Miscellaneous Football Thread

puddleduck

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Location
Uk
Online Cricket Games Owned
The real ridiculous thing is that England are in the top 10 :p
 

Epic

Panel of Selectors
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Location
USA
Is this the place to talk about International Friendlies? If not, where at?
 

shravi

National Board President
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Profile Flag
India
 
Last edited by a moderator:

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
why is it a bad move? it reduces the financial burden, it opens the tournament up to more fans, it allows devoted footballing countries that have very little chance of hosting a big international football tournament to host a few matches. it's a fantastic idea.

if it's possible to stage a tournament in brazil with the vast distances between rio, brasilia and sao paulo et al. it's easy to stage one across europe. split it up into north, south, east, west for the groups and the teams will actually be travelling less. over a 13 day period this season man u played in braga, birmingham, norwich and istanbul (a few of their internationals also threw in an international appearance, evra can also add a trip to parma to that list of cities in 2 weeks), intercontinental travel is something all european footballers are well acustomed to.
 
Last edited:

Bevab

Staff Member
Moderator
PlanetCricket Award Winner
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Location
India
Online Cricket Games Owned
  1. Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
That's something they're accustomed to, but not happy with. They'll not get much botheration really, travelling for miles to play a match in international colours isn't something that'll excite people of the future.

The fans also get severely affected by this. And also it'll mostly be some big stadiums and cities hosting matches, not the small ones.


It does look like a good idea on paper, but its a horrible idea in truth.
 

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
The fans also get severely affected by this. And also it'll mostly be some big stadiums and cities hosting matches, not the small ones.

yes, but it gives the opportunity to big cities outwith big countries. Oslo, Copenhagen, Budapest, Glasgow, Bucharest, Prague, Athens, Riga, Vilnius.

in the case of athens and copenhagen, these are the home grounds of past winners. In the case of Glasgow, they hosted the first international match ever. These are important footballing cities, with big stadiums and huge fanbases and yet because they belong to small countries they will never have the chance to host a major international fixture under existing rules.

the distances aren't even that bad, it's just for some reason without it confined to a border it's all "oooh too much travelling." the 1994 world cup was played in grounds from pasadena to foxburg, 2,400 miles apart. Heck, in the cricket world cup Mohali is about 2,300 miles away from colombo. in brazil 2014 the manaus ground is 2000 miles from the porto alegre one. Dublin is only 2,100 miles away from moscow. the travelling is not an issue at all and if it is then why aren't people (or players) claiming the 2014 world cup is being hosted in an unfeasibly large country?

if anything the fact that there will a be a major international airport in every city will actually make it easier for fans and players to travel. I'll bet trying to get from porto alegre to manaus will pose considerably more problems than trying to get from Madrid to Prague.
 
Last edited:

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
The financial burden that uefa/a country had of hosting a tournament in two different countries like they did in euro 2012 - is down to uefa's own stupidity. If they hosted it in one country that would not be an issue. FIFA's logistical disaster in hosting world cup 2002 in korea and japan couldn't have told any fool this.

Not every country in the world is developed enough to host major tournaments. The FIFA world cup, by the time the world ends won't be hosted in all 204 nations on the earth. So their is no reason for uefa to do the same in europe, if the want to keep a successful tournament.

The historical beauty of tournament football is the national pride a home nation gets while hosting a tournament and all the opposition fans grouping together.


Secondly i dont understand the link you a drawing with man united travelling across europe to this. But then again that just your theory of how it might work out, uefa has exactly announced what format they have in mind - which will be another joke.

Another obvious big problem is the increasing of the tournament to 24 countries. Last i checked euro's was doing superbly with 16 teams & was the most competitive international football tournament. If it aint broken don't fix it!!. This is all uefa looking to get more money.

Fans are already complaining about the travelling cost of being in brazil 2014. I am planning to go & i already realize that i can only be based in one city (rio) & hope for eg that england are based their & play games their. And yes i'm sure a world cup cricket in india had its challenges too. But at least its in one country and follows a sensible format, that if some fans can afford it, the can play to follow their team much easier.


For me if they wanted to play the euro's across the continent, they should follow the champions league format. Either scrap the euro qualifiers or re-structure it. Let the EUROs be played home/away throughout a season (same 16 final teams, 4 groups, quarters, semis) & have a grand final in a set country like they do in the c-league. The two-leg ties would make tournament more tactical.
 
Last edited:

StinkyBoHoon

National Board President
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
The financial burden that uefa/a country had of hosting a tournament in two different countries like they did in euro 2012 - is down to uefa's own stupidity. If they hosted it in one country that would not be an issue. FIFA's logistical disaster in hosting world cup 2002 in korea and japan couldn't have told any fool this.

