Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: hAABet
Date: 20-09-2004, 19:41

Hi

My country (Denmark) seems to get the worst result since 90'. So I try to look in the magic ball (this site) to see how bad, it is.
So simple by taken the current statistic and first look at next year, to see how the coefficent will be before the kick-off the EC.

13 Israel 19,291
14 Poland 16,875
15 Ukraine 16,050
16 Russia 15,333
17 Norway 15,075
18 Bulgaria 14,790
19 Swizerland 14,500
20 Serbia-Mont. 14,499
21 Denmark 13,450
22 Croatia 12,416
23 Hungary 11,999
24 Austria 11,625
25 Romania 11,624
26 Sweden 9,833

As yo can see Austria is loosing a big year, where the got 7,500 and since the have not been near, so the end at the 24th space. Basically, the other coutries above the 24th spot is moving one up = Denmark is back at the 21st spot.
Of course this is not the final score for this year, but not much, so my country has the chance next year to get the wanted spot as country number 21.

But the statistic show that the is a big difference, for the countries. One year, they have a succes which the benefit from the following 5 years and one year there is bad, and a country is punished for looonnnnggg time.

My personally opinion is that the cut at 21 is wrong. The difference between 17 and 27 is not significant and with the new Uefa cup structure, there could easily been room for 5 to 10 extra teams in the qualification.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: vladyslavo Date: 20-09-2004, 21:13	you are right. at these ranks, a good performance of 1 team of some country, boosts its ranking immensely. take for example israel in 2002. Hapoel Tel Aviv reached UEFA's quarters, and got israel into the top 15 from the deep 20s. and not much has changed in the level of the football in israel in 2002 and afterwards. it was just god-damn lucky season. so the rankings are sometime deceiving.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: ron_4321 Date: 20-09-2004, 22:01	vladyslavo you have a litelle mastake here: after 2002 the soccer in our country got better and just know: 3 years and 2 historifal CL qulifation and some people exspect m.haifa to end atleast in the qurter finals...(before 3 years we even didnt dreme about this situation

Author: nesh
Date: 21-09-2004, 06:39

Vladi
u right HAPOEL TEL AVIV got great season then and dume simply good team they won then the title in ISRAEL with good deffence and like they did in UC .
they sold all the good players and last year and in present time they fight to stay our "super league" .

ISRAEL send sometime very good team like hifa in 90's
that reach 116 final in UC and lost in pendility by the finalist that year PARMA

MACCABI TEL AVIV then almost reach CL groupes stage like they did this year
MACCABI HIAFA almost reach also the CL this year like they did 2 years ago

lets see if ISRAEL will sucseed to cover the points from 2002 this year and the next year also

so ISRAEL had a progres hope they keep it ....

Author: mark
Date: 21-09-2004, 07:43

hAABet, It is hard to disagree with you cause why should I care how many club from denmark participate, especially when israel in 4 years will be at about the same situation, but let me try to be the devils advocate.

What is the reason that all the countries has at least 3 club in the competitions? I guess it has nothing to do with the quality of the clubs, but simply because historically there were 3 european cups, the champions, cup holders and UEFA, and every country sent atleast one club to each competition. Does all countries deserve to have 3 club according to their level of football? IMO no, all the countries which have a coefficient of less then 0.5 per year do not really deserve the third place.

Which country deserves to have 4 clubs? The country which have 4 reasonable football clubs. But almost all the countries below the ninth place do not have it except for belgium and turkey. Why should the israeli Sakhnin play at UC at all if they fail to generate any attack on the newcastle goal?

I want to watch good football. UEFA wants to show good football, and this is probably one of the reasons there are only 80 clubs participating at the UC this year instead of the 96 last year. Hopefully the difference between this year and last year is that at least 15 of the worst 16 teams are no longer with us, and the good football starts at UC round 1. Will adding the fourth in quality clubs from the countries between 22-27 improve the quality of football at the UC? I doubt it.

Small clubs don't make money at qualification rounds. The games are played at a vacation season, TV is not very interested, and UEFA do not give any prize money as they do in the UC proper, and there is no prospect of reaching the reach CL. And since adding 6 club to the QR means that there would be 6 more club at QR 1 which will not make money out of it, and might even loss some.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: Todor Date: 21-09-2004, 08:29	I totally disagree with you Mark. This are European cups not a G-14 competition and the big sponsorship money come from the fact that these cups are watched through the whole continent. I would remind you that more than half of the players in the top 5 championships come from the small countries. In fact the big money in the CL make the gap between the top clubs and the small ones.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: mark Date: 21-09-2004, 09:48	Todor, sorry but I don't see how what you wrote has anything to do with what I wrote.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: Todor Date: 21-09-2004, 09:55	Mark , I want to tell that the big clubs need the small ones. You say some countries should have less than 3 participants , that their matches are of no interest to you etc. In fact these matches produce much interest in the countries concerned. CSKA:Omonia or Levski:Beveren might be totally boring to you but for me they are more interesting than Real:Man Utd.

