Jump to content

Chit chat


kud u maglu Simoviću

  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Šampion Evrope 2016 je...

    • Nemačka
    • Španija
    • Francuska
    • Italija
    • Engleska
    • Portugal
      0
    • Belgija
    • Hrvatska
    • Turska
    • Švedska
    • Rusija
      0
    • Albanija
      0
    • Mađarska
    • Rumunija, Švajcarska, Slovačka, Vels, Češka, R. Irska, Poljska, Ukrajna, S. Irska, Austrija, Island...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ajant23

    28

  • MiddleClass

    20

  • Korki

    19

  • levi

    18

Videh sad da je bila neka guzva na tribinama i prekid u St. Etjenu. Na HRT-u komentator prica o "neprijateljima reprezentacije koji su dosli da pokvare lepu pricu Hrvatske na Euru..."

Edited by W.F.C.
Link to post

mislio je na simpatizere torcide i bbba, pominjao ih je i nekoliko puta nakon toga. to je drago cosic, nece on traziti krivce gde ih nema.

Link to post

evo još ovo na ovu temu i neću više da smaram:

 

Euro 2016: Will it be a mouth-watering banquet or an overstocked buffet?

 

 

On the other hand European Championships never used to resemble World Cups, and between 1982 and 1994 the global tournament experienced some problems with the 24-team format. The main one was that with only eight teams leaving after the group stage, the big teams had it too easy and the competition only got going from the last 16 onwards. One could see the same sort of thing happening in France. Everyone loves a party but the carnival spirit could be stretched over the first 13 days of the competition. The first rest day comes a fortnight in, and by that stage all that will have been achieved is a reduction to a field of 16, the number that started the last tournament in Poland and Ukraine.

 
Ever since its introduction in 1996 in England, 16 has been considered the perfect number for European Championships. There are usually 16 good teams around – Platini’s boast that “we can have 24 very good teams at the finals” always sounded a little hollow – and with that cut-off point some decent sides will miss out and the odd minnow make it through. Furthermore, 16 teams allows group and knockout stages to be completed in somewhere between two and three weeks, not the month that Euro 2016 is going to take. That is precisely the sort of streamlined, hit-the-ground-running sort of event that most people are looking for between World Cups. With a 16-team format the Euros became recognised, in fact, for a standard as high, if not higher, than anything else in international football, though rivalling World Cups was never the original intention.
 
In the early days European Championships were considered the opposite of World Cups. Rather than gathering as many teams together as possible for a protracted jamboree, until relatively recently the qualifying cycle was the main event. England’s third place in 1968 looks impressive until it is remembered that only four teams went to the finals in those days, a system still in place when Antonin Panenka scored his memorable penalty for Czechoslovakia to see off West Germany in the final in 1976.
 
Similarly, everyone remembers Denmark returning from the beach (they were late entrants due to civil war in Yugoslavia) to win the tournament in Sweden in 1992, an achievement only slightly diminished by the knowledge that just eight finalists took part in that era.
 
But that used to be the Euros’ unique selling point. Short and to the point, they barely disrupted anyone’s summer holidays. Now they look as bloated and slow-moving as any World Cup, and it might have been something of a first when Roy Hodgson was asked at Burton a couple of weeks ago whether he had any specific plans to counter the boredom – cabin fever was the expression used – of players being cooped up together for three or four weeks. Let’s hope it is three or four weeks, came the inevitable reply, with everyone mindful of the fact that England’s last tournament adventure, in Brazil two years ago, came to a sticky end with just two games played in the group stage.

 

i takođe. što je relevantno sada i za EP kada je prošireno na 24 ekipe:

 

 

 

It is an irony of Fifa's money-making splurge that it tends to keep the big teams apart (unlike, say, the Champions League, which at times seems to have the same big teams playing each other on an endless treadmill). It also seems to encourage negative football. Goals per game ratios aren't everything, but it is notable that the knockout stages of the last World Cup – once the likes of Algeria, Honduras and Switzerland, who essentially played for draws from the start, had been eliminated – yielded 2.6 goals per game as opposed to 2.27 for the whole tournament. Since Saudi Arabia's 8-0 embarrassment at the hands of Germany in 2002, minnows seem intent first and foremost on avoiding humiliation. (That said, England also dragged the average down in the group stage).

