LOI In Europe 2021

[A N Mouse]

Yes you have - when you say that "having 4 teams now maintain the year on year co-efficient points at or above 1.000 is a sign of progress over the last decade"; that's absolute coefficients right there. It ignores that the CL representatives have more games than before because they drop into the EL/CL2 when knocked out of the CL first round, which has only happened since 2016. So the same coefficient in 2020 is worse than the equivalent total in 2014. In fact, our coefficient in 2020 would have been 0.875 under pre 2016 rules, when Dundalk would have been knocked out straight away (five second legs were all scored as draws, and first-round draws for Rovers/Bohs)

Ok so that's not an 'absolute co-efficient' that's one for a single year. It basically means that if there were three teams that year then 3 wins or 6 draws or some some combination of the two was achieved. And similarly 4 win or 8 draws for 4 teams. And this can be used to compare years. An absolute co-efficient would be comparing the 5 year cumulative totals, this would make no sense.

The second bit is also a nonsense, as the co-efficient is the co-efficient and as you have been so keen to point out the rules changed for everyone. Without looking at the actual results year by year you cannot categorically state that because of new rules this year is now unequal to a previous similar value - the champions may not have even got a draw however many bites of the cherry they got.

I remain unable to square the circle of the the co-efficient can't account for second bites of the cherry, but it's fine for you to count them in your tally?

Sigh. I've actually pointed out that our ranking has fallen from 29th to 46th as well. I'm including lots of factors.

Yet you continue to brush aside inconvenient facts, like the reason for the drop this year as irrelevant.

WTF has this to do with the InterToto? The InterToto is European competition and absolutely should be included when comparing the results of our four European teams year-on-year.

The comparission is apt, inculding the intertoto skews your results. It had no bearing on the rankings, and given the limited pool of opposition likely accounts for a inordinate amount of wins against 'decent teams'.

I've discounted wins against sides from the Faroes, Malta, Iceland, Gibraltar, Montenegro, Estonia, Wales, Andorra and San Marino in looking to see how many decent wins we've had. Don't see an issue with that at all. I've clearly stated this, and the wins, and various other stuff you claim I'm hiding. You've lots of other bits in your post on this - the Donald Trump part was especially bizarre - but really this comes to my request that you read my posts first.

Give over, you can dress it whatever way you want but fewer wins isn't a stat, it's cop out in a headline. So I'll repeat the point - fewer wins is not the same as more losses, absent occurrences it's meaningless.

And maybe you could do me the courtesy of not cherry picking which points you reply to?

But guess what - when Dundalk get lucky and get a Faroese team in the EL play-off round, we get the same points as if they'd beaten someone good. Now other countries can get lucky too of course, but that's why I'm using both the ranking (and we've dropped) and the good results to build up a bigger picture (and we've fewer decent wins).

So allowing for the drop in ranking, have you adjusted your definition of 'decent opposition'? Or is it inflexible too?

[pineapple stu]

Ok so that's not an 'absolute co-efficient' that's one for a single year. It basically means that if there were three teams that year then 3 wins or 6 draws or some some combination of the two was achieved. And similarly 4 win or 8 draws for 4 teams. And this can be used to compare years.

First off, I know how the coefficient (and the InterToto) works, so you can drop the patronising explanations when you're ready.

It is an absolute co-efficient because it's just the number of the coefficient with no context, and I've shown why a number in one year isn't necessarily comparable to the same number in a different year (but surprisingly enough, you've completely ignored that). I absolutely can state that 1.875 in 2020/01 is not comparable to 1.875 in a previous year because Dundalk would not have gotten those extra three rounds pre 2016.

The comparission is apt, inculding the intertoto skews your results. It had no bearing on the rankings, and given the limited pool of opposition likely accounts for a inordinate amount of wins against 'decent teams'.

I know InterToto games aren't included in the rankings, and have never stated that they are. However, they absolutely are European games, and it is valid to include them for the purposes of counting decent European wins. I've already explained that this makes sense when trying to keep the comparison valid (ie there's four teams throughout the comparison period). Once again, read my ****ing posts please. It's getting very annoying when it's clear you don't know what point you're trying to argue against.

you can dress it whatever way you want but fewer wins isn't a stat. So I'll repeat the point - fewer wins is not the same as more losses

Of course "fewer wins" is a statistic. How on earth is it not? And I've never said fewer wins is the same as more losses.

And maybe you could do me the courtesy of not cherry picking which points you reply to?

