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.
Printable View
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.
OK - thanks Stu.
PAOK even brought a small singing section over from Theasalonoki when we played them in the underQuote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
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)
Any word on when the Bohs european tickets will be on general sale ?
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
That's a pretty low bar there, to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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 -
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.)Quote:
It's hard not to think that results like this really put the lie to those who say the league is steadily improving.
From Bohs statement earlier; expect confirmation tomorrow, Tuesday.Quote:
Originally Posted by D24Saint
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohemians
No away fans allowed so no paok fans will travel. Some locals might buy tickets I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
I don't go for all that love in/links horse€hit, DR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by placid casual
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalymountrower
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
You are including the inter-toto results? So your dataset is inherently flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 -
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
Curiously anyone know why Bohs get the nod to use the Aviva but not Rovers or even Dundalk ?
Did either of them ask?
I'd say Rovers probably not interested and Dundalk had a bit of a falling out over the Aviva last season didn't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nah Nah Nah Nah
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
So Pats really can claim preseaon victory?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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 isQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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
You said the number of wins is falling.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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.
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'?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
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?
Sigh. I've actually pointed out that our ranking has fallen from 29th to 46th as well. I'm including lots of factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
Ok so that's not an 'absolute co-efficient' that's one for a single year. It basically means that if there were three teams that year then 3 wins or 6 draws or some some combination of the two was achieved. And similarly 4 win or 8 draws for 4 teams. And this can be used to compare years. An absolute co-efficient would be comparing the 5 year cumulative totals, this would make no sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The second bit is also a nonsense, as the co-efficient is the co-efficient and as you have been so keen to point out the rules changed for everyone. Without looking at the actual results year by year you cannot categorically state that because of new rules this year is now unequal to a previous similar value - the champions may not have even got a draw however many bites of the cherry they got.
I remain unable to square the circle of the the co-efficient can't account for second bites of the cherry, but it's fine for you to count them in your tally?
Yet you continue to brush aside inconvenient facts, like the reason for the drop this year as irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The comparission is apt, inculding the intertoto skews your results. It had no bearing on the rankings, and given the limited pool of opposition likely accounts for a inordinate amount of wins against 'decent teams'.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Give over, you can dress it whatever way you want but fewer wins isn't a stat, it's cop out in a headline. So I'll repeat the point - fewer wins is not the same as more losses, absent occurrences it's meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
And maybe you could do me the courtesy of not cherry picking which points you reply to?
So allowing for the drop in ranking, have you adjusted your definition of 'decent opposition'? Or is it inflexible too?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
First off, I know how the coefficient (and the InterToto) works, so you can drop the patronising explanations when you're ready.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
It is an absolute co-efficient because it's just the number of the coefficient with no context, and I've shown why a number in one year isn't necessarily comparable to the same number in a different year (but surprisingly enough, you've completely ignored that). I absolutely can state that 1.875 in 2020/01 is not comparable to 1.875 in a previous year because Dundalk would not have gotten those extra three rounds pre 2016.
I know InterToto games aren't included in the rankings, and have never stated that they are. However, they absolutely are European games, and it is valid to include them for the purposes of counting decent European wins. I've already explained that this makes sense when trying to keep the comparison valid (ie there's four teams throughout the comparison period). Once again, read my ****ing posts please. It's getting very annoying when it's clear you don't know what point you're trying to argue against.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
Of course "fewer wins" is a statistic. How on earth is it not? And I've never said fewer wins is the same as more losses.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
I'm under no obligation to reply to every single part of your posts - I'm ignoring the repetition or the outwardly bizarre (such as the Donald Trump stuff) for something approaching brevity.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
No, my definition of decent teams has been the exact same since I first mentioned it, in the post that you've evidently not read.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
Oh, and for other posters, I have reported my own posts and requested that they be split, cos I know multi-replies are frustrating and I didn't intend this to be clogging up the entire thread...
It's an interesting debate to be fair. I think there's enough to suggest that when clubs were widely spending far beyond their means and accumulating huge debts there was a high point in terms of quality in the league. I also thing there's been improvements again in recent years and that there is at least some sense of more stability which should hopefully lead to measurable long term improvement.
Licensing, while flawed, seems to have at least prevented the massive debt building that was happening in the noughties and even if a club is struggling that means there's still a chance it survives and maintains a positive presence in its community.
The big busts of the past alienated a lot of suppliers and local communities but hopefully we're beyond that. The underage leagues might be straining finances in the short term, but long term they should be producing a better caliber of player and facilitating a professional career path within the league.
Brexit can't harm that, although the lack of professional coaches, contact time with players etc. needs to be addressed urgently by the clubs/FAI. If that means further regional academies where the elite levels can be brought in for additional training beyond the clubs then that should be what happens.
There's definitely better stability and better long-term planning, for sure. You look at the amount of money wasted by Shels, Bohs, Drogheda - well, pretty much everyone (except UCD :) ) in the 00s and only in the past couple of years have we now got underage academies (subject to the problems you've noted), while ground improvements lag way behind the rest of Europe (was it here someone posted a chart showing we were the only country in Europe without a single new league ground built in the last ten years?)
But I think on the pitch in the here and now, we're still going backwards a bit - not helped of course by €100k being diverted from every first-team and into the four underage squads. That's a good investment of course, but it has to have an impact on the senior set-up. I'd presume we were one of the only leagues in Europe without any sort of proper underage structure attached to our senior teams until UEFA forced it through?
I agree, Ive enjoyed the bit of toing and froing, reasoned discussion. Maybe creeping off 'LoI in Europe 2021' drop the 2021 and its all good lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by passinginterest
8000 is a realistic amount I think, 10 would have been great but the novelty factor would have worn off after last week
https://m.independent.ie/sport/socce...-40674118.html
Was hoping that they might get 10 or 12k but at least with 8k it's likely to be another sell out and there'll still be some sense of exclusivity around it.
Wonder will it take much more than 24hours to sell out this time? I'm guessing members are expected to take up what 1000 or 2000+ tickets?
Will be interesting to see if any sort of novelty factor does wear off because from the outside looking in it would seem like the Bohemians hype train is just getting going. Could easily be due to parts of the internet being an echo chamber for what I'm interested in but seems like Bohs result and performance got a lot of coverage last week.
...so why not just stop so; or at least move it to another thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
What novelty factor? Live football with a crowd? Bohs in the Aviva? Bohs in Europe? Can't see them not selling out however many tickets they can get their hands on. People are dying to get out for any reason at all and interest hardly wanes the further you go in Europe. They are even more likely to pull in a few neutrals now as well. I'd go if I could. I'd be wearing the famous....er...white and yellow of Dudelange though of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
It's a discussion forum isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidefx
I can't move it to another thread, but I've asked the mods to.
Me too could the FAI organise a cough cough "neutral zone" :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheotherhand
[QUOTE=pineapple stu;2082182]There's definitely better stability and better long-term planning, for sure. You look at the amount of money wasted by Shels, Bohs, Drogheda - well, pretty much everyone (except UCD :) ) in the 00s and only in the past couple of years have we now got underage academies (subject to the problems you've noted), while ground improvements lag way behind the rest of Europe (was it here someone posted a chart showing we were the only country in Europe without a single new league ground built in the last ten years? QUOTE )
You can hardly say the money was 'wasted' by Drogheda. It brought the FAI Cup to the club in 2005 and the league title two years later. Considering the only trophy the club had won previously was the League Cup in 1984, these victories brought immense joy to thousands of Drogs fans. Sure, things went haywire a few years later, but no-one saw the financial collapse of 2008 coming in 2007. Anyway, the club's fans rallied and the club didn't go under.
At the start of a season fans don't think 'this will be a great year if we balance the budget', they want success on the field. Hopes and dreams and optimism are what drives fans. Football is a risky business. When you hire a new manager and sign new players, you can never guarantee success. No-one in Drogheda will forget the heady days of 2005 and 2007. To win those trophies after decades of failure was truly magical. The money was not 'wasted'.
Surely a cough cough neutral zone is the very definition of isolating and quarantining?;)Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
You may know, you may not, but it's making the point for anyone who else may be interested. Now this next bit may come across as patronizing, because once again you've failed to address how you can just add the second chance games to your tally, but it's problematic having them in the co-efficient? (a function of results of games played)Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
And yet without that very specific context you're unable to pick two random years and say the same thing. Or, for arguments sake, lets say you're right doesn't the same also hold for the era when we had three teams versus when we had four? Or is it suddenly not relevant that it works the same for everyone, regardless of any unique circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
.
If it's not a collection of (hopefully related) numbers (an absolute statistic, if you will) then it's an interpretation of a statistic, which are readily misused and often come with the inferred opposite. I tried illustrating the point, in a non patronizing manner, and you keep brining it up as a form of distraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
So you didn't allow for any period in which those countries may have out ranked us and otherwise fallen into the category of decent result? Once again, subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
In other news, tabulated the results, and happy to share once it's in decent format.
Ignoring non ranking matches, using decades. The rankings changed from year to year
So in the period 00/01 - 09/10
We progress against opponents from a higher ranked country on 16 occasions, and 5 against lower ranked.
We were eliminated by opponents from a higher ranked country on 24 occasions, and 5 times by lower ranked (23 of 24 defeats top 30)
We over came top 20 ranked opponent 2 times, lost 15 times
We over came top 30 ranked opponent 7 times, lost 24 times
And 'decent' (ranked 30-39) 9 times without loss
We started the decade at 41, and finished at 35. So there were more nations above us for the most part.
We rarely troubled teams from nations ranked inside the top 30
exceptions being
Aberdeen
Hadjuk
Djurgarden
Gothenburg
Gretna
Elfsborg
Kryia
Last one of dubious pedregiee, not sure about the russians
In the period 10/11 - 19/20
Progressed against opponents from a higher ranked country on 8 occasions, and 16 against lower ranked
Eliminate by opponents from a higher ranked country on 37 occasions, and 5 by lower ranked. *edit oops technically not eliminated lost the tie (3 times)*
(31 of 37 defeats top 30)
We over came top 20 ranked opponent 0 times, lost 15 times
We over came top30 ranked opponent 6 times, lost 32times
And 'decent' (ranked 30-39) 7 times, losing 15 times
We started the decade at 30, peaked following year at 29, a low of 43 by 15/16 before climbing back into the 30's (just).
Notable scalps
Bnei Yehunda
Partizan (second bite)
Siroki Brijeg
Haken
BATE
Brann
<opinion> I mean I'm not seeing which scalps where there for the taking in the period 16/17 - 19/20 that we were taken before. The Finns? Slovan? We can only beat or be beaten by what's in front of us</opinion>
That's a bit of a stretch tbh. I'd say they'd have been lucky to hit 10k, especially as Dudelange would hardly be a draw for anyone who's not a Bohs or LOI fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by CSAD
All the additional 2,000 are going to end up in the South Stand :DQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
[QUOTE=Straightstory;2082235]There will always be some upside from success. A lot of the club's current fans will probably have first been attracted by that period. It's impossible to not reap SOME longer term benefits from a club doing well.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The point is what is there that is tangible, beyond memories ? Money can buy real things, like assets. If you spend it on players, all you're buying at best is memories. And they don't provide long-term stability, let alone future benefits. .
Did Drogheda lose ownership of United Park to the FAI as a result of the club's excesses too ?
Irish clubs in that era were using their money to fund short-term 'feels', not long-term facilities.
Ya fair enough given the current circumstances people want to be able to do something, but even so with that in mind I couldnt see them selling 20k, what did Dundalk sell for that Legia game 25k?( it wasnt busy in the stand I was in) The official attendance was probably higher, but it definitely didnt feel liike anymore than that. Given what was at the stake and what you've said youd expect that to sell out(one step from group qualificaton)Quote:
Originally Posted by ontheotherhand
Yeah fair. I just think Bohs have a bit of buzz about them and should be able to get 10k in the door for this. I'd be disappointed if Rovers weren't able to do it. But you're right on Dudelange not being much of a household name. I like to think that people are slowly getting sick of the elite levels of football and will start seeing a bit more romance in the local game and ties against interesting European opposition. I see grumblings in my friend groups where lads who once worshipped Man U and the rest are starting to get disillusioned with the Super League nonsense etc. Some of them have taken a shine to LoI clubs. Unfortunately Bohs included. Add that to the country opening up while the EPL is on break and I want to believe we are ripe for a bit of an increase in interest. But......I have a cynic on my other shoulder who says the pubs will be a bigger draw every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea