go back 50 years: The host nations have ALWAYS made it AT LEAST to the semi-finals, with the exception of Switzerland, Austria, and Belgium (who had joint hosting with Holland in 2000, Holland got to the semis.)
You can be pedantic and claim that Austria could still make it to the semis, we all know that's unlikely.

This absolutely backs up my point about having major teams hosting.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 13, 2008

This isn't about England at all. Keep up at the back. If you're going to comment, at least read what's already been said.

Everyone agrees that England didn't deserve to qualify, as they were out-played by both Russia and Croatia.
However, two teams that have qualified, and who are playing appalling football, don't deserve to be there either. Even their fans are embarrassed.
This is about two teams being there

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 13, 2008

...that maybe shouldn't be...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 13, 2008

Let me just get this straight please.

I do NOT think that England should be there, I have never said that England have a right to be at every tournament, they should qualify just like every other team.

What I did say is that the tournament is lessened by the fact that they are NOT there, that is all. Just in the say way that any other major footballing nation not being there would lessen the tournament.

I do think that there have been some good games so far, notably Netherlands v Italy. But there have also been some awful ones also. But thats football.

What I find detestible is that people think that everytime someone mentions England it's about a rant about an injustice. And calling England fans arrogant is bordering on racism to be honest.

The problem is that people read and beleive the tabloid press and have their minds made up for them, don't believe what you read about England fans, we know our team is not the best its the media that builds them up.

Ad for the Premier League, it is the best watched league in the world, bar non. It is the most exciting and the most incident packed, and that's why there is a great deal of money swashing around. Yes, there are a lot of foreigners plying their trade over here, and good luck to them. But there are outstanding English players also, they just don't seem to perform well at international level, and let's face it Spain, for instance, have had great players in the past and not really been up to much in the Euros and World Cups.

However, I do think that this year is Spain's year.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 15, 2008

to esthar2

your only critiscising the hosts because england aren't there
switzerland would of qualified from englands group and austria wouldn't of but they would of pushed all the way and perhaps would of from other groups
austria and switzerland have been so unlucky its ridiculous

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jun 16, 2008

To all you people posting comments saying I am moaning cos England did not qualify let me put you straight.
Scotland, Rep of Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Israel, and too many eastern European sides to mention would have beaten both Austria and Switzerland.
This is about quality of football and not nationalities.

add comment | complain about this comment