Unpopular Football Opinions

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, McAzeem said:

Expansion of Euros to 32 teams. World Cup went through that phase too. 

Do you think it would be better than 24?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

I understood WC expansion but don't see any reason to expand the Euros to include just about every country on the continent.

24 is already more than enough.

Yeah but 32 could make it more entertaining. 

[Smiley Culture]

47 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I think the issue with the europa league is the teams in it.

It has fifth placed teams in the top 4 leagues, then 4th placed teams, from the leagues just below that, teams that finished third in the champions league group stages etc.

When you had the cup winners cup,  and the UEFA cup with 2nd place teams from the top leagues it had more prestige. I would actually like to win it even if it doesn't qualify us for the champions league but without champions league qualification it is like the league cup unfortunately.  I still want to win it. But it's not a priority and I wouldn't want to risk key players for it. 

I would prefer it if the conference league was used for smaller nations. I would like to see a European competition for smaller  nations. However there isnt enough money in it so unlikely to happen.

I think the Conference one is unnecessary, I agree there. I was hoping it was going to see European Football turned slightly into the Nations League in the sense that the Conference would be for teams with a lower co-efficient or from a country with a lower co-efficient and then the winner of that gets into the Europa League, which would stay roughly where it is (I’d like to see it drop to 32 teams and no “second bite” for Champions League teams) and the winner of that qualifies for the Champions League. 

I quite like the Europa League. It often has a better spread of clubs than the Champions League and puts some teams on a pedestal that they wouldn’t ordinarily get. 

[Smiley Culture]

50 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

The European championship would be better with 32 teams than 24.

The main issue with the European championship was defensive play because of teams trying to finish third in the group. If they had 32 teams they could stop that.

For me teams with less quality can still produce entertaining games so the issue was the style more than the lack of quality. I mean I've seen football league games more entertaining than champions league finals before.

@Smiley Culture   @Mpache   thoughts?

By the way the reason I'm tagging you two  is because I cannot see anyone else even considering agreeing with me

I think it will ultimately happen. 

I didn’t think 2016 was particularly bad. I didn’t think it was one of the better Euros we’ve had, mind.

[Azeem]

9 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

I understood WC expansion but don't see any reason to expand the Euros to include just about every country on the continent.

24 is already more than enough.

They have already let teams from the bottom tier to make it to the finals through their own route that already kills much of the quality.

Some teams that missed out Serbia, Ireland, Bosnia, Norway. They can bring much more competition than some lower ranked teams that qualified. It will also get rid of the dull group stages.

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Devil said:

Expanding the Euro's is the worst move ever, the tournament itself was always hugely entertaining because the standard of the teams were all a very good level. 

2016 was dreadful in my opinion, far too many teams that got into the tournament too easily, some of the qualification groups it seemed harder not to qualify with three qualifiers and a fourth going into a play off. 

Personally I liked having the fans there from the small nations. Personally I'd rather find a way of making an expanded tournament work and I think expanding it to 32 teams so you dont have teams defending to get third place would be better than keeping it at 24 teams. 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

I think it will ultimately happen. 

I didn’t think 2016 was particularly bad. I didn’t think it was one of the better Euros we’ve had, mind.

I dont think euro 92 was that great. Some of the earlier ones weren't great. I dont think euro 2016 was the best tournament  but not the worst either. However like I said I dont think lack of quality in group stages makes it a bad tournament. Lower quality teams can still produce entertaining  games. I think it was the setup. 

To be honest its irrelevant because they arent going to change it  back so it's more about finding ways to make it better.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, McAzeem said:

They have already let teams from the bottom tier to make it to the finals through their own route that already kills much of the quality.

Some teams that missed out Serbia, Ireland, Bosnia, Norway. They can bring much more competition than some lower ranked teams that qualified. It will also get rid of the dull group stages.

I'm  not sure I'd agree. Some if those teams will be able to defend better. You may actually get more 0-0 draws. Although I'm  not keen on the way the nations league qualification works myself. Does seen bait unfair that a team can qualify by beating San Marino,Andorra  and Gibraltar. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Smiley Culture said:

I think the Conference one is unnecessary, I agree there. I was hoping it was going to see European Football turned slightly into the Nations League in the sense that the Conference would be for teams with a lower co-efficient or from a country with a lower co-efficient and then the winner of that gets into the Europa League, which would stay roughly where it is (I’d like to see it drop to 32 teams and no “second bite” for Champions League teams) and the winner of that qualifies for the Champions League. 

I quite like the Europa League. It often has a better spread of clubs than the Champions League and puts some teams on a pedestal that they wouldn’t ordinarily get. 

The problem is teams from countries dont get the chance to play European football. They all get drawn against a team from a better league and so they only play 2 games. I think it would be good if they had a tournament for them selves and the winner goes into the next round. Same with international football. I think the small teams should be given a chance to qualify. But what is the point in San Marino playing ten games against teams that smash them every game? They would learn more playing teams at a similar standard. The nations league is helping with that though but I think it would be better for them to play teams at their level in qualification as well. I mean I'm sure the players dont actually look forward to playing for the national team and knowing that they will probably get hammered.

[Devil]

25 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Personally I liked having the fans there from the small nations. Personally I'd rather find a way of making an expanded tournament work and I think expanding it to 32 teams so you dont have teams defending to get third place would be better than keeping it at 24 teams. 

 

 

There are 55 countries attempting to qualify for the European Championships. You are seriously suggesting making it a 32 team tournament would be a good thing. 

San Marino, Andora, The Faroe Island, Lichenstien Gibraltar, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, Moldova, Kosovo, Belarus, Georgia, Israel (18)

That's 18 teams that I've reviewed that can't compete with the other nations due to just not being good enough full stop. 

So we're saying only three other teams will miss out so you're basically saying it's a closed shop for the bigger nations. 

Why would we even have them qualify then?

 

 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Devil said:

There are 55 countries attempting to qualify for the European Championships. You are seriously suggesting making it a 32 team tournament would be a good thing. 

San Marino, Andora, The Faroe Island, Lichenstien Gibraltar, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Malta, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Estonia, Moldova, Kosovo, Belarus, Georgia, Israel (18)

That's 18 teams that I've reviewed that can't compete with the other nations due to just not being good enough full stop. 

So we're saying only three other teams will miss out so you're basically saying it's a closed shop for the bigger nations. 

Why would we even have them qualify then?

 

 

Kosovo finished third in Englands group. Even with 24 teams it is possible they could qualify. I've just looked at the fifa world rankings with europe only. Even with 32 teams it could still be competitive. Slovenia are ranked 32 in europe. I could see them giving a lot of European sides a good game. I've posted the link below. And like I said it would probably be better than 24 teams because teams wouldn't be able to defend and they to get 3 draws. I didn't say it would be as good quality. Obviously if you have better teams you would have more quality. However it could be more entertaining than 24 teams. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=fifa+world+rankings+europe&oq=fifa.world.ranokns+euro&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i30l2j0i390l2.5120j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

[Devil]

3 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Kosovo finished third in Englands group. Even with 24 teams it is possible they could qualify. I've just looked at the fifa world rankings with europe only. Even with 32 teams it could still be competitive. Slovenia are ranked 32 in europe. I could see them giving a lot of European sides a good game. I've posted the link below. And like I said it would probably be better than 24 teams because teams wouldn't be able to defend and they to get 3 draws. I didn't say it would be as good quality. Obviously if you have better teams you would have more quality. However it could be more entertaining than 24 teams. 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=fifa+world+rankings+europe&oq=fifa.world.ranokns+euro&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i13i30l2j0i390l2.5120j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Okay then take Kosovo out of that list then because in truth they were part of the old Yugoslavia which has a rich history of producing technically gifted players. 

The solution to a better event would be to decrease the numbers to 16, the only the 16 best teams of that period would qualify and we would have less games and better quality on display come the summer. Keep the bigger format for the World cup, there are enough nations to give it a good split across the continents and it's always been good to see a smaller African nation face off against South American powerhouse. 

Latvia vs Hungary does nothing for me one bit. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Devil said:

Okay then take Kosovo out of that list then because in truth they were part of the old Yugoslavia which has a rich history of producing technically gifted players. 

The solution to a better event would be to decrease the numbers to 16, the only the 16 best teams of that period would qualify and we would have less games and better quality on display come the summer. Keep the bigger format for the World cup, there are enough nations to give it a good split across the continents and it's always been good to see a smaller African nation face off against South American powerhouse. 

Latvia vs Hungary does nothing for me one bit. 

I can understand why someone would want 16 teams. At the end of the day it's just preference and what you want. I like having the small nations there. And like I said although it does dilute the quality it doesn't necessarily dilute the entertainment. 

But the main point was that 32 is probably better than 24 because it means teams cant be as defensive in the group stage because they cant rely on getting 3 draws and finishing third. Which means the games would probably be better. Also it's not all about what the big nations want. Its about the smaller nations as well.

Also I'm not sure I agree with you about the world cup.

Like I said when you look at the top 32 teams in Europe Slovenia are 32. Do you really think they arent better than Panama for example? 

 

[Devil]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I can understand why someone would want 16 teams. At the end of the day it's just preference and what you want. I like having the small nations there. And like I said although it does dilute the quality it doesn't necessarily dilute the entertainment. 

But the main point was that 32 is probably better than 24 because it means teams cant be as defensive in the group stage because they cant rely on getting 3 draws and finishing third. Which means the games would probably be better. Also it's not all about what the big nations want. Its about the smaller nations as well.

Also I'm not sure I agree with you about the world cup.

Like I said when you look at the top 32 teams in Europe Slovenia are 32. Do you really think they arent better than Panama for example? 

 

Given a choice between 24 and 32 I'd be have to agree, the best third place thing caused so much confusion last time round with teams only finding out they were out the following day in some cases. 

 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Devil said:

Given a choice between 24 and 32 I'd be have to agree, the best third place thing caused so much confusion last time round with teams only finding out they were out the following day in some cases. 

 

Its interesting that you mentioned kosovo. I really wanted them to qualify for the euros. You could see those players would die for their national team. Work rate like that deserves rewards. 

[Devil]

20 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Its interesting that you mentioned kosovo. I really wanted them to qualify for the euros. You could see those players would die for their national team. Work rate like that deserves rewards. 

I have weird connection with Croatia, dunno if in a previous life I was from that region but I've always loved them. Kosovo are a similar smaller nation broken up from the other now individual countries and given the shit they all had to deal with they all love their respective nations and have a die for the shirt attitude. 

 

 

[Dan+]

On 10/03/2021 at 12:32, Inverted said:

Expected Goals is an interesting stat and the primary issue people have with it is the name. 

It’s literally just a more useful version of the shots taken stat, and it’s more useful because it reflects how people already think about the game - everyone uses and understands the phrase “he should score from there”. But people get pissed off by it, because it makes it sound like you’re saying a team deserved a different result. 

If it was called something less loaded like “shot power” or “shot weight” it would probably be much more easily accepted. 

I agree with this, I don't see the harm in it if people just take it for what it is.

[Scouse_Mouse]

2 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Yeah but 32 could make it more entertaining. 

I don't know about that, it will certainly make it longer.

I just feel that qualification in itself was an accomplishment, adding more no-hopers to the finals isn't going to make it more entertaining, too me at least.

[Guest]

@Devil  I've always liked Croatia. Sometimes there is something about a small nation doing well. Same with Iceland. 330 000 population. To put it is perspective Luxembourg and Malta have bigger populations so Iceland have always been over achievers even when they never qualified. I think they are a very sporty nation which is why they do well.  Interestingly if you do the world rankings on population size faroe islands are number 1. They only have a population of 50 000 but have been significantly more competitive than  other nations of a similar size. Obviously population size isnt the only factor but it is harder for smaller nations. 

 

@Mpache for me though Uruguay are the ultimate over achievers. I think population under 4 million. But have won 2 world cups and loads of copa Americas and have been very competitive. Brazil have a population  of 211 million. Always gonna be easier to produce talent. Uruguayans must be obsessed with football??

[Mpache]

Just now, Gunnersauraus said:

@Devil  I've always liked Croatia. Sometimes there is something about a small nation doing well. Same with Iceland. 330 000 population. To put it is perspective Luxembourg and Malta have bigger populations so Iceland have always been over achievers even when they never qualified. I think they are a very sporty nation which is why they do well.  Interestingly if you do the world rankings on population size faroe islands are number 1. They only have a population of 50 000 but have been significantly more competitive than  other nations of a similar size. Obviously population size isnt the only factor but it is harder for smaller nations. 

 

@Mpache for me though Uruguay are the ultimate over achievers. I think population under 4 million. But have won 2 world cups and loads of copa Americas and have been very competitive. Brazil have a population  of 211 million. Always gonna be easier to produce talent. Uruguayans must be obsessed with football??

Uruguay and Argentina have the best culture in the world along with England in my opinion.

[Guest]

Just now, Mpache said:

Uruguay and Argentina have the best culture in the world along with England in my opinion.

I'm not sure if England does have the best football culture. We like watching it with a pint in the pub but I'm not sure if there is enough people that really have the dedication to make it. 

If you look at England we are good at pub sports  

We have produced other great athletes in other sports but we arent consistently producing  them.  We have louise Hamilton for example but I'm not sure if we are a nation that constantly produces good racing drivers. Not an expert though perhaps @nudge can help answer that.

We have a lot of good cyclists. Probably largely because cycling is very popular in England. 

We are doing better in sports at the moment though I guess. We have done well in the Olympics recently however we go as Great Britian not England.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Scouse_Mouse said:

I don't know about that, it will certainly make it longer.

I just feel that qualification in itself was an accomplishment, adding more no-hopers to the finals isn't going to make it more entertaining, too me at least.

More entertaining than  24 though was what I said because it should stop teams defending for 3 games to try to get out the group. For many it may not be more entertaining that 16 though I agree.

[nudge+]

4 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

We have produced other great athletes in other sports but we arent consistently producing  them.  We have louise Hamilton for example but I'm not sure if we are a nation that constantly produces good racing drivers. Not an expert though perhaps @nudge can help answer that.

Motorsports is a bit of a special case as it is extremely expensive, so many talents often don't get a proper chance simply because they don't have enough money or sponsorships, especially when it comes to open wheel single seaters. That said, Britain is definitely one of the key contributors and a major player in the world of motorsports, both historically and in recent times. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, nudge said:

Motorsports is a bit of a special case as it is extremely expensive, so many talents often don't get a proper chance simply because they don't have enough money or sponsorships, especially when it comes to open wheel single seaters. That said, Britain is definitely one of the key contributors and a major player in the world of motorsports, both historically and in recent times. 

I remember hearing on the radio a few years ago about certain sports. In England sports like hockey are public school sports. So unless you are ridiculously talented you cant make it because the people who's parents can afford it are to far ahead.  Similar with  motorsport. Unless you have rich parents and contacts it's very hard to become a formala 1 driver. I wanted to learn tennis years ago. I needed coaching but it was £30 an hour. Where as squash coaching was £10 an hour. I didn't stick at squash but think I might had stuck at tennis if i could have afforded it. As it is the only sports I can afford are cycling and swimming 

[nudge+]

2 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I remember hearing on the radio a few years ago about certain sports. In England sports like hockey are public school sports. So unless you are ridiculously talented you cant make it because the people who's parents can afford it are to far ahead.  Similar with  motorsport. Unless you have rich parents and contacts it's very hard to become a formala 1 driver. I wanted to learn tennis years ago. I needed coaching but it was £30 an hour. Where as squash coaching was £10 an hour. I didn't stick at squash but think I might had stuck at tennis if i could have afforded it. As it is the only sports I can afford are cycling and swimming 

I agree, although it's worth mentioning that there's much more to racing than Formula 1. Either way, it's definitely way too expensive for general population.