Of all the issues that will dictate the path of euro 2016, from Didier Deschamps' decision on who will be his first-choice France striker, to Vicente del Bosque's conservative Spain squad selection, there is one that has gone under the radar. The history of the competition may have conditioned most managers to consider it beneath their ambitions, but it could influence the tournament more than anything else.
It is the fact that four of six third-placed teams will qualify for the round of 16. No manager at this point will say they would be happy with finishing third in their group, but this safety net could change the European Championship beyond recognition.
If that sounds exaggerated, consider the following. During the three tournaments when the World Cup had a similar 24-team format, Belgium got to the semifinals in 1986 after finishing third, while Italy went even further in 1994, famously reaching the final.
In the more common format of only the top two going through, both sides would have been out. It therefore rescued some of the most famous football moments, from Diego Maradona's goal against Belgium in the 1986 semifinals, to Roberto Baggio's infamous penalty miss in the final against Brazil. It could yet rescue potential champions or an iconic goal this summer, but its effect will go way beyond a safety net for those teams. It will alter every single round.
Most obviously it will alter expectations and judgements, especially when teams know that 16 of 24 will go through to the second stage.
The idea of what constitutes success will have to be recalibrated. It's actually statistically more difficult to fail by going out early. The tournament will spend 24 of its total of 39 games eliminating just eight teams. So, over 60 percent of the competition will get rid of just 33 percent of the field. Overall, that renders much of it meaningless, and it does feel as if it's almost impossible for any of the favourites to go out early.
A single win should be enough to get most teams through, judging by the tournament's recent history. Of the 16 teams to finish third place in European Championship groups since 2000, one had five points; four had four points; six had three points; four had two points; and one -- 2008 co-hosts Austria -- had just one. So, one win at Euro 2016 would put the majority into third. That makes a solitary victory a very clear target. The best sides should rack them up, such as hosts France playing a limited Romania team in the opening game. But it could skew some groups too, since many elite sides will have already qualified by last games that are so crucial for other teams.
There is one benefit of the new format, though. Even if more of the best sides will know they're through to the round of 16 early because they get an opening win, the prospect of getting through in third place means fewer sides will be eliminated by the end of game two. It makes more of the group stage livelier.
The previous format with only two going through and head-to-head results taking precedence over goal difference -- meant many groups were often decided very quickly. That will not be the case now. It may mean truly top- end group matches -- like Belgium vs. Italy -- will not have the significance of something like Italy vs. France at Euro 2008, but will mean many more less attractive games do.
In the same group as Belgium and Italy, for example, Sweden and Republic of Ireland will be aware that their match against each other is by far their best chance to claim that crucial win.
It is their first game, too, so that could create an effective eliminator early in the tournament. That should make it a wonderful game to watch. Sides will not just be competing against each other, either. Many could have to watch for results in other groups, and calculate all manner of permutations, as they hope they can sneak in ahead of other third-place sides. It may well create some enjoyably chaotic scenes on the final matchdays, such as in 1994 when Italy had to wait for events from Cameroon vs. Russia, and were relieved when Oleg Salenko scored a hat trick to push them to a 6-1 win which eliminated the African team.
In the 1990 World Cup, Ireland and Netherlands ended up playing out a mutually beneficial 1-1 draw in the last game because they knew both would go through, but ended up on the same points and goals. That meant lots had to be drawn to see who was second and third. The Dutch got third, and faced West Germany (who they went out to), while second-placed Ireland defeated Romania to qualify for the quarterfinals.
That alone indicates how the new format will create more variety and unpredictability after the group stage too. In previous Euros, the tournament structure has been so set that managers will know what teams they are likely to face depending on where they place. The big challenge for England and France in 2012, for example, was to finish first to avoid favourites Spain.
Now, nobody knows which third-placed teams will go through, never mind who they will play, which means it may be better to finish second in some cases. Whereas all runners-up previously played group winners, the new format means the runners-up of Groups A and C (France and Germany's groups) and B and F (England and Portugal's groups) will meet.
The initial group stage is just a teaser that sets the fixtures for the "real" tournament -- the knockout stage. One side of the draw will also look very different if a modern equivalent of Italy 1994 finish in third place this time. That could well be Spain, given the tightness and difficulty of their group. Indeed, it is not inconceivable they end up finishing third behind Croatia and Czech Republic.
One thing is for sure. The initial safety net of the group stage will end up having a ripple effect right to the end of the tournament.
No comments:
Post a Comment