Who said we were better off not qualifying?
Seems harsh for croatia to drop a place when they only lost 1-0 to spain.
The score is not factored into ranking points.Originally Posted by tricky_colour
Number of ranking points awarded to Croatia after their 1-0 loss to Spain: 0.
Number of ranking points awarded to Ireland after their 4-0 loss to Spain: 0.
They dropped a place because the Netherlands climbed 4 places, ending up one place above Croatia.
Last edited by Serb; 05/07/2012 at 10:34 AM.
The Netherlands, who lost all 3 games.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
In retrospect it would have been better for many reasons had we drawn a difficult team in the playoffs and not qualified. This tournament has done us a lot of damage that will not soon be repaired.
What damage? Exposing our limitations and showing us exactly what we need to work on?
I've heard one's liver can regenerate if left to recover for a bit.
The liver is surprisingly tough (I guess it has to be, given we only have one, and die within hours if it stops), but as far as I know it can't undo cirrhosis.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Strictly speaking, the liver doesn't regenerate. The healthy part of the liver is, with some growth, able to compensate for lost function.
The Netherlands fell four places to 8th. Croatia fell from 8th to 9th.
Such as?...
Our absurd overconfidence when drawn in a group with three teams significantly better than us may have been slightly tarnished.
You can't spell failure without FAI
I dunno; I still think we can make it out of the group.
at the very least the tournament highlighted exactly where we are on the world stage and hopefully tells us a lesson of what needs to be done to highlight our shortcomings. that is a worst case benefit from qualifying.
qualifying for a tournament can never be a bad thing. sure why exist as an international team if your comment is to be believed?
Despite our performance, anyone who thinks we're better off not qualifying is, quite simply, wrong. We are tangibly better off financially for a start, thanks to the €8 million we received for qualifying (we should be able to afford JD's wages for another couple of months now at least). We were also likely to have been found at this level sooner or later — there's at least a chance that we'll take our lessons from the various hidings we got and begin to mature tactically.
To paraphrase a terrible cliché — it's better to have qualified and lost than never to have qualified at all.
Beautiful. But salting our performances with poetry and romance won't save them.
I think Serb made a conscious effort to leave the love out of the equation.
That's a relief!!
So anyone now what our rating would have been if we had not qualified, but still started on the same ranking?
I don't actually know how the system works, would we have lost less points by not playing?
Never say you don't get a rounded education round these parts.
Basically your points tally over a period of four years, and you gradually lose the points built up over the previous years, so every month you will gain X amount of points from the games you play and lose Y amount of points because your results from the past four years depreciate. That's why you can lose points without playing a game.
We didn't lose anything by playing in the Euros - if we had gotten a win or a draw, though, it would have been worth more the same result in a friendly or qualifier. We got 0 points for losing 3 games, but we would have gotten 0 points anyway for not playing any games. So no, we would be in exactly the same position whether we'd qualified or not, only presumably we wouldn't have gotten the bump that came with qualifying in the first place.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks