Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: UrsulMicut
Date: 08-11-2006, 16:30
Edited by: UrsulMicut
at: 08-11-2006, 16:35

In a german newspaper the boss from Bayern Munchen criticises the way the coefficients are calculated and in particular the fact that Romania has climbed up to a high place, considerind this event as "not normal".

For those who want more details about his statement you can search the web. Here I will express some thoughts about his point of view:
-> after several years in which the great football superpowers made a profit out of this coefficients system now he considers that there is a problem with it! It wasn't a problem as long as Germany was performing well ...
-> in the last years the german football declined when playing in the eurocups and now the fact that another nation has made a spectacular improvement it's bothering the german official.
-> when this system was chosen to reflect the ups and downs of the clubs and countries in eurocups the most fierce and dedicated supporters were those from the western parts of the continent where the most profits would go!
-> it's not enough that the romanian clubs must play a lot of matches in the preliminary rounds and now they receive criticism of taking advantage of their own good results!
-> it wasn't enough that year after year the german clubs received the bonuses from entering the CL groups while the romanian clubs only dreamed to play the last qualifying round, now it's the systems fault that didn't prevented such a situation!

In conclusion, Rummenigge's point of view it's childish.
After ensuring that the profits would go to the rich clubs accounts now they are displeased that someone else is about to join the table were the profits are made.

But let's not forget that the same official from Bayern Munchen was displeased this spring, when his club played against a hard opponent after the CL group stage, when he declared that the rich clubs are not well protected in order to go as far as possible before playing against each other!

If he want's to prepare the public, gradually, for the announcement of the next super european league then I have nothing against his intention, but not in this embarassing way!

Don't blame the others for your own shamefull results. Mind your own bussiness and do it with a minimum decency and pride for your own status.

Author: dragos_popa17
Date: 08-11-2006, 16:54
Edited by: dragos_popa17
at: 08-11-2006, 16:55

A little harsh, UrsulMicut

With Schalke and Hertha out(although they were seeded) and with Hamburg losing all games in CL until now, it's no wonder their position is threatned. If it wouldn't have been by Romania, it would have been by someone else.
But since Rummenigge complained about Romania, here's last years head-to-head statistics:
Romania: 3-1-2 6-5 home: 2 2-0-0 3-0
Germany: 2-1-3 5-6 home: 4 2-1-1 5-3

Author: Francisco
Date: 08-11-2006, 17:25

The only 2 things I see wrong about the current coefficient system are:

1 - The country weight on teams coefficients (I think that it should be 0, instead of 33%. Although the country ranking might be used in cases where there are two (or more) teams with the same ranking and only one can be seeded, in this case the team from the highest ranking country should be seeded.

2 - The fact that currently it's better to gather points with UEFA Cup than CL. I think the ranking for win/draw should be different for both competitions: 3.0/1.5 for CL and 2.0/1.0 for UC (half in case of qualyfication rounds). BUT the only reason I'm proposing this is because teams reaching the final of UC play more games (2) than the ones that play CL, which means that if both CL and UC winners win all their games, the UC winner would gather 4 extra points in those 2 games, while the CL winner would gather 3 bonus extra points for participating in CL group stage. In the end that means UC winner gets 1 more point than the CL winner, which makes NO SENSE considering that the CL team is in a higher level competition!

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Lupta_Steaua Date: 08-11-2006, 17:36	The winner of the CL gets an extra bonus point, which compensates the difference. There is also one more qualifying round in CL, so theoretically, a team can actually gather more points in the CL than in UEFA. I believe, that actually the teams that end up in 3rd in CL have more "available" points, but they would not end up in that position if they got all of them, right?

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: dragos_popa17 Date: 08-11-2006, 17:37	Perhaps it would be better if there were more bonus points for teams in CL later stages. Maybe 2 instead of 1.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: AlanK Date: 08-11-2006, 17:47	The winner of the CL gets an extra bonus point???!!! Have I missed something brand new? I'm in favor, but it has certainly never happened before, and the total available in CL and UEFA Cup last year was equal.

Author: kurt
Date: 08-11-2006, 17:47

to dragos ?

2 bonus points in later stadiums ?? who do you think are the last 16 ? that are already 13 teams in the teamrankins ranked in the top 20 teamranking, this is making topteams unreachable

there is only 1 problem that subtopteams and 3 or 4th in champions league with very little points and if these teams play in uefacup they can gain many points,example anderlecht, but for me the teamranking is in balance, anderlecht in the previous 2 years only 1 victory of 12 games, but they had the chance to play 12 games and a lot of money.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: dragos_popa17 Date: 08-11-2006, 17:54	Kurt, I think it would compensate for that extra round in the UC. Another idea is to give 3 bonus points to teams qualified in the last 16 of the CL, instead of 1. It's a way of protecting teams that got there and don't get to make as many points as they would have made in the UC.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Lupta_Steaua Date: 08-11-2006, 17:58	AlanK, You are right, I guess I did not phrase my answer very correctly. What I meant to say, is that the teams in CL get a max 7 bonus points, while in UC - max 3. So 4 extra points, which compensate for the additional games in UC.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Francisco Date: 08-11-2006, 18:03	@Lupta_Steaua You're right, I forgot that CL gets bonus points since 1/8, while UC gets 1 bouns point since Quarter-final. But still my problem is that UC shouldn't give as many points as CL, simply because CL teams are clearly (or sometimes not so clear )stronger than UC teams.

Author: moro
Date: 08-11-2006, 18:48

I also thought once that CL deserve more % in coeff, but now I think I was wrong. Maybe they should make 2 rankings with CL country coeff and another one with UC coeff. But still, the actual ranking "style" is OK, look, first 5-7 countries very stables last 6-7 years.
I dont think in team coef the country coef should be 0% instead of 30%, because if one "new" team is able to get let's say 4-th spot in Spain's ch-ship, is not fair to put them at the same level with San Marino, because they should be considered very strong team.

So let's leave the system like it is and see if Romania deserve the spot.

Rumennigge has got the new anti-east-european sort-of-racism-syndrome. Until 1989 they've all act the cheep movie of "pitty for all people suffering from communism", now they are scared the hell of them because they might work for less money, you know...

Author: Francisco
Date: 08-11-2006, 19:16
Edited by: Francisco
at: 08-11-2006, 19:16

@moro

1 - I disagree with your opinion over new teams. I think new teams in Europe have to prove they are good. They can't be deamed good only because other teams in their country have been good since the dawn of football

2 - About the different rankings I disagree again

Imagine that Barcelona spends 5 years playing CL, and suddenly have to play in UC, are you really giving Barcelona 0 points? More, if there are teams transitioning from CL to UC independent rankings make even less sense, since teams these teams would always gather points in both rankings while others gained nil even if they had a good season in UC or CL on the other competition.

Author: krasste
Date: 08-11-2006, 19:19

Ah time to post again - a german mate here by the way

Some extracts of this silly interview:

"It cant be true, that Romania challenges German Bundesliga, just because they gather their points in UC, thats a joke."
Now they want to discuss the 5yr in several Uefa-committees to save the current position.

For me the interview is a joke. It is true that Romania challenges us and the system works very fine! Romania came from P 2x with Steaua unseeded in Cl-Qualification and unseeded Teams in UCup and they made their way in an impressive manner. After some years Steaua gathered enough points in UC against WE Teams and is seeded in QR3 now. Wow.
Dinamo and Rapid were unseeded last year and eliminated many teams Western European Teams as well. Just for example our beloved friends from Hamburg and Berlin. And thats the point. If Romanian Teams knock out german ones they deserve the spot. They did and they will do. This year 2 of 4 german teams did not even make it to group stage (seeded Teams) and Leverkusen is playing poor too, we will see the next part when Dinamo plays `em. I, for myself, dont wanna see this teams anymore and thats what is going to happen. They just dont deserve it. Germany has the same chance to gather points in UC, but they are just too, yeah, whatever, they dont get it.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: larmen Date: 08-11-2006, 19:25	Rummenigge is FC Bayern, and they talk a lot to distract from internal problems. Anyway, as if Bayern would ever fail to get one of the top spots in Germany. Would be like someone in Manchester being worried about that. While Bayern might not always win, they do (nearly) always end up in teh top 2. And Germany has to fall quite a bit until that isn't enough anymore.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 08-11-2006, 20:30

At 13.43 today badgerboy wrote:

"The UEFA Cup Group Stage and the extra points available there are obviously a very new thing. It seems logical to me that UEFA might look at the consequences of this & consider if any adjustments should be made to either their points system or their method of allocating places. Romania's swift rise is one of the major "coefficient events" in recent seasons so one of the aspects UEFA might look at".

Within hours we have this thread and krasste writes: "Now they want to discuss the 5yr in several Uefa-committees to save the current position".

I knew I was good but not that good

For the record I'm not particularly in favour of changing the points system. My solution is this:

"Increase the number of teams entitled to four spots (down to the country ranked around 30 or 32) and you decrease the likelihood of a country rising with such speed (and based on just one or two good seasons) into the top six or eight. Divide Romania's points last year & this by four teams instead of three and they've still made an impressive rise (looking good in 10th) but it's slightly less meteoric (and maybe more reasonable) than the current system allows".

I've got absolutely nothing against Romania's rise. Personally I'm more intrigued to see six Romanian teams in Europe than six Greek teams for example - but that's just my personal preference. My opinion is that they've actually benefited from a system that gives some countries too few teams in Europe - so good luck to them. But I do think there's a case for changing the allocation - not to prevent a country rising but to make the rise more reasonable.

Surely an allocation that worked in 1979 with 32 countries competing in all competitions should be looked at again now we have 49 (presumably 50 next year)?

Author: moro
Date: 08-11-2006, 20:32

@ Francisco
Of course you disagree, because I disagreed with you, my first message was for you.
But why in UC do you give 0p to Bar�a ?In team coeff I see them keeping points gained in CL, when they play UC. But once again, I think the actual system is OK, it was just an ideea in the wind with 2 rankings, in practice this could be very difficult to maintain.
Regarding the other question, I think we're both right: I think you must ler Zulte with 33% rather than nothing, they are actually prooving something better than San Marino. But if the law would say "u start with 0", hey, that's the law, we could see what happens than. But with this law u will see let's say maybe-future-strong Real Sociedad unseeded, and 8-10 others teams, playing against Newcastle, Schalke, etc, while others 8 teams with 6.452 coef or less playing QR3 against some Bosnia or Cyprus teams to go through UCGS. Don't think this is fair. I think much more fair than that is to put all teams in a bottle and make pairs. No seedings, just football.

Author: bert.kassies
Date: 08-11-2006, 21:23

The best way to adapt the coefficient system is to give 5 spots to countries at rank 7-10. In that case Romania would have to start with 5 teams next year.

Another adaption could be to skip the "waiting" period of one year. E.g. use the Country Ranking 2006 for the 2006/07 season. Together with the change above that would mean that Romania had already 5 teams in this season.

Of course, I am aware of the fact that in this case the exact number of berths is not known at the start of the domestic competition. But in almost all cases it will be known before the final part of the domestic leagues. I don't see it as a big disadvantage.

Author: spenk
Date: 08-11-2006, 21:27

I think the germans have to look at their own results first. If they would have performed normally every year, their would have been absolutely no problem. I think a normal score for germany is 9-10 points. The reason that they are threatened now is their dramatic 03-04 season in which they didn't get higher than 4.7. Adding another bad season (which is not unthinkable) to the ranking would cause them to fall, and nothing is more fair than that! That is what this ranking is made for, to measure prestations of countries. If you don't win, you will go down. I think they don't even realise that their prestations cause them to get into trouble, it must be the system...

I think the bad performances of germany are mainly caused by low scores in the UC. Most of the seasons they have 2 teams in the second stage of the CL, which is actually pretty good. In UC however, the only team to reach the qf the last 4 years is schalke last year. It is not strange that the scores are not that high...To get/stay up, the germans need to score more in uc, but if that is going to work for this year? Maybe Bremen...

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: bert.kassies Date: 08-11-2006, 21:33	And by the way, don't forget the Rummenigge is the chairman of the so-called "European Club Forum". A kind of "parliament of clubs" within UEFA. Which means that he is in an excellent position to make proposals for important meetings.

Author: spenk
Date: 08-11-2006, 21:39

I agree with both your changes bert. The number of teams should be spread more gradually over the ranking. The step from 4 to 6 teams is too big.

Removing the one year delay has more advantages. If a spot in a european cup is at stake during the year you can earn it, people/teams/countries might realise the importance of the coefficient ranking and give some more effort in europe, not taking the number of spots for granted, as happens now. Also, and more important, the ranking would be more about the strength of a country 5 years to this moment, not about the strength from 6 years ago until last year, it would be more up-to-date.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Philipp Date: 08-11-2006, 22:41 Edited by: Philipp at: 08-11-2006, 23:01	Rummenigge should better watch out, that his club will qualify for next year's EC...

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: TimJohnson Date: 08-11-2006, 22:42	Bayern lost tonight at home to Hannover and are now 5th and have lost 4 out of 11 games.He must be worried that they might not qualify to CL other than winning this seasons in Athens

Author: JC71
Date: 08-11-2006, 23:24

I always found very strange why not have 5 spots,
as Portugal always had few teams (4) or had bad coeff with 6 teams.

Isn't it intentional for contries with leagues less developed
not reaching the big 5?

Because when you go from 4 to 6 teams and you aren't ready,
your coeff drops very hard (look at Greece).
And most of the time the teams don't have the experience to play
in Europe, as only 4 teams were there and mostly they are always
the same teams.

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 09-11-2006, 00:10

JC71,

You might actually be right about the fact that the split is intentional. Because it does look strange that at the moment when one of the big 5 is facing the risk of loosing the spot, they start talking about changes to the whole coefficient system.

Writing about this, I just remembered STK, and his "conspiracy theories". I hope he'll change his mind about not writing on this forum, because I am sure that he can't help reading it

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Lupta_Steaua Date: 09-11-2006, 00:38	Just a thought, which I wanted to share... Could the current coefficient system be the best tool to increase interest for the UEFA Cup? As everyone would realise the importance of those games, and therefore pay more attention to this Cup. This probably should increase each team's interest in the Cup as well, because it would certainly improve their chance in CL in future seasons.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: edieseb Date: 09-11-2006, 06:13	You have to see it through the clubs eyes: the UC will become atractive when it will have more prizes in money. Very simple in today's football.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 09-11-2006, 08:36

I completely agree with Bert. Especially the 1 year delay makes the rise and falls faster. Also it would put more attention to the coefficients itself, as countries will follow the results until it is known how many spots they will have next season.
I think 3 or 4 teams is not a real big difference if you look at the fantastic result Romani got last year and will get this year. They have such a hiogh coefficient that they should be tested with more teams. Unfortunaltey they will have to wait another 1.5 year before that will happen. At that time either the teams don't do it that good anymore or their players are sold out (or both).

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: antonio62tr Date: 09-11-2006, 08:56	I am completely agree with Bert too..Also i think Uefa must not let countries spot increase or decrease more than 1 at a year..I mean if you have 3 teams this year, you will have 2 if you had bad results or 4 if you gain enough points...Increasing team number 4 to 6 is almost disaster for the country coefficient...

Author: dragos_popa17
Date: 09-11-2006, 10:28
Edited by: dragos_popa17
at: 09-11-2006, 10:29

Well, I don't agree with Bert

I think the current system is better, although it doesn't advantage Romania. It would be difficult for a club to set an objective in their national competition if they wouldn't know from which spot they can reach European qualification. It would be near imposible to set a long term development strategy because the clubs would have to change their policies very often. I mean, we have to look at the basic purpose of the coefficients that is to set a club's/country's place in Europe. If that chages very sudden, a team wouldn't know precisely where they are couldn't posibly know where they really want to be or prepare to get there.
In my oppinion, the only change that the system could have is the number of teams/country participating in European competitons. And even this change shouldn't be radical.

Author: thomas
Date: 09-11-2006, 10:36

I am from Germany. I have read that interview and it made me angry, very angry!!!!! But first I want you to tell my general feelings about German clubs in EC:

In the 1980ties I used to support every team from my country, when it played in EC, like most football fans do. But around 1990 things changed, and I became more and more annoyed by the arrogance of our clubs:

Bayern, Dortmund and 12 other teams wanted a separate "European League", with Munich the most eastern city of Europe.

Whenever a German team is drawn against a team from a former communist country, the comment is: Not attractiv, but hard. Now tell me, why are teams full of tradition like Hajduk, Sparta Prague, Steaua, Kiew or Crvena Zvesda less attractiv than any mediocre team from Spain or Italy?

Whenever a German team looses to a team from the East (and that hapens often!), it is called a "shame".

Whenever a German team looses against a team from England, Italy or Spain, they complain, that there is much more money in the football clubs of these countries. But they never talk about such differences after loosing against a team from Serbia, Bulgaria or Ucraine.

Several changes have been made in the coefficents, all for the benefit of bigger countries: Qualification points are now devided by two, there are 3 bonus points for participating in the CL instead of 1 and there is an extra bonus point for reaching final 16 in CL. And still it is not enough to keep Germany secure in the top 6!

And now that interwiev! Rummenigge says, that any ranking, in which Romania is ahead of Germany, must be wrong! He claims, that Romania gets more points, because they gain them in UC, while Germany has to gain them in CL. Nonsense! Romania has 67 & of its teams in UC, Germany 57 %. That differnce is not the reason! The truth is simply: Romanian teams have been more successful than German teams in the last years! But that is a truth, which rich German clubs do not understand, because their idea is: Whoever has more money, plays better football. So Germany MUST somehow be better than Romania, even if our clubs loose more matches!

Now I am so angry. I will still suport the German national team, but not German clubs any more! I wish to see Leverkusen loosing in Bukarest. I wish to see Portugal and Romania ahead of Germany at the end of this season. And I I wish to see Netherlands and Russia to overtake Germany in the following season. That would be great fun. I predict, that we will then hear or read a statement from a German football official about an obvious mistake of the ranking: It is too difficult to get into top 8, if you are below it! ;-(

Author: panda
Date: 09-11-2006, 10:41
Edited by: panda
at: 09-11-2006, 10:44

The 'not having a year's delay' is interesting.

I guess the idea is that as the matches are fewer in the later stages, the table of countries becomes roughly known (and we know that a few countries dominate the later stages of the CL anyway); so things become pretty clear in the later stages of the domestic season how many places a country has.

What about summer champions? At the moment they know already, don't they, as these seasons finish, where they will be entering in 07-08? But if there is no year gap, does that mean they won't know until they are already playing the necxt season, who is playing in Europe?

Some more questions - do we know why there are no countries with 5 teams? Why did UEFA set it up that way?

What has gone wrong with german club football, anyway?

Author: badgerboy
Date: 09-11-2006, 11:46

bert.kassies wrote:

"The best way to adapt the coefficient system is to give 5 spots to countries at rank 7-10. In that case Romania would have to start with 5 teams next year.

Another adaption could be to skip the "waiting" period of one year. E.g. use the Country Ranking 2006 for the 2006/07 season. Together with the change above that would mean that Romania had already 5 teams in this season".

I totally agree with the first solution. If nothing else happens this should - though my own personal preference is to leave countries 7 & 8 on six teams and give five teams to countries 9 to 16 - thus giving more mid-ranking teams in mid-ranking countries the opportunity to enter the UEFA Cup.

Panda (& others) asked about the reason for the 4 to 6 team split. This came about when UEFA first invited domestic runners-up to the CL. Before that a top-ranked country would have one team in the CL, one team in the Cup Winners Cup and four in the UEFA Cup - so six in total. After the change these countries kept their four UEFA Cup places but gained an additional CL spot so the total became seven.

Bert's second suggestion also makes sense - primarily for me not so much to do with the ranking system but with giving teams a more immediate reward for good performance. I understand why UEFA use the system they do - so teams know at the start of the season how many European spots they are playing for. But even with the current system you don't know the specific reward for a certain league position because it might depend on who reaches the Cup Final, wins the CL, wins a second domestic cup etc. The main issue I suppose is with the summer leagues. Would it be right for the Russian season to be ending in November/December but with a club not knowing if finishing 4th, 5th or 6th would be meaningless or a UEFA Cup spot?

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: panda Date: 09-11-2006, 11:51	summer leagues I guess the argument is that clubs have a strategy in the close season; if they don't know if they are playing in Europe they can't budget properly / attract new players etc?

Author: UrsulMicut
Date: 09-11-2006, 12:54

THOMAS -> well said!

- - - - -

PANDA -> you asked "What has gone wrong with german club football, anyway?"

Here is the answer and you should be aware that any good observer of the german football will be able to confirm it or, even better, add more details to it. Here we go:

After the unification of Germany the clubs from east gradually lost contact with Erste Bundesliga and at one time only Energie Cottbus represented the football clubs from East Germany. In time however, many clubs from Erste Bundesliga began to have a big interest in eastern football, not in the german eastern football but in the european eastern football clubs and here is the reason: many players between 26 and 32 years old, with quite some selections in their national teams, were bought from countries like Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, etc. Gradually their presence inside the german club from Erste Bundesliga got more and more significant. Why? Because they had experience, in many ocasions international experience and at the age of 26-32 years old were at their peak of their career having also played matches in the eurocups. Another reason was the fact that they were cheap, plus their wages were always lower than their german counterparts.

In time, as I already said, they were more and more numerous and about 66% of the german clubs preffered to buy such players in order to achieve their imediate goal: not getting relegated and with a little bit of luck gaining a place for Intertoto or maybe UEFA Cup. For the moment this flow of eastern experienced and cheap players satisfied the german clubs, but on the long run they actually lost! Why? Because no young, decent german player entered in the first line-up of 11 players and so, gradually, the quality of the german players began to drop as the time went by this young fellows which didn't had many chances of gaining experience at an early stage of their careers!

You can ask me: ok, the youngs were disadvantaged, but why do the german clubs perform so poor in the eurocups? Here is the second part of my answer: in time this reservoir of good quality players began to dry out! Why? Make a short and simple calculation and you will find the answer right away!

CALCULATION
In 1995 a 26 year old player from East Europe was at the top of his career and got a transfer from Poland (for example) to Germany. The same player, in 1990 was 20 years old and was a young promising players which made his debut in the domestic league. In 1985 however he was only a member of a youth squad but in that times the preparation of the youth was much better from the quality point of view!!! In 1995 for instance, when the economical transition from the eastern countries (former comunist countries) was at the lowest point and the quality of the preparation of a young player was at a very lower level compared with 10 years before! As time went by the german clubs continued to buy eastern players but those individuals were the products of a weaker and weaker system of preparing and promoting youth! Add to this the fact that at the same time the quality level of the domestic competitions from Poland, Romania, Serbia, etc. was going from bad to worst as the fixed matches were increasingly numerous, the economic value of the sport was lower and lower as the fans gradually lost their interest, the best players were always transfered abroad ...

My answer is not complet, but this is one main cause why clubs like Bayern Munchen, Leverkusen and other top-flight clubs performed poorly in Europe: the quality of their domestic opponents was weaker and weaker!

Add to this the econimic recesion from Germany: let's not forget that only now the german economy began to satisfy those who lead the country, as their most recent interviews show.

Add also several poor management decisions like in the case of Borussia Dortmund and the picture will be almost complet!

I hope that our german friends from the forum will complete my answer with more details in order to have a good image of this situation.

Author: ferdi
Date: 09-11-2006, 12:55
Edited by: ferdi
at: 09-11-2006, 12:58

I think we should see that Rummenigges real concern is - most probably - something else:

Germany has 80 million inhabitants and a GDP of 2504 billion dollar, whereas Romania has only 22 million inhabitants and a GDP of 184 billion dollar.

There are millions of Germans who are willing to pay for CL games, but they want to see Bayern and Bremen and Schalke, maybe as well Barcelona and Inter and Arsenal, but they certainly wouldn't pay to see Dinamo and Steaua Bucharest. Would the Romanians pay the same amount to see their teams than the Germans would to see their teams in CL?

So from an economical point of view it is nonsense to have two direct entries for Romanian teams, and only one entry for German teams. You would have a lot of prosperous customers who demand German football, but would offer a high amount of Romanian football that is not demanded in that extend.

So if the current coefficient system should lead to this result, then there would be good economical reason to change it.

Author: bigriazor
Date: 09-11-2006, 13:23

Yes and that is what is ruining football the most.If you look at early football(which was football not a a money-bussines) all of europe's stadiums were full and it was a very popular sport just to watch.And keep in mind that 80% of the crowds were poor people,nowdays most of the stadiums -except for 7-8 leagues - are half empty.There's no turning back football is a money bussines now and as you said and we all know,UEFA's competitions format,rules and ideeas ar all to improve the profit VERY VERY WRONG.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: thomas Date: 09-11-2006, 13:30	An additional spot for teams on position 7 - 10? I am sure: UEFA will decide to do so, when Germany is on position 7! The reason is of course, what ferdi told: GDP.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 09-11-2006, 13:49	Hmm, i don't know, but the top 3 in Germany is better than the top 3 in Romania, but they will lose their places. and not only the top3. I can understand why Rummenige is angry. But the rankings do not show the strength of the league, evryone should accept that.

Author: antonio62tr
Date: 09-11-2006, 14:03

Ofcourse coefficient does not show the strenght of a league but how successfull your teams are....German teams are not successfull because they cannot buy players from English,Italian or Spanish teams...Or good players prefer other leagues to play...So Bayern,Werder or other teams want to achieve good result can not succeed....I really cannot understand why Bayern or other Bundesliga teams spend much money as Italian or English teams...They have better GDP, better supporter numbers(especially Dortmund) and good facilities..While watching Bunesliga i see quality is decreasing year and year...4 or 5 years ago Bundesliga was toprated in Turkey but today people only watch if there is no match from Spain or England....

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Francisco Date: 09-11-2006, 14:04	The 5 teams spots for countries between 7-10 is something I think is an excellent idea. I have asked myself before why weren't any countries with 5 teams, and I just hope that it's not because UEFA wants to separate (intentionally) the big 5 from the rest, that would certainly go against their argument of developing football in Europe.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 09-11-2006, 14:14	1-3 7 teams 4-6 6 teams 7-10 5 teams 11-21 4 teams 22+ 3 teams I don't understand why the system is not like this

Author: JC71
Date: 09-11-2006, 14:22

If someone as Rummenigge says that, and as the influence Bert says he as.
I'm expecting changes in the near future.

Because the position for Germany is bad,
specially if Portugal overtakes Ger and that can happen next year also.

Let's hope that is only the change to 5 spots, because they can also
take another approach like making must more difficult for low ranked
contries to climb.
In particular avoiding fast rises like the Romanian.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 09-11-2006, 14:23

It is unfortunate - if predictable - that money & TV markets come into such things.

As I've written many times on this forum I don't think there are serious issues with the current system. A few tweaks like the ones I already suggested (or maybe Bert's ideas if mine go too far).

But as I wrote yesterday it does seem logical that a rapid rise in the rankings for one country - or the fall of a larger one - would cause UEFA to have a look at things. Though the issue seems to have been raised in Germany much sooner than I expected.

It's logical for UEFA to look because their competitions change so much. What has been the effect of the UEFA Cup group stage after two or three seasons for example? That doesn't mean they should change anything. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to move the goalposts after the event in order to protect a big country and penalise a small one.

When considering how good or not the current points system is though it's worth looking at specific cases. Let's compare Bayern & Steaua for a moment. Sorry to use another Romanian example but they seem to fit....

Looking at the team ranking for 2008 Bayern are currently just over seven points ahead of Steaua at the moment. Bayern are about to reach the last 16 of the CL for the fourth year in a row. Last year they lost to Milan, the year before to Chelsea in the quarters after eliminating Arsenal, the year before that to Real Madrid. They may not quite be the force they were but that's a pretty strong record.

Yet it's quite conceivable that by the end of this season Steaua - simply by reaching say the UEFA Cup Quarter-finals this year while Bayern lose in the last 16 of the CL - to say Barcelona - could be ahead of them on the four year ranking chart.

Personally, I couldn't care less if Steaua ended up a CL pot higher than Bayern on this basis. But I can see why such a scenario might have some people scratching their heads & asking a few questions.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 09-11-2006, 14:58

Francisco wrote:

"I have asked myself before why weren't any countries with 5 teams, and I just hope that it's not because UEFA wants to separate (intentionally) the big 5 from the rest"

Panda (& others) asked about the reason for the 4 to 6 team split. This came about in 1997-98 when UEFA first invited domestic runners-up to the CL. Before that a top-ranked country would have one team in the CL, one team in the Cup Winners Cup and four in the UEFA Cup -so six in total. After the change the top 8 countries kept their three or four UEFA Cup places but gained an additional CL spot so their total became six or seven. The gap has stayed the same ever since.

Overgame wrote:

"1-3 7 teams
4-6 6 teams
7-10 5 teams
11-21 4 teams
22+ 3 teams"

That's exactly as Bert suggests and I can see the appeal. But I really don't see why 10 & 21 or 8 & 21 have to be "golden spots" in any case. When the number of teams was fixed in 1979 it obviously had a lot to do with the fact that the numbers chosen allowed the UEFA Cup to have a nice tidy 64 teams. A factor that's now absolutely irrelevant given the number of qualifying rounds.

1-3 7 teams
4-8 6 teams
9-16 5 teams
17-32 4 teams
33+ 3 teams

This does what most people want - takes away the huge jump from 4 to 6 teams. But as the solution to a problem it's also good because nobody loses. 19 countries (though this is a flexible number as my 4 & 5 team barriers aren't set in stone) get an extra European spot. Nobody loses a spot. It becomes slightly harder for a team to climb quickly up the rankings. Though it's worth pointing out that Romania starting last season from 26th with four teams would still have risen to 10th in the current rankings even if their extra team scored zero points. It's also worth saying that changing the allocation of teams ranked from 7 to 10 wouldn't have affected Romania's two season rise one bit.

Author: lazio
Date: 09-11-2006, 15:04
Edited by: lazio
at: 09-11-2006, 15:11

I think is big fuzz about nothing. What if all 3 romanian teams leave the competition in the group stage? - it's possible - then all the rankings stays the same and everybody's happy. Next year is next year, you never known. Maybe the romanian teams will leave it in the first rounds. I'm curios - what if Norway, Finland, Austria or Sweden would had it the same rising? Then all the people would had been realized that from then the system is wrong? - the same old system which, untill now, put it ahead the "big" countries? I personally think not.

But hey, It's Romania!!...what the hell they doing there? It's our toys there. Our mamies bought those just for us. Romania - is just an example - same it will sounds with Bulgaria, Serbia, Georgia, Moldavia, Muntenegru, etc. On the other hand, same is with Norway, Finland, Austria or Sweden. - are just examples.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: badgerboy Date: 09-11-2006, 15:09	Lazio With all due respect I don't think this topic has anything much to do with Romania rising. It's about Germany falling - or possibly falling.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: thomas Date: 09-11-2006, 15:31	lazio, you are 100 % right! Rummenigge did not complain, that Portugal might overtake Germany. Only Romania ahead of Germany is problem for him.

Author: panda
Date: 09-11-2006, 16:07
Edited by: panda
at: 09-11-2006, 16:43

Well, I have to say it sounds like Rummenigge is pretty self-interested here; just like Platini says 'only 3 teams in CL' when France is 4th and not likely to make 3rd.

Thanks guys for the explanations about germany; so as I understand it-

1) Top 3 have much more money than the other leagues, so players go there

2) Fr and Ger are big countries with a lot of strength in depth, so were 4 and 5 fairly easily.

3) Things went wrong in Germany
a) relations with E Europe footballers meant neglect of youth
b) German recession made it harder to compete with other big countries
c) in EVERY country, the biggest clubs 'carry' the other ones, but the only consistently big one is Bayern Munich, and it cannot do it on its own; so the lowering of standards elsewhere in the league is felt
d) decline of Borussia Dortmund, which might have been thought of as No 2, has also harmed the co-eff by removing one of the biggest German clubs from helping the co-eff.
e) also on another topic I've seen the idea that German clubs are not always committed eough in the UC.

It's like lyonnais' description of the rankings as a 'survivor race' - there are always hungry clubs around, so to protect your position nothing has to go wrong. To a certain extent you can buy this, so the top 3 countries benefit from having e.g. big squads, proven and therefore expensive players, but if you don't have this insurance, things go wrong, and then someone is wiating who is on better form, or is hungrier.

Author: dragos_popa17
Date: 09-11-2006, 17:25
Edited by: dragos_popa17
at: 09-11-2006, 17:27

The main worry here seems to be that UC points could help some teams rise to much in the rankings, in spite of teams qualified in the CL last 16. But looking on last year's results, the lowest ranked CL last 16 qualifier were Rangers, on 38th spot. That's pretty good.
Here's how things are in the top 50
places: CL last 16 - CL drop-outs - CL last place - UC clubs
01-10: 6 - 1 - 0 - 3
11-20: 4 - 0 - 0 - 6
21-30: 3 - 3 - 0 - 4
31-40: 3 - 0 - 1 - 6
41-50: 0 - 2 - 0 - 8
So, CL teams are doing pretty well, especially those qualified in the last 16. 22 of the 32 teams that started the CL groups are in the top 50. As for the UEFA Cup teams, the only ones that did very well in the rankins are the ones that got far in the competition. All the 3 teams present in the top 10 reached the semi's.
The way I see it, the really good teams in the CL keep their spots, no mather what happens in the UC. As for the non-regulars, the truth is that in the UC you can easily find 8 teams better that the worst 8 from the CL. And that is reflected in the rankings. You can't expect a team that played one season in the CL and lost 5 out of 6 to be better ranked than Sevilla just because they played in the CL.
I think the current ranking system is ment to keep the bottom half of the CL and the top of the UC at equal values. And it's working.

Author: levski.bg
Date: 09-11-2006, 17:38
Edited by: levski.bg
at: 09-11-2006, 18:07

Well Mr Rummenigge, let's make a league for a clubs with 100M+ Euro budgets

.

Last year, romanian football make superb results (facing a german clubs also) and german clubs make relative not so good results...and voila..lets cut the poor eastern clubs from the competition.

This day UEFA rules / coef is 100% fair and no one (even a group with 100m+ euro budgets) need any protectionism. Not normal ? Why ?

If, german clubs is better than romanian clubs, their will earn their coef point, fairly. And german nation is world known with his fairness.

Or maybe football is like economic market and we need protectionism from Chinese stuff, ruin all the open market laws. Let's say so..

I am sure, that Milan - Barcelona, 4/6/8 times in the season will be not so good to watch.

Western and Eastern clubs, fairly together ! My opinion.

Author: panda
Date: 09-11-2006, 17:57

To rank high (as a team), you need several good seasons in the 5; certainly true for teams that play CL year after year. the unpredictability of the UC means many sub-top teams don't achieve that sort of consistency.

Yes, the format protects the biggest clubs, but it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy - ambitious players who earn so much that only glory matters, since they are rich anyway, ONLY want to play for clubs with a chance in the CL.

Author: lazio
Date: 09-11-2006, 18:07
Edited by: lazio
at: 09-11-2006, 18:22

@ badgerboy

I'm talking about the ranking issue - Romania is just an example - the most debated in this forum, anyway - along with Portugal.

So, I say that Rummenigge critics are false problems or double standards. Let me explain:

I must admit that Romania's place is somewere between 12-17. It's not on 7, not on 5, but also not on 26. So I'm sure that in 3-4 years Romanian football will be somewere between those places.
Germany place is somewere between 3-6. So, right now they haven't any reason to complain.
When Romania was in 26th place, I don't remember that Mircea Sandu or Hagi, whatever... step aside and say...Hello the system is failing...Hello wake up...Romania is on 26th...is not our place there...Let's change the system. You know why? Because nobody give a damn about the place of Romania.
Right now Germany is in danger to sleep on the 7th. So what? In one year or two, if they're smart enough, they will come again on the 4th. - where, let's be onest, they belong. Without complains and tears!
So the Uefa Cup points are not right disputed...it's not fair!- they complain. Same Uefa Cup point we're disputed in the same manner until now- Then make more wins in the Uefa cup and grab those damn points! Win the Uefa cup - Forza Werder or whatever! But Uefa Cup is a second hand cup...Ok I agree...but win that cup and you have those points - is simply as that. Another way is: let's put down this cup and stick only with UCL. It's not a solution for me. But, hey, is an alternative.
Bottom line is: It's a false issue. Rummenigge should learn to lose like a man. And if the germans oficials will learn that, then they will wake up and will push the german football on it's place: the 4th, and why not? even higher!

@ thomas

If you are a german, I admire your equidistance. You must be one angry man

Author: moro
Date: 09-11-2006, 18:58

There's others solutions than changing all stuff:
- put on Romania interdiction to play europeans cups because in this country you can sometimes see bears stilling food from humans in the city (city of Brasov last two years). One little bear was actually catch in the garbage in january. I'm serious. Bears could go on the football field and scare the hell out all players.
- put german refferee on Dinamo-Leverkusen, a portuguese one on Rapid-Mlada.
- help germans teams to buy players from our teams.
- romanian teams must play at different hours to let Carlos enough time to catch the same incredible helicopter that bring Beckenbauer and Blatter at every game in WC, to goalkeep every romanian team in UC and CL (this would be an exceptional rule)
- well, I hate this one, but they could enlarge romanians teams goal ("but" in french, I forgot how to say in english, maybe "box"?)

Guys, if they change system now, what are they going to do in one or two-three years, with Romania on 5-th, 3-th, 1-st place as the rankings are now????

Author: edieseb
Date: 09-11-2006, 19:27

I say that UEFA is unfair and it actually shows this because the ranking system was made to protect the rich and famous. But I say that they are not stupid because they won't change the system now. That would only be to Romania's advantage, because the new system would eventually make it even harder for clubs to get a higher rank (GDP), so how would Germany go back in front of Romania.
I think first they'll support Germany to recover (and UEFA I'm sure has it's methods, including referees, "lucky draws" etc) and only then change the system.
In the same time I think that unless it states very clear that every country will keep their ranking, regardless on the results, they won't be able to avoid some countries that have exceptionally good results for 1-2-3 seasons to interfere with the rich (yes, I put rich on purpose instead of superpowers, good, because this is what it's all about) countries and some of these to go down in ranking when not showing interest in the competition and not geting results like it this case.

PS: respect to the german friends on this forum.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 09-11-2006, 19:30	And i think that you should see a psy about your theory of conspiracy :p

Author: edieseb
Date: 09-11-2006, 19:55

The imediate reward/punishment for the results in the previous year is a very interesting option I think. In theory, it should make both the two european competitions and the domestic leagues a lot more dramatic. Imagine, on the present situation that in spring, with 8 games to go in the Bundesliga, Bayern is on 3rd place and out of CL after a loss and a draw with Barcelona in the last 16 round. In the competition Germany would still have Werder and Leverkusen in the UC, while Romania 3 teams in UC and one point behind. Imagine the presure the german press and public would put on those 2 clubs to get results. If not, big drama, 3rd place is not the reward it was at the begining of the season.
In the same time I wonder what would Werder do, 2nd in Bundesliga at that time (in this scenario). Give it all in the UC because even if in the domestic league they'll fall on 3rd, the coefficient gained in the UC for Germany would still let them play in the CL the following year or concentrate on the domestic league to stay on 2nd and be qualified, regardless of their results in the UC and ending with a statement like: "If Bayern, who is on 3rd wanted to make sure they'll play in the CL next year, they should've gain more points for Germany themselves and not pressure us now!..."

