Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

do we really need 3 and half hours coverage of this game though?

There is always Royal Ascot & Queens tennis this week?

Where were you last Thursday?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think if a sporting event in England can get 31m viewers in 2021 (when people don't even watch TV anymore) then it is probably worth as much coverage as can be ground out of it. That is 4 more milli

I'm as high as a kite. Despite my morbid obesity, hypertension and ridiculous back pain, I played rugby today for the first time in 30 years. The burn, exhilaration and buzz I got from that was e

Before we get to the final and either go all fatalistically maudlin or ridiculously incoherently joyful ... this has been a really good tournament, hasn't it? Majority decent games (some actually

Posted Images

On 14/06/2021 at 20:04, marklaspalmas said:

Bit nervous to see so many (presumably) England fans laughing at Scotland.

They could easily end up looking like Brazil at their best on Friday evening.......

I've said all along, I'd be mightily surprised if the haggis munchers aren't right up for it on Friday and get something out of the game.

I get the feeling that England's defence isn't all that great and I'm sure Scotland will put them under a lot of pressure.

England may mock them, but whatever they lack in ability compared to England, they'll more than make up for in pride and passion!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

do we really need 3 and half hours coverage of this game though?

I am sure the BBC will devote the same screen time, & analysis when it's the Rugby League World Cup later this year.

  • Like 1

Where were you last Thursday?

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, graveyard johnny said:

drive bentleys in to swimming pools full of topless models shortly after spending all night swigging cheap nightclub champagne and shortly before taking the pitch to knock in a hat trick and motm performance to beat Germany in a major final - is that asking too much?

Or get blind drunk in a dentists chair in Hong Kong, then proceed to spank the Dutch and jocks 🙂

25 Years seems a lifetime now!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bleep1673 said:

I think the adjective is both, not all.

100% of all goals scored in the game

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, meast said:

Or get blind drunk in a dentists chair in Hong Kong, then proceed to spank the Dutch and jocks 🙂

25 Years seems a lifetime now!

Such a character.

How hard did he hit his wife and how many times?

Good old days.

  • Confused 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Are you saying that Wales or Slovakia,  Hungary,  none of whom would be in a 16 team tournament,  have no business being there,  and are diluting it ? 

When you another 8 sides of poorer quality to a 16 team tournament you inevitably dilute it. In 2012, the worst team was probably the ROI with 3 losses and a 1-9 points difference. Do you think adding another 8 teams of worse quality would have made that tournament better?

Call me crazy, but if a team can't qualify for a 16 team Euros I don't think it would be a travesty if they weren't allowed to be in the tournament.

As it stood, Wales would've still stood a good chance of qualifying, whilst Hungary (who finished 4th out of 5) wouldn't have and after watching last night I don't think anyone would've missed out. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

When you another 8 sides of poorer quality to a 16 team tournament you inevitably dilute it. In 2012, the worst team was probably the ROI with 3 losses and a 1-9 points difference. Do you think adding another 8 teams of worse quality would have made that tournament better?

Call me crazy, but if a team can't qualify for a 16 team Euros I don't think it would be a travesty if they weren't allowed to be in the tournament.

As it stood, Wales would've still stood a good chance of qualifying, whilst Hungary (who finished 4th out of 5) wouldn't have and after watching last night I don't think anyone would've missed out. 

 

The only argument for the Euros being this large is the ongoing expansion of the main World Cup (scheduled to have 48 teams in 2026).

I thought UEFA did more for lower ranked teams getting competitive (and decent to watch) fixtures with the Nations League itself rather than the qualification for the Euros that came off the back of it.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

The only argument for the Euros being this large is the ongoing expansion of the main World Cup (scheduled to have 48 teams in 2026).

I thought UEFA did more for lower ranked teams getting competitive (and decent to watch) fixtures with the Nations League itself rather than the qualification for the Euros that came off the back of it.

I am in favour of it being larger.

We accept most of the teams in the Premier League have very little chance of winning it, Super League also.

It is essentially an issue of having two tiers, one with San Marino and one with Italy. That means that qualifying will have to be broad and the next round (first round of the finals) essentially has to get you to the actual good teams who will have played other good teams to qualify.

Besides, Denmark in 1992 certainly did not deserve to be there.

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

These arguments about dilution and you should have a challenge to qualify etc could be applied to the RLWC. 16 is way too many IMO, that tournament will certainly not be choc full of elite games, but with probable blowouts in the group stages. I'm looking forward to it but that's my fear, anyway that's a discussion for elsewhere.  I've not seen any team at the Euros who are simply out of their depth....oh yeah Scotland. 😁

 

Edited by HawkMan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody else noticed the Geographics in Gp B?

Denmark is Belguims northern neighbour, Finland is as good as Denmarks neighbour, Finland is so close to Russia it used to be part of it.

Where were you last Thursday?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

Italy looking good again.

Best start to a tournament from them for awhile.

Be sterner tests to come of course.

Yes, Wales next.

Where were you last Thursday?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wiltshire Rhino said:

Kom så Danmark!

Going well so far!

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, meast said:

I was referring to the England team, not sure why you needed to bring up domestic violence, presuming you're referring to Mr Gascoigne?

I believe he was one of the ones in the dentist’s chair? Quite famously so in fact.

And I mention it because it was quite a big deal in the run up to the tournament - something that tends to get overlooked now in the Britpop tinged recaps.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

Bum

They shouldn’t be playing. The tournament could have been rejigged a bit to let them get their heads together.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bob8 said:

I am in favour of it being larger.

We accept most of the teams in the Premier League have very little chance of winning it, Super League also.

It is essentially an issue of having two tiers, one with San Marino and one with Italy. That means that qualifying will have to be broad and the next round (first round of the finals) essentially has to get you to the actual good teams who will have played other good teams to qualify.

Besides, Denmark in 1992 certainly did not deserve to be there.

For me, it's not about the chance a team has of winning it it's about the dilution of the quality of games and of the group stage as a whole.

Of course there has to be a balance, 8 was obviously too few and 32 would clearly be too many. The problem I have with 24 is that it has quite significantly increased the number of games which are unappealing before they've even started. Taking the local Welsh interest out of it, there were 3 games on Wednesday none of which were highly anticipated. There are too many days like this IMO - Monday and Saturday were similar. 

What doesn't help is the fact that 2/3rds of teams will qualify, reducing the crucial aspect and meaning too many of the big teams have all but qualified after 1 good performance.

16 was the right balance between size and quality and was a tournament where getting out of the groups was an achievement not a foregone conclusion for most of the big teams. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...