|
|
This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml |
No replies possible in the archive |
|
Author: Aliceag
Date: 11-12-2006, 20:01
| There it goes an idea, without having to change the format, to have less "no important games, so we can use B team" in 2 last MD.
What if in the end of 6 MD's the BEST 16 among ALL would qualify regardless positions in groups?
This way, Werder Bremen, 3rd, but with 10 points would go ahead in spite of Celtic or Lille, 2nds, but with only 9.
This way, Porto, 2nd, but with 11 points would go to POT1 instead of Milan, 1st but with only 10 points...
This way, Konpenhagen with 7 points would go to UC instead of Steaua or Spartak with 5...
If we ranked at the end ALL teams by points and Goal average we would have a more fair system of deciding who goes trough.
This would have the big advantage of Everyteam give their best in everyround, because their relative position in group could not be enough! You could end 1st and even not be qualified, if it is a very tie-tight group!
This way all teams would be forced to play for win, and score a lot of goals, since goal average would be a main factor in unties, since probably a lot of teams will end with the same points in 6 MDs.
What do you think? |
|
Author: moro
Date: 11-12-2006, 20:10
| I think it's not fair to compare the 5-th points of Steaua with 7 points of Kopenhagen - Steaua will say there were no chances to score points against Lyon and Real, while Kope had (maybe not) easier teams to play.
But after all I think is an excellent ideea, it just have to be worked out.
My proposal is to qualify in CL Ko round two of those 6 teams 3-rd placed (best number of points) and so there's two places for Uefa to take for two 4-th placed teams! |
|
Author: porto-1978
Date: 11-12-2006, 20:18
| i think we can?t compare clubs that didn?t played each other... How many points would Bremen and Celtic would get playing each other? We don?t know, but number of points depends for sure on your team and on oponents so that method would not be fair.. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 11-12-2006, 20:26
| For me not a good idea because if you have one weak team in a group the third team has a very good chance to progress.
A better way to reduce the dead games to my mind would be to abolish the last 16 draw.
You have best group winner v worst runner-up etc. so this year...
Lyon v Celtic
Valencia v Lille
Liverpool v Inter
Chelsea v PSV
Bayern v Roma
Man Utd v Porto
Arsenal v Real Madrid
Milan v Barcelona
Of course the draw may not have worked out this way if teams knew beforehand their target. No question about Milan's efforts in their last games if being worst group winner was likely to mean they would have to play Barcelona... |
|
Author: ignjat63
Date: 11-12-2006, 20:31
| The best way to get rid of dead games is to give 10 million euros to the winner of each game. The loser gets zero, and both get zero for a draw. Now this is what I call creative thinking. |
|
Author: moro
Date: 11-12-2006, 20:41
| Badgerboy, you can eliminate results against 4-th team in "3-rd placed" ranking to qualify for CL KO stage. |
|
Author: conscious
Date: 11-12-2006, 20:46
| Or just use the Swiss system. |
|
Author: moro
Date: 11-12-2006, 21:00
| What? Put money in the bank? |
|
Author: Floridian
Date: 11-12-2006, 21:43
| @moro:
conscious is talking about a system of pairing the players used in the chess tournaments with large number of participants. I don't remember all details now, you can look it up on Wikipedia... |
|
Author: Aliceag
Date: 11-12-2006, 21:47
| I'd knew that one argument would be that "it is not fair to compair all teams if they've not played each other"... well but that happens anyway. It's all relative, and consequences of the draw.
The CL champion is the best in Europe and doesn't have to play all teams. Barcelona last year was champion and didn't have to play Villareal or Liverpool, because they were eliminated by other teams.
Who granted us that Barcelona could have beaten those teams?
The argument that if A beats B and B beats C then A beats C is not valid. Just check CSKA-Arsenal-Porto!
So, the actual CL ALREADY is defective. Teams just don't play each other. I remember Manchester being out one year without having lost a single game!! Was out coz away goals in a draw. And Porto was Champion having lost a game in GS at home! Is this fair?
So that arguments just are not consistent. I mantain: the best teams are the ones who colect more points and win more, regardless of the opponent. All groups are "more or less equal": they have one team of each POT. That't the system. So it makes no sense telling that the 5 points of Steaua are more difficult to get than the 7 points of Kopenhagen. They all had to play a pot1, pot2 and pot3 team.
Besides this system is already Used in FIFA WC to determine the ranking of the countries below 16th. And I see nothing wrong with it.
The only thing we can't compare here is head-to-head, like in UCGS, coz we have no way and home, here we have no mathes between at all. So, goal average is a pretty good untier. That would force teams to score goals.
Finally, like someone told, If Milan knew they had to make more than 10 points, they would have won lille no doubt about it. And probably werder would not get 10 points anyway, because chelski would not go there to lose. And I doubt Manchester would go and lose in celtic park too. All it would be different coz the best teams would want to be even better and play always in the limits. |
|
Author: vlad-tzepesh
Date: 11-12-2006, 22:47
| I remember Manchester being out one year without having lost a single game!! Was out coz away goals in a draw. And Porto was Champion having lost a game in GS at home! Is this fair?
Yes, yes and again yes. This is the whole point of the GS, a team can lose one, two or even three matches and still go through. And if several months latter they are able to raise their form and win the trophy I see absolutely no reason to consider this unfair. Bear in mind the fact that many other sports use the GS system and it works in a similar manner. I remember less than a month ago Justine Henin-Hardenne lost to Amelie Mauresmo the match in the GS of the year-end championships. A couple of days latter the two players disputed the final of the tournament, with the Belgian winning and finishing the year at no. 1. Do you consider this unfair?
As regards Steaua and Copenhagen, the huge difference between the points gathered by both teams is that Steaua had to host the top two teams at the beginning of the tournament, with both of them playing to win. Copenhagen on the other hand, played against a B team of Manchester United and against an already qualified and clearly not interested in getting a good result Celtic. What would indeed be unfair would be to compare the results of the two teams, as they had different opponents and had to play them in completly different circumstances. Besides, I do not think dead games are such a problem in the CL, as in most cases at least one team can improve its ranking on the last matchday. |
|
Author: Lyonnais
Date: 11-12-2006, 23:11
| In teh Copa Libertadores in South America, they found a right way to motivate teams to play their best until the end. They rank group winners from 1 to 8 based on points / goal difference, then group runners-up from 9 to 16.
And in the last 16, you have 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14 vs. 3, etc.
and same in quarters. the best meets the worts ranked team. If #14 advances to quarters, they will meet #1 (with first game at home for the lowest ranked team).
When you are a big team, you try to avoid to have a bad ranking because you know at the end that KO games might be difficult until the final.
I think that it is pretty simple and clever system. |
|
Author: Overgame
Date: 12-12-2006, 01:16
| You cannot simply qualify a team just because they took more points than another team in another group. Let's check the rankings with and without the 4th placed team. We'd get an idea about the strength of the 2 teams qualified.
Group A : 13-11-10-0. Without Levski : 7-5-4.
Group B : 12-10-5-5. Without Sporting : 8-7-1.
Group C : 13-10-7-4. Without Galatasaray : 10-4-3.
Group D : 13-10-6-3. Without Olympiacos : 7-6-4.
Group E : 14-11-5-2. Without Kiev : 8-7-1.
Group F : 12-9-7-7. Without Coppenhagen : 9-6-3.
Group G : 11-11-8-3. Without Hamburg : 5-5-5.
Group H : 10-9-8-4. Without Anderlecht : 4-5-4.
We can see that the 4th placed team has only a little influence (and almost none) about who is qualified and who isn't. This year, without the 4th placed teams, the teams qualified would be the same (the only change is Milan 2nd and Lille 1st).
1st placed, number of points : 10-9-8-8-7-7-5-4
2nd placed, number of points : 7-7-6-6-5-5-5-4
3rd placed, number of points : 5-4-4-4-3-3-1-1
Should we invert Milan with Inter and Arsenal with Madrid ? Or should we put Milan (or PSV) 3rd and qualify Moscow ? |
|
Author: Aliceag
Date: 12-12-2006, 06:44
Edited by: Aliceag
at: 12-12-2006, 06:50 | I can't see the point in "eliminating" the 4th placed team. If you did the same exercise in Bayern group switching Sporting with Spartak you'd have 8-4-4 !! So looking in this perspective suddenly Inter doesn't seem so strong huh? He can get points from the 3rd but can't get from the 4th?? So "deleting" the 4th place team doesn't make your argument better or worse.
But I insist... If werder grabbed more points than Lille why should Lille be the qualified one? Just because Werder got them from Levski and Chelski and Lille got them from Milan and Anderlecht? If it was the other way around it would be different?
One will never know. The fact is: all teams got 6 games. So all had the same chances to score 18 points. So the ones who scored most should proceed, careless the opponents against they grabbed them.
Take a Domestic League example: Last year Benfica won both games against Porto, home and away. However Porto still champion. That means, that Porto grabbed more points against "weaker" opponents. Should we "erase" them also? Did then Benfica "deserved" to be champion?
Why do we have Golden globe for strikers then? how can you compare a striker from spain with one from france with one from england? They don't play the same teams! However they DO compare them. AH, but they weight the country goals different according to ranking. OK, but in CL you have Pots. That why you have one team from each pot in each group and not 4 pot 1 teams and 4 pot 4 teams... they try to level things out. |
|
Author: moro
Date: 12-12-2006, 07:29
| Not counting 4-th place results was about a particular ranking between 3-rd placed at the end of the group, to qualify best 2 to KO stage. I did'nt mean for the whole ranking. So that 1 and 2 are clearly qualifyed, plus better 2/8 teams 3-rd placed and so theres's enough place to make 7 groups instead of 8, so less est-european Rume's blood sucking parasites (7x2 + 2 = 16 teams in KO stage). And there's room for 2/7 or 8 4-th placed to go in Uefa, with interess to play all games 100%. |
|
Author: Ricardo
Date: 12-12-2006, 08:34
| Why Lille and not Werder?
Because Lille performed better the previous seasons, so they were put in pot 2 and Werder in pot 3. If Werder gets a lot of points in UC, they too will end up higher in the CL-pots and so will have more chances of qualifying next year.. |
|
Author: antonio62tr
Date: 12-12-2006, 08:40
| Comparing Steau and Copenhagen is not fair because Steau eliminate Dinamo with 4-1 and 1-1, but what happened Copenhag&Benfica 1-3 and 0-0...So Steau eliminate at least his rival...
Also for Werder position..Com'on guys they got 10 points thanks to Mourinho and poor Levski...Their actual point at CL level is 1 from Barsa game at home!!!!
At Libertedores style some tricks can be made..For example if an average team has good result and got high ranking then some teams try to catch the order they gonna play with them and lost their last game by "chance"...
I think we can do play off games to progress Ko round between 2nd and 3rd poistion teams to lessen dead games-as european national basketball cups.Or maybe between 3rd and 4th placed team for progressing UC.. |
|
Author: bigriazor
Date: 12-12-2006, 10:19
Edited by: bigriazor
at: 12-12-2006, 10:20 | This is a very unpredictible thing you are asking...it is clear that if the groups were different (lets say kobenhavn instead of bordeaux )
a 4th place team(FCK) might have replaced a 3rd place one(bordeaux).
Liverpool united
PSV celtic
Kobenhavn benfica
Galatasaray bordeaux |
|
Author: exile
Date: 12-12-2006, 10:32
| Why does everyone think Copenhagen is a weak team? They beat Man U (top team in England, only lost 1 game in the Premiership) as well as Celtic and drawing with Benfica. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 12-12-2006, 12:30
| Surely the point is every team plays according to the system that is there in front of them.
For sure you can devise a more interesting system (like the one lyonnais refers to) but you can't then replicate the results, bcause you don't know what different plans the coaches would have had. Or what feeling sthe players would have had consciously or unconsciously (e.g. Arsenal-Porto, all players KNEW a draw was enough, they cannot somehow be made to un-know it) |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 12-12-2006, 12:36
| Lyonnais wrote":
"In teh Copa Libertadores in South America, they found a right way to motivate teams to play their best until the end. They rank group winners from 1 to 8 based on points / goal difference, then group runners-up from 9 to 16.
And in the last 16, you have 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14 vs. 3, etc."
I didn't know that. So basically you are saying the South Americans stole my idea without telling me! I want Royalties! |
|
Author: Laudrup1
Date: 13-12-2006, 14:24
| @ Lyonnais
" And in the last 16, you have 16 vs. 1, 15 vs. 2, 14 vs. 3, etc.
and same in quarters. the best meets the worts ranked team. If #14 advances to quarters, they will meet #1 (with first game at home for the lowest ranked team). "
That's a bit unfair on the #14 team is it not? If they beat team #3 surely they should then take their seeding otherwise they'll always have a tougher draw to get through to the next round.
I can see the system being a good idea for the last 16 draw to make group games exciting till MD6 but after that, I'm not so sure. |
|
Author: exile
Date: 13-12-2006, 15:29
| If you beat a seeded team you should get the average of your ranking and the team you beat
eg
1 v 16, 2 v 15.... 8 v 9
team 14 beats team 3
in the next round, team 14 should be ranked (3 + 8)/2 = 5.5 and so
should be ranked 5th out of the 8 quarter finalists, and would therefore face the 4th team.
If team 16 beats team 1, then in the next round they would be ranked (1 + 8)/2 = 4.5, that is, 4th out of the 8 survivors and would meet the 5th team.
9th beats 8th - would then be ranked 8th out of 8, and would face the top seeded team. |
|
Author: oribd
Date: 13-12-2006, 17:07
| Although interesting, such post mortem analysis is somewhat meaningless, in my humble opinion, as players (in the game theory sense of the word) tend to adapt to the rules. For example, there is a pattern of Italian clubs making the minimal effort needed to progress; recall for instance Milan's record in both group stages some years ago when they won the trophy; they lost all, or almost all, matches once the next stage has been secured. Thus, had the rules been different, Milan, and possibly other clubs as well, might have come up with different results. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 13-12-2006, 18:17
| Oribd
That's exactly the point. Or at least it's exactly my point.
If the rules were made such that every point at the group stage was significant even after qualification then it would mean the best teams always doing their utmost to win. No arguments about reserve teams being put out or qualified teams not trying hard enough & affecting other qualification issues in their group.
I probably shouldn't have included the theoretical draw for this year in my post as this is indeed meaningless. The clubs weren't playing for this so the results might indeed have been different. |
|
|