Should the league adopt the split system?

I notice that teams in the Eircom league just play each other 3 times and that's that. Considering the league can be won by a point, or even a goal, should they not have a fairer system? Who's to say Derry's home advantage over Cork and the big 3 Dublin teams Pats, Bohs and Rovers won't win the league for them? If a team can win the league on the luck of a draw it's not very fair.

Why not do what they do in Scotland? Each team plays each other 3 times. Obviously you just play as normal, aiming to finish as high as possible. The midtable clubs have the main aim to finish inside the top 6. After the 33 sets of games the league is then split into 2. If Celtic played Rangers at home twice and away once then they'll play them away after the split.

Celtic will play the following fixtures after the split:
Kilmarnock v Celtic
Celtic v Hearts
Rangers v Celtic
Celtic v Aberdeen
Hibernian v Celtic

Obviously they played Kilmarnock, Rangers and Hibs at home twice which is a huge advantage so they get to make it equal after the split. Maybe the team that finished 7th could have been unlucky with the draw but that's not too important. It's not only fairer but it's also more exciting.

Thoughts?

Rewind 15 years - they nicked it off us.

Back to the Ireland forum with you :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

If Celtic played Rangers at home twice and away once then they'll play them away after the split.

---

Doesn't necessarily work that way though.

Consider a hypothetical situation where Team A play the bottom six at home twice and the top five away twice. Now the only way to balance things is to give Team A five home games after the split, which obviously doesn't make sense. Any imbalance in the home/away split between bottom half and top half opponents will lead to this problem. So the notion that it smoothes out the problems of a 3-round league is a myth.

Also, it was done around 93-95, and dropped. And good riddance to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliesboots

Rewind 15 years - they nicked it off us.

---

Seriously? In 94/95 it was a 33 game season. Why did they change back?

Because it's a silly idea, basically.

92/93 and 93/94 were the seasons it was in use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Consider a hypothetical situation where Team A play the bottom six at home twice and the top five away twice. Now the only way to balance things is to give Team A five home games after the split, which obviously doesn't make sense. Any imbalance in the home/away split between bottom half and top half opponents will lead to this problem. So the notion that it smoothes out the problems of a 3-round league is a myth.

---

I don't understand your point. If Team A play the 5 best teams in the league twice away from home it's not very fair is it?

But the point is -
(a) You can't know in advance which are going to be the top five and the bottom six teams, so you can't plan for that and
(b) in such an eventuality (or slightly less extreme examples, as I noted), the split system actually accentuates the problem, and forces you to have clubs playing each other three times at home and once away, or vice versa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

But the point is -
(a) You can't know in advance which are going to be the top five and the bottom six teams, so you can't plan for that and
(b) in such an eventuality (or slightly less extreme examples, as I noted), the split system actually accentuates the problem, and forces you to have clubs playing each other three times at home and once away, or vice versa.

---

That's not how it works at all. No matter what you'll play all your rivals in the league twice at home and twice away. You'll play the teams in the other half of the table once away and twice home or vice versa.

One of the very least successful of the "ah sure, let's give it a go" schemes that have blighted the league in this country down the years (and that's some achievement).

Such a bad idea that league titles won in those two seasons are regarded as inferior championships - about the level of the Leinster Senior Cup.

How? I'd love to know. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

That's not how it works at all. No matter what you'll play every team in the league twice at home and twice away.

---

OK. Show me how it works in the system I described.

UCD have qualified for the top six along with Bohs, Derry, Cork, Drogheda and Pat's. We've played them each twice at home and once away to get there. We've played Sligo, Waterford, Bray, Longford, Galway and Rovers once at home and twice away. We now have one more match to play against Bohs, Derry, Cork, Drogheda and Pat's.

Show me how we play those teams twice at home and twice away without ending up with a completely lop-sided fixture list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerry The Saint

One of the very least successful of the "ah sure, let's give it a go" schemes that have blighted the league in this country down the years (and that's some achievement).

Such a bad idea that league titles won in those two seasons are regarded as inferior championships - about the level of the Leinster Senior Cup.

---

Actually made the league harder to win !

Other than that you're 100% correct. The Pats-Rovers game at Harold's Cross the first year of it is seared into my memory for it's complete awfulness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Show me how we play those teams twice at home and twice away without ending up with a completely lop-sided fixture list.

---

They obviously play them all away from home. What's wrong with that? At the end of the season they'll have played Derry twice at home and twice away. They'll have played Cork twice home and twice away. They'll have played Pats, Bohs and Drogheda twice home and twice away. As I said, it may be unfair that they actually got into the top 6 in the first place due to the draw but it's better than a team winning the league because of the luck of a draw.

A team can win the current league because they got lucky with the fixture list. I don't see how you can win the current SPL because of the luck of the draw.

Stupid idea best suited to the Silly Pointless League

How so? Come on, you can do better than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

They obviously play them all away from home.

---

So you're quite happy with a league format which offers clubs the possibility of 16 home games and 22 away games? Your only justification for this appears to be that games against "smaller" clubs don't count.

I think I've just won this argument anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

They obviously play them all away from home. What's wrong with that? At the end of the season they'll have played Derry twice at home and twice away. They'll have played Cork twice home and twice away. They'll have played Pats, Bohs and Drogheda twice home and twice away. As I said, it may be unfair that they actually got into the top 6 in the first place due to the draw but it's better than a team winning the league because of the luck of a draw.

A team can win the current league because they got lucky with the fixture list. I don't see how you can win the current SPL because of the luck of the draw.

---

And in 38 league games we'd have played 22 games away from home. That's fair? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

So you're quite happy with a league format which offers clubs the possibility of 16 home games and 22 away games? Your only justification for this appears to be that games against "smaller" clubs don't count.

I think I've just won this argument anyway.

---

My brain is getting confused at this stage but if that's the case then your argument is certainly won. I think I need a rest and come back to it later.:D

Anyway, it has certainly worked in the SPL so far with no problems like that happening.

That's because the problem I noted is highly unlikely. However, all it needs is, say, us playing two of the top five at home twice and four of the bottom six away twice and you've again got a problem - 17 home games and 16 away games before the break, and after the break three home games and two away games to sort the differential in the top section, which leaves you overall with 20 home games and 18 away games.

It's nonsense. Trust me.

Edit - in fact, here's last year's SPL results grid. You can see the following fixtures are played three times, with the "return" played only once -

Hearts v Aberdeen
Motherwell v Dundee United
Aberdeen v Hibs
Livi v Caley Thistle
Aberdeen v Kilmarnock

Aberdeen played 20 home games and 18 away games, while ICT played 18 home games and 20 away games.

EB you have to think why is was put in, in the SPL, not out of "hey lets try this" but "jaysus the league is **** outside of the top 2" so the relegation and Uefa spots are decided this way to try garner some excitement from fans of teams who have nothing to play for. Now they do with this system.

Over here there is no top 2 who always win the league but rather well in last 20 years or so theres been quite a few. This year it could be Derry/Drogs/Cork so really no need to to in a multiball type system.


kdjac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

How so? Come on, you can do better than that.

---

None of the top or even middle level European Leagues use this system.

That should tell you all you need to know about that preposterous idea

Have a look at the Dutch system if you think it's bad. :)

I think kdjaC is spot on. There'd be uproar if Celtic got an advantage over Rangers or vice versa, which obviously happens with a 33 game league.

Dutch system is utter nonsense. Doesn't make the Scottish system any better though!

Celtic and Rangers will never get an advantage like I noted because there would be uproar, and rightly so. The other teams are irrelevant in Scotland, so can be messed about with as I've shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Dutch system is utter nonsense. Doesn't make the Scottish system any better though!

---

Ah, come on. Of course it does. ;)

I'm still not actually persuaded that the EL system is better. You pointed out that Aberdeen played one extra home game and Inverness played 1 extra away game than the rest. Fair enough, that's a little unfair but that's about all that we're likely to get with the SPL system.

Derry have to travel twice to Drogheda, Sligo, Waterford, Galway, Longford. They only have to travel once to Bray, Cork, Pats, Rovers, Bohs and UCD.

That's 16 away games and 17 home games. Look at the teams that they only have to play away once.

That's a league winning advantage, without a shadow of a doubt. If, for example, Cork finish 2nd to Derry by 3 or so points this season I'll be thinking it could have been a lot different with the luck of the draw. The same can't be said about the Scottish system, so far at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Derry have to travel twice to Drogheda, Sligo, Waterford, Galway, Longford. They only have to travel once to Bray, Cork, Pats, Rovers, Bohs and UCD.

That's 16 away games and 17 home games. Look at the teams that they only have to play away once.

That's a league winning advantage, without a shadow of a doubt.

---

And playing teams three times home and once away, while playing two more home games than away isn't a league winning advantage?

My brain hurts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tis-smeee

My brain hurts

---

Same here. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

And playing teams three times home and once away

---

You've got me here. How is that possible? I'm pretty sure you're right here and I've totally missed it though. :)

The main reason for getting rid of it here was that nobody could be arsed going to bottom six games after the split.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

You've got me here. How is that possible? I'm pretty sure you're right here and I've totally missed it though. :)

---

Go back over the thread. I've explained it quite clearly and shown that it happened five times last year alone.