I'm under no obligation to reply to every single part of your posts - I'm ignoring the repetition or the outwardly bizarre (such as the Donald Trump stuff) for something approaching brevity.

So allowing for the drop in ranking, have you adjusted your definition of 'decent opposition'? Or is it inflexible too?

No, my definition of decent teams has been the exact same since I first mentioned it, in the post that you've evidently not read.

[pineapple stu]

Oh, and for other posters, I have reported my own posts and requested that they be split, cos I know multi-replies are frustrating and I didn't intend this to be clogging up the entire thread...

[passinginterest]

It's an interesting debate to be fair. I think there's enough to suggest that when clubs were widely spending far beyond their means and accumulating huge debts there was a high point in terms of quality in the league. I also thing there's been improvements again in recent years and that there is at least some sense of more stability which should hopefully lead to measurable long term improvement.

Licensing, while flawed, seems to have at least prevented the massive debt building that was happening in the noughties and even if a club is struggling that means there's still a chance it survives and maintains a positive presence in its community.

The big busts of the past alienated a lot of suppliers and local communities but hopefully we're beyond that. The underage leagues might be straining finances in the short term, but long term they should be producing a better caliber of player and facilitating a professional career path within the league.

Brexit can't harm that, although the lack of professional coaches, contact time with players etc. needs to be addressed urgently by the clubs/FAI. If that means further regional academies where the elite levels can be brought in for additional training beyond the clubs then that should be what happens.

[pineapple stu]

There's definitely better stability and better long-term planning, for sure. You look at the amount of money wasted by Shels, Bohs, Drogheda - well, pretty much everyone (except UCD ) in the 00s and only in the past couple of years have we now got underage academies (subject to the problems you've noted), while ground improvements lag way behind the rest of Europe (was it here someone posted a chart showing we were the only country in Europe without a single new league ground built in the last ten years?)

But I think on the pitch in the here and now, we're still going backwards a bit - not helped of course by €100k being diverted from every first-team and into the four underage squads. That's a good investment of course, but it has to have an impact on the senior set-up. I'd presume we were one of the only leagues in Europe without any sort of proper underage structure attached to our senior teams until UEFA forced it through?

[Nesta99]

It's an interesting debate to be fair. .

I agree, Ive enjoyed the bit of toing and froing, reasoned discussion. Maybe creeping off 'LoI in Europe 2021' drop the 2021 and its all good lol.

[paul_oshea]

8000 is a realistic amount I think, 10 would have been great but the novelty factor would have worn off after last week

https://m.independent.ie/sport/socce...-40674118.html

[yurt]

Was hoping that they might get 10 or 12k but at least with 8k it's likely to be another sell out and there'll still be some sense of exclusivity around it.

Wonder will it take much more than 24hours to sell out this time? I'm guessing members are expected to take up what 1000 or 2000+ tickets?

Will be interesting to see if any sort of novelty factor does wear off because from the outside looking in it would seem like the Bohemians hype train is just getting going. Could easily be due to parts of the internet being an echo chamber for what I'm interested in but seems like Bohs result and performance got a lot of coverage last week.

[Sidefx]

Oh, and for other posters, I have reported my own posts and requested that they be split, cos I know multi-replies are frustrating and I didn't intend this to be clogging up the entire thread...

...so why not just stop so; or at least move it to another thread?

[ontheotherhand]

8000 is a realistic amount I think, 10 would have been great but the novelty factor would have worn off after last week

https://m.independent.ie/sport/socce...-40674118.html

What novelty factor? Live football with a crowd? Bohs in the Aviva? Bohs in Europe? Can't see them not selling out however many tickets they can get their hands on. People are dying to get out for any reason at all and interest hardly wanes the further you go in Europe. They are even more likely to pull in a few neutrals now as well. I'd go if I could. I'd be wearing the famous....er...white and yellow of Dudelange though of course.

[pineapple stu]

...so why not just stop so; or at least move it to another thread?

It's a discussion forum isn't it?

I can't move it to another thread, but I've asked the mods to.

[sbgawa]

What novelty factor? Live football with a crowd? Bohs in the Aviva? Bohs in Europe? Can't see them not selling out however many tickets they can get their hands on. People are dying to get out for any reason at all and interest hardly wanes the further you go in Europe. They are even more likely to pull in a few neutrals now as well. I'd go if I could. I'd be wearing the famous....er...white and yellow of Dudelange though of course.

Me too could the FAI organise a cough cough "neutral zone"

[Straightstory]

[QUOTE=pineapple stu;2082182]There's definitely better stability and better long-term planning, for sure. You look at the amount of money wasted by Shels, Bohs, Drogheda - well, pretty much everyone (except UCD ) in the 00s and only in the past couple of years have we now got underage academies (subject to the problems you've noted), while ground improvements lag way behind the rest of Europe (was it here someone posted a chart showing we were the only country in Europe without a single new league ground built in the last ten years? QUOTE )

You can hardly say the money was 'wasted' by Drogheda. It brought the FAI Cup to the club in 2005 and the league title two years later. Considering the only trophy the club had won previously was the League Cup in 1984, these victories brought immense joy to thousands of Drogs fans. Sure, things went haywire a few years later, but no-one saw the financial collapse of 2008 coming in 2007. Anyway, the club's fans rallied and the club didn't go under.
At the start of a season fans don't think 'this will be a great year if we balance the budget', they want success on the field. Hopes and dreams and optimism are what drives fans. Football is a risky business. When you hire a new manager and sign new players, you can never guarantee success. No-one in Drogheda will forget the heady days of 2005 and 2007. To win those trophies after decades of failure was truly magical. The money was not 'wasted'.

[Eminence Grise]

Me too could the FAI organise a cough cough "neutral zone"

Surely a cough cough neutral zone is the very definition of isolating and quarantining?

[A N Mouse]

First off, I know how the coefficient (and the InterToto) works, so you can drop the patronising explanations when you're ready.

You may know, you may not, but it's making the point for anyone who else may be interested. Now this next bit may come across as patronizing, because once again you've failed to address how you can just add the second chance games to your tally, but it's problematic having them in the co-efficient? (a function of results of games played)

It is an absolute co-efficient because it's just the number of the coefficient with no context, and I've shown why a number in one year isn't necessarily comparable to the same number in a different year (but surprisingly enough, you've completely ignored that). I absolutely can state that 1.875 in 2020/01 is not comparable to 1.875 in a previous year because Dundalk would not have gotten those extra three rounds pre 2016.

And yet without that very specific context you're unable to pick two random years and say the same thing. Or, for arguments sake, lets say you're right doesn't the same also hold for the era when we had three teams versus when we had four? Or is it suddenly not relevant that it works the same for everyone, regardless of any unique circumstances?
.

Of course "fewer wins" is a statistic. How on earth is it not? And I've never said fewer wins is the same as more losses.

If it's not a collection of (hopefully related) numbers (an absolute statistic, if you will) then it's an interpretation of a statistic, which are readily misused and often come with the inferred opposite. I tried illustrating the point, in a non patronizing manner, and you keep brining it up as a form of distraction.

No, my definition of decent teams has been the exact same since I first mentioned it, in the post that you've evidently not read.

So you didn't allow for any period in which those countries may have out ranked us and otherwise fallen into the category of decent result? Once again, subjective.


In other news, tabulated the results, and happy to share once it's in decent format.

Ignoring non ranking matches, using decades. The rankings changed from year to year

So in the period 00/01 - 09/10
We progress against opponents from a higher ranked country on 16 occasions, and 5 against lower ranked.
We were eliminated by opponents from a higher ranked country on 24 occasions, and 5 times by lower ranked (23 of 24 defeats top 30)
We over came top 20 ranked opponent 2 times, lost 15 times
We over came top 30 ranked opponent 7 times, lost 24 times
And 'decent' (ranked 30-39) 9 times without loss

We started the decade at 41, and finished at 35. So there were more nations above us for the most part.

We rarely troubled teams from nations ranked inside the top 30
exceptions being

Aberdeen
Hadjuk
Djurgarden
Gothenburg
Gretna
Elfsborg
Kryia


Last one of dubious pedregiee, not sure about the russians

In the period 10/11 - 19/20
Progressed against opponents from a higher ranked country on 8 occasions, and 16 against lower ranked
Eliminate by opponents from a higher ranked country on 37 occasions, and 5 by lower ranked. *edit oops technically not eliminated lost the tie (3 times)*
(31 of 37 defeats top 30)
We over came top 20 ranked opponent 0 times, lost 15 times
We over came top30 ranked opponent 6 times, lost 32times
And 'decent' (ranked 30-39) 7 times, losing 15 times

We started the decade at 30, peaked following year at 29, a low of 43 by 15/16 before climbing back into the 30's (just).

Notable scalps

Bnei Yehunda
Partizan (second bite)
Siroki Brijeg
Haken
BATE
Brann

<opinion> I mean I'm not seeing which scalps where there for the taking in the period 16/17 - 19/20 that we were taken before. The Finns? Slovan? We can only beat or be beaten by what's in front of us</opinion>

[EatYerGreens]

Boh’s sold 6k max capacity tickets for the last game in less than 24 hours, I’d imagine they will almost certainly sell 12k tickets for this match.

That's a bit of a stretch tbh. I'd say they'd have been lucky to hit 10k, especially as Dudelange would hardly be a draw for anyone who's not a Bohs or LOI fan.

[EatYerGreens]

8000 is a realistic amount I think, 10 would have been great but the novelty factor would have worn off after last week

https://m.independent.ie/sport/socce...-40674118.html

All the additional 2,000 are going to end up in the South Stand

[EatYerGreens]

[QUOTE=Straightstory;2082235]

There's definitely better stability and better long-term planning, for sure. You look at the amount of money wasted by Shels, Bohs, Drogheda - well, pretty much everyone (except UCD ) in the 00s and only in the past couple of years have we now got underage academies (subject to the problems you've noted), while ground improvements lag way behind the rest of Europe (was it here someone posted a chart showing we were the only country in Europe without a single new league ground built in the last ten years? QUOTE )

You can hardly say the money was 'wasted' by Drogheda. It brought the FAI Cup to the club in 2005 and the league title two years later. Considering the only trophy the club had won previously was the League Cup in 1984, these victories brought immense joy to thousands of Drogs fans. Sure, things went haywire a few years later, but no-one saw the financial collapse of 2008 coming in 2007. Anyway, the club's fans rallied and the club didn't go under.
At the start of a season fans don't think 'this will be a great year if we balance the budget', they want success on the field. Hopes and dreams and optimism are what drives fans. Football is a risky business. When you hire a new manager and sign new players, you can never guarantee success. No-one in Drogheda will forget the heady days of 2005 and 2007. To win those trophies after decades of failure was truly magical. The money was not 'wasted'.

There will always be some upside from success. A lot of the club's current fans will probably have first been attracted by that period. It's impossible to not reap SOME longer term benefits from a club doing well.

The point is what is there that is tangible, beyond memories ? Money can buy real things, like assets. If you spend it on players, all you're buying at best is memories. And they don't provide long-term stability, let alone future benefits. .

Did Drogheda lose ownership of United Park to the FAI as a result of the club's excesses too ?

Irish clubs in that era were using their money to fund short-term 'feels', not long-term facilities.

[paul_oshea]

What novelty factor? Live football with a crowd? Bohs in the Aviva? Bohs in Europe? Can't see them not selling out however many tickets they can get their hands on. People are dying to get out for any reason at all and interest hardly wanes the further you go in Europe. They are even more likely to pull in a few neutrals now as well. I'd go if I could. I'd be wearing the famous....er...white and yellow of Dudelange though of course.

Ya fair enough given the current circumstances people want to be able to do something, but even so with that in mind I couldnt see them selling 20k, what did Dundalk sell for that Legia game 25k?( it wasnt busy in the stand I was in) The official attendance was probably higher, but it definitely didnt feel liike anymore than that. Given what was at the stake and what you've said youd expect that to sell out(one step from group qualificaton)

[ontheotherhand]

Ya fair enough given the current circumstances people want to be able to do something, but even so with that in mind I couldnt see them selling 20k, what did Dundalk sell for that Legia game 25k?( it wasnt busy in the stand I was in) The official attendance was probably higher, but it definitely didnt feel liike anymore than that. Given what was at the stake and what you've said youd expect that to sell out(one step from group qualificaton)

Yeah fair. I just think Bohs have a bit of buzz about them and should be able to get 10k in the door for this. I'd be disappointed if Rovers weren't able to do it. But you're right on Dudelange not being much of a household name. I like to think that people are slowly getting sick of the elite levels of football and will start seeing a bit more romance in the local game and ties against interesting European opposition. I see grumblings in my friend groups where lads who once worshipped Man U and the rest are starting to get disillusioned with the Super League nonsense etc. Some of them have taken a shine to LoI clubs. Unfortunately Bohs included. Add that to the country opening up while the EPL is on break and I want to believe we are ripe for a bit of an increase in interest. But......I have a cynic on my other shoulder who says the pubs will be a bigger draw every time.