i 2nd that, great idea for the hosting nations 2016 is what top 2 automatic qualifies and 3rd go to play offs?
That 'Week of Football' concept will be introduced to boost revenue and instead of FAs negotiating, UEFA will decide each group's fixture list (same day as the draw). UEFA tightens its grip and keeps looking to make the qualifiers more lucrative ... having promised large underwritten guarantees to the biggest countries, UEFA will try to maximize profits from friendlies too ... that Nations League idea may become reality sooner than later. PS there were also some minor changes in the coefficient calculation ... pots remained the same according to football-rankings.
ok found it: The 9 group winners, the 9 group runners-up and the best third-placed team qualify directly for the final tournament. The eight remaining third-placed teams contest play-off matches to determine the four teams qualified for the final tournament.
So....who would you guys like to face in the Play-off? The Final stage should have had 8 groups of 3. Seeing a bunch of 3rd place teams being sorted on tie breakers is amateur stuff. Then sorting who gets to play the 3rd place teams in the round of 16 is a joke. Top 2 go on all 1st place vs 2nd place is the only thing logical and fair. But Platini and France is running the show so...
It wasn't really that fair. The groups were often hugely unbalanced. But yeah... I think the group-stage will be less fun with the new format. ... And the knockout stage will be better now. The qualifying? Not sure if they will get better or worse. I guess the drama of seeing a big nation struggle to qualify is obviously not going to happen. But OTOH we'll still get that every 4 years for the WC qualifying. Meanwhile, we'll also have these easier Euro qualifiers which will be more fun for NT's like Scotland, Serbia, Norway, etc. Now all these teams' games will actually matter. Before it was like 'oh, you got the same group as Germany. Better luck in 2 years.'
in 12 years time from now every one will of forgotten and be looking forward to the qualifiers of the euro or world cup maybe even 8 years time
Wouldn't it make more sense to put France in Pot 1 or Pot 2 (wherever they belong) and bump the rest of the countries down to make nine countries in Pot 6? I don't know if this is the plan, but if the plan is to have eight groups with one team from each pot and one group with one team from the first five pots and France instead of a Pot 6 team then I don't like that idea.
That would mean France doesnt even get to play against a pot 1 or pot 2 team. That makes their friendlies suck even more. Besides it seems wrong France would knock out a team out of pot 1 or 2 just for the sake of playing friendlies.
I'm guessing that France's results will be used to calculate their coefficient (for Euro2020) ... the main reason for these friendlies is to increase revenue ... from this POV it makes a lot more sense that France faces pot 1 and 2 countries.
Iceland in pot 5 behind Scotland, Finland, Wales and Estonia. Where's the outrage? Estonia at least made the Euro 2012 playoffs, but the other 3 were crap for the entire cycle.
Yeah, I'm surprised about that. Belarus, who finished last in their group, and Slovenia, who finished behind Iceland, are both seeded ahead of them.
The uefa ranking is a combination of results from the 2010/2012/2014 qualifiers. For example Scotland has a combined 32 points from these qualifiers while Iceland has 26 points.
Yeah, plus you couldn't really put France in pot 1 because that would make the group containing France extremely weak, which is unfair to the other nations.
Rankings should be more up to date, the quality of an international team can change pretty drastically. The current system takes into account games played in 2008, for a tournament held eight years later.
I agree ... imho the pots should reflect the comparative strengths of the teams at the beginning of the Euro2016 qualifiers. As 1 of its many flaws ... the UEFA coefficient doesn't take friendlies into account and instead includes outdated results to get a bigger sample ... even before the draw there's an element of randomness (some teams don't 'belong' in a particular pot). Other ranking methods, e.g. ELO, perform below average too ... while with advanced statistical techniques, a forecasting model that can generate better-than-average results is already available ... still the best performing models are owned by the gambling industry ... if a bookmaker fails to set odds at a value that realistically represent the comparative strengths of the teams, he will risk huge losses ... maybe UEFA (& FIFA) shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel as gambling has been around for ages and has grown into a mature multi-billion industry ... when you look into their kitchen, I'm betting you'll find a model that limits randomness ... during the draw you can still go crazy.
5 years is outdated? Plus the calculation is weighted so that 80% of the derivation is based on Euro 2012 and WC 2014 qualifying, which is all within 3 1/2 years. I don't see any problem with this. Large sample size is important. Any less than 3.5 years would be a joke. Not that it matters anyway. If you finish 4th, even with a tough draw, you can have no complaints.
