Printable View
It's great. I think it has done a lot for the profile of international football. The surprises thrown up in this qualification campaign has also helped.
Looking at the results of both Hungry and Norway from qualifying, it's a surprise that Hungry are now seemingly coasting through.
I've always loved Hungary's kit. Iconic. It'd be great to see them back. The chapter in Jonsthan Wilson's book "Behind the Curtain" paints a pretty grim picture of their domestic governance and structures though. Think ours and multiply it.
They've ridden their luck but they're definitely on their way now, 3-0 on aggregate.
Priskin, who scored tonight, is ex-Ipswich and played against ucd for Slovan in the europa league this year.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Couldn't score against us in either leg, but off to the euros now. Reflects well on us. :-)
Hungary qualified tonight and with that result Ireland (if they qualify - 8/13 on Paddy Power) will be in Pot 4 for the EURO 2016 Group Stage draw. We will face three teams theoretically superior.
So how will the Pots look if Ireland do qualify. Let's make the assumption that both Ukraine and Sweden who are ahead in their ties also qualify.
Pot 1
France (host)
Germany
Spain
England
Portugal
Belgium
Pot 2
Italy
Russia
Switzerland
Austria
Croatia
Ukraine *
Pot 3
Czech Republic
Sweden **
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Hungary
Pot 4
Turkey
Ireland ***
Iceland
Wales
Albania
N. Ireland
* If Slovenia qualify then they join Pot 4. Turkey are promoted to Pot 3 and Czech are promoted to Pot 2.
** If Denmark qualify ahead of Sweden it won't change anything - they will slot into Pot 3 in the swedes place.
*** If Bosnia qualify instead of Ireland then our hearts will break.
Great work David, great to have this kind of info at hand. That seeding actually looks quite fair at a glance. I don't think I'd swap too much around if I was ranking them, maybe put Turkey in Pot 3 instead of Hungary.
The Albanian hooligans will ravage you sweet chaps.
So if we qualify we'll avoid the mighty Iceland. We're practically through already!
NI had a better record in qualifying than all the other pot four teams and many from pots two or three. Austria are still ranked by UEFA below Netherlands.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Hungary had an eight match unbeaten run in a tough group ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
So obviously the rankings are based on more than just this campaign? I'd rate most of the Pot 3 teams as being better than ourselves and yourselves, Hungary excluded possibly and maybe Romania too. I'd still prefer to draw ye than either of those to be honest even though I know ye outperformed both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
UEFA, FIFA, Elo and others all have objective ways of ranking the teams, their results can differ significantly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
NI were rubbish for years and may be so again next June. But at the moment we're the 12th best team in Europe based on qualifying results. It would be arguably just as 'fair' to use them for seeding.
I meant 'fair' as, in my opinion, it seems to accurately reflect the order of the best to worst teams. I'd imagine William Hill and co. would agree for the most part. Just because it would have suited NI better if they only used this qualification campaign to determine seeding, it doesn't make it unfair that they have presumably taken past performance into account also. We could argue that it would be fairer if qualifying for the most recent Euros should carry more weight and we'd jump ahead of a lot of teams, but my point was that whatever system they have used, they seem to have ended up with a very accurate reflection of the standard of the teams that have qualified I think.
We disagree. Points in qualifying most accurately reflect who's bestQuote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
in qualifying, in my opinion. That's why Albania are going and Netherlands aren't.
Broadly, yes. But then bookies odds reflect more than what they think the real probability of a particular outcome is. They follow the punters.Quote:
I'd imagine William Hill and co. would agree for the most part
The country most disadvantaged by UEFA's ranking/ seeding system is currently Iceland. They finished second last time yet were only seeded fifth this. The system disadvantages smaller countries (who are less likely to qualify consistently), basically because UEFA prefers to protect the bigger TV markets.Quote:
Just because it would have suited NI better if they only used this qualification campaign to determine seeding, it doesn't make it unfair that they have presumably taken past performance into account also
See above, I don'r recognise your very accurate reflection. The best to be said of their system is that we all know in advance how its bias works.Quote:
We could argue that it would be fairer if qualifying for the most recent Euros should carry more weight and we'd jump ahead of a lot of teams, but my point was that whatever system they have used, they seem to have ended up with a very accurate reflection of the standard of the teams that have qualified I think
Probably, but surely qualifying consistently should serve a nation well when it comes to seeding? Anyway, Austria and Belgium, for example, are in the top two pots despite not qualifying consistently, or at all in quite a while, so there's obviously a reasonable amount of weight given to recent form also? Italy could feel hard done by maybe to be out of the top seeds seeing as they finished runners up four years ago and have topped their qualification groups since. I find it difficult to see how Belgium would be ranked ahead of them but then, they're somehow the best team in the world also!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Delighted Hungary are in. They're colours remind me of those sticker albums around Italia 90 that had all the golden matches of previous world cups.
I feel Denmark are going to turn Sweden over in Kobenhaven.
Ireland (regarded as cannon fodder) wasn't on our radar anyway for pot 3 opponents, Iceland want Sweden for obvious reasons or Denmark for more obvious reasons. There are greater issues at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
I think only 2014 qualifying results should have been used to seed 2016 qualifying, and only the latter's results to seed the play offs. So that reasonable amount should be 100%, not 40% as present. We probably won't agree on this ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Probably not but I did phrase my initial comment poorly also. All I meant is that the order looks about right in terms of who's best, fairness didn't really come into it becasue I'm not even sure what way the rankings came about :)
The bookie's odds I feel are made up of three things:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
1. Stats, maths, algorithms, distributions, probability theory ...
2. Where the money is at...
3. Some expert opinion or subjective analysis maybe...
Paddypower sometimes releases a breakdown of where the money is at and the odds don't really reflect where the punters money is at all (Man Utd/Liverpool would be favourite to win the Prem every year!). I think 99% of how the football odds are calculated are based on mathematics and is pretty close to a true probability. Some markets where there is not as much stats available (like maiden races for example) might be more driven by where the money is. But in football I dont think they can afford to waiver far off what the true probability is .....
If someone knows more about how the odds are generated then let me know ... I'm interested in the Maths behind.
The system doesn't really disadvantage anyone. The system advantages teams that win games, score goals and progress to the latter stages of the tournaments - i.e. good teams whether big or small.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Its spread over only three campaigns - so its not that you have to be consistently qualifying - just have a decent recent record.
Euro 2012 (incl Qualifying)
World Cup 2014 (incl Qualifying)
Euro 2016 Qualifying.
With oldest campaign weighted at 20% and other two weighted at 40%.
I think its open and every team has the same opportunity to score points. I don't think it ranks teams accurately but this is down to outlyer results, easy groups, limited matches etc. I don't think there is a concerted effort to favour big countries.
How have Iceland been disadvantaged? Because they were 5th seed? They were 5th seed because they had every opportunity that every other country had to win games and qualify for tournaments - but they didn't.
Yes they finished second in the last qualification campaign - but they were awarded just as much ranking points as other teams that finished second like Sweden, Denmark for that campaign. Their problem was the qualifying campaign for Euro 2012 where they only won once.
When you look at it they have only won 12 competitive games in the last 3 campaigns from 30 games, and most of those wins (11) are in the recent campaigns that have the bigger weighting - so the seeding system actually quite suits Iceland at the moment.