Author: Nick
Date: 21-09-2004, 11:19

Actually more clubs from smaller coutries is a good thing. I mean it's boring to watch every week Real, Man Utd and Bayern in the CL. I admit a have never watched a single CL game from the Group Stage in the last 10 years. It's boring. In the same time i would love to watch more games like Patrizan-Dinamo Bucarest ot CSKA-Steaua. They may not offer such big stars but from an emotional point of view they are much more interesting. Last week's game between Steaua and CSKA in Bucarest was unique in many aspects. Steaua fans had a huge transparent welcoming the CSKA fans in the stadium and shouted CSKA 5 min. before the game. CSKA fans returned the gesture shouting Steaua. I don't think anybody would like to miss that experience

Author: mark
Date: 21-09-2004, 11:19

You are giving wrong examples. Levski:Beveren is a round 1 tie, and hAABet is actually sugesting to add club to the QR round. And omonia, they are a respectful team with many apearences in europe, sure they deserve a place in UC.

But what about the third club from cyprus? AEK played against maccabi Petach-Tikva. The game in cyprus was not broadcasted on the israeli TV, and the game in israel was broadcasted in a subscription channel. Out of the 40,000 seat in the Ramat-Gan stadium at best 4,000 were occupied. By the quality shown by AEK they could barely escape elimination from the israeli second league. The game was too one sided, and it was interesting only because the israeli team won, but the quality was probably worse then many friendly games. So no quality, no fans, and almost no money, so what is the point of adding more games like this one?

BTW how much interest was in bulgaria around the Levski:Modrica tie? or Željeznicar:Lovech tie? is this really the kind of games that football fans in bulgaria want to see? Do you really believe that there was any player in Modrica or Željeznicar that is talented enough to play in the big leagues?

If the small clubs want to play against the tiny clubs, I have no objections, but why must it be in the UC? And since it is already happening in the UC, why should we have more tiny and small club? don't we have enough of them already?

Author: vakho
Date: 21-09-2004, 12:19

I posted already a thread on Nordic countries disaster
this year no teams except Rosenborg not only in CL but in UC as well. I beleive it's not correct to make woodoo on Counties ranking.
If you look at table you will see that share of 4-teamed countries 13-21 is misarble compared to 3-team placed on 22-52.
UEFA in some way grants the country to have extra team in EC compared to others based on last 5 years ranking. Exactly as you saying 3 deserved teams + 1 non-deserved - "let's see how it will turn on". This extra place decided on own league place i.e. full-worthy.
Another view is on cup holder/finalist spot. For example I take own swedish case - Elfsborg and Öster are fairly bad teams to be in UC - instead Malmö could take their place. I have to say Sweden got what they deserved - 3 teams is really MAX to be participating. The border really goes on place 27 including. But then giving 4 spots down to 27th , there will be no thrill
getting those 4 spots.
Looking for example on Poland, from 22nd position they climbed up to 14th in table before EC05-06.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: Nick Date: 21-09-2004, 13:26	@mark: Of course you are right. But tiny clubs like Modrica also deserve to have their day IMHO. It shouldn't be all about money and revenue and the bigger clubs can afford to loose 10 000 Euro in such a clash given they progress to the next stage.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: mark Date: 21-09-2004, 13:34	I think that I have a suggestion that will make everybody happy. Take away the 3 fair play spots and give them to countries 22-24. Now who is going to send this suggestion to UEFA ?

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: Nick Date: 21-09-2004, 15:08	Would be nice but UEFA won't do it. I never really understood the whole fair play ranking.

Author: putzeijs
Date: 21-09-2004, 15:34

I admid to have mixed feelings on this subject.

Normally I think that the more teams who can enjoy the experience to play in European Competitions, the better for the quality of the teams and players involved.
To raise the number of teams in UC is something that is discussed a few times on this forum before, fe. to fill the gap between countries 7-8 (6 teams) and 9+ (only 4 teams).
Theorethical it wouldn't be so difficult to raise this number of participating teams. If only the 2 topteams of the UC groupstage pass to the thirth round, you need 12 groups so 60 teams => max 120 in round 1.
This way you have space for more teams; some teams to qualify directly in groupstage; give all the eliminated teams of ChL qr a second change; reduce the qualification to one round. ... ... .

It would be as simple a that.

But you need more games, more refferees, more administration, more teams who earn less mony (if not lose money). More top teams to play against weaker teams. In fact this could mean a lot more Newcastle - Bnei Sakhin games. Perfect for the weaker team; perhaps a waste of time for the bigger teams.

As a Belgian, I think that our teams would be happy to have (one) extra participants to the UC. This year our clubs asked for 3 places in Intertoto.

So, I'm pro to raise the number of teams in UC.

Author: hAABet
Date: 22-09-2004, 00:16

Hi

Why, its can be justified to change the EC system to more teeams with 4 and, basically eleiminate the cup/seeding system.

The history:
You want good football. But the difference between the best and followers are not significant.

Like Man.U lost to Hungarian team, but where not eliminated. Lazio lost to FC Copenhagen, but not elimnated. Teams like Rosenborg who Juve in Italy, HJK if I recall correctly end 3rd in CL group phase.

If we take the Danish teams, they have eliminated Liverpool, Bayern Munchen, Real Madrid but they can't just not do it all the time.

The combination of elimination and a single win justify the minors teams.

I have the personally believe that a EC spot must result in minimum 6 games. The current Uefa system with 40 teams in 8 groups sux. My suggestion is 96 teams in 24 group = 6 games. 48/24 + 8 from CL and so on.

Re: Country coefiient in the future 13-25
Author: Nick Date: 22-09-2004, 07:48	24 groups is much too much. Nobody can really follow so many matches The current UC system is ok for me. Maybe just the fair play teams may be replaced by 4-th team from countries ranked 22-25.