The expansion to 24 teams softened the impact of the UEFA coefficient in the qualifying stage ... I admit that you can't blame failure on a tough draw. However the coefficient also has an impact on the top seeds and 'lower' seeds (for the final stage of Euro2016): in 2012 only two top seeds were allocated (because there were two co-hosts) ... in 2016 five top seeds will be allocated (there are 2 new groups and no co-host) ... in 2020 we'll even have six top seeds ... in future I hope UEFA decides to stick to this pan-European format without top seeded host(s) ... Euro2012 had the 2 lowest ranked NTs as top seeds while Germany and Italy ended up in pot 2 which is odd ... joint bidding will likely continue in the forseeable future (from 2024 onwards) while a limited amount of taxpayers (the hosts) carry all of the burden ... unless you're (un)lucky to be a (co-)host, your coefficient matters in the final event (impact on seeding of every team except the automatic top seeds + as a tie-breaker in the group stage). I've never been a fan of UEFA & FIFA's draw procedures ... actually both UEFA & FIFA use very little data and because of the nature of the international game this data isn't reliable ... imho their equations aren't an adequate remedy ... alternatives, like ELO, are also not convincing ... all these 'models' attach too much value to teams which were getting results (for Euro2016: from 6 Sep. 2008 onwards = matchday 1 WC2010 qualifiers) ... instead I'm a proponent of a model that focuses more on which team will get results ... e.g. models based on predictive analytics ... in academia there is a growing interest ... yet as the best models are worth a lot ... they're owned by big companies (most of them belong to the gambling industry) ... maybe UEFA should look to them to provide a fair procedure (as part of a sponsorship deal) ... because what UEFA (& FIFA) put forward as a reflection of the comparative strengths of all teams can easily be improved upon ... you're either interested in what has happened or what's happening. The current procedure could lead to weird groups at Euro2016: Germany, Portugal and Belgium facing another stiff competitor (chances are that this group contains one of the unlucky 3th place teams = Germany + 1 advances) ... while in a possible group of England, Greece, Hungary and Norway three teams might advance ... all would struggle in the former group = cfr. 2012: Germany, Portugal and Holland facing another stiff competitor ... while group A consisted of Poland, Russia, Greece and the Czech Republic ... all would struggle in the former group ... UEFA & FIFA's formulas are a recipe for these kind of draws ... when you're already in for the 'excitement' of a draw, at least limit randomness before the draw by getting rid of automatic top seeds and making sure the pots reflect reality (not history). PS that UEFA doesn't take friendlies into account is a plus ... FIFA screwed over Italy, Holland and Chili (teams that would have been top seeds in the most recent draw if friendlies were excluded) ... still UEFA's formula is flawed too and contrary to FIFA's procedure it has an impact on teams that aren't top seeds (pot 2, etc.) ... as a tie breaker it could decide which team advances beyond the group stage, yet UEFA trusts fair play conduct even more than its own coefficient ... feels as if they admit it's no better than tossing a coin. PPS expanding the event to 24 teams is imho a poor UEFA decision ... 16 teams was ideal ... I'm a proponent of a multi-tiered Euro + promotion/relegation to move through the tiers ... best 16 in premier tier while in the lower tier(s) you can have (2x) 16 or (1x) 32 teams ... which roughly leaves us with the mini-states that could compete in a small trny to earn promotion to the lowest tier (it would promote football there when they actually can win a trophy). After an initial ranking of all teams you could get rid of rankings and even the need for qualifiers (in which case you could alternate between WC and Euro on a yearly basis ... already wrote about it in this thread).
Still don't see the problem with the UEFA coefficient. The quirk that produced the Group of Death in 2012 was entirely due to 2 weak nations co-hosting. Otherwise both Germany and Italy would be in the top seeded pot. That said, I don't really have a problem with hosts getting a top seed automatically. It's not ideal, but the alternative is worse IMO. Playing at home makes teams better so ignoring that fact when allocating the seeds just doesn't take into account everything that is important. Promotion/relegation for tournaments is problematic because ranking teams in a tournament is pretty much impossible. I know they do this for ice hockey but major difference there is that everybody plays everybody else in their tier so its really a league format, not a cup format. Also, rule #1 for promotion/relegation IMO is you need to have a championship on an annual basis.
As a taxpayer I dislike those prestige projects (building multiple venues in 1 country is a bad idea, cfr Olympics in Greece to mention one of the worst examples in sports ... Germany2006 should have been one of the best but they still lost money on their investment) ... yet to discuss the final format we could turn to another thread ... imho a format like that of Euro2020 feels like the way forward (the organisational cost spread over several European cities and without automatic seeds) ... just think of the venues that are being considered and the idea is still to have home games (at least 2 in the group stage for the host cities). It's not only the automatic seeds that lead to quirky pots ... the coefficient always has a hand in it as every team has to be seeded (unlike FIFA who 'only' need to get the top seed pot sorted, UEFA's formula has an impact in every pot). They tend to do a worse job at allocating teams to these pots than e.g. Paul the Octopus. E.g. Euro2008 even 'boasted' the Swiss, Austrians and Greeks as top seeds while eventual finalists Germany and Spain didn't even manage to get into pot 2. Before Euro2008 they were huge favorites in my view ... if the bookmakers had them down as lowly pot 3 teams, I would have made a killing. You should try betting according to UEFA & FIFA's idea of the comparative strengths of teams ... eventhough they already hand out gifts to the teams they perceive to be stronger, they consistently lead to what would be an upset (according to their formula) ... a joke compared to any half-decent model. PS look at how many posts the seeding procedure for Brazil2014 generated (which should have been a boring thread) ... the UEFA coefficient impacts the fate of 3x as many countries ... although emotions don't have to adhere to logic, you'd expect more commotion in this thread. The example (from the nations league thread) can go ahead on a yearly basis but I feel bi-annual is better in order to alternate with the WC ... promotion/relegation happens via a more or less big churn compensated by play-offs between those in danger of relegation/up for promotion (those play-offs can adhere to a league format if you get rid of friendlies for the play-off teams) ... no need for a ranking nor for conventional qualifiers. Still it's a silly example ... I'd be happy when UEFA and FIFA replace their formulas with a decent model, i.e. instead of reinventing the wheel, borrow from the gambling industry.
