Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 03-06-2003, 15:37

If Rangers and Celtic were to have a good year in europe in 2003-04 then Scotland may go up to 8th in the country rankings. This could be a disadvatage for Rangers and Celtic because of the extra uefa cup spots. This would lower the country coefficient because Scotlands total points (which is nearly always just Rangers and Celtics points) would be divided by more teams. This would lower the country coefficient unless some other scottish teams started doing well and would thus lower Rangers and Celtics team coefficient. Does anyone else think that this could lower Rangers and Celtics chances in europe because of lower seeding?

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: kurt Date: 03-06-2003, 16:16	off course, there are enough examples, most significant RUSSIA , this year they didn't end in the top 15, this means in two years only 1 champions league spot and a few years ago 6 clubs in europe.Russia is spartak moskow and lokomotiv moscow, the rest nothing

Author: pollymac
Date: 04-06-2003, 09:33

have to disagree a little bit. Only one other season have either Rangers or Celtic done well in Europe (Rangers back in 92). If both teams were to have good seasons, it would lift us into 8th place.

But we can't blame the other teams for bringing 'our' coefficient down as we are both huge clubs that should be able to sustain a consistently high amount of points.

Were Scotland to have 6 teams, we would only require 35-40 points in total to maintain a decent average. Put into perspective, Celtic got 22 points this year for the country coefficient, so we should be looking at around 15 for both the Old Firm and the other 5-10 points to be made up from qualifying and first round ties. This way it wouldn't matter if the other teams done well.

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: rod_c Date: 04-06-2003, 11:55	Since one of the problems is that a team who gets knocked out in qualifying continues to 'devalue' the points gained by qualifiers, would it not be a good idea to calculate points gained in the tournament 'proper' (ie 1st round onwards) divided by teams who have qualified only?

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: celtbhoy Date: 04-06-2003, 13:15	Ian, whilst I understand your logic, it is interesting to note that in the year 2002/03 Rangers contributed the least to Scotlands co-eff. Pts Celtic UCL 22 Rangers UC 2 Aberdeen UC 2.5 Livingston UC 3

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: pollymac Date: 05-06-2003, 15:05	Its interesting to note that had R**gers had a semi-decent run this season, we would/could already have been in 8th position.

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 05-06-2003, 17:31

Yea, I realise that Rangers did not do scotland's ranking any favours last year but they have made a fair contribution to the country ranking over the 5 year period for which it is calculated. Hopefully if they get a good draw in the 3rd qualifying round along with Celtic both teams will amass points in the group stage and possibly further either in CL or Uefa Cup.

Hopefully Dundee and Hearts can also get a few wins. I think this is possible as they are both difficult to beat and gave Rangers and Celtic a run for their money a few times this season. The priority for Scotland is to stay in the top 15 to ensure 2 CL spots. To hold onto 9th would be excellent as this gives us an automatic spot in group stage.

In reply, even if rangers had done well this year it is unlikely that Scotland would have got up to 8th this year. However, if Rangers and Celtic could do well this year there is an outside chance of 8th. This would be very good for Scottish Football in general with 6 European places(this would be half the league!) but i'm still not convinced it would benefit Rangers and Celtic.

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 05-06-2003, 17:39

In reply to polymac, i would say that rangers and celtic have done well in europe for most years in the last 5 in comparision to Scotland in general which is the point i am trying to make but i do agree that they haven't done as well in europe as they should in the last 10 years until last year with celtic's run to the final. This might be the boost Scottish football needed to see it improve to a higher level.

Author: hamilton1978
Date: 05-06-2003, 18:58

The fact that Hearts may be a seeded team in the UEFA cup 1st round can give us more hope. Hearts will be playing an unseeded team to enhance our chances of more points and perhaps more confident for Hearts in the 2nd round?

What I would like it for Scotland to have 2 seeded teams in the UEFA....but the trouble about this is that every year, the scottish entrants except the OF is always different, so its difficult for scottish clubs to accumulate points for themselves in europe.

I do not think having 6 teams in Europe from Scotland is a bad thing after all.

I believe once we get 6 teams in Europe, the OF TOGETHER must get a good amount of points(I mean Rangers were the worst Scottish team in europe this year)...and hopefully of the other 4 teams, 1 or 2 would be seeded and collect a few more points too.

Since the shortening of the Champions league, the points total for all countries will lower a bit, so I think scotland would need to get 6-7 points every season to be in the top 8 permanently.

We need 1 or 2 more Scottish clubs to be playing in europe regularly for experience.

What do you all think?

Author: pollymac
Date: 06-06-2003, 09:45

The main or at least one of the main problems with Scottish clubs outwith OF seems to be that they are unseeded. This isn't just because teams rarely get points in the proper rounds. A lot of missed opportunities are missed because most teams in Scotland have ONE decent season out of every three. This means that they rarely have the chance to boost their points total because they're only qualifying for once or twice out of the five seasons.

As can be seen from the difference between Hearts and Dundees points total (3 points) its a very fine line between being seeded and not being seeded. Any team outwith the Old Firm qualifying 5 years on the spin will, barring 5 disasterous seasons, gain more than enough points to be seeded.

In the last 5 seasons only Hearts and Kilmarnock have qualified more than once (twice each in fact). Had either qualified for another two times, both would be in a position to (almost) guarentee seeding.

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 06-06-2003, 17:04

I agree with most of what you's have said! Things are definitely looking up. IF Hearts are seeded in first round of UEFA cup that will be a help. The problem with Dundee is that they are unlikely to boost their team coefficient at all because you have to get a result in the proper rounds (not qualifying) to add to your team coefficient and dundee could get a very difficult seed in the 1st round. Let's hope the draw is kind and that Hearts are seeded in the 1st round.

I think it will be very difficult for us to sustain a place in the top 8 though because Scotland unfortunately can't rely on both Rangers and Celtic doing well each year. More often than not one of them goes out in the early rounds. If this happens then to maintain our position in the top 8, the other team would have to reach the Uefa cup final at least because the points would be divided by the 6 teams in europe!! For example, this year Celtic picked up as many points as you could hope for but with the other 3 teams out early, our country ranking was 7th for this year. If it had been 6 teams in europe then it would have been more like 10th to 12th i think assuming the other 2 teams went out ealry too. With 6 teams in europe, I think Scotland may suffer because of this reliance on Rangers and Celtic. If they were both doing consistently well in europe then it wouldn't be such a problem.

Anyway, we have to be positive so I am hopeful we can make it into the top 8 and you never know, some of the non-OF teams may surprise us by getting through a couple of main rounds!

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: hamilton1978 Date: 06-06-2003, 20:55	Hearts are seeded! yeeeeeeeeeeeeeees! Hope for Scotland! maybe we can turn things around for Scotland co-efficient wise, and no more relying on the OF to go so far in europe

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 06-06-2003, 21:03

Dutch interest/view/opinion on Scottish football

First of all the results (in points) of the different Scottish teams during these
five (past) years:
total
98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 98/99-02/03
Celtic 7,50 6,00 5,00 10,00 22,00 50,50
Rangers 10,50 11,00 12,50 11,50 2,00 47,50
Hearts 3,00 0,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 7,00
Kilmarnock 1,50 1,00 0,00 3,00 0,00 5,50
Aberdeen 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 2,50 3,50
Livingston 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 3,00 3,00
St. Johnstone 0,00 2,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,50
Hibernian 0,00 0,00 0,00 2,00 0,00 2,00
Scots total 22,50 20,50 22,50 26,50 29,50 121,50

To pollymac 1: I agree with you that you can't blame the other teams for
bringing 'our' coefficient down (in the Netherlands PSV and Ajax can't blame
NAC Breda, NEC Nijmegen and FC Utrecht for (maybe) doing so next season
and I fully agree that both huge clubs (in Scotland: Celtic and Rangers, in
the Netherlands: PSV, Ajax and Feyenoord) should be able to sustain a
consistently high amount of points.

I also agree with you that if the OF both would have consistenly good seasons
the 8th place is possible, but that is just (during these five years) the weakest
point: Celtic with 10 points and Rangers with 11,50 points (season 01/02) is not
a good season! At least the OF should gain 15 or 16 points each for Scotland
maintain a decent average. In this way Hearts and Dundee FC can contribute
their part to obtain 35 points; with 6 teams it could be 40 points.
35 points : 4 teams would give an average of 8,750
40 points : 6 teams would give an average of 6,666
Of course this is not a guarantee for the 8th place and it will depend of the
results of the other concurrents of the 8th place.

To pollymac 2: Here I disagree with you; of course it is difficult to determine
what is a semi-decent run? I will try:
more than 20 points is a very good season (Celtic in 2002/2003)
15 or 16 points is a good season (required to maintain a consistent average)
11 or 12 points is not a good season, lets say a decent season?
are 7 or 8 points a semi-decent season?

Netherlands had 33,498 cp and Scotland had 30,375 cp, gap of 3,123 cp;
this means 12,500 point (rounded off); so Rangers should have made instead
of the 2 points at least 14,50 points, to give Scotland the 8th position.
So in my opinion a semi-decent season would not have been sufficient to
take the 8th position at the end of this season.

To pollymac 3: yes, you are again right; it is the same situation with the less
well-known teams in the Netherlands; they have one good year and then they
"disappear"; but I would like to add to things on this:
these less well-known teams are not used to play at two fronts (domestic league
and european cup)
another thing is that very often our Top 3 (Ajax/Feyenoord/PSV) are buying the
best players of these teams 1) to strengthen themselves (but not always)
or to weaken the thread of the concurrent
And that is my most important reason that I will never put a blame on the weaker
teams, if they are bringing down the coefficient; maybe we have to put the blame
more on "our Top teams" to behave themselves as they did in the past!

To ianmorrison:
Ranking beginning season 03/04
8 Netherlands 28,665
9 Turkey 25,791
10 Czechia 25,700
11 Scotland 24,750
12 Belgium 23,000

It would be a big achievement and (for me) a big surprise if Scotland would go up to the
8th in the country rankings. As a fan/supporter of Scottish football in general I am less
optimistic; I would think it already a very good season if Scotland would take again the
9th position at the end of the 2003-2004 season.
The gap with the Netherlands is 3,915 coefficient-point, which means (rounded off)
16 points (or 8 wins) difference. If Scotland should score 16 points more than the
Netherlands, they will have the 8th position, but in my opinion the gap is too big.

to rod_c:
in my opinion your proposal would give more and more advantage to the top 5.

to hamilton1978: thanks for the Dundee FC -information from the sixties!
I agree with you (and on this point I disagree with Kurt) that having 6 teams in Europe is a
good thing! It all depends above all on the stronger teams, who have to maintain
their consistently high amount of points and you can't blame the weaker teams for bringing
"down the coefficient". The weaker teams of the Top 5 are also bringing their coefficient down.

Regards

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: kurt Date: 07-06-2003, 11:15	to all, if scotland get spot 8, i want to bet with everybody, scotland will drop out of the top 15 some years later, all points divided to 6 no qualifying rounds , except 1 team in champions league, now countries ranked 9-15 take almost 2 points before the first round. For countries like scotland, belgium,russia, czech republik, spot 8 is nog a gift but a disaster in the future.

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 08-06-2003, 17:13

The Dutch input is interesting. I agree in part to yourself and Kurt. I do think that reaching 8th could be a disadvantage to Rangers and Celtic but i am also optimistic that 6 teams in europe would mean that one or two teams (e.g, Hearts) would qualify for europe regularly and begin to improve their seeding. With Hearts being seeded in the first round of the uefa cup this year, this may be a start for Hearts establishing themselves as a third scottish team in europe!

However, i agree that the chances of scotland reaching 8th this year is very slim. It is not really a target at the moment. The main priority for scottish football is to maintain our position in top 15 to have 2 CL spots for the big 2. What are the chances of Scotland dropping out of the top 15 in the next couple of years? If they stay in top 15 this will be of benefit to the rest of scotland. Also, individually, the priority for rangers and celtic is to maintain a high enough team coefficient to be seeded in the qualifying rounds of the CL. This shouldn't be a problem for Celtic for a few years but it could be for rangers. A few years back Rangers were regularly unseeded in third QR of CL and it is very difficult as there are extremely good seeded teams.

I am also changing my mind a bit about blaming the other teams outside the big 2 for Scotlands ranking in previous years. If rangers and celtic did well more often then this would give the other teams a better chance in europe. For example, Hearts have a better chance this year because they are seeded in 1st Round of uefa cup. They are basically seeded because of celtics run last year and if the big 2 did better more often then maybe new entrants to europe such as dundee would also be seeded.

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 08-06-2003, 20:41

Kurt

Referring to the question of ianmorrison (03.06.2003, 15:37) you answered (03.06.2003, 16:16) that
Scotland going up to the 8th position in the country rankings would be a bad thing for Scottish
teams (above all Celtic and Rangers).
In your thread dated 07.06.2003, 11:15 you are predicting that if Scotland would get the 8th position
they will drop out of the top 15 a few years later, and your example (03.06.2003, 16:16) is Russia.
I would like to point out that Russia NEVER, during the last ten years, possessed the 8th position.
Specification of the results of Russia:
year cp position
1993 31,000 6
1994 32,500 7
1995 31,300 7
1996 25,200 10
1997 24,866 11
1998 26,866 12
1999 27,825 7
2000 29,275 7
2001 27,708 9
2002 27,291 10
2003 21,041 18
So giving Russia as an example that the 8th position is not a gift and will bring disaster in the future,
looks to me somewhat strange, as Russia did never have that position.
I do understand your enduring dislike of the 8th position, but why only the 8th postion?
The 7th position had, have and will still have the same "rights" (1UCL, 1UCLQ, 4UC), but I did not
read or see any dislike of yours of that 7th position.
Furthermore you are giving a sort of warning for the 8th position. As you know, at the end of the
2002-2003 season the 8th position was for the Netherlands. If I follow your opinion, you are also
predicting that the Netherlands will drop out of the Top 15 in a few years?
I do accept your offer to bet that if Scotland would get the 8th position in the future, they will NOT
drop out of the Top 15 after a few years.

Regards (in Dutch: Groetjes)

Author: hamilton1978
Date: 08-06-2003, 21:14

To Eurycantha

I want Scotland to be in the top 8, I think its a good thing.

But as for your reply, you're asking what is so special about 8th and not 7th?

Well we say 8th because that is where the big leap happens, ie from 4 teams to 6 teams.

Plus 8th is the more likely position we'll get to soon rather than 7th. But if we end up 7th instead of 8th next year(very unlikely), then the doubters will still be saying the same things.

Now ending up 6th is a totally different matter what with 3 teams in the CL, now I think that would be excellent for Scotland but at the moment 6th is a dream for me and possible for it to happen in maybe 3-4 years time, if the Scottish teams carry on doing just 10-20% better than they have in the past 5 years.

Hope what I said is understood

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 08-06-2003, 22:04

To ianmorrison:

I agree with you (08.06.2003, 17:13)
For your (and all others) information herewith the Scottish results during the past ten years:

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
Scotland 15,00 8,00 18,00 18,00 22,00 22,50 20,50 22,50 26,50 29,50 202,50
Celtic 5,00 4,00 3,00 8,00 7,50 6,00 5,00 10,00 22,00 70,50
Glasgow Rangers 2,00 0,00 7,00 7,00 5,00 10,50 11,00 12,50 11,50 2,00 68,50
Aberdeen 4,00 2,00 6,00 1,00 2,50 15,50
Hearts 2,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 11,00
Kilmarnock 4,00 1,50 1,00 3,00 9,50
Dundee United 2,00 2,00 5,00 9,00
Motherwell 4,00 2,00 6,00
Raith Rovers 5,00 5,00
Livingston 3,00 3,00
St. Johnstone 2,50 2,50
Hibernian 2,00 2,00
Dundee FC
number of teams 5,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 11,00
CP 3,000 2,000 4,500 4,500 5,500 5,625 5,125 5,625 6,625 7,375

As you can see, when one or both OF did not succeed in maintaining the consistently high amount of
points, Scotland do have a bad coefficient (in 94/95 only 8 points and a cp of 2,000); Unfortunately for
Scotland there was no season, in which both Celtic and Rangers did very well (in 2001/2002 Celtic with
10 points and Rangers with 11,50 is, in my opinion, a decent result). A good result would be if both OF
would score in the same season (and the seasons thereafter) at least 15 or 16 points. It would make it
a lot easier for the other Scottish teams to contribute their part.

I did not make only a specification of Scotland, but also of the other concurrents around the 8th position.
Portugal, Greece, Netherlands, Turkey, Czechia, Belgium and Russia will follow soon

As another example I will give now the specification of Portugal:

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03
Portugal 49,00 30,00 22,00 37,00 22,00 21,00 35,00 24,50 37,50 43,00 321,00
FC Porto 16,00 9,00 7,00 14,00 4,00 6,00 18,00 13,50 13,50 21,00 122,00
Boavista 12,00 4,00 4,00 1,00 7,00 7,00 11,00 17,00 63,00
Benfica 13,00 12,00 7,00 10,00 1,00 8,00 5,00 1,00 57,00
Sporting CP Lisbon 7,00 2,00 5,00 5,00 9,00 0,00 2,00 3,00 9,00 1,50 43,50
Sporting Braga 7,00 5,00 12,00
Maritimo Funchal 1,00 3,00 2,00 4,00 10,00
Vitoria Guimaraes 3,00 4,00 0,00 0,00 7,00
Leixoes SC 3,50 3,50
Vitoria Setubal 2,00 2,00
Beira Mar 1,00 1,00
Farense 0,00 0,00
Leiria
number of teams 5,00 5,00 5,00 5,00 6,00 6,00 6,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 11,00
CP 9,800 6,000 4,400 7,400 3,666 3,500 5,833 6,125 9,375 10,750

Here you have also a beautiful example, why the coefficient-points are really bad (in Portuguese
eyes of course). During the 97/98 and 98/99 seasons the cp were 3,666 and 3,500 (the two
lowest cp during 10 years). During these two seasons Portugal played with six teams. So the
rapid conclusion will be that, because of playing with six teams, Portugal had two bad cp.
I don't agree with that hasty conclusion. I suggest you should look very careful to these figures:
in my opinion during 97/98 Porto, Boavista and Benfica did not maintain at least their avarage
points; during 98/99 Porto and Sporting did not maintain their average points; so my conclusion
is that not the six clubs caused that bad cp, but the failing of the four top clubs. You can also
put it in another way: the total points during 97/98 was 22,00, if you should deduct the 7,00
points of Braga and the 0,00 points of Guimaraes, there are 15,00 points left for the Top 4, which
would give a cp of 3,750, which is only just a bit more than the 3,666 (with six clubs).
So in my eyes (and of course that also valuable not only for the Scottish top clubs, but for all
the top clubs of all the countries), the performances of the two, three or four top teams are so im-
portant and then the performances of the other teams and even the number of teams is less im-
tant. Of course dividing a number by four (the strongest four) or by six (the strongest four + two
lesser strong) will always give a lesser good coefficient, but as this is valuable for the positions
6 - 12, it is also valuable for the positions 1 - 5 and 13 -52!
For the time being the rules are (and will be) for the 7th and 8th positions: 6 clubs and for the
9th - 21th position : 4 clubs. And although I agree with many Forum-participants that there should
be a few positions with five clubs, the UEFA don't react.
Regards

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: Eurycantha Date: 08-06-2003, 22:14	To hamilton1978 I agree with you about the 8th position and I under- stand your dream of the 6th position. My question about the 7th position was especially directed to Kurt; he is giving warnings for the "bad" 8th position, but I didnot read or see any warnings for the 7th position, although the "rights "(1UCL, 1UCLQ, 4 UC, total of 6 teams) are the same Regards

Author: kurt
Date: 09-06-2003, 11:04

to : Eurycantha

first point, 8th position or 7th it is the same, thing is about the difference 6 teams in europe or 4 teams in europe

second point : RUSSIA

if you take the database you see for russia in

1999 russia countryranking 7th, so they managed to be in top 8, and I say countries like russia, scotland,belgium, czech republic will drop down a few years later

russia in 2000 still on position 7 because they had still only 4 teams in europe

russia in 2001, 6 teams in europe, result is they drop out of the top 8, they become 9

russia in 2002, 6 teams in europe, again a bad year, because the have to divide the points to 6 , they drop again

russia one year later 2003, they fall out the TOP15, this is not because they have a bad year in 2003, this is because they have two bad years before in 2001 and 2002

The reward of russia for gaining position 7 or 8th, is that they only have one champions league contester, and this will happen also with scotland

this will also happen with portugal in a year of 3 or 4. Now they have enough points for being a few years in the top 8, next year 6 teams in europe and their ranking will drop every year.

If scotland get position i really hope so, you will see that i will be right, one bad year for celtic or rangers and with 6 clubs they only manage to get a maximum of 2 points for one season, and not 6 or 7 points that you need for a top 8 country.

The netherlands or not scotland, the netherlands have more than 2 good teams, scotland only two, the same is russia, belgium,.....

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 09-06-2003, 17:41

This is a test, to see if the columnes, prepared in
Excel, are good enough to publish:

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 total
Scotland 15,00 8,00 18,00 18,00 22,00 22,50 20,50 22,50 26,50 29,50 202,50
Celtic 5,00 4,00 3,00 8,00 7,50 6,00 5,00 10,00 22,00 70,50
Glasgow Rangers 2,00 0,00 7,00 7,00 5,00 10,50 11,00 12,50 11,50 2,00 68,50
Aberdeen 4,00 2,00 6,00 1,00 2,50 15,50
Hearts 2,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 11,00
Kilmarnock 4,00 1,50 1,00 3,00 9,50
Dundee United 2,00 2,00 5,00 9,00
Motherwell 4,00 2,00 6,00
Raith Rovers 5,00 5,00
Livingston 3,00 3,00
St. Johnstone 2,50 2,50
Hibernian 2,00 2,00
Dundee FC
number of teams 5,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 11,00
CP 3,000 2,000 4,500 4,500 5,500 5,625 5,125 5,625 6,625 7,375

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: Eurycantha Date: 09-06-2003, 17:43	Bert, the test failed, I will try again

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 09-06-2003, 17:48

Retry of the test

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 total
Scotland 15,00 8,00 18,00 18,00 22,00 22,50 20,50 22,50 26,50 29,50 202,50
Celtic 5,00 4,00 3,00 8,00 7,50 6,00 5,00 10,00 22,00 70,50
Glasgow Rangers 2,00 0,00 7,00 7,00 5,00 10,50 11,00 12,50 11,50 2,00 68,50
Aberdeen 4,00 2,00 6,00 1,00 2,50 15,50
Hearts 2,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 11,00
Kilmarnock 4,00 1,50 1,00 3,00 9,50
Dundee United 2,00 2,00 5,00 9,00
Motherwell 4,00 2,00 6,00
Raith Rovers 5,00 5,00
Livingston 3,00 3,00
St. Johnstone 2,50 2,50
Hibernian 2,00 2,00
Dundee FC
number of teams 5,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 11,00
CP 3,000 2,000 4,500 4,500 5,500 5,625 5,125 5,625 6,625 7,375

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: Eurycantha Date: 09-06-2003, 17:52	Sorry Bert, it looked good in word, the columns from Excel were also duplicated in Word, even the columns with no information, but it didnot work duplicating it into this forum. Can you give me (again) some help?

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 09-06-2003, 18:02

Second retry of test

93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 total
Scotland 15,00 8,00 18,00 18,00 22,00 22,50 20,50 22,50 26,50 29,50 202,50
Celtic 5,00 4,00 3,00 8,00 7,50 6,00 5,00 10,00 22,00 70,50
Glasgow Rangers 2,00 0,00 7,00 7,00 5,00 10,50 11,00 12,50 11,50 2,00 68,50
Aberdeen 4,00 2,00 6,00 1,00 2,50 15,50
Hearts 2,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 11,00
Kilmarnock 4,00 1,50 1,00 3,00 9,50
Dundee United 2,00 2,00 5,00 9,00
Motherwell 4,00 2,00 6,00
Raith Rovers 5,00 5,00
Livingston 3,00 3,00
St. Johnstone 2,50 2,50
Hibernian 2,00 2,00
Dundee FC
number of teams 5,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 4,00 11,00
CP 3,000 2,000 4,500 4,500 5,500 5,625 5,125 5,625 6,625 7,375

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 09-06-2003, 18:27

To Kurt

Thanks for your reaction, I have tried to duplicate
my ten years tables of Portugal, Greece, Netherlands,
Turkey, Czechia, Scotland, Belgium and Russia, but
I didnot succeed in the test (see above).

So here is my reaction on a part of your Russia
story, I agree that all you wrote is true, but is
is based on the last five years and there is a
little snake in the grass:

1997/1998 11,000

1998/1999 7,000
1999/2000 4,250
2000/2001 3,833
2001/2002 2,333

2002/2003 3,625

The deep fall of Russia was caused by the fact that
they must replace their best result during these past
ten years (11,000 cp in 1997/1998) by the very modest
result of 3,625 in 2002/2003. That's a difference
of 7,375 cp.

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 09-06-2003, 18:30

I think it is difficult to say the effect that 8th would have on Scotland. In one case it should be beneficial for teams outwith rangers and celtic in that one or two other teams will qualify for europe more regularly. Also, if we were to reach 8th, this means that we would have had a very good year which would probably also mean that the other european qualifiers such as Hearts would be seeded in at least the 1st round of Uefa Cup.

However, the other viewpoint which i fully understand is that 8th could be bad for Scotland. I think this applies to scotland more than anywhere because of the gulf between the top 2 and the rest. There is probably no other league in Europe where the top 2 are so dominant. There is absolutely no chance of anyone other than rangers or celtic finishing in the top 2. The Netherlands won't suffer in 8th so much because the other teams outside the biggest 3 are not as weak as the other scottish teams. Even in this year, Utrecht finished ahead of Feyenoord (i think). This would never happen with Rangers and Celtic so it is this gap that means that scotland may suffer if they were 8th. Any european teams playing in europe other than rangers and celtic usually brings their coefficient down. (Before everyone has a go at me, I know Rangers did poorly this year and i'm not claiming only rangers and celtic should be in europe for scotland!)

I realise that the other countries in top 8 have this problem also but it is nowhere near to the extent in Scotland. In other countries the teams in 4th and 5th have a chance of progressing through a few rounds but this is not reall the case in scotland at the moment. Hopefull though, the other teams can begin to close the gap on the old firm. I think they probably will because of the money problems in football at the moment but we'll see.

Anyway, although this discussion is interesting, it is a bit pointless at the moment as it would take an extremely good season for scotland to reach 8th so i think this friendly bet could have a long wait to see the outcome!

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 09-06-2003, 19:11

To ianmorrison

You are right about the dominance of Rangers and
Celtic in Scotland in comparison with for instance
the Netherlands, but I have to remind you that for
the season 1994/1995 Celtic didnot qualify themselves
for Europe! That is something that didnot happen to
the three top clubs in the Netherlands during the
past ten years. Utrecht didnot finish in front of
Feyenoord. The end-rankings in Holland:
PSV 84; Ajax 83; Feyenoord 80; NAC Breda 52; NEC
Nijmegen 51; Roda JC Kerkrade 50; Heerenveen 47;
FC Utrecht 47:
So you can also say that the top three in the Nether-
lands are pretty dominant.
Regards

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 10-06-2003, 07:30

A few facts from these ten years tables concerning the
selected group behind the top 5:

Portugal/Greece/Netherlands/Turkey/Czechia/Scotland/
Belgium and Russia

The ten years were composed from five years (old
calculation method) and five years (current calculation
method):

Netherlands had 9 different teams
all the other countries all 11 different teams, with
the exception of Belgium
Belgium had 17 different teams

The teams which had 10 appearances during these ten
years:

Porto
AEK Athens and Olympiakos Piraeus
Ajax, Feyenoord and PSV Eindhoven
Galatasaray
Slavia Praha and Sparta Praha
Glasgow Rangers
Anderlecht
Spartak Moskva

Teams with more than 100 points during these ten years
(average of more than 10 points a year):

Porto 122
Ajax 114
Galatasaray 106

Teams with 20 or more points during one season:

Porto (2002/2003) 21
Panathinaikos (2001/2002)20
Feyenoord (2001/2002) 21
Galatasaray (1999/2000) 25
Celtic (2002/2003) 22

Furthermore of the 17 different teams from Belgium
5 doesnot play anymore in the highest league or does
not exist under the original teams-name;
In Scotland of the 11 different teams 3 don't play
in the highest league;
in the Netherlands all 9 still play in the Dutch
"Eredivisie".

Author: mzok
Date: 10-06-2003, 07:51

It's clearly the fault of Motherwell, Hibs etc. that Rangers and Celtic lost in the first round last year to Basel and Viktoria Zizkov! ..and the appalling record of both clubs in Europe over the last 30 years.

Celtic last year apart, the performance of Celtic and Rangers in Europe in my lifetime has been embarrassing. (I don't consider a CL 1st group stage exit to be a "success" for clubs the size of Celtic and Rangers, no matter how "heroic" the defeats were) Year in year out, they lose to clubs with far less resources.

Come on Scots, try and celebrate success instead of defeat!

michael zok

Re: Rangers/Celtic disadvantage
Author: hamilton1978 Date: 10-06-2003, 08:31	Mzok, are you being sarcastic? Anyway some people did blame motherwell, hibs etc for the old firm's poor record in Europe. But that theory has been thrown waaaay out the window because of Celtic reaching the final of the UEFA cup, or else how did Celtic manage that???

Author: pollymac
Date: 10-06-2003, 09:10

To Kurt-

I have to disagree with your assertion that the 7th & 8th spot is something of a poisoned chalice for the smaller countries. Any method of getting extra teams into Europe has to be looked on as a bit of a bonus. You cite Russia as an example, however, the seasons that they had 6 teams in Europe were particularly bad ones for them and had they only had 3 teams as opposed to 6 they still would have struggled to maintain their lofty position (they accumulated 37 points over the 2 seasons).

The point (most) people appear to be making here is that the 7th & 8th positions are considered an achievable goal for the smaller countries, albeit one that ultimately is not sustainable.

As stated previously, one of the stumbling blocks for our (Scottish) teams is that they participate once or twice (if they're lucky) over the 5 year period. This leads to a stage where none of the Scottish teams gather enough points to be seeded, which in turn leads to the kind of draws we've had in recent years - Hertha Berlin, AEK Athens, Stuttgart, Monaco, Kaiserslautern, even Sturm Graz is a bridge too far our 'lesser' teams.

The chance to have teams such as Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen compete each year would/could also help bring in some much needed extra revenue, allowing the retention of some of their better players. This in turn allows the teams to build a stable future, which also means they can compete better both in Europe and in Scotland.

In my view this can only be good for Scottish football.

Lets face it though, if we did get the extra two places, we would have to ensure a steady 35 to 40 points to maintain the position. During the early 80s it would have been unthinkable for us to drop to the position we're in now. We need to start believing in our teams like that again, but more importantly the teams themselves need to give us something to believe in, not the Bohemians, Zizkov, FC Zurich and Zagreb results we've largely come to expect.

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 10-06-2003, 13:00

To eurycantha,

Celtic struggled in the early nineties and Rangers managed to do 9 in a row in the league due to this with other teams such as Aberdeen and Motherwell challenging Rangers for the title, but these days are long gone and it appears to me that it will be a long time before any other team outside the old firm even comes close to second. The gap between 2nd and 3rd only seems to be growing aswell so i would definitely say that the problem is far worse in Scotland than other countries.

However, things may slowly change if money becomes a lesser issue in football. Ranger especially and Celtic are in alot of debt at the moment and i doubt we will see any big names coming to scotland in the next few years.

To Mzok,

Of course its not motherwell and hibs fault that rangers and celtic have had some early exits in Europe! But it is difficult for Rangers and Celtic alone to maintain a high country coefficient for Scotland when other teams rarely conribute much to Scotlands coefficient. Also, other than last year, Rangers have had 2 or 3 seasons in europe which were semi-decent achieving over 10 pts a number of times. I wouldn't call this embarassing although it is not great either.

Author: pollymac
Date: 10-06-2003, 15:35

Back to the original question posed by ian. I don't think the team coefficients of Celtic or Rangers would be drastically reduced by having 6 teams. The team coefficients of the top clubs from each country are mainly made from their own runs in Europe (Celtics 57.187 points - 42 were achieved directly by themselves).

Both the Old Firms fans would probably pin a reduction in the country's coefficient on the other teams, but the reallity is, if they want to be taken seriously as a force in Europe, they need to gain the points to enable/ensure seeded positions by their own hard work and not by the topped up points received via the country coefficient.

Author: balakov10
Date: 10-06-2003, 15:56

Portugal and Greece just have 4 teams to pontuate

FC Porto, Benfica , Sporting and Boavista(por)
Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, AEK and PAOK(gre)

Holland and Turkey just 3...

Ajax,PSV and Feyenoord(hol)
Besiktas,Galatasaray and Fenerbah�e(tur)

So if you think well maybe you're not so behind in europe...and if you think that next season Boavista and Feberbah�e are out of E.Competition...things became even better for you

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 11-06-2003, 07:16

To ianmorrison

I don't think that the problem in Scotland is far worse than in other countries.
You wrote: "the gap between the 2nd and 3rd seems to be growing"
The same thing is happening in the Netherlands, with this difference:
"The gap between the 3rd and 4th seems to be growing"

Scotland Netherlands
Rangers 38-97 PSV 34-84
Celtic 38-97 Ajax 34-83
difference 34 Feyenoord 34-80
Hearts 38-63 difference 28
NAC Breda 34-52

12 teams playing 33 matches 18 teams playing 34 matches
all teams meeting eachother 3 times all teams meeting each other twice
5 matches for the championship-poule and
5 matches for the relegation-poule

If the Netherlands would have a league of 12 teams and would adapt the same
kind of competition as in Scotland, the difference would be more than 28 points.

The only difference, at this moment, is that Scotland has 2 top teams and the
Netherlands has three top teams. I don't think that the 4th of the Netherlands
NAC Breda is stronger than the 3rd of Scotland, Hearts.

Furthermore look at the other countries:
Belgium has two top teams: Club Brugge and Anderlecht
Club Brugge 32-79
Anderlecht 32-71
Lokeren 32-60 difference 11 points
after 24 matches was Club Brugge 17 points ahead of Anderlecht

Greece has three top teams: Olympiakos, Panathinaikos and AEK Athens
Olympiakos 30-70
Panathinaikos 30-70
AEK 30-68
PAOK Thessaloniki 30-53 difference 15 points

Portugal has two top teams: FC Porto and Benfica*
FC Porto 34-86
Benfica 34-75
Sporting 34-59 difference 16 points
* Benfica did not achieve very much these last few years

Turkey has two top teams: Besiktas and Galatasaray
Besiktas 34-85
Galatasaray 34-77
Genclerbirligi 34-66 difference 11 points

Czechia has two top teams: Sparta Praha and Slavia Praha
Sparta Praha 30-65
Slavia Praha 30-64
Viktoria Zizkov 30-50 difference 14 points

As said, Scotland has a league with 12 teams, all the other (concurrent)
countries have a league with at least 16 teams.

If you should compare the Scottish league with Switzerland (10 teams),
Austria (10 teams), Israel (12 teams), then, in my opinion, is Scotland doing
better these last five years than the ten previous years.
cp old cp new
89/90 3,200
90/91 4,500
91/92 2,250
92/93 4,800
93/94 3,000
94/95 2,000 1,250
95/96 4,500 3,500
96/97 4,500 3,125
97/98 5,500 3,125
98/99 5,625
99/00 5.125
00/01 5,625
01/02 6,625
02/03 7,375

The 2003/2004 season will be the first test; Rangers/Celtic/Hearts/Dundee FC must try
to improve the 98/99 cp of 5,625 (4 teams) is 22,50 points.

I would like to end with an old saying and it is also a song by Petula Clark in the sixties:
"The other man's grass is/looks always greener"
Regards

Author: pollymac
Date: 11-06-2003, 09:59

Eurycantha- but in Holland some clubs like Vittesse Arnhem have good seasons and come close or even be in the top 3.

The last time this happened here (close to top 2) was in 97/98 with Hearts 5pts from 2nd & 7pts from top. Prior to this it was 94/95 when Celtic were 4th and even then Rangers were 15pts clear at the top.

The gap here is huge, a couple of seasons ago Celtic were 45pts clear of 3rd place.

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 11-06-2003, 21:03

To Kurt:

I don't want to disqualify neither the Scottish league nor the Belgian league!
But has there been so much positiv excitement in the Belgian league during
the 2002/2003 season? No, rather negativ "excitement" concerning
KV Mechelen and Lommel.

Was Anderlecht capable to challenge Club Brugge? No, after 24 matches
Club Brugge was 17 points ahead of Lokeren. On the contrary, in Scotland,
there was tension till the last day, the last match, the last minute.
I know, it was again between the same two as usual, but at least there was
tension and challenge concerning a championship.

Surprises in Belgium? Yes, supporters of Lokeren would be able to be satisfied.
Yes, supporters of La Louviere woud be satified too with the cup-win.
Supporters of Sint-Truiden would be dissatisfied with the cup-loss, but in my
opinion Sint-Truiden had a very decent season.
And what about the Anderlecht supporters? The biggest gap was 17 points
after 23 matches behind Club Brugge. At the end "only" eigth remain.
So, lets say Anderlecht ended stronger?
And what about Genk, dissatisfied? Or the burden of UCL and domestic league?

Lets talk a bit of the Dutch, Belgian and Scotch history:

Scotland: from 1954/1955 there has been played 49 championships of which 40 were a
Rangers or Celtic triumph, so there were 9 others: Hearts (2x), Aberdeen (4x),
>Kilmarnock (1x), Dundee FC (1x) and Dundee United (1x).
Netherlands: Ajax, PSV and Feyenoord: 43 times; the others 6 times
each time another team: Willem II/Rapid JC/DOS/Sparta/DWS and AZ '67
Belgium: Club Brugge and Anderlecht 34 times; Standard Liege 8 times;
I can still remember the times when they (also) wre called : THE BIG THREE,
but Standard isnot BIG anymore; the others seven times of which Beveren 2x,
Antwerp, Lierse, RWD Molenbeek, KV Mechelen, Genk, all 1x.

Recapitulation: Top others
Belgium 42 7
Netherlands 43 6
Scotland 40 9

The only difference, in my opinion, Scotland has two teams and both Belgium
and Netherlands have three, but the dominance is very obvious.

When you should look to Portugal, Czechoslovakia/Czechia, Turkey and
Greece, you will find the same pattern.

I know it is always difficult to compare and it is not always fair, but I am
convinced that Scotland with a league of "only" twelve teams is doing rather
well (but only these last five years, the ten years therefore wre nearly all
more or less a disaster). Compared with the other concurrents, they have
leagues with 16 or 18 teams.

You can also compare Scotland with Switzerland (10 teams), Austria
(10 teams) and Israel (12 teams), and again -only these five last years- they
have been doing fine.

But it can always be better, and that is also valuable for Belgium (and others).
If Celtic could get to the UC-final, would that be impossible for Club Brugge
or Anderlecht? There has always been good and bad times, even Real Madrid
with so many cups, wasnot always on top during these (nearly) fifty years of
European Cup football. I don't know if you old enough to remember that Real
was beaten in the first round of EC1 (1962/1963) by Anderlecht. After the
3-3 in Madrid, Anderlecht won with 1-0. Of course, it is more than forty years
ago and we don't have the knock-out system of those days for the top 32
of Europe anymore.

I have to add another thing to my Russia story:

1997/1998 11,000 old cp
9,875 new cp

1998/1999 7,000
1999/2000 4,250
2000/2001 3,833
2001/2002 2,333

2002/2003 3,625

The cp of 1997/1998 (9,875) had to be replaced by the cp of 2002/2003 (3,625).
That's a differenece of 6,250; that's the same difference you can find between
the cp at the end of 01/02 (27,291) and the cp at the end of 02/03 (21,041).
For all rises and falls there must always be a very logical explanation.

At the end of june I will have work out your 25% proposal:
showing the Top 100 of teams based on the 25% rule instead of the 50% rule
and showing the 52 teams, known to play the 2ndUCL (18), 3rdQR (18) and
group stage (16).

At this moment the following teams would have an advantage of your proposal:
SK Slavia Praha and Rosenborg from a non seeded position to a seeded position
Lokomotiv Moskva and Anderlecht would take higher seeded positions
Club Brugge would take a higher non-seeded position
Newcastle and Stuttgart would have a disadvantage: both from seeded to a
non-seeded position and finally Olympique Marseille would get a lower seeded
position.

Groetjes

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 13-06-2003, 18:05

To eurycantha

I'm not sure i agree that if the netherlands had a league of 12 teams the gap between 3rd and 4th would be bigger. I think that with 12 teams the top 3 would be facing stronger opposition.

In Scotland, alot of people want to increse the league to 16. If this were to happen I think the gap may get even bigger because it is even more unlikely then that rangers or celtic would drop pts because there are even weaker teams.

In saying that though, the odd thing is that the bottom club in Scotland (Motherwell) were the only club who managed to beat both the Old Firm!

You are right though that the problem is not far worse in Scotland but i do think the problem is a bit worse in Scotland than most countries.

Back to my original point, i think that this is one of the main reasons why top teams from countries with a gap between the big 2/3 and the rest find it difficult to challenge the best in europe in the CL.

For one, Rangers and Celtic are not used to playing difficult games regularly so they do not have the right mentality in Europe sometimes. Also, because of this gap and the 50% country rule, i think the top teams in Scotland, Netherlands, Portugal, etc will suffer in terms of where they are seeded because the lesser teams in these countries don't contribute as much to the country ranking as "lesser" teams in the top 5 countries.

It will be interesting to see the difference a system with 25% as the country coefficient will make to the ranking of these bigger teams in the countries we have been discussing. I suspect it will increse their seeding in most cases and this would be the case even more as the 25% country rule was decreased further.

This is partly why Rangers and Celtic especially have a disadvantage from PSV, Feyenoord and Ajax because i suspect there is quite a difference between having 2 and 3 big teams contributing to the country ranking.

Which dutch team do you support eurycantha out of curiosity?

Author: Eurycantha
Date: 13-06-2003, 20:42

To ian:

Since 47 years I am supporting Willem II Tilburg

last championship in 1954/1955, which was my first
acquaintance with the club

I think it was in 1960/1961 when Willem II won tne
Dutch cup for the last time

Willem II relegated several times

These last 13 seasons they remained in the Dutch
"Eredivisie", with two major successes: a third and
a second place. With such an achievement we, the
supporters of the other clubs besides the BIG 3,
must already be very satisfied. As AZ 67 was the
last team (in 1981) that won the Dutch championship,
we have the dominance/hegemony of Ajax/Feyenoord/PSV
during 22 years.

In 1958/1959 my interest in Scottish teams began:
first with Hearts, then Rangers, Celtic and Dundee FC.
As I explained to Hamilton1978 I visited in 1962/1963
Anderlecht-Dundee FC; (my hometown was/is only five
minutes drive from the Dutch/Belgian border, so in
the past there have been many football travels to
Beveren/Lokeren/Aalst/Gent/Antwerp, which took/take
only 30 minutes; to Brugge a bit longer.
Travelling to the Dutch cities would take us at least
45 minutes or more.
As a Celtic supporter from the beginning of the six-
ties I took the opportunity to visit in 1967 the semi
final Dukla Praha-Celtic in Praha and later on the
final in Lisbon. Of course this was an unforgettable
event.
Regards