LOI In Europe 2021

[EatYerGreens]

As this century began, Irish clubs making it through a round in Europe was still a novelty.

We're now at the stage where all our clubs are broadly expected to navigate the first round as a minimum, and it's very disappointing if they don't.

I appreciate the nature of the draw has changed a bit over the years, but for me this change in expectation is evidence of progress.

[pineapple stu]

As this century began, Irish clubs making it through a round in Europe was still a novelty.

We're now at the stage where all our clubs are broadly expected to navigate the first round as a minimum, and it's very disappointing if they don't.

I appreciate the nature of the draw has changed a bit over the years, but for me this change in expectation is evidence of progress.
The start of the century is a long time ago now. A lot has happened since. Yes, results have improved since the 90s - I'm not arguing that they haven't.

But we reached a stage where we were expected to pick up a decent scalp each season (Aberdeen, Nijmegen, BATE Borisov, Hajduk Split, Djurgarden, Apollon Limassol, HJK, Goteborg, Gretna, Elfsborg, Rijeka, Odra Wodzislaw, Malmo, all in the 00s), and now we're back in a position where we can't expect that (see my example of the scalps from the last five years).

Or take the peak LoI (unsustainable of course, but that's another story) from 2003 to 2011 - LoI clubs got through 29 rounds in Europe in those nine years. In the nine years from 2011 to 2020, we got through 21 rounds. And that's with CL winners getting a second chance from much earlier (Dundalk last year wouldn't have happened prior to 2016), and of course UCD contributing a bonus round.

Whatever way you twist it, the results are getting worse.


You’re comparisons are irrelevant without context.
I've shown the sides, outside the current bottom ten leagues, that LoI teams have beaten in the last five years versus the sides Luxembourg teams have beaten in the same time-frame. What context do you think your one random outlier example adds in that regard?

[EatYerGreens]

The start of the century is a long time ago now. A lot has happened since. Yes, results have improved since the 90s - I'm not arguing that they haven't.

But we reached a stage where we were expected to pick up a decent scalp each season (Aberdeen, Nijmegen, BATE Borisov, Hajduk Split, Djurgarden, Apollon Limassol, HJK, Goteborg, Gretna, Elfsborg, Rijeka, Odra Wodzislaw, Malmo, all in the 00s), and now we're back in a position where we can't expect that (see my example of the scalps from the last five years).

Or take the peak LoI (unsustainable of course, but that's another story) from 2003 to 2011 - LoI clubs got through 29 rounds in Europe in those nine years. In the nine years from 2011 to 2020, we got through 21 rounds. And that's with CL winners getting a second chance from much earlier (Dundalk last year wouldn't have happened prior to 2016), and of course UCD contributing a bonus round.

Whatever way you twist it, the results are getting worse.


I've shown the sides, outside the current bottom ten leagues, that LoI teams have beaten in the last five years versus the sides Luxembourg teams have beaten in the same time-frame. What context do you think your one random outlier example adds in that regard?

In essence the point here is that financial doping works. Which is obviously why it happens. After essentially buying slightly better performances in Europe with money they didn't have, Irish clubs have had to stop being suicidal.

I expect the current progress in Europe to continue, as Rovers etc professionalise their structures. So we'll be back at where we were in the era of financial madness in a few years time. Only without the accompanying and unsustainable financial madness. Let's repeat the historical comparison and yardstick exercise then.

Important to also note that the only times Irish clubs have reached the group stage of European competition have come after the era of financial recklessness

[pineapple stu]

I expect the current progress in Europe to continue, as Rovers etc professionalise their structures. So we'll be back at where we were in the era of financial madness in a few years time.
There's a huge amount wrong with this tbh. For starters, I really hope the current progress in Europe doesn't continue, as we'll be in the 50s in a couple of years if it does.

Rovers "etc" professionalise their structures? There's a laugh. Rovers I'll grant - but who are the "etc"? Putting "etc" in a sentence often means you don't actually have any more examples but want it to seem like you do. Cork are second last in the First Division now. Dundalk are a stumbling basket case burning through their Euro money in a manner which would make Ollie Byrne proud. Bohs, Sligo, Pat's, etc are nowhere near the standard of the top teams in the late 00s.

And in the meantime, non matchday income streams have dried up. No TV money (it was never huge, but it's less now). Minimal transfer fees (this is a big issue for the LoI). Stadia which have hardly any scope for non matchday income (but it's ok because they're nice and traditional)

You say Irish clubs have had to stop being suicidal - I'd suggest Irish clubs have had to find a way to increase their turnover in line with lots of other clubs across the continent, and have generally failed.


Important to also note that the only times Irish clubs have reached the group stage of European competition have come after the era of financial recklessness
No - important to note the only time we qualified was when it was made easier to do so. Dundalk's qualification route was not available pre 2016, and Rovers' route was not available pre 2009.

[CSAD]

There's a huge amount wrong with this tbh. For starters, I really hope the current progress in Europe doesn't continue, as we'll be in the 50s in a couple of years if it does.

Rovers "etc" professionalise their structures? There's a laugh. Rovers I'll grant - but who are the "etc"? Putting "etc" in a sentence often means you don't actually have any more examples but want it to seem like you do. Cork are second last in the First Division now. Dundalk are a stumbling basket case burning through their Euro money in a manner which would make Ollie Byrne proud. Bohs, Sligo, Pat's, etc are nowhere near the standard of the top teams in the late 00s.

And in the meantime, non matchday income streams have dried up. No TV money (it was never huge, but it's less now). Minimal transfer fees (this is a big issue for the LoI). Stadia which have hardly any scope for non matchday income (but it's ok because they're nice and traditional)

You say Irish clubs have had to stop being suicidal - I'd suggest Irish clubs have had to find a way to increase their turnover in line with lots of other clubs across the continent, and have generally failed.


No - important to note the only time we qualified was when it was made easier to do so. Dundalk's qualification route was not available pre 2016, and Rovers' route was not available pre 2009.

Where are the facts that prove the standard wa abetted in the late 2000s, the teams in the late 2000s could barely string 3 passes together…if long ball is your kind of football fair enough but for most it’s not.

So to clarify, for all the talk of how great things were in the 2000s you have what evidence exactly?

[pineapple stu]

Em - try the evidence I've already shown about the sort of teams we beat at the time compared to the teams we're currently beating?

