Yet surely a poor team who is seeded has a better chance of going through han the same poor team being unseeded.Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
It is an advantage. If the league is declining you need all the help you can get to progress. being seeded is a big advantage
Not if you get an unseeded team whose seeding doesn't reflect their current level of play.
Derry v Gothenburg is the prime example.
Seed's realtime level was below their coefficient and unseeded teams level was above their coefficient.
Result, unseeded team wins both legs.
Opposite happened to Derry this season.
Both make a mockery of seedings.
Of course but you have a far better chance of getting a beatable team. Its not foolproof but it is an advantage
Teams from the Baltic nations are pish in general and anyone from Ireland/N Ireland/Wales has a chance going in against them. With the long journeys abroad the thing is that the other team has the same long journey ahead of them before they meet you. The countrys ranking is low because these teams generally lose their ties. Being seeded is a big advantage.
Truly some rocket science type analysis there.
You do know the Baltic nations are only a those around the Baltic sea and don't include most of the nations mentioned by Cymro?
In fact, the Baltic nations are the ones I mentioned (except Finland) that would be preferable to trips to darkest Armenia or Kazakhstan.
"Life is like a hair on a toilet seat. Sooner or later you are bound to get pi$$ed off."
"In this league, a draw is sometimes as good as a win" - Steve Morison
Estonia,Latvia and Lithuania. Latvia and Lithuania are seeded for the champions league draw. Teams from Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales have fared well against them in recent years.Truly some rocket science type analysis there.
You do know the Baltic nations are only a those around the Baltic sea and don't include most of the nations mentioned by Cymro?
It appears that Ukrainian fella that was on loan with bohs, perploytkin?, is a bit of a star over in the Latvian league, the Latvians called them up to their international side.
why do you say that? If Shels hadnt been relegated/had to release players then we would have had a good side representing us in the Champions League this year.
Cork were unlucky to go out, Pats got a tough draw and would probably be in europe still had they not drawn Odense.
Drogheda are still in eurpe and imo will go through to the next round
Don't call yourself 'half full' for nothing eh?
"Life is like a hair on a toilet seat. Sooner or later you are bound to get pi$$ed off."
"In this league, a draw is sometimes as good as a win" - Steve Morison
Armenia are not a strong country !
They are not on the way up and they are not even close to being seeds.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
Cymro, where did you get this 80% crap you speak ?
Made up of course..
If you actually view the results from seeds v unseeds you'll see that the seeded side comes out on top most of the time.
There is a clear advantage in drawing a seed or an unseeded side. Pats and Drogheda this season are the best example and how anyone could argue against this when it's the choice of Denmark or San Marino, I don't know!!
Of the three regions, the northern one has to be the weakest and any seed not progressing should be banned from future competition!!! There is a massive difference in the top of the northern region to the bottom. Pats, the top unseeded team couldn't live with the top seed.
How anyone can say that it makes little difference just makes me laugh.
Getting seeded and earning more points against weaker sides is key to making progress up the UEFA charts. Thats what every other country has managed. It was just making that initial breakthrough by winning a few games as unseeds that we needed.
One last point..
Yes I'd rather we played against weak teams like Armenia/Asia than Denmark/Europe. Give me the seeded position every time as logic shows us that you will be drawn against weaker opposition.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
It's my opinion. Personally I really don't feel a trip to Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden etc (places Irish sides have won in the last few years just to put in terms you can relate to) is a harder task than, or even as daunting as, a trip to the farthest reaches of Eastern Europe/West Asia. Derry can beat Gothenburg but not Pyunik, for example. You can easily get a trip to Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan or Armenia if you're seeded and I think results have shown that sides from the UK and Ireland generally do better against the seeded countries I mentioned than the unseeded ones.
I really don't think you give these sides I mentioned from eastern Europe enough credit. They may not be spectacular but are good at what they do and are very tough to beat.
So if now we're agreed that more or less half of the non-seeded trips are just as hard as the seeded ones (as logic would tell you) that more or less covers 40% of the 80% I have described.
The remaining half of my 80% are teams who are not unsimilar in terms of ability. Compare say, Slovakian sides against Montenegrins (who won't be seeded for a few years yet), Slovenians against Estonians (Levadia pushed Red Star very close the other day in the CLQR2) and Macedonians against, say, Welsh. If you had to choose out of those countries, would you be that much more confident of beating the non-seeds than the seeds? I doubt it.
So to sum up, yes, if you were to take the most extreme possible outcomes from the seeded and unseeded half of the draw there is a substantial difference between being seeded and unseeded. However, my point it that the majority of the time you don't get those extremes. Trying to compare St Patricks and Drogheda this year is a perfect example of two absolute extremes of the draw.
And yes, the UEFA Cup is slightly different and seeding is generally more important than in the Champions' League, because you have more nations entering at the first round, and therefore, some really good European leagues are put in the seeded side making it harder to progress. In the Champions' League, being seeded or unseeded is really not that important. The champions of Norway, Denmark and Sweden aren't involved and the draw is not regionalised so you can draw a team from Eastern Europe with higher probability.
"Life is like a hair on a toilet seat. Sooner or later you are bound to get pi$$ed off."
"In this league, a draw is sometimes as good as a win" - Steve Morison
cyrmo, did you actually see that armenian team that beat Derry?
I did and i thought they were rubbish, and derry should have beat them
I didn't no, but I listened to radio commentary of the leg in Northern Ireland and their opinion seemed to be that Pyunik were killing the game well, even if they lacked a bit going forward.
Not being sensational in attack is not the same as being a poor side, no doubt they played for a draw in Derry and obviously they won the leg in Armenia and progressed.
In all honesty I don't think sides from the far reaches of Eastern Europe are actually brilliant sides but they are very tough to beat over two legs as results this year show. Armenia got two sides through, Kazakhstan got two sides through, Azerbaijan got one through and Belarus got at least one through (and they are still in the CL at the third qualifying stage). Whether this is because of their ability, or the difficulty of adapting to the atmosphere over in Eastern Europe is debateable but the point still stands. Personally if Swansea were in Europe and you asked me where I'd want us going in the first round, Lithuania or Kazkhstan, I know which I'd choose......
Last edited by Cymro; 11/08/2007 at 9:04 PM.
"Life is like a hair on a toilet seat. Sooner or later you are bound to get pi$$ed off."
"In this league, a draw is sometimes as good as a win" - Steve Morison
I accept there is a considerable amount of luck in the CL draw even if you are seeded but I believe if Derry were not in rubbish form they would have beaten the Armenians. The fact remains if you are unseeded there are no easy draws. Even if Welsh teams are excluded there are at least 5 easy unseeded teams to draw that Longford (only selected because they last in the Premier) would even beat.
As said by numerous posters here there is a massive difference in seeding for the Uefa Cup. Its pointless trying to explain as it is so obvious.
How can you possibly say for certain that Longford would beat those teams. That's an unbelievably arrogant assumption based purely on where these teams come from. Even your own champions elect couldn't beat the San marino side away from home, so how would your league's bottom side fare? I'd imagine it would be rather close over the two legs, myself....I accept there is a considerable amount of luck in the CL draw even if you are seeded but I believe if Derry were not in rubbish form they would have beaten the Armenians. The fact remains if you are unseeded there are no easy draws. Even if Welsh teams are excluded there are at least 5 easy unseeded teams to draw that Longford (only selected because they last in the Premier) would even beat.
As said by numerous posters here there is a massive difference in seeding for the Uefa Cup. Its pointless trying to explain as it is so obvious.
Also, there are no easy draws if you are unseeded, but likewise there are very few 'easy' draws if you are seeded, also. The 'easy' draws are maybe Malta, San Marino and Andorra (although saying that Shelbourne lost to a Maltese side once). The others are all capable of upsetting the applecart.
As for Derry and the Armenian side that's speculative. They may have won it on another day, they may have not. I can't honestly comment on that, but that is entirely speculative. Who's to say Pyunik weren't at their best also?
I think we more or less agree on the whole now, but I still think we differ on the standard of the lower-ranked teams.
"Life is like a hair on a toilet seat. Sooner or later you are bound to get pi$$ed off."
"In this league, a draw is sometimes as good as a win" - Steve Morison
Cymro, I think your making stuff up now.
You say all of the above and it turns out you didn't see the Derry game ? You give the example of Derry last season and this season and come out with regions of europe being better to play in. Go back through the results over the last few seasons of seeds and unseeds and come back with some facts for your argument. It's your opinion yes but your not making a very good argument, to me at least.
It's easier to go to Wales than it is Armenia but seeds are seeded for a reason. That reason is they have won plenty of games over the 5 years and are stronger than other nations in the first round. If Armenia are still bottom half of the unseeds yet it's a tough place to go then I suggest the teams are useless.
If these places were so difficult to get results then do you not think these sides would be now seeded sue to all the teams who they got results against ???
I really can't see what you're on about.
Being Seeded is an advantage and I give up if you can't see that. By your logic the Welsh teams should be doing great!!
Last edited by higgins; 16/08/2007 at 1:43 AM.
John Delaney!! GET OUT!!!
www.ssdg.ie
A Drogs draw in 2 weeks gets to joint 34th & a win puts into 34th on our own.33 Lithuania 0.833 2.500 1.333 1.833 1.500 7.999
34 Moldova 1.500 1.500 1.666 1.500 1.333 7.499
35 Ireland 0.333 1.333 1.833 2.833 1.000 7.332
36 Iceland 0.500 2.500 0.833 1.000 1.166 5.999
...
..
.
46 Northern Ireland 0.500 0.666 0.500 0.166 0.500 2.332
47 Wales 0.333 0.000 0.666 0.666 0.666 2.331
Seeding for Drogs gave the eL .500 due to easy draw against San Marino team.
the seeding only gave the eL the .5 if you assume that we would have been knocked out in the first round if we were unseeded. seeing as we were unseeded and got through last year, that is not an automatic assumption that you should make.
Lets suggest 0.333 so as ye could got hard draw like Pats. Will give you a draw at home just like them
Whatever way you look at ranking points could have a lot worse this season.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks