5 Nations Tournament in the summer?

[danonion]

Exactly, and this nonsense that a team 'deserved' to qualify is rubbish. The teams that qualified, deserved to qualify, the teams that didnt, didnt, simple as.

No. Scotland deserved to qualify. Two wins against France cannot be argued with.

[backstothewall]

6 team competition. 5 home nations, and an invited guest. 2 pots of 3, 2 winners play in a final. 2 runners up play off for 3rd. All played in a host city or region with 3 decent stadiums.

Everyone gets at least 2 games. Job done in a fortnight. Exclusively live on Sky.

EalingGreen, any chance your guys would put up the old trophy?? Would the IFA risk loosing it?

[Ireland4ever]

No. Scotland deserved to qualify. Two wins against France cannot be argued with.

How does losing a third of your qualifying games merit qualification. The system in place is the fairest there is.

[jmurphyc]

Considering the disparity between the standard of the different Groups, it is a reasonable stance to consider e.g. that by finishing 3rd in the toughest Group, Scotland are a "better" team than, say Russia or the Czechs, who each qualified in 2nd place in easier Groups.

Germany topped their Group on 27 points, the same as Portugal, who had two games extra (8 team Group).

It doesn't defeat your argument but I think if you want to argue that certain teams are weaker than others and less deserving of a place at the finals then you should at least get your facts right. Germany actually finished 2nd on 27 points behind Cxech Republic on 29 points. They didn't go full pelt in their last few games because they'd already qualified but this was probably the case for a few teams. And I think whether you're in a tough or an easy group 29 points and 27 points are very respectable finishes so you can't really say that Czech Republic or Germany aren't deserving of places in the final.

[Dodge]

Actually, the two examples you choose disprove your thesis, imo.

Scotland's performances against really tough opposition would have seen them qualify had they been drawn in at least three or four of the other Groups.

Yet they still finished in 3rd place, the same as a mediocre England, who didn't deserve to qualify by any standard. Worse still, had England managed to hold out at 2-2 for the last 20 minutes of their last game, at home to an already qualified Croatia, then they'd have qualified in 2nd on 24 points - the same as Scotland got in a far harder Group.

No point hypothisizing on hard various groups are. France would certainly have expected to gain 4 points from their games with Scotland but results dicaatate otherwise. The only barometer you can use is to finish in the top two of your group and none of the team mentioned did, and none of them deserved to. The points gained doesn't really come into it as various teams had their fate sealed some time ago and have experimented with selections since.

Some, like NI and Scotland will be relatively happy that they seem to be making progress. Others will be unhappy at having regressed.

[Newryrep]

no interest in this at all,

wont be any benefit in a football sense, cant see it passing of peacefully and do not have any interest in seeing us playing friendlies against England, Scotland etc,

Doubt it will happen, let them revive their Home Nation championship for all the good it did them on a world stage.

[Ceirtlis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...ls/7107705.stm

An article about this.

[EalingGreen]

It doesn't defeat your argument but I think if you want to argue that certain teams are weaker than others and less deserving of a place at the finals then you should at least get your facts right. Germany actually finished 2nd on 27 points behind Cxech Republic on 29 points. They didn't go full pelt in their last few games because they'd already qualified but this was probably the case for a few teams. And I think whether you're in a tough or an easy group 29 points and 27 points are very respectable finishes so you can't really say that Czech Republic or Germany aren't deserving of places in the final.

Sorry, don't know quite how I transposed the Czechs and Germans; nonetheless, it doesn't alter the basis of my case. Which is that those were the only two decent teams in that Group, all the rest being (no disrespect) mediocre at best.

Whereas, a fast-improving Scotland found themselves in a Group with three other more-than-decent teams (2 x WC Finalists and a QFist) i.e. four decent teams in total.

Or, to put it another way, ROI achieved third place in their Group on the basis of 4 victories - vs San Marino (twice), Wales and Slovakia; whereas, Scotland only finished third, despite 8 victories, incl. France (twice), Ukraine and Lithuania (twice).

Of course, there is no perfect way to eliminate the "luck of the draw", but it ought to be acknowledge that some teams who qualified were helped by getting a fortunate draw, whilst some others failed to qualify largely, due to a difficult draw.

That's all, really.

[EalingGreen]

EalingGreen, any chance your guys would put up the old trophy?? Would the IFA risk loosing it?

Would ROI really be interested in competing for the "British Championship Trophy"?

I'm not sure you can rename these things and besides, that was a trophy contested by different teams from those proposed for this new competition.

But if the trophy were acceptable and this new competition were seen as a "continuation" of the former BC, then I say: "Bring it On!" - why should we fear losing it?

[Dodge]

Sorry, don't know quite how I transposed the Czechs and Germans; nonetheless, it doesn't alter the basis of my case. Which is that those were the only two decent teams in that Group, all the rest being (no disrespect) mediocre at best.

Whereas, a fast-improving Scotland found themselves in a Group with three other more-than-decent teams (2 x WC Finalists and a QFist) i.e. four decent teams in total.

Or, to put it another way, ROI achieved third place in their Group on the basis of 4 victories - vs San Marino (twice), Wales and Slovakia; whereas, Scotland only finished third, despite 8 victories, incl. France (twice), Ukraine and Lithuania (twice).

Of course, there is no perfect way to eliminate the "luck of the draw", but it ought to be acknowledge that some teams who qualified were helped by getting a fortunate draw, whilst some others failed to qualify largely, due to a difficult draw.