A high of 29th in the UEFA rankings as opposed to 46th now (albeit we should climb a few more places this year)?

I'm not really sure what more evidence you want to be quite honest. I guess I could add in the higher success rate of LoI players moving abroad (Hoolahan, McClean, Long, Murphy, Ward, etc) compared to now as well.

Could I push you for evidence of the claim that teams of the late 00s "could barely string 3 passes together"? The LoI may be leaning more towards technical proficiency now, but that doesn't mean the late 00s were just random booting the ball upfield.

And when it comes down to it, is it better to win playing ugly or lose playing nice stuff?

[A N Mouse]

Em - try the evidence I've already shown about the sort of teams we beat at the time compared to the teams we're currently beating?

A high of 29th in the UEFA rankings as opposed to 46th now (albeit we should climb a few more places this year)?

I'm not really sure what more evidence you want to be quite honest. I guess I could add in the higher success rate of LoI players moving abroad (Hoolahan, McClean, Long, Murphy, Ward, etc) compared to now as well.

Could I push you for evidence of the claim that teams of the late 00s "could barely string 3 passes together"? The LoI may be leaning more towards technical proficiency now, but that doesn't mean the late 00s were just random booting the ball upfield.

And when it comes down to it, is it better to win playing ugly or lose playing nice stuff?

Aw come off it Stu, it seems you like forever you've been Cassandra saying 'this is the worst season ever, just look at the European results'.

At peak we were ranked 29th and knew then that, for various reasons, that was unsustainable. Also it's worth stating that was achieved largely because we only had three teams competing, and one team doing well/anything had a greater impact, at minimum keeping the base points (08/09 was basically all Pat's, while 06/07 probably only time everyone progressed one round).

As for UCD bringing a bonus round, any impact they had was watered down by the fact we had 5 teams competing that year. If had four results without UCD then points marginally worse, without Pat's results that year marginally better (might even have bumped us up a rank for last few years)

We should be sitting about 40 (+/-5), this is a fair reflection. The dip in ranking this year is because of the loss of 16/17 points. The new format will have an impact on the rankings, effectively introducing more co-efficient '6-pointers'. This year's not done, and whatever your thoughts on the domestic season there's a real possibility of a breakthrough year in Europe, in terms of competitiveness if not necessarily group qualification. The only way we rise above this is to have four competitive teams, and some kind of domestic stability that has been sorely lacking.

For an example of how progress is made look no further than our northern brethren, who currently are ranked higher than us. The same 5/6 teams regularly qualify, they've built up club co-efficients to increase likelihood of favourable draws, which helps to raise country co-efficient. Despite an apparent 'lack of interest' they have four teams capable of progressing at least one round.

In summary, back in late 00's we were nearly at the stage where all our teams were competitive and could have genuine hope of all progressing at least one round. Then we got an extra European place and suddenly (other domestic issues) lucky if two of the four are competitive. Now with latest re-jigging it's harder to qualify, for non-champions, but we're almost at the stage were all our teams can have some expectation of progressing at least one round.

[Kingdom]

Where are the facts that prove the standard wa abetted in the late 2000s, the teams in the late 2000s could barely string 3 passes together…if long ball is your kind of football fair enough but for most it’s not.

So to clarify, for all the talk of how great things were in the 2000s you have what evidence exactly?

Ah, that's a bit lazy for my liking to be fair to everyone. Cork in particular in the 00's played a lovely brand of football in Europe. Even looking at that Shels/Bohs team that morphed from one group to another played really efficient football in Europe.
One of the first LOI European games I went to was Bohs vs Levadia (in 01 I think) and Bohs were outstanding that day.

Focussing on Bohs as a separate matter, Bohs were very good last season in Europe against TSFKAV, and they were excellent in both games against Stjarmen. First game it took them a little while to settle down against a very physical side, but it was clear despite the best intentions of the camera crew, that Bohs were interested in and capable of playing good deliberate football, and Stjarmen could not. Against the wind Bohs were excellent, and really should have taken a victory back to Dublin. It's great with hindsight of course, but that result last Thursday never looked in doubt. Devoy got all the plaudits, and fair enough, but Buckley, Wilson, Lyons, Burt were all very very good on the ball. Buckley in particular was extremely sensible in possession.
Thursday is a new game, new round, but no reason to think that Bohs don't have a good chance of coming back with a positive result, and we can see that they look comfortable in lansdowne. Only concern will be how bad the pitch in Dudelange is. It seems like it's raised, and with the amount of rain that's fallen here in the past week, I'd be concerned for the quality of it by Thursday.

[pineapple stu]

Aw come off it Stu, it seems you like forever you've been Cassandra saying 'this is the worst season ever, just look at the European results'.

At peak we were ranked 29th and knew then that, for various reasons, that was unsustainable. Also it's worth stating that was achieved largely because we only had three teams competing, and one team doing well/anything had a greater impact, at minimum keeping the base points (08/09 was basically all Pat's, while 06/07 probably only time everyone progressed one round).

As for UCD bringing a bonus round, any impact they had was watered down by the fact we had 5 teams competing that year. If had four results without UCD then points marginally worse, without Pat's results that year marginally better (might even have bumped us up a rank for last few years)

We should be sitting about 40 (+/-5), this is a fair reflection. The dip in ranking this year is because of the loss of 16/17 points. The new format will have an impact on the rankings, effectively introducing more co-efficient '6-pointers'. This year's not done, and whatever your thoughts on the domestic season there's a real possibility of a breakthrough year in Europe, in terms of competitiveness if not necessarily group qualification. The only way we rise above this is to have four competitive teams, and some kind of domestic stability that has been sorely lacking.

For an example of how progress is made look no further than our northern brethren, who currently are ranked higher than us. The same 5/6 teams regularly qualify, they've built up club co-efficients to increase likelihood of favourable draws, which helps to raise country co-efficient. Despite an apparent 'lack of interest' they have four teams capable of progressing at least one round.

In summary, back in late 00's we were nearly at the stage where all our teams were competitive and could have genuine hope of all progressing at least one round. Then we got an extra European place and suddenly (other domestic issues) lucky if two of the four are competitive. Now with latest re-jigging it's harder to qualify, for non-champions, but we're almost at the stage were all our teams can have some expectation of progressing at least one round.

But when we had three teams competing, so did lots of other leagues. You can't put our problems down to having a fourth team in the league when pretty much every other lower-half league in Europe also went from 3 to 4 teams at the same time.

The point about UCD's "bonus" round is in the context of purely counting the number of rounds our clubs won through (which is what I was doing). 2015/16 was the only year we had 5 teams in Europe, so it was a bonus result in that regard.

You say the dip in ranking is because of the loss of the 2016/17 points - I'd argue it's because we've done nothing at all of note in the past five years (again noting that this year is not over, and I've probably completely jinxed myself and Bohs will easily beat Dudelange. You're welcome, Bohs fans!) And that's the basic point I'm trying to make really.

The IL being ahead of us is more because they've had two years in the preliminary rounds, which the LoI has bypassed. The points they've picked up in those rounds is what has them ahead of us. (The preliminary round is gone now, so I do expect us to start rising a few places now)

Yes, club coefficients would help with seeding, for sure. But that wouldn't mitigate against my analysis of the leagues we've beaten - if we're getting the tougher sides earlier because there's variety in qualifiers and we're not seeded as a result, we're still not beating any of them (Brann aside)

[Kingdom]

To be fair to UCD too, they were very much the equal of Slovan for a large part of the game in the bowl. To the point that the Slovan fans I was beside were getting pretty peeved.

[sbgawa]

Rovers draw Teuta from Albania or Inter Club from Andorra in third round of ECL.
On the face of it with no basis or knowledge its not the worst considering Dinamo Tiblisi were a possibility

Bohs draw Paok from Greece.

Dundalk draw Vitese from Holland

Double ouch for Bohs and Dundalk tough draws

[pineapple stu]

If Dundalk can beat Inter, Rovers can.

You always wonder with Albanian clubs how much they really want to win. Might be happy bowing out at that stage with a nice few quid earned from the betting shops. Assuming they want to win, they've no European pedigree at all (unlike other Albanian clubs who have reached the group stages and may still have a few quid rolling about) and lost 5-0 to Sheriff Tiraspol, who again lost to Dundalk last season, in the CL.

Sounds about as good as you could have hoped for really.

Edit - actually, it was only Skenderbeu who reached the group stages (twice), and they were given a 10-year European ban two years ago, which has hit them financially and they've fallen down the rankings since. So bit of a power vacuum in Albania since, and this seems a nice time to get them.

[2 Year Contract]

That’s Bohs and Dundalk gone by the third round (if they make it there) anyways you’d imagine.

Brilliant draw for rovers though. There was talk on here in the last week about Dundalk's draws last year being the best an Irish club has ever got. Depending on the playoff round draw, rovers could well run dundalk's luck close - a tie with an Albanian side and then one other club for a place in the group stages of European competition? I know it’s a lesser competition than the Europa League but that’s an amazing opportunity for an LOI club (very envious as a pats fan having watched us knock out 2 clubs in 4 European campaigns in a row between 2008-2012 without making group stages)

[pineapple stu]

Vitesse Arnhem v Dundalk and PAOK for Bohs, just for reference. Vitesse are the unseeded team in that first pairing!

[Kingdom]

I tried to work out who Rovers could face in that play-off, and unless I'm very wrong, the vast majority of any combination of ties look winnable. They could face the losers of Slovan's tie, which looked about the hardest.

[pineapple stu]

Yeah, it's a bit complicated alright. You're looking for a team to lose twice out of the draw below I think - that is, the ten losers drop into the Europa League to play each other, and the five losers from that are seeded teams in the Conference League play-off round.

The Gibraltar side are the obvious ones to get. Flora Tallinn of Estonia too. The losers of Alashkert/Sheriff. Maybe even Zalgiris Vilnius. I think the others all look tough, but even then, HJK/Mura would be great draws to get to qualify for a group stage.

Dinamo Zagreb Croatia v Cyprus Omonia
Slovan Bratislava Slovakia v Switzerland Young Boys
Legia Warsaw Poland v Estonia Flora
Alashkert Armenia v Moldova Sheriff Tiraspol
Olympiacos Greece v Azerbaijan Neftçi Baku
Kairat Kazakhstan v Serbia Red Star Belgrade
Lincoln Red Imps Gibraltar v Romania CFR Cluj
Malmö FF Sweden v Finland HJK
Ferencváros Hungary v Lithuania Žalgiris
Mura Slovenia v Bulgaria Ludogorets Razgrad

Don't really like the emphasis UEFA are putting on league winners in this - not Rovers' fault obviously, but it's a much easier path than the other clubs (Bohs/Dundalk would still have a round to win if they overcome PAOK/Vitesse, which could be against the likes of Roma, Spurs, although Bohs would actually be seeded it they won), and that can't help with the general problem across Europe of leagues becoming increasingly uncompetitive.

[A N Mouse]

But when we had three teams competing, so did lots of other leagues. You can't put our problems down to having a fourth team in the league when pretty much every other lower-half league in Europe also went from 3 to 4 teams at the same time.


But that's the point I'm making, forget about other leagues it's the relative strength of the domestic league. 29th was unsustainable, but we were almost at the point of the three teams we put forward each year being competitive, maintaining a low 30s ranking was almost within our grasp.

If you can pick any 4 from 6 in a league and expect them to do equally well or badly then one year to next the co-efficient should be sustainable. If it's 50/50 on expectations even before the draw then the co-efficient will be in a state of flux.

Also in the time since we were ranked 29th, only three countries have climbed higher, and only Hungary have stayed there, because they got back to their level.

Define the problem, yours seems to be we were ranked 29th, we're now ranked 47th - and your go to answer is we're rubbish

I'm saying that if we want consistent ranking, then we need consistent performances. And having all our teams of a roughly even pedigree allows for more consistent ranking, more resilient to the vagaries of the draw



The point about UCD's "bonus" round is in the context of purely counting the number of rounds our clubs won through (which is what I was doing). 2015/16 was the only year we had 5 teams in Europe, so it was a bonus result in that regard.


You're being very selective with your statistics, if you can arrive at 29 rounds. On the pitch, so not including byes, or starting at a later round I make it a difference of 1 or 2. If we actually went by decades or eras then the last ten years are the most successful (duh), in terms of progressing through rounds, on the pitch.

AFAIK the stage is only for club points, the results are for country coeffiecient. In that regard I'm not sure what ucd's contribution lends itself to, a bit of a red herring. Maybe it makes the tallies a bit closer in your apples to oranges comparison. I note you don't seem to have included any later starting rounds for 12/13 on.



You say the dip in ranking is because of the loss of the 2016/17 points - I'd argue it's because we've done nothing at all of note in the past five years (again noting that this year is not over, and I've probably completely jinxed myself and Bohs will easily beat Dudelange. You're welcome, Bohs fans!) And that's the basic point I'm trying to make really.



I mean it's an objective fact we lost one of our best years ever. I'd say keeping the score with something to the left of the decimal point, over the last five years, is a sign of progress. There no way in hell we're recording a 2+ coefficient multiple years on the bounce.

The lowest year in the past 5 is 18/19 with 1.000, 15/16 scores 0.700 (did you realise, there were five teams that year). Oh and 13/14 we scrapped two draw for a grand total of 0.250 co-efficient points.



The IL being ahead of us is more because they've had two years in the preliminary rounds, which the LoI has bypassed. The points they've picked up in those rounds is what has them ahead of us. (The preliminary round is gone now, so I do expect us to start rising a few places now)


You're making my point for me they went backwards to go forward. Yes it will come out in the wash. But by the time we're looking at the 2026 rankings, and those two big years are gone how far behind us will they be?



Yes, club coefficients would help with seeding, for sure. But that wouldn't mitigate against my analysis of the leagues we've beaten - if we're getting the tougher sides earlier because there's variety in qualifiers and we're not seeded as a result, we're still not beating any of them (Brann aside)

And here's the rub. You can't look at it in isolation and say we should be beating teams from xyz just because we're ranked higher, if it always went to the seeded side we'd still be rank last. Progress is having all our participating sides having a realistic chance of winning through a round, and maintaining or preferably increasing the ranking score year on year. And currently we're meeting that definition.

[SPXcyan]

I watched PAOK last season and they are a vastly superior outfit, if Bohs can manage to reach the third round then they might as well enjoy playing PAOK, and that Greek weather will be a major issue too.

[Nesta99]

Vitesse Arnhem v Dundalk and PAOK for Bohs, just for reference. Vitesse are the unseeded team in that first pairing!

Irish club seeded v Dutch team unseeded, who'd have thought it. Hint of progress Stu:p

I'm not convinced we will get through QR2 mind.

[pineapple stu]

OK, there's a lot of stuff in there, and to be honest some of it seems like a bit of a scattergun approach of points. I don't want to get involved in a massive point-by-point analysis, so I'll just try pick a couple of items out. Mods - feel free to split if you want.


But that's the point I'm making, forget about other leagues it's the relative strength of the domestic league.
You can't forget about other leagues unless you're arguing that bringing a fourth team into Europe presented a unique issue for the LoI. How did it do that?


You're being very selective with your statistics, if you can arrive at 29 rounds. On the pitch, so not including byes, or starting at a later round I make it a difference of 1 or 2. If we actually went by decades or eras then the last ten years are the most successful (duh), in terms of progressing through rounds, on the pitch.
How am I being selective? I counted the number of ties that LoI sides won; that's an observable fact. (Byes have nothing to do with it - I've counted ties won). So the last ten years are not the most successful in terms of progressing through ties on the pitch, because I've shown that there were 21 in the 10s as against 29 in the 00s (or whatever the exact figures were). It's also why I flagged the UCD one as a bonus tie, and Dundalk's three rounds last year - they couldn't have happened in the 2000s, which was the period I was comparing to.


I mean it's an objective fact we lost one of our best years ever.
It is, but you've portrayed it simply as something unfortunate. My point is that it was inevitable we were going to lose that year, and the fact that the results replacing it have been steadily worse is a bad sign for the league. Sure, Dundalk's first El qualification was probably the best LoI performance in Europe in modern times. But did it just artificially inflate our standing for a few years and are we now back to reality?


There no way in hell we're recording a 2+ coefficient multiple years on the bounce.
Why not? That sounds quite defeatist to me. All 2.000 points requires is each team to win two games in a year, and lose the rest. That's with the CL team getting a reprieve even if they lose. Is that too much to ask?

And I'd say your earlier suggestion that the LoI should be ranked around 40th is equally defeatist. We're ranked number 31 in UEFA in terms of population, and population is a big factor in terms of league standard, as the rankings will show. Wealth is another one, and we're a wealthy western country. To say that we should expect to be ranked around 40th makes no sense.


And here's the rub. You can't look at it in isolation and say we should be beating teams from xyz just because we're ranked higher
What? I'm not looking at things in isolation, and I'm not saying we should be winning ties against xyz because we're higher-rated.

I'm explicitly looking at a series of results over a long time frame, and I'm saying we've stopped winning ties against decent countries, which is one sign that the league is going backwards.

[pineapple stu]

Irish club seeded v Dutch team unseeded, who'd have thought it. Hint of progress Stu:p
Just a factor of Dundalk qualifying for Europe more often than Vitesse unfortunately :)

[sbgawa]

Yeah, it's a bit complicated alright. You're looking for a team to lose twice out of the draw below I think - that is, the ten losers drop into the Europa League to play each other, and the five losers from that are seeded teams in the Conference League play-off round.

The Gibraltar side are the obvious ones to get. Flora Tallinn of Estonia too. The losers of Alashkert/Sheriff. Maybe even Zalgiris Vilnius. I think the others all look tough, but even then, HJK/Mura would be great draws to get to qualify for a group stage.

Dinamo Zagreb Croatia v Cyprus Omonia
Slovan Bratislava Slovakia v Switzerland Young Boys
Legia Warsaw Poland v Estonia Flora
Alashkert Armenia v Moldova Sheriff Tiraspol
Olympiacos Greece v Azerbaijan Neftçi Baku
Kairat Kazakhstan v Serbia Red Star Belgrade
Lincoln Red Imps Gibraltar v Romania CFR Cluj
Malmö FF Sweden v Finland HJK
Ferencváros Hungary v Lithuania Žalgiris
Mura Slovenia v Bulgaria Ludogorets Razgrad

Don't really like the emphasis UEFA are putting on league winners in this - not Rovers' fault obviously, but it's a much easier path than the other clubs (Bohs/Dundalk would still have a round to win if they overcome PAOK/Vitesse, which could be against the likes of Roma, Spurs, although Bohs would actually be seeded it they won), and that can't help with the general problem across Europe of leagues becoming increasingly uncompetitive.

I probably agree with you here even though Rovers benefit from it this year.
The draw is heavily weighted to reward Champions almost to a mad degree.
In theory it is to compensate for the fact that the champions now have almost no chance of making actual Champions league groups anymore where by comparison Dundalk were a crossbar away from 30 million in 2016.
So you trade off having a once every 30 years plus (Shels were one round away) opportunity to transform a club for a regular enough shot at a few million

[pineapple stu]

Yep - though I was surprised that the group stage prize money is almost the same for Conference League and Europa League (€3m vs €3.6m). So if you assume Champions League qualification is now impossible, then the new setup is effectively a second go at the €3m cherry, which is decent in fairness.

[Dalymountrower]

Bohs home game v Dudelange confirmed for Lansdowne. Capacity to be announced tomorrow.
Not getting ahead of ourselves or anything , but if Bohs do progress to play PAOK , Ross Tierney , Dawson Devoy and Andy Lyons may be playing against some of the PAOK under 19`s they narrowly lost 2-1 on aggregate to in the champions cup in October 2019.
Was a brilliant game in Dalymount, probably the best game I saw that season.

[sbgawa]

After seeing Rovers miss out on a bumper pay off (crowds/corporate) against AC Milan last year and Dundalk miss out on the same against Arsenal if any club make group stages this year or get an attractive draw in the playoff round (Spurs) please God by that stages bigger crowds are allowed (maybe use the covid passports?).
Irish Clubs need to be able to milk these opportunities in a safe manner

[Nesta99]

Just a factor of Dundalk qualifying for Europe more often than Vitesse unfortunately :)

Spoil sport!

[yurt]

Rovers now have a super chance at making the ECL group stage. Losing to either the Albanians or Andorrans in round 3 would rightly been seen as a disaster.

A certain amount has to happen first, but with the way this draw works Rovers should they win round 3 will be drawn against one of the 5 worst sides playing in the CLQ2. Looking at the possible opponents there are about 5 teams that I think Rovers would be competitive with and 2 (Gibraltar and Estonia) that they should be favorites for. So barring an upset in the ties before then, there's a 40% chance they will draw one of these two. Tasty enough prospect if it can fall in to place like that.

On the point of the Euro competitions being stacked in favor of the champions, I think it's a good thing. These places in Euro competitions were before being taken by teams coming second or third in mid rank leagues, now they've essentially reserved 5 spaces in the ECL for the best champions of the worst leagues. It means that Dundalk's kind draw last year isn't actually going to be that much of an anomaly if the Irish champions actually have a decent co-efficient and can be seeded for that later rounds of the draw.

[A N Mouse]

OK, there's a lot of stuff in there, and to be honest some of it seems like a bit of a scattergun approach of points. I don't want to get involved in a massive point-by-point analysis, so I'll just try pick a couple of items out. Mods - feel free to split if you want.


You can't forget about other leagues unless you're arguing that bringing a fourth team into Europe presented a unique issue for the LoI. How did it do that?


I can't speak for other leagues, and I'm not claiming that it was unique. I can say it weakened our position as we almost had three competitive teams. Now other leagues may have been in a similar position, some could field a fourth team without ill effect. But the point is going from three to four entires coincided with the poo-poo hitting the fan domestically, and we went from almost having 3 of 3 teams competitive to 1 or 2 of four pulling their weight. Simultaneously diluting the co-efficient, and the ability of teams to contribute to it. Now you can choose to ignore that but I see the things as intrinsically linked and without relation to the situation any other country may or may not have found itself in.



How am I being selective? I counted the number of ties that LoI sides won; that's an observable fact. (Byes have nothing to do with it - I've counted ties won). So the last ten years are not the most successful in terms of progressing through ties on the pitch, because I've shown that there were 21 in the 10s as against 29 in the 00s (or whatever the exact figures were). It's also why I flagged the UCD one as a bonus tie, and Dundalk's three rounds last year - they couldn't have happened in the 2000s, which was the period I was comparing to.


Are you counting the inter-toto or something? You're being selective when you pick seemingly random dates 2003-2011 and 2011-2020 I mean there not even the same length of period, and I've no idea where 29 comes from. By my reckoning there were 20 rounds of progress 01/02-10/11 and 25 in period 11/12-20/21. That's just were a tie was won.



It is, but you've portrayed it simply as something unfortunate. My point is that it was inevitable we were going to lose that year, and the fact that the results replacing it have been steadily worse is a bad sign for the league. Sure, Dundalk's first El qualification was probably the best LoI performance in Europe in modern times. But did it just artificially inflate our standing for a few years and are we now back to reality?

I don't think I've characterised it as anything other than a fact. And what have the results been steadily worse than? The best co-efficient year ever?

As I pointed out the co-efficient hasn't dipped below 1.00 in the current 5 year period, and the one to be lost next year has already been matched. 18/19's 1.000 required 3 wins and 2 draws with 1 rounds progress to just match the 1.00 from the halcyon days of 07/08, when recorded 4 draws and 1 round of progress.



Why not? That sounds quite defeatist to me. All 2.000 points requires is each team to win two games in a year, and lose the rest. That's with the CL team getting a reprieve even if they lose. Is that too much to ask?


And that's happened exactly how many times in the past? I mean it should be a goal, and how would it be acheived? By having all our teams be competitive!



And I'd say your earlier suggestion that the LoI should be ranked around 40th is equally defeatist. We're ranked number 31 in UEFA in terms of population, and population is a big factor in terms of league standard, as the rankings will show. Wealth is another one, and we're a wealthy western country. To say that we should expect to be ranked around 40th makes no sense.

I'm not suggesting that 40th is where we belong. I believe that around 40th is a fair reflection of the current state of the league. And how do we improve that? By having all our teams be competitive!



What? I'm not looking at things in isolation, and I'm not saying we should be winning ties against xyz because we're higher-rated.

I'm explicitly looking at a series of results over a long time frame, and I'm saying we've stopped winning ties against decent countries, which is one sign that the league is going backwards.

Which, absent the context of strength of our represenitives, the draw, changes in competition or other leagues, the nature of football matches, or simply everything else not standing idly by is looking at selected fixtures in isolation.

