Louis Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26747394 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 nice idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus jones Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 I like friendlies though where we (Wales) get to play Brazil, Mexico etc....... we never qualify for anything so how else are we supposed to play teams outside of Europe!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted March 26, 2014 Report Share Posted March 26, 2014 Either we need a British team or we need a Celtic Nations team. If Wales, Scotland, and the two Irish teams merged, they'd offer up a strong team. marcus jones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 I think this is just a revenue earning scheme for UEFA. Its supposed to replace international 'friendlies' but when clubs are faced with sending key players to play for 90 minutes in a competitive game, instead of 45 minutes in a meaningless friendly, the chances of key players returning injured will be a lot higher. Monetary compensation from UEFA is not going to mean much if a club loses a key player for several weeks. I think the clubs may stymie this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Great points Louis plus I also read that they said it won't add any additional games, but most teams only play 7-8 friendlies a year (non wc years) and how would a tournament be just 8 matches? They'd have to add games. Also it's more European promotion. What about Africa, Asia, South America (best soccer continent IMO) and North America? Do they all have to friendly each other and can't play European teams anymore? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibdane Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Great points Louis plus I also read that they said it won't add any additional games, but most teams only play 7-8 friendlies a year (non wc years) and how would a tournament be just 8 matches? They'd have to add games. Also it's more European promotion. What about Africa, Asia, South America (best soccer continent IMO) and North America? Do they all have to friendly each other and can't play European teams anymore? This is exactly what I was thinking for the USA. We play teams in our region enough as it is; I look forward to playing European teams and seeing how we match up, because most of the teams in our region are very weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 The other issue to consider is that it will move power from national associations to Uefa. At the moment the FA are responsible for England games outside formal competitions. In future, it appears that the FA may not be involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted March 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 It sounds pretty complicated 54 teams divided into four groups (14/14/13/13 for arguments sake) Each group divided into four pools of four three Then they play friendlies against teams in the same pool The four group winners in the top division will then meet for a semi final to decide who goes to the final. So it looks like a five game tournament - every two years at most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Great points Louis plus I also read that they said it won't add any additional games, but most teams only play 7-8 friendlies a year (non wc years) and how would a tournament be just 8 matches? They'd have to add games. Also it's more European promotion. What about Africa, Asia, South America (best soccer continent IMO) and North America? Do they all have to friendly each other and can't play European teams anymore? South America best Football Continent? Surely a wind up? Europe is and always be the best football continent. It's where all the top players end up. In terms of International it's only really Brazil & Argentina who are at the very very top end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted March 27, 2014 Report Share Posted March 27, 2014 Agree that some of the best players come from there though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 South America best Football Continent? Surely a wind up? Not at all a wind up. South America has so few countries yet the vast majority are superb clubs. Europe has something like 50 teams and of those about 6 are major players. The worst team to qualify for South America is Uruguay who are ranked 6th in the world. The worst in Europe is Bosnia at 21. I'm talking national teams not clubs by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Not at all a wind up. South America has so few countries yet the vast majority are superb clubs. Europe has something like 50 teams and of those about 6 are major players. The worst team to qualify for South America is Uruguay who are ranked 6th in the world. The worst in Europe is Bosnia at 21. I'm talking national teams not clubs by the way. Chile 15th, Ecuador 23rd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markjazzbassist Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Chile 15th, Ecuador 23rd. yeah i was looking at the qualifying order. so uruguay was the last team to qualify (lowest points), and bosnia had the play in game, etc. two ways to skin a cat. anyways, either way you look at it, the ratio of amount of teams ranked to amount of teams available is proof enough. if europe was just england, france, spain, italy, germany, belgium, holland, russia, portugal and greece it would be about the same, but it's not. there are another 40+ teams, meanwhile south america has so few countries and yet they are top notch. i'm not saying europe is bad, i'm just saying if you look at the ratio of top teams to available teams, south america is far superior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikica Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 I agree that South America (CONMEBOL) is the strongest confederation (pound for pound) internationally at least. In terms of World Cup qualifying, they all play each other in a double round robin, and the wildly different conditions and altitudes all across the continent means that even the worst team (Bolivia) can hammer teams at height in La Paz. Europe clearly has more top nations, but for a confederation of international teams, the ten teams in CONMEBOL are good. The first seven or so could realistically qualify from UEFA, and the likes of Venezuela and Peru are improving after a lull. Paraguay finished rock bottom of WC qualifying directly after reaching the last 8 of the World Cup and the Copa America final. Pound for pound it has the best international teams in the world (Uruguay are probably the best football nation relative to resources and population) and the size of the qualifying and varying conditions and climate make it a major test for most nations. Even Argentina and Brazil have struggled in qualifying at times. As for this 'League of Nations' thing, it looks very confusing and a bit unnecessary, imo. However, if it helps smaller nations to develop then I'm all for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Not at all a wind up. South America has so few countries yet the vast majority are superb clubs. Europe has something like 50 teams and of those about 6 are major players. The worst team to qualify for South America is Uruguay who are ranked 6th in the world. The worst in Europe is Bosnia at 21. I'm talking national teams not clubs by the way. If you divided Western Europe and Eastern Europe you will see a massive difference in quality. Western Europe alone has more quality teams than South America. To base it on all the smaller Eastern European sides is wrong IMO. FIFA Rankings are confusing and I don't tend to take note of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC11 Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Switzerland ranked 7th best team in the world according to FIFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcus jones Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Switzerland ranked 7th best team in the world according to FIFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 I dont really see the point. Its basically a European Championship to help qualify for another European Championship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.