Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: Dragonite
Date: 10-11-2007, 19:24

These are the 29 nations that have participated in the Champions League (from 1992/1993 to present day) at least once:

Germany:

Last season just Bayern qualified from the group stages, Werder Bremen and Hamburg couldn’t do it.
This season, Stuttgart, Schalke 04 and Werder Bremen performances are poor (Fenerbahçe has more points than these 3 together!!). If none of them can qualify to the next stage, in my opinion, Germany “deserved” to lose a CL spot.

Austria:
Sturm Graz was strong some years ago… but I don’t hear from them for a long time. Other CL participants were Casino Salzburg and Rapid Vienna, poor performances. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Belgium:
Club Brugge, Lierse and Genk played the CL, none of them ever reached further than the group stages. Anderlecht played many CL editions, just once, in 2000/2001, they had a good performance (CL last 16… or 2nd round group stages back then). 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Bulgaria:
Levski played the CL last season… they were the worst team in the CL history. They were the first ever Bulgarian team to reach the CL. 1 spot is enough for them.

Croatia:
Croatia Zagreb played the CL in 1998/1999 and 1999/2000. In theirs first season, although they finished 2nd in the group, back then just the group winners and the 2 best 2nd placed teams (the CL had 24 teams) qualified to the quarters. They couldn’t qualify… in the following season the same, already with 32 teams and with top 2 from each group qualifying.
Hajduk Split was quarter finalist in 1994/1995, in theirs only CL participation.
1 spot is enough for them.

Denmark:
AB Alborg, Brondby and FC Copenhagen all played the CL once… none ever qualified from the group stages. 1 spot is enough for them.

Scotland:
Just Celtic and Rangers played the CL… Rangers reached the last 16 in 2005/2006, and Celtic did the same last season. This season both are in a good position to do it again. Scotland deserves 2 CL spots.

Slovakia:
FC Kosice and Artmedia played the CL once… none ever qualified from the group stages. 1 spot is enough for them

Slovenia:
Maribor once played the CL… couldn’t get through the group stages. 1 spot is enough for Slovenia.

Spain: 12 Spanish clubs played the CL since 1992/1993… only Athletic Bilbau, Betis and Mallorca failed to get through the group stages. All the others did it- Atletico Madrid, Barcelona, Celta de Vigo, Deportivo, Real Madrid, Real Sociedad, Valencia and Villarreal… and Sevilla is about to do it this season. Spain deserves theirs 4 CL spots.

Finland:
HJK Helsinki qualified once… they couldn’t get through the group stages. 1 spot is enough for Finland.

France:
9 different teams played the CL since 1992/1993… just Lens never qualified from the group stages. France deserves theirs 3 CL spots.

Greece:
Olympiakos was quarter finalist in 1998/1999… Panathinaikos reached the semis in 1995/1996, the quarters in 2001/2002 and the last 16 in 2000/2001… AEK Athens never qualified from the group stages. Greece deserves 2 CL spots.

Holland:
Ajax won the competition in 1994/1995, reached the final again in 1995/1996, and the quarters in 2002/2003… PSV reached the quarters last season and the semis in 2004/2005. Feyenoord once reached the last 16; Willem II and Heerenveen played once and couldn’t get through the groups. Holland deserves 2 CL spots.

Hungary:
Ferencvaros played the CL once, couldn’t get through the groups. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

England:
7 English teams played the CL since 1992/1993. Just Blackburn couldn’t get through the group stages. They deserve 4 CL spots.

Israel:
Maccabi Haifa and Hapoel Tel-Aviv played the CL once… none could get through the groups. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Italy:
8 Italian teams played the CL since 1992/1993… Only Parma and Udinese could never get through the group stages. They deserve 4 CL spots.

Norway:
Rosenborg reached the CL quarters in 1996/1997, the last 16 in 1999/2000… and this season they are playing much better than expected. Molde also played the CL once but couldn’t get through the groups. 1 CL spot is enough for them, maybe 2 if Rosenborg gets through the group this season.

Poland:
Legia played the CL once- quarter finalist, and Widzew Lodz too- couldn’t get through the group stages. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Portugal:
FC Porto gets through the group stages regularly- CL winner in 2003/2004, semi finalist in 1993/1994, quarter finalist in 1996/1997 and 1999/2000, CL last 16 in 2002, 2005 and 2007. Boavista once reached the CL last 16, in 2001/2002. Benfica reached the CL quarters twice, the last time in 2005/2006, and Sporting never qualified from the group stages. Portugal deserves 2 CL spots.

Czech Republic:
Sparta Prague reached the CL last 16 3 times- 1999/2000, 2001/2002 and 2003/2004. This season Slavia probably won’t do it but they are impressing. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Romania:
Steaua is the only Romanian team that ever played in the CL- they played it 5 times and never qualified from the group stages. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Russia:
Lokomotiv Moscow reached the CL last 16 in 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 but failed to qualify ever since. Spartak reached the CL quarters in 1995/1996 and the last 16 in 2000/2001. CSKA, although a UEFA Cup winner in 2004/2005, could never get through the group stages. Russia deserves 2 CL spots.

Serbia:
Partizan played the CL once, couldn’t get through the group. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Sweden:
AIK and Helsingborg both played the CL once but couldn’t get through the group… IFK Goteborg played the CL 4 times and reached the quarters in 1994/1995… yet, they don’t play the CL for 10 years. 1 CL spot is enough for Sweden.

Switzerland:
Grasshopper played the CL twice but could never get through the groups… FC Thun played it once and couldn’t get through either. Basel also played once, reached the CL last 16 (2nd round group stages), but ever since never played the CL again. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

Turkey:
Galatasaray reached the CL quarters in 2000/2001 and the last 16 in 2001/2002 (and won the UEFA Cup in 1999/2000).
Besiktas never qualified from the group stages, neither has Fenerbahçe… While Fenerbahçe is about to do it, Besiktas has few chances. They deserve 2 CL spots, especially if Fenerbahçe qualifies this season.

Ukraine:
Dinamo Kiev was CL semi finalist in 1998/1999, quarter finalist in 1997/1998, reached the last 16 in 1999/2000… but now they are weak.
Shakhtar was weak those days, now they are stronger… They never qualified from the CL group stages, this season they can do it. Even if they do it, Ukraine never had these 2 strong simultaneously. 1 CL spot is enough for them.

All the others never qualified, so they don’t deserve more than 1 each.

So:
4- Spain, England, Italy
3- Germany, France
2- Scotland, Greece, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Turkey
1- Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Norway, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine

48 teams above
+
The 23 champions of the “other” leagues
+
CL holder
=
72 teams

12 teams directly qualified- the 11 champions of the leagues with more than 1 team + the holder
60 teams to play qualifiers (best 20 vs. the winners of the games among the worst 40)

What do you guys think about this CL model based in CL merit?

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 20:25	4- Spain, England, Italy 3- Germany, France 2- Scotland, Greece, Holland, Portugal, Russia, Turkey 1- Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Slovakia, Slovenia, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Norway, Poland, Czech Republic, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine According to your model is this fixed ?

Author: exile
Date: 10-11-2007, 20:35

It's subjective - so let's see how it stacks up against
a statistical method

Take the average number of participants per country in the
last 5 seasons

England, Italy, Spain 4
Germany, France 3
Portugal, Greece, Netherlands 2
Scotland, Ukraine, Turkey, Belgium, Russia, Czechia, Norway 1

unfortunately that adds to 31!

Scotland, Ukraine and Turkey all have an average of 1.40 so we need a tie breaker to find the 32nd place

Scotland are the only nation of the 3 to have a team in the last 16 in the last 5 seasons - so that gives them the extra place.

So - which teams should we select from each nation?

Again - let's base it on participation (in the group stage), from 2004 to 2008

England - Chelsea, Man U, Arsenal, Liverpool
Italy - Milan, Inter, Juventus, Roma
Spain - Real Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Deportivo
Germany - Bremen, Bayern, Stuttgart
(Schalke and Stuttgart each have 2 appearances - Stuttgart have reached round 2)
France - Lyon, Monaco, Lille
(Lille and Marseille 2 app's - Lille have reached round 2)
Portugal - Benfica and Porto
Greece - Olympiakos and Panathinaikos
Netherlands - PSV and Ajax
Scotland - Celtic and Rangers
Ukraine - Dinamo Kiev
Turkey - Fenerbahce
Belgium - Anderlecht
Russia - CSKA
Czechia - Sparta
Norway - Rosenborg

So - there is my "European Superleague"

Lille might be a controversial choice ahead of Marseille who obviously have the larger fan base and financial clout.

Deportivo are heading downhill so Sevilla might be a better choice.

This illustrates the difficulty of trying to set these things in concrete. A superleague of 1980 would have included Nottingham Forest, Hamburg, and Tbilisi!

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Dragonite Date: 10-11-2007, 20:35	No… For instance, if the 3 German teams can’t get through the group stages this season, and Rosenborg can… next season Germany would lose 1 place and Norway would win 1. It’s just an idea.

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Dragonite Date: 10-11-2007, 20:55	Exile, Please, no fixed number of teams per league and no fixed teams. The main idea is getting more (or less) CL spots depending JUST of CL performances… no UEFA Cup good (or bad) results to influence this.

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 20:59	exile, Lokomotiv played in last 16 with Monaco in Feb, 2004.. And if there was no Mr. Batista - they could go further..

Author: Krys
Date: 10-11-2007, 21:04

@Dragonite
U can make another rating (if u have time) - that counts only CL:
points in CL divided by number of teams in CL.. for 5 years..
If a team is eliminated from QR CL or GS 3rd place - we think it's eliminated.. and count as 1 participant and don't pay attention to further points in UC. If a team starts from UC - we don't count this team at all..

Calculate this and then we'll discuss.. What u have wrote before is not supported by some basis..

Author: Dragonite
Date: 10-11-2007, 21:08

Krys, I remember that.

Lokomotiv deserved to eliminate Monaco. The Portuguese referee, Lucílio Baptista, stole Lokomotiv as if there was no tomorrow.

This Lucílio is the biggest thief in Portuguese football. Some weeks ago, Raymond Domenech was fined because he said once, in an under-21 game, Lucílio stole from France vs. Italy, and that was the biggest robbery he ever saw.

Lucílio was a referee at Euro 2004 just because Portugal, as host, should have 1 ref… In the following tournament, there wasn’t a Portuguese ref… the first time it happened for some years.

I remember that in that CL edition I initially disliked Monaco because of that… but the next round, when they eliminated Real Madrid, I liked them again.

I also remember that in 2002/2003, in a 2nd round GS game vs. Real Madrid in Spain, Lokomotiv was also very robbed… who was the ref back then??

Author: Krys
Date: 10-11-2007, 21:18

I don't remember ref with Real game.. It was long ago.. May be was robbed but that was not important cause Loko had almost no chance in that group.. So I just watched the game despite result..

But a year after they eliminated Inter from CL and had real chance with Monaco...
BTW Batista was a ref in Rapid - Loko game in Vienna (1-1) in 2005.. Also very negative attitude but that game Loko has to blame themselves also cause they could make 0-3 despite Batista..
Anyway: 2 games, every game penalty and red card to Loko's player..

In Euro 2004 Portugal he was very strange also.. I don't remember the teams but there were funny red cards also..

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: amirbachar Date: 10-11-2007, 21:45	The problem with exile's model of avarage participants, and in some way also Dragonite's, although it's not clear what the method is (there is no mathematical formula), is that if a country has 1 participant for example, they will never have more than 1 participant according to these method. This is clearly wrong.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 10-11-2007, 21:50

Dragonite

You tend to look at Champions League statistics since 1992 whereas I look at the situation since 1999-2000 - when the 32 team group stage started & hence when the quality of group stage opposition became similar to what it is now.

Where your idea falls down - in my opinion - is that it doesn't take into account the number of "attempts" teams have had to pass these CL groups. Yes - quite often teams lose in qualifying rounds because they are "not good enough" but I would still find this a pretty unfair measure.

Discounting this year:

England 25/28 (9 semi-final appearances from 5 different teams)
Spain 25/30 (11 semi-final appearances from 5 different teams)
Italy 21/28 (13 quarter-final appearances from 5 different teams)
Germany 15/25 (6 different teams in the last 16 - just 2 further)
France 12/22 (7 different teams reached the last 16 - just 2 further)
Portugal 7/12 (Porto's win + 2 Quarter-Finals)
Netherlands 6/17 (PSV's semi-final + 2 quarters)

I fully agree - the "big 7". But otherwise:

Czech Republic 3/6 (all three = Sparta Praha)
Russia 3/10 (Lokomotiv twice & Spartak once)
Scotland 2/8 (Rangers & Celtic in the past two seasons)
Turkey 2/11 (Galatasaray twice)
Greece 2/16 (Panathinaikos twice)
Switzerland 1/2 (Basle)
Austria 1/3 (Sturm Graz)
Norway 1/7 (Rosenborg)
Belgium 1/10 (Anderlecht)
Ukraine 1/10 (Dinamo Kiev)
Bulgaria 0/1
Croatia 0/1
Denmark 0/1
Romania 0/1
Serbia 0/1
Slovakia 0/1
Slovenia 0/1
Israel 0/2
Sweden 0/2

Personally I'm not convinced that because Greek & Turkish teams played some good games this year and did the same 7 or 8 years ago they automatically "merit" two Champions League teams.

Maybe if I understood better how easy it would be for countries to get two teams rather than one I might like it better.

But for me if Greece failing to get a team past the group stage for five seasons in a row doesn't merit them dropping from two teams to one it seems like a very rigid system. Turkey has the same record but with fewer attempts because their teams lost in qualifiers more often and/or didn't have as regular "direct access".

Scotland had six years of failure before their success over the past two years. Surely too long to keep two teams?

Author: badgerboy
Date: 10-11-2007, 22:13

Based on the perceived "big 7" - which I happen to agree with:

Direct access:

England, Italy, Spain - 3 teams (9)
France, Germany, Holland, Portugal - 2 teams (8)

15 spots remain - 11 to go to domestic champions (as Platini now proposes) but none are significantly better than the rest on paper so none qualify directly.

45 teams have to be reduced to 11 so all teams play two qualifying rounds with one "Preliminary round match" needed.

In the unlikely event that the TH comes from outside these seven countries obviously there would be an adjustment.

The other four spots are decided as currently proposed - a two round KO incorporating 2nd, 3rd or 4th teams from the top 16 countries.

Obviously there then has to be a means of evaluating whether these seven countries "deserve" to stay as the top 7 or not. I guess it's easy enough to have a "CL only" country coefficient.

I would also like to see an extra country given the second CL spot the "fluctuating" place - so that even if the teams of the top 7 countries perform well the "best of the rest" can get a tangible reward - so:

England, Italy & Spain - 3 teams (9)
France, Germany, Holland, Portugal +1 - 2 teams (10)
16 team KO to get 4 non-Champions from top 16 countries (4)
So only 9 spots left for the other 44 Champions to fight over - still 17 guaranteed Champions though.

Not unreasonable but then neither is Platini's plan.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 10-11-2007, 22:24

Well, as Krys requested, I’m calculating the CL ranking of the last 5 seasons… I’m using “normal points” and not “coefficient points”, which means a win gives you 3 points (instead of just 2 in UEFA ranking I believe), and there are no “bonus” points for getting though some stages.

The 2002/2003 ranking is:

Spain 27
Italy 25
England 18
Switzerland 16
Germany 10.333
Holland 9.333
France 7.667
Israel 7
Ukraine 7
Greece 5
Belgium 4.5
Norway 4
Russia 4
Turkey 4

All the others 0 points

I’ll post the following seasons rankings when they’re ready.

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 22:26 Edited by: Krys at: 10-11-2007, 22:38	Use 2-point system cause it is more fair especially when two teams from same country play each other..

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 22:45	Also don't forget teams eliminated before. fenerbahce eliminated in CL QR3 with 0 p. Galatasaray score 3 points (4 by your system). so Turkey coeff should be 2 instead of 4 OR 1.5 instead of 3.

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 22:52 Edited by: Krys at: 10-11-2007, 23:05	So without bonus (incl QR points) Turkey - 1.500 (3/2) Fenerbahce&Galatasaray Russia - 3.750 (7.5/2) Spartak&Lokomotiv Norway - 3.000 (6/2) Rosenborg&Lillestrom Belgium - 6.000 (12/2) Genk&Brugge Greece - 5.500 (11/2) AEK&Olympiakos Ukraine - 4.750 (9.5/2) Dynamo&Shakhtar Israel - 8.500 (8.5/1) Maccabi H and so on...

Author: Dragonite
Date: 10-11-2007, 23:01

Sorry, man… the information I have is with 3 points per win… To convert all this to 2 points per win is too much work. If you want, do it yourself.

And in my opinion, CL is just since the group stages… before it’s not CL. I don’t have the data about qualifiers.

So, the 2003/2004 ranking is:

Portugal 26
England 18.333
Spain 14.75
France 14
Germany 11.5
Russia 11
Italy 10.75
Czech Republic 9
Holland 8
Belgium 7.5
Turkey 7
Ukraine 7
Scotland 5.5
Greece 3.333
Serbia 3

And the 2003+2004 ranking is:

Spain 41.75
England 36.333
Italy 35.75
Portugal 26
Germany 21.833
France 21.667
Holland 17.333
Switzerland 16
Russia 15
Ukraine 14
Belgium 12
Turkey 11
Czech Republic 9
Greece 8.333
Israel 7
Scotland 5.5
Norway 4
Serbia 3

2 down, 3 to go

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 23:08 Edited by: Krys at: 10-11-2007, 23:08	U may not involve points from QR but u should take into account teams that eliminated in QR and divide to the right number of teams.. Otherwise the ranking is senseless..

Author: Dragonite
Date: 10-11-2007, 23:22

Krys,

In 2003/2004 just Bayern and Stuttgart played for Germany… I suppose they had a 3rd team but it couldn’t qualify. So, I just divide these teams’ points for 2 (number of German teams in the CL).

Other example, England only had Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United in the CL… Newcastle was eliminated in the 3rd QR by Partizan… so, I just divide these teams points by 3 (number of English teams in the CL).

The 2005 ranking coming out soon…

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 23:36	It's not what I meant.. So it's your own rating.. I think it is far from objective..

Author: bbi
Date: 10-11-2007, 23:38

you can't appoint spots just based on C.L. results. uefa cup is still an official competition. i would agree with you if you had proposed more points for a win or a draw in c.l..
i think that a team would deserve to play in a competition by playing matches and winnig so if the top 7 are so strong they should be affraid to play in qualifications. exept for the title holder all other teams should porve they are worthy to play by winnig some games in the qualifyers.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 10-11-2007, 23:50

2004/2005 ranking:

England 17.25
Italy 17
Germany 13.333
France 12.667
Holland 12.5
Greece 9.5
Spain 9
Portugal 9
Turkey 9
Ukraine 8
Russia 7
Scotland 5
Israel 4
Norway 2
Czech Republic 1
Belgium 0

2003-2005 ranking:

England 53.583
Italy 52.75
Spain 50.75
Germany 35.167
Portugal 35
France 34.333
Holland 29.833
Russia 22
Ukraine 22
Turkey 20
Greece 17.833
Switzerland 16
Belgium 12
Israel 11
Scotland 10.5
Czech Republic 10
Norway 6
Serbia 3

3 down, 2 to go

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Dragonite Date: 10-11-2007, 23:52	Krys, Why should I divide England points by 4, instead of just 3, if Newcastle hasn’t participated in the 2003/2004 CL???! Newcastle hasn’t participated!! They were eliminated before the competition started… England had just 3 teams, so theirs points are divided by 3. I don’t understand what’s wrong with this.

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 10-11-2007, 23:53	@bbi It's just fun.. just to understand what every country desrves by this criteria.. No more.. Don't take it too seriously.

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: amirbachar Date: 11-11-2007, 00:12	You are totally missing the point of the rankings. The whole point of the rankings, is to see which league is better than the other, so being ranked high in that league is an achievement that deserve a spot in the prestigious cup called CL. So we must include UC, to see what league is really strong, and achieving a high place in it really worth a CL spot.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 11-11-2007, 00:22

2005/2006 ranking:

Italy 16.5
Spain 16.25
France 14.5
England 14.5
Holland 11
Germany 10.667
Portugal 10
Scotland 9
Slovakia 6
Belgium 5
Greece 4
Norway 4
Switzerland 4
Turkey 4
Czech Republic 2
Austria 0

2003-2006 ranking:

Italy 69.25
England 68.083
Spain 67
France 48.833
Germany 45.833
Portugal 45
Holland 40.833
Turkey 24
Russia 22
Ukraine 22
Greece 21.833
Switzerland 20
Scotland 19.5
Belgium 17
Czech Republic 12
Israel 11
Norway 10
Slovakia 6
Serbia 3
Austria 0

4 down, 1 to go

Author: Dragonite
Date: 11-11-2007, 00:58

2006/2007 ranking:

England 21.25
Italy 17.667
Spain 14.667
Holland 14
France 10.333
Scotland 10
Germany 9.667
Portugal 8
Denmark 7
Russia 6.5
Greece 5.5
Romania 5
Belgium 4
Turkey 4
Ukraine 4
Bulgaria 0

2003-2007 ranking (FINAL 5 seasons ranking):

England 89.333
Italy 86.917
Spain 81.667
France 59.167
Germany 55.5
Holland 54.833
Portugal 53
Scotland 29.5
Russia 28.5
Turkey 28
Greece 27.333
Ukraine 26
Belgium 21
Switzerland 20
Czech Republic 12
Israel 11
Norway 10
Denmark 7
Slovakia 6
Romania 5
Serbia 3
Austria 0
Bulgaria 0

Clearly there are different groups of leagues... England, Italy and Spain are way above the others, all between 80 and 90 points. France, Germany, Holland and Portugal are right behind them, and way ahead of the others. All have between 60 and 50 points. A 3rd group is composed by Scotland, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine… and maybe Belgium and Switzerland. They are behind the 2nd group but slightly above the rest of the leagues. They all have between 30 and 20 points. The last group are nations between 12 and 0 points.

A quick look at this ranking would suggest that:
England, Italy and Spain deserve 4 teams each.
France, Germany, Holland and Portugal deserve 3 teams each.
Scotland, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Belgium and Switzerland deserve 2 teams each.
The others deserve 1 team each.

This is more or less what happens in the current system- top 3 with 4 teams, next 3 leagues with 3 teams (-1), the following leagues up to 16 with 2 teams (+2)…

Just the leagues table is different, because it also counts UEFA Cup points, qualifying rounds points, bonuses, just 2 points per win, etc…

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Krys Date: 11-11-2007, 01:02	Where is Romania????

Author: Dragonite
Date: 11-11-2007, 01:38
Edited by: Dragonite
at: 11-11-2007, 10:54

Just for curiosity, a “temporary” 2007/2008 ranking:

England 8.5
Spain 7.5
Italy 7.5
Norway 7
Scotland 6.5
France 6.5
Turkey 5.5
Greece 5
Portugal 5
Holland 4
Czech Republic 4
Ukraine 3
Germany 2.333
Russia 1
Romania 0

And a “temporary” 2004-2008 ranking (already without the 2002/2003 season and with the temporary 2007/2008 results):

England 79.833
Italy 69.417
Spain 62.167
Portugal 58
France 58
Holland 49.5
Germany 47.5
Scotland 36
Turkey 29.5
Greece 27.333
Russia 25.5
Ukraine 22
Belgium 16.5
Czech Republic 16
Norway 13
Denmark 7
Slovakia 6
Romania 5
Switzerland 4
Israel 4
Serbia 3
Austria 0
Bulgaria 0

We can see Portugal and France challenging Spain 3rd spot (although most likely Spain advantage would rise after some match days… but who knows?). Germany bad season having as a consequence dropping to 7th place- not important if 4th or 7th was the same, but it would be if just 4th to 6th was the same. Czech Republic and Norway having the opportunity to replace Belgium and Switzerland as “last 2 of 3rd group teams”, since Rosenborg and Slavia points are just divided by 1, and Belgium and Switzerland aren’t playing this season.

So, now I have the mathematical evidence that, for instance, Scotland, Turkey, Greece, Russia, Ukraine… are good CL performers and deserve 2 teams in the CL… or at least deserve to have the possibility of having 2 teams in the CL if they get through the qualifiers.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 12-11-2007, 12:58

Sorry - I'm totally unconvinced by a ranking that completely ignores qualifiers.

Indeed with this system the complaints of the likes of ikoon about the "injustices of direct access" would be very valid indeed.

In the six seasons covered by Dragonite's ranking Turkey had six attempts to pass the groups & failed six times. Only three out of six times did the Turkish team have to qualify.

Greece had 11 attempts - 11 failures. Only 4/11 times did the Greek team have to qualify.

How many points would Romanian or Bulgarian teams have accrued in 6 or 11 attempts - if they didn't have to qualify?

Quite possibly - not many. But who knows - if Steaua (for example) had been in the fortunate position of gaining direct CL access for being domestic champions (as Olympiakos has had for years) when they really had a decent team (2005-06) they might have had a good year similar to the one Olympiakos is having this year. Then the ranking might have looked very different.

Author: exile
Date: 14-11-2007, 22:54
Edited by: exile
at: 14-11-2007, 23:37

badgerboy said

"Scotland had six years of failure before their success over the past two years. Surely too long to keep two teams?"

If we take the last 3 years Scotland have had 2 teams in the last 16 in fact, only the acknowledged "big 7" and Scotland have
had ANY teams in the last 16 in these 3 seasons. Fenerbahce look like breaking that pattern this season - possibly Rosenborg and Olympiakos - but then it's likely that one of the OF will make it as well. (Celtic 30% chance and Rangers 50% - which means 60-70% chance of at least one qualifying)

Back in 2004, Sparta Prague and Lokomotiv "made it" (sorry I forgot Lokomotiv in my post), 2003 - Basle. We have to go back to 2002 before we find 3 teams from "non-elite" leagues in the last 16.

Since 2000 the numbers of teams from outside the "top 7" leagues
reaching round 2 is 3,4,3,1,2,0,1,1 - which certainly suggests a trend as teams from non-major leagues find it more and more difficult to compete with the big money leagues. However, the trend for the Old Firm is definitely upwards, even if they're a long way behind the elite teams.

I still stand by my argument - that with an average of 1.4 teams
per year in the group stage, Scotland could justify 2 teams in a permanent 32 team league. Only just! And Greece would too, despite not getting a team to the last 16 since 2003.

A 16 team league on the same basis would have

3 teams each from England, Spain and Italy
2 from Germany
1 from Netherlands
1 from France
1 from Portugal

which leaves 2 places spare - and both Russia and Scotland
have had 2 teams in the last 16 in the previous 5 seasons. England with an average of 3.4 teams might also justify an extra place.

I think we could be subjective here and suggest that Liverpool, who have won the CL despite only 3 last 17 appearances, should get one of the 2 slots - and Lokomotiv with 2 appearances in the last 16 should be preferred to the Old Firm.

So the "European Premier League" has these members

England - Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal
Spain - Barcelona, Real Madrid, Valencia
Italy - Milan, Juventus, Inter
Germany - Bayern, Bremen
France - Lyon
Netherlands - PSV
Portugal - Porto
Russia - Lokomotiv

Again, this shows the difficulty with this sort of ranking. Lokomotiv would qualify for the top league on my system- but are at present 8th in the Russian league, struggling in their UEFA cup group, and have just sacked their manager.

If the results of Celtic and Rangers continue to improve - then there would be a place for them in my top 16 as well. Or for one of them anyway!

A 2nd Division would look like this

Roma, Deportivo, Stuttgart, Monaco, Lille,
Benfica, Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, Ajax,
Celtic, Rangers, Dynamo Kiev, Fenerbahce,
Anderlecht, Sparta, and Rosenborg

Who would get promoted from this league? And who would they
replace in the top division?

BTW CSKA would represent Russia based on last 32 appearances - but Lokomotiv on last 16 appearances.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 15-11-2007, 10:18
Edited by: Lyonnais
at: 15-11-2007, 11:08

If we live in a fantasy world, you can also imagine that the Champions League works pretty much like the elite group in the Davis Cup (1/4 of the teams are changed every year).

This could work in the following way:
- all teams ranked 1-3 in group stage automatically keep their spot for the following Champions League (best 2 advance to KO games as usual)
- all teams who finished 4th in their group are relegated and are replaced by the 8 best champions that are not automatically qualified for the following Champions League.

The 8 best champions are defined by the country ranking. So, only domestic champions could join the Champions League.

Example based onlast year results:
- relegated teams: Levski, Sporting, Galatasaray, Olympiakos, Kiev, Kobenhavn, Hamburg and Anderlecht are relegated.
- they are replaced by Stuttgart, Dinamo Bucharest, Kiev, Anderlecht, Sparta Prague, Fenerbahce, Olympiakos and Levski.
We had to go down to country 16 to find the 8 new champions as Real, Manchester, Inter, Lyon, Porto, PSV, CSKA Moskow and Celtic were already qualified.

Kiev, Anderlecht, Olympiakos and Levski who were relegated as 4th of their groups qualify again but to me that's not an issue as they qualified as domestic champions.

The 32 teams of the 2007-08 would thus be the following:
4 from England (Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester)
3 from Spain (Barcelona, Real, Valencia)
3 from Italy (Inter, Milan, Roma)
3 from France (Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon)
3 from Germany (Bayern, Schalke, Stuttgart)
2 from Portugal (Benfica, Porto)
2 from Russia (CSKA, Spartak)
2 from Romania (Dinamo, Steaua)
2 from Ukraine (Kiev, Shakhtar)
2 from Greece (AEK, Olympiakos)
6 from 6 different countries (PSV, Celtic, Anderlecht, Sparta Prague, Fenerbahce and Levski)

I am not really sure that I prefer this system to the current one (it's just an idea), but it would certainly grant teams from middle-countries pretty much a permanent spot in the Champions League which could help them keep / attract some good players (and thus have a decent level in the Champions League). It also guarantees a minimum of diversity as the 8 new teams are 8 domestic champions.

It would also prevent some excellent teams in the top-3 countries to join the Champions League as long as they have not been domestic champions (e.g. Sevilla or Villareal)and thus might prevent top-3 countries to collect all awards.

Well, just an idea for fun.
Of course, the 24-team qualified team can be defined on say the last 5 years results, rather than only last year results.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 15-11-2007, 11:07

or alternatively, that would be even better, the 8 new spots could be open to all domestic champions (not qualified yet) through QRs.

Assuling that the 16 "best" champions (as per coutnry ranking) advance to the final QR, the 8 QR games would be played among these 16 teams:
Stuttgart, Dinamo B., Kiev, Anderlecht, Sparta, Fenerbahce, Olympiakos, Levski, Zurich, Rosenborg, Beitar, Red Star, Copenhagen, Salzbirg, Zaglebie Lubin and Debreceni.
Pretty much balanced, isn'it?

Author: Ricardo
Date: 15-11-2007, 12:35

I like the idea because it would bring back the 'champion' in the Champions League, as all teams have at least ones been champion.
Problem will be that pretty good teams can stay in CL as long as they do not become 4th. mediocre teams from top-3 countries could do that. I think of Newcastle for instance. Might they ever get one time to CL, it is hard for 'pot-4' teams to challenge them and kick them out.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-11-2007, 13:11

Lyonnais

I don't think I like this "fantasy world" much.

Maybe if a very good criteria is found to find "the best" 32 teams in the initial CL it might have some merit.

But - simply taking it from last year's CL (or this years) - you end up with some very "average" teams staying on - & these "average" teams are probably still better than most of the ones coming in.

Plus only allowing "domestic champions" into the competition means that if Liverpool, Chelsea, Monaco, PSG etc. missed out on a starting place they might finish 2nd 10 years in a row & still not qualify.

In the "real CL" I do think there is some case for teams that go a long way getting a chance to come back (through qualifying) the following year. A lot of people would be against this because of "big clubs" coming back again & again but in reality most of these clubs qualify again anyway. It's more of a "support" for clubs who do "better than expected" in the CL & because their resources are more limited this affects - or can affect - their domestic performance.

A little difficult to administer maybe - but possibly qualifying round spots for the 4 best performing teams from the previous year not already qualified (plus the 2 best UEFA Cup performances).

Re: CL model based in CL merit
Author: Lyonnais Date: 15-11-2007, 15:15	yes, I agree with most of your arguments. However keep in mind that big teams can finish fourth of their groups, Manchester United 2 years ago or Bayern some few years ago as well (and certainly some other I don't remember).

Author: Dragonite
Date: 16-11-2007, 19:57

4- England, Italy, Spain
3- France, Germany, Holland, Portugal
2- Scotland, Russia, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Belgium, Switzerland
1- All the others (39 champions)
+
The holder
=
78 teams

9 teams directly qualified: the holder + the 8 champions of the best 8 leagues

69 teams fighting for the other 23 spots:

23 teams starting in the last knockout stage

46 teams playing a first knockout stage, the 23 winners advancing to face the 23 teams starting in the next stage, and the last knockout winners advancing to the CL

NOTE: Points from these qualifiers could also count to the ranking… this would severely hurt leagues that start with more than 1 team if any of those teams failed to reach the group stages.

Author: amirbachar
Date: 16-11-2007, 20:19

Look, each round has to be with not many teams.
That is because, if there are many teams in that round, it basically means that even if a team is really good, it will have very little chance to qualify because it can get an almost impossible draw, where if you break it to more rounds, it might have qualified at least for the last round, if not more.
That's why I think there should be quite many team that qualify directly. Not for the big teams, but for the medium- teams, that even if they invest a lot of money, they get get the 3rd in England for example and they will have very little chance.

Does everybody here agree with me?

Author: Dragonite
Date: 16-11-2007, 20:31

Badgerboy,

In my latest model (see above), the Greek and the Turkish champions wouldn’t qualify directly either!