It doesn't have much commotion partly because UEFA consistently uses the same formula and announces the method well in advance AFAIK. FIFA does neither and this causes much of the uproar in threads like the one you refer to. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is obviously going to cause more objections. Also FIFA's seeding is more controversial as there are many subjective variables entered into the "formula" to rank nations. There's only so much complaining that can be done against UEFA's straight-forward calculation which simply takes a comprehensive set of competitive matches, and we've pretty much reached the limit here.
As far as transparancy is concerned ... although I'm a proponent, I'm not blindly in favour of it ... you usually end up with a simple formula which doesn't reflect reality + it makes it much easier to 'game' the ranking ... in future friendlies Holland probably will think twice about their opponents and most likely a few FAs have been gaming the system already (as educated guesses can pay off). It could seem counter-intuitive yet secrecy often leads to better regulation ... above all else you need to make a good sausage ... giving a nice look to how it's made is less important. UEFA isn't much better than FIFA when it comes to transparancy (a few innovations + minor changes to the coefficient were made official in January 2014 while bigger shifts were 'unexpected' ahead of other Euros = formula/procedure also change in every cycle, we can only guess what special arrangements were used for the co-hosts of 2012 in their current ranking, the final draw procedure will be published in Dec. 2015 = probably more 'tardy' than FIFA, etc. = changing the rules in the middle of the game also happens at UEFA and NT managers have also voiced criticism about their procedures). Still I feel some considerations are even more deplorable as they don't concern the sport (cfr FIFA's geographical separation ... because interconfed matches are rare, this concern is legitimate) ... e.g. 'For TV reasons, England, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands shall be drawn into groups of 6 teams'. If the bottomline benefits, I'm confident UEFA will consider it ... Nations League plan for friendlies, 'European Qualifiers Fixture List', expansion to 24 teams, etc. ... while Champagne is afraid of the NBA-fication of football (e.g. one league becoming more important than in this case FIBA) ... I don't feel that overcommercialisation will benefit (international) football ... what has the future in store for us? ... an NFL-fication with more ads than actual action ... sport concerns should always triumph over other ones, yet I can see the bottomline gaining momentum.
Why did they seed the hosts then? If half of the seeds are the worst teams in the tournament then there's no point having seeds. France and England got an easier draw than Germany and Spain. Surely home advantage is enough of an advantage, they don't need another one through seeding. Not that it did Poland, Ukraine, Switzerland or Austria any good. With teams like that as seeds you may as well abolish seeding and just have a random draw.
You're looking at it from the home nation's perspective though. Look at it from the other 15/23 team's perspective: Surely playing France in Paris is going to be a lot tougher than playing France at a neutral setting. So if you put the hosts, France, in the 3rd or 4th pot (where they could rank naturally) then you are punishing the teams that earned a top seed. Also, not seeding the host runs into another problem. Since the host didn't have to qualify, they haven't played any competitive matches in years. So how do you know what pot they belong in then?
Do you reckon these are arguments in favour of replacing UEFA and/or FIFA formulas with a decent model? I'm confident that models from the gambling industry will have France down as one of the top 6 teams/seeds when Euro2016 kicks off ... currently UEFA ranks France outside of the top 10 while bookmakers already beg to differ ... compared to their models, the UEFA coefficient barely can be called a straw poll. France should earn a (top) seed on merit ... likewise for Poland, Ukraine, Switzerland and Austria when they were hosts. France actually is a team primed for an overhaul ... the team we saw in the Brazil2014 qualifiers will be a far cry from the team for the Euro2020 campaign ... the results that the current XI booked in the 2012-2014 cycle will have little to do with the upcoming generation ... I don't see the players who are either pushing 30 or on the wrong side of 30 adding much to that squad ... even the likes of Giroud, Benzema and Nasri will be pushing 33 - 34yo in 2020 and a 37yo Ribery most likely won't be part of France's 2020 squad ... should their goals/assists count towards that squads ranking?