Either way I don't know if it's a good or bad ideea to eliminate the 1 year wait, but it becomes a lot more dramatic for sure and I guess that should sell more newspapers, bring more people in front of TV because of the importance of every result, get more attention which is what even UEFA wants in the end: more money. It makes it a lot more susceptible to surprises though and I would think that Bayern would not like it.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: edieseb Date: 09-11-2006, 20:00	@overgame, I would prefer not to get into a personal thing. I was comenting on the ideeas on this topic. Please, do the same, because I haven't said anything aboub you because I don't know you. Unless we met, spent a couple years as best buddies, please don't make nasty coments about me

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: edieseb Date: 09-11-2006, 20:01	@overgame, I would prefer not to get into a personal thing. I was comenting on the ideeas on this topic. Please, do the same, because I haven't said anything aboub you because I don't know you. Unless we met, spent a couple years as best buddies, please don't make nasty coments about me. I would wait for an apology, but if you're too proud, I understand. Next time though, keep it zipped.

Author: Overgame
Date: 10-11-2006, 01:52

"I think first they'll support Germany to recover (and UEFA I'm sure has it's methods, including referees, "lucky draws" etc) and only then change the system."

Use your brain sometimes. If the UEFA wanted to help Germany (including "referees"), they could simply help Sarajevo or Nacional in the previous rounds, put Leverkusen in an easier group, etc.
But the conspiracy is the easiest theory : if Steaua's group is hard : conspiracy !!! (and Bremen was put in a group to be 3rd and earn many points !!!), Hamburg was put in an easy group, but they're too weak to get points, etc.

Really, the big conspiracy theory is old, and every 4-5 years or so, there is a or many surprises, giving proofs about how that theory is a nonsense.

If Germany recovers the 5th (or 4th or even 3rd) place, they will with the strength of their teams, or the loss of points of the others, but not with the help of UEFA. With 6 teams, Romania will never score 10 points, and Germany will pass them easily. And then, you'll cry about the conspiracy .....

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: cinebelul Date: 10-11-2006, 02:18	Rummenigge forgot that every starting team in GS gets 3p. Maybe it would be better with only 2p but 3p each win in UCL vs 2p/win UC. Draw remains draw, 1p everywhere...So, win-nations in UCL would get more points than UC-pointing nations

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: edieseb Date: 10-11-2006, 05:02	@overgame, I don't know how old are you, but shame on your parents because they didn't give you an education. You can state your opinions like most normal people, without personal attacks and offences. What good does it make you to pretend you know football if you don't know to behave as a civilized person. I don't even need another reply from you. Sorry other forumists for the off-topic

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Lupta_Steaua Date: 10-11-2006, 05:56	Overgame, I still try to understand what your real problem is. Why does Romania bother you so much? The conspiracy theory was brought back by me, and only because I remembered STK. It is not like all Eastern Europeans belive that Europe wants to keep them out of the big money. It is simply sad to hear from a high ranked German Club Official such excuses

Author: ferdi
Date: 10-11-2006, 06:11
Edited by: ferdi
at: 10-11-2006, 17:33

- As for Germany's demand for CL places, I don't think that more points for CL teams can solve the problem. After all, German teams are currently weak both in CL and in UC.

It might help in the special case of Romania, but there are other countries that could benefit if you increase the weight of CL, such as the Netherlands, Portugal, in this year also Russia. Those countries could pass Germany as well as long as the German teams do not improve.

Therefore I think the fairest solution will be to allow a 4th team from countries ranked 3-6 and a 3rd team for countries ranked 7-9 into CLQ2. Something like that is what I expect to be part of the next revision of the competitions which is scheduled for 2008.

- As for the Romania problem, I don't see Germany as the victim, since Germany is still in front of Romania, and would still be 6th even if Romania would pass Germany. So the real victims are countries that have really been passed by Romania and thereby lost an important place (8th, 9th or 10th, and possibly 6th).

Here it should be considered not to include qualification rounds for the ranking. The half points in qualification rounds are clearly an unfair advantage for small countries. It has been tolerated a long time because there were not that many qualification matches, so the effect was more or less negligible. But during the last years the number of qualification matches especially in UC did increase due to the reduction from 96 to 80 teams in the first round, and due to the change in UIC. Look at the coeffs of Romania, Russia, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Germany:

{pre>
country coeff from QR coeff from main competition
Romania 9.5 28.33
Russia 6.38 28.5
Portugal 1.66 37.58
Netherlands 1.21 34.73
Germany 1.49 38.3
{/pre>

So without qualification points, both Netherland an Portugal would be clearly in front of Romania, and Romania passing Portugal this year would be out of discussion. Romania would as well be passed by Russia, so Romania and Russia would both fight for pos. 8 and 9.

Author: Overgame
Date: 10-11-2006, 08:30
Edited by: Overgame
at: 10-11-2006, 08:37

I'm just tired to hear the 'big conspiracy theory' everywhere.
Germany will be back===>conspiracy.
Lyon is champion in France===>conspiracy.
Milan is not in serie B and plays CL===>conspiracy.
Anderlecht got a draw in Liege===>conspiracy.
etc.

The final result is : 'They don't win because they are better, but because they cheats'.

I don't have something about Romania, bvut about the little claiming everywhere how Romania will pwned our asses. I don't see Italian, or any people from top 3 countries doing that ....

P.S. a people claiming everywhere 'there is a big conspiracy !!!!' needs to meet a psy. Try to do it in real life and you'll see.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: dragos_popa17 Date: 10-11-2006, 10:56	ferdi, I think that 4 teams in the CL from countries ranked 1-6 would be a little to much. I would do exactley the opposite, reduce by one the number of teams from countries ranked 1-3(but giving them direct qualification in the GS). The extra 3 spot would be given to countries ranked 7-9. This would also strenghten the UC, sending the 4th team from countries ranked 1-3 in that competition.

Author: ferdi
Date: 10-11-2006, 11:43

dragos_popa17 wrote:

{i>I think that 4 teams in the CL from countries ranked 1-6 would be a little to much. I would do exactley the opposite,{/i>

Well, two teams would still have to qualify, so I don't expect that a small country, if somehow reaching 6th position, could really enter 4 teams into the GS. And for France and Germany, those countries' TV markets are certainly big enough for 4 teams in the GS.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: bcpcd Date: 10-11-2006, 11:48	UEFA Country Ranking 2008 # country 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 rank08 nt08 ... 6 Russia 5.875 10.000 10.000 5.375 0.000 31.250 0 7 Germany 4.714 10.571 10.437 4.928 0.000 30.650 0 ... The russians are next for Rummenigge to find fault with this coeff. system.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: moro Date: 10-11-2006, 12:04	About TV-rights, I'm sure that Steaua-Kiev or Steaua-AEK Atena would keep more than 5 millions peoples at tv for each country, meanwhile Bayern-Inter would make about 3, maybe less, each country. Because in eastern countries every child over 6 and old under 80 will wait and watch this game with biiig interest, while Bayern and Inter's fans had enough of this.

Author: dragos_popa17
Date: 10-11-2006, 12:20
Edited by: dragos_popa17
at: 10-11-2006, 12:26

Here's how things are:
CHAMPIONS LEAGUE
spot : GS Q3 Q2 Q1 |*no. of countries
TrphH: 1 0 0 0 |*1
01-03: 2 2 0 0 |*3
04-06: 2 1 0 0 |*3
07-09: 1 1 0 0 |*3
10-15: 0 1 1 0 |*6
16-25: 0 0 1 0 |*10
26-49: 0 0 0 1 |*24
total: 16 18 16 24 = 74 teams

UEFA CUP
spot : R1 Q2 Q1 |*no. of countries
TrphH: 1 0 0 |*1
CLout: 1 0 0 |*16
01-06: 3 0 0 |*6
07-08: 4 0 0 |*2
09-13: 1 1 0 |*5
14-15: 0 2 0 |*2
16-17: 0 3 0 |*2
18 : 0 2 1 |*1
IntTT: 0 1 0 |*11
19-21: 0 0 3 |*3
22-49: 0 0 2 |*28
SM/An: 0 0 2 |*1
LieCW: 0 0 1 |*1
FairP: 0 0 3 |*1
total: 48 64 72 = 148 (-16 CLout) = 132 teams

And this is an alternative system that could work:

CHAMPIONS LEAGUE
spot : GS Q3 Q2 Q1 |*no. of countries
TrphH: 1 0 0 0 |*1
01-03: 2 1 0 0 |*3
04-06: 1 2 0 0 |*3
07-09: 1 1 1 0 |*3
10-12: 1 1 0 0 |*3
13-15: 0 1 1 0 |*3
16-25: 0 0 1 0 |*10
26-49: 0 0 0 1 |*24
total: 16 18 16 24 = 74 teams

UEFA CUP
spot : R1 Q2 Q1 |*no. of countries
TrphH: 1 0 0 |*1
CLout: 1 0 0 |*16
01-06: 3 0 0 |*6
07-09: 2 0 0 |*3
10 : 2 1 0 |*1
11-12: 1 2 0 |*2
13-15: 1 1 0 |*3
16-18: 0 3 0 |*3
IntTT: 0 1 0 |*11
19-22: 0 0 3 |*4
23-49: 0 0 2 |*27
SM/An: 0 0 2 |*1
LieCW: 0 0 1 |*1
FairP: 0 0 3 |*1
total: 32 28 72 = 148 (-16 CLout) = 132 teams

Main changes in my system are:
CL: - only 3 teams per country
- champions 1-12 qualify in GS
- countries 1-9 all have 3 teams, in different rounds
- teams 4-6 play more qualifing rounds, so it's easier for them to defend their position against surprising newcomers like Romania
PROS: - more diversity in CL
- the competition doesn't lose in value and strengh, because top teams(placed in pots A and B) would probably still be there, if all goes normal in their national competition.
- 12 champions present their champions directly in GS
CONS: - posible financial decrease for competition(although it's not very probable, since the only major change up top is the absance of 4th placed teams in countries ranked 1-3)

UC: - 15 countries present teams directly in 1st Round
- posible growth of competition due to 4th placed teams of countries ranked 1-3

Overall:
- no country has more than 6 teams in European competitions (excluding Intertoto)
- teams placed 7-12 have 5 teams in competition (transition from 6 to 4)
- 22 countries instead of 21 will have teams in European competitions.
- due to decrease of teams by one in leading countries, it would be easier for them to defend their position.

Author: ferdi
Date: 10-11-2006, 12:30

{i>Main changes in my system are:
CL: - only 3 teams per country
- champions 1-12 qualify in GS
- countries 1-9 all have 3 teams, in different rounds
- teams 4-6 play more qualifing rounds,{/i>

Sorry, but it seems that you have not understood, that the request goes for more teams from the big countries, not for less teams. A compromise could be to allow more teams, but let them enter qualification rounds.

But your suggestion means less teams for 1-3, and more QR without more teams for 4-6. Nobody in the big countries would ever agree to this suggestion.

Author: dragos_popa17
Date: 10-11-2006, 12:39
Edited by: dragos_popa17
at: 10-11-2006, 12:41

ferdi,
I'm sure they won't. I was just saying how I would like thing to be. I for one like diversity. More teams for more countries. Sadly, we're not living in a dream world and the truth is UEFA needs a lot of money to function, and the current system is good way to get those funds without hurting diversity that much. Although, in my system, except for fewer teams from countries 1-3, things don't change that much.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: gluer Date: 10-11-2006, 13:07 Edited by: gluer at: 10-11-2006, 13:12	Romania will be in maximum 2 years on 5th, so what's the problem? Romanian teams doesn't have the bugets from all western countries, romanian teams just work hard. Romania deserve the 7th place and easily will reach 5th place... So, don't be mad, it's only the begining I must admit that it will be very hard for Romania to keep the 5th place. P.S. I'm not looking to start a fight

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: gone Date: 10-11-2006, 13:11	Whats wrong with you? Are you really looking to start a fight?

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Edgar Date: 10-11-2006, 14:00	Did anyone actually try to use the 3/1.5 - 2/1 system and see how the rankings would look like?

Author: Ricardo
Date: 10-11-2006, 16:01

Anybody hads a decent look at this years CL GS and which teams look like qualifying?
Currently there are 16 teams from top-5 involved(including Germany

)
Would we like to see them all qualified for next round? NO! a very big NO!
Teams from more countries should be able to play second round.
Luckily group A has 3 of these teams, so group F has opnly 1 (Benfica or Celtic profits from it. Other non-top 5 country-teams that could qualify are: PSV-eliminating Bordeaux, Porto or CSKA, eliminating HSV and Sporting(again those Portuguese??) eliminating Inter.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: gabriel1 Date: 10-11-2006, 22:38	WTF is Rummenigge? ...You give him so much importance... GO GO Romania!...

Author: Francisco
Date: 10-11-2006, 22:56

Panda wrote: "
c) in EVERY country, the biggest clubs 'carry' the other ones, but the only consistently big one is Bayern Munich, and it cannot do it on its own; so the lowering of standards elsewhere in the league is felt
d) decline of Borussia Dortmund, which might have been thought of as No 2, has also harmed the co-eff by removing one of the biggest German clubs from helping the co-eff."

