Euro 2016 Qualifying

I'm very thankful we're second seeds. It's not merely a triviality, nor is my pleasure borne out of some superficial sense of pride. I think it's crucial to have and maintain any advantage over which we can possibly exert some level of control going into the draws, no matter how slight such an advantage might seem. Being second seeds gives us, in theory, a better chance of qualifying, thereby, one would hope, prolonging our position closer to the top. It would be a nightmare to lapse into the perpetual mediocrity of the third or even fourth pots. It can be very difficult to shake off that yoke once you're down. I think Scotland's relative regression or demise post-World Cup '98 is a good example of that. They became stuck in a rut, and I'm not sure they've ever fully recovered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

It's harder to make progress up the UEFA ranking table and it follows that any regression happens slow.Trap was in pot 3 for every qual draw.
Trap's first 2 campaigns were good enough to rise in the UEFA table from 24th to leave us in the lower part of the 2nd pot and the 4 wins in the 3rd campaign were just enough to keep us there.
Getting Montenegro as a 6th seed in the first campaign didn't help though.
Some of the games were forgettable, but it's astonishing just how fast people forget the results or diminish what was earned from the first 2 campaigns.
So much so, that if the new management team from a better vantage point of 2nd seeds, manage to achieve similar to what Trap did in his first 2 campaigns (finish in the top 2), it would be regarded as a major success and achievement by both the FAI and the fans. They would even pass the hat around Lansdowne rd for an extra bonus to top the FAI bonus.

---

But the other side of that seem be that well will be having our recent drop in the ranking affecting out future seedings for along time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

But the other side of that seem be that well will be having our recent drop in the ranking affecting out future seedings for along time.

---

And the other side of that is the team are well placed to recover the lost ground from Trap's last campaign, from the position of 2nd seeds, to get 2 winnable games against 3rd seeds. That should be little problem to a team who are now managed to play an optimum style of football, superior to what Trap managed to get.
Though the standard Trap set for Eur 2012 qual W6 d3 is a tough one to emulate, and the w4 d6 from the first campaign surely would have been a W6 d4 had Montenegro been a bona fide minnow like Andorra. I don't see why we should not be looking at 22 to 24 points in a 6 team group :)

Lucky generals. You can never discount their value.
Greece, ROI, Slovenia, Latvia, Moldova, Luxembourg. Bring it on Michel, bring it on.

Hmm.
Don't share this optimism.
Though these will be the last Finals 'worth' qualifying for...for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

And the other side of that is the team are well placed to recover the lost ground from Trap's last campaign, from the position of 2nd seeds, to get 2 winnable games against 3rd seeds. That should be little problem to a team who are now managed to play an optimum style of football, superior to what Trap managed to get.
Though the standard Trap set for Eur 2012 qual W6 d3 is a tough one to emulate, and the w4 d6 from the first campaign surely would have been a W6 d4 had Montenegro been a bona fide minnow like Andorra. I don't see why we should not be looking at 22 to 24 points in a 6 team group :)

---

Well it just seems to me is we can be second seeds whilst ranked 60th ish there is a considerable lag in the seedings so whilst we might move up the ranking we will probably still down down in the seeding for further tournament, ie the next World cup seedings, we will be at least in pot 3 maybe pot 4!!

However I have to admit all this seeding businesses is a bit of a mystery to me. I mean we were third seeds when we were ranked in the teens or twenties IIRC for the last world cup qualifiers.

However I do not know if it matter too much what seeds you are least not because the seedings are so out of date and secondly the lesser teams
are as much our downfall as the greater one.

Even if we don't make second seeds we would still think we had a shot at runner up.

So the lag in the seeding seems to way too long.

Being ranked 60th in the FIFA ranking means about 31st in the UEFA zone of the FIFA rankings.
A country can go up or down with the speed of an escalator in the FIFA rankings. We were up to 13th in the UEFA zone in June 2012, the results since then have sent us south. A good campaign, just like the first 2 with Trap and performing according to form in friendlies, will send us back up to pot 2 for the next world cup draw.

But of course, we could get a lower points total than Trap managed in the first 2 campaigns and be seriously fecked in the rankings. We could drop points away to the likes of Armenia and Macedonia, teams that Trap could eat for breakfast in the 2nd campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Hmm.
Don't share this optimism.
Though these will be the last Finals 'worth' qualifying for...for a while.

---

It's unlikely they'll ever revert to old or present formats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Well it just seems to me is we can be second seeds whilst ranked 60th ish there is a considerable lag in the seedings so whilst we might move up the ranking we will probably still down down in the seeding for further tournament, ie the next World cup seedings, we will be at least in pot 3 maybe pot 4!!

