LOI In Europe 2021

[DCSIL]

I

I still want up to Dublin and my Bohs mate came up with the goods another mate had a spare ticket going as his mrs couldnt attend so I met him at Ballsbridge hotel and gave him the twenty quid. I was high up in the stand and had a great view of the shenigans behind the goals.
Bohs thoroughly deserved their win last night they were immense. Delighted for them.

Nice one Marty glad you enjoyed it

[yurt]

I think any Dundalk fan will acknowledge they had the luckiest run of draws in the history of European football. The easiest side in each draw; Andorra, Moldova and the Faroes to get to the groups. I think that can safely be classed as a freak result in fairness.

Could be an argument that Dudelange's run to the group stage in 19/20 was easier. They lost to the Maltese champions in the UCLQ1, then came through games against Macedonian, Estonian and Armenian (on pens) champions. All sides weaker than Sheriff I would argue. So I think that's still trying to believe your viewpoint rather than rationally analysing it. (Couldn't resist )

We'll find out next week I guess! That was an extraordinary result alright (even if the Gibraltar side were the seeded team, and indeed were seeded above Rovers!) Racing Luxembourg lost home and away to an Icelandic team too.

But returning a bit to topic, Bohs v Dudelange will be an interesting one; certainly the trend in recent meetings has been that the Luxembourg league has been steadily closing on us and then passing us out. A straightforward win in 2014, an away goals win with ten men in 2015, an away goals win against ten men in 2016, and then Cork got knocked there in 2019. Dudelange missed out on Europe altogether last year, so that might have hit their budget given the previous year they were in the group stages.

Dundalk's troubles aside, you'd be disappointed if they didn't go through against the Estonians. Rovers obviously have the bye, but the third round looks like it could be manageable, although the final qualifying round looks quite tough.

Didn't realise there was so much recent history against Luxembourg teams, I think Bohs have a great chance to turn that tide. I'm assuming they won't be the bookies favorites but if they get them back to Dublin with the tie in the balance I'd fancy them to back up that Aviva performance with another one.

[Charlie Darwin]

I didnt say dictate things, but there's a feeling again that they could have got more. And on stus point about European experience, i've read every single year about managers mentioning European experience and getting a feel for the opposition or some other parlance. Being cautious is sensible, but being naive and sloppy isn't playing your own game - or maybe in some instances it is!

Well that's fine, but I still don't think you quite appreciate that clubs with multiples of your budget are generally better at football than you, so you kind have to overcome the fact the other team are better than you before you can play your natural game. I mean it's not FIFA these lads are playing, it's actual football on a pitch.

[Charlie Darwin]

Bcertainly the trend in recent meetings has been that the Luxembourg league has been steadily closing on us and then passing us out. A straightforward win in 2014, an away goals win with ten men in 2015, an away goals win against ten men in 2016, and then Cork got knocked there in 2019.

So, just to make sure I have this straight, Luxembourg clubs lost four successive European ties against LOI teams (including an amateur second-tier side beating a fully professional outfit) before finally winning a tie three years later, and that's evidence the Luxembourg league steadily closed on us and then passed us out?

I know you're an accountant and you know about numbers, so I'm doubting myself a bit here, but this doesn't really seem like good maths.

[pineapple stu]

Yes, when taken as part of the wider trend that Luxembourg sides in the past five years have beaten sides from Montenegro, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, Kosovo (twice), Azerbaijan (twice), Hungary, Poland, Romania, Moldova and Scotland (and have taken group stage points off teams from Spain and Cyprus). Those are their wins against leagues not currently ranked in the bottom ten, in which time our record is one sole win against a Norwegian side. In that time they've risen from 46th to 35th in the UEFA rankings, while we've dropped from 38th to 45th.

Let's not forget too that those LoI meetings have been in pre-season for them but mid-season for us. That ought to be a big advantage for us. It's literally why we switched season.

Could be an argument that Dudelange's run to the group stage in 19/20 was easier. They lost to the Maltese champions in the UCLQ1, then came through games against Macedonian, Estonian and Armenian (on pens) champions. All sides weaker than Sheriff I would argue. So I think that's still trying to believe your viewpoint rather than rationally analysing it. (Couldn't resist )

That's certainly handy, but not easier than Andorra/Faroes in fairness. But in any event, it's not an argument I ever made. All I did was counter your suggestion that mid-table Dundalk's EL Group Stage qualification reflected well on the league. It didn't particularly. It would have reflected badly had Dundalk not beaten the Andorra/Faroese teams in particular.

Bohs could certainly beat Dudelange - they're still in pre-season for starters. But I think it's reasonable to have Dudelange as slight favourites.

[CSAD]

So, just to make sure I have this straight, Luxembourg clubs lost four successive European ties against LOI teams (including an amateur second-tier side beating a fully professional outfit) before finally winning a tie three years later, and that's evidence the Luxembourg league steadily closed on us and then passed us out?

I know you're an accountant and you know about numbers, so I'm doubting myself a bit here, but this doesn't really seem like good maths.

And bare in kind that win was against Cork when they were a complete mess, the fact Cork came back to make it 2-2 in the tie after the first leg is an indictment on Progress than them winning the tie being a positive.

[pineapple stu]

Cork being a complete mess is kind of part of our league's strength, don't you think?

You can't really twist that into a positive.

[CSAD]

Cork being a complete mess is kind of part of our league's strength, don't you think?

You can't really twist that into a positive.

You’re comparisons are irrelevant without context.

[paul_oshea]

I think now with the abandonment of away goals rule it's imperative that the weaker leagues teams, especially LOI sides get the second leg at home

[CraftyToePoke]

Well that's fine, but I still don't think you quite appreciate that clubs with multiples of your budget are generally better at football than you, so you kind have to overcome the fact the other team are better than you before you can play your natural game. I mean it's not FIFA these lads are playing, it's actual football on a pitch.

This is it CD, resources, player talent pool, are a factor this man does not bring into his considerations. He's the same watching Ireland re the stature of club player we face compared to our own lads more modest careers.

But you might as well go out into the forest and find a grizzly bear and set about teaching pilates to it as be talking to him on that front.

[EatYerGreens]

As this century began, Irish clubs making it through a round in Europe was still a novelty.

We're now at the stage where all our clubs are broadly expected to navigate the first round as a minimum, and it's very disappointing if they don't.

I appreciate the nature of the draw has changed a bit over the years, but for me this change in expectation is evidence of progress.

[pineapple stu]

As this century began, Irish clubs making it through a round in Europe was still a novelty.

We're now at the stage where all our clubs are broadly expected to navigate the first round as a minimum, and it's very disappointing if they don't.

I appreciate the nature of the draw has changed a bit over the years, but for me this change in expectation is evidence of progress.

The start of the century is a long time ago now. A lot has happened since. Yes, results have improved since the 90s - I'm not arguing that they haven't.

But we reached a stage where we were expected to pick up a decent scalp each season (Aberdeen, Nijmegen, BATE Borisov, Hajduk Split, Djurgarden, Apollon Limassol, HJK, Goteborg, Gretna, Elfsborg, Rijeka, Odra Wodzislaw, Malmo, all in the 00s), and now we're back in a position where we can't expect that (see my example of the scalps from the last five years).

Or take the peak LoI (unsustainable of course, but that's another story) from 2003 to 2011 - LoI clubs got through 29 rounds in Europe in those nine years. In the nine years from 2011 to 2020, we got through 21 rounds. And that's with CL winners getting a second chance from much earlier (Dundalk last year wouldn't have happened prior to 2016), and of course UCD contributing a bonus round.

Whatever way you twist it, the results are getting worse.

You’re comparisons are irrelevant without context.

I've shown the sides, outside the current bottom ten leagues, that LoI teams have beaten in the last five years versus the sides Luxembourg teams have beaten in the same time-frame. What context do you think your one random outlier example adds in that regard?

[EatYerGreens]

The start of the century is a long time ago now. A lot has happened since. Yes, results have improved since the 90s - I'm not arguing that they haven't.

But we reached a stage where we were expected to pick up a decent scalp each season (Aberdeen, Nijmegen, BATE Borisov, Hajduk Split, Djurgarden, Apollon Limassol, HJK, Goteborg, Gretna, Elfsborg, Rijeka, Odra Wodzislaw, Malmo, all in the 00s), and now we're back in a position where we can't expect that (see my example of the scalps from the last five years).

Or take the peak LoI (unsustainable of course, but that's another story) from 2003 to 2011 - LoI clubs got through 29 rounds in Europe in those nine years. In the nine years from 2011 to 2020, we got through 21 rounds. And that's with CL winners getting a second chance from much earlier (Dundalk last year wouldn't have happened prior to 2016), and of course UCD contributing a bonus round.

Whatever way you twist it, the results are getting worse.


I've shown the sides, outside the current bottom ten leagues, that LoI teams have beaten in the last five years versus the sides Luxembourg teams have beaten in the same time-frame. What context do you think your one random outlier example adds in that regard?

In essence the point here is that financial doping works. Which is obviously why it happens. After essentially buying slightly better performances in Europe with money they didn't have, Irish clubs have had to stop being suicidal.

I expect the current progress in Europe to continue, as Rovers etc professionalise their structures. So we'll be back at where we were in the era of financial madness in a few years time. Only without the accompanying and unsustainable financial madness. Let's repeat the historical comparison and yardstick exercise then.

Important to also note that the only times Irish clubs have reached the group stage of European competition have come after the era of financial recklessness

[pineapple stu]

I expect the current progress in Europe to continue, as Rovers etc professionalise their structures. So we'll be back at where we were in the era of financial madness in a few years time.

There's a huge amount wrong with this tbh. For starters, I really hope the current progress in Europe doesn't continue, as we'll be in the 50s in a couple of years if it does.

Rovers "etc" professionalise their structures? There's a laugh. Rovers I'll grant - but who are the "etc"? Putting "etc" in a sentence often means you don't actually have any more examples but want it to seem like you do. Cork are second last in the First Division now. Dundalk are a stumbling basket case burning through their Euro money in a manner which would make Ollie Byrne proud. Bohs, Sligo, Pat's, etc are nowhere near the standard of the top teams in the late 00s.

And in the meantime, non matchday income streams have dried up. No TV money (it was never huge, but it's less now). Minimal transfer fees (this is a big issue for the LoI). Stadia which have hardly any scope for non matchday income (but it's ok because they're nice and traditional)

You say Irish clubs have had to stop being suicidal - I'd suggest Irish clubs have had to find a way to increase their turnover in line with lots of other clubs across the continent, and have generally failed.

Important to also note that the only times Irish clubs have reached the group stage of European competition have come after the era of financial recklessness

No - important to note the only time we qualified was when it was made easier to do so. Dundalk's qualification route was not available pre 2016, and Rovers' route was not available pre 2009.

[CSAD]

There's a huge amount wrong with this tbh. For starters, I really hope the current progress in Europe doesn't continue, as we'll be in the 50s in a couple of years if it does.

Rovers "etc" professionalise their structures? There's a laugh. Rovers I'll grant - but who are the "etc"? Putting "etc" in a sentence often means you don't actually have any more examples but want it to seem like you do. Cork are second last in the First Division now. Dundalk are a stumbling basket case burning through their Euro money in a manner which would make Ollie Byrne proud. Bohs, Sligo, Pat's, etc are nowhere near the standard of the top teams in the late 00s.

And in the meantime, non matchday income streams have dried up. No TV money (it was never huge, but it's less now). Minimal transfer fees (this is a big issue for the LoI). Stadia which have hardly any scope for non matchday income (but it's ok because they're nice and traditional)

You say Irish clubs have had to stop being suicidal - I'd suggest Irish clubs have had to find a way to increase their turnover in line with lots of other clubs across the continent, and have generally failed.


No - important to note the only time we qualified was when it was made easier to do so. Dundalk's qualification route was not available pre 2016, and Rovers' route was not available pre 2009.

Where are the facts that prove the standard wa abetted in the late 2000s, the teams in the late 2000s could barely string 3 passes together…if long ball is your kind of football fair enough but for most it’s not.

So to clarify, for all the talk of how great things were in the 2000s you have what evidence exactly?

[pineapple stu]

Em - try the evidence I've already shown about the sort of teams we beat at the time compared to the teams we're currently beating?

A high of 29th in the UEFA rankings as opposed to 46th now (albeit we should climb a few more places this year)?

I'm not really sure what more evidence you want to be quite honest. I guess I could add in the higher success rate of LoI players moving abroad (Hoolahan, McClean, Long, Murphy, Ward, etc) compared to now as well.

Could I push you for evidence of the claim that teams of the late 00s "could barely string 3 passes together"? The LoI may be leaning more towards technical proficiency now, but that doesn't mean the late 00s were just random booting the ball upfield.

And when it comes down to it, is it better to win playing ugly or lose playing nice stuff?

[A N Mouse]

Em - try the evidence I've already shown about the sort of teams we beat at the time compared to the teams we're currently beating?

A high of 29th in the UEFA rankings as opposed to 46th now (albeit we should climb a few more places this year)?

I'm not really sure what more evidence you want to be quite honest. I guess I could add in the higher success rate of LoI players moving abroad (Hoolahan, McClean, Long, Murphy, Ward, etc) compared to now as well.

Could I push you for evidence of the claim that teams of the late 00s "could barely string 3 passes together"? The LoI may be leaning more towards technical proficiency now, but that doesn't mean the late 00s were just random booting the ball upfield.

And when it comes down to it, is it better to win playing ugly or lose playing nice stuff?

Aw come off it Stu, it seems you like forever you've been Cassandra saying 'this is the worst season ever, just look at the European results'.

At peak we were ranked 29th and knew then that, for various reasons, that was unsustainable. Also it's worth stating that was achieved largely because we only had three teams competing, and one team doing well/anything had a greater impact, at minimum keeping the base points (08/09 was basically all Pat's, while 06/07 probably only time everyone progressed one round).

As for UCD bringing a bonus round, any impact they had was watered down by the fact we had 5 teams competing that year. If had four results without UCD then points marginally worse, without Pat's results that year marginally better (might even have bumped us up a rank for last few years)

We should be sitting about 40 (+/-5), this is a fair reflection. The dip in ranking this year is because of the loss of 16/17 points. The new format will have an impact on the rankings, effectively introducing more co-efficient '6-pointers'. This year's not done, and whatever your thoughts on the domestic season there's a real possibility of a breakthrough year in Europe, in terms of competitiveness if not necessarily group qualification. The only way we rise above this is to have four competitive teams, and some kind of domestic stability that has been sorely lacking.

For an example of how progress is made look no further than our northern brethren, who currently are ranked higher than us. The same 5/6 teams regularly qualify, they've built up club co-efficients to increase likelihood of favourable draws, which helps to raise country co-efficient. Despite an apparent 'lack of interest' they have four teams capable of progressing at least one round.

In summary, back in late 00's we were nearly at the stage where all our teams were competitive and could have genuine hope of all progressing at least one round. Then we got an extra European place and suddenly (other domestic issues) lucky if two of the four are competitive. Now with latest re-jigging it's harder to qualify, for non-champions, but we're almost at the stage were all our teams can have some expectation of progressing at least one round.

[Kingdom]

Where are the facts that prove the standard wa abetted in the late 2000s, the teams in the late 2000s could barely string 3 passes together…if long ball is your kind of football fair enough but for most it’s not.

So to clarify, for all the talk of how great things were in the 2000s you have what evidence exactly?

Ah, that's a bit lazy for my liking to be fair to everyone. Cork in particular in the 00's played a lovely brand of football in Europe. Even looking at that Shels/Bohs team that morphed from one group to another played really efficient football in Europe.
One of the first LOI European games I went to was Bohs vs Levadia (in 01 I think) and Bohs were outstanding that day.

Focussing on Bohs as a separate matter, Bohs were very good last season in Europe against TSFKAV, and they were excellent in both games against Stjarmen. First game it took them a little while to settle down against a very physical side, but it was clear despite the best intentions of the camera crew, that Bohs were interested in and capable of playing good deliberate football, and Stjarmen could not. Against the wind Bohs were excellent, and really should have taken a victory back to Dublin. It's great with hindsight of course, but that result last Thursday never looked in doubt. Devoy got all the plaudits, and fair enough, but Buckley, Wilson, Lyons, Burt were all very very good on the ball. Buckley in particular was extremely sensible in possession.
Thursday is a new game, new round, but no reason to think that Bohs don't have a good chance of coming back with a positive result, and we can see that they look comfortable in lansdowne. Only concern will be how bad the pitch in Dudelange is. It seems like it's raised, and with the amount of rain that's fallen here in the past week, I'd be concerned for the quality of it by Thursday.

[pineapple stu]

Aw come off it Stu, it seems you like forever you've been Cassandra saying 'this is the worst season ever, just look at the European results'.

At peak we were ranked 29th and knew then that, for various reasons, that was unsustainable. Also it's worth stating that was achieved largely because we only had three teams competing, and one team doing well/anything had a greater impact, at minimum keeping the base points (08/09 was basically all Pat's, while 06/07 probably only time everyone progressed one round).

As for UCD bringing a bonus round, any impact they had was watered down by the fact we had 5 teams competing that year. If had four results without UCD then points marginally worse, without Pat's results that year marginally better (might even have bumped us up a rank for last few years)

We should be sitting about 40 (+/-5), this is a fair reflection. The dip in ranking this year is because of the loss of 16/17 points. The new format will have an impact on the rankings, effectively introducing more co-efficient '6-pointers'. This year's not done, and whatever your thoughts on the domestic season there's a real possibility of a breakthrough year in Europe, in terms of competitiveness if not necessarily group qualification. The only way we rise above this is to have four competitive teams, and some kind of domestic stability that has been sorely lacking.

For an example of how progress is made look no further than our northern brethren, who currently are ranked higher than us. The same 5/6 teams regularly qualify, they've built up club co-efficients to increase likelihood of favourable draws, which helps to raise country co-efficient. Despite an apparent 'lack of interest' they have four teams capable of progressing at least one round.

In summary, back in late 00's we were nearly at the stage where all our teams were competitive and could have genuine hope of all progressing at least one round. Then we got an extra European place and suddenly (other domestic issues) lucky if two of the four are competitive. Now with latest re-jigging it's harder to qualify, for non-champions, but we're almost at the stage were all our teams can have some expectation of progressing at least one round.

But when we had three teams competing, so did lots of other leagues. You can't put our problems down to having a fourth team in the league when pretty much every other lower-half league in Europe also went from 3 to 4 teams at the same time.

The point about UCD's "bonus" round is in the context of purely counting the number of rounds our clubs won through (which is what I was doing). 2015/16 was the only year we had 5 teams in Europe, so it was a bonus result in that regard.

You say the dip in ranking is because of the loss of the 2016/17 points - I'd argue it's because we've done nothing at all of note in the past five years (again noting that this year is not over, and I've probably completely jinxed myself and Bohs will easily beat Dudelange. You're welcome, Bohs fans!) And that's the basic point I'm trying to make really.

The IL being ahead of us is more because they've had two years in the preliminary rounds, which the LoI has bypassed. The points they've picked up in those rounds is what has them ahead of us. (The preliminary round is gone now, so I do expect us to start rising a few places now)

Yes, club coefficients would help with seeding, for sure. But that wouldn't mitigate against my analysis of the leagues we've beaten - if we're getting the tougher sides earlier because there's variety in qualifiers and we're not seeded as a result, we're still not beating any of them (Brann aside)

[Kingdom]

To be fair to UCD too, they were very much the equal of Slovan for a large part of the game in the bowl. To the point that the Slovan fans I was beside were getting pretty peeved.