This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml | No replies possible in the archive |
| 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: kondor
Date: 21-10-2003, 06:55 | Refering to Geordiepars ranking, I think that Serbia & Montenegro has a better league than Austria and Israel, and I think they deserve that 17th spot. What do you think? I personaly think they are better than the polish league which is ranked 15th and i truly believe that teams in switzerland can't match up with the teams in Serbia and Montenegro...just my opinion. Tell me what your views are...  |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Nefi
Date: 21-10-2003, 11:14 | OK,OK. If you are talking about future, maybe. There is lot of opinion from everybody: Serbian league is better than Polish Russian better than Holland s .... But calculated coefficients are criteria for validity of these allegations. Of course another system of calculation vent to another ranking. For me is this ranking system very good and relatively very accurate measure of difference between leagues. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Nefi
Date: 21-10-2003, 14:13 | I would add only one thing. Disadvantage of current system is that it takes couple of years to project all changes in ranking after one country improves or deteriorates its performance. AND because all this is combined with the seeding system it would take many more years than 5 to get where country suppose to be. Soumetimes it is like self propeling system. Even the weekest teams from the TOP countries are always seeded. Such teams are getting someone weak from the tail countries more likely than an adequate oponent. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Sanibel
Date: 21-10-2003, 14:34 | OK the seeding system is maybe not fair. It takes at least 5 years to get enough points to find good position in the ranking. But this system is the same for each country. The problem comes if the country is loosing teams in the cups (England couple years ago after Brussels disaster) or Czech republic after fall of Czechoslovakia. In these cases it looks to be very difficult to defend last position. What i propose to change is seeding system after each round of the UEFA cup like on tennis tournaments. If you beat seeding team you can get his position. In this system you have 32 seeding teams and need to draw only first round or 24 teams and 8 from CHL (from third place of groups). |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: papanas
Date: 22-10-2003, 18:08 | i dono if i saw corect but haw come hungary and poland are above romania? thats not rrhite romania can beat those teams |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Nefi
Date: 22-10-2003, 18:10 | You mean Dinamo B. would beat Wisla etc.. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Sanibel
Date: 22-10-2003, 18:22 | I think Wisla is better than Dinamo. Sorry papanas i saw some matches with Wisla on Polish TV. But maybe i?m not right i don?t konow Dinamo so much. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: papanas
Date: 22-10-2003, 19:08 | ok but don t forget that dinamo b beat shaktior and will play sparta {in my opinion dinamo will beat wisla> but don t forghet steaua b who eliminated southamton and will play liverpool{steaua won the champions league in 1986>did wisla won it? |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: papanas
Date: 22-10-2003, 19:41 | and can u tell me any players that are now playing in spain italy and all the majoru leags that plaied at wisla? |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: newman
Date: 22-10-2003, 21:06 | I see papanas that you do not understand the logic of this ranking. Thus please let me explain you a few things. Firstly this is the ranking based on the last 5 seasons. Therefore do not tell us about prehistory (btw it was champions cup and not champions league in 1986). It deas not matter. Secondly there is no bonus points for the ex-players playing in Spain or Italy. So again it deasn't matter. And some more general remarks. Unfortunately we have not had a chance to see who (Wisla or Dinamo B) is better as both teams lost to Anderlecht which in my opinion shows that their level is pretty even. With rescpect to the teams eliminated by Polish sides please find some examples from the current and the previous season: NEC Nijmegen(NED), Hertha BSC(GER), Schalke 04(GER), AC Parma(ITA), FC Utrecht(NED), Servette Geneve(SUI). I think that some of them are better than Shahtar or Southampton. And finally please let me remind that the only Polish-Romanian encounter during the last 5 years finished as follows: Dinamo Bucuresti - Polonia Warsaw 3-4 and 1-3 (2 qualifying round of CL 2000-2001). Thus the bottom line is that Poland definitely deserved to be higher than Romania in the UEFA ranking. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: papanas
Date: 22-10-2003, 21:40 | well thanks for the lesson i was not talking entirely aboat the clubs yes maby wisla is better but i dono haw many team could beat team like southamton {who beat mancester > i doesn t matter but romanian teams and the national is situated on a place that frankely ......................isn t very relevante but in my opinion hungarian teams are to up placed! |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: newman
Date: 22-10-2003, 22:18 | I am glad that I could help papanas. And sorry for one mistake. Of course it was Rapid B and not Dinamo who lost to Anderlecht but it does not change my view. Regards. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: papanas
Date: 22-10-2003, 22:20 | newman ! whare are u from? |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: kerrbhoy
Date: 23-10-2003, 08:25 | papanas: Why don't you learn about what the coefficients mean and what the Country Ranking represents? |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: newman
Date: 23-10-2003, 13:08 | try to guess papanas. it seems to be quite easy. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: papanas
Date: 23-10-2003, 13:19 | i don t care aboat the coeficients and ranging |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: LondonSerb
Date: 23-10-2003, 17:36 | As has been said, the co-efficients suffer from a delay, and countries like Srbija, who had to start from a new ranking in 1995 haven't had a chance to catch up yet. It's all a knock on effect. Srbija have a low rating, so their champions have to qualify and they're never seeded. If you look at the sides they've had to play to qualify in the last 7 or so years, it's a joke. Barcelona, Leverkusen, Bayern Munich, Newcastle - it's difficult to boost the co-efficient when these are the first games you play. Luckily, wer'e on our way up the chart, and will get an extra UEFA place next year, and, if Zvezda and Partizan can win a couple of games more, the extra champions league place will be there as well..... |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Stef
Date: 23-10-2003, 20:44 | 2 LondonSerb: Yes, I can imagine... Ukraine was in the same situation in 1992. All the points of the former USSR were tansferred to Russia. And BTW soviet rating was mostly collected by Ukrainian teams  ( |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Nefi
Date: 23-10-2003, 21:54 | It depends, England needed only 5 years to return among top 5 teams after it has to start again in 90/91. And Czechs needed 5 years to reach 9th place(start from nothing in 1993) |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: LondonSerb
Date: 24-10-2003, 14:57 | The difference with England is that they were allowed more teams comparatively in Europe when they were allowed back in. Srbija have been allowed just 3 (1 champions league) from the start. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: kerrbhoy
Date: 24-10-2003, 15:21 | The first season England had clubs back in Europe was 90/91. They only had 2 clubs - 1 in the CWC and 1 in the UEFA Cup. This was because Liverpool won the League, but were banned longer than the other English teams. |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: LondonSerb
Date: 24-10-2003, 16:31 | A fair point, but I have two things to draw your attention to in this matter. One is the fact that no country had 6 or 7 clubs competing in Europe at that time, the most was three (excluding tournament winners from the previous season), which was why I said the word comparatively in my previous post. So England actually had as many UEFA and CWC entrants as all the other nations - certainly not something you can say about Serbia. All that aside, I still think England is a bad example because of the money involved in the game then, against now - ie, the money in football in 1990 was a fraction of what it is now, so just because a country was excluded from Europe, didn't put their football clubs at an economic disadvantage to the other nations in the 80's. Now, just a place in the champions league alone is worth 15million£, which is a vast, vast sum, when your'e excluded from it, so the stakes are higher, and therefore the ability of these countries to compete with the others is severely reduced. Pozdrav!! ------------------------------------------------------- ZVEZDA JE ZIVOT OSTALO SU SITNICE |
| Re: 17,18,19,20 place in co. rankings | |
| Author: Skyer
Date: 04-11-2003, 12:09 | Sanibel, totally argee about the system, when Domagnano beats Manchester United and gets his privilegies of seeding in the next round of the UEFA CUP or CL. It will help small teams to develop(how can young unexperienced team develop, if after beating Manchester United they will play Bayern, after another nearly impossible heroic win, there next opponent will be Real etc.) |