 
Quantifying such things is difficult, and the Fifa world rankings are far from perfect, but let's say the top 10 sides in those rankings – which are after all, the nearest we have to an objective measure - have a realistic chance of winning the World Cup. Heading into this World Cup, those 10 sides were Brazil, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Argentina, England, France and Croatia. Of a total of 63 matches (I'm excluding the third-place play-off) seven featured a clash between two of those teams: 11%. In 2006, the figure was nine of 63 (and one of those was a dead-rubber group match between Argentina and the Netherlands after both had already qualified): 14%.
 
Compare that to the Euros. Going into Euro 2008, the top 10 in the world was: Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Spain, Germany, Czech Republic, France, Greece, Portugal and the Netherlands. Even though the first two, for obvious reasons, weren't involved, eight of 31 games featured a meeting of two of the top 10 sides in the word: 26%. That's why the Euros, with 16 teams, usually feels like a higher quality tournament than the 32-team World Cup (and one of the many reasons expanding the Euros to 24 teams is such a bad idea).
 
What about past World Cups? Let's go back to 1994, the last 24-team tournament. The world rankings were only a year old then and, frankly, look a little odd, but let's go with them. The top 10 was: Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Argentina, Nigeria, Switzerland, Spain and Romania. Eight of 51 games in the USA featured two sides from that list: 16%. Or, let's go back to 1986, the first tournament to feature a last 16 knock-out round. There were no world rankings, but a guess at the best 10 sides in the world – based on seedings, qualifying and results in the continental competitions - would be: Brazil, Italy, France, West Germany, Spain, Poland, England, Argentina, USSR and Denmark. In Mexico 12 of the 51 games involved two of a putative top 10: 24%. Even if you revise that downwards to take into account that my top 10 is picked with the benefit of knowing what those sides went on to do at the tournament, it's still double the proportion in the most recent World Cup.

 

 

Less is more.

Link to post

Zašto Rts, a vidim i na drugim portalima, od starta tera priču da su za prolaz neophodna 4 boda? Pa silne timove otpisase vec.. A bilo je jasno i pre šampionata da će skoro sigurno 3 boda biti dovoljno za prolaz. Jako je teško zamisliti da 5 petoplasiranih osvoji po 3 boda. Vec je bilo dosta nerešenih, pa se može čak desiti da neko prodje i sa dva boda. Al u svakom slučaju je debilno toliko čvrsto tvrditi da su neophodna 4 boda. Pa jebote i u starom sistemu gde samo dve ekipe prolaze, se znalo desiti da sa 3 boda neko prodje.

 

Nervira me ovo vise nego sto treba, pa sam morao da podelim :)

Link to post

@Hazard

 

Less is more - to takodje vazi i za Ligu Sampiona koja je overbloated i izuzetno dosadna sve do recimo cetvrtfinala, polufinala.

Link to post

evo još ovo na ovu temu i neću više da smaram:

 

Euro 2016: Will it be a mouth-watering banquet or an overstocked buffet?

 

 

i takođe. što je relevantno sada i za EP kada je prošireno na 24 ekipe:

 

 

 

 

Less is more.

 

Kakvo crno smanjenje Svetskog Kupa, ovaj format je optimalan a u budućnosti ćemo gledati samo proširenje (što ne valja)

 

Većini federacija je WC odavno pretesan a sad pošto 24 evropska tima idu na EURO i UEFA će smatrati da je 13 timova na Mundijalu premalo za nju.

Link to post
Nemanja Posrbica

Pošto žele da zadrže broj učesnika, ne bi bilo loše da probaju četiri grupe po šest timova, ali da samo dva pobednika grupa prolazi dalje. Finalisti bi igrali osam mečeva, ali bi svaki tim igrao najmanje pet. Ovako se otvara previše prostora spekulisanju.

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...