In calculating the best runner up - do all games count in a 5 team group? i.e. it is only the 6 team groups that have to discount the results against the bottom team?Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
Printable View
In calculating the best runner up - do all games count in a 5 team group? i.e. it is only the 6 team groups that have to discount the results against the bottom team?Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
Yes only the results of the 6th team from 6 team groups is discounted. Liechtenstein are by far the weakest 5th seeds so would be a fantastic draw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Junior
Zero baring on who we'd get but if timeframe had an impact, we're due England (or Spain)!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever
The last time we featured in a group with (Off top of head):
Spain - 1994 WC Quals
Germany - 2008 EC Quals
Holland - 2002 WC Quals
Italy - 2010 WC Quals
England - 1992 EC Quals
Croatia - 1998 WC Quals
Portugal - 2002 WC Quals
France - 2010 WC Quals
Russia - 2004 EC Quals?
we had romania in WC 1998 quals, and croatia and yugoslavia in 2000 EC qualsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wolfie
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
That travel group isn't very travel friendly. We'd need a few neighbouring countries in central/Eastern Europe for that. Similiar to Latvia/Lithuania in WC'94, and Germany/Czech/Slovaks for the last Euros, and a 6-team group preferably.
Our last group was certainly not travel friendly, the closest visit pre-Georgian war was in Bari, Montenegro isn't great either, Cyprus is another long haul nightmare.
No Kazachstan please. There's a recession on.
If we are lucky enough to get a travel-friendly group, I hope the FAI negotiate double-header away weeks, and not the Home-Away-Home stuff that Kerr loved.
What's travel friendly got to do with it? They're five interesting places to visit. You sound like you'd be happiest with a group with England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the North.
...........Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Neighbouring contries also don't necessarily make a good group. Yes, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia would be fun, but very samey. Broaden your horizons, mypost.
The ease of travelling counts as much as the interest in different places.
I'm sure Tbilisi would have been very interesting, but who wants to go there under threat of war? Who wants to need visas for going to Bela/Russia, and Kazachstan?
Israel is a fascinating country too, but only a few went over when we played there. More might have gone if we had played them and Cyprus away in the same week, instead of 6 months apart.
Where did I mention anything about war?
I'm sorry if everything needs to be nice and easy for you, mypost. Lord knows, a visa is a tremendously difficult thing to get. As I said, broaden your mind.
(And as I recall, there were a few thousand in Israel)
so if you don't mention war, then it won't happen/isn't a threat?Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
most ireland fans can't afford to travel / would have some family members wary of travelling this far afield (Kazakhstan / Israel).
The best group for qualifying would be a five team group, with varied, but close/easy to get to and cheap destinations.
There are some real snobs on here who value there own cultural experience above the ease for other irish fans in getting to the games.
If I want culture, I'll get it on a separate holiday. If I want a loads of craic, a great atmosphere, and result, i'll go to a well-attended ireland away.
mind - don't expect everyone to have an unlimited pot of cash with which to be able to fly to Kazakhstan and Moscow.
If a war breaks out in any country, then obviously it's off my away trip list. But you can't go around worrying about whether a war will break out somewhere just because it's someplace that you have a dodgy stereotype of. The war element was a silly point mypost raised, and I've no problem dismissing it as such. Show me which of the countries I mentioned are likely to have a war soon?
LOL at your pathetic definition of snobs by the way. How dare I, while listing the draw I'd like to see us get, consider only what I want out of an away trip. And you can quite easily combine a cultural trip with an Ireland game, unless you think an Ireland away game means going to a foreign city to drink yourself silly in an Irish pub for four days solid.
And the best Ireland away games I've been at have been the smaller ones (thinking the Faroes in particular) without thousands of barstoolers.
and a "LOL" to you too, at your pathetic redefining of my enjoyment of "craic and atmosphere, and hopefully result" as being - "getting ****ed in an irish bar for four days".Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
on the contrary, i can rarely afford to take four days off work. so, it's usually an in and out job for me, so, in all fairness i'll take the convenient aways.
and you missed my point re: amount of fans having an effect on result.
france - loads of fans, maybe even some barstoolers, played a top seed off the park
faroes - difficult to get too, only people who have the time/money to go went. - struggled to beat a mediocre team.
i can enjoy culture on an ireland trip, but often can't afford too, be that money or not being able to take time out of the office.
was not and montenegro or cyprus due to work, went to all the others, and far enjoy the bigger crowds. bar stoolers some may be, but at least there not the "i'm a better fan than you" types that litter this forum.
And you're absolutely entitled to do so in your own "Who do you want to draw?" post. I posted who I wanted to draw, and mypost's comments directly on my group were nonsense (as were your comments on war and "snobs" who "who value there [sic] own cultural experience above the ease for other irish fans in getting to the games")Quote:
Originally Posted by magnumpi
That the one where the flights were diverted to Norway, where even the team couldn't get out of there after the game? The Swiss goalkeeper said after his team's visit there the weekend before, that he couldn't wait to leave this "god awful place".Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Several countries are dodgy to travel. London is under permanent Islamic terrorism alert, Chechen rebels like the odd bomb or two in Russia, Israel is off limits due to the political violence, which can flare up at any time. Belarus requires visas, and everyone knows from last time, how difficult Russia is. Just 6 weeks after the trip to Moscow, the theatre hostage took place. It could have easily been us targeted instead.
Norn Iron potentially got a wonderful travelling group last time, only to make a mess of their fixture timing. That's the kind of group I'd be looking for, though if others want to dodge bombs and bullets in places off the beaten track, good luck to them. Each to their own.
If you want to dodge bombs and bullets, then avoid horrible places like London or places which require visas? FFS. And although I didn't go, all the reports I heard indicated that the Israel away game was one of the best in recent years.
Again, show me which of the countries in my preferred group would be liable to have a war?
And I got in and out of the Faroes just grand; don't understand this mentality of fly in three hours before a match and fly out straight after. Stunning place, but you seem too happy to have others make your mind up for you as per usual.
That sounds like an ideal trip TBH, after watching the prog on Kerr, the Faroes looks like a beautiful place to visitQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
yes, about 2,000 in Israel. Great trip in many ways but the stadium was apallingQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnumpi
Israel was not an expensive trip, hotels were very reasonable, pubs cheap etc I would class the recent French game as expensive as the last Israel game if you add the 3 days spending to the price of the trip.
I want to suport my team all else is a bonus, and normally you get culture and a great athmosphere no matter if its Aarhus with 300 or PAris 30,000 as in 04.
To fly to Moscow return next March with Aer Baltic is €266 inc taxes,
The ideal group is one we can win, with hopefully a few nice trips thrown in for good measure.
We had at least 3,000 in Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
The entrance/exit to the stadium was poor but not a bad stadium and a great atmosphere.
It was a great trip.
My preference would be;
Croatia,
Sweden,
Latvia,
Estonia,
Luxembourg.
Croatia based on their recent qualification campaign seem the weakest of the top seeds.
I think Sweden (possibly Slovakia) are the weakest of the second seeds. Sweden have just changed manager and it doesn't seem like things are rosy. Zlatan Ibrahimovic, who I personally believe is on another level to all of the players they have at their disposal, has opted out of international football for the time being and doesn't seem all that pushed about playing for Sweden again.
On current form Slovakia should be a first seed. They managed almost double Romania's points in qualifying (22 to 12).Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
PS I see a claim the draw will be fixed to separate our various chums in the Kavkaz region (might be a spoof, possibly?)...
http://www.news.az/articles/4359
that was one of my points. group of 5 - best chance of topping the group, hope for a few nice aways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greenforever
is that true about Armenia and Azerbaijan not playing each other because they couldn't agree on a venue??
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnumpi
I read somewhere that it's already been decided they won't get each other for the 2012 qualifiers. Same for Russia and Georgia
Like the way it was decided Ireland and the North wouldn't be drawn for the 1994 qualifiers?
Group of 6: More home games, more trips, more mistakes allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnumpi
Group of 5: Less home games, less trips, 2 defeats and it's goodnight Warsaw.
Those who think otherwise should remember our 2004 Euro group. No brainer really.
The difference between a 5-taem and a 6-team group is an extra San Marino/Andorra/Luxembourg. If we can't get 6 points off of those, with all respect to them, we don't deserve to qualify. "More mistakes allowed" in a 6-team group is nonsense.
We lost the first two games of the last 5-team group, and didn't recover the ground.
In a 7-team group, you can lose 2 games and compete for qualifying. Except we had Staunton who lost 3, and well that was the end of that.
In a 6-team group, you can afford to draw the games we did last time, and still comfortably secure second spot. The play-off points criteria next time don't matter that much because everyone's guaranteed at least a playoff at worst if they finish in the top 2.
The difference between a 5-team group and a 6-team group this time around is the addition of San Marino or whoever. Anyone looking to qualify will take six points off them, so they're essentially irrelevant and have no bearing on how hard it is to qualify having lost two games.
You're trying to argue that, in a 6-team group, we have a better chance after losing two games because teams may drop points to San Marino, so we can catch up. You're wrong, mypost. Admit it for once.
my argument for wanting a 5 team group is simply that i think we play better against the better teams. where we nearly arsed up this time round was against cyprus/montenegro/georgia...one less of that type of team would be great IMO.
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by magnumpi
Which of these teams -
- would you expect to drop points against? Cos that's what you're saying. If we drop points against any of these (and it's not impossible obviously), we won't be good enough against the better sides anyway.Quote:
Azerbaijan Luxembourg Malta Faroe Islands Andorra San Marino
Edit - by way of an example, here's a random suggested group from earlier in the thread -
Do you think taking out San Marino increases our chances of topping that group? Or do you think having San Marino in it means we can more easily recover from, say, losing away to England and Switzerland? No it doesn't.Quote:
England
Swiss
Ireland
Macedonia
Albania
San Marino
Edit edit - nice change, magnumpi...
i only edited it because i was repeating myself from earlier posts. (and edited before your post, let it be said.)
in any event, i still believe we have a better chance of topping a five team group because there would be one less team to drop points again.
in response to your point, i don't care how mediocre any of those teams are, i saw us struggle to beat a Georgian side at home, the worst if not worst seeded side in our group. i have also seen us struggle to beat San marino away, and that 0-0 against lichenstein. (albeit in past campaigns)
from the list of bottoms seeds, i'd like to avoid - luxembourg (beat Switzerland AWAY) or azerbaijan away -where england only won 1-0 away in a previous campaign. some of the others are gash, granted, but that still doesn't change my stance.
the bottom teams are only potential banana skins, in my opinion, and that's why i'd like a smaller group - only, it has to be said, in this format where all second places get a play-off group. i know it was one of the reasons why Norway missed out on play-offs this time around.
with the right top seeds drawn, really feel we could top a 5 team group.
we are a team who loves to play underdog, we rarely hammer the minnows, so why not want a group with less games.
Quote, "if we drop points to against any of these sides we won' be good enough against the top sides anyway" - perhaps not, altho the swiss qualified notwithstanding the aforementioned result.
if we qualify top spot out of a group of 6 teams, i will be only too delighted to kiss your metaphorical cyber-space based ass in a post of unashamed "you were right, i was wrong" worship.
No you didn't; I couldn't have quoted you otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by magnumpi
Georgia were fifth seeds. Montenegro were the bottom seeds (and unusually good ones at that, as they had no previous rating to go on).Quote:
in response to your point, i don't care how mediocre any of those teams are, i saw us struggle to beat a Georgian side at home, the worst if not worst seeded side in our group.
Given all results against the bottom teams were removed for deciding who missed out on the play-offs, it had nothing to do with Norway missing out. They were comfortably the lowest-scoring runner-up. Even if they'd had a San Marino and gotten six points off them, they'd have been two points adrift of the next lowest runner-up (us). (Your post is kind of hard to understand here, so apologies if I've picked you up wrong).Quote:
Originally Posted by magnumpi
I've addressed your other points, so not going to waste my time repeating them.
And one final thing - there's a shift key on your keyboard. It makes capitals and makes posts so much easier to read. Seriously.
ok,Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
1) i edited it before having seen your post.
2) i know exactly how the seedings worked last time, i said that Georgia were the worst side, "if not" (meaning albeit) the bottom seed. please pick me up on my appalling english and grammar here too, that's what people come on here to read.
3) sorry if the lack of capitals results in my being difficult to read. rest assured you're condescending and arrogant demeanour come across loud and clear.
and you haven't "dealt" with my post before, you've merely stated your own opinion, as have I my own.
Never said anything about San Marino. But not every team that finishes 6th is as bad as San Marino, and most pick up a point or 2 against someone along the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
You can see the sixth seeds for yourself. We've no right being particularly worried about any of them. When Liechtenstein are ranked higher than them all, that says something. And we've a pretty good record against teams like that; we rarely hammer them - in fact, often make a meal of the game - but we usually pick up 2-0 or 3-1 wins; the 0-0 in Vaduz is really the only exception (I'm thinking of the 12 points from 12 in 1994 against Latvia, Lithaunia and Albania, or the 12 from 12 against Andorra and Cyprus in 2002, or even 6 from 6 against San Marino and Malta where we really struggled away but still won both games). I still think you're wrong to say that a 6-team group in this campaign will be in any way easier than a five-team group.