Just 9 teams would qualify directly- the holder and the Champions of England, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Holland, Portugal and Scotland.

You seem to dislike the idea of Scotland having 2 teams, direct qualification, etc…

I believe that, since Rangers reached the last 16 in 2005/2006, and Celtic also reached it last season, and this season both are performing great (so far 7 and 6 points respectively), Scotland deserves direct qualification and 2 teams.

You like to count the attempts, let’s do something different then… Let’s count the average number of points that these teams get in CL games:

Galatasaray: 74 CL games, 76 points, 1.027 points per game
Panathinaikos: 60 CL games, 74 points, 1.233 points per game
Olympiakos: 66 CL games, 68 points, 1.0303 points per game
Glasgow Rangers: 48, 51, 1.0625
Celtic: 30, 37, 1.233
Fenerbahçe: 28, 28, 1
Steaua Bucharest, 28, 21, 0.75
Besiktas, 22, 20, 0.909
AEK Athens, 24, 18, 0.75
Levski, 6, 0, 0

Celtic, Rangers, Panathinaikos, Olympiakos, Galatasaray, Fenerbahçe all have an average of at least 1 point per game… which means we can expect them to collect at least 6 points in a CL group stage (2 wins, or 1 win and 3 draws).

Steaua record is as good as AEK (Greece 3rd team)… we can expect these teams to pick between 4 and 5 points in a group stage (you would say there isn’t a big difference between 5 and 6… well, some of the teams above collect, in average, over 7 and even near 8 points per group stage).

Besiktas record (3rd Turkish team) is better than Steaua… in 22 games they collected almost as many points as Steaua in 28! (Besiktas 20, Steaua 21).

Levski numbers are very simple- 0! The worst team in CL history

Maybe I should remove the “!” symbol, because “0!” is in fact 1, and I would be giving them a point they were never able to get.

And you can argue that I’m using old data and ask me to use just the last 5 seasons… I don’t know if that would help to prove your point. Steaua picked 5 points last season and 0 this season, so 5 points in 10 games theirs average would decrease to just 0.5. Levski average is still simple, 0. And those teams above, theirs numbers could also be smaller… but I doubt they would be that small.

Still about Steaua, I don’t see a big difference between theirs team now and in 2005/2006… The players are mostly the same, it seems. The only important difference is the opponents they are facing now. According to Steaua fans, the reason they use to explain why they can’t repeat that season performance is because they face “Lyon, Real Madrid and Sevilla”… and now Arsenal and Slavia too, I guess.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 16-11-2007, 20:51

How to split the 69 teams that don’t qualify directly?

23 teams in the last knockout:
2nd placed teams from England, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Holland, Portugal, and Scotland (8)
Champions of Russia, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Belgium, Switzerland (6)
Champions of the best 9 leagues below these (9)

46 teams in the first knockout:
3rd placed teams from England, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Holland, Portugal (7)
4th placed teams from England, Italy and Spain (3)
2nd placed teams from Russia, Turkey, Greece, Ukraine, Belgium, Switzerland (6)
Champions of the worst 30 leagues (30)

Amirbachar,

A team that is “really good” (champion of the best 9 leagues below, for instance) could face the 3rd placed team from England, that’s true… but still, if they are “really good”, I don’t see a problem with that. “Really good teams” like Glasgow Rangers, Fenerbahçe, Rosenborg, or Marseille… are defeating teams like Lyon, Inter, Valencia, or Liverpool. Other “really good team” could perfectly do the same.

If these “supposed really good teams” are so afraid to face those teams, then why do they want to play the CL so much?? Won’t they face them once they get there??

Author: amirbachar
Date: 16-11-2007, 21:27
Edited by: amirbachar
at: 16-11-2007, 22:01

I'm not saying they rae afraid of them, I just say that this way a team that not the best team will qualify for the CL, and a worst team could qulify just because of a good draw.
If most team qualifies directly, a team won't have to face a big clubs unltil they are in the CL and that will give a reason to invest more money and make the football more equal.
I'll give a specific coefficient example:
seeded
100
90
80
70
60
55
51
50
49
47
unseeded:
45
42
41
40
39
38
36
33
21
16
5
let's assume that the level of the team is just like its coefficient.
What are the chances of qualifing for the team with 45 points? Not very high because it is unseede.
Now let's take out qualify directly the 5 highest rankd team (and that is preete much the new suggestion),
now if it will be good, it has great chance of qualifing, even if it has to play 2 rounds.
That way, the best team in a given year qualify and the draw doesn't mean that much as it is now.

Author: Cirdan
Date: 16-11-2007, 22:24
Edited by: Cirdan
at: 16-11-2007, 22:25

@Dragonite: the point is that you can have Champions (like Sparta Prague this year) play against some really strong team and the weaker runner-up against a way weaker team (like Slavia this year), and that sucks. Teams like Arsenal or Milan in Qualification round suck, because any team that draws them will always lose. Just look up if a seeded team from Spain, Italy or England ever lost in the qualifications, I doubt that you will find one.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 16-11-2007, 22:46

I can’t see the point.

According to you guys, you can’t eliminate Arsenal, so you would like to avoid Arsenal in the qualifying round, so that you can reach the CL group stages.

And what’s next?? You would really like to get though the group stages, but if you are “unlucky” to face Arsenal and Sevilla it becomes impossible… so, let’s give Arsenal, Sevilla and that kind of teams direct access to the CL last 16.

On the other hand, you “fear” Italians, English and Spaniards, but you don’t fear FC Porto, Lyon, PSV, or Celtic… So these should be the teams that should be playing in the qualifiers, teams that you don’t “fear”… Never mind these teams are champions and have results as good as or better as the teams you “fear”.

