QuoteSteady on! The way things are going we could end up being classed as minnows ourselves
I see England's game with Andorra has sparked a bit of a whinge from club managers. Although I know there are vested interests here, I think it's time for a bit of a rethink on International Qualifying.
Currently Europe has 52 teams, Montenegro will make this 53 for WC2010. Most other confederations operate a multi stage approach (Africa, Asia and Australasia certainly do and there isnt as great a spread of ability in South America, I would suggest even Venezuela could qualify for the WC)
I think matches like Germany - San Marino do nothing for either side. They simply give international football bashers a stick to beat us up with and they must be demoralising for the small teams.
So I would propose that we set a cap on the number of teams in full qualifying. I'd like the top 2 in each group to qualify for the tournament always and as there are always at least 12 places open I would suggest we have 6 groups of 7 teams. Most groups in EC2008 have 7 teams and so there will be no fewer matches, just better ones. Any other places would be filled by play offs amongst the 3rd place teams.
Ignoring host nations this means at present 9 or 10 teams teams not playing full qualifying. They would be chosen based on the previous campaign (not on TV markets, 'historical performance' etc.)
In parallel with the full qualifying the weaker nations play a league of their own (League B). I would suggest regular games against Luxembourg may do more for Andorra than playing England.
At the end of the full qualifying the top 3 teams in League B are promoted and replace 3 teams chosen by play offs between the bottom team in each group of full qualifying. If the next tournament has 2 hosts more teams are promoted but there should always be 42 teams in full qualifying.
Any new teams have to start in League B. I suspect this may dissuade the creation of a Vatican team.
Finally we should take the opportunity to bid farewell to Israel (if they cant get on with their neighbours that's their problem not ours).
Steady on! The way things are going we could end up being classed as minnows ourselves
Greece 1 - 0 Germany
Socrates (89)
Such a cap works all the time in club football, but can't be allowed to happen in international football. These games bring revenue in for the associations, and give their players European experience. Where would Greece, Turkey, and Norway be now, if there were such severe restrictions in place 20 years ago??Originally Posted by cavan_fan
Thought the English press were unbearably smug today about the minnows situation. Yes i know England were good and Andorra dreadful, but the way they were going on about it with their superior attitude, it makes me want to cheer on Macedonia from the rafters.
'Fascists dress in black and go round telling people what to do, where as priests.....'
I'm sure that game Andorra played at Old Trafford pays for their next trip to Macedonia or wherever. Without that revenue could they afford to fly around Europe playing minnows like themselves? Probably not. Anyway, the minnows will be laughing when the Chareloi case makes it impossible for the big associations to play anybody earning more than a few grand a week
Andorra are a horrible team. They do be time wasting even when they are 4 or 5 goals down and they bring nothing to the international game. As has been said a thousand times there should be a qualification for them to get into the main groups. They are never going to qualify for anything.
On the contrary. The Sammarinese FA will earn a hell of a lot of money from the game through TV rights, which would be used to improve the game in the country. Ultimately, football is for everyone - not just international players or top club players - so any scheme which results in more money going into a country's grass roots facilities should be commended, not rejected. It's one of the last places in sport you'll see an entire family working together, effectively helping each other out. Should money grabbing ruin this as well?
On a personal note, games against the likes of the Faroes and San Marino give me the chance to visit places I'd never normally think of going. Anyone who was in the Faroes last June would surely not want a situation where such trips could be ruled out because the Faroes aren't strong enough (holding us, of course, to 2-0 wins each time).
And for the countries and players involved, it's a massive bonus to have the biggest players coming to visit - read Charlie Connolly's book Stamping Grounds for a great idea of what it means for the Liechtenstein players to play against Spain and England.
And ultimately, we're talking about 14 games over a fourteen-month period. Hardly putting undue strain on the poor little dears.
I 100% disagree with setting up a minnow league. I love the way we do qualification in Europe and don't want to see it change.
As for Israel, I have no problem with them being members of UEFA.
I really love that book.
"Super Liechtenstein only lose 1-0."
This thread of reminds me of Gerrit he absolutely loves the small nations of interantional football, anyone know where he is??
Anyone else notice notorius smug git Oliver Holt in the Mirror today going on about how the minnows should have to pre-qualify?
Maybe fair comment - Except he lumped Northern Ireland in to that category - as in beat England last year Northern Ireland
Arrogant to$$er
I think Macedonia will turn the English over in Skopje...
In the Sunday Times (English version), they lumped in Azerbaijan, before conceding that England only won 1-0 out there the last time. Also put in Kazakhstan, who just drew 0-0 in Belgium. They'd probably have ogne for Latvia only they qualified for Euro 2004, showing that for many smaller countries, miracles can happen and shouldn't be cut off because England don't feel like playing them.
They have a team...2 draws in 2 matches. They dont have enough citizens (only Swiss Guards and Clergy members), on the 2 occasions, they drew with Monaco and, yes, San Marino. Recently they played some team from Switzerland, and beat them handily (5-1?). They, Nauru and Mayotte are the only undefeated national football teams.
However, back on topic, though its true they can be embarrased (think Australia 31 - 0 American Samoa, and 22 - 0 Tonga). But to be honest, Cyprus wouldnt make it through, and they almost be us. Just the possibility of beating these teams can be great for them. Plus they can be good to get your younger players some experience
Last edited by theworm2345; 05/09/2006 at 5:21 AM.
My Guarantee
Am looking for old Irish matches on VHS, PM me if you have some and I'll upload them here
To set some context for this I'd guess if we are talking about 8 teams missing out they might be:
Andorra
Faroes
Liechtenstein
San Marino
Luxembourg
Malta
Azerbaijan (?)
Kazakhstan (?)
Quite apart from the debate about the European-ness of the last 2 teams (Azerbaijan is as far east as Iraq and Kazakhstan as far east as Pakistan), I'd argue that there is no great problem funding football in these areas.
The first four of these are tiny countries. How much money can it take to fund football in Liechtenstein (which by the way is hardly cash strapped).
You might say Luxembourg and Malta are reasonable sized countries (though I'm not sure how well the Luxemburger(?) FA are spending their money if they are Europe’s lowest ranked FA.
But even if we take it that qualifying has a role in funding football, this could be dealt with by UEFA making a grant to the various FA's. I suspect Germany would rather pay the San Marino FA 100,000 euro than have to play them.
As I said above the problem is that were Thierry Henry to be injured and out for a year playing for France against some part timer from Andorra out to make a name for himself, Arsenal would rightly complain and this will weaken international football.
A lot of the arguments against this idea seem to be money based. Does anyone disagree that Andorra would improve by playing teams of similar quality and possibly having e.g. a meaningful match against Malta with the winners making it through to the main qualifying group. Even if this is played in front of 5,000 people in Valetta it's surely better than some patronising freak show in front of 50,000 at Old Trafford.
The country he gets injured against is irrelevant in this context. Arsenal - or any other big club - would complain (and indeed Charleroi currently are complaining) regardless.
I do. Andorra v Malta isn't going to make either team better. Andorra or Malta v someone like Slovenia, Slovakia, etc, will make the improve. Best way to improve is to test yourself against better opposition, not similar standard opposition.
Of the teams you mention, Andorra beat Macedonia last time out, who in turn drew twice with Holland. The Faroes have drawn with Scotland and come within a minute of drawing with Germany. Liechtenstein have drawn with us, Portugal and Slovakia, and beat Luxembourg home and away. Kazakhstan drew 0-0 with Belgium last month and are only new to European football (they qualify for Europe because they are at least partly in Europe). Azerbaijan drew with Wales, NI and Austria at home and lost just 1-0 to England. Some of these results can ultimately be crucial to the group standings (we were steeped to qualify for the Euro 96 play-off after drawing with Liechtenstein). Why potentially skew qualifying just because you feel you're too good to play a team?
Do you have any basis for assuming that there's no great problem funding football in the countries you named? There's always pressure for money, so if an FA can be made more self-sufficient through big gates and TV rights, so much the better for the country.
By and large, these teams are new and improving (I will allow that Andorra appear to be a shower of diving feckers, but Liechtenstein and the Faroes, for example, have made great strides in recent times, as results in the last campaign will show). That's because of the way qualifying is set up. Why should we stop this because we feel we're too good for them?
Of course these teams have had some good results (though a lot of them appear to be 0-0 draws) but I'm not suggesting these results shoudl be ignored. Relegation should be based on merit and that means teams who finish bottom go into a lower league.
This isnt some sort of we're too good for you snobbery but sport is based on the fact that winning brings rewards. At present there is no prupose to any of Andorra, Faroes etc matches. They will never qualify for a tournament but there is nor pressure to improve since they are guaranteed to stay in their current position. Competitive football isnt a benevolent charity it should be at least partially about desire to win and fear of losing. At the monment Andorra have neither.
Who says purpose - or success - is measured solely in terms of qualifying? Success is relative.
There's quite a lot of teams who will never qualify for a tournament - let's kick them all out while we're at it, and just start with the tournament proper. Macedonia may never qualify - they may beat us and draw with England, but that's not good enough - let's kick them out. Latvia will never qualify for a tournament. Except they did, coming from absolutely nowhere to do so. Why take away the chance of a country's - and its people's greatest hour - because we don't want to play them?
Liechtenstein drew 2-2 with Portugal; the Faroes drew 2-2 with Scotland; Azerbaijan drew 1-1 with Wales and NI. Liechtenstein beat Luxembourg 4-1 and 3-0. Plenty of non 0-0s.
There is every pressure to improve for the minnows. The basic precept of sport is to strive to be the best that you can be. Are you saying that when these players go out to represent their country, they're not trying their best? Their aim for improvement is always to beat their best.
We have to accept that Europe is what it is, and that there are smaller countries who are part of the same association as we are and who have the same rights to try and pit themselves against the continent as we do. Pre-qualifing in other countries is largely due to the size of the continent - both number of countries and the distances - and saving costs. In addition, the worst teams in Europe are still only half-way down the world rankings and are much better than the worst teams elsewhere (South America excepted). So comparing Europe to Asia, or American Samoa to San Marino isn't appropriate.
I have never suggested kicking anyone out, my suggestion means that if Andorra improve they will first be promoted and tehn have to keep their place and rise up the rankings.
I disagree that Macedonia could never qualify, Latvia were at the last Euro's and I dont see much difference there.
The small teams are becoming like those pedigree dogs you see, bred for one skill only, namely defence. The score pitifully few goals but in 95% of matches they simply put 10 men behind the ball. I dont blame them for this indeed it's worth remebering that after one of the highlights of minnow football (San Marino's goal v England) England went on to score 8.
A Maltese team that had to play similar teams for 2 years might just be better able to have a proper game against Northern Ireland (e.g.) than they currently have.
I don't agree with you there at all. I learned nothing when our team was at the wrong end of a 22-0 scoreline.
The bottom end of european football is gone stale, the same as the bottom of the first division. With no relegation there is no excitment in the first division for the teams not challenging for promotion. If a team finishing last in a european qualifying group had to win a playoff to keep its place for the next group it would add meaning to the games.
Remind me when there was last a 22-0 in a European qualifier? Even double figures is exceedingly rare. Most of these teams are new to the international scene and are progressing. The gap between best and worst isn't exactly Australia v American Samoa.
Plus, they're the best away trips!
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks