5 Nations Tournament in the summer?

[EalingGreen]

But you're not talking about teams who qualified. You're talking about teams that didn't qualify. With 7 group, there's always going to be a top ranked 3rd seed and a 7th ranked 3rd seed.

I know I'm talking about teams who did/didn't qualify under the system. But any system is designed to produce the best 14 teams to go through to the Finals, and because of the inefficiencies of the draw, it failed to do so - most notably with regard to Scotland (imo)


As it happened at the last draw we were higher ranked than the Scots so it was actually Germany/Czechs who got the harder draw. The fact we underperformed so badly is immaterial

Except the final list of qualifiers isn't determined in one go, on the day the draw is made. Rather, it is determined following 12 matches over the course of 16 months. And whilst I accept that no system can easily allow for this, it must be preferable that a Finals tournament taking place in 2008 should comprise the "best" 14 teams at the end of 2007, rather than the "best" teams in mid-2006.

Or, to put it another way, Scotland improved enormously during this period, to overtake other teams which deteriorated, quality-wise, yet this was not reflected very well in the final list of qualifiers.

Anyhow, what's wrong with saying that had Scotland not been unlucky with the Draw, they would most likely have qualified? Whether they "deserved" to is another matter.

[Dodge]

I know I'm talking about teams who did/didn't qualify under the system. But any system is designed to produce the best 14 teams to go through to the Finals, and because of the inefficiencies of the draw, it failed to do so - most notably with regard to Scotland (imo)
I disagree strongly.



Or, to put it another way, Scotland improved enormously during this period, to overtake other teams which deteriorated, quality-wise, yet this was not reflected very well in the final list of qualifiers.
Again, you have absolutely no way of determining if Scotland are more deserving of a polace than, say, Turkey. Its not like American football divisions where teams play teams from other groups. Who's to say that a team who finished 2nd in a group you call easy wouldn't have beaten Scotland home and away. You're dealing in too many imponderables.


Anyhow, what's wrong with saying that had Scotland not been unlucky with the Draw, they would most likely have qualified? Whether they "deserved" to is another matter.
Again I disagree they were unlucky. They were third seeds and were drawn to face two of the higher seeds. Nothing lucky/unlucky about it.

[Ireland4ever]

I know I'm talking about teams who did/didn't qualify under the system. But any system is designed to produce the best 14 teams to go through to the Finals, and because of the inefficiencies of the draw, it failed to do so - most notably with regard to Scotland (imo)



Except the final list of qualifiers isn't determined in one go, on the day the draw is made. Rather, it is determined following 12 matches over the course of 16 months. And whilst I accept that no system can easily allow for this, it must be preferable that a Finals tournament taking place in 2008 should comprise the "best" 14 teams at the end of 2007, rather than the "best" teams in mid-2006.

Or, to put it another way, Scotland improved enormously during this period, to overtake other teams which deteriorated, quality-wise, yet this was not reflected very well in the final list of qualifiers.

Anyhow, what's wrong with saying that had Scotland not been unlucky with the Draw, they would most likely have qualified? Whether they "deserved" to is another matter.

is this a wind-up?? If not this is one of the worst set of posts ive seen on this site ever!! How the hell can you argue with groups to determine qualifiers....What do you want, A few spots left over at the end for the 'sympathy vote' for those nations who did well but just not quite good enough?

[eekers]

playing pointless friendlies in the summer, with b teams, will destroy our fifa rankings and seedings even more. there's a whole other thread on it http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=77298

[youngirish]

I'm not bothered about this. I can see us fielding a combination of our U21 and B teams as we have done in the past in our trips to the States. Can't see many of our better Premiership players being bothered to turn up. Of course a new manager could come in and change this casual attitude to end of season friendlies that our players have developed but considering it's been ongoing under the last three managers I don't hold out too much hope.

England will possibly suffer in a similar vein but they have more strength in depth than us to cope.

[Stuttgart88]

Just call them B internationals and then ranking points won't matter?

[Saint Tom]

Can't see many of our better Premiership players being bothered to turn up.

like they did in this qualifying campaign?!

[Fergie's Son]

I count the ROI as a home nation. If that offends you, I.......don't really care. :p

No, seriously, no offence intended.

Whose home? It's more ignorant than offensive. How about countries from the Western European Isles?

[Cymro]

Whose home? It's more ignorant than offensive. How about countries from the Western European Isles?

It's not ignorant, it's a widely used term to describe the British national sides and the ROI together. Called 'home' nations presumably because they were the 'home' of football. I don't know why exactly, but the point is the term is perfectly legitamate.

[Fergie's Son]

It's not ignorant, it's a widely used term to describe the British national sides and the ROI together. Called 'home' nations presumably because they were the 'home' of football. I don't know why exactly, but the point is the term is perfectly legitamate.

On an Irish website devoted to the Irish national team? I don't think so. Put another way, just because the term is used in one country it does not make it "perfectly legitimate" and your saying so doesn't make it the case. I have not heard the term in Ireland and I doubt it's commonality. As such, given the forum and the fact that the ROI is an independent entity, I don't think it's an appropriate term.

[Cymro]

sigh. I made it pretty clear that I didn't intend to cause offence in my earlier posts, so if you do take offence to such a broad term (used semi-seriously) you are being pedantic at best and pathetic at worst.

Iechyd da.

[Stuttgart88]

Much ado about nothing, Cymro's a decent guy. We are not a home nation but my only interpretation of Cymro's error is that as a close geographic and cultural neighbour he sees us differently than he would, say, Spain. Fair enough.


PS: Fergie, you still have my VHS?

[Dodge]

It's not ignorant, it's a widely used term to describe the British national sides and the ROI together... but the point is the term is perfectly legitamate.
it is not widely used anywhere outside of the United Kingdom. And you know pretty damn well its not used here otherwise you wouldn't have put the line "If that offends you, I.......don't really care" in. We know you were kidding, but some are most sensitive than others on this forum so to keep the peace, don't refer to ROI side as a home nation here

[Cymro]

Alright, I won't use it anymore. I don't really understand why you don't like the term though. It's not as if it means you're British or anything, and that wasn't implied in what I said either.

[eekers]

surely from an irish point of view, ireland is the only home nation! :)
though perhaps norn iron too