These 2 reasons pointed by Panda, have already happened in the past in Portugal. By the late 90's FCPorto dominated the portuguese league (having won 5 titles in a row), while at the same time Benfica had their worst presidents (which meant 6 years of bad decisions! and the more recent presidents had to wait more 3 or 4 years to straighten the club) and Sporting was still on its first steps to come out on their big crisis in the club's history (in total they had to wait 18 years to win a new league title, but the seeds to recover were only set in the late 90s). That meant that FCPorto was the only club capable of doing something good in Europe in those times.
Due to that fact Portugal dropped a few positions in the ranking, but at the same time, due to the fact that FCPorto had no real opposition in Portugal, Porto itself was going down simply because they didn't need to play that good to win.

The fall of Portugal was stopped only in the last 5 years when all teams understood that they had a responsability to contribute to the portuguese ranking and the warning was better understood when Mourinho started coaching FCPorto. Since Mourinho, FCPOrto and Portugal improved a lot. After Mourinho left FCPorto things could have gone down again but both Sporting 2 years ago and Benfica last year earned a few important points and showed that they can also perform good in Portugal.

Currently I think Sporting and Benfica are still struggling a bit with the errors of the 90's decade but are now stronger and capable of fighting for good results in Europe.

So now although I don't consider any portuguese team a contender in Europe I think the 3 big will actually help keep Portugal between 6th-10th in the coming years (yeah now we are in 6th but I think Portugal's place won't be as good in the coming years - we're dropping the points of FCPorto's golden years) which is good enough for me.

Returning to Germany's case. I think that what is happening now in Germany if not stopped immediately can bring Germany the same results that it did in Portugal in the late 90's. A team dominating the Bundesliga (example: Bremen = FCPorto) while another great team enters in depression (example: Bayern = Benfica), while other is now in their "dark ages" (example: Dortmund = Sporting).

Author: naaba
Date: 10-11-2006, 23:32

I didn't read everything but I agree with Rummenigge on one point : Romania are too high in the European ranking.
They are at this place because with only 3 teams playing by year, it's not difficult with Steaua and Rapid's good results to climb the mountain.
The romanian championship is only bullshit. Nobody wants to play in this country.
The championships of Netherlands, Russia, Belgium, Scotland, Turkey, Greece, Switzerland, Norway, Austria....... are better than the romanian one !

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: cinebelul Date: 11-11-2006, 00:23 Edited by: cinebelul at: 11-11-2006, 00:26	Rummenigge sucks! He didn�?t understand that Rom with more teams from now on will fall down in some years, that Ger with less teams could atack the top 3 next seasons, when Ita will have weaker participants in UCL/UC... Somebody will compete in any case with Ita for the 3rd, Fra has good chanses, but Ger too..

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 11-11-2006, 02:42

naaba,

I hope you understand that your post is quite insulting

.

Anyway, as the debate still continues, I will try to exclude one of factors which is considered advantageous to Romania - qualifying stages. I left the bonus points, as I hope they should provide for the UC/CL difference. So here are the standings without QR:

1 Country 2 Points in actual rounds of the competition 3 Number of teams 4 Coefficient 2006/2007 season

1. England/60/8/7.500
2. Spain/44/7/6.286
3. Italy/44/7/6.286
4. Romania/17/3/5.667
5. France/41/8/5.125
6. Germany/32/7/4.571
7. Holland/32/7/4.571
8. Portugal/26/6/4.333
9. Russia/15/4/3.750
10. Scotland/15/4/3.750

As you can see, none of the countries ranked below nine (even with more teams, thus more opportunities) have not scored more points than Romania. As for Portugal, we have to consider that 5 of those points have been brought in by teams outside the top 3 (keep in mind that I still kept the 6 bonus points difference).

Since I got to these statistics, I could as well conclude on some other discussions that go around here. It looks like the third position is securred, as France, did not even score the amount of points that Italy did, with more teams in the competition. It also looks like a very good year for England, which should end up in second for sure this year.

Comming back to Romania's status, next year we will still have a reasonable 4 teams (for a country which is improving), that should provide enough time for the other 2 teams to prepare. My personal perception is that the quality of the Romanian chapionship is increasing, and we already would have a forth team, at least, ready to compete in Europe.

This, also, of course depends on the intentions of the club owners. If they need "quick" money, they will start selling players. if not, meaning that they would actually understand that long term investments would bring more money in, than it is going to be a totally different story.

Anyway, I realise that this is a preaty long post. I tried to be as objective as possible (I guess this is why we wait all the time for feedback from badger, panda, even bert, and other reasonable members of the forum

)

Author: antonio62tr
Date: 11-11-2006, 10:50

This discussion goes forever i think...But Romaian guys have to understand why people complain about Romaian teams-they are regular teams with no star palyer and very bad stadium conditions and also very bad TV broadcasting...You can see very good facilities and well-known players at Turkish,Swiss,Greek,Belgian and the countries you are in the race(GermanyiNetherland,Portugal and Russia)

It is meaningless to look sky if there is no star there....also at the pitch...

Author: ferdi
Date: 11-11-2006, 11:14

So lets put together the facts we found in this case:

- Rummenigges proposal was to weighten the CL higher than the UEFA cup, and his reason for this was: "Es kann nicht sein, dass Rum�nien der Bundesliga gef�hrlich wird, weil die ihre Punkte im UEFA-Cup holen, das ist ein Witz". ("It cannot be that Romania becomes a danger for the Bundesliga, because they make their points in UEFA cup. This is a joke.")

- Rummenigge is a boss of Bayern Munich, but as well the chairman of the "European Club Forum".

- At the same time, the German league boss Werner Hackmann says: "Die F�nf-Jahres-Wertung der UEFA ist in der Tat kritikw�rdig. Es geht ja schon damit los, dass in der Qualifikation Punkte vergeben werden". ("The UEFA coefficients are indeed arguable, beginning with the fact that points are given for qualification matches".)

- Hackmann is as well a member of the UEFA "commission professional football"

- We have found out that both their suggestions make no real sense from the German point of view, because Romania is not a real danger for Germany, because even in the unprobable case they would temporarily pass Germany, Germany would still be 6th.

- There are however some other nations that are indeed affected by the Romanian rise, and would benefit from Rummenigge's and Hackmann's proposal. But those are smaller nations with less influence in Europe.

=> My personal conclusion: There is some deal between the German officials and the representatives of some smaller western nations. The Germans have agreed to initiate the discussion in the name of some of their good friends, because this gives their proposal a higher weight in Europe. In reward for this, Germany will be supported by those friends in some other issue, maybe a 4th CL qualification place for rank 4-6.

This way Hackmann's and Rummenigge's interviews would make some sense.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 11-11-2006, 13:30

Ferdi wrote:

"We have found out that both their suggestions make no real sense from the German point of view, because Romania is not a real danger for Germany, because even in the unprobable case they would temporarily pass Germany, Germany would still be 6th".

Is this really true? It's not inconceivable that both Portugal & Romania could pass Germany this year. Personally I think it's unlikely but it's not inconceivable.

Perhaps more significantly though both Romania & Russia are currently ahead of Germany in the 2008 ranking and Portugal and Netherlands are pretty close. So there could be a very serious risk to Germany's third CL spot for the 2009-10 season.

Interestingly I believe 2009-10 is the very season that any competition format changes that come from UEFA's review of the club competitions would kick in. So Rummenigge's politicking does make some sense.

Possible solutions (that would - or might - benefit Germany):

1. If the CL is expanding to 36 teams (one possibility not only suggested by me but also by UEFA according to sources in Croatia) then more teams enter the qualifying rounds. So at least the countries ranked 7 & 8 get an extra spot & Germany doesn't lose.

2. A revised coefficient ranking system. Of course there are multiple possibilities here. Most have already been discussed. More points for CL matches than UEFA Cup. More bonus points. No points for qualification matches. A separate ranking for CL & UEFA Cup. Probably some others I've forgotten.

One ranking I would be interested in seeing would be a "CL only" coefficient ranking. I have no idea what this would look like with regard to Germany's position - though I assume Romania wouldn't be very high.

Maybe one possibility that UEFA might discuss (or Rummenigge might be keen for them to discuss?) is the separate ranking idea - or a form of it. So - the number of European places is decided by the overall ranking as now. Possibly with some alterations - to five teams for some countries etc. - but that's a separate issue. For now we assume that the countries ranked 4 to 8 in the overall rankings still get six teams each in European competitions.

But a separate ranking for CL performances only decides how many of the six teams enter the CL and in which rounds. So if a country were ranked 6th overall but 16th or below in the CL ranking then they would get one CL team and five UEFA Cup teams.

I'm not saying this is - or isn't - a good idea. Just that it's one option that could be discussed.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: bcpcd Date: 11-11-2006, 14:14	Why not come back to CLR2 GS. Why not while in UC will be progressing with last 32, last 16 and 1/8 final, they will be play 6 matches (in 4 groups by 4 tms) with possibilities to win, theoretically and averageing, another 7-9 pts count for coeff. rank..No other bonuses till 1/4 final. I don't know if it's "healthy" or not for system or teams, or even why rennounced to this phase.

Author: lazio
Date: 11-11-2006, 14:20
Edited by: lazio
at: 11-11-2006, 14:37

Money!! Same old f...ers! Sorry for language...it sounds more plastically that way.
The story with the money and the rankings and with the same old big, galactic teams in the semifinals isn't a little bit boring? Aside from the great quality of the last match, are you not a little bit tired of Chelsea - Barcelona every year, for the last three years? Personally, I am. What do I remember in the last 15 years in European Football? I remember that final with Manchester and the last 2 magical minutes - althoug I didn't support that much Manchester, I remember that in one year Casino Salzburg disputed a Uefa Cup final, I remember Dynamo Kiev in the semifinales with a letal duo: Sevchenko and Rebrov, I remember Shalke 04 winning the Uefa Cup some ten years ago, Ajax of 94, of course Lazio and the last Winners Cup disputed.
Frankly, I don't remember every quarters and semifinals with Milan, Barcelona, Bayern, Real Madrid and Juventus.
So I do not like the curent trend in European Football to open the gap between Big Teams and the rest. But hey, maybe is something wrong with me and that's the future. In that case, I should start watching and enjoing Curling.
P.S. That is the reason for that I admire Steve Gerard. (anyway, until now). He loves Liverpool. Althoug he could play at Real, Barcelona, Milan, Inter, whatever. You can blame it for that? No...that's why today we hear from time to time about Steve Gerard and we've lost somewere a magical kid: Michael Owen.

Author: ferdi
Date: 11-11-2006, 15:02
Edited by: ferdi
at: 11-11-2006, 18:10

I wrote:

{i>We have found out that both their suggestions make no real sense from the German point of view,{/i>

badgerboy wrote:

{i>Is this really true? It's not inconceivable that both Portugal & Romania could pass Germany this year.{/i>

Yes, this is possible in theory, but I think that this is not the German point of view. It is not the way how Germans would see it. If the German results start to become worse, then it may be that first there is no reaction for some time, until at a certain point the Germans would say: "Enough is enough. We {i>really{/i> must become better!" And then you can be sure that they will do something and will become better. For the German mentality it is a rather strange or even dishonest request to blame the coefficient system if the problem is so obviously a lack of quality of a German product.

{i>Interestingly I believe 2009-10 is the very season that any competition format changes that come from UEFA's review of the club competitions would kick in. So Rummenigge's politicking does make some sense.{/i>

Yes, that is exactly what I think as well. What changes are in the interest of the big countries, and who could be possible allies from the smaller countries?

{i>One ranking I would be interested in seeing would be a "CL only" coefficient ranking. I have no idea what this would look like with regard to Germany's position - though I assume Romania wouldn't be very high.{/i>

I assume that in this case Portugal and the Netherlands would challenge Germany instead of Romania and Russia. In the last four years, there was only one team from Germany that reached the QF, and none reached the semifinal. But there were two teams each from Portugal and the Netherlands that reached the QF, and one team of each country even made it to the SF. This is another reason why Rummenigge's suggestion doesn't make sense to me from the German point of view.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 11-11-2006, 21:38

I came up with some CL only rankings. There might be some mathematical errors but hopefully not too many.

First the five year ranking to the end of last season:

Spain 83.625
England 78.183
Italy 75.250
Germany 56.708
France 51.833
Netherlands 47.667
Portugal 38.667
Greece 36.167
Belgium 35.000
Russia 28.000
Turkey 27.750
Scotland 25.250
Ukraine 25.000
Norway 23.500
Switzerland 23.000
Czech Rep. 21.000
Israel 16.250
Slovakia 15.500
Serbia-M. 15.000
Austria 11.500
Denmark 10.500
Bulgaria 9.500
Finland 9.000
Macedonia 8.000
Moldova 8.000
Lithuania 8.000
Ireland 8.000
Poland 8.000
Bosnia 8.000
Latvia 8.000
Cyprus 8.000
Hungary 8.000
Sweden 7.500
Romania 7.000
Georgia 7.000
Albania 6.500
Armenia 6.000
Slovenia 5.500
Croatia 5.500
Belarus 5.500
Azerbaijan 4.500
Luxembourg 4.000
Wales 4.000
Malta 3.500
Iceland 2.500
Kazakhstan 2.500
Estonia 2.500
Faroe Is. 1.500
N.Ireland 1.500

Author: badgerboy
Date: 11-11-2006, 21:40

Next the current ranking:

Italy 73.375
Spain 70.375
England 68.975
France 51.500
Netherlands 49.167
Germany 48.667
Portugal 33.917
Russia 31.750
Belgium 30.250
Greece 30.167
Ukraine 28.500
Scotland 24.250
Switzerland 23.250
Turkey 22.250
Norway 20.750
Denmark 16.500
Czech Rep. 15.750
Israel 15.750
Serbia-M. 15.000
Slovakia 14.000
Bulgaria 13.000
Romania 13.000
Austria 11.750
Macedonia 10.000
Bosnia 10.000
Finland 9.000
Moldova 8.500
Latvia 8.500
Lithuania 8.000
Ireland 8.000
Poland 8.000
Cyprus 8.000
Hungary 7.500
Slovenia 7.000
Albania 6.500
Armenia 6.500
Sweden 6.000
Georgia 6.000
Croatia 5.500
Azerbaijan 5.500
Belarus 4.000
Luxembourg 3.500
Malta 3.500
Iceland 3.000
Kazakhstan 3.000
Estonia 2.500
Faroe Is. 2.500
N.Ireland 1.500
Wales 1.000

Author: badgerboy
Date: 11-11-2006, 21:44

And finally the current situation in next year's ranking (for places in the 2009-10 season):

England 54.225
Italy 51.500
Spain 48.875
France 44.333
Germany 39.667
Netherlands 39.500
Portugal 32.667
Russia 27.000
Greece 23.667
Belgium 23.250
Ukraine 23.250
Scotland 23.250
Turkey 20.250
Norway 17.250
Denmark 14.500
Czech Rep. 13.750
Serbia-M. 13.500
Slovakia 13.500
Romania 13.000
Bulgaria 11.500
Austria 10.250
Finland 9.000
Macedonia 8.000
Switzerland 7.750
Moldova 7.500
Lithuania 7.500
Ireland 7.500
Poland 6.500
Israel 6.250
Bosnia 6.000
Latvia 6.000
Slovenia 6.000
Cyprus 5.500
Hungary 5.500
Sweden 5.500
Azerbaijan 5.500
Albania 5.000
Croatia 4.500
Armenia 4.000
Georgia 4.000
Luxembourg 3.000
Iceland 3.000
Belarus 2.500
Faroe Is. 2.500
Kazakhstan 2.000
Estonia 2.000
Malta 1.500
N.Ireland 1.000
Wales 1.000

Author: badgerboy
Date: 11-11-2006, 22:04

...So Germany's position is much more comfortable than in the overall rankings & the Netherlands are more of a top six fixture than I expected. Though of course if this was really how the rankings worked they would have three CL teams & their ranking might fall.

Portugal & Russia are still strong in the top eight - Romania aren't (only 22nd on current ranking). Greece & Belgium are still just behind the top 8 - which surprises me a little. Switzerland, Norway & Denmark are doing much better in these rankings based on reasonable performances with only one team.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 12-11-2006, 04:30	The rankings are easily explainable Teams from Spain, England or Italy are allways strong, and play for the title. France, Netherlands and Germany are often in round 2 to be ranked 4-6. Portugal, Russia, Greece and Belgium are almost everytime with 1 or 2 teams (and even 3 for Portugal) in the GS. The 10 countries are giving around 75% of the teams in the GS (23 out 32 right now).

Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 12-11-2006, 08:01
Edited by: Lupta_Steaua
at: 12-11-2006, 08:04

Overgame, Badgerboy,

Even though the statistics you provided are interesting, they still look very flexible, it all depends on the time shot when you take it. Of course Romania would be distavntaged by such a ranking, mainly due to lack of opportunity, and Greece be more advantaged due to more opportunities. I am sure the ranking would look different in 5 years time, with Romania being at least higher than Greece at that point.

The question that still remains, is how "fair" the current system is. Staitics show that it does not work that bad, as, even though we have certain exceptional seasons from some "smaller" countries, history had shown, unless a country is able to protect its position, it risks to fall hard (Greece).

Surely, I am looking forward to see what will happen next. And the question whether Romania "deserves" to be where it currently is, should not be debated that fiercly. As romania's 26th place, behaind Austria, Poland (no offence, just trying to show every one how purposelY the term "better" is in football terms) and some other nations, was never debated.

Author: Maluyaca
Date: 12-11-2006, 10:56
Edited by: Maluyaca
at: 12-11-2006, 12:00

I think that the loser of the Domestic Cup - it happens sometimes - don't going into Europe and giving the place to the team who missed out on European football in the national leauge would be an option too.

The strong raise of Romania is strange but the chance that a country did it was always there. Congratulations to Romania for performing like that.

Problem of Germany is that before they were a top leauge and the last years the other ones came closer. Mentality (strong point of Germany) is not enough anymore tactics, technique and organisation are also important.

The system works well, if you don't perform it can happen that you will be punished for it. Thats whats happening with Germany.

Maybe a point to think about it, some ranked teams are not better then some not seeded ones but because of their presence every year in Europe they are seeded. Maybe that there should be a look at that.

What I would like is that there wouldn't be seeded teams in Europe. One pot and we will see what happen. Only rule untill stage X not 2 teams of the same country can draw each other. Draw live on TV and being performed by a child.

Author: aetius
Date: 12-11-2006, 12:02

this coefficient system is almost OK !!!
to be 100% perfect use this 2 corection:
1.all bonus points in UC is 1 point , able to reach for winners in:
group stage ( 1st place) , lat 32 , last 16, quarters, semis an winner.
2.all bonus points in CL is 3 point , able to reach for winners in :
group stage ( 1st place ), last 16 , quarters , semis and winner.

to karl heinz rummenigge: if the german teams still sleep in european cups anything could happen , even romania take a german spot ( 5 th or 6 th ).

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 12-11-2006, 16:37

I believe that the issue about UEFA coefficient system is not really an issue of CL vs. UEFA points, it is more an issue of number of teams per country.
As mentioned before, the growth of Romania is very quick because they just had 3 teams and the solutions suggested by Bert (better distribution of European spots and immediate effect) would address this issue.

I made a quick calculation for the top 10 countries. What would have been their UEFA coefficient if they all played with 3 teams only (I just took the 3 best of previous year league).

2002-2006 coefficients (3 best teams per country only):

1. SPAIN 83.000
2. ITALY 80.833
3. ENGLAND 79.073
4. FRANCE 67.167
5. GERMANY 64.000
6. PORTUGAL 60.667
7. NETHERLANDS 57.667
8. RUSSIA 42.667
9. GREECE 41.000
10. ROMANIA 31.333

2003-07 CURRENT UEFA COEFFICIENTS
(3 best teams per country only)

1. ITALY 78.500
2. SPAIN 73.333
3. ENGLAND 69.907
4. FRANCE 63.833
5. PORTUGAL 57.000
6. GERMANY 54.333
7. NETHERLANDS 50.667
8. ROMANIA 37.833
9. RUSSIA 36.500
10. GREECE 35.333

So it looks clear to me that playing with 3 teams only is a big advantage for Romania (from a coefficient perspective).
This means to me that the current position of Romania in the (real) rankings might not exactly reflect the reality. This means that Romania might fall as quick as they just rose in the next few years, like Turkey, Greece or Czech Rep. did.
A better (and fairer) distribution of European spots would certainly help decreasing that (unnecessary) volatility in coefficients.

PS: thishas nothing to do vs. Romania (I'm myself pretty happy of Romania's rise), it is a pure statistical analysis.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Lyonnais Date: 12-11-2006, 16:45 Edited by: Lyonnais at: 12-11-2006, 16:45	second interesting point: somebody, in another topic, asked why Spain had a better coefficient than Italy and Spain. We can see in this table that Spanish top teams have more or less the same results as Italian and English top teams. Spain makes the difference at the end because of the depth of their league (teams ranked from 4th to say 7th are better than their Italian or Spanish counterparts).

Author: badgerboy
Date: 12-11-2006, 17:18

I totally agree with Lyonnais as regards the number of teams being the main issue.

Here is an archived topic (from April last year so Lyonnais figures are much more up to date) which compares the performance of the best three teams from each country each year with the worst three and the worst two.

For Spain, for example, even if their coefficient was based on their three worst performing teams each year they would still be ranked between the best three of Scotland & Belgium.

"A better (and fairer) distribution of European spots would certainly help decreasing that (unnecessary) volatility in coefficients".

Yes absolutely. So, some five team countries - as Bert suggested but for me also the old issue (again only for me as noone else seems to agree!) of some countries being ranked below 21 being given four teams rather than three.

If it's deemed desirable to make it harder for a country to rise as quickly as Romania have (or will have) in just two seasons - this change further down the rankings is essential. Giving some countries further up the ranking five teams wouldn't really alter the situation at all. The only alternatives would be the "weighted points" already being discussed (UEFA Cup counts less) or the more instant reward - or "penalty" system. So one season of very strong performance results in an immediate increase of team numbers the following season and thus you get only one year not two with a small number of teams.

I wouldn't mind seeing European results have a more immediate affect on European places - but of all the options I still prefer changing the number of teams per country.

Author: jpcccc
Date: 12-11-2006, 18:13

Well, i would make a different mix of solutions than those proposed here.

Bert and other posters suggest to create 5 team countries in spots 7-10 and skip the gap year between rankings and spots distribution.

Some others suggest CL and UC points weighing differently (which in turn could end with most of bonus points in CL).

My suggestion is mixing half of one solution with the other.

Ending the gap year is confusing for national competitions and would increase the pressure over coefficient's sytem, since a defeat (or a tie) by one team in an UEFA match in early May could end up taking away a UEFA spot just earned by other team in that same weekend.

Imagine the headlines: you would get thousands of Rummenige' complaints over UEFA points on a regular basis.

So, keep the gap year but create the 5 teams spots to smooth the transition of number of teams and coefficient points weighing.

Also, it wouldn't hurt increasing the number of countries with 4 teams up to 30th spot. After all there are more countries in Europe now than there were when the system was created. The extra teams would just add up to more 4 matches in UC qualy rounds BUT would avoid having countries from the 20 something spots dividing their points by three two years after.

Finally, i maintain it still is necessary to weigh CL points awarded from group stage on with presence bonus points and/or a different score. You see, the problem is not for winners in CL: currently they have bonus points for getting through. However, losing or drawing in CL is not worth the same as doing it in UC. That's where i believe the difference is.

Either you change the score and throw away bonus points OR give bonus points not only to winners but also to people that draw and still don't get through. A draw is worth 1 point in CL and in UC, the same. The bonus only goes to those who get through.

So, give spots more evenly AND change points in CL.

Author: jpcccc
Date: 12-11-2006, 18:22

Also, this has nothing to do with Romania rising (although i never liked some euphoric nonsense).

The rise of Romania simply pointed clearly at the errors in coefficient system that many of the posters in this forum had already pointed out over the years.

The 5-teams one is a classic. The arguing about distribution of points awarded between CL and UC was discussed since creation of CL dropouts and increased highly when the UC group stage started. Now, the only new thing is the gap year (which i would mantain) and giving 4 teams up to 30th spot or so.

Author: JC71
Date: 12-11-2006, 19:20

Lets not forget that what makes the coeff go up is winning.

And Romanian although with only 3 teams, won games and against
seeded teams.
But with more teams is much more dificult to earn points
because your league must have more quality,
which I think Romania doesn't have, thats why I also share the view
that Romania doesn't deserve to be so high,
but thats the rules we have and by that rules they are on that position.

One of thinks I find it unfair is the CL 4 place,
you play against the best teams (CL) and end up the last place,
not only you earn few points but also end the European campain soon.
Whereas in the UEFA GS you have the change to gather more points
with the same good team.

Remove the 1 year wait, may increase the problemas for budgets,
because when you make your team for that year you have a goal,
for instance a 3 place wish gives you access to the CL money.
You end up in 3rd, but your country lost that position and you
dont get the CL money.

Author: gabriel1
Date: 12-11-2006, 20:44
Edited by: gabriel1
at: 12-11-2006, 20:46

Rummenigge comments about Romania???...then, he's a stuppid man...
let see the results from last year uefa cup between romanian teams and german teams:

Uefa Group Stage
Hertha Berlin - Steaua Bucuresti 0-0
Stuttgart - Rapid Bucuresti 2-1

last 32:
Hertha Berlin - Rapid Bucuresti 0-1
Rapid Bucuresti - Hertha Berlin 1-0
Hertha out

last16:
Rapid Bucuressti - Hamburger SV 2-0
Hamburger SV - Rapid Bucuresti 3-1
HSV out

Romania 7p
Germany 5p

next:
Dinamo Bucuresti- Bayer Leverkusen... 1x

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 12-11-2006, 23:56	Top Romania versus sub-top Germany. Results : advantage Germany, but Germany could lose the 5th spot. That's why there are some critics.

Author: cinebelul
Date: 13-11-2006, 01:28

Would they really change the rules sooner as Romania will profit&have 6 teams, only because of this idiot?s reaction ?!?
He is in a leader position at UEFA, I understood, but he has to be impartial in this position, the content of his weep is everything but not that! ...proving that he?s incompetent for this position at UEFA!!
Romanian suspicions about conspiracy against "not contributing natins" become true! They made the rules as hard as posible, but we beat that! They have to change again the rules...this is also a winner, even if we will never play with more teams as allowed in the minds of some idiots like Rummenigge..
Others, I think if Romania were so beloved at german turists like Turkey or Greece, Rummenigge caprices were temperater

Author: dragos_popa17
Date: 13-11-2006, 09:26
Edited by: dragos_popa17
at: 13-11-2006, 09:32

jpcccc wrote
'One of thinks I find it unfair is the CL 4 place,
you play against the best teams (CL) and end up the last place,
not only you earn few points but also end the European campain soon.
Whereas in the UEFA GS you have the change to gather more points
with the same good team.'