The split system is not perfect (or even that desirable), but it IS better than the 33-game eL league.
No need for hypoyheticals, though. Don't mean to sound bitter, but in 2005 the games between Derry and Cork were all won by the home team. Derry finished one point behind Cork having had to play them away twice.

Aren't we moving to 10-teams in a year or so anyway (and so 36 games)? I'm not sure how I feel about the 10-team league as it was a couple of years ago (more fixture chaos and playing the same teams over and over again).


As a completely radical solution, how about considering inter-league play.
The idea would be that each Premier Division club would play each other home and away (i.e. 22 games each). To augment this total each Premier club would play each First Division club once (home or away, 9 games). The total would be 31 games, just two less than the current 33. There would be equality between the teams battling against each other for the league (except for how they play the teams in the first division, but they should expect to be beating them anyway home or away!)

The 1st Div teams would have to play the 2+1 system (plus 1 home or away v PD teams), but who cares its the 1st Division? :D Plus, they would get to play the big teams on a regular basis, it would reduce the gap between the two divisions and mitigate against the death sentence that the 1st Div can become for some clubs. Just a suggestion :eek:

I would like to see each team play each other twice a season rather than three times. I would like to see the fixtures spread out over the season, allowing a weekend for the League Cup and FAI Cup. Instead of teams having to play matches every few days for a number of weeks, cut the amount of games and spread them evenly over the season. Thats what i'd like to see. Also the SPL starts early and ends late. July to May is a very long season with a winter break. That would be too much for the part-time teams in the leagues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Go back over the thread. I've explained it quite clearly and shown that it happened five times last year alone.

---

Ah well then I don't even understand the Scottish system myself.

If it was to go the way I said (you play each team in your half twice home, twice away by the end of the season)...

After the split last season Celtic should have played:
Hearts (a), Rangers (h), Hibs (h), Aberdeen (a), Kilmarnock (h).

Hearts should have played:
Celtic (h), Rangers (a), Hibs (a), Aberdeen (a)*, Kilmarnock (a).

Rangers should have played:
Celtic (a), Hearts (h), Hibs (a), Aberdeen (h), Kilmarnock (a).

Hibs should have played:
Celtic (a), Hearts (h), Rangers (h), Aberdeen (h)**, Kilmarnock (a).

Aberdeen should have played:
Celtic (h), Hearts (h)*, Rangers (a), Hibs (a)**, Kilmarnock (a)***.

Kilmarnock should have played:
Celtic (a), Hearts (a), Rangers (h), Hibs (h), Aberdeen (h)***.

---

So basically Hearts should have had to play 4 away games which they thought was unfair. To make up for it they changed their game with Aberdeen to a home game (*). And to make up for that they took a home game off Hibs and Kilmarnock and gave it to Aberdeen. Eh, ok... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by City till I Die

I would like to see each team play each other twice a season rather than three times. I would like to see the fixtures spread out over the season, allowing a weekend for the League Cup and FAI Cup. Instead of teams having to play matches every few days for a number of weeks, cut the amount of games and spread them evenly over the season. Thats what i'd like to see. Also the SPL starts early and ends late. July to May is a very long season with a winter break. That would be too much for the part-time teams in the leagues

---

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Clubs would never accept the fall in revenue.

Is it just me or are the only people advocating the split those who can't remember the last time.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maribor

Is it just me or are the only people advocating the split those who can't remember the last time.......

---

Not just you. 18 team North/South league playing each team home and away is the only solution in my opinion, long way off though.

I just wanted to check the SPL fixtures for this season. Again, if teams were to finish the season having played all the teams in their half twice home and twice away this would be the fixture list after the split:

Celtic:
Rangers (a), Aberdeen (h), Hearts (h), Hibs (a), Kilmarnock (a).

Rangers:
Celtic (h), Aberdeen (a), Hearts (a)*, Hibs (h)**, Kilmarnock (h).

Aberdeen:
Celtic (a), Rangers (h), Hearts (a), Hibs (h), Kilmarnock (h).

Hearts:
Celtic (a), Rangers (h)*, Aberdeen (h), Hibs (h), Kilmarnock (a).

Hibs:
Celtic (h), Rangers (a)**, Aberdeen (a), Hearts (a), Kilmarnock (h).

Kilmarnock:
Celtic (h), Rangers (a), Aberdeen (a), Hearts (h), Hibs (a).

