UEFA Coefficient

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10/08/2007, 12:35 PM
micls

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

People appear to be getting slightly mixed up with cause and effect again (not for the first time).

Seeding and coefficients in general only reflect how well the League is doing over a defined time period.

The League has generally improved quite a bit, comparatively, over the last few years and this is reflected in the fact that unseeded EL clubs beat and drew with a number of seeded clubs over the past few years. This resulted in the EL clubs becoming seeded (CL) or close to seeded (UEFA).

However, as the coefficients and therefore seedings, work on a 5 year rolling average they will always lag the "realtime" comparative level of the League. This is precisely why Irish teams won when they weren't seeds (the League was comparatively on the up) and conversely why seeded Swedish teams kept losing (their League was on the way down).

Therefore the assumption that seeds are a given to go through is patently ridiculous. The standards of Irish football has dropped this season due to a number of factors and this is reflected in the results (whether this is a blip or a longer term issue will become apparent over the next few years).

Coefficients are fine as long as the limitations are acknowledged, but some people seem to think of them and by extension seedings, as some sort of holy grail.

Never has the phrase "past performance is no guarantee of future return" been more relevant than in this discussion.

Yet surely a poor team who is seeded has a better chance of going through han the same poor team being unseeded.

It is an advantage. If the league is declining you need all the help you can get to progress. being seeded is a big advantage
10/08/2007, 12:39 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by micls

Yet surely a poor team who is seeded has a better chance of going through han the same poor team being unseeded.

It is an advantage. If the league is declining you need all the help you can get to progress. being seeded is a big advantage

Not if you get an unseeded team whose seeding doesn't reflect their current level of play.

Derry v Gothenburg is the prime example.

Seed's realtime level was below their coefficient and unseeded teams level was above their coefficient.

Result, unseeded team wins both legs.

Opposite happened to Derry this season.

Both make a mockery of seedings.
10/08/2007, 12:43 PM
micls

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Not if you get an unseeded team whose seeding doesn't reflect their current level of play..

Of course but you have a far better chance of getting a beatable team. Its not foolproof but it is an advantage
10/08/2007, 12:51 PM
Ceirtlis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cymro

Being seeded/unseeded doesn't actually count for that much in my opinion. There is about a 20% probability of drawing a team from a league that is significantly stronger or weaker than the norm. So essentially that means a 10% chance of drawing either a really strong side or a 'weak' side (not that Drogheda even saw that great a benefit from drawing the lowest ranked side in the draw). Hence my point. 80-90% of european games in the first round will be between two sides of relatively similar ability. And if you're seeded there's a pretty good chance of getting a side from Kazakhstan, Armenia or Azerbaijan, and that is not something you want. Think about it would you prefer a Lithuanian/Latvian/Finnish side to journeys over to, essentially, Asia? I know what I'd rather have and i think the results from this year back that up.

The main reason for coefficients is basically bragging rights over other leagues and a yardstick for how your league measures up, until you get to the stage where entering at the second round is a possibility, and realistically that may never happen for Irish sides, or at least not for several years yet.

Teams from the Baltic nations are pish in general and anyone from Ireland/N Ireland/Wales has a chance going in against them. With the long journeys abroad the thing is that the other team has the same long journey ahead of them before they meet you. The countrys ranking is low because these teams generally lose their ties. Being seeded is a big advantage.
10/08/2007, 12:57 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceirtlis

Teams from the Baltic nations are pish in general and anyone from Ireland/N Ireland/Wales has a chance going in against them. With the long journeys abroad the thing is that the other team has the same long journey ahead of them before they meet you. The countrys ranking is low because these teams generally lose their ties. Being seeded is a big advantage.

Truly some rocket science type analysis there.

You do know the Baltic nations are only a those around the Baltic sea and don't include most of the nations mentioned by Cymro?:confused:
10/08/2007, 1:06 PM
Cymro

In fact, the Baltic nations are the ones I mentioned (except Finland) that would be preferable to trips to darkest Armenia or Kazakhstan.
10/08/2007, 1:22 PM
Ceirtlis

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Truly some rocket science type analysis there.

You do know the Baltic nations are only a those around the Baltic sea and don't include most of the nations mentioned by Cymro?:confused:

Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania. Latvia and Lithuania are seeded for the champions league draw. Teams from Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales have fared well against them in recent years.
It appears that Ukrainian fella that was on loan with bohs, perploytkin?, is a bit of a star over in the Latvian league, the Latvians called them up to their international side.
11/08/2007, 11:33 AM
half_full

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

The standards of Irish football has dropped this season due to a number of factors and this is reflected in the results (whether this is a blip or a longer term issue will become apparent over the next few years).

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.

Cork were unlucky to go out, Pats got a tough draw and would probably be in europe still had they not drawn Odense.

Drogheda are still in eurpe and imo will go through to the next round
11/08/2007, 12:14 PM
Cymro

Quote:

Originally Posted by half_full

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.

Cork were unlucky to go out, Pats got a tough draw and would probably be in europe still had they not drawn Odense.

Drogheda are still in eurpe and imo will go through to the next round

Don't call yourself 'half full' for nothing eh? :rolleyes: :p
11/08/2007, 5:18 PM
higgins

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Opposite happened to Derry this season.

Both make a mockery of seedings.

Armenia are not a strong country !
They are not on the way up and they are not even close to being seeds.
11/08/2007, 5:28 PM
higgins

Cymro, where did you get this 80% crap you speak ?
Made up of course..

If you actually view the results from seeds v unseeds you'll see that the seeded side comes out on top most of the time.

There is a clear advantage in drawing a seed or an unseeded side. Pats and Drogheda this season are the best example and how anyone could argue against this when it's the choice of Denmark or San Marino, I don't know!!

Of the three regions, the northern one has to be the weakest and any seed not progressing should be banned from future competition!!! There is a massive difference in the top of the northern region to the bottom. Pats, the top unseeded team couldn't live with the top seed.

How anyone can say that it makes little difference just makes me laugh.

Getting seeded and earning more points against weaker sides is key to making progress up the UEFA charts. Thats what every other country has managed. It was just making that initial breakthrough by winning a few games as unseeds that we needed.

One last point..
Yes I'd rather we played against weak teams like Armenia/Asia than Denmark/Europe. Give me the seeded position every time as logic shows us that you will be drawn against weaker opposition.
11/08/2007, 6:13 PM
Cymro

Quote:

Originally Posted by higgins

If you actually view the results from seeds v unseeds you'll see that the seeded side comes out on top most of the time.

There is a clear advantage in drawing a seed or an unseeded side. Pats and Drogheda this season are the best example and how anyone could argue against this when it's the choice of Denmark or San Marino, I don't know!!

Of the three regions, the northern one has to be the weakest and any seed not progressing should be banned from future competition!!! There is a massive difference in the top of the northern region to the bottom. Pats, the top unseeded team couldn't live with the top seed.

How anyone can say that it makes little difference just makes me laugh.

Getting seeded and earning more points against weaker sides is key to making progress up the UEFA charts. Thats what every other country has managed. It was just making that initial breakthrough by winning a few games as unseeds that we needed.

One last point..
Yes I'd rather we played against weak teams like Armenia/Asia than Denmark/Europe. Give me the seeded position every time as logic shows us that you will be drawn against weaker opposition.

It's my opinion. Personally I really don't feel a trip to Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden etc (places Irish sides have won in the last few years just to put in terms you can relate to) is a harder task than, or even as daunting as, a trip to the farthest reaches of Eastern Europe/West Asia. Derry can beat Gothenburg but not Pyunik, for example. You can easily get a trip to Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan or Armenia if you're seeded and I think results have shown that sides from the UK and Ireland generally do better against the seeded countries I mentioned than the unseeded ones.

I really don't think you give these sides I mentioned from eastern Europe enough credit. They may not be spectacular but are good at what they do and are very tough to beat.

So if now we're agreed that more or less half of the non-seeded trips are just as hard as the seeded ones (as logic would tell you) that more or less covers 40% of the 80% I have described.

The remaining half of my 80% are teams who are not unsimilar in terms of ability. Compare say, Slovakian sides against Montenegrins (who won't be seeded for a few years yet), Slovenians against Estonians (Levadia pushed Red Star very close the other day in the CLQR2) and Macedonians against, say, Welsh. If you had to choose out of those countries, would you be that much more confident of beating the non-seeds than the seeds? I doubt it.

So to sum up, yes, if you were to take the most extreme possible outcomes from the seeded and unseeded half of the draw there is a substantial difference between being seeded and unseeded. However, my point it that the majority of the time you don't get those extremes. Trying to compare St Patricks and Drogheda this year is a perfect example of two absolute extremes of the draw.

And yes, the UEFA Cup is slightly different and seeding is generally more important than in the Champions' League, because you have more nations entering at the first round, and therefore, some really good European leagues are put in the seeded side making it harder to progress. In the Champions' League, being seeded or unseeded is really not that important. The champions of Norway, Denmark and Sweden aren't involved and the draw is not regionalised so you can draw a team from Eastern Europe with higher probability.
11/08/2007, 8:17 PM
bennocelt

cyrmo, did you actually see that armenian team that beat Derry?

I did and i thought they were rubbish, and derry should have beat them
11/08/2007, 9:01 PM
Cymro

I didn't no, but I listened to radio commentary of the leg in Northern Ireland and their opinion seemed to be that Pyunik were killing the game well, even if they lacked a bit going forward.

Not being sensational in attack is not the same as being a poor side, no doubt they played for a draw in Derry and obviously they won the leg in Armenia and progressed.

In all honesty I don't think sides from the far reaches of Eastern Europe are actually brilliant sides but they are very tough to beat over two legs as results this year show. Armenia got two sides through, Kazakhstan got two sides through, Azerbaijan got one through and Belarus got at least one through (and they are still in the CL at the third qualifying stage). Whether this is because of their ability, or the difficulty of adapting to the atmosphere over in Eastern Europe is debateable but the point still stands. Personally if Swansea were in Europe and you asked me where I'd want us going in the first round, Lithuania or Kazkhstan, I know which I'd choose......
13/08/2007, 10:44 PM
pete

I accept there is a considerable amount of luck in the CL draw even if you are seeded but I believe if Derry were not in rubbish form they would have beaten the Armenians. The fact remains if you are unseeded there are no easy draws. Even if Welsh teams are excluded there are at least 5 easy unseeded teams to draw that Longford (only selected because they last in the Premier) would even beat.

As said by numerous posters here there is a massive difference in seeding for the Uefa Cup. Its pointless trying to explain as it is so obvious. :rolleyes:
14/08/2007, 1:50 PM
Cymro

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

I accept there is a considerable amount of luck in the CL draw even if you are seeded but I believe if Derry were not in rubbish form they would have beaten the Armenians. The fact remains if you are unseeded there are no easy draws. Even if Welsh teams are excluded there are at least 5 easy unseeded teams to draw that Longford (only selected because they last in the Premier) would even beat.

As said by numerous posters here there is a massive difference in seeding for the Uefa Cup. Its pointless trying to explain as it is so obvious. :rolleyes:

How can you possibly say for certain that Longford would beat those teams. That's an unbelievably arrogant assumption based purely on where these teams come from. Even your own champions elect couldn't beat the San marino side away from home, so how would your league's bottom side fare? I'd imagine it would be rather close over the two legs, myself....

Also, there are no easy draws if you are unseeded, but likewise there are very few 'easy' draws if you are seeded, also. The 'easy' draws are maybe Malta, San Marino and Andorra (although saying that Shelbourne lost to a Maltese side once). The others are all capable of upsetting the applecart.

As for Derry and the Armenian side that's speculative. They may have won it on another day, they may have not. I can't honestly comment on that, but that is entirely speculative. Who's to say Pyunik weren't at their best also?

I think we more or less agree on the whole now, but I still think we differ on the standard of the lower-ranked teams.
16/08/2007, 1:40 AM
higgins

Cymro, I think your making stuff up now.
You say all of the above and it turns out you didn't see the Derry game ? You give the example of Derry last season and this season and come out with regions of europe being better to play in. Go back through the results over the last few seasons of seeds and unseeds and come back with some facts for your argument. It's your opinion yes but your not making a very good argument, to me at least.

It's easier to go to Wales than it is Armenia but seeds are seeded for a reason. That reason is they have won plenty of games over the 5 years and are stronger than other nations in the first round. If Armenia are still bottom half of the unseeds yet it's a tough place to go then I suggest the teams are useless.

If these places were so difficult to get results then do you not think these sides would be now seeded sue to all the teams who they got results against ???
I really can't see what you're on about.

Being Seeded is an advantage and I give up if you can't see that. By your logic the Welsh teams should be doing great!!
16/08/2007, 9:49 PM
pete

Updated after Uefa Cup tonight

Quote:

33 Lithuania 0.833 2.500 1.333 1.833 1.500 7.999
34 Moldova 1.500 1.500 1.666 1.500 1.333 7.499
35 Ireland 0.333 1.333 1.833 2.833 1.000 7.332
36 Iceland 0.500 2.500 0.833 1.000 1.166 5.999
...
..
.
46 Northern Ireland 0.500 0.666 0.500 0.166 0.500 2.332
47 Wales 0.333 0.000 0.666 0.666 0.666 2.331

A Drogs draw in 2 weeks gets to joint 34th & a win puts into 34th on our own.

Seeding for Drogs gave the eL .500 due to easy draw against San Marino team.
17/08/2007, 12:22 PM
ColinR

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

Seeding for Drogs gave the eL .500 due to easy draw against San Marino team.

the seeding only gave the eL the .5 if you assume that we would have been knocked out in the first round if we were unseeded. seeing as we were unseeded and got through last year, that is not an automatic assumption that you should make.
17/08/2007, 2:34 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColinR

the seeding only gave the eL the .5 if you assume that we would have been knocked out in the first round if we were unseeded. seeing as we were unseeded and got through last year, that is not an automatic assumption that you should make.

Lets suggest 0.333 so as ye could got hard draw like Pats. Will give you a draw at home just like them ;)

Whatever way you look at ranking points could have a lot worse this season.
17/08/2007, 3:14 PM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by half_full

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.

Cork were unlucky to go out, Pats got a tough draw and would probably be in europe still had they not drawn Odense.

Drogheda are still in eurpe and imo will go through to the next round

If Linfield never got Elfsberg we might be still in teh competition.

If Dungannon never got their opponents they might still be in the competition

If my Granny had balls.................

No point in ifs and buts, the reality is the results that have been presented to us after 180 minutes of play.
17/08/2007, 5:14 PM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by half_full

why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.

Silly post. The only reason they would have had a good side is because they were losing over a million a year while slowly killing themselves. There's no point looking to Shels as a standard for the league.
18/08/2007, 3:25 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

If Linfield never got Elfsberg we might be still in teh competition.

If Dungannon never got their opponents they might still be in the competition

If my Granny had balls.................

No point in ifs and buts, the reality is the results that have been presented to us after 180 minutes of play.

And the results say the Irish League is way behind the Eircom league, and barely a spit above the Welsh.

You being a lover of the results will have to agree with what the coefficients say (even though you'll grasp onto your Setanta straws....)
30/08/2007, 9:03 PM
DmanDmythDledge

Finish the season in 35th place. Before next season begins we jump up to 32nd.
31/08/2007, 1:00 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge

Finish the season in 35th place. Before next season begins we jump up to 32nd.

Eh ? Are you saying we'll be ranked 32nd come the end of the European season (i.e. May 2008) - up 3 spots form 35th ? Not sure what you mean by finishing in one place and then jumping up after that.
31/08/2007, 9:28 AM
Dodge

Each season has a ranking (ours is 35th for this current season)

The co-ef is based on the last five years, not just this one
31/08/2007, 10:45 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Each season has a ranking (ours is 35th for this current season)

The co-ef is based on the last five years, not just this one

I get all that. So is the basic story that we're guaranteed 32nd ranking from next season ? If so - decent progress given how average our European results actually were overall. Looks like we are still shifting in the right direction then.
31/08/2007, 11:45 AM
davidatrb

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

I get all that. So is the basic story that we're guaranteed 32nd ranking from next season ? If so - decent progress given how average our European results actually were overall. Looks like we are still shifting in the right direction then.

A bit confusing. But I think I see what he means. When the 0.333 drops off after next season begins, then we will be up to 32nd.