That's all, really.

But you're not talking about teams who qualified. You're talking about teams that didn't qualify. With 7 group, there's always going to be a top ranked 3rd seed and a 7th ranked 3rd seed. As it happened at the last draw we were higher ranked than the Scots so it was actually Germany/Czechs who got the harder draw. The fact we underperformed so badly is immaterial

[EalingGreen]

But you're not talking about teams who qualified. You're talking about teams that didn't qualify. With 7 group, there's always going to be a top ranked 3rd seed and a 7th ranked 3rd seed.

I know I'm talking about teams who did/didn't qualify under the system. But any system is designed to produce the best 14 teams to go through to the Finals, and because of the inefficiencies of the draw, it failed to do so - most notably with regard to Scotland (imo)

As it happened at the last draw we were higher ranked than the Scots so it was actually Germany/Czechs who got the harder draw. The fact we underperformed so badly is immaterial

Except the final list of qualifiers isn't determined in one go, on the day the draw is made. Rather, it is determined following 12 matches over the course of 16 months. And whilst I accept that no system can easily allow for this, it must be preferable that a Finals tournament taking place in 2008 should comprise the "best" 14 teams at the end of 2007, rather than the "best" teams in mid-2006.

Or, to put it another way, Scotland improved enormously during this period, to overtake other teams which deteriorated, quality-wise, yet this was not reflected very well in the final list of qualifiers.

Anyhow, what's wrong with saying that had Scotland not been unlucky with the Draw, they would most likely have qualified? Whether they "deserved" to is another matter.

[Dodge]

I know I'm talking about teams who did/didn't qualify under the system. But any system is designed to produce the best 14 teams to go through to the Finals, and because of the inefficiencies of the draw, it failed to do so - most notably with regard to Scotland (imo)

I disagree strongly.

Or, to put it another way, Scotland improved enormously during this period, to overtake other teams which deteriorated, quality-wise, yet this was not reflected very well in the final list of qualifiers.

Again, you have absolutely no way of determining if Scotland are more deserving of a polace than, say, Turkey. Its not like American football divisions where teams play teams from other groups. Who's to say that a team who finished 2nd in a group you call easy wouldn't have beaten Scotland home and away. You're dealing in too many imponderables.

Anyhow, what's wrong with saying that had Scotland not been unlucky with the Draw, they would most likely have qualified? Whether they "deserved" to is another matter.

Again I disagree they were unlucky. They were third seeds and were drawn to face two of the higher seeds. Nothing lucky/unlucky about it.

[Ireland4ever]

I know I'm talking about teams who did/didn't qualify under the system. But any system is designed to produce the best 14 teams to go through to the Finals, and because of the inefficiencies of the draw, it failed to do so - most notably with regard to Scotland (imo)



Except the final list of qualifiers isn't determined in one go, on the day the draw is made. Rather, it is determined following 12 matches over the course of 16 months. And whilst I accept that no system can easily allow for this, it must be preferable that a Finals tournament taking place in 2008 should comprise the "best" 14 teams at the end of 2007, rather than the "best" teams in mid-2006.

Or, to put it another way, Scotland improved enormously during this period, to overtake other teams which deteriorated, quality-wise, yet this was not reflected very well in the final list of qualifiers.

Anyhow, what's wrong with saying that had Scotland not been unlucky with the Draw, they would most likely have qualified? Whether they "deserved" to is another matter.

is this a wind-up?? If not this is one of the worst set of posts ive seen on this site ever!! How the hell can you argue with groups to determine qualifiers....What do you want, A few spots left over at the end for the 'sympathy vote' for those nations who did well but just not quite good enough?

[eekers]

playing pointless friendlies in the summer, with b teams, will destroy our fifa rankings and seedings even more. there's a whole other thread on it http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=77298

[youngirish]

I'm not bothered about this. I can see us fielding a combination of our U21 and B teams as we have done in the past in our trips to the States. Can't see many of our better Premiership players being bothered to turn up. Of course a new manager could come in and change this casual attitude to end of season friendlies that our players have developed but considering it's been ongoing under the last three managers I don't hold out too much hope.

England will possibly suffer in a similar vein but they have more strength in depth than us to cope.

[Stuttgart88]

Just call them B internationals and then ranking points won't matter?

[Saint Tom]

Can't see many of our better Premiership players being bothered to turn up.

like they did in this qualifying campaign?!

[Fergie's Son]

I count the ROI as a home nation. If that offends you, I.......don't really care.

No, seriously, no offence intended.

Whose home? It's more ignorant than offensive. How about countries from the Western European Isles?

[Cymro]

Whose home? It's more ignorant than offensive. How about countries from the Western European Isles?

It's not ignorant, it's a widely used term to describe the British national sides and the ROI together. Called 'home' nations presumably because they were the 'home' of football. I don't know why exactly, but the point is the term is perfectly legitamate.

[Fergie's Son]

It's not ignorant, it's a widely used term to describe the British national sides and the ROI together. Called 'home' nations presumably because they were the 'home' of football. I don't know why exactly, but the point is the term is perfectly legitamate.

On an Irish website devoted to the Irish national team? I don't think so. Put another way, just because the term is used in one country it does not make it "perfectly legitimate" and your saying so doesn't make it the case. I have not heard the term in Ireland and I doubt it's commonality. As such, given the forum and the fact that the ROI is an independent entity, I don't think it's an appropriate term.