If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Two great teams are just as likely to lead to a bore draw as it is a great game. Maybe even more so.
I honestly think you're the first person I've heard of that support having two group stages. Don't you find they get dull after a while? I like one, but just was just too much.
11-13-2007, 12:08 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #102
Originally posted by Nikos:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Meitheisman:
No it ensured that you had the best 8 teams in Europe in the QT (with maybe an exception or 2 here and there) which imo should be the point of every competition, have the best teams face each other at the end to see who is the best among the bests
Why don't you go and play your competition on paper and not bother the rest of us then? </BLOCKQUOTE>
Why don't you just pull team names out of a hat then, you'd get plenty of upsets and suspense that way
11-13-2007, 12:11 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #103
Originally posted by PMLF:
I doubt Malta or Andorra are better than the likes of Guatemala, Cameroon or China (to mention some non-Euro teams that failed to play the last WC). But my point was that although there are 53 countries in Europe, half of them are too weak to ever have a chance of reaching the WC or EC. So, in the end it's something like 25-30 countries fighing for 13-15 WC/EC spots.
Still missing the point though. The 10 best UEFA teams that misses out on a WC would hold their own against most of the Asian/African/N American teams that actually make it. Malta and Andorra might not but they would certainly beat loads of the bottom bunch in Asian/African/N American.
The UEFA teams always has a higher representation in the WC knock-out than in the group stage where as most other confederation (S America excluded) barely reach the knock-out.
I get that it wouldn't be neither good nor wanted to have a (almost) fully european WC but I'd say that half would be fair. And the organizing country should take a spot from their federation, not keep taking a european as it has been for the last few WC's.
11-13-2007, 12:11 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #104
Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
Two great teams are just as likely to lead to a bore draw as it is a great game. Maybe even more so.
I honestly think you're the first person I've heard of that support having two group stages. Don't you find they get dull after a while? I like one, but just was just too much.
It's not perfect I agree but I find it less annoying than having a crappy team score an ugly fast break goal and go through because they play 11 man in the box for 2*90min
11-13-2007, 12:11 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #105
Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
Two great teams are just as likely to lead to a bore draw as it is a great game. Maybe even more so.
I honestly think you're the first person I've heard of that support having two group stages. Don't you find they get dull after a while? I like one, but just was just too much.
the second group stage wfb, it's the first one that was the problem.
First round should be a two legged knock out, with the losers going into the Uefa, then the group stage should be the second round, perhaps totally unseeded. Would be awesome.
11-13-2007, 12:12 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #106
Originally posted by Meitheisman:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
Two great teams are just as likely to lead to a bore draw as it is a great game. Maybe even more so.
I honestly think you're the first person I've heard of that support having two group stages. Don't you find they get dull after a while? I like one, but just was just too much.
It's not perfect I agree but I find it less annoying than having a crappy team score an ugly fast break goal and go through because they play 11 man in the box for 2*90min </BLOCKQUOTE>
It's called football. If the "good" team can't score for 180 minutes why do they deserve to go through?
11-13-2007, 12:13 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #108
Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
Two great teams are just as likely to lead to a bore draw as it is a great game. Maybe even more so.
I honestly think you're the first person I've heard of that support having two group stages. Don't you find they get dull after a while? I like one, but just was just too much.
I quite lked the second group stage. Every match in it was between top quality sides.
However, I prefer it this way.
11-13-2007, 12:15 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #109
Originally posted by Mr Wallin:
And the organizing country should take a spot from their federation, not keep taking a european as it has been for the last few WC's.
Agree, this is just ridiculous.
11-13-2007, 12:16 AM
Champions League / UEFA Cup revamped from 2009 Post #110
Originally posted by ericcantona7:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Satan, look at my pert arse!:
Two great teams are just as likely to lead to a bore draw as it is a great game. Maybe even more so.
I honestly think you're the first person I've heard of that support having two group stages. Don't you find they get dull after a while? I like one, but just was just too much.
the second group stage wfb, it's the first one that was the problem.
First round should be a two legged knock out, with the losers going into the Uefa, then the group stage should be the second round, perhaps totally unseeded. Would be awesome. </BLOCKQUOTE>
See I'm not the only one saying that the second group stage was good.
Thanks Cantona :thup:
Linear Mode
