Euro 2008- the seeding system

[nekkibasara]

This thread is sure tough to follow with every poster using the word "we".

Anyway, looks like Holland will be in pot #1 considering their easy schedule. I don't see Croatia winning in England when they have nothing to play for.

Here are the pots assuming things go according to plan for here on:

Pot 1: Greece, Swisse, Austria, Netherlands
Pot 2: Croatia, Sweden, Romania, Germany
Pot 3: Italy, Czechs, Portugal, France
Pot 4: Poland, Spain, Russia, Norway/Turkey

Wow we could see a group like:

Netherlands/Germany/Italy/Spain if it ends up like this.

I bet Germany and Italy mysteriously end up in the same group so that the can have a rematch of the 2006 Semi-final.

[evangel]

Euro group games are always harder than WC group games. Considering that something like 12 Euro teams make it to the second round at each World Cup, we can decently consider all Euro group games to be played at the same level as WC second round games.

Of course there will necessarily be a group of death, but don't dream on... it won't be an easy way to go through any of the 4 groups.

There were ten Euro countries in the second round of the last World Cup, but I wouldn't equate the Euro group stages with the World Cup Round of 16. I might say that the Euro quarterfinals are similar to the World Cup second round, but any further rounds in the World Cup are infinitely harder than any round in the Euro Cup. Also, if a country is unfortunate enough to run into two small countries called Brazil and Argentina at any point in the World Cup I'd be willing to wager they'd prefer a Euro match over that.:D Also, African countries are no walk in the park, and with the next World Cup being held in South Africa, I'd consider top African opposition more difficult than most European countries. With that said, the Euro is the next big thing after the World Cup.

[WambachWoodenOrnamen]

You're kidding, right? The point of the original poster is one of the most obvious facts in football: the European Championships are harder to advance in - at any stage - than the World Cup. And stop it already with the silly African teams! They would never qualify for the main tournament. They are simply not good enough.

[BocaFan]

The world cup is tougher to win. There are 4 difficult knockout rounds to get through compared to only 3 in the Euro Cup.

And obviously each round of the World Cup is tougher than the corresponding rounds of the Euro Cup, because Brasil and Argentina are in the former.

To put it bluntly:

Q-finals of World Cup:
- 6 best UEFA teams plus Argentina and Brasil

Q-finals of Euro Cup:
- 6 best UEFA teams plus 7th and 8th best UEFA teams :cool:


This is not rocket science.

[Borussia]

The WC might be harder to win ... but it's definitely tougher to go through an EC group!

[evangel]

I never denied that the Euro groups are harder than the World groups. What I'm saying is that the later stages of the World Cup are harder. Many of you are speaking as if the best European nations had an easy time until they faced another Euro team. I think you're all forgetting that France struggled to get out of it's group, getting a draw with South Korea, and Italy barely scraped through Australia. Serbia and Montenegro, who had done almost perfectly in qualifiers, was laughable in its group, even against Ivory Coast. Czech Republic, who virtually annihilated everyone in Euro 2004 before falling to a defensive Greece, was beaten in a hard fought battle with Ghana. And don't get me started on Sweden tying Trinidad and Tobago.

Is it because these other teams are of equal quality to these European teams. Maybe not in the cases with Australia and South Korea, but I'm very willing to say that teams like Ghana and Ivory Coast are every bit as talented as the best in Europe. All they really lacked is experience. But the World Cup brings out the best in the countries that participate, and the difficulty is raised to astounding proportions. You can be sure that every team gives their all, more so than in any other tournament. I hardly think that European countries aren't trying their hardest against this so called lower opposition. For example, Italy won the World Cup by virtually grinding out results through experience alone, because every team they faced (including non-European) were able to predict their movements and shut them out for most of the match. Also, the World Cup was held in Europe, which gives European teams somewhat of a psychological advantage.

I think the 2002 World Cup gives a more accurate picture of how the world stands compared to Europe. I think only a fool would ignore the fact that most teams that make a World Cup nowadays are not easy, and this will become more true in the future. Out of the traditional world powers who made the quarterfinals in the last World Cup, only Germany and Argentina were convincing in their play, and unfortunately for my viewing pleasure they had to face each other in the quarters instead of later. Clearly things could have easily been very different. Never underestimate the difficulty of the World Cup. Teams around the world are improving, and from what I've seen many are doing so at a faster rate than the lower level European teams. The Euro group stages are certainly harder than the World Cup's, but that's because there are only sixteen teams. If the group stages had thirty two teams like the World Cup, I wouldn't even be considering this. And the World Cup groups are getting better in spite of this. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a majority of European teams were to get eliminated in the group stages in a World Cup in the near future, including the 2010 World Cup.

[Metropolitan]

The WC might be harder to win ... but it's definitely tougher to go through an EC group!That was presicely my point. I've never said the Euro was harder to win than the WC. I've only that Euro group games are tougher than WC group games, which is different.

[Cirdan]

First, I do think Euro group stage is harder than WC group stage, any world cup knock out stage is harder than the Euro. There are not many easy opponents in the world cup anymore.

I'd also agree that 2006 was favourable to the Europeans, in parts due to home advantage, in parts due to 2 of the strongest African teams staying home (Nigeria & Cameroon), in parts due to Brazil underperforming, in parts due to Ivory Coast being in the group of death. However...


I think the 2002 World Cup gives a more accurate picture of how the world stands compared to Europe.

