Gingerfinch wrote:The format does need looking at. Some group winners getting a third team place, and a couple getting runners up doesn't seem, and tbh isn't fair.
Unless you go up to 32 teams though, the only solution which I can come up with avoids this type of issue is to have eight groups of three. You either then go straight into the QFs, which just the winner of team group progressing, or into a round of 16 with the top two from each group progressing.
However I cannot see UEFA nor the TV companies ever agreeing to the first option (having one less round of group games AND one less round of knock out games would equal greatly reduced revenue - and whatever you or I might think about that, it is a very important factor). And in relation to the second option, you potentially find yourself in an even greater farce than at present. You'd almost certainly have sides progressing from the group stage with just one point!
No way can you go up to 32 teams. You'd basically have to do away with qualifying. Add eight more sides to the 24 who qualified this time, and you've hardly got anyone left (of any sort of footballing pedigree). Holland, Denmark, Norway, Serbia, Scotland, Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Finland maybe? Leaving behind just the likes of Armenia, San Marino and Andorra. And then when you come to the competition itself, you find yourself replicating the cricket world cup where the outcome of every other game could be predicted by all beforehand, all for the sake of maybe one upset.
At the same time though, I don't think UEFA would ever go back to 16 (even though surely that is the correct thing to do. It really was the perfect number. I was against the increase to 24 teams from the moment they announced it). I do think 24 teams, or something in that region, is here to stay.
I've seen it be suggested that another option would be to continue with six groups of four, but with the top two from each then going into four groups of three. From here the process is very similar to the above - either only the top side from each progresses (to the SF) or the top two from each progress (to the QFs). But this doesn't avoid the unfairness which you discuss. Some second groups would be made up of two group winners and one group runner-up, other groups would be made up of one group winner and two group runner-ups. The system would surely favour those teams in the latter groups. (Three groups of four would avoid this, but then you're starting to add far too many games).