I look at the last decade and compare it to the one before and choose to see progress. Who's defeatist?

[placid casual]

Delighted that Rovers seem to have finally inherited some of the outrageous good fortune in draws provided to dundalk in recent years.
Hopefully the gut wrenching experience of failing to get past Slovan will drive the Hoops players on to succed.
If boez and dundalk get past round 2 I'd have to assume that's as far as they'll go.
I have a Greek mate who's an absolute PAOK FANATIC, and if they get to play boez we'll have to get a ticket for the game if it's in the Aviva. Loads and loads of fun in store!! 😁 😁
Don't be surprised if an absolute load of PAOK fans turn up to that game...

[Straightstory]

Excuse my ignorance - but is it possible for an Irish club to play in the Europa League any more? It seems to be Champions League or Europa Conference only.

[pineapple stu]

Yes - had Rovers won their opening CL game and lost the next round, they would have dropped into the EL qualifying, and had they lost there, they would have dropped into the Conference League qualifying.

[Straightstory]

OK - thanks Stu.

[Dalymountrower]

Delighted that Rovers seem to have finally inherited some of the outrageous good fortune in draws provided to dundalk in recent years.
Hopefully the gut wrenching experience of failing to get past Slovan will drive the Hoops players on to succed.
If boez and dundalk get past round 2 I'd have to assume that's as far as they'll go.
I have a Greek mate who's an absolute PAOK FANATIC, and if they get to play boez we'll have to get a ticket for the game if it's in the Aviva. Loads and loads of fun in store!! 😁 😁
Don't be surprised if an absolute load of PAOK fans turn up to that game...

PAOK even brought a small singing section over from Theasalonoki when we played them in the under
​nineteens.!
Don`t your lot have a love in with their hated shamrock wearing Athens rivals? Wouldn`t be encouraging too many of them to come over, if I were you :p( it isnt going to happen)

[D24Saint]

Any word on when the Bohs european tickets will be on general sale ?

[pineapple stu]

I can't speak for other leagues, and I'm not claiming that it was unique. I can say it weakened our position as we almost had three competitive teams.
But in that case, I don't see how you can raise it as a factor to be honest. If you don't know how it impacted on other leagues, you can't really use it as a comparison point?


Are you counting the inter-toto or something?
Of course. The InterToto was where the fourth team went while it existed. To ignore it would make the comparison invalid; you'd be comparing the ties won by three teams to the ties won by four teams, which makes no sense.


As I pointed out the co-efficient hasn't dipped below 1.00 in the current 5 year period
That's a pretty low bar there, to be honest.


I'm not suggesting that 40th is where we belong. I believe that around 40th is a fair reflection of the current state of the league. And how do we improve that? By having all our teams be competitive!

Which, absent the context of strength of our represenitives, the draw, changes in competition or other leagues, the nature of football matches, or simply everything else not standing idly by is looking at selected fixtures in isolation.
To repeat myself though, I'm not looking at selected fixtures in isolation. I'm looking at the last 20 years' worth of fixtures. I'm looking at the number of times we've won against a certain calibre of league in time-frames within that time, and it's falling. That does tell a story, as does our overall ranking.

A lot of the rest of your post I do agree with - the league needs to improve in general of course. But I think at this stage you've gone away from the original point I made, which was -


It's hard not to think that results like this really put the lie to those who say the league is steadily improving.
So the stuff about 40th being a fair reflection of the league or saying we need to improve the league or need to have more teams competitive isn't really relevant. (Actually, it's effectively the point I'm making.)

[yurt]

Any word on when the Bohs european tickets will be on general sale ?

From Bohs statement earlier; expect confirmation tomorrow, Tuesday.



Capacity and ticketing arrangements will be confirmed tomorrow.

As was the case for the previous round against FC Stjarnan, there will be an exclusive window for club members and season ticket holders to purchase tickets.

Once again, tickets will NOT be available to purchase in singles. This is to ensure maximum safe capacity, while also adhering to social-distancing requirements.

General admission tickets are priced at €20, premium level €30, while there will be a limited number of U16s tickets available at the reduced rate of €10.

This game forms part of the government’s ongoing pilot programme for the safe return of spectators to sporting fixtures.


They should really try and get tickets on sale ASAP so that they can try and sell as many tickets as they can before the first leg is actually played. If there's a convincing result in the first leg one way or the other it could put people off.

[sbgawa]

PAOK even brought a small singing section over from Theasalonoki when we played them in the under
​nineteens.!
Don`t your lot have a love in with their hated shamrock wearing Athens rivals? Wouldn`t be encouraging too many of them to come over, if I were you :p( it isnt going to happen)
No away fans allowed so no paok fans will travel. Some locals might buy tickets I suppose.

[placid casual]

PAOK even brought a small singing section over from Theasalonoki when we played them in the under
​nineteens.!
Don`t your lot have a love in with their hated shamrock wearing Athens rivals? Wouldn`t be encouraging too many of them to come over, if I were you :p( it isnt going to happen)

I don't go for all that love in/links horse€hit, DR.
Made some friends when we played them back in 2011.
Is it not 12k at your European games now, or did I read that wrong-If so then plenty of tickets available I would have thought. Boez have only about 3k max anyway 😋.
These guys will find a way to get tickets if available, believe me.

[Dalymountrower]

I don't go for all that love in/links horse€hit, DR.
Made some friends when we played them back in 2011.
Is it not 12k at your European games now, or did I read that wrong-If so then plenty of tickets available I would have thought. Boez have only about 3k max anyway 😋.
These guys will find a way to get tickets if available, believe me.
12 k will he a stretch to sell all right.
PAOK are a fascinating club the last remnants of Byzantium.

[CSAD]

12 k will he a stretch to sell all right.
PAOK are a fascinating club the last remnants of Byzantium.

Boh’s sold 6k max capacity tickets for the last game in less than 24 hours, I’d imagine they will almost certainly sell 12k tickets for this match.

[A N Mouse]

but in that case, i don't see how you can raise it as a factor to be honest. If you don't know how it impacted on other leagues, you can't really use it as a comparison point?


I mean we're talking about our league. How the change impacted other leagues is neither here nor there. I believe the term I was looking for was 'strength in depth'. We lacked the 'strength in depth' for three teams, so struggled a bit more when had to fill four slots, not helped by our own unique circumstances.



