Rankings

I have for a long time thought that the current system of seedings for tournaments has been detrimental to the development of the game in the countries that are eternally based in pot 6. What I would propose is to take the pot 6 teams out of the current qualification process and have them compete in a group with each other. At the end of the campaign, the top two teams would be promoted to the actual qualification process for the next campaign. (The idea is based on the same concept that exists in the Nicky Rackard Cup in hurling.)

Why do I propose this system?

1. Winning breeds confidence and also breeds interest within the local public to get behind their team. For most pot 6 teams, their qualification campaign in reality is over after two games of the campaign, where they have been heavily beaten and every game thereafter is really a nothing game for them. The system proposed would ensure that every match they play would have real consequence and the possibility of promotion to the qualification process proper, would give them a great incentive to play for. Also it would give these teams a chance for the first time ever, to compete and realistically stand a chance of winning some silverware. For a team like San Marino who have never won a qualifier, the current system is surely inhibiting their progress as a footballing nation.

2. I think it would also change the footballing philosophy in these countries. Currently what teams like Andorra and San Marino engage in, is essentially an "anti football" style of play, where they park the team bus in front of the goals and its all about damage limitation. By playing against teams of similar ability, they can attempt to get forward and play attacking football more, which will result in a greater level of goals. Again to use the San Marino example, only one player has ever scored more than one goal for his country. Surely the system proposed would reverse statistics like that.

3. It would also mean that the two lowest placed pot 5 teams would make the drop at the end of each campaign and as such, would have something to play for right up to the very last game, instead of just playing another meaningless qualifier.

The current system does nothing to advance the development of the game in the weaker countries and an overhaul like I have proposed could only benefit these countries.

Nice idea.
Expect FIFA to consider it in around 200 years time....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

What I would propose is to take the pot 6 teams out of the current qualification process and have them compete in a group with each other. At the end of the campaign, the top two teams would be promoted to the actual qualification process for the next campaign

---

The 'village' countries entered the Word Cup and Euros to take on bigger teams, however mismatched. Not to play glorified beer matches against each other (they could have continued doing that in lower level competitions, or friendlies). That probably wouldn't develop the game in Liechtenstein- but thrashing Iceland who gubbed Norn Iron (twice) who ****ed all over Spain who, er won that competition and the next one, just might...

Would you add slightly 'bigger' countries down on their luck (like Wales now) to this pre-qualifier? Remember, you were in their position once:

World Cup 1970 qualifying:

Rank Team Pts Pld W D L GF GA GD
1= Hungary 9 6 4 1 1 16 7 +9
1= Czechoslovakia 9 6 4 1 1 12 6 +6
3 Denmark 5 6 2 1 3 6 10 −4
4 Republic of Ireland 1 6 0 1 5 3 14 −11

Except Wales have been rubbish for decades.

There should be pre-qualifying to reduce qualification to manageable levels, as in say 32 teams in Europe, with the other 21 eliminated via a knockout, as per happens in Africa, Asia and North/Central America.

And to reduce the amount of pointless football being played.

Absolutely the system would be transparent and fair across the board. Wales are in pot 6 on merit. Therefor they spend one campaign in the new system and presumably they'd win it and be back after the one campaign.

I consider Hungary to be a lower to mid tier team in Europe. When they are beating San Marino 8-0, a San Marino team that have 0 goals for and 33 goals against after 7 matches, this can't be good for the development of the game there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardee Bhoy

There should be pre-qualifying to reduce qualification to manageable levels, as in say 32 teams in Europe, with the other 21 eliminated via a knockout, as per happens in Africa, Asia and North/Central America

---

OK, let's try that (effectively having the play-offs at the beginning of qualifying, rather than the end). The top 11 get a bye, the other 42 teams are paired in two legged knockout. 21 (probably including quite a few relatively powerful teams, maybe even the Republic of Ireland, get knocked out in September 2012 and don't play another competitive game for two years.

It's not really a runner, is it? I'm assuming that you aren't actually planning two rounds of groups, like the Champions League used to have. Because that would actually increase the amount of low-grade football you dislike so much. Then again, as you keep saying qualifying for the Euro finals isn't a priority, I suppose we should indulge your eccentricities?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

Absolutely the system would be transparent and fair across the board

---

No-one's disputing its transparency. It would transparently deny the smallest/ weakest teams much competition against most of the bigger. So obviously it would disadvantage the former while offering little to the latter.

Quote:

---

When [Hungary] are beating San Marino 8-0, a San Marino team that have 0 goals for and 33 goals against after 7 matches, this can't be good for the development of the game there

---

Maybe, but that's for the Sammarinese to decide. Not all the micro-countries are completely pants- Faeroes have won games in the last two tournaments, Liechtenstein managed two in Euro 08.

Bigger countries should be wary of underestimating minnows- plenty of English coaches, pundits and fans don't think they should be playing Montenegro, but it would sound more convincing had they actually managed to beat them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

I have for a long time thought that the current system of seedings for tournaments has been detrimental to the development of the game in the countries that are eternally based in pot 6. What I would propose is to take the pot 6 teams out of the current qualification process and have them compete in a group with each other. At the end of the campaign, the top two teams would be promoted to the actual qualification process for the next campaign. (The idea is based on the same concept that exists in the Nicky Rackard Cup in hurling.)

Why do I propose this system?

---

The pot 6 teams are not eternally based in that pot. Liechtenstein, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and now the Faroes are all examples of teams who have won games, drawn others and pulled themselves out of the bottom pot. Even Andorra got 5 points in 2004 qualification. San Marino are the only team never to have won a qualifier, and their day will surely come eventually. Your idea is harsh on these teams as it essentially gives them no competitive game against substantially better opposition for at least two years. This will limit their financial income for qualification quite dramatically and will, contrary to what you say, hinder their progress as they are not playing against the better players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

1. Winning breeds confidence and also breeds interest within the local public to get behind their team. For most pot 6 teams, their qualification campaign in reality is over after two games of the campaign, where they have been heavily beaten and every game thereafter is really a nothing game for them. The system proposed would ensure that every match they play would have real consequence and the possibility of promotion to the qualification process proper, would give them a great incentive to play for. Also it would give these teams a chance for the first time ever, to compete and realistically stand a chance of winning some silverware. For a team like San Marino who have never won a qualifier, the current system is surely inhibiting their progress as a footballing nation.

---

It is hard to really buy into that argument. Are competitive qualifiers ever 'nothing' games? Ask Liechtenstein or Luxembourg after their last campaigns, which were never likely to end in qualification, but did not stop them getting some famous results (relatively speaking). (Lux beat the Swiss 2-1). Or ask the Faroes now, or Liechtenstein again after their win against Lithuania the other day (they would have also got a draw in Scotland, but for a goal in the 7th minute of injury time).

I think that smaller teams add a great deal to the qualifiers, and love to see them laim a scalp (even if in this case, with the Faroes, it has been at our expense).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

2. I think it would also change the footballing philosophy in these countries. Currently what teams like Andorra and San Marino engage in, is essentially an "anti football" style of play, where they park the team bus in front of the goals and its all about damage limitation. By playing against teams of similar ability, they can attempt to get forward and play attacking football more, which will result in a greater level of goals. Again to use the San Marino example, only one player has ever scored more than one goal for his country. Surely the system proposed would reverse statistics like that.

---

It might result in more goals being scored by San Marino. Then again, it might not. I can tell you that San Marino at present as much less capable than the better pot 6 teams. That would be the only positive to your plan, but it would not stop defensive football by pot 6 teams in qualification 'proper', as they would inevitably adapt their style to give them a better chance of a result. And why not? It might be defensive, but it's completely fair and no less cynical than what more skilful teams do - look at most continental teams faking injuries, keeping the ball in the corners after 90 minutes and so on. It's the job of the supposedly better team to break these smaller teams down - that's all part of the contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by French Toasht

3. It would also mean that the two lowest placed pot 5 teams would make the drop at the end of each campaign and as such, would have something to play for right up to the very last game, instead of just playing another meaningless qualifier.

The current system does nothing to advance the development of the game in the weaker countries and an overhaul like I have proposed could only benefit these countries.

---

No qualifiers are meaningless. If you don't believe me, watch the video of Liechtenstein v Wales on the final day of WC 2010 qualification. Liechtenstein looking for a scalp, John Toshack desperately trying to save his job and shouting at the players like his life depended on it. Totally irreevant t quaification but ere's three points at stake so teams will always play hard.

The current system gives teams like Liechtenstein, Malta, Luxembourg and Wales a nice fat payday with a home tie against a top European side, which helps the development of our game very nicely thankyou. Your proposals would effectively take three-quarters of us out of qualifying every tournament. It's harsh and unnecessary, and I bet if Ireland were a pot 6 team you would not be advocating it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy

Except Wales have been rubbish for decades.

---

Would you seriously call nearly qualifying for tournaments in 1982, 1986, 1994 and 2004 'rubbish'? We're not going through our best spell at the moment but don't dismiss us so readily.

In September of last year Andorra came to Dublin. At 2-1 down in a qualification match, most teams would try and go for an equaliser, as a defeat by one or two or three goals, all amount to the same thing; zero points. But no, after 45 minutes of the game, Andorra had decided at one goal down, they had lost the match and would park the team bus in front of the goal and try to limit the damage. Surely playing games to be beaten by as few goals as possible is not the mantality football teams should be playing with.

You say surely its for these teams to decide themselves, well what do you think SM would decide? A minus 33 goal difference after 7 games or playing games where they have a reasonable chance of winning and may actually achieve some silverware?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

OK, let's try that (effectively having the play-offs at the beginning of qualifying, rather than the end). The top 11 get a bye, the other 42 teams are paired in two legged knockout. 21 (probably including quite a few relatively powerful teams, maybe even the Republic of Ireland, get knocked out in September 2012 and don't play another competitive game for two years.

It's not really a runner, is it? I'm assuming that you aren't actually planning two rounds of groups, like the Champions League used to have. Because that would actually increase the amount of low-grade football you dislike so much. Then again, as you keep saying qualifying for the Euro finals isn't a priority, I suppose we should indulge your eccentricities?

---

Hmm, good to see you addressed the issue of the system used in most of the Rest of the World!

It's tough luck, if anyone, even Ireland get knocked out.
The fact is that only 21 teams will miss out and can no doubt indulge in pointless Celtic Cups and the like amongst themselves. And that most of the games they play aren't in any way 'competitive' even within the structure of the Euros or WC.

Or if you're so desperate for meaningless football;the bottom 21 can fall into a Plate Competition organized by UEFA.

Besides the fact your knowledge of running is pretty limited, don't understand your CL analogy, but anything that reduces the amount of football played is only a good thing. And that includes the Euros, which are far too big. 16 teams in the Finals are more than enough!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cymro

Would you seriously call nearly qualifying for tournaments in 1982, 1986, 1994 and 2004 'rubbish'? We're not going through our best spell at the moment but don't dismiss us so readily.

---

That's fair enough, but most of them were 20-30 years ago. Would have been more than happy if Cymru had qualified but they have been under-achieving for years....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardee Bhoy

Hmm, good to see you addressed the issue of the system used in most of the Rest of the World!

---

Happy to do so now. Europe, Africa, Asia/Oceania and Latin/ North America all have roughly a quarter each of FIFA members, so if World Cup qualification was based purely on that they'd have a quarter each of the finalists. They don't, mainly because despite decades of promise the Africans and Asians remain generally weaker. So reducing 50-odd countries to five or six finalists means at least two qualifying stages. I don't like the system where many can be eliminated after only one tie, with no other competitive games to look forward to for maybe a couple of years. It's not like club football where they can concentrate on the league, is it?

Quote:

---

It's tough luck, if anyone, even Ireland get knocked out. The fact is that only 21 teams will miss out

---

Tsk. I'd have thought you of all people would see the need to keep the 40% fully involved in the er, qualifying process...

Quote:

---

Or if you're so desperate for meaningless football;the bottom 21 can fall into a Plate Competition organized by UEFA

---

The thing is, I don't think the present system is at all meaningless. Two of the current 53 teams lose almost every game, but all the others can reasonably hope to improve within tournaments and from one to the next.

I mean, if international footbal is so crap, why do you spend so much time discussing it here?

Quote:

---

don't understand your CL analogy

---

I was wondering if your 'play off at the start' idea gave everyone a guarantee of say four or six games. You explained that it didn't, fair enough.

Quote:

---

anything that reduces the amount of football played is only a good thing. And that includes the Euros, which are far too big. 16 teams in the Finals are more than enough!

---

The best way to reduce the amount of games played is to look at club football. Teams that don't generally qualify for international finals play about nine or 10 games per year on average; many club sides in England or Scotland can struggle through 15 cup ties a season if they're in the Europa or Champs Leagues. Even in the English lower divisions there are three cups as well as 46 league matches.

As I've said before, I think 16 finalists is the best number for the Euros. I liked it in the World Cup too.

The African and Asian teams don't complain though, do they?
Don't understand the next comment.
As for the teams 'improving', the bottom 10-15 in Europe have been largely rubbish for years, so who will miss them?

Not sure why we shouldn't discuss yet an extension of mediocrity, ie. too much football. Including club games, though the difference is they exist in theory to 'make a profit' or try at least to be economically viable.
That's a luxury largely not required in international football.....

The same type of argument has been droning on for years in rugby - with the elite nations and England, trying to close the door on anyone who wants to come to the party. Not unlike the ICC they've been successful in hampering the games development. One excellent proposal that I listened to at the FIRA-AER conference last year (which was on it's 6th outing and 4th make over) was that there would be, for the 6 Nations, a promotion relegation system that would encourage countries to build. Wales were for it, Scotland and Italy were backing a vote, Ireland opened the floor for discussion and thought it deserved a vote, France were open to democratic discussion but didn't favour it. England were against it and held a form of veto with their ex-pat brigade. Now this closed shop scenario was (in this case) purely for European rugby, but would have far reaching consequences.

It would never work in football as it would mean the all powerful continental associations would lose a modicum of power, plus if it meant one of the financially powerful sides missing out on an event - heaven forbid the tv and advertising revenue of France should lose out - then it would be blocked.

There is work to be done to help smaller nations, though giving them an event of their own might be one of the only ways. Winning something (like in the GAA system - Rackard Cup etc) could give impetus to improve, plus a winning side, though money talks and it won't happen.

A 7 team group would be a problem.
A 6 team qualification group doesn't present a great problem. There's even room for one or two new associations, Kosova?
A couple of teams don't hack it but that's about it. Some teams climb out of the bottom pot and others drop in there for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather round

Disagree. Elo is based mainly on predicting what will happen next (or being 'realistic', if you prefer) rather than measuring what happened last. So it will always favor bigger/ stronger countries and disadvantage smaller fry even when they pull off surprise wins.

---

How do you figure that?

The point of the Elo system is that a set ratings gap translates to a set chance of winning - so if you're 100 points lower than someone else, that by definition means you should win one time in three (or draw twice and lose once). If you do better than expected, your rating goes up (i.e. you're better than was thought) and your opponent's rating goes down (i.e. they're not as good as was thought).

Any ratings system predicts what will happen next - the better team should do better. Elo is a statistical method to use past results to work out the likelihood of future results. It doesn't favour bigger/stronger countries at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gather Round

Liechtenstein managed two in Euro 08.

---

And just beat Lithuania as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

The point of the Elo system is that a set ratings gap translates to a set chance of winning - so if you're 100 points lower than someone else, that by definition means you should win one time in three (or draw twice and lose once). If you do better than expected, your rating goes up (i.e. you're better than was thought) and your opponent's rating goes down (i.e. they're not as good as was thought)

---

Stu- I've just tried unsuccessfully to find my previous post about the Elo system. IIRC, it was from about December 2009, ie just after all the European qualifiers for the 2010 finals were known. A number of them were ranked lower than other countries who had failed to qualify, with fewer points. That suggests to me that the Elo system, for all its complexity, has a pretty basic flaw. By not simply presenting the ranking based on points at the end of qualifying, or a whole tournament, it ignores reality.

Quote:

---

Any ratings system predicts what will happen next - the better team should do better. Elo is a statistical method to use past results to work out the likelihood of future results. It doesn't favour bigger/stronger countries at all

---

A ratings system based on, effectively, league performance in 10 or 12 matches over 15 months does that only incidentally, in the way that one based on 38 league matches over nine months does.

Elo favors some teams based on critieria other than recent results in the way I describe above. Those criteria are broadly longer term results, which tend to give advantage to 'bigger' teams.

Ideal potential group(s) in Bold.

Spain, Netherlands, Germany, England, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Norway, Greece

France, Mont, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Turkey, Serbia, Slovakia

Ireland

Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Georgia, Lithuania, Scotland, North, Austria, Poland

Armenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Faroes,

Wales, Liechtenstein, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra, San Marino

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

Ideal[/ avoidable] potential group(s) in bold[/ italic]:

---

1 Spain 15882, 2 Netherlands 1542, 3 Germany 1305, 4 England 1146, 5 Portugal 1076, 6 Italy 1059, 7 Croatia 1033, 8 Norway 972, 9 Greece 959

Haven't had an Oranje derby in ages, plus ex-Chelsea stalwart Ken Monkou's pancake restaurant is worth a visit. Croatia's Police offer away fans an armed guard, I've heard. We've played Italy/ SMR five times since 2008. Norway expensive but exotic? Portugal for the suntan, hopefully.

Pot 2: France (cheap), Monte (beatable), Russia (exotic), Turkey (suntan). We've played all the others recently.

Pot 3: Anyone in this section has some attractions, although Dublin would likely be riotous, Ukraine or Belarus expensive. Personal preference Hungary, Suisse, Belgium.

Pot 5: Pot luck here. The Mac could be interesting, even Crusaders socred a couple when over...

Pot 6: Eurostar to Lux or L'hospitalet pres l'Andorre, s'il vous plait? Wales are due a finish above us.

One slight problem for you with those scenarios....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sullanefc

Ideal potential group(s) in Bold.

Spain, Netherlands, Germany, England, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Norway, Greece

France, Mont, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Turkey, Serbia, Slovakia

Ireland

Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Georgia, Lithuania, Scotland, North, Austria, Poland

Armenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Faroes,

Wales, Liechtenstein, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra, San Marino

---

This seeding melarchy means that it throws everything up in the air. We're either going to get a brilliant piece of luck, a mixed bag or an absolute stinker of a group. Then again we qualified out of a very tricky group in 2002.

I'd like to avoid the Dutch and the Spanish for obvious reasons in pot 1 as I think we'd be lucky to take a point off them.
The Germans have an outstanding team, but I think we could take 1 if not 2 points off them.
I'd prefer to avoid England, because I don't think I could bear the thought of losing to them and their fans would run amok in Dublin. Having said that, I think we could take anything from 1-4 points off them. Personally I think it's more likely to be 1.
Portugal are an inconsistent bunch. At their best, they could stretch our midfield and boss us around, but then again they can be awful as well. I'd feel that we could beat them in Dublin and maybe get a draw in Lisbon.
With Trap manning the team, I feel that we would take 2 points off Italy, though I do think that Italy will really begin to come good in the next few years, as they have some excellent players coming through to replace the old guard.
Croatia are deserved 1st seeds. They are perenial qualifiers and have quality throughout their team. However, I think we could take anything from 2 to 4 points off them.
Norway are for me a pot 3 team that has benefitted greatly from this ranking system. Good team yes, but I would feel that we could take 4-6 points off them.
Greece probably deserve to be 1st seeds for their qualification pedigree in recent years, but I would be disappointed with anything less than 4 points against them.

In pot 2, the teams to avoid are France, Russia and Serbia. All 3 of these teams are not unbeatable, but with a very good 1st seed, it would be a bit of a horror draw. However, I think that we could take a decent amount of points off all of them.
Turkey would be a team to avoid as well. Decent team and a very tough place to play. They can be inconsistent though and I'd have confidence that we could pip them to 2nd or maybe 1st.
Montenegro deserve so much respect, but over 2 matches I think we'd take anything from 2-4 points off them.
Slovenia are of a similar ilk to Monty, but I don't think they have as much quality and I think we could take 4 points off them and perhaps 6.
Sweden and Denmark are similar in many ways. I'd be confident of taking 4 points off both, but I would be concerned at their ability to amass points in places, where we traditionally slip up.
Slovakia are the poorest pot 2 side and I'd expect nothing less than 4 points off them.

In pot 4, three teams that stand out as ones to avoid are Bulgaria, Romania and Poland. Okay Romania have been awful for the last few years, but they recently walloped Bosnia. All three have a footballing pedigree that makes them very dangerous 4th seeds. I wouldn't be too confident that we could win against any of these 3 away and I wouldn't be too sure of beating them in Dublin either.
Scotland are a poor team, but it would be a derby. i think we'd beat them in Dublin and draw in Glasgow. I'd feel that a game against Northern Ireland would be the same outcome also. I wouldn't be too confident of beating them in Belfast.
Austria are a mediocre team and I'd expect 6 points off them.
Lithuania and Georgia are two must wins also. However, I'd prefer to avoid Georgia if I had a choice of the two.

In pot 5, I'd rather avoid Cyprus. Tricky team that could cause us alot of bother over there like they always do. Armenia would be a similar team to avoid. Decent enough and they have an ability to turn teams over on their place. Macedonia don't seem to be as good as they used to be, but tricky enough all the same. Azerbaijan in Baku could be tricky also. All of the teams in this pot are 6 pointers and nothing else is good enough.

In pot 6, the team that stands out is the Welsh. They have some very very good players and lets not forget it's a derby. I'd predict 4 points, but I'd be hoping for 6.
Kazakhstan would be a tough away trip, but we would just need to get the job done and take 6 points from them.
Anything less than 6 points against any of the other teams would be terrible.

Worst case group
Spain, France, Romania, Armenia and Wales

Dream group
Norway, Slovakia, Lithuania, Faroes and San Marino

My prediction

Greece, France, Poland, Macedonia and Kazakhastan.