Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: Francisco
Date: 05-04-2007, 10:11

With so many threads about diversity vs quality I came started thinking on how much diversity is needed. And the truth is without time and proper preparation many countries (QR1 teams and some on QR2) will never evolve in European competitions.

My proposition is why not make a pre-tournament for the worst teams. And the winner gets a spot in next season CL!

It could work like CL, with 32 teams, but in this case the worse 32, and the best of them at the end gets to play CL next season (or if that is asking a lot let them play a CLQR3 equivalent, and even if they lose they have a shot at UC)

Advantages:

- More games for each QR1 team and most QR2 teams(6 minimum)
- Evolution in ranking (even if they would only get 1pt for W and 0.5 for draw)
In theory almost all these teams play 2 games a season, and aren't dropped to UC, so this way they really can compete.

Disadvantages:

- Not competing in the real CL for at least a season, unless they win the competition or unless their country ranking allows them too.
- Many teams will probably have difficulties with expenses related with at least 3 away games, considering many aren't professionals...

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: Kaiser Date: 05-04-2007, 10:13	'My proposition is why not make a pre-tournament for the worst teams. And the winner gets a spot in next season CL!' Do you mean 'Intertoto Cup' for CL?

Author: Francisco
Date: 05-04-2007, 10:21

Partially is exactly like that, but instead of running in the pre-season in the summer, it would run along with CL.

The objective is not so much to give these teams a prize (CL spot) since only 1 would win it, but more of giving all 32 a real chance at competing at european level (starting with teams that are accessible to them), earning more experience and bring that experience to their home leagues making them better and wanting to do better. After all I believe UEFA states they want to help all european football nations to evolve, so why not show it? Currently these teams play 2 games in July or mid-August and are back to their homes, this way they would play more and really progress in terms of game quality.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 05-04-2007, 11:03
Edited by: Kaiser
at: 05-04-2007, 11:03

I started excogitation of this idea a month ago. Maybe you'd find stupid. I invented new formats, new competitions' bonds, point calcution system etc. etc.

1. Champions League format. Negotiating two QRs team is admitted to the group phase. 16 groups of 4. Playoff is as before.

2. UEFA Cup format. KO system cause it's a CUP, isn't it? 128 teams.

3. Intertoto Cup format. All the the teams able and wanting. 16 winners. 1 team per country. Best teams go to the next round. For example - 49 teams. 15 - bye. Other 34 play preliminary.

4. 3rd placed teams in CL groups are relegated to the 4th round of UC to join the other 16.

5. If a last CL winner is already qualified to CL via national championship, the country gets an extra CL spot. So is the UC.

6. Seeded teams play first match away.

7. 2nd division champions get the UC spot (look at AIK which was promoted and ended the season awarded the silver medal).

8. If an unseeded team defeats the seeded one, it takes its raiting for one season (the next season the team starts with OWN one)

9. To count the coefficient: CL - 2 points for a win, 1- for the draw, UC - 1 for a win, 0.5 for a draw. NO points for promoting to the next round.

10. 10 best teams of the Fair Play competitions go to UC.

I think this 'decalogue' is much better than Platini's 'blunder'. 3 clubs from England is nonsense. CUP winner gets the CL spot - nonsense. Even trough Arsenal is a 4th English team , it's much MUCH better than, for example, Ruzomberok.

I beg your pardon for getting excited but it's a tense problem.

Author: panda
Date: 05-04-2007, 11:20

I think the problem is that the inequalities produced by money are happening quicker than the equalities produced by development.

It's still the case, I think, more in football than other sports, that the underdog can win, but it's happening less and less.

From a 'romantic' point of view it's sad; from a selfish point of view, because I am English, my preoccupation is to become better than the other two of the top 3, but from a romantic point of view, I also recognise it is sad.

This kind of issue produces a 'romantics v realists' debate. I don't know what the answer is, or even could be.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 05-04-2007, 11:42

Francisco

This isn't that dissimilar to the idea I posted recently - stolen from another forum - that there should be a separate competition for teams from "developing countries" as they already have in Asia.

"Disadvantages:

- Not competing in the real CL for at least a season, unless they win the competition or unless their country ranking allows them too.
- Many teams will probably have difficulties with expenses related with at least 3 away games, considering many aren't professionals..."

I wouldn't see either of these as huge problems.

For a start there's no reason why QR1 & QR2 shouldn't happen as usual. Any team progressing to QR3 gets their shot at either CL groups (if they win) or - assuming the new UEFA Cup proposals come off - UEFA Cup groups if they lose. The remainder can - in theory - have their own competition.

As for the expenses. I would hope UEFA could find a way of covering these out of the money they bring in from the CL.

I guess the big problems are:

a) How interesting would these games actually be to fans?

b) Put a bunch of "not very good" teams together & how much does playing the slightly better teams really help "develop" the weaker ones.

Author: eldaec
Date: 05-04-2007, 12:04

If this is basically a plan to give lower ranked teams more matches - then it's all good.

But the current system demonstrates that there are barely 32 teams at the top of the pyramid who, when things go well for them, are able to beat the 'pool A' teams.

Putting anyone in the group stage who can't realistically be expected to ever get a result against the top teams is a waste of everyone's time.

So I wouldn't support any format change that takes us away from the 32 best teams being in the group stage.

If the idea is to build the effectiveness and stature of the qualifying tournament, and to ensure it genuinely presents the best sides in Europe to the CL - I'm all in favour.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 05-04-2007, 12:56

I am in favor of more diversity. Maybe indeed quality will go down, but if you want the best teams, either the number of teams should be reduced, as there are about 20 topteams, and the others are less already. Another wya is to enlarge the number of teams from top-leagues. Number 6 of English/Spanish leagues can beat CL participants of this year, so why not? For me, this is a European tournament, and not a top5-tournament.

As I am in favor of reducing the participants for top countries drastically, I see UC getting more top teams from these countries and then these will control the UC from quarterfinals onward too. I am not sure I like that....(It's about what is happening already this year. Top 5 holds 13 of 16 quarterfinal spots. I prefer having more diversity there too!

Author: Francisco
Date: 05-04-2007, 15:56

I agree on the point that these games could not be exciting enough for "us" but that's not the idea, the idea is to give more games to these teams and induce excitement in their own countries.

About badgerboy's doubt that playing against not so good teams won't help develop them, if we coldly look at the present scenario we see that these teams compete against weak-medium teams, so they never really compete against the good sides of europe. So the real change is that instead of playing 2 games, they would play at least 6, so that's why I think this would be good for these teams. (Thanks for mentioning the Asia competition, I didn't remembered that until you mentioned it, so sorry for "stealing the idea"

)

About the CL spot, as I mentioned it doesn't have to be a CL spot, it could be just a spot in the last QR (that would allow this team in case of defeat to play UC - something that doesn't happen today if a team is eliminated in QR1 or QR2 - I think), the idea is that these lower ranked teams, must earn more experience and must be given a real chance at competing, because right now their just used to fill QR positions... they play 2 games and are out of European competitions (and that happens every year), so where's UEFA support for nations in development, how do 2 games really help? In my opinion they don't, and that's why I think they should be given a bigger attention, because we all know these teams won't ever make it in CL or UC if things remain as they are. So this idea is to help them become better or make them try to be better, to feel they also have UEFA's attention.

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: panda Date: 05-04-2007, 19:11	I don't think it's any coincidence this sort of stuff is on several threads running now - we get to the time of the season where only the 'usual suspects' are left. and then we start to wonder if there is another way. But my (not very helpful) answer is that currently, the inequalities are too great; whichever format you have, the big teams end up on top.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 05-04-2007, 20:51

"I agree on the point that these games could not be exciting enough for "us" but that's not the idea, the idea is to give more games to these teams and induce excitement in their own countries".

Francisco - I realise that. My concern is that the games wouldn't engender that much excitement in the country they're being played either.

Take a team like Serif Tiraspol - who get through CLQR1 every year but fail in QR2. I can't imagine their fans being thrilled by lots of games against moderate & unexciting teams they always expect to beat. They need to be playing teams of a slightly higher level - for their "development too". But then the fans of teams "of a slightly higher level" aren't all that excited about playing teams like Tiraspol they really ought to beat...

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: eldaec Date: 06-04-2007, 10:02	""the inequalities are too great;"" Just to make sure nobody has any illusions, the inequalities in team ability have always been at least this great, and for most of history they have been much greater. People look back on the old European Cup years through rose tinted glasses. Fact was, in those days almost every match before the quarter finals was a foregone conclusion.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 06-04-2007, 12:24

"....(It's about what is happening already this year. Top 5 holds 13 of 16 quarterfinal spots. I prefer having more diversity there too!"

Unfortunately you can't force teams to be better than they are. A little bit more diversity in the groups I could live with - even be in favour of - even if quality does dip a bit. But for the KO rounds & especially the quarters on - I want to see quality teams.

The real problem is that not enough European countries are able to produce real top quality teams these days. Eldaec is definitely right about the "rose-tinted-glasses" some people have but it's also true that there has been a fundamental change.

Where a team from a country like Holland (Ajax) could win three European Cups in a row in the 70s that could never happen now. OK, it's less likely to happen because the competition is so much harder to win anyway. But that aside. There's no way a team from outside the top three countries (plus possibly Bayern & Lyon) can keep a team - that's good enough to win the CL - together for long enough to win more than once. That's kind of OK if they do win - like Porto in 2004. But less so if you fall a little bit short - like PSV in 2005. Because that team immediately has to rebuild & it's unlikely they'll be good enough to challenge at the very top again for a while. Of course, this has always been part of football (certainly domestic leagues) - big clubs with more resources snap up the best players from smaller clubs. Bosman has ensured this plays out on a pretty much global scale - which a lot of fans of European clubs - especially those that were used to being the big fish in a closed pond - find hard to come to terms with.

Of course my perspective is different. But I think the above situation is fairly inevitable. As long as the teams outside the top countries have the opportunity to build a team capable of mounting a challenge - however temporary that may be - that's OK.
Unfortunately in reality - outside a handful of clubs like PSV & Porto they probably don't - & that's a problem that football could do with addressing.

The big issue for me is youth players. Israel had a 17 year old striker (Ben Sahar) playing for them as a substitute against England. He's already at Chelsea. Hearts beat Celtic to the signing of "Romanian wonderkid" Dumitru Copil (17) in the January transfer window. Now to me these are the types of players around which - in the past - teams from Israel & Romania might build a team capable of mounting a serious challenge. When the scouting operations of the big clubs are snapping them up before they've even had a chance to flourish with the top clubs in their own countries what hope is there? Probably EU laws on "freedom of movement" & "equality of treatment" mean there's no solution to this - but if one could be found...

I suppose the only real conclusion to this lengthy post is - it's very nice to talk about competition formats & coefficient calculation methods. If I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't be here. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that no tweaking of either are going to solve the fundamental problems. That's much more complicated.

Author: eldaec
Date: 06-04-2007, 13:49

""Where a team from a country like Holland (Ajax) could win three European Cups in a row in the 70s that could never happen now. OK, it's less likely to happen because the competition is so much harder to win anyway""

It wasn't that 'teams (multiple) from countries like Holland' could win three in a row, it's just Ajax.

2nd tier leagues still do provide occaisional surprise packages. Obvious recent example is Porto.

The likes of Holland and Portugal have historically produced teams that can compete. It's these guys that are making the QFs on merit, and the system recognises that and keeps them in the group stage.

The system works. Of course it could be tweaked if we can see areas where teams are good enough and regularly progress in the competition proper but are still having to play endless qualifiers. But I'd only be interested if it is increasing the quality of football in the CL.

The UC should be about giving plucky but lower quality sides a chance to see if they an upset the apple cart.

The CL should be about finding the best team in Europe.

Blurring the edges devalues both competitions.

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: Kaiser Date: 06-04-2007, 15:53	If UEFA reduce CL teams from top6, top6 countries will get more co-efficient points. WHY? Cause denominator (number of teams) will be less. It means that in future top6 countries will be nearly impossibly to overtake. Come on guys, it's UEFA.

Author: MalcolmW
Date: 06-04-2007, 22:27

eldeac

Examples of surprises in early seasons of ECC -
First round, first season:
AC Milan 3-4 Saarbrucken (no team since has scored 4 against Milan there).
First round, second season:
Rapid Vienna 3-1 Real Madrid (taking holders to a replay).
First round, third season:
Aarhus 2-0 Sevilla (but still eliminated).
Second round, fourth season:
Weiner SportKlub 0-0 Real Madrid (but second leg a different story).
Qualifying round, fifth season:
Jeunesse Esch 6-0 LKS Lodz.
Qualifying round, sixth season:
CDNA Sofia 4-1 Juventus (to qualify).
Qualifying round, seventh season:
Gornik Zabrze 4-2 Tottenham Hotspur (but second leg different).
Qualifying round, eighth season:
Dundee 8-1 FC Koln (enough to withstand a 4-0 return leg).
Qualifying round, ninth season:
Distillery 3-3 Benfica.
One man provides a tenuous link between these last 2 matches - any takers?

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: keeganvogts Date: 06-04-2007, 23:31	The surprise of Cologne in Dundee was because the goalkeeper of Cologne, Ewert, was injured after 4 minutes. In second half the field player Regh became goalkeeper but half time result was already 1:5. In the second match Cologne led 4:0 after 58 minutes. In the 60th minute Habig shot a penalty to the crossbar. From then on Cologne had no further ideas how to shoot any more goals.

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: MalcolmW Date: 07-04-2007, 17:45	... and in Cologne the Dundee keeper was carried off after 30 minutes but returned at half time.

