Euro 2020 - General Talk Thread (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

JCK

Biased
JCK
May 11, 2004
123,526
That structure is traditional when 24 teams play in a tournament. The World Cups from my childhood used to be like that.
When there are 24 teams in 6 groups and 16 of them go to the first knockout round, four group winners get a 3rd placed team, two winners get a runner up, and the remaining four runner-ups play each other. Here it just happened that England is in a group where the winner gets you a runner-up from the group of death.
Another possible solution is to go directly to the quarters, with all 6 group winners and the two best runner-ups making it from the groups. This would have made the groups more competitive, but I guess UEFA, as well as FIFA in 1986, 1990, and 1994, wanted those 8 additional knock-out matches for various reasons.
Not really various. It is only one reason.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

Bianconero_Aus

Beppe Marotta Is My God
May 26, 2009
77,126
France hosted the previous Euros. Stop crying.
Lol exactly.

Cities applied to host games. Some won the process, some didn’t. Some won the bid to host games in their country but didn’t even qualify (Romania and Azerbaijan). Everyone knew this would be the format for the competition when it was decided back in 2012 or whatever. I personally hate this format and it’s typical UEFA garbage but that’s another story for another day.
 

Alen

Ѕenior Аdmin
Apr 2, 2007
52,551
Lol exactly.

Cities applied to host games. Some won the process, some didn’t. Some won the bid to host games in their country but didn’t even qualify (Romania and Azerbaijan). Everyone knew this would be the format for the competition when it was decided back in 2012 or whatever. I personally hate this format and it’s typical UEFA garbage but that’s another story for another day.
It's not so much about those who have the home pitch advantage, as it is about teams that are way too disadvantaged. Previously, with one host, teams did travel from one city in the host country to another, but this time some teams have extremely badly planned schedule.
Switzerland, for example, played in Azerbaijan, then in Rome for the 2nd match, then Azerbaijan once again and if they end up 2nd in the group they will have to travel from Azerbaijan to Amsterdam. If they make the quarters back to Azerbaijan once again, and if they make the semis they travel from Baku to London.
Poland are also in a similar situation. If they make the semis as runner-ups it's: Russia-Spain-Russia-Denmark-Russia-England.
 

Ronn

#TeamPestoFlies
May 3, 2012
19,584
You know i havent really paid much attention to this recently and maybe pandemic has affected this but i find it weird how so Italy plays all games in Rome. England all games in Wembley. Meanwhile France doesnt host a single game. Quite unfair disadvantages. Technically if England go all the way to final they are playing ALL games (apart from quarter final which is played in Rome, Munich, Saint Petersburg and Baku) in Wembley. (semis and final are in Wembley).

The tournament was supposed to be celebrating 60 years of the competition. I get the idea all over the continent. And its not like they changed it a lot cause of the pandemic (i know Cardiff was supposed to host some games/its in wales).

Modric just made the same point that England has unfair advantage in the competition: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57454982

I find it extremely odd how England, Italy, Netherlands and Germany play all their group games at home. But then France doesnt. And then some countries have to fly to Baku and then from Baku to Rome (switzerland for example). 3100 km. 5 hours flight. Pretty unfair.




Prior to the pandemic i would have thought this type of scenario.

Say the group with Portugal, France, Germany, Hungary:

Germany v France held in Lisboa
Portugal v France held in Munich
Germany v Portugal held in Paris
If you look at it from UEFA’s prospective you reap all the benefits of a major tournament without investing too much into new infrastructure as the existing ones can be used. 60 is an odd anniversary anyway.
 

Stephan

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2005
16,389
Lol exactly.

Cities applied to host games. Some won the process, some didn’t. Some won the bid to host games in their country but didn’t even qualify (Romania and Azerbaijan). Everyone knew this would be the format for the competition when it was decided back in 2012 or whatever. I personally hate this format and it’s typical UEFA garbage but that’s another story for another day.
What was the criteria to decide what country hosts all their home games at home? It almost looks like protecting the big countries. Netherlands had failed to qualify to any national tournament after 2014. Italy failed to qualify to last World Cup (they lost the away game in playoff). Now here they are getting huge home advantage to get the protection. Belgium current top ranked team has to travel to Russia meanwhile and then to Denmark.

And why Baku? Azerbaijan arent even in the competition. Its not like they were unlucky not to qualify. Where are then the hosting rights of Greece, Portugal, etc. Countries who have won the competition. You tell Greece didnt qualify. Well neither did Azerbaijan. What relation has Baku to uefa euro? Why are Baku hosting games over countries who are actually connected with the competition? Switzerland center of europe has to travel to Baku to play a game of football for what reason? Its not like a historic stadium with rich uefa heritage.


- - - Updated - - -

France hosted the previous Euros. Stop crying.
Russia hosted the last World Cup. Now hosting all group games and also 1 game in quarter finals.
 
Last edited:

Buck Fuddy

Lara Chedraoui fanboy
May 22, 2009
10,644
What was the criteria to decide what country hosts all their home games at home? It almost looks like protecting the big countries. Netherlands had failed to qualify to any national tournament after 2014. Italy failed to qualify to last World Cup (they lost the away game in playoff). Now here they are getting huge home advantage to get the protection. Belgium current top ranked team has to travel to Russia meanwhile and then to Denmark.

The format was known sure but like i already said, why not neutral venues instead.

And why Baku? Aserbaidžaan arent even in the competition. Where are then the hosting rights of Greece, Portugal. Countries who have won the competition. What relation has Baku to uefa euro?
Countries/cities had to apply to host games. Essentially, every single country could have applied in order to get the "home advantage". Some did, others didn't.
Belgium, for example, was initially going to try to host a few games, but ultimately decided not to update the stadium/construct a new one and did not apply. Pretty straightforward (had it not been for COVID, because a few venues ended up changing iirc).
I'm not particularly fond of the idea of playing games all over Europe either but, then again, I'm only watching the games on TV so it has no real impact on me anyway.


I must say I'm enjoying the tournament so far. Up until 2 weeks ago, I really couldn't care less. But since late last week, I found myself really getting into it. Must be a combination of seeing fans on the stands, big screens popping up over here everywhere, social life restarting, etc.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
72,406
What was the criteria to decide what country hosts all their home games at home? It almost looks like protecting the big countries. Netherlands had failed to qualify to any national tournament after 2014. Italy failed to qualify to last World Cup (they lost the away game in playoff). Now here they are getting huge home advantage to get the protection. Belgium current top ranked team has to travel to Russia meanwhile and then to Denmark.

And why Baku? Azerbaijan arent even in the competition. Its not like they were unlucky not to qualify. Where are then the hosting rights of Greece, Portugal, etc. Countries who have won the competition. You tell Greece didnt qualify. Well neither did Azerbaijan. What relation has Baku to uefa euro? Why are Baku hosting games over countries who are actually connected with the competition? Switzerland center of europe has to travel to Baku to play a game of football for what reason? Its not like a historic stadium with rich uefa heritage.


- - - Updated - - -


Russia hosted the last World Cup. Now hosting all group games and also 1 game in quarter finals.
Italy and Netherlands already qualified for this tournament, using the same home and away method as it always was, so I'm not sure how past qualification failures are relevant.

It's a clear advantage for teams to have three group games at home, but the nature of this tournament was always to have it hosted around different European cities. I'm not sure if it was originally planned this way but it certainly makes sense for teams to play in their own country as much as they can during Covid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 6)