I rather fear that the results for some of these final round of games have already been decided. The nature of so many teams qualifying will mean that we will see a few draws being played out with little or no attacking intent.
I think there was the potential for this but fortunately the way the groups have developed this has become less likely. Fortunately the Austria v Ukraine game precedes the Belgium v Finland one. A win for Belgium would mean a draw for either would be enough to progress so that would be one. It could still be if Austria can't see beyond a Belgium win in that one. I can't really identify another. England v Cech Republic is a game where a draw guarantees qualification for both sides, but I can't see us accepting that. Also, both may have qualified (or as good as) before they play. It isn't in our DNA anyway. I think France will want to beat Portugal and win the group.
Even if Belgium and Finland draw, leaving Finland on 4 points, if Denmark beat Russia (which isn't impossible), that'll mean that the 3rd placed team in this group only has 3 points anyway
But Demark may not beat Russia. But I agree, I think this is a group where 3rd place is likely to have 3 points. It would still be a gamble for Austria although it is unlikely a draw won't be enough for them.
I'm baffled how ONE player in the middle of a tournament can test positive. Who did he catch it from, and when did he catch it? Was it before or after the England game?
Gilmour has probably been hugged by 3000 William Wallace types in last 4 days and taken on board a lot of alcoholic body fluids.
I rather fear that the results for some of these final round of games have already been decided. The nature of so many teams qualifying will mean that we will see a few draws being played out with little or no attacking intent.
I think there was the potential for this but fortunately the way the groups have developed this has become less likely. Fortunately the Austria v Ukraine game precedes the Belgium v Finland one. A win for Belgium would mean a draw for either would be enough to progress so that would be one. It could still be if Austria can't see beyond a Belgium win in that one. I can't really identify another. England v Cech Republic is a game where a draw guarantees qualification for both sides, but I can't see us accepting that. Also, both may have qualified (or as good as) before they play. It isn't in our DNA anyway. I think France will want to beat Portugal and win the group.
If we'd both won on Friday I could have seen it - rest a few players, we've won 2 games and no criticism would have been directed at Southgate.
As Scotland are training in Middlesbrough then they will follow English covid guidelines and Gilmour will have to self-isolate. However, if they were training in Scotland then the whole team would have to self-isolate and would be kicked out the competition.
Very fortunate that they decided to be based in England then.
I think I'd rather play Portugal than France or Germany, Pepe is ancient, and Ronaldo could have one of those off days where he tries to do everything snd fails (rather than one of those days where he tries to do everything and it works).
The whole set up with 24 teams, going down to 16, is flawed
It doesn't seem fair that 4 groups winners face a 3rd place team, whereas 2 of them have to play potentially a much better second placed team. Italy play the second placed team in Group C, so the teams there (Ukraine and Austria) might prefer to take a chance and finish 3rd, and maybe get a weaker group winner...
As Scotland are training in Middlesbrough then they will follow English covid guidelines and Gilmour will have to self-isolate. However, if they were training in Scotland then the whole team would have to self-isolate and would be kicked out the competition.
Very fortunate that they decided to be based in England then.
The whole set up with 24 teams, going down to 16, is flawed
It doesn't seem fair that 4 groups winners face a 3rd place team, whereas 2 of them have to play potentially a much better second placed team. Italy play the second placed team in Group C, so the teams there (Ukraine and Austria) might prefer to take a chance and finish 3rd, and maybe get a weaker group winner...
I do agree with your point but we can’t be moaning about luck of the draw after WC2018.
Out of France, Germany and Portugal I would prefer Germany as despite how well they played against Portugal I think we would have more chance of scoring against Germany than Portugal. France would turn it on against us and I feel we would struggle.
As Scotland are training in Middlesbrough then they will follow English covid guidelines and Gilmour will have to self-isolate. However, if they were training in Scotland then the whole team would have to self-isolate and would be kicked out the competition.
Very fortunate that they decided to be based in England then.
Bizarre how he can supposedly have no close contacts who also need to isolate despite sharing a hotel, gym, restaurant, coach, dressing room and pitch with the rest of the squad.
Out of France, Germany and Portugal I would prefer Germany as despite how well they played against Portugal I think we would have more chance of scoring against Germany than Portugal. France would turn it on against us and I feel we would struggle.
Portugal just leaked 4 to a side playing 3 at the back. You can definitely get at them.
England will probably have to take appropriate action.
Like what?
Cancello tested positive for Portugal two days before their game against Hungary and they all played as normal. England played Scotland 3 days ago. I presume they all would of been tested since.
Like increase testing and reduce contact a bit.
20k Scots can do what they want on the streets of London though.
I was surprised to know the other day that Christian Eriksson hasn't been vaccinated. I thought all players taking part in this tournament had at least taken one jab. The players that have been tested positive probably haven't. But why not? This is a big international competition and surely everyone involved is in higher risk than people in general?
So let's assume Holland win and top the group. It doesn't suit Austria to play out a draw does it? Ukraine will go through if they don't lose but Austria could miss out if they don't win. Have I got that wrong?
The whole set up with 24 teams, going down to 16, is flawed
It doesn't seem fair that 4 groups winners face a 3rd place team, whereas 2 of them have to play potentially a much better second placed team. Italy play the second placed team in Group C, so the teams there (Ukraine and Austria) might prefer to take a chance and finish 3rd, and maybe get a weaker group winner...
I do agree with your point but we can’t be moaning about luck of the draw after WC2018.
Bale & Ramsey need to show their best ability., haven't so far
Yes. But that was simple tournament group football. Winners of the group face the runners up of another. This whole third place thing is a bit of a fit up and makes no sense.
Is there a flaw in the logic of UEFA? By my reckoning, the four 'best' third-placed teams from the six groups are less than likely to be the four best. In a group where the fourth team is weak, the third-placed team should pick up three easy points. Conversely, in a tough group with four evenly matched sides, there are likely to be draws, which waste a point effectively, and unpredictable outcomes that are more likely to lead to the third-placed team dropping points.
I always thought having 24 teams was a mistake, but I also think that four of the last 16 qualifiers has little to do with being the best of the third placed teams. The effect of 24 teams gets worse because seeding goes out of the window. Traditionally, the win gets the right to play the second placed team from another group. In this competition, some winners get to play third placed teams, others don't. They might as well have had 32 teams in it and just had the top two from each group. Mind you, with 32 teams, a qualification tournament becomes a farce. The Isle of Sheppey would stand a chance of qualifying.
Is there a flaw in the logic of UEFA? By my reckoning, the four 'best' third-placed teams from the six groups are less than likely to be the four best. In a group where the fourth team is weak, the third-placed team should pick up three easy points. Conversely, in a tough group with four evenly matched sides, there are likely to be draws, which waste a point effectively, and unpredictable outcomes that are more likely to lead to the third-placed team dropping points.
I always thought having 24 teams was a mistake, but I also think that four of the last 16 qualifiers has little to do with being the best of the third placed teams. The effect of 24 teams gets worse because seeding goes out of the window. Traditionally, the win gets the right to play the second placed team from another group. In this competition, some winners get to play third placed teams, others don't. They might as well have had 32 teams in it and just had the top two from each group. Mind you, with 32 teams, a qualification tournament becomes a farce. The Isle of Sheppey would stand a chance of qualifying.
You're missing the point. The requirement to have the 'best' third placed teams go through is secondary to the actual requirement to MAKE MORE MONEY.
In other tournaments where the 3rd place team goes through the results against the 4th place team are discounted. That would have made it more likely to get the best 4 x 3rd place finishers.
Is there a flaw in the logic of UEFA? By my reckoning, the four 'best' third-placed teams from the six groups are less than likely to be the four best. In a group where the fourth team is weak, the third-placed team should pick up three easy points. Conversely, in a tough group with four evenly matched sides, there are likely to be draws, which waste a point effectively, and unpredictable outcomes that are more likely to lead to the third-placed team dropping points.
