*Official Euro 2008 Qualifying Thread* - Page 22

Golden_Rhino · #**211** 11-22-2007, 09:55 PM

Forza Italia.

That is all.

Iplayboard · #**212** 11-22-2007, 11:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I wanted to score tickets to some of the games, when/where should I start looking? Or is it already too late? Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Start here UEFA.com Ticketing .

It's never too late to buy tickets until the matches have been played. Ideally you should have entered the ticket lottery before the end of last March, but even if there aren't tickets available through UEFA you can always buy them on the secondary market. I just have no idea how much you'll end up paying.

Iplayboard · #**213** 11-22-2007, 11:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

France and Italy were two of the top 3 teams in the world for the past ten years or so, saying they were better than portugal isn't really saying much [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Germany on the other hand wasn't (and isn't) no where near as good as any of the teams mentioned, imo. They are way overrated right now because of Germany's history and the fact that they did well in the previous WC.

PS: that doesn't seem like a good bet for me, at all [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on Germany. In 2006 they played really well, but even football minnows such as Korea and United States have done well at home. In 2002 they benefited from a rash of upsets and only had to beat Paraguay, United States and Korea to get to the final, where they were outclassed by Brasil.

At the European Championships Germany have looked awful recently, failing to make it out of the group stage the last two times.

Still, Miroslav Klose is a great striker and Michael Ballack is much more comfortable in German colors than in Chelsea blue. Frings and Schweinstiger provide long-range scoring threats from mid-field. Germany waltzed through qualification and got good results in friendlies (England) and meaningless qualifiers fielding lesser-known players.

I think Germany is a bit overrated. I'd put them below Italy, France and Spain, but they are still contenders.

Disturbance · #**214** 11-23-2007, 12:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The last time England failed to qualify for an Euro cup was 20 years ago in 1988.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually we did qualify for that tournament, but managed to lose all 3 games in the finals. 84 we were nowhere though. However results wise you can say that the Euros is much tougher than the World Cup.

Disturbance · #**215** 11-23-2007, 12:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If I wanted to score tickets to some of the games, when/where should I start looking? Or is it already too late? Thanks in advance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could try here, although the initial 'ticket lottery' finished a few months ago:

http://www.uefa.com/competitions/eur.../overview.html

Failing that ebay or other internet touts...

Golden_Rhino · #**216** 11-23-2007, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
However results wise you can say that the Euros is much tougher than the World Cup.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the prelims, absolutely. Once you get to the knockout stage, I think WC>Euros. If not in the round of 16, then definitely in the round of 8.

JaredL · #**217** 11-23-2007, 01:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However results wise you can say that the Euros is much tougher than the World Cup.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the prelims, absolutely. Once you get to the knockout stage, I think WC>Euros. If not in the round of 16, then definitely in the round of 8.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here were the 16 teams in the 2006 WC round of 16:

UEFA
Germany
Sweden
Italy
Switzerland
Ukraine
England
Portugal
Netherlands
Spain
France

Conmebol
Argentina
Brazil
Ecuador

Other:
Mexico
Australia
Ghana

Compare that to the 16 teams that qualified for Euro 2008:
Austria
Switzerland
Poland
Portugal
Italy
France
Greece
Turkey
Czech Republic
Germany
Croatia
Russia
Spain
Sweden
Romania
Netherlands

Getting rid of like teams you have:
World Cup -
Ukraine
England
Argentina
Brazil
Ecuador
Mexico
Australia
Ghana

Euro:
Austria
Poland
Greece
Turkey
Czech Republic
Croatia
Russia
Romania

Comparing those two pools of 8 teams, I would say the World Cup group is stronger overall with the two best teams. IMO the two worst teams are Australia and Ecuador even though Ecuador beat Poland 2-0 in the last World Cup finals. Mexico is arguably as good or better than all of those European sides.

Where the European Championship excels IMO is the group stage. The most lopsided possible matchup is Italy versus Austria I guess. Compare that to Spain against Saudi Arabia or England versus Trinidad and Tobago which were actual matches (Brazil vs Trinidad and Tobago would be the biggest gap possible probably). Debating this is like debating conferences where one is significantly better top to bottom while another has a couple of great teams at the top and some terrible teams.

I personally prefer the European Championship because there tend to be only a couple of matches that on paper you wouldn't really want to see. The WC is obviously a bigger spectacle.

Iplayboard · #**218** 11-23-2007, 02:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Comparing those two pools of 8 teams, I would say the World Cup group is stronger overall with the two best teams. IMO the two worst teams are Australia and Ecuador even though Ecuador beat Poland 2-0 in the last World Cup finals. Mexico is arguably as good or better than all of those European sides.

[/ QUOTE ]

Australia and Ecuador are worse than Austria???

[ QUOTE ]

Where the European Championship excels IMO is the group stage. The most lopsided possible matchup is Italy versus Austria I guess. Compare that to Spain against Saudi Arabia or England versus Trinidad and Tobago which were actual matches (Brazil vs Trinidad and Tobago would be the biggest gap possible probably). Debating this is like debating conferences where one is significantly better top to bottom while another has a couple of great teams at the top and some terrible teams.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the World Cup only had 16 teams then there wouldn't be so many terrible match-ups.

Making the final X number of teams at the World Cup is a greater accomplishment than making the final X number of teams at Euro for a European team. This is obvious. UEFA is a subset of FIFA. Every UEFA team has a chance to compete in the World Cup. It can't possibly be harder to win Euro.

For a non-European team (except maybe South America) it may be less of an accomplishment to make the final X number of teams at the World Cup then if that team hypothetically competed in UEFA and made the final X number of teams at Euro. This depends on the value of X.

If x is 16 then this is true. In order to make the final 16 at the World Cup, a side like the United States basically gets a free pass into the last 32 and then only needs a little variance to get to the final 16. However, if they were in UEFA they would have to finish top two of a tough table over the course of an entire league in order to make the final 16.

If x is only 1 then obviously winning the World Cup is greater because once again the World Cup includes all of UEFA plus some other really good teams.

In conclusion, the World Cup is a tougher tournament for European teams, always. For non-European teams this might not be the case. However, it doesn't really matter because I don't think Brasil will be competing at Euro anytime soon.

JaredL · #**219** 11-23-2007, 03:03 AM

Oops, I didn't think about Austria. I would say they are in the bottom 3. Ecuador is a curious team. Before the 2006 World Cup finals they pretty much only played well at home. Australia we will know more about when they start qualifying with the Asian teams. Beating American Samoa and then playing close home and homes with Uruguay makes them somewhat tough to judge as well. I honestly don't know much about Austria. I would, however, take any qualified team over either of them on a neutral field in a close to equidistant location.

The point about UEFA teams is obviously valid. I'm not trying to say that the European Championship is more difficult to win. I just prefer the tournament because the average quality of play is higher and the group stage is a lot better. Of course a big part of the overall quality being higher is simply that the tournament features half as many teams although just looking at the last 16 they are fairly close.

clowntable · #**220** 11-23-2007, 03:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the approximate chance that each team has to win Euro 2008. I used the odds from bodog and then made it so the percentages summed to 100%.

Italy 11.17%
Germany 11.17%
France 9.08%
Spain 9.08%
Netherlands 7.26%
Portugal 7.26%
Czech Republic 5.59%
Croatia 4.84%
Switzerland 3.82%
Sweden 2.50%
Greece 3.16%
Russia 2.14%
Romania 2.79%
Turkey 2.50%
Poland 1.77%
Austria 1.08%

[/ QUOTE ]
If those are based on odds I like bets on Switzerland and Turkey

On Greece vs Netherlands:
The Dutch just don't seem comfortable with the efficient style they are supposed to play and quite frankly I want to see them play their amazing offensive football, too. Make no mistake they are one of the best teams if it comes to pure skill but something just seems wrong with the way they have played during the qualifiers.

On the strenght of Greece: They don't play beautifull at all but they play very clever and disciplined and I think they are a lot stronger on offense than they used to be (when they won the Euros).