---

Being in the second pot is obviously preferable to being in the third pot. To claim "the lesser teams are as much our downfall as the greater ones" simply isn't true. Upon what are you basing such a claim exactly? If all teams, great and small, were our downfall, we'd be regularly finishing closer to the bottom of our groups.

The disparity in ability between the teams in the respective pots isn't massive and the merit of one or two sides' positions in the respective pots may indeed be popularly questioned, but, generally, you'd have to fancy our chances more against most of the teams it'll be possible to draw from the third pot (Serbia, Turkey, Slovenia, Israel, Norway, Slovakia, Romania, Austria or Montenegro) than those who we know we'll avoid by virtue of their shared occupation of the second pot with us (Sweden, Denmark, Ukraine, Switzerland, Croatia, Belgium, Czech Republic and Hungary).

If being second seeds can't help us consolidate our position in future second pots due to the continuing influence on future seedings of results that have already been finalised, it can at the very least slow or halt any possible regressive slide, so long as we take advantage of the opportunity with positive results in the forthcoming campaign. Being in the second pot increases our chances of qualification for the finals, which, in turn, can only be of benefit in the long run in terms of staying at the business end of things in future qualification campaigns. Theoretically-speaking, of course; obviously, we have to ensure we make the advantage count first.

Quote:

---

However I have to admit all this seeding businesses is a bit of a mystery to me. I mean we were third seeds when we were ranked in the teens or twenties IIRC for the last world cup qualifiers.

However I do not know if it matter too much what seeds you are least not because the seedings are so out of date and secondly the lesser teams
are as much our downfall as the greater one.

Even if we don't make second seeds we would still think we had a shot at runner up.

So the lag in the seeding seems to way too long.

---

It's not that UEFA's national team co-efficient system is "out of date". The system is simply a lot less capricious than the more unstable or flighty FIFA rankings which see teams shoot up and down rather quickly on the basis of two or three results. The method of calculating the UEFA co-efficient accords greater weighting to results from previous campaigns and helps nullify the impact of what might be regarded as "fluke" or "once-off" results or whatever. I think the UEFA system offers a better reflection of where we really are. Then again, we did make the second pot, so I would say that. Here, knock yourself out: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/...3_DOWNLOAD.pdf :)

I don't know about the UEFA ranking system.
Theoretically (half of it already come to pass) Iceland could draw its 2 games with Croatia in the play offs and drop further down the UEFA table. After one draw already, they have dropped 2 places.
Pre play off, all the credits gained in this campaign were divided by 10, the nr of games played.
Then Iceland go onto the play offs and the total is divided by 12.
They could in theory have a score draw with Croatia on Tuesday, get through to the world cup and slide further down the UEFA table into a lower seeding pot.
The system UEFA have is more designed for an 8 game qual group. For those in a 10 game group, the credits earned for the 2 wins against the minnow 6th seed is offset by dividing everything by 10, the nr of games. The 10 game group just about works exactly as the 8 game group, as long as you beat the 6th seed team.
But if a team gets into the play off, all their credits earned for the qual campaign are divided by another 2 and there are no minnows in the play off, only serious teams get there.
If a team is unfortunate enough to come a cropper in the play off, lose one and draw another, they are punished in the UEFA rankings and will drop 4 or 5 places as all their credits earned in the qual campaign are divided by a greater number of games played.


Another slightly strange thing is that a team gets the approximate equivalent of 0.5 for losing, 1 for a draw and 2 for a win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

IThe method of calculating the UEFA co-efficient accords greater weighting to results from previous campaigns and helps nullify the impact of what might be regarded as "fluke" or "once-off" results or whatever. I think the UEFA system offers a better reflection of where we really are

---

One or two 'fluke' results in eight or 10 qualifiers shouldn't affect the overall standing too much. If a single team has three or four such results, then pretty much by definition they aren't really flukes, just evidence of form changing over time.

Although UEFA's calculation system is a bit better in ignoring friendlies, it still overdoes things in looking at three sets of qualifiers- 30 or more games- to avoid the flukes you mention. An obvious effect of this is that countries enjoying one good qualifying campaign often don't benefit from it in seeding for the next.

Maybe they should do away with the seeding altogether and pick the teams out of a hat, I think that would spice things
up a bit, OK you might get some ridiculously easy and ridiculously hard groups, but I think that would create a lot
of excitement, I think an element of randomness is a good thing, the luck of the draw would even out it the long run.
Would be a bit like the FA cup in way.

Expected seedlings here

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/s...aw-249915.html

Is there much of a difference between pots 2 and 3? There are some tough ones lower down too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

One or two 'fluke' results in eight or 10 qualifiers shouldn't affect the overall standing too much. If a single team has three or four such results, then pretty much by definition they aren't really flukes, just evidence of form changing over time.

Although UEFA's calculation system is a bit better in ignoring friendlies, it still overdoes things in looking at three sets of qualifiers- 30 or more games- to avoid the flukes you mention. An obvious effect of this is that countries enjoying one good qualifying campaign often don't benefit from it in seeding for the next.

---

The first bit is rather stating the obvious, whilst the second bit as explained in the Examiner/Stutts link is quite straightforward. And fair if they don't keep changing the parameters.
Both Ireland and some other team should be grateful it wasn't just these last WCQ's or they'd probably be 4th & 6th seeds respectively!

UEFA's biggest problem is accommodating teams who don't qualify geographically or who are never going to be countries in their own right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Expected seedlings here

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/s...aw-249915.html

Is there much of a difference between pots 2 and 3? There are some tough ones lower down too.

---

I'd say there is a difference, the difference you would expect between 2nd and 3rd seeds. I think atm we could take 4 points of most of those teams in the 3rd pot, in their current form, though Slovenia are a much improved team, Norway are struggling at a low ebb, Austria we know.
The 2nd seeds - i'd say we'd be underdogs against 5 of them, to come out on top over 2 games.

Geysir's probably right, but it ain't going to be any cakewalk. If it was only 16 teams, I'd be highly sceptical we'd qualify but 24 (still a ridiculous no.) teams means even we should squeak through?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Maybe they should do away with the seeding altogether and pick the teams out of a hat, I think that would spice things
up a bit, OK you might get some ridiculously easy and ridiculously hard groups, but I think that would create a lot
of excitement, I think an element of randomness is a good thing, the luck of the draw would even out it the long run.
Would be a bit like the FA cup in way.

---

FIFA/UEFA would never advocate a completely open draw. There'd be too much risk of the big guns (the money-spinners, in other words) missing out with a higher likelihood of sides perceived as less glamourous making finals for the reason you cite. A potential group of, say, Spain, Germany, Italy, Holland, France and England would mean most of those sides not making the finals and we couldn't be having that, could we?

I wouldn't approve of a completely open draw either, to be honest. Seeding makes sense and there is logic behind it; the rationale being that the better you do, the more deserving you are of favour. It also helps ensure the finals themselves are more competitive (and entertaining) with teams of closer or equal ability participating. The chances of mismatches arising the closer teams get to the pinnacle of whichever tournament it is in which they are competing are lessened. That's a good thing, surely.

Well done to Bosnia if they manage to keep first seeding. There's actually not a massive difference between second and third seeds - we'd have fancied Hungary, would be more concerned about Serbia or Turkey - but I'm still glad we're in pot 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

FIFA/UEFA would never advocate a completely open draw. There'd be too much risk of the big guns (the money-spinners, in other words) missing out with a higher likelihood of sides perceived as less glamourous making finals for the reason you cite. A potential group of, say, Spain, Germany, Italy, Holland, France and England would mean most of those sides not making the finals and we couldn't be having that, could we?

I wouldn't approve of a completely open draw either, to be honest. Seeding makes sense and there is logic behind it; the rationale being that the better you do, the more deserving you are of favour. It also helps ensure the finals themselves are more competitive (and entertaining) with teams of closer or equal ability participating. The chances of mismatches arising the closer teams get to the pinnacle of whichever tournament it is in which they are competing are lessened. That's a good thing, surely.

---

Yes we could be having that, why not? The chances of it occurring are very slim, but the interest in the games would be huge.
The group is pretty predictable anyway, Spain and Germany 1 and 2 England last and the rest in the middle.

Miss-matches would be good for FIFA and the advertisers too, they generate a lot of interest.

A Spain German final would only be watched by Spanish and German in the main
but a Spain v Faroe Islands would have everyone tuning in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

A Spain German final would only be watched by Spanish and German in the main
but a Spain v Faroe Islands would have everyone tuning in.

---

Are you drunk? It's not even 4 pm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tricky_colour

Yes we could be having that, why not? The chances of it occurring are very slim, but the interest in the games would be huge.
The group is pretty predictable anyway, Spain and Germany 1 and 2 England last and the rest in the middle.

Miss-matches would be good for FIFA and the advertisers too, they generate a lot of interest.

A Spain German final would only be watched by Spanish and German in the main
but a Spain v Faroe Islands would have everyone tuning in.

---

not sure if serious?

the idea behind qualifying is that per region the best teams get to play in the tournament proper. this is as it should be.

surely 99% of neutrals would rather watch spain v germany rather spain v faroes... i mean you might tune in for 15 mins til spain got their first goal but it would be a low key affair.