Scrap The International Break

Jints

Martin Samuel in the Times suggested using a Swiss system as per the European club competitions. Would make each match relevant and provide for a few big games  makes a lot of sense to me

DaveMehmet

iainment said:

DaveMehmet said:

I made the most of it. Went to Borough Market with my wife for brunch, then to The Tate Modern, got a few bits in the market for dinner and we’re now sitting in the garden getting slowly drunk. 

I went to Tate Modern this week. Wonderful, those who haven’t been should go. The, marionette, film about the Crusades from an Arab perspective was great.

I was underwhelmed tbh. Some of it was really good but a lot didn’t impress me at all. Admittedly I’m not an art aficionado but to me, some of it looked like a 4 year old had been let loose with a paintbrush. Call me a philistine but I thought a lot of it was pretentious crap. 

Lincsaddick

I'm in two minds about this. Makes for a boring weekend it's true, BUT if all we have to live for is watching quality football, that is a sad state of affairs
Positives are .. whets the appetite for when the action restarts, and especially in our case during this break, gives the squad time to rest and to treat niggling injuries
Who really wants to watch their team playing important games with a team made up of reserves and bit part players ? 

fenaddick

golfaddick said:

Qualifying should be just for the top clubs. Stop letting teams like Andora, Lichtenstein, San Marino etc play. It benefits no-one.....not the big teams who rack up 6's & 7's and certainly not the little teams.

Qualifying can then be between the 12 teams who usually finish in the top 2 and split into 4 groups of 3. Play just 4 games. It will make it more competitive as virtually every game will be a must win. 

Wont ever happen because it's more down to inclusivity than actually playing meaningful games of football. 

The flip side to this is the Faroe Islands who have performed well and have a (slim) chance of reaching the play off, under your system they would't have a shot at all. These smaller teams are getting better because of the Nations League where they play each other. If you go up a step Armenia, Iceland, Kosovo, Georgia also have a chance too which is punching above their weight really

DOUCHER

I'm not a fan of international breaks and think the big clubs have enough resources / squad members to be able to let a few of their players play for their international side mid week every now and then. If we do have international breaks however, i wouldn't mind so much if the games were of any interest. Let's be honest, we
all know we're going to beat Latvia, it's just a case of by how many. Years ago, we wouldn't have been playing Latvia or Estonia or any of these type teams. We would have been playing Russia, or France or Italy. Substantial countries who would offer a substantial challenge. It's all too predictable and only getting worse. Nobody is saying any nations should not be involved if they are good enough, regardless of size, but they should have to qualify first. Now they're talking about increasing the numbers at the actual finals now so the early rounds will probably also end up as the same foregone conclusions. 

Chris_from_Sidcup

fenaddick said:

golfaddick said:

Qualifying should be just for the top clubs. Stop letting teams like Andora, Lichtenstein, San Marino etc play. It benefits no-one.....not the big teams who rack up 6's & 7's and certainly not the little teams.

Qualifying can then be between the 12 teams who usually finish in the top 2 and split into 4 groups of 3. Play just 4 games. It will make it more competitive as virtually every game will be a must win. 

Wont ever happen because it's more down to inclusivity than actually playing meaningful games of football. 

The flip side to this is the Faroe Islands who have performed well and have a (slim) chance of reaching the play off, under your system they would't have a shot at all. These smaller teams are getting better because of the Nations League where they play each other. If you go up a step Armenia, Iceland, Kosovo, Georgia also have a chance too which is punching above their weight really

I don't agree with Golfie's idea as that's taking it too far and ruling out too many sides but there should definitely be some sort of preliminary qualifying round like they have in Asian qualifying.

There were 22 countries in Nations league's C and D. If you ignore the 4 teams who won their C groups then that's 18 teams. You could easily have a preliminary round draw for those teams (playing home and away) so then at least you've eliminated 9 terrible teams for the main draw.

If Asia can have a preliminary round when they have 46 nations then Europe with 54 nations surely can. Asia doesn't bother putting tiny nations like Macau and Brunei into their main draw so i don't know why we bother with the likes of Gibraltar and San Marino?

fenaddick

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

fenaddick said:

golfaddick said:

Qualifying should be just for the top clubs. Stop letting teams like Andora, Lichtenstein, San Marino etc play. It benefits no-one.....not the big teams who rack up 6's & 7's and certainly not the little teams.

Qualifying can then be between the 12 teams who usually finish in the top 2 and split into 4 groups of 3. Play just 4 games. It will make it more competitive as virtually every game will be a must win. 

Wont ever happen because it's more down to inclusivity than actually playing meaningful games of football. 

The flip side to this is the Faroe Islands who have performed well and have a (slim) chance of reaching the play off, under your system they would't have a shot at all. These smaller teams are getting better because of the Nations League where they play each other. If you go up a step Armenia, Iceland, Kosovo, Georgia also have a chance too which is punching above their weight really

I don't agree with Golfie's idea as that's taking it too far and ruling out too many sides but there should definitely be some sort of preliminary qualifying round like they have in Asian qualifying.

There were 22 countries in Nations league's C and D. If you ignore the 4 teams who won their C groups then that's 18 teams. You could easily have a preliminary round draw for those teams (playing home and away) so then at least you've eliminated 9 terrible teams for the main draw.

If Asia can have a preliminary round when they have 46 nations then Europe with 54 nations surely can. Asia doesn't bother putting tiny nations like Macau and Brunei into their main draw so i don't know why we bother with the likes of Gibraltar and San Marino?

We have double the places despite only 8 more nations, that's why we have a more open qualifier

Chris_from_Sidcup

fenaddick said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

fenaddick said:

golfaddick said:

Qualifying should be just for the top clubs. Stop letting teams like Andora, Lichtenstein, San Marino etc play. It benefits no-one.....not the big teams who rack up 6's & 7's and certainly not the little teams.

Qualifying can then be between the 12 teams who usually finish in the top 2 and split into 4 groups of 3. Play just 4 games. It will make it more competitive as virtually every game will be a must win. 

Wont ever happen because it's more down to inclusivity than actually playing meaningful games of football. 

The flip side to this is the Faroe Islands who have performed well and have a (slim) chance of reaching the play off, under your system they would't have a shot at all. These smaller teams are getting better because of the Nations League where they play each other. If you go up a step Armenia, Iceland, Kosovo, Georgia also have a chance too which is punching above their weight really

I don't agree with Golfie's idea as that's taking it too far and ruling out too many sides but there should definitely be some sort of preliminary qualifying round like they have in Asian qualifying.

There were 22 countries in Nations league's C and D. If you ignore the 4 teams who won their C groups then that's 18 teams. You could easily have a preliminary round draw for those teams (playing home and away) so then at least you've eliminated 9 terrible teams for the main draw.

If Asia can have a preliminary round when they have 46 nations then Europe with 54 nations surely can. Asia doesn't bother putting tiny nations like Macau and Brunei into their main draw so i don't know why we bother with the likes of Gibraltar and San Marino?

We have double the places despite only 8 more nations, that's why we have a more open qualifier

So if we eliminated 9 teams in a preliminary round we'd still have 45 teams.

9 groups of 5.
9 winners and best runner up qualify.
4 next best runners play 4 best third-placed teams (runner up has second leg at home).
Remaining 4 runners up also go into a play off.

All teams play 8 group games and there's less pointless games against really weak countries.

Jints

According to the Times, UEFA have set up a working group to consider major changes to qualification.

"A number of different systems will be considered by the group. These are set to include whether to extend the use of the Nations League tournament for qualifying, or to use a version of the Swiss model format used in the Champions League." 

Dave2l

At least the wally with a brolly car crash created a few headlines 18/19 years ago.

We got beaten and knocked out by better opposition. It was at least competitive and it meant something.  

Beckhams free kick v Greece created more noise at wembley than all last 10 years of qualifying games put together.

HastingsRed

Dave2l said:

At least the wally with a brolly car crash created a few headlines 18/19 years ago.

We got beaten and knocked out by better opposition. It was at least competitive and it meant something.  

Beckhams free kick v Greece created more noise at wembley than all last 10 years of qualifying games put together.

That was at OT mate....but get your point.

redcarter

The meaningful games people are harking back to was only because we were useless and dropping points against not great opposition or we were unseeded due to being useless previously. Would rather have it how it is now thanks.

Chris_from_Sidcup

redcarter said:

The meaningful games people are harking back to was only because we were useless and dropping points against not great opposition or we were unseeded due to being useless previously. Would rather have it how it is now thanks.

Exactly this. Always makes me laugh when you see the Scottish moaning that we got "another easy draw". Yes as a top seeded nation you generally do get better draws, because we are not shit and don't have to play other top seeds.

Jints

redcarter said:

The meaningful games people are harking back to was only because we were useless and dropping points against not great opposition or we were unseeded due to being useless previously. Would rather have it how it is now thanks.

There were 8.5 spots for Europe in 1974 and 1978 compared to 16 for 2026. 13 for 2022. We would probably have qualified in 1974 and 78 had there been that number of places available. In 1978 we were beaten by Italy on goal difference

cabbles

Personally, even though I love the sport, there's too much football in my opinion nowadays.  We had the club world cup in the summer that was a glorified friendly tournament put on to please the plastics in the middle east.  The frustrating thing about the intl breaks this side of xmas, particularly the first two, is that they happen so soon into the new season.  We've just got club football back, which for the majority takes precedence over country, the last thing I want is for it to stop for what I consider a very dull, boring and tedious round of intl fixtures.

I get people love following England and enjoy travelling to see them, but it doesn't warrant three interruptions to the domestic calendar before xmas.  Scrap friendlies, bin off the nations league and have one round of tournament qualification games each side of xmas in the regular season (3 in each break), and then 3 just after the season.  I know they could make it work logistically, would just need a bit more planning.  

As others have pointed out, there's so many nothing games.  Did anyone really want to watch us in a friendly against Wales to make up for the second game of two this intl break?  No.  Are our qualifiers that appealing?  for me it's a big no.

Hopefully it will change soon as the domestic game is what people get excited about, and I only really engage with England once the Euros or the WC starts 

Chris_from_Sidcup

After this break the Premier league has 3 more games and then there is ANOTHER international break. Which means by late November there will have been 10 league games and 6 internationals.

It absolutely needs fixing into less (but longer) international windows.

northstandsteve

DaveMehmet said:

I made the most of it. Went to Borough Market with my wife for brunch, then to The Tate Modern, got a few bits in the market for dinner and we’re now sitting in the garden getting slowly drunk. 

You don't go Charlton 

follett

You lot are gonna love the extended international break next year. I personally love the international break and watch as many games as possible from all over the world. The European qualifiers can be a little boring from an English perspective but there’s some great games and stories out there.

Chris_from_Sidcup

follett said:

You lot are gonna love the extended international break next year. I personally love the international break and watch as many games as possible from all over the world. The European qualifiers can be a little boring from an English perspective but there’s some great games and stories out there.

To be honest i don't think most people have an objection with international breaks, as internationals have always been a part of football. The issue is that there are too many international breaks.

BigRedEvil

They are changing it for longer breaks

The start of the 2025/26 season is being interrupted by three international breaks in three months. That will be reduced to two next autumn as FIFA has decided to merge the September and October breaks into one three-week break, which will allow national teams to play four times instead of two

Sage

I actually think it will be beneficial next season and going forward. Okay you will always have some that don’t like it and will moan. However, having the extended break could come at some really good times for those who might need that extra bit to get players fit and to spend some real time on the training ground.

On a side note, you’ll probably find more players will also be picked up late as they’d know they’d have 3 whole weeks to get fitness up rather than stop start training where the team is travelling here, there, and everywhere.

Starinnaddick

I think fans get frustrated with meaningless friendlies. What was wrong with these games being played midweek? 

Kap10

Starinnaddick said:

I think fans get frustrated with meaningless friendlies. What was wrong with these games being played midweek? 

TV again. They wanted to put on as many internationals as possible.

cafctom

If you think its "meaningless" (which its not) then you can't complain when football at international level feels a little slower at tournaments which many of us see as the be all and end all when they come around. 

Imagine how disjointed it would feel if they played together even less than they already do. 

CaptainRobbo

BigRedEvil said:

They are changing it for longer breaks

The start of the 2025/26 season is being interrupted by three international breaks in three months. That will be reduced to two next autumn as FIFA has decided to merge the September and October breaks into one three-week break, which will allow national teams to play four times instead of two

3 weeks break 😳