Not every country in the world is developed enough to host major tournaments. The FIFA world cup, by the time the world ends won't be hosted in all 204 nations on the earth won't be able to host the world cup. So their is no reason for uefa to the same in europe, if the want to keep a successful tournament.

that's the point, once you've weeded out the countries with an infastructure able to host the euros, out of the ones that are too small to do it your left with little choice except to cycle round england, spain, italy, germany, france and russia. that's your suggestion? endlessly reward the same nations again and again.

why should other countries be excluded from hosting football tournaments when they have the facilities to do so just because of the population of the country they belong to? it's like the Champions league mentality is bleeding into international football, only a few are allowed to compete on equal footing and the rest get shafted.

The historical beauty of tournament football is the national pride a home nation gets while hosting a tournament and all the opposition fans grouping together.

the historical beauty of the royal family was you were born into a life of privilege, power and unmatched wealth. times change. football leagues are melting pots of all colours and creeds, football is supported vehemently in every corner or europe, and that huge fanbase is the reason it has such draw. all the big countries have hosted several major tournaments, time to start sharing it out a bit.

Secondly i dont understand the link you a drawing with man united travelling across europe to this. But then again that just your theory of how it might work out, uefa has exactly announced what format they have in mind - which will be another joke.

just pointing out that the logistics of travel are dealt with on a weekly basis by most players and have been dealt with in major tournaments numerous times, it doesn't need to be kept inside a border to work.

Fans are already complaining about the travelling cost of being in brazil 2014. And yes i'm sure a world cup cricket in india had its challenges too. But at least its in one country and follows a sensible format.

so you'd be prepared to stand up say that the world cup should categorically not, and never ever, be in brazil? it's just too big?

or are you saying your only problem with a multi-country tournament is you're not convinced it will be well scheduled? 3 of the last 4 ECs have been multi country events, kiev and poland wasn't the first, and the others were fine. as you said, you don't know, it might well be very well organised. but anyway, it sounds like you disagree in principle and want it hosted in a single country but of that highlighted sentence the phrase "at least it's in one country" hasn't been backed up with any arguements, it's just been tacked onto complaints about the format.
 
Last edited:

War

Chairman of Selectors
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Online Cricket Games Owned
that's the point, once you've weeded out the countries with an infastructure able to host the euros, out of the ones that are too small to do it your left with little choice except to cycle round england, spain, italy, germany, france and russia. that's your suggestion? endlessly reward the same nations again and again.

why should other countries be excluded from hosting football tournaments when they have the facilities to do so just because of the population of the country they belong to? it's like the Champions league mentality is bleeding into international football, only a few are allowed to compete on equal footing and the rest get shafted.

If the current format is kept, if the euro's have to be rotated around the big countries so be it. As i said with the FIFA world cup, every country in the world won't get a chance to host it, because hosting such major sporting tournaments means your country has to be developed. Its not simply about if you have passionate football fans.

It would be nice if other minor countries could get to see the football of course. Which is why i say and have thought since about euro 2004, that the euro's should be structured like the champions league & play home/away matches in the group & knockout phase.

So lets say Poland is playing Spain in a euro group match - the poles will @ least get to see spain & whatever big country in that specific group in a home leg match. Instead of having to travel to a country to watch them play. This makes far more sense that uefa's idea for the 2020 tournament imo.





just pointing out that the logistics of travel are dealt with on a weekly basis by most players and have been dealt with in major tournaments numerous times, it doesn't need to be kept inside a border to work.

Oh ok. But we have to see what format uefa suggests, because as i sit here & think i cant imagine any sensible format uefa can come up with, that would make the scheduling sensible. So whats your position on the increase to 24 teams then?

so you'd be prepared to stand up say that the world cup should categorically not, and never ever, be in brazil? it's just too big?

or are you saying your only problem with a multi-country tournament is you're not convinced it will be well scheduled? 3 of the last 4 ECs have been multi country events, kiev and poland wasn't the first, and the others were fine. as you said, you don't know, it might well be very well organised. but anyway, it sounds like you disagree in principle and want it hosted in a single country but of that highlighted sentence the phrase "at least it's in one country" hasn't been backed up with any arguements, it's just been tacked onto complaints about the format.

the historical beauty of the royal family was you were born into a life of privilege, power and unmatched wealth. times change. football leagues are melting pots of all colours and creeds, football is supported vehemently in every corner or europe, and that huge fanbase is the reason it has such draw. all the big countries have hosted several major tournaments, time to start sharing it out a bit.

Only thing i guess brazil should have done is not host the cup in so much cities around the country. Maybe they should have kept the games in a specific region of the country alone. So yea i think everyone realizes, that part of the scheduling is a mistake & fans going will plan according unless they are very very rich.

I did say after the part you bold, that if its in one country as things usually are fans can plan to follow their teams better. Travelling around europe due to the fairly easy eu travel constraints isn't the issue.

The format isn't spell out - but their is some talk of a country being a "host city". How logical is then Germany playing england in the "host city" of Moscow, when in the host city of "munich" sweden is playing spain in another group??

All that travelling across countries to follow your team would clearly be more expensive in uefa's suggestion that if its held in one country. However as i said above, if the travelling across europe to watch the euro's is done in a champions league formats, which fans know about and find acceptable - that makes far more sense.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top