Every game of the European Championships was once must see. They’re not anymore.
Throwing the ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ mantra out the window, UEFA expanded the tournament to 24 teams for France 2016.
More teams equal more games, which equals more money – seemingly the justification for any decision made by the football governing body.
24 teams obviously doesn’t divide as well, therefore this tournament has introduced a farcical situation where the best four third-placed sides qualify for the second round.
The fact you can now qualify from third place has made the entire tournament rather dour. Games aren’t necessarily must win anymore and sides often look content with a draw.
This has been reflected in the amount of goals scored, with Euro 2016 seeing an average of 1.84 goals per game.
Euro 2012 saw an average of 2.45 – enough said.
Interest in the group stage wasn’t as high, with weaker groups and the odd mismatch.
It’s a stark contrast to previous tournaments.
At Euro 2012 Germany, Portugal and The Netherlands were in the same group, as were Spain, Italy and Croatia and France and England.
Euro 2008 was much the same The Netherlands, Italy and France were grouped together, along with France, England and Croatia at Euro 2004.
Every game was a blockbuster, every game mattered and points were precious – it was why everyone loved the Euro’s.
But the biggest mistake made at Euro 2016 is how the Round of 16 opponents are decided.
Instead of the top four ranked group winners landing the four best third placed sides, the matches were predetermined.
It means Italy who topped Group A with six points, and could have finished with a maximum nine, had they not made 11 changes against the Republic of Ireland, take on Spain, the runner up of Group D.
On the other hand Wales, the second lowest ranked group winner will play Northern Ireland, the lowest ranked third placed side.
How is that fair?
Instead the third place sides, Slovakia, Republic of Ireland, Portugal and Northern Ireland should have been made to play the top four group winners – France, Germany, Croatia and Italy.
As mentioned above Italy made 11 changes for their game with the Republic of Ireland, given they had already secured top spot and couldn’t alter their position in the group or chances of progression in the second round.
That meant the Republic of Ireland were able to win against a weakened side, a chance every other team in the tournament didn’t have.
The Round of 16 also has delivered a horror draw for both organisers and fans.
Italy, Spain, Germany, France and England all sit in the same half of the draw.
The other side includes Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Wales and Belgium.
We’re hardly going to get the marquee final we all hoped we would.
The Euro’s have lost their lustre and I don’t think it’s going to change anytime soon.
Euro2020 may be even more farcical with 24 teams again taking part, but the biggest issue around the next Euro’s is the fact is won’t have a host nation.
Instead it will be held across thirteen European cities in thirteen different countries.
England’s Wembley Stadium will host the Semi Finals and Final, but the remainder will be played out in Copenhagen, Glasgow, Brussels, Budapest, Bilbao, Dublin, Amsterdam, Bucharest, St Petersburg, Rome, Munich and Baku – in Azerbaijan.
Co-hosting is not uncommon in recent times, but many issues come with it.
The impacts of travel between countries, inadequate rest time and issues for fans will no doubt once again be on the agenda in 2020.
The Round of 16 kicks off tomorrow and maybe Euro 2016 will have a late twist that glosses over the issues the tournament has had so far.
It would want to be something special, because up to now, the Euros have been painfully underwhelming.
13th Man
Guest
And then your argument is completely ruined by Iceland beating England.....
Johnno
Guest
Ha Ha England didn't progress. To the writer of this article, does he care to complain about the likes of little Iceland now, being bad for the tournament and undeserved. We all know Iceland wouldn't have had much chance most of the time to make it in a 16-team Euro. Go on Adam who wrote this article, you think Iceland's efforts have been devalued by a 24-team tournament. Have the guts to admit it,your not happy with Iceland's effort, it's devalued in your eyes. You have been strangely silent yet the minnows are making it to the last 8 eg Poland/Wales/Iceland, you were saying Adam?
At work
Roar Rookie
Let's get on to what is most important; which is the first huge game of the tournament at 2am tomorrow morning with Italy vs Spain. England will once again progress to the quarter finals, where they'll face France which going off recent results should be very tight. Italy or Spain on the other hand, the unlucky fools will have to face Germany. How lucky has Portugal's draw been, under performed through the group stages and is now a very good chance of breezing through to the final.
At work
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the contribution anon.
anon
Guest
The rioting and detonating of flares have been the most newsworthy parts of this soccer compeition.
Gazmon
Guest
6 groups of 4 sounds good in theory, but you'll end up with a lot of 'dead rubbers' at the end of the group stage. Plus playing 3 simultaneous games at the end of each group won't keep the TV companies happy. I think they may even more to 32 teams next time around. Make it more inclusive, given the strange format with it being held all over Europe. The excuses of travel and such for that event is nonsense. No bigger than Russia or the US hosting.
Johnno
Guest
And "Adam", the writer of this article his silence is defening amongst the many critics of his opinions that really his opinions on the Euro's are better silenced, awful article. He hasn't responded to us yet.
Geordie
Guest
I agree that pools of 6 would be better to avoid the 3rd place situation but with 5 games for each team in the group stage I think that you'd have to make it only top 2 go through to quarter finals avoid that extra round of 16 game.
Johnno
Guest
Poland are back in business thanks to the Euro expansion and Wales and courageous Iceland, it's been wonderful and timely the expansion, celebrate Euro expansion Adam and drop with the negative opinions embrace change stop fighting it.
Johnno
Guest
It was the Yeeros and the NSL lol
Mark
Guest
It's a matter of where do you draw the line. I understand the benefits of expanding the benefits of expanding the tournaments. I really do. I just think that for expanding the Euros beyond 16 and the World Cup beyond 32, the cons outweigh the pros. And if you say the pros of expanding the World Cup to 40 outweigh the cons, then why does that change if you expand to 48 or 64? For the nations that only send a couple of athletes to the Olympics, I agree for the Olympics it is a great story that they're there. However, they have qualified for their event like the participants from other nations in the same event, and not every country will be represented in that event.
70s Mo
Guest
Disagree. 24 teams has made it best Euro by miles. We now have an extra 8 knockout matches between top quality teams - what's not to like about that?
SVB
Guest
I didn't say expand as far as possible. Read Waz's comment above. It should be a minimum quality threshold. Not maximum. Otherwise just pick the best 8 nations and watch them play every 4 years. Eventually you will lose the magic of what the event was about in the first place. There are some nations in the Olympics who only have a few athletes represented. So what? It's a great story when you hear about what those athletes went through to get there.
Mark
Guest
The matches would be better attended than with a larger tournament. By your logic, why not expand the Asian Cup to 32 teams? Or 40? Why not expand the Premier League to 40 teams? You say these tournaments are participation events, but if that is the case the AFC should be picking up the cost of organising them. With a larger Asian Cup, host countries have to pick up costs of extra games they have no hope of making back. I also don't necessarily agree that with larger tournaments interest in the qualifiers increases. For the larger countries, interest decreases because they are almost guaranteed qualification. Our Uruguay moment in 2005 would have meant a lot less if it was much easier to get into the World Cup.
Mark
Guest
While you see every nation represented at the Olympics, you don't see every single nation represented in a particular event. People/teams have to qualify and you only see at most around 20 nations represented in any one event (with a few exceptions). If we expand the World Cup to 40 teams, the costs of hosting go up substantially. More venues are needed. You limit the number of potential hosts to 6-12 countries. I doubt we could ever host a larger tournament. Also, how do you reduce 40 for the knockout stages. Having 40 go down to 32 would be farcical. Have 8 groups of 5 with the top two going through and the overall number of games to be played goes up substantially. If bigger is better for the World Cup, where do you draw the line? Why not go to 48? Heck, why not go to 64?
Mark
Guest
If you were the real Bob Brown I would take being called a m0r0n by you as a compliment. World's greatest fl0g. Unlucky for you that you can't delete comments you submitted yesterday. If you found the Wales vs NI and Croatia vs Portugal games exciting, then it's you who is the m0r0n that knows nothing about football.
Waz
Guest
Spot on; especially with the test cricket analogy. quality has to be a factor in expansion but it should be a minimal quality threshold not a maximum otherwise I think we could probably all name the best 4 European sides so we might as well just invite them and forged the rest.
SVB
Guest
Agree Waz. There has been absolutely nothing wrong with these Euro's. There is wrong with expansion (although that goes to a certain point). Pick the best of the best only, and football will end up like Test cricket. Four nations left playing each other. Barely anyone will care anymore. It's like the World Cup. You remember as much that happens off the field in the tournament, as you do on the field. Especially the smaller nations who punch above their weight. It always has an amazing atmosphere.
Waz
Guest
SVB, it's not about you - it's about the 33,000 Icelandic fans that travelled, it's about the masses of northern Irish fans that sang their hearts out, it's about the Welshman who've captured the hearts of their nation (a country dominated by Union as sure as NZ is, what difference do you think that's made to football in Wales?) ... and all the other nations that have participated because of expansion and have had an actual interest in it because they are participating in it and not watching the international equivalent of "Real Madrid". Simple question for you - what do you recon the tv viewing figures in Wales for the same tournaments 4 years ago were compared to this one? A lot, lot less right - and what about Iceland, Albania, Hungary, Ireland?? so expansion grows the game and if that doesn't suit the palette of some Australian viewers so what, it is growing the game in Europe which is what the tournament can do!
SVB
Guest
Waz It's a bit like asking why should we watch the middle or bottom of the table La Liga teams, when we can watch Real, Barca and Atletico play each other over and over again? Or why have second and third divisions? Competition and depth in numbers is healthy. But someone needs to lose and even get flogged. Without competition there is eventually no one left to play.