Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: kurt
Date: 23-06-2003, 19:25

Here a list of 16 clubs, my question to you is to rank the clubs in four groups.

Group 1 the best, group 4 the worst teams.

Here are the 16 teams, and together my personal ranking

group 1 : galatasaray,ajax,feyenoord,porto
group 2 : anderlecht,celtic,psv eindhoven,spartak mosow
group 3 : rangers,sparta praag,brugge, slavia praag
group 4 : dynamo kiev,boavista,rosenberg,L moscow

a little explanation :

why group 1 ?

these clubs have reached ( almost ) finals in uefacup the last years

why group 2 ?

these club are every year in europe and sometimes get far, for example second round champions league, are almost final in uefacup

why group 3 ?

these club are every year in europe but never to the last 8 teams, but almost the last 16 ( 32 teams )

so what are yours ranking ?

Author: pollymac
Date: 23-06-2003, 20:40

What is the thinking behind the 16 clubs mentioned? Noticably missing are any teams from the big countries, so I'm assuming you're trying to set a list of the top teams outwith the 'usual suspects'.

Taking the top country's teams away from the coefficients list makes for good reading.

Anyway here's how this works for your 16 teams (in order of their coefficient ranking) -

Group 1. Porto, Galatasaray, Feyenoord, PSV
Group 2. Celtic, Dynamo Kiev, Ajax, Boavista
Group 3. Rangers, Sparta Praha, L Moscow, Anderlecht
Group 4. Slavia Praha, Club Brugge, Rosenborg, Spartak Moscow.

There are also a further two teams from the 2nd tier of clubs in between Celtic & Kiev would be AEK Athens and in between Ajax & Boavista would be Olympiakos.

From the 16 I would probably withdraw Rosenborg and Rangers- as Rosenborg appear to be a spent force and Rangers just to annoy ianmorrisson, but also as probably more than any other team in Europe, they've qualified for the CL group stage without getting into the second round.

-Paul Mac

Author: sr_sofisticacao
Date: 24-06-2003, 11:14

Get Boavista out of that list as well...
They did a great season two years ago, in Champions League (they had a better team and not so many problems with injuries), but last year it was all a mix of luck, very agressive defending (they are very rough, almost violent), and a great goalkeeper (portuguese national team, Ricardo - that by the way is going to (try to) play in Champions League with Benfica).
They didn't qualify this year to a European Cup (I think they finished 9th or so in this year's league) and also lost the great responsible for they late sucesses, their coach, Jaime Pacheco.
Don't expect them to do something worth noticing in the next few years...

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 24-06-2003, 13:48

Pollymac,

Surely Rangers should be alongside Celtic considering they showed they were the superior team in Scotland with the treble this season. Celtic have yet to do anything in the Champions league either with 1 qualifying round exit and 1 1st group stage exit.

P.S. Nothing from a Celtic fan could annoy me at the moment after claiming a treble and Celtic ending up empty handed!

sr_sofisticacao,

I would also agree that Boavista should be removed from the list as from what I saw they were a poor side who scraped through most of their ties.

Re: ranking teams
Author: pollymac Date: 24-06-2003, 19:28	ianmorrisson- you're wrong, we've been horsed out twice in the qualifying rounds (Croatia Zagreb & Basle)

Author: pollymac
Date: 24-06-2003, 21:18

sr_sofisticacao- you're bang on with your description of Boa, but as they will only drop 1.75 points next year (from 5 years ago) and they'll probably pick up more than that when the country coefficients of Portugal next season is divvied out they'll be kept in a lofty (false?) position for a while yet.

Hopefully both the mighty tic and the great unwashed can enter that top group soon as befits two of the worlds largest club sides.

Author: Stuart
Date: 24-06-2003, 23:16

ian morrison - wrong again, this is a european football site, not a provincial backwater football site, hence im afraid everyone on this thread but u is right about celtic being in a higher group than rangers.

check out the uefa coeff as well if you wish.

Hope all scottish clubs do well in europe this year - its never happened before and theres a first time for everything (he says, hopelessly optimistically).

Re: ranking teams
Author: hamilton1978 Date: 24-06-2003, 23:40	stuart go to the main page, then database then archives then click on 1982/83 country co-efficient.... now make sure your heart is ok, but you may find Scotland are top of that table.....don't sue me if you get a heart attack

Re: ranking teams
Author: flob Date: 25-06-2003, 01:12	scoring 1982/83: Aberdeen FC 17 pts Dundee United 11 pts Celtic Glasgow 5 pts Glasgow Rangers 5 pts too bad Aberdeen and Dundee United aren't qualified this year sorry

Re: ranking teams
Author: hamilton1978 Date: 25-06-2003, 07:31	Ach, Hearts and Dundee are better than Aberdeen and Dundee united...now if Celtic get some points and Ranger just improve a little from last year, then Hearts and Dundee will do the rest we'll be top next season

Author: ianmorrison
Date: 25-06-2003, 14:17

Pollymac,

I was just referring to the new champions league style since 99 with 8 groups and 3 QR.

Also, Your reasoning for demoting Rangers was due to their poor performances in CL but my point is that Celtic have done no better. Up until last season Celtic had little success in Europe and in my opinion there won't be much between the 2 sides in Europe next season.

Do other Europeans think that Rangers would be an easier tie than Celtic in the Champions League?

Author: pollymac
Date: 25-06-2003, 17:14

ianmorrisson- yes Celtic have underperformed the last couple of decades, thats public domain. But you said yourself 'Up until last season....' and last season was a very big impression, I mean we knocked out Liverpool et al, whereas R**gers got horsed out pronto quick...and thats what the difference is.

You should also keep in mind that the teams mentioned together with both our teams have been performing up to semis and qtr finals for years, whereas neither of us have apart from one season and that is where the difference is, not in the SPL where the winner, literally, is the team that can score more goals against the crap teams.

Prior to this past season Celtic were ranked 70th and R**gers 54th, by the end we're 32nd and R**gers 47th and that climb of 7 places was most definitely not done by the sweat and toil of mssrs Ferguson etc. but on the back of our efforts.

Just to re-iterate this is a discussion about ranking according to European performances, not a discussion based on winning diddy cups or the SP(hel)L.

-Paul Mac

Re: ranking teams
Author: kurt Date: 25-06-2003, 18:12	i am from belgium If club brugge may choose the opponent in champions league, I would prefer glasgow rangers and NOT celtic

Re: ranking teams
Author: hamilton1978 Date: 25-06-2003, 21:21	Paul, its a bit unfair calling the rest of the SPL teams crap...rangers have just taken Kizanishvilli from Dundee for almost free, the old firm don't bother search europe much for the players, they take quite a lot of foreigners that the "crap teams" found. You may find that the "crap teams" have MADE the OF good teams. Since after all you take our players.

Re: ranking teams
Author: pollymac Date: 25-06-2003, 21:46	hamilton- dont want to get in too deep with this but the fact is at the end of the day the rest of the teams are quite crappy. The last few games of the season proved this with everyone anticipating the OF coming out scoring a bucketload.....which they did. Read some of the other opinions on this forum about our league -Paul Mac

Re: ranking teams
Author: pollymac Date: 25-06-2003, 22:18	Anyway Hamilton, just for the record pick an OF team and put them in a group or groups you'd like to see and why...

Author: mark
Date: 25-06-2003, 23:11

I would like first to ask all the scots here to open a scotish football topic and bring to there all the WMD arguments.

Anyway hamilton1978, just to add to what paul had posted, here is a small comparison between the points gained by the third ranked team from top countries, which were gained after qualifying rounds over the last 5 years.

I assume that there is no need to check the big 6.
Portogal - Sporting CP Lisbon 15
Netherlands - ajax 38
Scotland - Hearts 3
Turkey - Denizlispor (fener) 8
Belgium - Racing Genk 14
Czech - Slovan Liberec 13
Switzerland - Servette FC Gen�ve 15
Ukraine - Arsenal Kiev 3
Israel - Maccabi Tel-Aviv 6
Austria - FC Tirol Innsbruck 9
Poland - Amica Wronki 9
Russia - Dinamo Moscow 8
Serbia-Montenegro - Sartid Smederevo 1
Norway - V�lerengen IF 6
Bulgaria - FC Lovech 7
Croatia - NK Osijek 13
Sweden - AIK Stockholm 4
Denmark - Herf�lge BK 5
Slovakia - Slovan Bratislava 3
Romania - National Bucuresti 2
Hungary - DVSC Debrecen 4
Cyprus - Apollon Limassol 2
Slovenia - No third team
Finland - No third team

If we have ranked countries based on this crieteria Scotland would have been ranked ..... 23-25 together with Ukrain and Slovakia.

To put it in other words, Scotland, as far as european fotball is concerned, is Celtic and Rangers, the rest are insignificant.

Author: hamilton1978
Date: 26-06-2003, 08:54

Look, I don't hate the OF, but what I do hate is putting the blame on Scotlands "other" clubs.

Anyway, Mark, 10 years ago, Scotland, as far as Europe was concerned was totally insignificant even WITH the OF, hence our position being around Cyprus's

Now Rangers and Celtic are slowly but slowly putting themselves on the European map, don't forget Rangers were knocked out the UEFA cup first round last season, so we still got loads of room for improvement.

Ok, so now we have our best 2 teams finally getting it together for Scotland and because of them, Hearts will be a seeded team next season which has never happened for a while.

Hopefully with the fact Hearts are seeded next year and probably more seeded Scottish teams in the future we may start to see more Scottish teams in the UEFA cup 2nd round more regularly.

And our clubs outwith the OF may start to be comparitive with the bigger countries like Turkey, Czech rep etc without embarrassment.

I hope this answer is OK.

One other thing, we need another team or 2 in Scotland that can keep their players instead of losing them for peanuts. If we had 6 teams in Europe, maybe we could have the OF and 2 other "bigger" scottish teams which play regular in Europe and attract some players and keep them.

Author: porto-1978
Date: 26-06-2003, 19:28

Well this ranking game is no sense. The categorization is not valid: as example, the proposed pot 2 is difined by "these club are every year in europe and sometimes get far, for example second round champions league, are almost final in uefacup". Well Boavista (that will not play next year in UEFA, in the last years have reached the 2nd round CL as almost the final of the UEFA Cup. So if the ranking is about the last 4-5 years, Boavista should be in Pot 2 (playing well or not). But if the ranking is about the next years i don?t know (!) but i guess Boavista will not be in that ranking. But what?s the point? The 7th place in the Ranking will be determined by the coeficients, and if it will not be to Greece, will be to Portugal. Of course Nederlands have a chance but NAC and NEC...

Author: macaskil
Date: 30-06-2003, 22:45

mark has decided the actual UEFA rankings are too generous to Scottish clubs so he's decided on one of his own!

In fact Hearts' 3 points come from a draw with Mallorca and a home win over Stuttgart - they lost to the Germans on away goals.

This season (assuming they ARE seeded which is not certain ) we'll see what they can do.

The reason this turns into a discussion on Scottish teams is that some English fans can't resist having a dig at Scottish football, and the Scots quite naturally leap to its defence.

If we saw gratuitous denigration of, say, Turkish, Greek or Belgian football every week no doubt we'd see Turkish, Greek and Belgian fans defending their own football - see the Anderlecht/Bruges thread for an example.