My preference would be;
Croatia,
Sweden,
Latvia,
Estonia,
Luxembourg.
Croatia based on their recent qualification campaign seem the weakest of the top seeds.
I think Sweden (possibly Slovakia) are the weakest of the second seeds. Sweden have just changed manager and it doesn't seem like things are rosy. Zlatan Ibrahimovic, who I personally believe is on another level to all of the players they have at their disposal, has opted out of international football for the time being and doesn't seem all that pushed about playing for Sweden again.
On current form Slovakia should be a first seed. They managed almost double Romania's points in qualifying (22 to 12).Originally Posted by ifk101
PS I see a claim the draw will be fixed to separate our various chums in the Kavkaz region (might be a spoof, possibly?)...
http://www.news.az/articles/4359
Last edited by Gather round; 17/12/2009 at 4:08 PM.
that was one of my points. group of 5 - best chance of topping the group, hope for a few nice aways.
is that true about Armenia and Azerbaijan not playing each other because they couldn't agree on a venue??
I read somewhere that it's already been decided they won't get each other for the 2012 qualifiers. Same for Russia and Georgia
Like the way it was decided Ireland and the North wouldn't be drawn for the 1994 qualifiers?
Group of 6: More home games, more trips, more mistakes allowed.
Group of 5: Less home games, less trips, 2 defeats and it's goodnight Warsaw.
Those who think otherwise should remember our 2004 Euro group. No brainer really.
The difference between a 5-taem and a 6-team group is an extra San Marino/Andorra/Luxembourg. If we can't get 6 points off of those, with all respect to them, we don't deserve to qualify. "More mistakes allowed" in a 6-team group is nonsense.
We lost the first two games of the last 5-team group, and didn't recover the ground.
In a 7-team group, you can lose 2 games and compete for qualifying. Except we had Staunton who lost 3, and well that was the end of that.
In a 6-team group, you can afford to draw the games we did last time, and still comfortably secure second spot. The play-off points criteria next time don't matter that much because everyone's guaranteed at least a playoff at worst if they finish in the top 2.
The difference between a 5-team group and a 6-team group this time around is the addition of San Marino or whoever. Anyone looking to qualify will take six points off them, so they're essentially irrelevant and have no bearing on how hard it is to qualify having lost two games.
You're trying to argue that, in a 6-team group, we have a better chance after losing two games because teams may drop points to San Marino, so we can catch up. You're wrong, mypost. Admit it for once.
my argument for wanting a 5 team group is simply that i think we play better against the better teams. where we nearly arsed up this time round was against cyprus/montenegro/georgia...one less of that type of team would be great IMO.
How?
Which of these teams -
- would you expect to drop points against? Cos that's what you're saying. If we drop points against any of these (and it's not impossible obviously), we won't be good enough against the better sides anyway.Azerbaijan Luxembourg Malta Faroe Islands Andorra San Marino
Edit - by way of an example, here's a random suggested group from earlier in the thread -
Do you think taking out San Marino increases our chances of topping that group? Or do you think having San Marino in it means we can more easily recover from, say, losing away to England and Switzerland? No it doesn't.England
Swiss
Ireland
Macedonia
Albania
San Marino
Edit edit - nice change, magnumpi...
Last edited by pineapple stu; 22/12/2009 at 10:12 AM.
i only edited it because i was repeating myself from earlier posts. (and edited before your post, let it be said.)
in any event, i still believe we have a better chance of topping a five team group because there would be one less team to drop points again.
in response to your point, i don't care how mediocre any of those teams are, i saw us struggle to beat a Georgian side at home, the worst if not worst seeded side in our group. i have also seen us struggle to beat San marino away, and that 0-0 against lichenstein. (albeit in past campaigns)
from the list of bottoms seeds, i'd like to avoid - luxembourg (beat Switzerland AWAY) or azerbaijan away -where england only won 1-0 away in a previous campaign. some of the others are gash, granted, but that still doesn't change my stance.
the bottom teams are only potential banana skins, in my opinion, and that's why i'd like a smaller group - only, it has to be said, in this format where all second places get a play-off group. i know it was one of the reasons why Norway missed out on play-offs this time around.
with the right top seeds drawn, really feel we could top a 5 team group.
we are a team who loves to play underdog, we rarely hammer the minnows, so why not want a group with less games.
Quote, "if we drop points to against any of these sides we won' be good enough against the top sides anyway" - perhaps not, altho the swiss qualified notwithstanding the aforementioned result.
if we qualify top spot out of a group of 6 teams, i will be only too delighted to kiss your metaphorical cyber-space based ass in a post of unashamed "you were right, i was wrong" worship.
No you didn't; I couldn't have quoted you otherwise.
Georgia were fifth seeds. Montenegro were the bottom seeds (and unusually good ones at that, as they had no previous rating to go on).in response to your point, i don't care how mediocre any of those teams are, i saw us struggle to beat a Georgian side at home, the worst if not worst seeded side in our group.
Given all results against the bottom teams were removed for deciding who missed out on the play-offs, it had nothing to do with Norway missing out. They were comfortably the lowest-scoring runner-up. Even if they'd had a San Marino and gotten six points off them, they'd have been two points adrift of the next lowest runner-up (us). (Your post is kind of hard to understand here, so apologies if I've picked you up wrong).
I've addressed your other points, so not going to waste my time repeating them.
And one final thing - there's a shift key on your keyboard. It makes capitals and makes posts so much easier to read. Seriously.
ok,
1) i edited it before having seen your post.
2) i know exactly how the seedings worked last time, i said that Georgia were the worst side, "if not" (meaning albeit) the bottom seed. please pick me up on my appalling english and grammar here too, that's what people come on here to read.
3) sorry if the lack of capitals results in my being difficult to read. rest assured you're condescending and arrogant demeanour come across loud and clear.
and you haven't "dealt" with my post before, you've merely stated your own opinion, as have I my own.
Last edited by pineapple stu; 22/12/2009 at 2:47 PM. Reason: Trolling edited
Never said anything about San Marino. But not every team that finishes 6th is as bad as San Marino, and most pick up a point or 2 against someone along the way.
You can see the sixth seeds for yourself. We've no right being particularly worried about any of them. When Liechtenstein are ranked higher than them all, that says something. And we've a pretty good record against teams like that; we rarely hammer them - in fact, often make a meal of the game - but we usually pick up 2-0 or 3-1 wins; the 0-0 in Vaduz is really the only exception (I'm thinking of the 12 points from 12 in 1994 against Latvia, Lithaunia and Albania, or the 12 from 12 against Andorra and Cyprus in 2002, or even 6 from 6 against San Marino and Malta where we really struggled away but still won both games). I still think you're wrong to say that a 6-team group in this campaign will be in any way easier than a five-team group.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks