Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: 5UCLGSteams
Date: 14-11-2006, 01:37
Edited by: 5UCLGSteams
at: 14-11-2006, 02:47

As Mr. Lars-Christer Olsson said on 16.09.06(see uefa.com for the interview ) with the occasion of UCLGS draw:
"2009 is the time you need to be prepared for changes in the UCLGS format"

I have only one question about this: No one inside Uefa thought that by changing UC GS format other than at the same time with UCL GS format (supposing they were going to increase the actual number of teams) several strange things could happen with coefficients and rankings or is it Mircea Sandu's superman power guilty again

?

Very interesting issues like "why no country has 5 teams?" or "why don't changes apply at the end of current season?" have been debated on the other topics trying to explain Romania's rise, but finally none of these proved critical or "unfair for others".

Meanwhile many people agreeded that if "somehow more" CL points were available for teams involved in UCL competition, there would have been
no "Rummenigge" issue at all, or at least not so popular, as i've noticed in many replies on the other topic.

Finally, i really think this is a very big mistake did by Uefa and despite "even this wouldn't have damaged Romania's coeff too badly" i think the other 2 issues are by far overclassed by this one's importance.

What makes it more interesting is that there is still plenty of time until 2009 and i find the idea of "more important to play with 2 teams in Uc KO rounds than in UCL Ko rounds for your country's coeff" in the next 2 years very interesting, though i fully agree it should be vice versa.

Why lucky Romania? Simply because it was around showing good football
and collecting every piece of bonus available meanwhile UCL teams were showing excellent football but didn't know or weren't interested with the tip

.

So what do you think...was the actual system unfair from the beginning or people from Uefa "simply" forget about simulations when it comes about changes like UC GS,which to me is unacceptable at this level?

Author: AS
Date: 14-11-2006, 08:48

Dear friend,
I don’t know what the changes will consist in, so I can’t say if they will improve format or not. I can only make suppositions. I image that changes will go forward to the interests of rich teams and associations despite poor ones. On the other hand, I see that best teams from top rank associations not included in current CL access list are really stronger than champion team in middle or bottom rank associations. So, if UEFA wishes realize a very top team competition have to look to the former not to the its traditions.
Personally, I can agreed in a larger top teams competition with differential access according with teams and association rank both regarding stage and number of entry points, but only in change of a more democratic role in UEFA and homogenous entry in UEFA Cup.
About Romania I can say that it has improved its rank according with approved rules mainly made by top associations: it means that top associations have only to accept this. I don’t know how long this Romania success can go along, I’m waiting for it in next years when it will entry more teams. By now I can just say “Good Luck Romania!”.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 14-11-2006, 11:57

5UCLGSteams wrote:

"So what do you think...was the actual system unfair from the beginning or people from Uefa "simply" forget about simulations when it comes about changes like UC GS,which to me is unacceptable at this level?"

I really think "coefficient issues" aren't at the top of the agenda when it comes to UEFA deciding on the format of their competitions - nor should they be. They must have considered it a little bit though, which is why they increased the CLGS bonus points from 1 to 3 and gave an additional point for reaching the last 16.

UEFA habitually change something about their competition formats every two or three years and it seems inevitable they will do so again for 2009-10. I presume they will look at the coefficient points system at the same time. Whether the system "was", "is" or "will be" unfair is always going to be a subjective question.

Will they change the coefficient system? I haven't got a clue.

As I've written before I really think altering the place allocations slightly (countries 9-16 get 5 teams, 17 to 30 (or 32) get 4 teams) solves any "problems" there are with regards to the country coefficients. Countries could still rise from around 30 (or lower) to the top 10 with the results like the ones Romania have had in the past two years. However, it would be far more difficult to carry that rise forward into the top eight (certainly top six) and stay there for two or three seasons. For me that's a better balance. It should be hard work to get six European teams in Europe and even harder work to keep them for more than a season.

Team coefficients are a bit more of a problem. Here, I really don't know. For me the fact it's easier overall to get points in the UEFA Cup isn't too much of a problem. It's right that a team can perform well in the UEFA Cup, increase their ranking & become seeded in CLQR3. It's a form of promotion & relegation & leads to the prospect of different teams in the CLGS - a good thing. But I do think it becomes slightly too much if a couple of good UEFA Cup performances can carry you into a seeding pot above a CL last 16 regular. (I compared Steaua & Bayern on another thread).

Maybe this issue will be dealt with sufficiently when the CL becomes 6 groups of 6 - so ten group matches rather than six. If this doesn't happen I'm sure UEFA will look at alternative solutions.

Author: moro
Date: 14-11-2006, 12:16

Romanians will recognise this phrase: "I agree they make changes, but I don't want any modification".
I think UEFA is not stupid; E comes from "european", they could not divide even more the competition. Even now is hard for eastern-european clubs to get into CLGS, if they'll put more we teams inside, it would be the end. Come on guys, FOUR teams from one country is already stupid, five would be horrible.
I agree Platini, 3 teams is enough. More countries with 3 teams is OK. With or without Romania.

Author: 5UCLGSteams
Date: 14-11-2006, 12:49

Badgerboy wrote:

"Team coefficients are a bit more of a problem. Here, I really don't know. For me the fact it's easier overall to get points in the UEFA Cup isn't too much of a problem. It's right that a team can perform well in the UEFA Cup, increase their ranking & become seeded in CLQR3. It's a form of promotion & relegation & leads to the prospect of different teams in the CLGS - a good thing. But I do think it becomes slightly too much if a couple of good UEFA Cup performances can carry you into a seeding pot above a CL last 16 regular. (I compared Steaua & Bayern on another thread).

Maybe this issue will be dealt with sufficiently when the CL becomes 6 groups of 6 - so ten group matches rather than six. If this doesn't happen I'm sure UEFA will look at alternative solutions.
"

Supposing Steaua would qualify for the next years UCL GS ,which is not at any time easy at all even when you are seeded in QR3,i must admit, also as a Steaua fan,that the possibility of my favourite team being seeded Pot 2( which is really possible with a good performance this year in UC)looks like a serious problem to me. I do not want to say it is something very bad but being seeded Pot 2 before advancing at least one year in round of last 16 in UCL looks pretty "unfair" even to me.

And we are not talking only about Steaua here, it is only the first example and i am sure that until 2009 there will be other cases too.

I really do not get why didn't they make changes for UC and UCL both at the same time.

Author: cska
Date: 15-11-2006, 13:55

UEFA, UEFA, UEFA...
UEFA this and UEFA that...
UEFA never tell us why do they change something. They always find the best statements from PR perspective and always remain diplomatically silent when some clever journalists would ask them clear and specific questions.
I don't think that coefficients were the reason for the changes in 2009. Believe me, none of the richest clubs is interested in coefficients, because the system guarantees them a spot in CL GS every new year, provided they are at least 4th in domestic league (even if 4th, they will be seeded in QR3 with an easy opponent).
None of the rich cares too much how many points will poorer teams distribute in UC. I only think that the concern of Rummenigge was not about the overall co-eff of Romania, but because if Steaua rises to Pot 2, then his beloved Bayern will drop to Pot 3. I don't comment which team is better. I only comment on the system itself.
For me, it will be better if UC is erased and actually merged into CL. One cup is enough and it will be strong enough not to allow former UC performers to "outclass" CL regulars. Of course, it will be strange that the champion of a top 3 country will have the same access to CL as the 7th ranked team... But more teams will mean more matches. And many of those matches will be between clubs of the top 5 countries. And more such games brings more money... And the rich clubs will get richer and will be very happy...
However, this increased intensity of the calendar and the incredible number of games every new year made me feel fed up with CL/UC. I really can't care about each and every game, even in CL.
Some years ago, I was interested to see all games and goals. Some games really made history. Now, games are not history. They are routine. Teams play and forget about the game on the next day. We became so fed up with football that now we can't really appreciate a game, only because the cahnce to watch exactly this game out of 100-200 others is too small. What if X-Y was a good game. If I watched A-B, C-D and E-F simultaneously, X-Y will never be seen by me. And I really feel lucky if I see that a game is not dull, if a game has no divings or artistic simulations of injury. It's interesting that footballers call themselves "big men" or "tough guys", they pretend they are strong and athletic. And they lie on the ground and cry like kids even at the smallest contact with the feet of their opponent. That's ugly.
The more this football turns into an industry, the less I like it.
Sorry for the long post. I hope you'll not use it as a sleep pill.

Re: UEFA did it again!!! This time for lucky Romania
Author: gone Date: 15-11-2006, 14:22 Edited by: gone at: 15-11-2006, 14:22	Same here. I hate what football has became thanks to UEFA. You will never see an other Nothingham Forest or Astona Villa winning the CL. You will never see an Est European team CL winers. And in a few years (maybe more but it will happen) you will not hear people singing at games.