I think it's a little unfair too, but I see no way to change this. Giving more points in CL would create a big gap between teams here and teams in the UC. And like I said before, the really good teams of the CL are always up there. As for the weaker ones, the difference between them and the UC best isn't that big(UC best could even be better). So as far as teams are concerned, I belive the system works.
For countries, the issue is a little more complicated. The coeff depends on how well those country's teams play, and since the system for clubs works, the problem must be in the number of spots. If there really is a problem, because I belive there can never be a perfect system. There will always be over or undeachievers. If England, for example, lose all of their games next year, they will lose their position. That is not because of the system, it's because of how they play. That's somehow what happend to Romania. We got a team in UC quarter's and one in UC semi's being ranked 25. You won't see that happen anytime soon.
In a way, the system is similar to a slingshot. The lower you go under your true value and spot, the more you'll be thrown ahead. The more you go over, the more you'll be thrown back.
Romania was never ment to be 26th, so we slingshot into the first 6(we'll get there). But we were never ment to be 6th either, so we'll be shot back into 10th or 15th or whatever our place is.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 13-11-2006, 09:32	You cannot remove the 1 year wait : there are already a few champions, and thy have the right to know which place plays what cup before the end of their league. Let's take Denmark : the 3rd(4th)-placed team has the right to prepare his season knowing if they play UC, Intertoto or nothing !

Author: moro
Date: 13-11-2006, 13:25

@ Badgerboy and Lyonnais
I'd like to say that in medecine all studies made on "groups of patients from the past" - in french "retrospective" study, have no value; only prospectives studies counts when you think a decision must be made. If they do so in medecine, that's because they know something; every retrospective study is subject to subjectivity.
So I believe Romania would loose in any retrospective ranking because the rise is exceptionnal, it's enough to look at berties graphics. And by the way, why doing rankings with "best 3" while 6-7 teams are in ???
We must also remember that in CL there's 3 bonus points for GS, 1 for KO stage, so Uefa Cup and CL don't counts 50-50 in the balance.
I know u're not hating Romania, but any decision to change uefa ranking system taken now, it would be discriminative and stupid; it would be a warning for all little countries "beware, even if u'll go up, we'll get u down changing system..." Uefa let Greece with 3 teams in CL, they should let us too, because in our case it's about work and talent, not about beeing rich.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 13-11-2006, 16:22

Moro wrote:

"We must also remember that in CL there's 3 bonus points for GS, 1 for KO stage, so Uefa Cup and CL don't counts 50-50 in the balance".

Even with the bonus points a team starting in R1 of the UEFA Cup can gain exactly the same number of points as one starting at the Group Stage of the CL. That's because there is one extra round (the last 32) in the UEFA Cup and that's actually why the extra three CL bonus points were introduced - to even things up when the UEFA Cup Group Stage started.

By the way - I totally agree that there shouldn't be any retrospective adjustments to the coefficient system just because of Romania's rise. I think there should be a revision of place allocations in the future but if those changes were implemented this wouldn't penalise Romania at all and would help all mid-ranking and even some "high low-ranking" countries by giving them extra European spots.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 13-11-2006, 16:56

yes, fully qgree of course. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.

And sorry for misunderstanding if it was confusing, but I meant that based on previous year results, Romania should have had more European teams this year. That's all.
It would have been certainly more satisfactory from a Romanian perspective and nobody would have been able to blame anything if Romanian coefficient kept on rising.

Author: moro
Date: 13-11-2006, 18:51

@badgerboy
You're right about points, but I'm thinking about one team loosing in UCGS, they've played 6 matches (2 KO, 4 in GS), while in CL there's 3 bonus points plus 6 matches. Let's take Olympiakos for example, they have 3+2+ 2 matches to go = 7 p. And now we take Heerenveen, they have 3+1+ 2 matches to go. Or Benfica with 3+3 + 2 games, against Braga with 2+2+2 games to go. I think the average points for those teams (maybe) loosing GS in CL is largely better (about 2p) than those loosing UCGS. After all, CL get more points for those teams, only teams going further in competition are relatively loosing that advantage against UC.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: 5UCLGSteams Date: 14-11-2006, 01:13	As i said on the other topic, I think Romania was lucky only because UC and UCL format did not change(more points available) at the same time,which is not Romania's fault. There is a delay that really helped us more than anything else and i think will help other countries too until 2009. The rest of it is just our real level of football.Very good now.Awfull in the last decade.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: cinebelul Date: 14-11-2006, 03:48 Edited by: cinebelul at: 14-11-2006, 03:52	What about that? 1st-4th 2+2UCL 3UC 5th-7th 2+1UCL 3UC 8th-9th 1+1UCL 4UC 10th 1+1UCL 3UC We will have only 2 teams more each cup.. But! Shouldn�?t play teams from top 10 in UIC!

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: bcpcd Date: 16-11-2006, 04:55	CYPRUS-GERMANY 1-1 Well, herr Rummenigge? Maybe teams like Germany must qualify directly to final Eurochampionship and it's inadmissible that teams like Cyprus or Ro.., sorry, others, to participate on EURO qualification toghether with great the team of Germany... Isn't it herr Rummy?

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 16-11-2006, 05:31	What a stupid comment.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: bcpcd Date: 16-11-2006, 05:43	thank u. u're so kind..

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: gabriel1 Date: 16-11-2006, 12:00	For an idiot, Rummenigge, yesterday matches: Cyprus-Germany 1-1 Spain-Romania 0-1 last matches between Romania and Germany: Germany-Romania 1-1 Romania-Germany 5-1

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: badgerboy Date: 16-11-2006, 12:10	For the love of satan - what does the result of one absolutely meaningless friendly international (nothing personal - all friendlies are meaningless) and one Euro 2008 qualifier have to do with UEFA club coefficients & Rummenigge's comments about them. Absolutely nothing!

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: antonio62tr Date: 16-11-2006, 13:48	Now i see-there is a "doctor" inside of every Romanian....

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Giuseppe Date: 16-11-2006, 14:34	Yes, there's a little 'doctor' even in me I've always wanted to treat people with dyslexia

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: lazio Date: 16-11-2006, 16:12	I'm a romanian and I'm already full with all the romanian enthusiasm. C'mon, we've got to let other people breeding and talk about their stuff. I'm curios how much active romanians will be in 3-4 years on this forum, when our football goes back to average. I hope we will stay at least in top 10, but somehow I doubt it.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: panda Date: 16-11-2006, 16:57 Edited by: panda at: 16-11-2006, 17:24	breeding? Actually, pandas have a lot of trouble breeding.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: lazio Date: 16-11-2006, 20:43 Edited by: lazio at: 16-11-2006, 20:47	panda I know that...I'm sorry for you...even Viagra doesn't do it? hmm...it's a tough world, what can I say? My friends call me "the polar bear"...so I guess, I'm a little more lucky than you! others Sorry for "off topic". It was just a small talk from bear to bear.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Giuseppe Date: 16-11-2006, 23:44 Edited by: Giuseppe at: 16-11-2006, 23:44	I think he was reffering to your confusing the words 'breathing' (to inhale/exhale air) and 'breeding' (reproduce) Or at least that's how I get it

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Overgame Date: 17-11-2006, 00:25	and with his nickname (panda), the joke was excellent

Author: panda
Date: 17-11-2006, 11:14

@lazio-polar-bear and bear-lovers

Yes, I guess it was 'breathe' too!

The polar bear has the opposite problem - the ice is melting because of the global warming stuff. So no problems breeding, but big problems getting food for the little ones and to survive as an adult. Maybe someone can come up with metaphors for football teams for these 2 problems.

E.g. the panda is like a team which always has to sell its players = cannot reproduce in a normal way - in captivity it is usually bred by artificial insemination = by injection of artificial investment, not organically. The fans say 'cute, but it will never win.'

the polar bear is like a team which is too big for its league, so it falls into the sea. Maybe polar bear is like Celtic or Rangers, a team where because the league is not bigger, there is like a limit to how successful the team can become.

Mind you, in the FORUM, breaking the ice is a good thing....

Author: levski.bg
Date: 17-11-2006, 18:52
Edited by: levski.bg
at: 17-11-2006, 19:06

Mr Rumenigge is not a idiot. Actually he was a very good player.

Of course, like a part of Bayern Munich he want to defend german interest (in case that Bayern is not secure on top 3 in Germany this season).

Like mr Bert Kassies mention, Rumenigge is important european football person, so any statement should be taken serious.

This stuff (and Platini ones) smells little bit like a UEFA President election lobby statements and we can consider Rumenigge words like a support for mr Johanson.

Like a person from east, I think that Platini idea is not bad of course, but she is not bad for western teams also and german teams in general, because Platini's idea gives Germany a secure 3 spots, which is not very sure in old system.

I dont think that Johanson posible win again, will reflect so bad for the eastern teams also..the things will be like this days.

I dont know exactly the define rules of this election, but I read somewhere that every country have equal vote power with others and Platini chances is very good I think. It will be interesting what will be the Scandinavia votes. To support Johanson or to support idea of sure team in Champions League.

Anyway, good luck to both sides, I dont think any of those will reflect so bad or so good to any "part" of the european football.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 19-11-2006, 12:21

Finally! When someone came to the forum with a nick "panda" I wondered how long will it take for mating habits of pandas to become a factor to be considered in these topics. Was it a premonition or what!

Makes me think of an episode from the Animal channel. There were a male and a female panda in separate sections of some Zoo. They were the only ones. When the female was in heat they let her enter his section. Alas, he was eating bamboo and was blind to everything else. She waved her behind right in front of his nose but the brave guy did not give in. After numerous tries that were to no avail the poor girl lied down by the little pool, her head resting on one of her arms, the other arm splashing the water slowly, and her face was the definition of the purest, greatest misery that could possibly be imagined. Having no sympathy whatsoever he was still devouring bamboo.

Don't know what made me write all this "bamboo blues". Confused smiley inserted here.

Author: panda
Date: 20-11-2006, 11:40
Edited by: panda
at: 20-11-2006, 15:18

As you can imagine I take a big personal interest in this one.

The latest theory is that in the wild, the baby panda stays with the mum for more than 1 yr, so gets the chance to see the mum mating the next year (pandas are fertile for only 2-3 days per year; it's a tough life, huh?). So the baby panda learns 'what to do' (yuck!)

In the zoo, the baby panda doesn't get this chance, and usually has been taken away from the mum before the age of 18mths. So they basically have no idea what to do with each other. 2-3 days go by; the chance is lost.

EDIT
Pandas and co-efficients

If you express the ratio of the size of the adult and the new-born as a coefficient, the Panda has the highest one i.e. the new-born is the smallest relative to the size of an adult. A new-born human that was the size of a new-born panda would weigh 80-90g.

Author: MalcolmW
Date: 20-11-2006, 20:28

So the club fitting the panda definition could be Crewe Alexandra. For many years they existed at or near the bottom of the Football League but in Dario Gradi's 23 year reign they have been transformed, and have had a few seasons in the second tier - which is clearly above reasonable expectations.
They have relied on sales to survive, both from their own academy products and cast-offs from other clubs (mainly ManU and Liverpool). Apart from initial sales they have a good income from sell-on fees. Among those who have made their name with a teenage spell at Gresty Road are David Platt, Neil Lennon, Danny Murphy, Robbie Savage, Rob Hulse and Dean Ashton.

Author: panda
Date: 21-11-2006, 16:33
Edited by: panda
at: 21-11-2006, 17:24

Another analogy between pandas and football - but not the same one at all, in fact, almost an opposite.

The panda is the only animal that -on its own- brings a lot of visitors into zoos. The Chinese charge unbelievable 'rent' (1-2 million Euro per panda per year) to have the pandas out on loan in foreign zoos.

So we could also compare the panda to a player who is signed by the club for marketing purposes (I mean, the obvious example is Beckham, but many would say he can still play very well), not for playing purposes. The panda generates a lot of income, but in practical terms is pretty useless.

EDIT
@malcolmW
BTW it's good to know you are around again.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: moro Date: 22-11-2006, 18:04	I've just remembered that Villareal get an excellent coefficient in Uefa Cup, then went in CL, look at them, only one season in CL and they are 17 on general ranking! However, Rumme slept at that time.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 22-11-2006, 19:04

Moro

Sorry I don't get your point.

I seem to remember Villarreal reached the Champions League Semi-Finals. Thus worth a high seeding position.

Working backwards I also see that they were seeded in Pot 2 at the group stage based purely on their previous UEFA Cup results. That's OK too as far as I'm concerned as long as they're not seeded at the expense of CL last 16 regulars. By OK I mean if you want a seeding system that makes sense - I personally don't mind the odd anomaly too much. In this case though, all the teams below Villarreal in the seeding list were other UEFA Cup promotees or CL group stage regulars who rarely progress past that stage so no anomaly.

Author: moro
Date: 22-11-2006, 20:17

Badgerboy, in fact my point is your point: so what if Steaua did a lot of points in UEFA? ... they deserved pot 3 (regerding last year team and performance, cause this year they're not good until now). Olympique Marseille is another one, Auxerre, etc, Sevilla next year in CL maybe pot 1.... If Steaua get the spot in GS next year, I think they could deserve 2-nd pot because maybe they'll make-it to the quarter final this year, so one demi-final, one quarter, hey, that's excellent performance, better than Lille or Celtic.
I think that in a better coef-system we should take some % of points depending of ranking position of opposite team. For example, if Werder wins only against teams like Levski or worse, they should not take same points like winning against Barcelona. Same thing in UEFA.

Author: porto-1978
Date: 23-11-2006, 03:58

That system, moro, is everything but perfect.

Why don?t you consider this:
- best clubs of all countries go to CL, the other go to UC.
- best of those in CL play the GS, the not so good go to UC.
- best of GS keep in CL, the 3rds go to UC.

So no doubt that clubs in CL are the top and that is the main competition. If CL > UC ...

Victories/draws in CL should count more than in UC. Isn?t it logical and simple? (instead of using strange and complicated rankings as fifa?)
Otherwise you have a easy win over a club high ranked because of 5 years performance or you have a dificult win over a low ranked club and you have more points in first than in second.
Just trust that if it is in CL, no matter their coefficient whatever it?s FCK or Milan, they have to be good at the moment or recent time.

I give a lot of value to UC. But let?s be honest, for me the hierarchy is:
1. CL winner
2. CL finalist
3. CL SF?s
4. CL QF?s & UC winner (top 9)
5. CL R2 & UC finalist (top 18)
6. UC SF?s (top 20)
7. UC QF?s (top 24)
8. UC R3 (top 48)
9. CL GS (4th) (top 64)
10.UC GS (4th)
11.UC GS (5th)
12.UC R1

Author: porto-1978
Date: 23-11-2006, 04:04

About Villarreal they are great. But there?s too much good clubs in Spain. But there you got, in top UC you always have good clubs but not always excelent ones. Villarreal or Porto (02-04) showed that some of better of a season in UC can repeat good results in CL. Of course some other not.

About what "will" happen, for sure or for half a sure, i don?t care. Anyway who don?t understand what happened yesterday will be the more unlikely to know what will happen tomorrow.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: thomas Date: 29-11-2006, 22:40	Well, Mr. Rummenigge, it is NOT the method of calculation, it is the results! Bukarest-Leverkusen 2:1

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: impdcl Date: 29-11-2006, 22:44	@thomas 10.666 and counting........ so Mr. Rummenigge Leverkusen sucks, for a finalist few years ago in CL

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: dragos_popa17 Date: 29-11-2006, 22:45 Edited by: dragos_popa17 at: 29-11-2006, 22:46	Leverkusen played bellow my expectations. They didn't have one corner kick. That says a lot. Dinamo played their usual and I say it's only normal that they won.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: levski.bg Date: 29-11-2006, 22:49	Leverkusen build a new team now. They will be better in the near future, give them a little time. Congratulation to Dinamo. Another good game for them.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: gabriel1 Date: 29-11-2006, 22:51	special for Rumme... Dinamo Bucuresti - Bayer Leverkusen 2-1

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: 5UCLGSteams Date: 29-11-2006, 23:47 Edited by: 5UCLGSteams at: 30-11-2006, 00:46	Gabriel1 Edit: never mind

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: gabriel1 Date: 29-11-2006, 23:56 Edited by: gabriel1 at: 30-11-2006, 00:18	5UCLGSteams looool...I exprees my self like I want to ...and thoose words before "......", are out from your mouth or was in your head, not mine...so , please spear me with such nonsense things and see only your comments on this forum... I belive that you understood what I want to say about this.... on PAO - Rapid Bucuresti x2 Forza Rapid!

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: gabriel1 Date: 30-11-2006, 00:19 Edited by: gabriel1 at: 30-11-2006, 01:35	the Por refs were verry good...and of course Dinamo won...

Author: TITAN
Date: 30-11-2006, 08:20
Edited by: TITAN
at: 30-11-2006, 08:22

Come on, get serious. Look at English and Spanish teams in the UEFA cup: Blackburn, Newcastle, Tottenham, Espanyol and Sevilla are top of their groups. So if the Germans have only Bayern and partially Bremen, it's their problem. They should find answers and solutions in their own league.

OK, Romania's case is an exception. After 2 or 3 years you will get rid of it, we're in the same position as Greece a few seasons ago.

There were only 4 German players in Bayer's starting lineup yesterday. In the national team they have 2 Polish, one Ghanian and one Swiss to score goals for them. I've been to Berlin a few weeks ago, and yes, they're a great nation, a great culture, a great civilization. But that doesn't mean they can win a match without playing on the pitch.

Author: ferdi
Date: 30-11-2006, 09:50

For the so-called "Polish" players in the German national team it may be noteworthy that those players (Klose and Podolski) are both Silesians who were born when Silesia was German territory - though under Polish occupation - and they both left Silesia before it became a legitimate part of the Polish state, i. e. before the German-Polish treaty from November 1990. People from the former German territories who left those territories towards the contemporary German state before 1990 are not regarded as foreigners or immigrants in Germany. (Should that ever matter

)

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 30-11-2006, 11:28

hehe, dinamo 2-1 bayer and dinamo makes history qualifing in the "european spring" after 16 years YESSSSSSS !!

))), finaly !

i can now "upgrade" my supporter expectations and continue to dream on, UCL here we come, i am staring to save money for the tickets

as for the match, dinamo played one of the worst matches this year, had only a few shots on goal but the opponent was a "nut" the worst team that dinamo or rapid meat this year in uefa cup groups, this bayer leverkussen is really a bad team, really i saw herta and hsv last year and schalke but bayer deserves that 1oth place in bundesliga

as for the duel romania - germany , nothing proved this week because leverkussen is NOT a top german team and dinamo played at 50% of theyr value, the only good part was the referee first impartial one till now for dinamo, (so congrats to portugal mentality) because all the referees until now helped dinamo ( vs besiktas and xanthi home) or the opponents (brugges and xanthi away).

still cant forget that referee in OM - dinamo but may he leave in peace..

Author: thomas
Date: 30-11-2006, 11:28

TITAN,
thanks from Germany!

ferdi,
Please do not mix the citizenship-question with the territorial problems. In a German-Polish statement in the 1970ties Germany had accepted the loss of Silesia, East Prussia etc. But until 1989 any ethnic German from the east, who came to West Germany, got the West German citizenship. Not only from Poland, but also from Romania, USSR, CSSR. There is still a German minority in Silesia, mainly around Oppeln. These people have polish citizenship. Before 1989 it was a tough political question, but now they have good minority rights. Only few settle over to Germany any more, but I think they can still get German citizenship very easy.

Back to football: Indeed our only teams on high European level seem to be Bayern and Werder. So we will go through the "jo-jo-symptom": With less German teams theese 2 will get more influence on the coefficient.

Author: dinamo_fan_4_ever
Date: 30-11-2006, 11:45

@thomas

indeed bayern and werder are top teams, UCL teams better than any romanian team and the rest seem to under expect BUT u say with less teams germany would gain more pts; to get less teams means that germany should be ranked 9th or worse so gaining more pts would throw you back on 5th, 6th possition and it wont make a differrence, the only difference is that romania will start falling back when 6 teams will be involved because there wont be any more coefficients like this years or last ones but i still think we can keep a top 10 ranking for at least 5-6 years from now on.

Author: macles
Date: 30-11-2006, 11:49

I want to point out the irony of 'Ka-Le' making this statement.

The reason the Bundesliga is so weak internationally is at least partly due to the pernicious domination of the transfer market of his club. They have a virtual monopoly on good players within the borders of Germany, and can get themselves (in theory) players a class above any other team. They have moreover, often used the technique 'kauf die gegner schwach' (buy out good players of the opposition to weaken them).

However, with an increasing international dimension to football, the cosy little Alpenstutzpunkt isn't so secure any more. Suddenly, from being the huge fish in the tiny pond, the Bavarians are the small fish in the ocean.

Let's see who they buy from Bremen at the end of the season. To show how pathetic the situation is, there is even a tv advert in Germany at the moment where a Bayern fan (they're the only team a German can support after all) dreams of Christmas and Ullie 'du bist ein' Hoeness appears with magic gifts. And the happy fan asks what's this, a striker (looking at the gift sack with a pair of legs with football boots on poking out of the end). He continues 'a striker from Brazil, or ...Bremen maybe?' This is the problem in German football, this attitude that one club SHOULD be the place everyone goes to. Moreover, the attitude that it is acceptable to imply in tv adverts as a 'joke' that Klose is going to Bayern (it's called tapping up and it's illegal actually).

Bayern are still in with a shout of the Bundesliga. This Bayern side is utterly dreadful. It truly reflects the abysmal level of the Bundesliga that Bayern are still in the title race, and so it's no surprise that Bayer Leverkusen got a good stuffing in Romania last night.

Author: ferdi
Date: 30-11-2006, 12:19
Edited by: ferdi
at: 30-11-2006, 12:58

thomas wrote:

{i>Please do not mix the citizenship-question with the territorial problems.{/i>

Did I? There is no citizenship-question, because Klose, Podolski, Asamoah and Neuville are all German citizens.

{i>In a German-Polish statement in the 1970ties Germany had accepted the loss of Silesia, East Prussia etc.{/i>

That was an agreemet between West-Germany and Poland, and it was under reserve of the final peace treaty with an at that time still to-be-unified Germany, which actually happened in 1990.

{i>But until 1989 any ethnic German from the east, who came to West Germany, got the West German citizenship. Not only from Poland, but also from Romania, USSR, CSSR.{/i>

Well, but what I wanted to point out is that especially all former citizens of the pre-WWII German state who live in contemporary Germany are regarded as native Germans, even if they were born in those parts of the former Germany which presently are part of the Polish state, as far as they moved towards the post-WWII East or West Germany after the war and before 1990.

{i>There is still a German minority in Silesia, mainly around Oppeln. These people have polish citizenship. Before 1989 it was a tough political question, but now they have good minority rights. Only few settle over to Germany any more, but I think they can still get German citizenship very easy.{/i>

Yes, but the players in question left Silesia before 1989, they could do that because they were regarded as Germans at that time. There are millions of German citizens who were born in those territories, and hardly any of them would redefine himself as Polish because his native city has turned Polish meanwhile - not withstanding that the younger ones who have grown up in those territories after the war may have a closer relation to Poland.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: Ricardo Date: 30-11-2006, 13:08	with names as 'Miroslav' and 'Podolski' they sound very Polish. And migration might not have been so popular in those days (I don't know).

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: antonio62tr Date: 30-11-2006, 13:30	Also Turkish players is going to play for German nationals...Because it became harder to be selected Turkish national team, Germany borned Turkish guys start choosing Germany...Two young guys from Schalke and Stuttgart alerady played i think..

Author: ferdi
Date: 30-11-2006, 14:07

You cannot go by the name. Both the modern German and the modern Polish nation are comparably young. After the Vienna congress, the Polish people were split between Prussia, Austria/Hungary, and Russia for about 100 years. During this time there was a lot of migration within those states (the age of industrialization). Therefore you will find a lot of Polish names in the Ruhr area for example. During this 100 years, part of the "polish" people became first Prussian (which was no problem at all for them because Prussia was originally some kind of Germanic/Slavic mixture anyway) and then (only after 1871, when Prussia became part of the new German state) they turned from Prussians to Germans, whereas others preserved a Polish identity.

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: ferdi Date: 30-11-2006, 14:17	antonio62tr wrote: {i>Germany borned Turkish guys start choosing Germany{/i> If they are born in Germany and choose Germany, then I wouldn't call them Turkish guys. They are Germans with Turkish ancestors.

Author: antonio62tr
Date: 30-11-2006, 14:28

I think lots of historical thing here for Rummi..

For the guys will play German team, they hane Turkish mom, Turkish dad and Turkish name...So what is German here?? Ofcourse they are German citizen and they have right to play national team, but it does not make them German...

We have also here Mehmet Aurelio, Brazilian soccer...got Turkish citizenship after playing 5 years here and changed his name Marco to Mehmet...But he is still Brazillian with his mom, dad and his past...

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: ferdi Date: 30-11-2006, 14:51	{i>For the guys will play German team, they hane Turkish mom, Turkish dad and Turkish name...So what is German here??{/i> Germany is the country where they have grown up, and as you say, it is their choice. If the nation of everyone were defined completely by the nation of his parents, how could any other nation ever exist than the one of Adam and Eve?

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: antonio62tr Date: 30-11-2006, 15:00	I think i have to cut here because it became socialogy topic where we interested in coefficient...

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: krasste Date: 30-11-2006, 15:18	Good decision ;D I just came to think about a country, hum what was the name? The people there are very proud of it. They are german, english, irish, italian, chinese, continue yourself now. I dont know why they are calling themselves Americans though You are not aware of the situation of immigrants in western countries, so dont talk about it. Integration is a hard thing, you know?

Re: Rummenigge critics the coefficients
Author: antonio62tr Date: 30-11-2006, 15:39	I have stayed and worked at US...so i do have little knowledge about immigration..