Woot? Netherlands stayed at home, Argentina and France out in group stage, Italy out in round of 16 - if there ever was an unusual world cup, it's 2002, when every favourite except for Brazil underperformed. Very far from an accurate picture.

[Metropolitan]

Well, let's put it clearly, the only reason why Euro group stage is harder than WC group stage is because there are less teams and less groups.

Considering that there are only 4 groups, two of Spain, Italy, England, France and Germany are necessarily in the same group. In the World Cup, they are generally seeded so can't meet each others. And I don't talk about other nations such as the Netherlands, Portugal, Czech Republic, Croatia, etc.. who have to be added to these.

Now this being said, even if the Euro group stage is harder than in a world cup, the WC knock-out stage is definitly harder than the euro one. But anyway, my point wasn't that the euro was harder to win than the World Cup. That would be silly. My point was just that there's no reason to be scared to be in a tough group at the euro because no matter in which group your team ends up, it will necessarily be a tough one.

And by the way, I don't believe that Brazil has underperformed during the World Cup 2006. I mean, they haven't lost against a minnow, they've lost against France. And before that, they had scored 10 goals in 4 games while only conceding one.

[Cirdan]

We are totally off topic now, but I watched several matches of Brazil in 2006, and while the results look decent, they never played great, maybe except for the match against Japan. They definitely did not live up to the expectations.

[Metropolitan]

We are totally off topic now, but I watched several matches of Brazil in 2006, and while the results look decent, they never played great, maybe except for the match against Japan. They definitely did not live up to the expectations.Let's imagine that Brazil had won against France, even at penalty shoot outs, it would have probably won the semifinal against Portugal... and all of a sudden you would have Brazil as a finalist. In such a case, I'm quite sure your perception of Brazil's earlier games would be strongly different. During the second round game against Ghana, Brazil played brillitiantly. The team was solid and well-organized, and it totally outclassed the same Ghana which had well beaten Czech Republic.

The same goes about Spain. After the group stage, everyone was saying that Spain never had a more serious team to win the World Cup in all of its History. Eventually, they've lost to France in a great game and we've totally forgotten how Spain impressed earlier. The truth is that we only recall the last game of each team and forget about earlier.

But anyway to stop the off topic, the South American team which really underperformed was actually Argentina more than Brazil. Argentina was largely superior to Germany during the quarter-final which opposed each other untill Pekerman made the awful mistake to change his strategy in order to protect Argentine's one-goal leading. As a result, they've lost at penalty shoot-outs. My personal opinion is that Argentina should have won the world cup, but whatever, I won't start this debate here.

To get back on this thread's point, the seeding system isn't important, all groups will be hard. I'm quite sure each group will get at least 3 serious contenders to go through.

[johan neeskens]

So, we're in pot 1 at the moment. We better lose some points before the qualifiers end :D

It's hilarious isn't it, almost like everybody's doing their darndest to avoid ending up in pot 1 at the moment!

[BocaFan]

I doubt the players and managers have much clue about where they stand in the seedings. It's only us at BigSoccer, who are bored out of our respective skulls, that pay any attention to this stuff.

[Metropolitan]

One thing is sure though, it's that in case we qualify, I really don't want my team (France) to be in the same group as Switzerland !

[Cris 09]

...the South American team which really underperformed was actually Argentina more than Brazil. Argentina was largely superior to Germany during the quarter-final which opposed each other untill Pekerman made the awful mistake to change his strategy in order to protect Argentine's one-goal leading. As a result, they've lost at penalty shoot-outs. My personal opinion is that Argentina should have won the world cup, but whatever, I won't start this debate here.

That is not underperforming!!! Look up the definition. They had one unlucky bad game against the hosts, wiched played great football thoughout the tournament. How did they underperform due to a poor sub?? Then they got scored on by Klose - not unrealistic considering his form, and lost penalties to Koepke, who did his homework on Argentina penalty kickers. How did they underperform becuase of these situations?

A poor coaching desicion does not equate to the WHOLE team underperforming. They they were so vastly superior, then they should have won with or without the sub!! They had a great tournament until then. Underperforming was what they did in 2002! Choked is what they did in 2006!

[johan neeskens]

I doubt the players and managers have much clue about where they stand in the seedings. It's only us at BigSoccer, who are bored out of our respective skulls, that pay any attention to this stuff.

The German association has officially asked questions of Uefa about it, and the Dutch have mentioned it too.

[Phase4Nightmare]

There's another disadvantage being in pot one. Group C and D play in smaller stadiums than group A and B.

By the way, i made some calculations:

If both teams get 6 points from their last two matches it would be:
Croatia 22 56 2,545454545
Holland 24 61 2,541666667

If both teams get 4 points from their last two matches it would be:
Holland 24 59 2,458333333
Croatia 22 54 2,454545455

If either team gets more points than the other, that team will be in pot 1.

[wombacik]

Since I bought the tickets for game C1 vs C4 I keep my fingers crossed for the Netherlands, because I am not a big admirer of Greek or Croatian football. ;-)

[johan neeskens]

Does this mean we'll have to drop points v Luxembourg?

[Phase4Nightmare]

Since I bought the tickets for game C1 vs C4 I keep my fingers crossed for the Netherlands, because I am not a big admirer of Greek or Croatian football. ;-)

C1 doen't have to be Netherlands, even if they're drawn to group C. If i recall right group positions except A1 and B1 are also random. Anyone to back this up?