Am generally in favour of the principle, just much smaller groups...with less games/football.
13 extra games in two years is about 5 too many IMO.
Printable View
Am generally in favour of the principle, just much smaller groups...with less games/football.
13 extra games in two years is about 5 too many IMO.
There are no extra games being proposed.
If you strip out all the needless friendlies and scratch out all the teams that Ardee doesn't consider to be real countries, we'd only have about one game a year.
Hardly. Since when did 4=1?
And not about extra games. We play far too many already.
Four friendlies/NL games per calendar year is more than enough.
How did you arrive at this magic figure?
By the fact have been to more sh*t internationals than I care to remember. How about you?
Clearly you think everything UEFA/FIFA propose is wonderful?
It isn't and they're not.
So the number of games a team should play has a direct relation to the number of games you're willing to watch?
Nothing to do with - ooh, let's say - what the manager wants? Or what the FAI (and their coffers) want?
Right you are so.
Yeah but what algorithm do you use? Do you notice by the fifth game of a season the quality drops, or are they just half as good?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
I didn't say that(nothing to do with me or most fans for that matter), but most clubs/players want there to be less international football...so where do you fit say more than ten games into an increasingly congested calendar?
Right you are so, indeed.
Well UEFA certainly isn't going to reduce the amount of games nations play overall, not if they can help it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Has somebody suggested playing 10 of these games a year? Or do you mean over two years, when we play around 12 friendlies anyway?
I don't use any, but even you must be familiar with the adage 'quantity over quality'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
:rolleyes:
They will if the clubs ask...the CL is their ultimate baby.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
So you reckon scratch teams play better when they have less playing time together?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
So, why haven't they already?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Maybe many of those internationals were crap because they lacked context? Or because we have been crap? That's the whole idea though, to have better and more meaningful games.
But I do have an open mind on the number of games we play. In general if we're winning I like them more! The August friendly was ridiculous, in particular. And most friendlies under Trap were snooze fests, but under Jack, Mick and Kerr I couldn't get enough of them.
Actually, you did. "Four friendlies/NL games per calendar year is more than enough", you said, and when asked to back this up, you said "By the fact have been to more sh*t internationals than I care to remember."Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Back on topic, presumably the time around now - the first half of even-numbered years, when there aren't any qualifiers left - would see more games than other times. Again, not a bad idea. Probably the plan is to scrap the playoffs (when most countries play friendlies) and free up another international date there as well.
the CL is run by UEFA. The clubs have a strong voice at UEFA via the European Club Association. UEFA made concessions to ECA on international dates and windows and injury compensation etc. I believe further change to the qualification calendar is being discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
There will be a compromise but there is a limit as to how much influence the clubs can wield and both "sides" have just extended their cooperation agreement.
I think we may see something like the rugby calendar with distinct blocks of dates bunched together for internationals (rugby has November, spring and end-season. Is there a pre-season date too?) and uninterrupted runs for club competition. I'm not sure we'll necessarily see a reduction in international games though.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. The rugby clubs don't like the blocks because it's a long stretch without a home gate, hence why there are off-weeks in the Six Nations. Having said that, soccer players can play twice as many games as rugby players so the windows wouldn't have to be so long, plus the big clubs are a lot less reliant on matchday income.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
(There's no pre-season date, except when the World Cup is played.)
Martin Samuel in today's Mail would beg to differ:)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/art...esnt-care.html
Funny how he missed the bit about the new nations League though.
I think Samuel is a good writer but he is an unashamed apologist for all the EPL's extravagant excess and hence sees UEFA as an interfering foreigner. He's almost like the Nigel Farage of English football. Not to mention that his antipathy towards Platini seems personal.
I was a bit sketchy before Stutts, but now that I know Samuel doesn't agree I'm sure!
I don't think his article contradicts what I said though. You can see why Platini would like a block of time where all the focus is on international football, but the clubs needed coaxing to get on side.
My spirit has been broken on this forum in recent weeks. I haven't the strength to argue.
Nice misinterpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
;)
'Scratch teams', like who?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
All sportspeople are more inclined to perform less well if tired...
International teams are scratch teams. They play together for like 5% of the season. Who said they were tired?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
You implied they play less well...
International Heritage XI did OK in my recollection. Lack of talent rather than tiredness was the limiting factor though.
Hah, that was only when we had 'scratch' teams...
;)
I just got back from a long weekend betting college basketball 12 hours a day in Vegas. Maybe you should ask Tets or POSH to fly you out there so you can recharge your batteries with a nice massage. When was the last time you frolicked in the spring mist? Not since you went to Sweden last year I would bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Anyway, away from the surrealism, UEFA has approved the new tourney but details are still to be finalised.
I'd like to see similar thought given to European club competition, making it more inclusive of lesser nations.
I think at times Platini has done a good job as president of UEFA.
He has introduced the champions route to qualifying for the champions league which has seen a Cypriot team into the quarter finals and teams competing from countries like Belarus, Denmark and Scotland that otherwise may not have been able to qualify in the previous structure.
This week long festival of football is really going to be great for football fans when it comes to qualifiers. Personally I can't wait to be able to attend an Ireland match and maybe see Germany/Spain/Italy etc on the night we are not playing.
And now this league of nations tournament to replace some of the God awful friendlies we have to put up with currently, id scrap the idea of offering places at tournaments for the lower tiers - let the tournament stand on its own too feet, I think the carrott of playing at the highest level possible will be motivation enough for teams.
This new tournmament isn't more inclusive of lesser nations. It's a way for big teams to play more games against big teams. Nothing moreQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Does anyone remember when the camera fixed in on hodgson when managing liverpool when he scratched his arse and then sniffed his hand?
And also less opportunity for glamour ties for smaller nations or for smaller nations to play bigger teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
But big teams play big teams in friendlies as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Do the smaller nations actually get glamour friendlies anyway though? They're few and far between from what I've noticed.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Within space of about 15 months Ireland will have played Italy, Spain and England in friendlies. If those countries are limited to the amount of frinedlies, they play those opportunities will dry upQuote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Are we not a bit of an extreme case? We get these 'glamour' games because of our diaspora more than anything else. It's a long time since we've brought a top team to Lansdowne for a friendly but I reckon we'll always have the opportunity to play these types of games in the States or wherever.
We'll have England next year. The games outside of Ireland has more to do with the companies selling the rights than the diaspora - we could sell any of these games out in Dublin. We'd play Spain in Papua New Guinea if the maths worked out.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
It's easy to summarise it in a cynical soundbite but it has real relevance for countries like us: it replaces meaningless friendlies with meaningful competitive matches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Yeah, fair enough. I just don't think there's much we're losing by the new format. I think there's a bit of nit-picking going on. An England friendly will always be a possibility due to geography and so on. If the occasional (and forgettable) friendly against Spain at 1am is all we have to sacrifice then I'm in!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Your post wasQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I don't see how separating nations based on coefficients is doing anything to make international football more "inclusive"Quote:
I'd like to see similar thought given to European club competition, making it more inclusive of lesser nations
At least in the club game there is a possibility of smaller clubs playing big clubs