Originally Posted by Jamesp84:
“My word”
“My word”
Yep, not a dull moment this evening....
Group F: Hungary vs Portugal - (22/6/16) KO 5pm, BBC1/HD
13 of 14
So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through
No side drawing all their games should be going through
Originally Posted by ritchie2yk:
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
Can you explain why this is? Surely the first criterion after number of points should be number of wins.
Originally Posted by ritchie2yk:
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
Was just about to write that. So unfair considering Albania had the hard group too.
Originally Posted by Banana Rama:
“i thought it was first plays against second, why are we playing iceland instead of hungary?”
“i thought it was first plays against second, why are we playing iceland instead of hungary?”
We didn't finish first
Originally Posted by Banana Rama:
“i thought it was first plays against second, why are we playing iceland instead of hungary?”
“i thought it was first plays against second, why are we playing iceland instead of hungary?”
Because in those cases, those who finish top play third placed teams, so it's still an advantage to top.
Originally Posted by MR_Pitkin:
“We didn't finish first”
“We didn't finish first”
england finished second, hungary finished first
Originally Posted by MR_Pitkin:
“Can you explain why this is? Surely the first criterion after number of points should be number of wins.”
“Can you explain why this is? Surely the first criterion after number of points should be number of wins.”
It goes Goal Difference, Goals Scored, Fair Play, UEFA Coefficient Ranking. Wins not a factor.
Originally Posted by ritchie2yk:
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
Absolutely ridiculous isn't it?
Originally Posted by ritchie2yk:
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
“So albania win a game, Portugal don't, and Albania go out, wheres the justice in that
No side drawing all their games should be going through”
That's really ****ed up when you think about it. The way this tournament works is nonsensical.
Originally Posted by Bosox:
“It goes Goal Difference, Goals Scored, Fair Play, UEFA Coefficient Ranking. Wins not a factor.”
“It goes Goal Difference, Goals Scored, Fair Play, UEFA Coefficient Ranking. Wins not a factor.”
That's bollocks, not your explanation but the logic
Originally Posted by Banana Rama:
“i thought it was first plays against second, why are we playing iceland instead of hungary?”
“i thought it was first plays against second, why are we playing iceland instead of hungary?”
Because there are only 6 groups so there are only 6 first places, 6 seconds and 4 thirds who go through. If all of the first places play a 3rd then that means some of the seconds have to play each other.
It's a lot easier when there are 16 or 32 teams. Having 24 makes it more complex.
Originally Posted by Nova21:
“Plenty of people like to be contrarian like that.
I can't stand the bloke, and his wink never crosses my mind.”
“Plenty of people like to be contrarian like that.
I can't stand the bloke, and his wink never crosses my mind.”
He's done nothing to offend me. There's no devil's advocacy at play or anything.
Can't help but feel slightly aggrieved that the only group conclusion I've missed turns out to be the most thrilling one of the lot.
Can't help but feel slightly aggrieved that one of the few matches I've missed in the whole tournament turns out to be the match of the tournament.
You owe me, football gods.
Can't help but feel slightly aggrieved that one of the few matches I've missed in the whole tournament turns out to be the match of the tournament.
You owe me, football gods.
Originally Posted by MR_Pitkin:
“That's bollocks, not your explanation but the logic”
“That's bollocks, not your explanation but the logic”
I think whenever you get into this sort of ranking of teams in different groups it always tends to bollocks. That's why having a tournament with 24 teams is so wrong, as discussed in other threads it should be 16/32/64 only numbers that give clear divisions down to a final two.
Originally Posted by MR_Pitkin:
“Can you explain why this is? Surely the first criterion after number of points should be number of wins.”
“Can you explain why this is? Surely the first criterion after number of points should be number of wins.”
In no football league in Europe or anywhere else as far as I know, is that the rule.
Originally Posted by LostFool:
“Because there are only 6 groups so there are only 6 first places, 6 seconds and 4 thirds. If all of the first places play a 3rd then that means some of the seconds have to play each other.
It's a lot easier when there are 16 or 32 teams. Having 24 makes it more complex.”
“Because there are only 6 groups so there are only 6 first places, 6 seconds and 4 thirds. If all of the first places play a 3rd then that means some of the seconds have to play each other.
It's a lot easier when there are 16 or 32 teams. Having 24 makes it more complex.”
ah ok, thanks for that...
Originally Posted by Bosox:
“I think whenever you get into this sort of ranking of teams in different groups it always tends to bollocks. That's why having a tournament with 24 teams is so wrong, as discussed in other threads it should be 16/32/64 only numbers that give clear divisions down to a final two.”
“I think whenever you get into this sort of ranking of teams in different groups it always tends to bollocks. That's why having a tournament with 24 teams is so wrong, as discussed in other threads it should be 16/32/64 only numbers that give clear divisions down to a final two.”
doesn't have to be 16/32/64
since 4 groups of 5 works the same way or 8 groups of 5 etc.
Originally Posted by Bhaveshgor:
“doesn't have to be 16/32/64
since 4 groups of 5 works the same way or 8 groups of 5 etc.”
“doesn't have to be 16/32/64
since 4 groups of 5 works the same way or 8 groups of 5 etc.”
Except you can't have concurrent final group games in that format and they'll be an unfair advantage to those who play last.
No no no, groups of 5 (or any odd number) is a terrible solution. Massively unfair on the team that misses the final round of games. Not to mention the way you get teams playing on different numbers of days rest.
It's really simple there is no fair way of running a tournament that isn't based on a multiple of 16.
It's really simple there is no fair way of running a tournament that isn't based on a multiple of 16.
13 of 14