So we are 35th now - http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/...crank2008.html

And next season start at 32nd -
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/...crank2009.html
31/08/2007, 12:17 PM
DaveyCakes

Pity the results couldn't have been a bit better this season, could have pushed us up another place or two
31/08/2007, 12:20 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyCakes

Pity the results couldn't have been a bit better this season, could have pushed us up another place or two

Aye, and if Pats or Drogs hadn't have drawn at home to vastly superior teams it could've been worse
31/08/2007, 12:25 PM
DaveyCakes

I was thinking more of Drogheda not winning in San Marino and Derry not beating Pyunik at home.
31/08/2007, 12:48 PM
pete

For the 2008 draw we are 35th. We 35th best for 2007 year alone which is a big fall from recent seasons.

The 2009 seedings not decided until next seasons results in. We are 32rd (very close to next few countries) currently before next seasons results added.

Anyone know what has happened to Hungary. They used to average 3-4 but last 3 seasons only have 1 point every year. They are highest ranked country to have all teams eliminated. Maybe we need to get drawn against them next season?
31/08/2007, 1:00 PM
Schumi

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

Anyone know what has happened to Hungary. They used to average 3-4 but last 3 seasons only have 1 point every year. They are highest ranked country to have all teams eliminated.

Hungarian football has gone to **** recently. Their international team is brutal too, only ahead of Malta and Moldova in their qualifying group.
31/08/2007, 2:50 PM
CuanaD

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Aye, and if Pats or Drogs hadn't have drawn at home to vastly superior teams it could've been worse

I'm still happy that we are making progress. Yes I know this has been our lowest coefficient in 4 years, but we all knew that this year was going to be difficult after Shels imploded - this has been a consolidation year, but we still managed a full coefficient point (which we would have been VERY happy with only 5 years ago!)

Next year we start in 32nd place - with 21 countries ranked below us. Contrast this to the start of the millennium, when we were ranked 41st out of only 50 countries. If we can average 1.5 points per year (which we are at over the last 4 years) we will stay ranked in the low 30s & when we can make the next step up to 2+ points per year we will jump up to the mid 20s - along with countries like Poland, Sweden & Croatia - that's where we should be in the next 5 years.

Of course the next step above that brings you to the Norway/Switzerland/Greece/Denmark area - & regular participation in European Group stages etc - we have a few years to go before we get there, but that is a realistic 5-10 year goal IMHO.:ball:
31/08/2007, 3:14 PM
DaveyCakes

I'm not so sure. Shels implosion suggests to me that some of the higher coefficients of previous years will be very hard to achieve unless another club tries to break the bank.

And I honestly don't see regular group stage qualification as realistic, unless something truly unforeseen happens. Occasional, yes, but regular, no.
31/08/2007, 4:01 PM
CuanaD

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyCakes

I'm not so sure. Shels implosion suggests to me that some of the higher coefficients of previous years will be very hard to achieve unless another club tries to break the bank.

And I honestly don't see regular group stage qualification as realistic, unless something truly unforeseen happens. Occasional, yes, but regular, no.

Here's where we were in 2000:
41 Ireland 0.333 0.333 0.166 0.500 0.333 TOTAL: 1.665

Heres where we are for 2008:
35 Ireland 0.333 1.333 1.833 2.833 1.000 TOTAL: 7.332

I'm sure we can agree that is a HUGE increase.

IF we can continue this trend . . . .
31/08/2007, 4:48 PM
pineapple stu

You've missed his point - the increase can be attributed in large part to clubs overstretching.

Clubs can't continue to lose a million a year.
31/08/2007, 10:52 PM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveyCakes

I'm not so sure. Shels implosion suggests to me that some of the higher coefficients of previous years will be very hard to achieve unless another club tries to break the bank.

Neither Cork nor Derry broke the bank to add their co-efficient points....
01/09/2007, 10:39 AM
pete

Looking back on this year even allowing for the draws I think its a disappointment.

* Derry City in poor form but i think would have hoped for home win & progression. Chance of something in the 2nd round.
* Pats got a very hard draw so home draw as much as could be expected. Lack of experience probably did not help either.
* Drogs got easy draw so obviously should have beaten San Marino side away from home.

If 1.0 points is the lowest in any 5 year spell maybe not so bad but will need to repeat seasons like last year too to boost up the rankings. I think we will plateau at about 30th.

Only Drogs look to be guaranteed Europe next season.
01/09/2007, 11:52 AM
pineapple stu

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Neither Cork nor Derry broke the bank to add their co-efficient points....

Cork had a winding up order only last year.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page