Author: ikoon
Date: 07-04-2007, 20:43

And the truth is without time and proper preparation many countries (QR1 teams and some on QR2) will never evolve in European competitions.

Agree.

If we follow the old ECC, we can see that the trophy have been won (or challanged) by a lot bigger variety of countries than the current CL. Because the western teams weren't so rich? No, because of diversity. Those teams from countries with lesser money, weaker leagues created "the football phenomena" with their performances, semi-performances. Today, the current CL system deny this phenomena. We call a surprise a "unknown" team that reach CL groups, unacceptable.

I agree that if not given chances (good chances) the teams that play CLQ will not evolve, will not develop, will not inspire anyone. Usualy the teams from first 2 Pots have very little problems in group stage. They are helped by: seedings, drawing teams with small coeff from last 2 Pots (this means very little experience in CL, at least for the team from Pot D); they are also helped by direct access (very little to worry in a lotery QR) and by the the country ranking who allows a large pool (1-4th or 1-3th) of spots for the next season and a 3rd place in groups is never a tragedy for these teams, knowing that next year they will start over with no penality (country coeff helps).

Like i said, the current CL is not only a diversity killer, but also a quality limiter. If a more fair system would have been followed for the last 10 years, we would have today not 10/32 teams that could won the tropy with a percent of 80-90%, but maby 32/32 each team with chances to win the trophy, each teams with decent CL experience and achivements. This would be QUALITY not what few subjective people say the CL offer today.

And this is not a "romanic" view or a "romance vs. reality". The Nazi Germany was "realistic" because they want to subjugate other countries to their will, because the had superior technological mean at that time? And the other countries were "romantic" because they want to keep their suveranity intact, despite their military-technological weakneses?

I don't understand how some people (ex. english block) can be so selfish after such bloody history. Didn't you learn nothing? We can't allow to one element (in this case "money") to make the rules for everybody, to make selections, to establish the football development. If your teams are better (because of more money or somethingelse) they will show that with lesser teams in CL; you don't need 100 teams.

I agree that we should give top countries more teams based on the last performances, but not so much.

1-2 : 3 spots
3-8 : 2 spots
9-53: 1 spot

If mentained dirrect access:
1-16 champions dirrect access
QRs for the rest
The CL winner if not eligible for CL, we grant a extra CL spot, starting from CLQR1

Author: Kaiser
Date: 08-04-2007, 19:18
Edited by: Kaiser
at: 08-04-2007, 19:20

I scorn diversity (even through I'm in minority). I think that Platini gonna change formats cause of nothing to be done (Don't think, I'm pleased of him). When Platini does what he wanted to, he'll think what to do else. And ONLY THEN he will look like a real UEFA president.

As for me (I have said I scorn diversity) a suggest this CL regulation:

Place   GS      3QR    2QR    1QR   
1	2	3	
2	2	3	
3	2	3	
4	2	2	
5	2	2	
6	2	1	
7	1	1	
8		2	
9		2	
10		1	1
11		1	1
12		1	1
13		1	1
14			1
15			1
16			1
17			1	
18				1
19				1
20				1
21				1
22				1
23				1
24				1
25				1
26				1
27				1
28				1
29				1
30				1
31				1
32				1
33				1
34				1
35				1
36				1
37				1
38				1
39				1
40				1
41				1
42				1
43				1
44				1
45				1
46				1
47				1
48				1
49				1
50				1
51				1
52				1
53				1

Author: MalcolmW
Date: 08-04-2007, 21:45

ikoon:

"Like i said, the current CL is not only a diversity killer, but also a quality limiter. If a more fair system would have been followed for the last 10 years, we would have today not 10/32 teams that could won the tropy with a percent of 80-90%, but maby 32/32 each team with chances to win the trophy, each teams with decent CL experience and achivements. This would be QUALITY not what few subjective people say the CL offer today."

Actually if 32/32 each have decent experience and achievements then there is no scope for DIVERSITY.
If you assert that 10/32 as realistic contenters is not enough I can agree. But 32/32 means there is no change from year to year, so it's more like G14+18... In reality there has to be some scope for change, so perhaps 24/32 is possible, but there must always be room for some relatively inexperienced teams to have the opportunity to build themselves up. This is true whether it is Chelsea (who were nothing much 5 years ago, Steaua, who now have the possibility of establishing themselves on the big stage, or Bolton, who have threatened to reach a CLQ3 place in this season and the previous 3.
Restricting the top rated leagues to 3 places will have no real impact on Chelsea, because they have reached the top table (genuine contenders). It will have little effect on Steaua (hopefully winning domestic league in next few seasons will guarantee a CLGS place). But it will seriously diminish Bolton's chances of even reaching CLQ.

Author: ikoon
Date: 08-04-2007, 22:05

@MalcolmW,

The difference is: that now, we have the same 10/32 (a disscutable number); meanwhile in the ipotetical situation of 32/32 are not the same 32 every year, but the 32 that manage to pass QRs (maby not all, some may still have direct access); i just want to point out that much more teams from much more countries (and this is diversity and quality at the same time) would have been able to chalange the trophy or the higher stages. I was not suggested a closed league of 32 teams or only 32 teams in all Europe capable of winning CL; and i'm not sure that all this could be build in only 10 yers, but it was worth trying; instead Johanssen took a wrong path starting especially with 1996/1997, a extreme path anti-diversity, all this hidding behind hipocrisy and big words like : "we care about football" or "we want to help football in smaller countries". Now he build a system in which top FAs have a lot more influence than other and work behind the scene to mentain this "Frankenstein of European football" called CL.

Author: HairFU
Date: 10-04-2007, 20:36

I like that idea. Have something like a 2nd League in Europe.

So i could imagine those format for the Cup

CHAMPIONS 2ND LEAGUE

Groupstage with 13 Groups and 4 Teams

Loosers of Championsleague Qualifying Round 1 and 2

Quarter Final 8 Teams

Groupwinners and 3 Best Runner-up

Semifinal 4 Teams

Winners of Quarterfinal

Final 2 Teams

Winners of Semifinal

Cup Winner get a direct Spot to Championsleague next Yeahr.

UEFA CUP 2ND League

Groupstage 19 Groups and 3 Teams

Loosers of UEFA Cup Qualifiying Round 1 and 2 (but not the Intertoto Cup Teams)

2nd Round 24 Teams

Groupwinners and 5 Best Runner-up

Quarterfinal 12 Teams

Winners of 2nd Round

Semifinal 6 Teams

Winners of Quarterfinal

Finalgroup 3 Teams

Winners of Quarterfinal

Cup Winner get a direct Spot to UEFA Cup next yeahr

Why not making that tournament for weaker Teams? It is a chance for those teams to get more European Cup matches. I think it is a hard way to win this tournament and i think then it is deserve to get a direct spot to Champions League/ UEFA Cup.
And come on it will be only one Spot in Championsleague/ UEFA Cup, i don't think that would weaken the Champions League or UEFA Cup.

I'm for it !

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: Lyonnais Date: 11-04-2007, 07:45	A big argument for the defenders of 'diversity'. In the last 8 years, 4 editions of the Champions League had 3 teams of the same country in the semi-finals (2000-2002 Spain, 2003 Italy, 2007 England)

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: saibot Date: 11-04-2007, 09:03	That is not correct: In 2002 the teams of the SF were: Barca, Real, ManU, Leverkusen.

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: Kaiser Date: 11-04-2007, 09:06 Edited by: Kaiser at: 11-04-2007, 09:07	To be correct - 2000. Bayern, Valencia, Barcelona and Real Madrid. You have already posted it. Sorry, Lyonnais

Author: eldaec
Date: 11-04-2007, 10:16

""A big argument for the defenders of 'diversity'. In the last 8 years, 4 editions of the Champions League had 3 teams of the same country in the semi-finals (2000-2002 Spain, 2003 Italy, 2007 England)""

Fiddling with the access lists in the ways suggested by Platini will not change that.

All it will do is present the viewing public with a larger number of tiresome walkovers in the early rounds.

If you want more upsets or diversity in the late rounds, you could work on increasing the number of CL positions for leagues in the range of 4th to 8th position in the co-eff table (ie. the leagues capable of producing a dark horse challenger). I have my doubts this would actually work, but it's the only realistic possibility, and of course, so far nobody in a position of power has seriously suggested it.

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: Kaiser Date: 11-04-2007, 10:24	For more diversity, I think, there should be 64 teams instead of 32. 1) 16 groups of 4 2) Like UEFA Cip format, make a 1st round before the GS. Advantage: more champions from weaker countries Disadvantage: more clubs from top6

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: Lyonnais Date: 11-04-2007, 10:26	another disadvantage: the UEFA Cup doesn't mean anything anymore.

Re: CL diversity vs quality OR Team Evolution
Author: Kaiser Date: 11-04-2007, 10:38	Lyonnais UEFA Cup for ... cup-winners and weaker teams with KO format. Any Cup. For example,... French. Weak teams in the first rounds. Are those round interesting for you? And what about the final? Interesting? Of course! So is the UEFA Cup. First rounds are uninteresting.