I just did up a mock Nations League based on 16-16-22 (3 divisions).
4 divisions of 16-12-12-14 I reckon is how it'll go. I realised my error too late. I'm heading for beer soon.
Printable View
I just did up a mock Nations League based on 16-16-22 (3 divisions).
4 divisions of 16-12-12-14 I reckon is how it'll go. I realised my error too late. I'm heading for beer soon.
Is that really the case? Take the World Cup, in the last 2-3 tournaments teams like Ukraine, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bosnia, Poland have, admittedly somewhat against the odds, qualified for the World Cup a few of them have even made the knockouts of the World Cup. With the Euros, rightly or wrongly, expanding to 24 teams via a playoff more than half the European teams will have a chance of making a tournament. If the Euros were back in the format of 16 teams (think Euro 92 was the last one like this) then there would be the case for UEFA teams having nothing to aim for, but I just done see it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I was not being sarky, I was asking a serious question about how you make 54/55 teams fit into divisions of 16. You posted on another thread about the concepts behind game theory and words to the effect of having an interest in maths. To me the 55 into bands of 16 doesnt fit very well, if they are to have divisions of 16 then they will either need to cut the number of teams (pre-qualification) or invite non-UEFA teams, both of these options give rise to big problems: what do the cut teams do for 2 years, and wont inviting other teams mess up the relevant competitions in other associations? There are a whole load of problems with fitting a league like this into 55 teams, this isnt like CONMEBOL where the (small) number of teams makes a league structure simple. If it is the 4 groups of 4 making a division of 16 that you allude to, then if each group has promotion and relegation you are looking at a lot of turnover (25% promotion and 25% relegation) which would be virtually unprecidiented in terms of sustained football league structure, I'm not sure how it can/will work in terms of the sheer maths of it.Quote:
And Edmundo, no need to be sarky. I'm not really a man of maths and it's not beyond the wit of man to devise a way of making 3 divisions of 54 or even 55 teams if needs be.
I disagree, for several reasons. Even if you think the friendlies lack intensity, I think it's important for the development of players in a team like ours. Take some of our squad players like David Forde, Stephen Ward, potentially Andy Reid. With the greatest respect to the Championship, these players are not facing world class opponents on anything like a regular basis. At least if they play against a team like Spain or Italy they can test themselves against players of outstanding quality. Pirlo mightnt give it his all, or he might come off after 60 mins, but he'll still be spraying the ball around in a way that Ward is unlikely to face week in week out. Someone like Busquets or Javi Martinez will be closing down Andy Reid and pressuring him in a way that Championship players might not. Would Ward and Reid get such tests facing players like Valdimir Koman and Josef Varga (Hungary are a similar team in terms of ranking to us), and futhermore would MoN and Keane risk playing fringe players in a "League of Nations" match when in all probability there will be more ranking points riding on it (compared to a friendly against a strong team). There will be no more matches like the one against Italy in Liege, no more chances of tours in the US to test out fringe players, all those will vanish. BonnieShels says we will still play a top seed in proper qualification, true, there will be one match a year against a big team, there can be no dry runs for our players, the intesity of playing against a big crowd at Wembley, the heat of Spain in New York, all that is gone. Want give a keeper like Westwood/Forde/Randolph/Kiely against a big team in a friendly in case the first choice player is injured? Forget it.Quote:
I'm not fussed if we don't get to play a game against Brazil or Argentina or whoever, every now and again. They usually lack intensity anyway. But I'm not saying I'm right, you're wrong. It's a value judgment and in my opinion the idea of replacing friendlies with a league of sorts appeals.
Euro92 was 8 teams. Euro 96 was the first 16 team tourney.Quote:
Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo
That's the sort of brilliance I expect from Crosby!Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Nah, Crosby would attach a picture of some American celebrity we've never heard of.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aav46Lek0Rs
83rd min, maybe he was ready to give Pardew a Mallrats handshake as a welcome to the premier league.
On balance I think it's a good idea. I agree that there are pitfalls rightly identified by Edmundo, and as yet it's still not sure what the implications are for the calendar and even what the structure of the League is. So I'll reserve final judgment once this is clearer.
I think a professional footballer good enough to be considered for international selection should be good enough to step into a Nations League tie though, even of this is how he has to cut his teeth at international level. Do they really need the comfort blanket of friendlies?
And playing Italy in Liege didn't exactly prepare us well for playing them in Poznan:)
This is a money spinner for UEFA, which means more money for us probably as we get a share of centrally distributed TV rights. The distribution arrangements will be interesting. I'd say that's why it was voted in unanimously by the national associations. But it is also a smart move by UEFA to prevent international football from slipping into obscurity - in context of the club game's attraction and power.
Hmm, seems to have more enthusiam from fans of 'smaller' nations like us?
Most 'Ingerland' fans elsewhere online, besides healthy cynicism, seem to have dismissed it...metaphorically as 'total b*llox'.
:rolleyes:
I think the smaller nations like the idea that they have a chance of Euro qualification that they would never ordinarily have. As I understand it the winner of Divisions 3 and 4 get access to the a Euros as well as the winners of the top two divisions. This looks bonkers to me. Promotion to a higher league should be sufficient incentive. It'd diminish the Euros if two groups have a whipping boy whereas two groups don't. No jokes about Ireland in 2012 here please! At least we qualified on merit.
Maybe not, but I think it's worth noting that David Forde made his first start in this match, kept a clean sheet and generally played well. It was the perfect game to use him - the Italians, playing with players like Montolivo and Pirlo, were always going to enjoy a lot of the ball, and facing attackers like Nocerino and Rossi he was always going to be tested. He kept a clean sheet and we then knew that, 14 months later, when Given retired we had a back up who had played for us against difficult opposition and done well. You could also say we knew that we had a viable back-up to Given if he got injured before Euro 2012, although it appears the manager still went with a semi-injured Given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Trap didn't use friendlies as experimentally as I would have liked, especially towards the end of his tenure, but future coaches wont have this luxury at all. If every game matters then coaches will be reticent to experiement, we've had quite a few players who have made their debuts for us (or come out of a wilderness) in their mid/late 20s; Forde, Andrews, Hoolahan, Kav, possibly Reid in the future - when will a manager get a chance to test out players like this now? Also if we are/were stuck in a rigid 4-4-2 playing style, but say wanted to switch to a 3-4-3 (basically any formation with three at the back) we wouldnt really have the chance of doing this now, our center backs (for example O'Shea and Dunne) are well over 30 so it's not like we could use the U21s as a dry run. It's not like international managers have the day to day time with players that clubs have, there arent even that many training sessions for them to experiment, and now a larger aspect of the training sessions will be focused on beating the LoN opposition, much of the work will be on say looking at Hungary/Poland/Slovakia's weaknesses as the result of the LoN games will be more crucial than the results of the old friendlies.
If UEFA go down this route, and it appears to be happening, then I would like to see some sort of Olympic style rule for U21 matches, where you are allowed to field 3 players over the age limit. I don't like the idea of messing up the U21s, but I think the need to experiment and/or test players over 21 is vital for a team like us.
Well, those England fans must be right so.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
I don't disagree Edmundo, it's more an issue of weighing up the pros and cons and for me, in a pure instinctive value judgment, the "pro" of having more meaningful matches that (again a judgment) ought to hold more appeal for the paying public outweighs the negatives. Your judgment appears to be the other way around.
Just an additional thought: try and arrange some B internationals? I'm not sure about the logistics, but that could be the solution to your main issue.
They're tough to do now with the international calendar. Clubs don't like releasing players if they don't have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
The UEFA info bit released yesterday cleared up a couple of things. 4 up/4 down from each division is good. And the "back door" qualification of one nation from each division (to the 2020 Euros) is OK too
Here is that UEFA release btw. Kind of interesting. The basic format is four divisions based on coefficient rankings (as opposed to world rankings, I presume). The divisions will be "divided into playing pools of either three or four teams. The teams in each pool play each other home and away between September and December of the season in question, with the group winners either qualifying for the final four competitions or gaining promotion. The bottom sides face relegation from their division."
It later says top teams will be in pools of three to allow for friendlies outside of UEFA. Hmmm. Anyway, say a pool of four; that's six games between Sept 2018 and Dec 2019 I think. It seems the group winners get promoted and the bottom team gets relegated. The final four competition seems to be only for Division 1.
On Euro 2020 - "Four teams within each group, who have not already qualified for the finals, will qualify for play-offs in March 2020 with one team from each group joining the 20 teams who had qualified via the European Qualifiers." So there will still be play-offs. And it "guarantees" that a team from the bottom 16 in Europe will qualify for the Euros, which will be interesting, if maybe a bit dubious. Not sure what happens if fewer than four teams in the top group have missed out on the Euros, as seems likely.
On friendlies, it says "There will certainly be fewer friendly internationals and undoubtedly fewer meaningless friendlies. However, there will still be space in the calendar for friendly internationals − particularly warm-up matches for final tournaments. UEFA is also keen that European teams will still have the chance to play teams from other confederations." I would imagine those warm-up matches would generally be our best chance at a "glamour" friendly anyway. And there would still be a space for something like a reciprocal friendly with England, for example.
I still like it. I'd rather a straight division of 12 rather than sub-pools, and I'm presuming the lack of games (six in two years) would allow for a couple of genuine friendlies still. But on balance, it certainly seems better than meaningless friendlies.
So reading that UEFA manifesto, it seems like (on current ranking coefficient) it would be split as follows:
I've done the first bucket up to 12 as if the top divisions groups are made of 3 it needs to be either 12 or 15 in the top division, 12 would be four groups of 3 with the winners then being into a semi final. The Draw was random, bold teams will be promoted (for Div 1 they go to the final) italic ones relegated, again the finishing order is random
Division 1
Bosnia ----------- Russia ----------- France ----------- Croatia
Portugal ----------- Ukraine ----------- Spain ----------- Holland
England ----------- Greece ----------- Italy ----------- Germany
Division 2
Turkey ----------- Slovakia ----------- Austria ----------- Romania
Ireland ----------- Denmark ----------- Sweden ----------- Switzerland
Serbia ----------- Sweden ----------- Hungary ----------- Czech Rep
Israel ----------- Slovenia ----------- Poland ----------- Belgium
Division 3
Macedonia ----------- Bulgaria ----------- Latvia ----------- Albania
Scotland ----------- Estonia ----------- Montenegro ----------- Lithuania
Armenia ----------- Iceland ----------- Wales ----------- Northern Ireland
Finland ----------- Azerbaijan ----------- Belarus ----------- Moldova
Division 4
Malta ----------- San Marino ----------- Gibralter
Andorra ----------- Faroes ----------- Kazakhstan
Liechtenstein ----------- Cyprus ----------- Georgia
Luxembourg -----------
For Division 4, I would guess that they could either have Andorra promoted for being 2nd in the 4 team group or have some sort of playoff between all the Div 4 runners up.
I know that's all hypothetical, but the relegated teams from Div 1 are interesting. If it is four groups of three in the top flight with four teams relegated, there'll be some big games in Div 2 on a regular basis.
Edit - thought you'd done the finishing order by seed, but I see now it's random. Still, very easy for a big country to come bottom of a three-team group and drop down to Division 2.
There is also the question of if the sub pots in the 4 Divisions are reshuffled/re-drawn at the end of each 2 year cycle? Say we end up in the above scenario, and we get 2nd place in our sub pot, let's say that Italy (as the relegated div 1 team) and Albania (as the promoted div 2 team), would we still be in with Serbia (3rd)? Or would they re-draw the groups and we could be in with another third place team (say Sweden, Hungary or Czechs), a third or second place team (those three plus Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland) or would the whole of Div 2 be redrawn (and we could end up in a group with Italy, Greece and England, or conversely Latvia, Albania and Macedonia)?
I hope at least that UEFA will keep seedings out of any reshuffling within divisions, if we are in a division of teams of the same ability then there shouldnt really be a need for any seedings.
The only caveat to those groups above is that UEFA stated that one of the bottom 16 seeds is guaranteed to qualify for Euros so I'd assume that Divisions 4 and 3 would have 16 teams each.
Yeah, the group sizes don't really seem to make sense yet. As you say, Division 4 is down as 16 teams, and Division 1 appears to be 12 teams (four groups of 3). That, at present, leaves 26 teams for divisions 2 and 3. 12 and 14?
cfdh - re-shuffling the pots each time makes sense. If nothing else, it'd involve a draw, and UEFA love draws.
I expect they'll redraw the sub pots every time it starts again.
I'm still not convinced a team from the 3rd and 4th divisions qualifying for the Euros is a good thing, despite me banging on about inclusiveness! It messes with the integrity of the tournament proper. In fact it'd almost be unlucky to be drawn with one of the lesser teams in the Finals. Instead of 2 going through from 4 reasonably well matched teams, 2 go through from 3 well matched teams and a minnow. That's probably harder, despite being statistically favourable (2/3 > 2/4). In the current format there's a bit more margin for error.
Ah who knows anyway?!