I always thought having 24 teams was a mistake, but I also think that four of the last 16 qualifiers has little to do with being the best of the third placed teams. The effect of 24 teams gets worse because seeding goes out of the window. Traditionally, the win gets the right to play the second placed team from another group. In this competition, some winners get to play third placed teams, others don't. They might as well have had 32 teams in it and just had the top two from each group. Mind you, with 32 teams, a qualification tournament becomes a farce. The Isle of Sheppey would stand a chance of qualifying.
Going back to 16 is obviously the way forward but the 24 team horse has already bolted.
32 is definitely too many (watch it be that by the 2030s).
Could a solution be to have a knockout round before the groups start? The top 8 qualifiers are into the groups automatically and the remaining 16 sides play eight knockout games to determine who joins them. The minor nations are unlikely to approve that change. Eight teams playing only one game in the tournament which may as well be a home and away two legged play-off.
Four groups of six? Five group games won't be approved by any major nation. More games to show so UEFA would love it but I think it's a non starter.
Eight groups of three? Probably the most likely solution but not one that I like. Too many opportunities for results rigging in the final group game.
Another potential solution: four best group winners qualify automatically for the quarter final round. The remaining two group winners and six runners up play a knockout round to determine who joins them. This would incent teams to continue playing their best XI throughout the group stage to bypass the first knockout round. UEFA would lose four round of 16 games this way so probably a non starter!
So let's assume Holland win and top the group. It doesn't suit Austria to play out a draw does it? Ukraine will go through if they don't lose but Austria could miss out if they don't win. Have I got that wrong?
Holland have already won the group.
If it's a draw then Ukraine and Austria would almost certainly both qualify. 4 points and a 0 goal difference will put Austria (who would be third) above Switzerland who are third from group A and they'd need a lot of results to go against them to not finish above 1 other third placed side.
Comments
Gilmour has probably been hugged by 3000 William Wallace types in last 4 days and taken on board a lot of alcoholic body fluids.
But not now.
If we draw and come second I'd rather play Spain, Sweden, Poland or Slovakia.
Very fortunate that they decided to be based in England then.
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scotland-not-expected-move-middlesbrough-20705695
It doesn't seem fair that 4 groups winners face a 3rd place team, whereas 2 of them have to play potentially a much better second placed team. Italy play the second placed team in Group C, so the teams there (Ukraine and Austria) might prefer to take a chance and finish 3rd, and maybe get a weaker group winner...
This whole third place thing is a bit of a fit up and makes no sense.
I always thought having 24 teams was a mistake, but I also think that four of the last 16 qualifiers has little to do with being the best of the third placed teams. The effect of 24 teams gets worse because seeding goes out of the window. Traditionally, the win gets the right to play the second placed team from another group. In this competition, some winners get to play third placed teams, others don't. They might as well have had 32 teams in it and just had the top two from each group. Mind you, with 32 teams, a qualification tournament becomes a farce. The Isle of Sheppey would stand a chance of qualifying.
32 is definitely too many (watch it be that by the 2030s).
Could a solution be to have a knockout round before the groups start? The top 8 qualifiers are into the groups automatically and the remaining 16 sides play eight knockout games to determine who joins them. The minor nations are unlikely to approve that change. Eight teams playing only one game in the tournament which may as well be a home and away two legged play-off.
Four groups of six? Five group games won't be approved by any major nation. More games to show so UEFA would love it but I think it's a non starter.
Eight groups of three? Probably the most likely solution but not one that I like. Too many opportunities for results rigging in the final group game.
If it's a draw then Ukraine and Austria would almost certainly both qualify. 4 points and a 0 goal difference will put Austria (who would be third) above Switzerland who are third from group A and they'd need a lot of results to go against them to not finish above 1 other third placed side.