No it wasn't they had +2 to Greece's 0 , they went through because they beat Russia, Ivor mentioned it in a thread earlier
If two teams finish the group stage on the same number of points then the match between the two teams is the deciding factor. Some would say it would be unfair for Greece to beat Russia and then for Russia to qualify. But on the other hand this is a mini-league. So you could make an argument for both cases. But those are the rules. Sometimes it gets even worse and is decided by tossing a coin.
Euro 2012 is following UEFA Champions League group rules where a tie on points is initially resolved by the head-to-head game as opposed to the World Cup which follows FIFA's rules where a tie on points is initially resolved by goal difference. That's what I heard on TV.
Well I suppose it makes sense that a team that beats another should go through at that team's expense if all things are equal. No solution is ideal but it's one way of doing things.
I'd like to see a tournament where bonus points are awarded for a team scoring say,in excess of 4 goals. Rugby do it to encourage try scoring,but I guess there's no chance of it being tried in football. Much too revolutionary.
I think it's unfair to effectively penalise teams that could have scored a load more goals, possibly providing more entertainment and proving on the field that they deserve to go through. The whole point of the game is to score goals, if the points are tied it should go on goal difference, then goal scored etc
Depends on your definition of entertainment , got no probs with no goals if it's a great game . As far as I'm concerned , the game went backwards when 3 points were awarded for a win .
Why it makes no difference ? If they removed the point for a draw and maybe minus 1 for a loss then it would make things a little bit more interesting
I can see that argument too, but it does seem unfair that a team could beat another only for the defeated team to go through because of other results. Pros and cons on both sides really.
You are right,knackered,pros and cons. I would like to see some encouragement for goal scoring,however. I've seen some terrific 0-0 games,but they were few and far between.
The house rules thread has produced a good debate, so I'm putting all the posts here, so it can carry on.
But it happens in other competitions ran by UEFA like the champions league, why is this different ? The determiner should always be points obviously, but the next is goals scored as that is the whole point of the game. It's like Man Utd beating Man City twice in the league landing up on the same points, but city has a greater goal difference but utd win the league because they beat them twice
I also was wondering that. I think the answer is the the Premier League has 38 games and so it is decided on GD, goals scored, etc, if teams are tied on points. In a mini league with only 3 games it seems fairer to decide on games between the tied teams because there is more chance of lucky goals, and being unlucky not to score affecting the table. But over 38 games these things would balance out. But a perfect solution doesn't exist. That's why I think it's hilarious when some teams claim they were relegated by one bad refereeing decision the last game of the season. The reality is they got relegated because they were one of the worst teams over the whole season. You never hear a relegated team say they got relegated because of a bad decision in their 5th or 6th game of the season. But maybe there should be consistency over all tournaments, not different rules in each one. But i think fans of the team knocked out will always complain that the system is wrong. But if their team goes through then the system is suddenly ok again. The teams knew the rules before the tournament started so they can't really have any complaints.
