John Lambies Doos Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 We would be humiliated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Dee Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 We would be humiliated. But be to far too busy, collectively making pished up biscuit tin arses of ourselves, to give a f**k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 You think that's any consolation the french hotels pubs n breweries which have now been liquidated / newcod / its the beer not the company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 The way the Euros is set up, we'd probably reach the knockout stages. Feel fairly certain that Wales will at least. That's where it'd end, of course, probably with an absolute cuffing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenConvert Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 The way the Euros is set up, we'd probably reach the knockout stages. Feel fairly certain that Wales will at least. That's where it'd end, of course, probably with an absolute cuffing.Us? In the knockout stages? After we failed to reach the playoffs in the qualifiers? You been smoking some good shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Us? In the knockout stages? After we failed to reach the playoffs in the qualifiers? You been smoking some good shit. When 16 of the 24 nations that will qualify will reach a knockout stage, I'd say there's a chance we would. Especially when one win in the group could be enough. I'd be willing to bet that we'll see a team in the 1st knockout round next summer that hasn't won a game in the group stages. The joy of expansion. Does it really matter though? I could say we'd win it, which is just as likely now as us finishing with no points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenConvert Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 When 16 of the 24 nations that will qualify will reach a knockout stage, I'd say there's a chance we would. Especially when one win in the group could be enough. I'd be willing to bet that we'll see a team in the 1st knockout round next summer that hasn't won a game in the group stages. The joy of expansion. Does it really matter though? I could say we'd win it, which is just as likely now as us finishing with no points. The world cup had that format for years, with weaker teams like Zaire at the time. We still fucked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Well obviously. Not qualifying is also humiliating. The fact that smaller nations like Wales, Iceland and Northern Ireland can all do it while we can't makes it all the more galling. Seething etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonMan Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 We'd end up in a group alongside one of the lesser teams in the group, a team around our level, and a top side like Germany. We'd lose to the lesser side we should beat, concede a late goal to only draw against the side around our level (ie Poland), and either play well against the top side but only narrowly lose, or pull off a shock result against them that doesn't mean anything because we end up going out due to throwing away the other game. In other words, we'd be frustrating as always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenConvert Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 We'd end up in a group alongside one of the lesser teams in the group, a team around our level, and a top side like Germany. We'd lose to the lesser side we should beat, concede a late goal to only draw against the side around our level (ie Poland), and either play well against the top side but only narrowly lose, or pull off a shock result against them that doesn't mean anything because we end up going out due to throwing away the other game. In other words, we'd be frustrating as always.Sounds like france 98. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 When 16 of the 24 nations that will qualify will reach a knockout stage, I'd say there's a chance we would. Especially when one win in the group could be enough. I'd be willing to bet that we'll see a team in the 1st knockout round next summer that hasn't won a game in the group stages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FIFA_World_Cup#Group_E https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_FIFA_World_Cup#Group_C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmc Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 The world cup had that format for years, with weaker teams like Zaire at the time. We still fucked it.Was 16 teams when Zaire qualified byt your point still stands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawfieldAggro Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 We'd end up in a group alongside one of the lesser teams in the group, a team around our level, and a top side like Germany. We'd lose to the lesser side we should beat, concede a late goal to only draw against the side around our level (ie Poland), and either play well against the top side but only narrowly lose, or pull off a shock result against them that doesn't mean anything because we end up going out due to throwing away the other game. In other words, we'd be frustrating as always. Who the f**k do Scottish football supporters think they are to talk about any nation being 'lesser'.....in what will be twenty years without a finals appearance, at least three smaller nations are already on the list of teams who have made this tournament whilst we have not. Scotland ARE a lesser team. Languishing alongside the Lithuanias and Macedonias who were slated for their approach to fixtures against them. What exactly has our approach been of late?? I see no identity, no real pride in their own shirts, nothing which.suggests we'd be entitled to anything against once fish-in-barrels like Albania or the Faroes (who will beat us soon). Scotland playrrs, managers and officials have been taking the piss for years.....those attending seem happy with it, so everyone deserves what they get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 The world cup had that format for years, with weaker teams like Zaire at the time. We still fucked it. That format was in place for only two World Cups, neither of which was graced by the presence of Zaire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 It was used at 3 WC finals though we were not at USA '94 - as I linked-to above we managed to miss-out on progressing the other 2 occasions... there were also 24 teams at Spain '82 but on that occasion the top 2 in each group entered a second groupstage containing 4 groups of 3. EDIT: Ironically enough, had the system for the 3 subsequent editions applied at Spain '82, we'd have made the 'Last 16' by a bawhair, on GF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted October 12, 2015 Author Share Posted October 12, 2015 Well obviously. Not qualifying is also humiliating. The fact that smaller nations like Wales, Iceland and Northern Ireland can all do it while we can't makes it all the more galling. Seething etc. And Albania ffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 It was used at 3 WC finals though we were not at USA '94 - as I linked-to above we managed to miss-out on progressing the other 2 occasions... there were also 24 teams at Spain '82 but on that occasion the top 2 in each group entered a second groupstage containing 4 groups of 3. EDIT: Ironically enough, had the system for the 3 subsequent editions applied at Spain '82, we'd have made the 'Last 16' by a bawhair, on GF. Lets be honest here, it really doesn't matter what the qualification criteria is - we will always be one step below it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 It was used at 3 WC finals though we were not at USA '94 - as I linked-to above we managed to miss-out on progressing the other 2 occasions... there were also 24 teams at Spain '82 but on that occasion the top 2 in each group entered a second groupstage containing 4 groups of 3. EDIT: Ironically enough, had the system for the 3 subsequent editions applied at Spain '82, we'd have made the 'Last 16' by a bawhair, on GF. Fair enough. I did wonder about the '94 one, but I prefer to be wrong than to actually check. I think the '82 model is the better one for whittling down a total of 24 finalists. The idea of all those group games being required to eliminate just eight teams is daft. The '82 model required teams to win the subsequent mini-group before then reaching semi finals that had been absent - as such - from the '78 tournament, despite it having the much more straightforward number of 16 finalists. Not sure about '74? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Germany '74 was the same as Argentina '78, with the 8 teams forming a second groupstage, the winners of those contesting the Final. There is no way they'd revive a version of Spain '82... even with top 2 in the groups of 3 advancing to QFs... as one team in each section has to sit out the last matchday, which is clearly unfair. I'd have preferred our & Eire's proposal to expand the Euros to have been to 20 teams - using the RWC 1999 format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup#Pool_stage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Germany '74 was the same as Argentina '78, with the 8 teams forming a second groupstage, the winners of those contesting the Final. There is no way they'd revive a version of Spain '82... even with top 2 in the groups of 3 advancing to QFs... as one team in each section has to sit out the last matchday, which is clearly unfair. I'd have preferred our & Eire's proposal to expand the Euros to have been to 20 teams - using the RWC 1999 format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Rugby_World_Cup#Pool_stage Yes, I suppose so. Ironically, it was the '82 tournament that exposed the folly of having groups ending at different times for different teams, with the whole West Germany/Austria carve up to eliminate Algeria from the initial group of four. That Rugby format is a decent enough idea, but to be honest, I think the best solution is to have sensible numbers in the finals in the first place. Sixteen was fine for the Euros - it had only recently stopped being eight and the doubling was enough to reflect the huge political changes late in the twentieth century. Similarly, the expansion of the World Cup to thirty two reflects the same shift and the game's huge expansion. The stage of twenty four teams in getting there from sixteen, was not ideal though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.