UEFA Coefficient

[CollegeTillIDie]

AIK Solna are currently 7th in the Swedish League as far as I can recall . I saw a League table for Sweden earlier this week, about 2 weeks old. So they are not as strong as last season.

[pete]

Helsingborgs is not a bad draw for Drogs as they are only 10th in the Swedish League. 2nd best draw after Dunfirmline.

[higgins]

Home Win and an Away draw.
If 1st in the Eirom league can't do away with 10th in the Swedish League it's the biggest sign yet that we've gone backwards this season.

Great Draw for Drogheda and probably a full house in Dalymount with hooped jerseys looking out for their hero.

[pete]

Home Win and an Away draw.
If 1st in the Eirom league can't do away with 10th in the Swedish League it's the biggest sign yet that we've gone backwards this season.


I don't think its a foregone conclusion but the odds are good for Drogs. Helsingborg are not as good as Malmo, Djungardens or even Hammarby. Helsingborg did how beat Estonian team 9-0 on aggregate as opposed to Drogs 4-1 win against inferior opposition...

[DmanDmythDledge]

Home Win and an Away draw.
Which would put us ahead of Moldova.

[Torn-Ado]

Home Win and an Away draw.
If 1st in the Eirom league can't do away with 10th in the Swedish League it's the biggest sign yet that we've gone backwards this season.

Great Draw for Drogheda and probably a full house in Dalymount with hooped jerseys looking out for their hero.

Take one look at Irish teams results in Europe this season and compare that to Swedish teams in Europe.

[swinfordfc]

Lads,
we 34th and with moldova teams all out and Hungary teams in trouble - next year could see us up to 33rd if Drogs get a one win at least!

[higgins]

I think some people are watching a different game to the rest of us !

Theres two reasons we need a higher coefficient. Thats to become seeded in the Champions League and the UEFA Cup. Thats for starters, we can look at 2nd Round automatic qualification in a few years time.

Champions League: We're high enough now to be seeded so job complete

UEFA Cup: We're floating at about 7th or 8th from around 14 teams from the Northern Region that go into the Northern Section of the draw. Passing Moldova won't do us any good at all.

Lithuania and then Finland are our targets.

HOWEVER!!!
Norway have now gone from 19th to 18th I think it is and will go straight into the 2nd Round. In effect they have lowered the number of teams from the Northern region in the first round. If things stay like they are we should be seeded! thanks to Norway, not ourselves...

Job complete ?

[Cymro]

Being seeded/unseeded doesn't actually count for that much in my opinion. There is about a 20% probability of drawing a team from a league that is significantly stronger or weaker than the norm. So essentially that means a 10% chance of drawing either a really strong side or a 'weak' side (not that Drogheda even saw that great a benefit from drawing the lowest ranked side in the draw). Hence my point. 80-90% of european games in the first round will be between two sides of relatively similar ability. And if you're seeded there's a pretty good chance of getting a side from Kazakhstan, Armenia or Azerbaijan, and that is not something you want. Think about it would you prefer a Lithuanian/Latvian/Finnish side to journeys over to, essentially, Asia? I know what I'd rather have and i think the results from this year back that up.

The main reason for coefficients is basically bragging rights over other leagues and a yardstick for how your league measures up, until you get to the stage where entering at the second round is a possibility, and realistically that may never happen for Irish sides, or at least not for several years yet.

[Snoop Drog]

The main reason for coefficients is basically bragging rights over other leagues.

The main reason is to give UCD fans something to do/ another reason to moan.

[ifk101]

Being seeded/unseeded doesn't actually count for that much in my opinion. There is about a 20% probability of drawing a team from a league that is significantly stronger or weaker than the norm. So essentially that means a 10% chance of drawing either a really strong side or a 'weak' side (not that Drogheda even saw that great a benefit from drawing the lowest ranked side in the draw). Hence my point. 80-90% of european games in the first round will be between two sides of relatively similar ability. And if you're seeded there's a pretty good chance of getting a side from Kazakhstan, Armenia or Azerbaijan, and that is not something you want. Think about it would you prefer a Lithuanian/Latvian/Finnish side to journeys over to, essentially, Asia? I know what I'd rather have and i think the results from this year back that up.

The main reason for coefficients is basically bragging rights over other leagues and a yardstick for how your league measures up, until you get to the stage where entering at the second round is a possibility, and realistically that may never happen for Irish sides, or at least not for several years yet.

I don't agree with you. Seeding in the UEFA is a massive advantage because the draw is divided in regional groups. There's no trips to Asia here and all the unseeded teams are very beatable. The unseeded teams in the Northern regions conceded plenty of goals this year - and I include Pats in this - so it is clearly more advantegous to be seeded. Also only two unseeded teams won their ties in the Northern region this year (out of 16 matches) so there is a clear link between being seeded and winning the tie.

Champions League is different. There are a number of decent unseeded teams but being seeded has helped LOI teams in recent years. There are a few noticeable exceptions but the LOI representatives have predominately progressed a round in this competition when they were seeded.

I also don't agree with your assessment that 80% of teams in the first round are of similar ability. It must be remembered that these are cup games and cup games by their nature can throw up surprises. Teams are also unfamilar with each other and in many cases are over-cautious in their approach to these games simply because they know nothing about the opposition.

[bigmac]

(not that Drogheda even saw that great a benefit from drawing the lowest ranked side in the draw).

Compare the benefit of going through despite one awful game to the punishment that Pats were handed for not being seeded in the Uefa.
If you're unseeded, then I would say that (at the level the EL is at - which would be upper half of the non-seeds) you have about a 50% chance of getting a beatable team - in fairness, while Irish teams have a good chance against the Scandinavian sides, the top sides over there would always be favourites to go through.
On the other hand, if a team is seeded, then there's a roughly 50% chance that they draw a team that they're certain to go through against. The difference between seeds and non-seeds in the UEFA is that non-seeds need a good draw to have a chance of going through, whereas a good draw for the seeded team virtually guarantees them passage.

[Cymro]

I don't agree with you. Seeding in the UEFA is a massive advantage because the draw is divided in regional groups. There's no trips to Asia here and all the unseeded teams are very beatable. The unseeded teams in the Northern regions conceded plenty of goals this year - and I include Pats in this - so it is clearly more advantegous to be seeded. Also only two unseeded teams won their ties in the Northern region this year (out of 16 matches) so there is a clear link between being seeded and winning the tie.

Champions League is different. There are a number of decent unseeded teams but being seeded has helped LOI teams in recent years. There are a few noticeable exceptions but the LOI representatives have predominately progressed a round in this competition when they were seeded.

I also don't agree with your assessment that 80% of teams in the first round are of similar ability. It must be remembered that these are cup games and cup games by their nature can throw up surprises. Teams are also unfamilar with each other and in many cases are over-cautious in their approach to these games simply because they know nothing about the opposition.

I agree that the UEFA Cup is different to the Champions' League, but that's about all I agree with from this.

I think at least in the Champions' League the two teams in any given tie will be of relatively similar ability. UEFA Cup is different because you often get teams who are nowhere in their league system qualifying via a cup. In Champions' League it is definitely evenly matched-nearly all the ties were decided by the odd goal or two this year.

Seeding is overrated. I think St. Pats might have got through had they not drawn Odense, likewise, Drogheda may have struggled had they got a team that wasn't from San Marino, and they still couldn't eat them in the away leg!

Conversely I doubt 80% of the draws that the Welsh sides could have got had they been seeded would have yielded a much different result. We a) aren't quite good enough, although we're getting there, and b) aren't match fit when the games are played.

[pete]

Being seeded/unseeded doesn't actually count for that much in my opinion.

Sorry but that is rubbish.

Seeding is a massive advantage in the Uefa Cup & is pretty much guarantees progress to the 2nd round. Even in the CL you have more or less 50% chance of drawing easy countries like Andorra, San Marino, NI, Wales etc...

:rolleyes:

[Cymro]

Sorry but that is rubbish.

Seeding is a massive advantage in the Uefa Cup & is pretty much guarantees progress to the 2nd round. Even in the CL you have more or less 50% chance of drawing easy countries like Andorra, San Marino, NI, Wales etc...

:rolleyes:

Instead of rolling your eyes and calling it rubbish could you please actually read through the last post and think about some of the points I made. 80% of the time whether you're seeded or unseeded you'll face a team of roughly similar ability.

Again, Lithuanian, Latvian etc teams are probably not a huge difference in standard to NI and Welsh sides, as results have shown, certainly in terms of Welsh sides anyway. And you're more likely to meet a side of average ability rather than exceptionally strong or weak.

And of course being unseeded means you might get lucky and draw an Eircom league side for a comfortable passage through. :D

(That comment was tongue in cheek fyi, but if you're going to be childish about this then so will I.)

To sum up seeding is useful but hardly the be all and end all. bigmac I see your point and agree to an extent but maintain that most of the time you're likely to get a side of fairly similar ability regardless of seeding. The St Patricks and Drogheda scenario is more a fluke example of both extremes rather than the par for the course if you will.

[micls]

80% of the time whether you're seeded or unseeded you'll face a team of roughly similar ability.


If thats the case why did the seeded team win over 80% of the matches this year?

Of course it makes a difference, even if only a slight one. You might be slightly better than them rather than slightly worse

[Dodge]

Ourselves and Drogheda had the same co-efficient point but they were seeded and we weren't. They got the worst team in the draw, we got the best team in the draw (co-efficient;y speaking anyway)

[Cymro]

If thats the case why did the seeded team win over 80% of the matches this year?

Of course it makes a difference, even if only a slight one. You might be slightly better than them rather than slightly worse

Of course it makes a slight difference, but my argument is not a general one but one applied to a specific club.

My point is that club X is not going to find it too much harder to get past FBK Kaunas than they will to get past Linfield or Pyunik. There may be a slight difference but it isn't worth making a huge deal out of.

The majority of seeded teams did win their ties but they were generally close over two legs. TNS losing out on away goals, Linfield by 1, etc. I can only think of about 2 or 3 occasions where one side was well and truly stuffed in Europe this year and that's in all competitions.

[OneRedArmy]

People appear to be getting slightly mixed up with cause and effect again (not for the first time).

Seeding and coefficients in general only reflect how well the League is doing over a defined time period.

The League has generally improved quite a bit, comparatively, over the last few years and this is reflected in the fact that unseeded EL clubs beat and drew with a number of seeded clubs over the past few years. This resulted in the EL clubs becoming seeded (CL) or close to seeded (UEFA).

However, as the coefficients and therefore seedings, work on a 5 year rolling average they will always lag the "realtime" comparative level of the League. This is precisely why Irish teams won when they weren't seeds (the League was comparatively on the up) and conversely why seeded Swedish teams kept losing (their League was on the way down).

Therefore the assumption that seeds are a given to go through is patently ridiculous. The standards of Irish football has dropped this season due to a number of factors and this is reflected in the results (whether this is a blip or a longer term issue will become apparent over the next few years).

Coefficients are fine as long as the limitations are acknowledged, but some people seem to think of them and by extension seedings, as some sort of holy grail.

Never has the phrase "past performance is no guarantee of future return" been more relevant than in this discussion.

[micls]

My point is that club X is not going to find it too much harder to get past FBK Kaunas than they will to get past Linfield or Pyunik. There may be a slight difference but it isn't worth making a huge deal out of.


They clearly will find it much harder, how is it not worth making a big deal out of when 80% of non seeded teams found it too hard......even if its only a slight difference in quality its one that clearly makes a difference in who qualifies

[micls]

People appear to be getting slightly mixed up with cause and effect again (not for the first time).

Seeding and coefficients in general only reflect how well the League is doing over a defined time period.

The League has generally improved quite a bit, comparatively, over the last few years and this is reflected in the fact that unseeded EL clubs beat and drew with a number of seeded clubs over the past few years. This resulted in the EL clubs becoming seeded (CL) or close to seeded (UEFA).

However, as the coefficients and therefore seedings, work on a 5 year rolling average they will always lag the "realtime" comparative level of the League. This is precisely why Irish teams won when they weren't seeds (the League was comparatively on the up) and conversely why seeded Swedish teams kept losing (their League was on the way down).

Therefore the assumption that seeds are a given to go through is patently ridiculous. The standards of Irish football has dropped this season due to a number of factors and this is reflected in the results (whether this is a blip or a longer term issue will become apparent over the next few years).

Coefficients are fine as long as the limitations are acknowledged, but some people seem to think of them and by extension seedings, as some sort of holy grail.

Never has the phrase "past performance is no guarantee of future return" been more relevant than in this discussion.

Yet surely a poor team who is seeded has a better chance of going through han the same poor team being unseeded.

It is an advantage. If the league is declining you need all the help you can get to progress. being seeded is a big advantage

[OneRedArmy]

Yet surely a poor team who is seeded has a better chance of going through han the same poor team being unseeded.

It is an advantage. If the league is declining you need all the help you can get to progress. being seeded is a big advantageNot if you get an unseeded team whose seeding doesn't reflect their current level of play.

Derry v Gothenburg is the prime example.

Seed's realtime level was below their coefficient and unseeded teams level was above their coefficient.

Result, unseeded team wins both legs.

Opposite happened to Derry this season.

Both make a mockery of seedings.

[micls]

Not if you get an unseeded team whose seeding doesn't reflect their current level of play..
Of course but you have a far better chance of getting a beatable team. Its not foolproof but it is an advantage

[Ceirtlis]

Being seeded/unseeded doesn't actually count for that much in my opinion. There is about a 20% probability of drawing a team from a league that is significantly stronger or weaker than the norm. So essentially that means a 10% chance of drawing either a really strong side or a 'weak' side (not that Drogheda even saw that great a benefit from drawing the lowest ranked side in the draw). Hence my point. 80-90% of european games in the first round will be between two sides of relatively similar ability. And if you're seeded there's a pretty good chance of getting a side from Kazakhstan, Armenia or Azerbaijan, and that is not something you want. Think about it would you prefer a Lithuanian/Latvian/Finnish side to journeys over to, essentially, Asia? I know what I'd rather have and i think the results from this year back that up.

The main reason for coefficients is basically bragging rights over other leagues and a yardstick for how your league measures up, until you get to the stage where entering at the second round is a possibility, and realistically that may never happen for Irish sides, or at least not for several years yet.

Teams from the Baltic nations are pish in general and anyone from Ireland/N Ireland/Wales has a chance going in against them. With the long journeys abroad the thing is that the other team has the same long journey ahead of them before they meet you. The countrys ranking is low because these teams generally lose their ties. Being seeded is a big advantage.

[OneRedArmy]

Teams from the Baltic nations are pish in general and anyone from Ireland/N Ireland/Wales has a chance going in against them. With the long journeys abroad the thing is that the other team has the same long journey ahead of them before they meet you. The countrys ranking is low because these teams generally lose their ties. Being seeded is a big advantage.Truly some rocket science type analysis there.

You do know the Baltic nations are only a those around the Baltic sea and don't include most of the nations mentioned by Cymro?:confused:

[Cymro]

In fact, the Baltic nations are the ones I mentioned (except Finland) that would be preferable to trips to darkest Armenia or Kazakhstan.

[Ceirtlis]

Truly some rocket science type analysis there.

You do know the Baltic nations are only a those around the Baltic sea and don't include most of the nations mentioned by Cymro?:confused:

Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania. Latvia and Lithuania are seeded for the champions league draw. Teams from Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales have fared well against them in recent years.
It appears that Ukrainian fella that was on loan with bohs, perploytkin?, is a bit of a star over in the Latvian league, the Latvians called them up to their international side.

[half_full]

The standards of Irish football has dropped this season due to a number of factors and this is reflected in the results (whether this is a blip or a longer term issue will become apparent over the next few years).

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.

Cork were unlucky to go out, Pats got a tough draw and would probably be in europe still had they not drawn Odense.

Drogheda are still in eurpe and imo will go through to the next round

[Cymro]

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.

Cork were unlucky to go out, Pats got a tough draw and would probably be in europe still had they not drawn Odense.

Drogheda are still in eurpe and imo will go through to the next round

Don't call yourself 'half full' for nothing eh? :rolleyes: :p

[higgins]

Opposite happened to Derry this season.

Both make a mockery of seedings.


Armenia are not a strong country !
They are not on the way up and they are not even close to being seeds.

[higgins]

Cymro, where did you get this 80% crap you speak ?
Made up of course..

If you actually view the results from seeds v unseeds you'll see that the seeded side comes out on top most of the time.

There is a clear advantage in drawing a seed or an unseeded side. Pats and Drogheda this season are the best example and how anyone could argue against this when it's the choice of Denmark or San Marino, I don't know!!

Of the three regions, the northern one has to be the weakest and any seed not progressing should be banned from future competition!!! There is a massive difference in the top of the northern region to the bottom. Pats, the top unseeded team couldn't live with the top seed.

How anyone can say that it makes little difference just makes me laugh.

Getting seeded and earning more points against weaker sides is key to making progress up the UEFA charts. Thats what every other country has managed. It was just making that initial breakthrough by winning a few games as unseeds that we needed.

One last point..
Yes I'd rather we played against weak teams like Armenia/Asia than Denmark/Europe. Give me the seeded position every time as logic shows us that you will be drawn against weaker opposition.

[Cymro]

If you actually view the results from seeds v unseeds you'll see that the seeded side comes out on top most of the time.

There is a clear advantage in drawing a seed or an unseeded side. Pats and Drogheda this season are the best example and how anyone could argue against this when it's the choice of Denmark or San Marino, I don't know!!

Of the three regions, the northern one has to be the weakest and any seed not progressing should be banned from future competition!!! There is a massive difference in the top of the northern region to the bottom. Pats, the top unseeded team couldn't live with the top seed.

How anyone can say that it makes little difference just makes me laugh.

Getting seeded and earning more points against weaker sides is key to making progress up the UEFA charts. Thats what every other country has managed. It was just making that initial breakthrough by winning a few games as unseeds that we needed.

One last point..
Yes I'd rather we played against weak teams like Armenia/Asia than Denmark/Europe. Give me the seeded position every time as logic shows us that you will be drawn against weaker opposition.

It's my opinion. Personally I really don't feel a trip to Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden etc (places Irish sides have won in the last few years just to put in terms you can relate to) is a harder task than, or even as daunting as, a trip to the farthest reaches of Eastern Europe/West Asia. Derry can beat Gothenburg but not Pyunik, for example. You can easily get a trip to Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan or Armenia if you're seeded and I think results have shown that sides from the UK and Ireland generally do better against the seeded countries I mentioned than the unseeded ones.

I really don't think you give these sides I mentioned from eastern Europe enough credit. They may not be spectacular but are good at what they do and are very tough to beat.

So if now we're agreed that more or less half of the non-seeded trips are just as hard as the seeded ones (as logic would tell you) that more or less covers 40% of the 80% I have described.

The remaining half of my 80% are teams who are not unsimilar in terms of ability. Compare say, Slovakian sides against Montenegrins (who won't be seeded for a few years yet), Slovenians against Estonians (Levadia pushed Red Star very close the other day in the CLQR2) and Macedonians against, say, Welsh. If you had to choose out of those countries, would you be that much more confident of beating the non-seeds than the seeds? I doubt it.

So to sum up, yes, if you were to take the most extreme possible outcomes from the seeded and unseeded half of the draw there is a substantial difference between being seeded and unseeded. However, my point it that the majority of the time you don't get those extremes. Trying to compare St Patricks and Drogheda this year is a perfect example of two absolute extremes of the draw.

And yes, the UEFA Cup is slightly different and seeding is generally more important than in the Champions' League, because you have more nations entering at the first round, and therefore, some really good European leagues are put in the seeded side making it harder to progress. In the Champions' League, being seeded or unseeded is really not that important. The champions of Norway, Denmark and Sweden aren't involved and the draw is not regionalised so you can draw a team from Eastern Europe with higher probability.

[bennocelt]

cyrmo, did you actually see that armenian team that beat Derry?

I did and i thought they were rubbish, and derry should have beat them

[Cymro]

I didn't no, but I listened to radio commentary of the leg in Northern Ireland and their opinion seemed to be that Pyunik were killing the game well, even if they lacked a bit going forward.

Not being sensational in attack is not the same as being a poor side, no doubt they played for a draw in Derry and obviously they won the leg in Armenia and progressed.

In all honesty I don't think sides from the far reaches of Eastern Europe are actually brilliant sides but they are very tough to beat over two legs as results this year show. Armenia got two sides through, Kazakhstan got two sides through, Azerbaijan got one through and Belarus got at least one through (and they are still in the CL at the third qualifying stage). Whether this is because of their ability, or the difficulty of adapting to the atmosphere over in Eastern Europe is debateable but the point still stands. Personally if Swansea were in Europe and you asked me where I'd want us going in the first round, Lithuania or Kazkhstan, I know which I'd choose......

[pete]

I accept there is a considerable amount of luck in the CL draw even if you are seeded but I believe if Derry were not in rubbish form they would have beaten the Armenians. The fact remains if you are unseeded there are no easy draws. Even if Welsh teams are excluded there are at least 5 easy unseeded teams to draw that Longford (only selected because they last in the Premier) would even beat.

As said by numerous posters here there is a massive difference in seeding for the Uefa Cup. Its pointless trying to explain as it is so obvious. :rolleyes:

[Cymro]

I accept there is a considerable amount of luck in the CL draw even if you are seeded but I believe if Derry were not in rubbish form they would have beaten the Armenians. The fact remains if you are unseeded there are no easy draws. Even if Welsh teams are excluded there are at least 5 easy unseeded teams to draw that Longford (only selected because they last in the Premier) would even beat.

As said by numerous posters here there is a massive difference in seeding for the Uefa Cup. Its pointless trying to explain as it is so obvious. :rolleyes:

How can you possibly say for certain that Longford would beat those teams. That's an unbelievably arrogant assumption based purely on where these teams come from. Even your own champions elect couldn't beat the San marino side away from home, so how would your league's bottom side fare? I'd imagine it would be rather close over the two legs, myself....

Also, there are no easy draws if you are unseeded, but likewise there are very few 'easy' draws if you are seeded, also. The 'easy' draws are maybe Malta, San Marino and Andorra (although saying that Shelbourne lost to a Maltese side once). The others are all capable of upsetting the applecart.

As for Derry and the Armenian side that's speculative. They may have won it on another day, they may have not. I can't honestly comment on that, but that is entirely speculative. Who's to say Pyunik weren't at their best also?

I think we more or less agree on the whole now, but I still think we differ on the standard of the lower-ranked teams.

[higgins]

Cymro, I think your making stuff up now.
You say all of the above and it turns out you didn't see the Derry game ? You give the example of Derry last season and this season and come out with regions of europe being better to play in. Go back through the results over the last few seasons of seeds and unseeds and come back with some facts for your argument. It's your opinion yes but your not making a very good argument, to me at least.

It's easier to go to Wales than it is Armenia but seeds are seeded for a reason. That reason is they have won plenty of games over the 5 years and are stronger than other nations in the first round. If Armenia are still bottom half of the unseeds yet it's a tough place to go then I suggest the teams are useless.

If these places were so difficult to get results then do you not think these sides would be now seeded sue to all the teams who they got results against ???
I really can't see what you're on about.

Being Seeded is an advantage and I give up if you can't see that. By your logic the Welsh teams should be doing great!!

[pete]

33 Lithuania 0.833 2.500 1.333 1.833 1.500 7.999
34 Moldova 1.500 1.500 1.666 1.500 1.333 7.499
35 Ireland 0.333 1.333 1.833 2.833 1.000 7.332
36 Iceland 0.500 2.500 0.833 1.000 1.166 5.999
...
..
.
46 Northern Ireland 0.500 0.666 0.500 0.166 0.500 2.332
47 Wales 0.333 0.000 0.666 0.666 0.666 2.331


A Drogs draw in 2 weeks gets to joint 34th & a win puts into 34th on our own.

Seeding for Drogs gave the eL .500 due to easy draw against San Marino team.

[ColinR]

Seeding for Drogs gave the eL .500 due to easy draw against San Marino team.

the seeding only gave the eL the .5 if you assume that we would have been knocked out in the first round if we were unseeded. seeing as we were unseeded and got through last year, that is not an automatic assumption that you should make.

[pete]

the seeding only gave the eL the .5 if you assume that we would have been knocked out in the first round if we were unseeded. seeing as we were unseeded and got through last year, that is not an automatic assumption that you should make.

Lets suggest 0.333 so as ye could got hard draw like Pats. Will give you a draw at home just like them ;)

Whatever way you look at ranking points could have a lot worse this season.

[Steve Bruce]

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.

Cork were unlucky to go out, Pats got a tough draw and would probably be in europe still had they not drawn Odense.

Drogheda are still in eurpe and imo will go through to the next round

If Linfield never got Elfsberg we might be still in teh competition.

If Dungannon never got their opponents they might still be in the competition

If my Granny had balls.................

No point in ifs and buts, the reality is the results that have been presented to us after 180 minutes of play.

[pineapple stu]

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.
Silly post. The only reason they would have had a good side is because they were losing over a million a year while slowly killing themselves. There's no point looking to Shels as a standard for the league.

[dcfcsteve]

If Linfield never got Elfsberg we might be still in teh competition.

If Dungannon never got their opponents they might still be in the competition

If my Granny had balls.................

No point in ifs and buts, the reality is the results that have been presented to us after 180 minutes of play.

And the results say the Irish League is way behind the Eircom league, and barely a spit above the Welsh.

You being a lover of the results will have to agree with what the coefficients say (even though you'll grasp onto your Setanta straws....)

[DmanDmythDledge]

Finish the season in 35th place. Before next season begins we jump up to 32nd.

[dcfcsteve]

Finish the season in 35th place. Before next season begins we jump up to 32nd.

Eh ? Are you saying we'll be ranked 32nd come the end of the European season (i.e. May 2008) - up 3 spots form 35th ? Not sure what you mean by finishing in one place and then jumping up after that.

[Dodge]

Each season has a ranking (ours is 35th for this current season)

The co-ef is based on the last five years, not just this one

[dcfcsteve]

Each season has a ranking (ours is 35th for this current season)

The co-ef is based on the last five years, not just this one

I get all that. So is the basic story that we're guaranteed 32nd ranking from next season ? If so - decent progress given how average our European results actually were overall. Looks like we are still shifting in the right direction then.

[davidatrb]

I get all that. So is the basic story that we're guaranteed 32nd ranking from next season ? If so - decent progress given how average our European results actually were overall. Looks like we are still shifting in the right direction then.

A bit confusing. But I think I see what he means. When the 0.333 drops off after next season begins, then we will be up to 32nd.

So we are 35th now - http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2008.html

And next season start at 32nd -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/data/method3/crank2009.html

[DaveyCakes]

Pity the results couldn't have been a bit better this season, could have pushed us up another place or two

[Dodge]

Pity the results couldn't have been a bit better this season, could have pushed us up another place or two

Aye, and if Pats or Drogs hadn't have drawn at home to vastly superior teams it could've been worse