No Crossover in Draw!!!!
No Crossover in Draw!!!!
Just noticed on Uefa.com that there is no crossover in the draw til the final!!!
I think that is pretty pathetic as teams that meet in group play can meet again prior to final.
Example...
Semi final could see Croatia vs Germany and Holland vs France/Italy/Romania
or Portugal vs Turkey
Its almost as tho the tournament has 2 secions of 8 teams...like East vs West in the US system
Big thumbs down from me
Thoughts anyone....
Don't really care it's been a brilliant tournament doubt this will ruin it for me.
The reason for this is that UEFA created a draw which gave the possibility of at least one host team getting to the final. Obviously that was never a likely scenario, but they did it anyway.
lol if we(croatia) and germany win the in the quarters there could be a rematch in the semi's
Is this the reason for this? Most tournaments dont't do this do they? But how many have two hosts aswell. I guess that they do this to keep the top two sides of each side staying through till the semis, so does it save one 'more favoured' team getting through?
Is this the reason for this? Most tournaments dont't do this do they? But how many have two hosts aswell. I guess that they do this to keep the top two sides of each side staying through till the semis, so does it save one 'more favoured' team getting through?
No, this form of tournament structure is very unusual. The last time UEFA had co-hosts (2000, Belgium and Netherlands), they put them in Groups A and D,and consequently there was a 'normal' tournament structure. This time around they put them in Groups A and B, and someone thought it'd be a good idea to leave them on the same side of the draw to increase the chances of at least one of them getting through to the final.
Seems a bit silly now when both co-hosts got knocked out pretty quickly.
Another few things I have noted in the structure, or rules of this tournament that I feel are not that flash:
The penalty shoot-out in group stage: Yes a great idea but what if the drawn match is not the last game of the group? For example let's say Turkey ad Czech Republic HAD drawn their match the other day. It would have gone to penalties to decide who goes through as runners up. Brilliant. Much better than a coin toss for sure. But if this match happened to be the first game for each side and all other results were the same it would have come down to a coin toss. Maybe a penalty shout-out after each drawn match in the group stages is needed just in case teams end up on identical stats...
Ranking teams higher based on results against the other team before goal difference: Don't agree with this. The goal difference should count first. This would stop teams from playing second string sides such as Portugal or Croatia (yes yes I know they won) did, because winning the group would not have been assured. In the cases mentioned above Czech Republic or Turkey may have been able to win by enough goals to top Portugal, and likewise for Germany.
Still it has been a great tournament so far. But I do feel the last group matches have lacked something, Czech Republic - Turkey aside.
Wibblebutt2008-06-18 09:42:22
As for the potential shootout: this is actually not a new rule for UEFA, it was in place for EURO 2004, only such a situation didn't arise then. In the scenario that you mentioned (e.g. Turkey and Czechs ending up on equal points, goasl scored and against after playing out a draw in the first game), Czechs would have progressed to the QF because the tie-breaker would have been the coefficients the two teams accrued over the last two qualifying campaigns (WC 2006 and EURO 2008), and the Czechs did better than the Turks. The coin toss would have been an absolutely last case (and very unlikely) scenario.
I guess UEFA want issues to be solved on the football pitch as far as possible, rather than leaving them to be decided on things teams did as long as 4 years ago (when qualifying for WC 2006 began in Europe) or just blind luck. I personally don't have any problem with it, and don't really see why it should be a big issue.
As far as deciding group winners based on head-to-head records rather than goal-difference, this is a very common way of resolving ties in continental Europe (La Liga and Serie A both do it) and also applies in other major international competitions (World Cup, Champions League). The underlying principle is the belief that if two teams are tied at an end of the competition, the one that was more successful in the match/es played between them should come in front. Again, I have no problem with this logic. Furthermore, deciding issues on goal difference doesn't come without its share of problems. There was a big furore over an Argentina - Peru game in the 1978 World Cup (won't go into details, but suffice it to say it was a very controversial/convenient 6-0 win for the Argies), and this was undoubtedly one of the reasons why both FIFA and UEFA moved to head-to-heads as a primary tie-breaker. Also, deciding matters on goal-difference leaves scope for cynical calculations by countries so inclined, so to speak. So basically, there's two sides to that coin also.
And for my final two cents' worth, I'm sure both Portugal and us would have played second-string teams in the last group games even if top spot in the group wasn't secured, that's pretty much the pattern in major Championships in order to give a breather to players who are expected to play at a high level every 3-4 days, and also to avoid any untimely injuries and suspensions before the knock-out rounds.el grapadura2008-06-18 10:08:47
I guess UEFA want issues to be solved on the football pitch as far as possible, rather than leaving them to be decided on things teams did as long as 4 years ago (when qualifying for WC 2006 began in Europe) or just blind luck. I personally don't have any problem with it, and don't really see why it should be a big issue.
As far as deciding group winners based on head-to-head records rather than goal-difference, this is a very common way of resolving ties in continental Europe (La Liga and Serie A both do it) and also applies in other major international competitions (World Cup, Champions League). The underlying principle is the belief that if two teams are tied at an end of the competition, the one that was more successful in the match/es played between them should come in front. Again, I have no problem with this logic. Furthermore, deciding issues on goal difference doesn't come without its share of problems. There was a big furore over an Argentina - Peru game in the 1978 World Cup (won't go into details, but suffice it to say it was a very controversial/convenient 6-0 win for the Argies), and this was undoubtedly one of the reasons why both FIFA and UEFA moved to head-to-heads as a primary tie-breaker. Also, deciding matters on goal-difference leaves scope for cynical calculations by countries so inclined, so to speak. So basically, there's two sides to that coin also.
And for my final two cents' worth, I'm sure both Portugal and us would have played second-string teams in the last group games even if top spot in the group wasn't secured, that's pretty much the pattern in major Championships in order to give a breather to players who are expected to play at a high level every 3-4 days, and also to avoid any untimely injuries and suspensions before the knock-out rounds.el grapadura2008-06-18 10:08:47
As for the potential shootout: this is actually not a new rule for UEFA, it was in place for EURO 2004, only such a situation didn't arise then. In the scenario that you mentioned (e.g. Turkey and Czechs ending up on equal points, goasl scored and against after playing out a draw in the first game), Czechs would have progressed to the QF because the tie-breaker would have been the coefficients the two teams accrued over the last two qualifying campaigns (WC 2006 and EURO 2008), and the Czechs did better than the Turks. The coin toss would have been an absolutely last case (and very unlikely) scenario. [/QUOTE]
Ok I wasn't aware of the qualifying campaign part coming into it. If that is the case why have the penalty shoot-out at all then? In the above sceneario the Czechs would have qualified. But if it went to penalty shots it could have been Turkey which seems rather unfair on the Czechs. Just because they happened to draw in their last game rather than the first.
Edit - I've seen the light. The theory in penalty shoot out for the last game is to stop teams coming out playing for the draw. Righto I'm sorted.
[QUOTE=el grapadura]As far as deciding group winners based on head-to-head records rather than goal-difference, this is a very common way of resolving ties in continental Europe (La Liga and Serie A both do it) and also applies in other major international competitions (World Cup, Champions League). The underlying principle is the belief that if two teams are tied at an end of the competition, the one that was more successful in the match/es played between them should come in front. Again, I have no problem with this logic. Furthermore, deciding issues on goal difference doesn't come without its share of problems. There was a big furore over an Argentina - Peru game in the 1978 World Cup (won't go into details, but suffice it to say it was a very controversial/convenient 6-0 win for the Argies), and this was undoubtedly one of the reasons why both FIFA and UEFA moved to head-to-heads as a primary tie-breaker. Also, deciding matters on goal-difference leaves scope for cynical calculations by countries so inclined, so to speak. So basically, there's two sides to that coin also.
And for my final two cents' worth, I'm sure both Portugal and us would have played second-string teams in the last group games even if top spot in the group wasn't secured, that's pretty much the pattern in major Championships in order to give a breather to players who are expected to play at a high level every 3-4 days, and also to avoid any untimely injuries and suspensions before the knock-out rounds.
[QUOTE=el grapadura]As far as deciding group winners based on head-to-head records rather than goal-difference, this is a very common way of resolving ties in continental Europe (La Liga and Serie A both do it) and also applies in other major international competitions (World Cup, Champions League). The underlying principle is the belief that if two teams are tied at an end of the competition, the one that was more successful in the match/es played between them should come in front. Again, I have no problem with this logic. Furthermore, deciding issues on goal difference doesn't come without its share of problems. There was a big furore over an Argentina - Peru game in the 1978 World Cup (won't go into details, but suffice it to say it was a very controversial/convenient 6-0 win for the Argies), and this was undoubtedly one of the reasons why both FIFA and UEFA moved to head-to-heads as a primary tie-breaker. Also, deciding matters on goal-difference leaves scope for cynical calculations by countries so inclined, so to speak. So basically, there's two sides to that coin also.
And for my final two cents' worth, I'm sure both Portugal and us would have played second-string teams in the last group games even if top spot in the group wasn't secured, that's pretty much the pattern in major Championships in order to give a breather to players who are expected to play at a high level every 3-4 days, and also to avoid any untimely injuries and suspensions before the knock-out rounds.
Yes I've seen that 1978 World Cup debacle. Dodgiest tourney ever.
I can see the logic in it in that sense. Still it does make for several meaningless games which is a shame.
Wibblebutt2008-06-18 10:23:50
I can see the logic in it in that sense. Still it does make for several meaningless games which is a shame.
I guess so, but I think you'd get meaningless games the other way too. Guess there's really no perfect solution.