Of course. The intertoto was where the fourth team went while it existed. To ignore it would make the comparison invalid; you'd be comparing the ties won by three teams to the ties won by four teams, which makes no sense.


You are including the inter-toto results? So your dataset is inherently flawed.

I shouldn't need to point out the inter-toto did not contribute towards co-efficient, and was a pre-qualifier for entry to the europa league. It's not like for like. (if only there were some statistically formula however flawed for comparing european performances, regardless of the number of teams, hmmm)
It had one entry from each country, and was both regionalised and seeded, so the probability of certain fixture combinations was much greater.
Entry was not explicitly tied to league position, but purely at the invitation of the fai.

The inter-toto results account for somewhere in region of 25-33% of your claimed ties won. But you ignore all the above and then comapare victories in opening two rounds of a pre-qualifying competition requiring 4/5 wins just to get to the qualifiers proper. So you're taking fixtures in isolation of competition.



that's a pretty low bar there, to be honest.


Come off it, apart from the steady decline from the giddy heights of being ranked 29th, last year and this, our 5 year scores have alway had a number lower than 1.000 in there. And there's never been a period in which the lowest was greater than 1.000.



to repeat myself though, i'm not looking at selected fixtures in isolation. I'm looking at the last 20 years' worth of fixtures. I'm looking at the number of times we've won against a certain calibre of league in time-frames within that time, and it's falling. That does tell a story, as does our overall ranking.


So let me get this straight. You take the dataset, break it into smaller sets (time-frames). Further filter for data-points you're interested in (calibre of opponent) subjectively. In other words, you're being selective, and looking at fixtures in isolation.

Also the vague 'its falling'. Publish and be damned. Saying number of wins is falling is not necessarily the same as the number of losses is rising.



a lot of the rest of your post i do agree with - the league needs to improve in general of course. But i think at this stage you've gone away from the original point i made, which was -


I've addressed progress, yet you continue to ignore my main thesis which is that the number reached when 1 is divided by 4 (or on thankfully rare occasion 5) is lower than the number when 1 is divided by 3. If we can agree on that then it shouldn't be too great a leap to arrive at the conclusion that it is (marginally) easier for 3 teams to maintain a co-efficient. And having 4 teams now maintain the year on year co-efficient points at or above 1.000 is a sign of progress over the last decade.

That's not defeatist, it's a demonstrable fact this is only the second such period for our country. Could it be higher? yes. But rome wasn't built in a day



so the stuff about 40th being a fair reflection of the league or saying we need to improve the league or need to have more teams competitive isn't really relevant. (actually, it's effectively the point i'm making.)

How can ranking be relevant (like in your previous paragraph) when you want to claim our current ranking 47(46), down from 37 last season after losing our best ever year's co-efficient score, to back up your claim about a lack of progress; yet not relevant when I point out the reason for the drop, or what I think is a fair reflection of our league. Incidentally as you've pointed out this season is not over yet, and having already matched the 17/18 points we're sitting at 42 for 2023, before a ball is kicked next year.

[pineapple stu]

OK - to be honest Mouse, I think you need to go back and read my posts again, because you're starting to completely misrepresent what I've said. A couple of examples -


You are including the inter-toto results? So your dataset is inherently flawed. I shouldn't need to point out the inter-toto did not contribute towards co-efficient
I included the InterToto when comparing the number of ties our clubs won in the various timeframes. In that regard, including the InterToto is inherently logical.


So let me get this straight. You take the dataset, break it into smaller sets (time-frames). Further filter for data-points you're interested in (calibre of opponent) subjectively. In other words, you're being selective, and looking at fixtures in isolation.

Also the vague 'its falling'. Publish and be damned. Saying number of wins is falling is not necessarily the same as the number of losses is rising.
Yes, I take the data and break it into smaller sets to analyse the data. if you see a pattern such as, for example, 10 decent teams beaten in 2011-2016 versus one decent team beaten in 2016-2021 (or whatever the exact figures were), that's something which can help draw a conclusion. That's how this sort of thing works.

What's the relevance of the number of losses? The number of losses is probably falling because we're getting through fewer rounds to be honest. Barcelona lose more ties per season than any LoI club. Wins (and calibre thereof) are the marker of progress, not fewer losses.


I've addressed progress, yet you continue to ignore my main thesis which is that the number reached when 1 is divided by 4 (or on thankfully rare occasion 5) is lower than the number when 1 is divided by 3. If we can agree on that then it shouldn't be too great a leap to arrive at the conclusion that it is (marginally) easier for 3 teams to maintain a co-efficient. And having 4 teams now maintain the year on year co-efficient points at or above 1.000 is a sign of progress over the last decade.
I've addressed your point repeatedly by pointing out that the exact same logic applies to every other league in the bottom half of the UEFA rankings, who all gained an extra team at the same time we did. And I've never compared absolute UEFA coefficients; I've been comparing rankings or number of ties won (where your division by 3/4/5 is irrelevant). Your own comparison of absolute coefficient points won is actually the flawed one, because it doesn't allow for the CL teams getting extra shots - as I've pointed out, pre 2009, once the CL team lost, they were out; then they had to win a tie before being sure of dropping down (which few enough teams did), and now they drop down regardless of how badly they do in the opening round (which Dundalk benefitted from spectacularly last year, and Rovers may well do this year). So comparing coefficient points, like you're doing, doesn't really make sense as a comparison.


Incidentally as you've pointed out this season is not over yet, and having already matched the 17/18 points we're sitting at 42 for 2023, before a ball is kicked next year.
42nd - wow! That really challenges my basic argument that "It's hard not to think that results like this really put the lie to those who say the league is steadily improving." Nosebleed territory there, what?

[pateen]

Curiously anyone know why Bohs get the nod to use the Aviva but not Rovers or even Dundalk ?

[Nah Nah Nah Nah]

Did either of them ask?

[passinginterest]

I'd say Rovers probably not interested and Dundalk had a bit of a falling out over the Aviva last season didn't they?

[sbgawa]

Did either of them ask?


Doubt it 1500 in Tallaght is better than 6000 in the Aviva for atmosphere and European games are games where the crowd can really help IMO.
Also Rovers have no cost to use Tallaght where there must be a cost for using the Aviva.

[placid casual]

I'm old enough of a Rovers fan to still be delighted at the fact we no longer need to go hoer-in out ourselves trying to find a place to play in.
Not saying boez are doin that btw, fair play to them for getting their games in landsdowne.
dundalks owners have spent the last 18 months soiling themselves in public to all and sundry so were probably never considered.

[Dalymountrower]

Doubt it 1500 in Tallaght is better than 6000 in the Aviva for atmosphere and European games are games where the crowd can really help IMO.
Also Rovers have no cost to use Tallaght where there must be a cost for using the Aviva.

Thought that the atmosphere in the Aviva with 6,000 was brilliant., we will see whether they increase capacity in line with what Croker had on Sunday last. 2 or 3 more thousand would make a big difference. Though I can see why Rovers would want to stay in Tallaght , familiarity with the pitch and set up and a lot of noise from 1,500.

[A N Mouse]

OK - to be honest Mouse, I think you need to go back and read my posts again, because you're starting to completely misrepresent what I've said. A couple of examples -


I don't think you're being genuine here. You want to discuss European results in a historical sense, but disregard the canonical source of rankings in favor of something you've made up and refuse to share.



I included the InterToto when comparing the number of ties our clubs won in the various timeframes. In that regard, including the InterToto is inherently logical.


So Pats really can claim preseaon victory?



Yes, I take the data and break it into smaller sets to analyse the data. if you see a pattern such as, for example, 10 decent teams beaten in 2011-2016 versus one decent team beaten in 2016-2021 (or whatever the exact figures were), that's something which can help draw a conclusion. That's how this sort of thing works.

Can you not see an issue with this? For one thing the format changes (are going to be more noticeable than a running rating), second the rankings change, only you know what this concept of a decent team is

So put your data in a sheet and share. Previously you've pulled numbers that don't seem to add up, used odd year selections to make comparisons, and shown us exactly nothing. Show us your data



What's the relevance of the number of losses? The number of losses is probably falling because we're getting through fewer rounds to be honest. Barcelona lose more ties per season than any LoI club. Wins (and calibre thereof) are the marker of progress, not fewer losses.


You said the number of wins is falling.

I can say Donald Trump will lose fewer elections this year than last. It doesn't make the inverse true. So show us your working.

What constitutes a 'decent team'?

If you're pulling numbers from your hoop then 10 wins in 2011-2016 could be from 20 attempts, where the 1 win in 2016-2021 could be from 1. You've so much ill defined stuff what is a decent team? What is a win (a tie? a leg?)? All of this is encompassed in the co-efficient. Now it's not without flaws, but it applies to everyone.



I've addressed your point repeatedly by pointing out that the exact same logic applies to every other league in the bottom half of the UEFA rankings, who all gained an extra team at the same time we did. And I've never compared absolute UEFA coefficients; I've been comparing rankings or number of ties won (where your division by 3/4/5 is irrelevant). Your own comparison of absolute coefficient points won is actually the flawed one, because it doesn't allow for the CL teams getting extra shots - as I've pointed out, pre 2009, once the CL team lost, they were out; then they had to win a tie before being sure of dropping down (which few enough teams did), and now they drop down regardless of how badly they do in the opening round (which Dundalk benefitted from spectacularly last year, and Rovers may well do this year). So comparing coefficient points, like you're doing, doesn't really make sense as a comparison.


But the rankings are of the co-efficients, which in turn are a function of wins/draws and number of representatives. And guess what they work the same for everyone.

And yet you count those same results in your data. Or are you now only counting our champions results until they lose a round? Because guess what it works the same for everyone. Or is this another example of something only being relevant when you say it is?

Also I've never once used absolute co-efficients. That would be comparing the cumulative value when ranked 29th, with the value now. But I have used the rankings, and the year on year, which guess what work the same for everyone.



42nd - wow! That really challenges my basic argument that "It's hard not to think that results like this really put the lie to those who say the league is steadily improving." Nosebleed territory there, what?

Except I can point to the data. Where is your data to back up the claim 'the lie to those who say the league is steadily improving'?

Also as you keep reminding me it's the same for everyone else (it's not, everyone got an extra place, but not everyone was able to fill it with a team just as strong - bit like if ucd were only able to field 10 players, and they asked you to tog out). Yet you keep banging on about decent teams, could maybe something else have changed in the last twenty years? Perhaps Swedish teams don't go to Ireland for a holiday anymore? I mean we haven't stood still why should anyone else?

[pineapple stu]

I don't think you're being genuine here. You want to discuss European results in a historical sense, but disregard the canonical source of rankings in favor of something you've made up and refuse to share.
Sigh. I've actually pointed out that our ranking has fallen from 29th to 46th as well. I'm including lots of factors.


So Pats really can claim preseaon victory?
WTF has this to do with the InterToto? The InterToto is European competition and absolutely should be included when comparing the results of our four European teams year-on-year.


Can you not see an issue with this? For one thing the format changes (are going to be more noticeable than a running rating), second the rankings change, only you know what this concept of a decent team is
I've discounted wins against sides from the Faroes, Malta, Iceland, Gibraltar, Montenegro, Estonia, Wales, Andorra and San Marino in looking to see how many decent wins we've had. Don't see an issue with that at all. I've clearly stated this, and the wins, and various other stuff you claim I'm hiding. You've lots of other bits in your post on this - the Donald Trump part was especially bizarre - but really this comes to my request that you read my posts first.


But the rankings are of the co-efficients, which in turn are a function of wins/draws and number of representatives. And guess what they work the same for everyone.
But guess what - when Dundalk get lucky and get a Faroese team in the EL play-off round, we get the same points as if they'd beaten someone good. Now other countries can get lucky too of course, but that's why I'm using both the ranking (and we've dropped) and the good results to build up a bigger picture (and we've fewer decent wins).


Also I've never once used absolute co-efficients.
Yes you have - when you say that "having 4 teams now maintain the year on year co-efficient points at or above 1.000 is a sign of progress over the last decade"; that's absolute coefficients right there. It ignores that the CL representatives have more games than before because they drop into the EL/CL2 when knocked out of the CL first round, which has only happened since 2016. So the same coefficient in 2020 is worse than the equivalent total in 2014. In fact, our coefficient in 2020 would have been 0.875 under pre 2016 rules, when Dundalk would have been knocked out straight away (five second legs were all scored as draws, and first-round draws for Rovers/Bohs)