Round of 16???!!!
This topic contains 11 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by tsm 7 years, 9 months ago.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 21, 2016 at 10:35 pm #1073340
What is it with this ’round of 16′? The last 16 was a perfectly good name and did exactly what it said on the tin ie the last 16 teams in the comp.
Then this ’round of 16′ bollox started creeping in with the Champions League and now everyone’s at it.
What next? The ‘finals of four parts’ for the quarters? The ‘penultimate finals’ for the semis?
It’s just like when Courtney Cox got her lips done – why change something that was perfectly good as it was. Why Courtney???? Why????
June 21, 2016 at 11:47 pm #1073355Al,
it took me a little while to understand the logic of the Round of 16 because there are 6 groups, and when I initially totalled ‘top 2’, I came out with 12 and was scratching my head.
I did a bit of research and learned with this particular format, there’s an additional 4 teams added to the 12 that would be decided as the best 3rd placed teams.
Although it can get a bit tricky if to say there are teams with the same points and goal difference, I wholeheartedly welcome this scheme because it does give hope to those who may have narrowly have missed out on second place from a particular group.
The knockouts will naturally remain as they are, but yes, I for one would consider this idea and logic for other tournaments.
A definite thumbs up for me.
June 22, 2016 at 8:57 am #1073502Nil, that wasn’t quite what I meant mate. It’s always 16 teams, but this stage used to simply be called “the last 16”, which is exactly what it is – the last 16 teams.
“Round of 16” sounds like something Death, from Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey, would have called it.
June 22, 2016 at 9:49 am #1073571Haha, see what you mean Al 🙂
Didn’t quite notice that myself – ‘Queen’s English’ mate lol 😀 😉
June 22, 2016 at 9:57 am #1073598Italy and Spain the last finalists could very well meet in the last 16 which seems unusual
June 22, 2016 at 10:35 am #1073643River bond, they are meeting mate; playing this Saturday – can’t wait for that one.
June 22, 2016 at 10:29 pm #1074729Somebody please educate me:
What criteria was used to pit Iceland against England (second placed against second placed)? Normally, second placed is drawn against first (from a neighbouring group – in England’s case France from Group A).
It’s the first time I’ve ever come across a country from Group B drawn against one from Group F. Both Iceland and England finished with five points each. Shouldn’t they have met teams which finished with fewer points???
June 22, 2016 at 10:59 pm #1074762At least the change kept the final games interesting right to the end
June 22, 2016 at 11:20 pm #1074777Tsm, very good point. I’ve had in mind (just from being used a ‘A’ particular format) that ‘A1 normally meets B,C,D,E,F2’. Not quite sure on the reasoning there.
As we are on the thread of 16:
Here’s what was prepared earlier:
Switzerland V Poland
Croatia V Portugal
Wales V Northern Ireland
Hungary V Belgium
Germany V Slovakia
Italy V Spain
France V Rep Of Ireland
England V IcelandJune 23, 2016 at 4:32 am #1074807Look at how lopsided the draw is.
At the top half, its Switzerland v Poland. Croatia v Portugal. Wales v Northern Ireland. Hungary v Belgium. One of these teams is going to play in the final. (is day Wales have a great chance of making the final). The bottom side of the draw is Germany v Slovakia. Italy v Spain. France v Ireland. England v Iceland.
The bottom half of the draw is certainly the strongest. One of the finalists is certainly going to come from Wales, Portugal, Croatia, or Belgium. Then you have the likes of France, Italy, England, Germany, Spain fighting for the other spot in the final.
All England had to do, was beat Slovakia. And they would probably (not possibly), have made the final. Instead, after beating Iceland, England are going to need to beat France, then Spain/Germany just to make the final.
And what about Portugal. They havent even won a game, and look at the side of the draw they ended up on.
Woy must be kicking himself for resting players. The teams in the top half of the draw will never have a better chance to play in a Euro final.
June 23, 2016 at 9:18 am #1074948Whatever the thinking was behind the format, you can be fairly certain that UEFA had not planned on it working out like this, with all the major European sides on one side of the draw.
Spain certainly didn’t play ball by finishing second – how very dare they!
June 23, 2016 at 6:03 pm #1075992This skewed format has devalued the competition, in my opinion. There were also 24 teams in the 1982,1990 and 1994 World Cup finals but there was a more realistic and even-handed system that was used to sort out the last 16 teams. If I recall correctly: the best teams to finish in top place (9 and 7 points) were drawn against the third-placed teams whilst the best of the third-placed teams were given a chance against the second placed teams.
As it stands, UEFA has made a mockery of fair play. They MUST GET BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD!
-
AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply this topic.