----

Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen and Kilmarnock would finish the season with 19 home games and 19 away games. They'd have played each team in their half twice home and twice away.
Hearts and Hibs are different. With the above fixtures Hearts would have played 20 home games and 18 away games. Hibs would have played 18 home games and 20 away games.
To solve this problem I assume the SPL had to look for a team that have to play Hearts away and Hibs home and switch those fixtures around. It was a choice between Aberdeen and Rangers. Rangers are 13 points above Hearts while Aberdeen are closer at 6 points ahead. They just use common sense and switch the Rangers fixtures.

OK, this means that Hearts will have played Rangers away 3 times in the season while Hibs will have played them 3 times at home. That's 1 fault in the whole top 6. Surely better than the Eircom league system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

I just wanted to check the SPL fixtures for this season. Again, if teams were to finish the season having played all the teams in their half twice home and twice away this would be the fixture list after the split:

Celtic:
Rangers (a), Aberdeen (h), Hearts (h), Hibs (a), Kilmarnock (a).

Rangers:
Celtic (h), Aberdeen (a), Hearts (a)*, Hibs (h)**, Kilmarnock (h).

Aberdeen:
Celtic (a), Rangers (h), Hearts (a), Hibs (h), Kilmarnock (h).

Hearts:
Celtic (a), Rangers (h)*, Aberdeen (h), Hibs (h), Kilmarnock (a).

Hibs:
Celtic (h), Rangers (a)**, Aberdeen (a), Hearts (a), Kilmarnock (h).

Kilmarnock:
Celtic (h), Rangers (a), Aberdeen (a), Hearts (h), Hibs (a).

----

Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen and Kilmarnock would finish the season with 19 home games and 19 away games. They'd have played each team in their half twice home and twice away.
Hearts and Hibs are different. With the above fixtures Hearts would have played 20 home games and 18 away games. Hibs would have played 18 home games and 20 away games.
To solve this problem I assume the SPL had to look for a team that have to play Hearts away and Hibs home and switch those fixtures around. It was a choice between Aberdeen and Rangers. Rangers are 13 points above Hearts while Aberdeen are closer at 6 points ahead. They just use common sense and switch the Rangers fixtures.

OK, this means that Hearts will have played Rangers away 3 times in the season while Hibs will have played them 3 times at home. That's 1 fault in the whole top 6. Surely better than the Eircom league system?

---

Nope, nobody would still go to the bottom six games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliesboots

Nope, nobody would still go to the bottom six games.

---

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that I think the SPL has a fairer system. :) Anyway, I'm sure if you're bottom of the league and with 5 games left to play there'd be more interest in playing the team 2nd bottom of the league rather than the team top of the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

Fair enough. I'm just pointing out that I think the SPL has a fairer system. :) Anyway, I'm sure if you're bottom of the league and with 5 games left to play there'd be more interest in playing the team 2nd bottom of the league rather than the team top of the league.

---

there is merit in that theory. i know stephen kenny has stated many times that they will have more games with the teams they are fighting relegation with after the split. meaning a victory will mean so much more.

there are problems with both (eL & SPL) systems.

the only fair way is to play every team in the league an equal amount of time home and away. whether that means a larger league of say 16 teams and play each other twice or a smaller league of 10 and play 4 times.

personally would love to see a 16/18 team all-ireland league with 2 games each but thats a whoooooooooooooole other arguement!!

We're going back to a 10 team league after next season, it's hardly worth debating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eirebhoy

I'm still not actually persuaded that the EL system is better. You pointed out that Aberdeen played one extra home game and Inverness played 1 extra away game than the rest. Fair enough, that's a little unfair but that's about all that we're likely to get with the SPL system.

Derry have to travel twice to Drogheda, Sligo, Waterford, Galway, Longford. They only have to travel once to Bray, Cork, Pats, Rovers, Bohs and UCD.

That's 16 away games and 17 home games. Look at the teams that they only have to play away once.

That's a league winning advantage, without a shadow of a doubt. If, for example, Cork finish 2nd to Derry by 3 or so points this season I'll be thinking it could have been a lot different with the luck of the draw. The same can't be said about the Scottish system, so far at least.

---

About the nonsense that the league is won by teams being at home more than away, the league is settled over 33 games. If you have done your stuff, you deserve to win the league over 33 games. If you haven't, you don't.

Changing to a 10-team league will lead to fixture chaos, where 30-40 games will be postponed during the season, and when you have teams playing twice a week, every week, in the run-in. Carnage. This is what the "We care about Irish football" institute have insisted upon, knowing that the experiment was a disaster before, and will be no better, when we're shoehorned into that shy-te system again in 2 years time. :mad: