The Euros or The world Cup....?

World Cup for me. South Americans bring a lot to the party.

leninbenjamin wrote: »

...in contrast all the group winners of the Euro's pretty much have to play well from day 1.

For the good it does them!

World Cup hands down.

There's more romance in it, you've got the South Americans, Australia can play in it and there's always some ropey African team who undoes one of the cocky big European teams.

For me the tournament I still want to see is either,

The top 8 national teams in the world (4 defo from Euro qualifiers, 2 defo from South America, 2 from rest of the world vs. other Euro/SA teams in playoffs)
go into a league, and play each other once.

It's the same thing I'd love to see for clubs, I'd given anything to see a Champions League that was played in a festival of football like the national game.

I really however would want a league rather than a cup, leagues are so much more interesting to me

would you not be afraid that the CL or World Cup would lose some of its magic by making it a league thing....seriously, i know wat you mean, but you really cant beat a cup for action,suspense, drama etc

Mr Alan wrote: »

would you not be afraid that the CL or World Cup would lose some of its magic by making it a league thing....seriously, i know wat you mean, but you really cant beat a cup for action,suspense, drama etc

Actually I think a league is all the more amazing. It's constant suspense constant anguish. Every single game matters, every single goals matter, because it all plays a part in the end.

Also leagues are so much more fun, especially in terms of multiple games at the same time, each being extremely important.

invincibleirish wrote: »

Euros rock, the WC suffers because lots of dross is included in the 32 team format.

Solution? scale back to 16 teams and make it a bitch to qualify for, the World Cup should have the best teams in it, not cannon fodder like SA or China. after all the WC is meant to be a showcase for the best teams & players.

For shame on those Euro countries like the ROI & Scotland who want the Euros expanded in their narrow self interest, i rather watching good football to seeing **** teams in action like Ireland,if they are not good enough they're not good enough!

Completely disagree with that post. I think what you call dross can sometimes add greatly to the World Cup. For instance South Korea in 2002, Croatia in '98, Ireland in 90 and the '94 opener etc.

Also having smaller nations can lead to a major interest in the sport in the country. Soccer boomed in this country following the participation in major tournaments. Look at the interest cricket receieved in this island following the Irish team's surprising results.

Some of my most treasured sporting moments growing up come from seeing Ireland in the World Cup and I would oppose any effort to make the event another elitist competition as we effectively have with the modern format for the Champions League. High quality football yes but at the expense of smaller, less well off teams.

As for sh*t teams in action, what the French served up against the Romanians, what the Italians served up against the Spanish and what the Greeks served up against...well everybody was an insomniac's dream and offered little to those who appreciate the beautiful game.

invincibleirish wrote: »

My first WC i watched through was WC 94, small countries like Sweden & Bulgaria did very well, countries like SK, Greece & SA were ****e, this was the first WC with more then 16 teams, they added NOTHING to the WC and were only there due to the tournament expanding to 24 teams.

And SK went on to do well in 2002, Greece went on to do very well in 2004 and SA will be hosting the 2010 WC so clearly their experience in '94 made a major positive contribution which was precisely my point.

invincibleirish wrote:

And who says the current CL is host to 'High quality football'? the CL has stagnated over the past decade due to there being too many teams in it and having a cumbersome long winded qualifying process for the knock out stages, sound familiar?

The CL has stagnated? So you didn't enjoy Arsenal vs Liverpool or Man United vs Chelsea or Milan vs Arsenal? I would say they were high quality football matches.

I don't really understand your logic and to me it smacks of self-loathing begrudgery. For example...

invincibleirish wrote:

My other idea would to ban ROI/NI/Eng/Wal/Scotland from competing in any international tournament, the best tournaments ive seen were Euro 2000 & 2008, both of which had absolutely minimal involvement from those teams

I really don't get your mentality at all.

invincibleirish wrote: »

1. SA = Saudi Arabia, perennial WC qualifiers since the WC was expanded from above 16 teams. South Africa werent allowed take part in football tournaments inc. 1994 WC.

Correct. Mea Culpa.

invincibleirish wrote:

2. Greece were **** in 1994, were practically unbeatable in 2004, there is no connection or a 'major positive contribution', how many players from the 1994 WC squad were in the 04 squad?, if anything being whipping boys does not do much good for a nations esteem does it?.

I see. So qualifying for major tournaments which captures the imagination of an entire nation has NO BEARING on the future development of the game of soccer, eh? Interesting theory but one I disagree with.

invincibleirish wrote:

remember SK were hosts in 2002, in their other WC campaigns they have yet to make it out of the group stage and recorded 1 win (over that powerhouse Togo).

The fact they were hosts does not detract from their great victories. Their journey to the semis was very memorable and only good could have benefitted the image of the sport in the country, wouldn't you agree? Or are you genuinely of the view that getting to major tournaments does nothing for the development of sport in general? A view I would find baffling from an Irish person considering our own history.

invincibleirish wrote:

3.The CL has reams of unimportant games, it essentially doesnt kick into gear until the QFs in March, although technically the tournament begins 8 months earlier!

We know that but the standard of football is top notch. I can't see how anyone would think otherwise.

invincibleirish wrote:

This is a football forum ,not PI, get over yourself;)

LOL. This is a football forum and if you want to engage in Irish-bashing may I suggest After Hours.

invincibleirish wrote:

It was a joke

This is not the humour forum, get over yourself. :pac:

invincibleirish wrote: »

What? you are putting words into my mouth so to speak, my argument is that a fine line should be drawn between levels of participation and quality being involved. the EC going to 24 teams or the WC having 32 teams dilutes the quality of football involved and leads to countries with no business being in a tournament being there.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. My argument is that the countries who qualify have earned their right to be there and by placing tighter restrictions on qualification as you want, you go down the road of football elitism and make it harder to strengthen the game out of the traditional strongholds.

invincibleirish wrote:

Again you are putting words into my mouth, SK did well in 2002 but it already had a pro league so again banal statements like 'have benefitted the image of the sport in the country' mean nothing, what exactly happened in the years since? whats changed in SK football? in 2006 they reverted to type, qualified out of Asia and then avoiding finishing bottom of their group by beating Togo.

It's not a banal statement to say that participating in a major tournament with an audience of hundreds of millions and which captures the public imagination benefits the image of the sport. That is simple logic. Not being involved doesn't do much good. Take a look at Ireland in recent years. Your point, which you won't put into your own mouth, is that being involved in a major tournament contributes little and your own earlier examples, such as Greece, disprove your own theory! They clearly have been improving the development of their game over the years.

invincibleirish wrote:

'our' history involved beating teams and being good enough to qualify & compete in 1988/90, you seemingly want the WC & EC to be opened up to allow every country have a chance to play in the tournaments even if they are crap (like Ireland have been in recent times).

I seemingly want blah, blah, blah. I love how you moan about putting words into people's mouths before proceeding to do the same yourself. Hello irony. (Seriously try the humour forum ) I want the Euros to be opened to 24 teams and the WC left alone. I feel that's a fair way to promote the game. I don't see how that would lead to 'crap' teams. How are you crap if you qualify?

invincibleirish wrote:

I think otherwise. there are too many teams in the CL, thats my opinion and its unlikely to change, even the mid 90s format of the CL was preferable to what we have now, more quality less quantity. But dont get me wrong i know money dictates on everything, im dealing with hypotheticals here.

You just proved my point and negated your own one in one paragraph. I said earlier:

I would oppose any effort to make the event another elitist competition as we effectively have with the modern format for the Champions League. High quality football yes but at the expense of smaller, less well off teams.

Yet you then disputed that there was high quality football saying the football had 'stagnated'.

irisihinvincible wrote:

Irish bashing is it? what are you on about you space cadet?

I'm on about this...

invincibleirish wrote:

For shame on those Euro countries like the ROI & Scotland who want the Euros expanded in their narrow self interest, i rather watching good football to seeing **** teams in action like Ireland,if they are not good enough they're not good enough!

invincibleirish wrote:

My other idea would to ban ROI/NI/Eng/Wal/Scotland from competing in any international tournament, the best tournaments ive seen were Euro 2000 & 2008, both of which had absolutely minimal involvement from those teams.

invincibleirish wrote:

you seemingly want the WC & EC to be opened up to allow every country have a chance to play in the tournaments even if they are crap (like Ireland have been in recent times).

Oh wait were these all jokes?

invincibleirish wrote: »

ah the Stepp Blatter method, very good. look im old fashioned i think a World Cup should be about having teams in and around the same level competing for footballs greatest prize, not softening up the tournament by bringing in teams who act as cannon fodder for the bigger teams in the name of football politics.

Would an increase from 18 to 24 lead to 'cannon fodder'? I don't think it would lead to a drop in quality as there are plenty of good enough teams out there who didn't qualify.

invincibleirish wrote:

I wonder if you're the type who would have supported Sepps other great idea of having the WC every 2 years?

Wonder no more cos I'm not!

invincibleirish wrote:

My point is having too many filler teams in a tournament negates the tournaments quality, its a lot easier to win a WC when there are so many average teams in it.

Well I think your definition of 'filler teams' is quite flawed, especially since Denmark weren't supposed to be in the '92 Championships yet were allowed following Yugoslavia's disqualification and went on to win it! Kind of proves my point about the amount of quality in Europe.

invincibleirish wrote:

Look at Brazil & Germany in 2002 when they met in the final, the hardest opponent along the way either faced was England FFS!

Yes because so many big teams crashed out in the first round. France and Portugal for example. Senegal actually beat France and you used them in your earlier stats. Again proving my point about how being in a major tournament can benefit the sport.

It's harder to win the WC I would argue than Euro 2008. The stats show there have been 18 World Cups with only 7 winners compared to the Euros which is now in its 13th tournament and which has seen 9 different winners.

invincibleirish wrote:

A tournament is prestigous because you have to reach a minimum standard in order to qualify. Dilute the standard then the achievement in qualifying, taking part and ultimately winning the tournament is diminished.

You have it in your head though that more teams would 'dilute' the quality, but I would argue that more teams would increase the quality and make it harder to win. In 1994's World Cup, only two teams beat Italy - Ireland and Brazil. Now you dismiss teams like Ireland as 'dross' but they can get big results. Senegal vs France is another example.

invincibleirish wrote:

Lets use the example you cite to make my point:

Greece made up the numbers in a 24 team World Cup in 1994 and went home without a point,conceded 10 and didnt score, clearly they were out of their depth.

they didnt qualify for Euros in 1996 or 2000 or the 1998/2002 World Cups.

In 2004 they qualified for the EC topping a group including Spain & the Ukraine and then of course they went on to win it.

Now you argue that the experience of 1994 means that set them up for 2004, my belief is that they werent good enough to qualify for tournaments in1996/98/00/02 but were in 2004 thanks to the ingenious Otto Rehagel and not because they had faint distant memories of 1994s maulings.

That is not my argument at all. I don't know if you watched the RTE discussion on the significance of Ray Houghton's Euro '88 goal, but they made the point that Ireland's involvement sparked an interest in the game that had an effect on the younger generation in Ireland. I am making the point that this is true in ALL countries which see their nations involved. It increases national interest. Russia for example will benefit hugely in future years in my view due to the great journey they have had in the Euros. I would say Greece have benefitted big time from their past experiences also, most notably in 2004. I can't believe you dismiss these things so readily.

invincibleirish wrote:

In other words, and this is relevant to the FAI & SFA, if you're not good enough to qualify then stop complaining and improve your team rather then seeking rule changes to hide the fact their national teams werent good enough to qualify in the first place.

How have they been complaining? It seems to me UEFA are delighted by the high standard of football and want to increase that by adding a few more top quality European sides. I don't see the harm. I see plenty of benefits actually. We shouldn't let traditionalist views hamper progress.

invincibleirish wrote:

OK then lets expand the Euros to 24 teams, i guess the next 8 teams would the teams who finished 3rd in their groups:

Serbia, Scotland, Norway, ROI, England, NI, Bulgaria + Finland & Bosnia-Herz.

Now here you might 'feel' by bringing these boyos into it then that'll be a 'fair way to promote the game'.

I see 8 teams who werent good enough to qualify for Euro 2008 and shouldnt have went there with their awful football, i dont think the best way to promote the game is inflicting Stauntons Ireland or McClarens England on anyone tbh.

We know those 8 teams weren't good enough to qualify. Who is suggesting otherwise? What is being suggested is a blank slate next time and everyone be made aware that the 24 best teams in Europe will qualify.

I don't know why you have a problem with more of these 'boyos'. Perhaps you're a soap fan and don't want to see more football on TV at the expense of Ken and Deirdre's fantastic exploits? Personally I welcome more football and feel many teams could hold their own if given a chance. There is not a massive gulf in class in international football these days.

invincibleirish wrote:

Sorry you've confused me what exactly is your point on the CL?

I am simply making the point that quality hasn't stagnated.

invincibleirish wrote:

look theres been some great football in the CL as we know it i dont dispute that, but the CL has many meaningless games as to be made redundant until March when invariably the same teams qualify anyway. since the inception of the CL the competition has become easier to win not harder in my opinion, all the big teams know that invariably they have at least 2 easy games in the group stages and dont have to push the boat out, thus the competition isnt as competitive as once was as its now about money and TV.

Meaningless games how though? Surely they're pretty meaningful since you need to make it through them! Was Roger Federer's game when he opened Wimbledon meaningless just because he got through comfortably? He still had to approach it right as good football teams must do. And this year saw three English teams in the semi-finals for the first time ever so it's hardly 'the same teams' that qualify.

invincibleirish wrote:

Look im an Ireland fan just like you im sure, but i dont let tribal loyalty blinker my outlook, Ireland have been utter ****e the past 2 years, we dont deserve to have been at Euro 2008, Ireland werent good enough.

Tribal loyalty? LOL. Stop reading the Kevin Myers columns mate. We know Ireland don't deserve to be there under the current rules, that's not in doubt, but if the competition is expanded to 24 teams and we qualified via that system, then we WOULD deserve to be there and could I believe contribute positively, as we did in 1994 in a 24-team tournament in which we beat the eventual runners up. That's my point and I feel it could bring many plusses.

For example, England were so close to keeping Russia from the tournament and look at them now. A game away from the final. Your talk of 'diluting talent' in my opinion is nonsense because if England HAD made it then we wouldn't see the likes of Arshavin in action. Would that have been a good situation for football? Would the current tournament be devalued by the likes of Rooney, Robbie Keane and Berbatov on show? I would say definitely not.

I accept you are an Ireland fan like myself which I respect, though I do think we have totally polar opposite viewpoints on this so we might as well agree to differ. All the best.