But, if by some miracle teams like Chievo, Osasuna or Everton finish top 4 again, these you no longer “fear”, so these shouldn’t qualify directly, I guess…

What you call “lucky” for Slavia and “unlucky” for Sparta… that’s temporary… “Normally” Ajax would be a team as good as or much better than Arsenal… Ajax is a 4 times CL winner, one of the best teams ever in football history. Arsenal is nothing, they never won the CL, and except for one very strange season they can’t even get through the quarter finals.

Not so long ago, in 2002/2003, Ajax progressed to the CL quarters at Arsenal expense…

It’s never your fault when you can’t win… “Referees”, “bad luck”, “bad draw”, “money”, your imagination to find excuses is huge.

Tell me, if a team has no chance to defeat a team like Arsenal, what the hell do they want to do in the CL??? Just to collect the 5 million euros reward and come home with 0 points?? I’m not so sure if I want that kind of teams in the supposed “league with Europe’s best 32 teams”.

Author: amirbachar
Date: 16-11-2007, 23:00
Edited by: amirbachar
at: 16-11-2007, 23:10

Dragonite said: "According to you guys, you can’t eliminate Arsenal, so you would like to avoid Arsenal in the qualifying round, so that you can reach the CL group stages".
No, it's not that we don't want our favorite team to meet Arsenal.
It is just that Arsenal will almost for sure qualify anyway, so we want the best teams from the rest will qualify and not just because a team was seeded, to let it qualify because there are many teams and it can get a really easy draw

Dragonite said: "Tell me, if a team has no chance to defeat a team like Arsenal, what the hell do they want to do in the CL??? Just to collect the 5 million euros reward and come home with 0 points?? I’m not so sure if I want that kind of teams in the supposed “league with Europe’s best 32 teams” ".
Again, we don't want to take their place but to give them an automatic place and to make surew the best team from the rest will qualify, that is a team that has a chance of winning Arsenal and not a seeded team that there are some teams that are better than it, but it just didn't meet them because there were some weaker teams in the draw, and it happened to get one of them.

And on the other hand, we want to make this fair for the medium teams from the big leagues, so if they getting to the 3rd place,
they will get a direct entry, even if they might have not qualified otherwise.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 16-11-2007, 23:17

Amirbachar,

That could be fixed with, for instance:

32 teams in a playoff:

16 seeded vs. 16 non-seeded

Instead of a draw, where there is the possibility of the 17th best face the best (what you guys call unfair), there could be some pairing system like:
1st vs. 32nd
2nd vs. 31st…
And so on until
15th vs. 18th and
16th vs. 17th

Supposing the “mighty” Arsenal was the 1st seeded team… and BATE Borisov was the 32nd… and BATE wouldn’t qualify no matter who they faced anyway.

This would be fair already?? Or someone would also point, “Oh, poor BATE, they have the right to face Levski, it is cruel to pair them with Arsenal”??

Author: amirbachar
Date: 17-11-2007, 00:07

Dragonite,
if there were something like 4 pots and teams from pot 1 will face teams from pot 4 and teams from pot 2 will face team from pot 3 (like in tennis draws), or what you suggegsted, then yes, it would be more fair.
but do you really think a team from pot 4 can even tickle the team from pot 1? If the answer is no, then why don't you let the big clubs direct entry and let BATE a decent chance of qualifing, or at least a chance to pass 1 round against teams from pot 3, and then a much more balanced match against a team from pot 2.

That is the main thing of the new format in my point of view.
It won't make the champions league's level lower (at least not in the medium and long term).

Author: Overgame
Date: 17-11-2007, 04:52

Some people should learn a bit of mathematics. When you create a new system for ALL the teams, you need to prove it for ALL the teams and not for a single example.

So, creating a 1vs32, 2vs31 and only taking one of the 16 games is really against the spirit.

If the seeding system was perfect (1>2>3>...>32), yes the system would be fair. But now, that's far from the case and no, that system won't be.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 20-12-2007, 18:59

Continuing the CL ranking:

Temporary 2007/2008 ranking (after match day 6):

England 12.75
Spain 11.25
Greece 11
Italy 11
France 8.5
Turkey 8.5
Portugal 8.333
Scotland 8
Holland 7
Norway 7
Germany 5.667
Czech Republic 5
Ukraine 3
Romania 1
Russia 1

Temporary 2004-2008 ranking (already without the 2002/2003 season and with the temporary 2007/2008 results):

England 84.083
Italy 72.917
Spain 65.917
Portugal 61.333
France 60
Holland 52.5
Germany 50.833
Scotland 37.5
Greece 33.333
Turkey 32.5
Russia 25.5
Ukraine 22
Czech Republic 17
Belgium 16.5
Norway 13
Denmark 7
Slovakia 6
Romania 6
Switzerland 4
Israel 4
Serbia 3
Austria 0
Bulgaria 0

All the others 0

Comments:

According to this ranking, Celtic (Scotland), Olympiakos (Greece) and Fenerbahçe (Turkey) in the CL last 16 isn’t properly a surprise... these are the countries with the best CL performances, after the “top 7”…

Disappointing is just the fact that, for the first time since 2003/2004, Holland hasn’t a single team in the CL last 16 (at the moment they are 6th in this ranking).

Russia’s… but specially Romania’s performances in the CL aren’t good enough for them to “deserve” 3 teams in the CL, not even 2 (at least in Romania case).

I like this ranking… I don’t see why UEFA Cup results (good or bad) should influence the number of teams in the Champions League that each league has…

I also don’t like the fact that in UEFA rankings a win just counts 2 points… It should be 3 points, just like in “real world”.

Author: amirbachar
Date: 20-12-2007, 19:17

Dragonite said: "I don’t see why UEFA Cup results (good or bad) should influence the number of teams in the Champions League that each league has…".

Look, if you just look about the CL performance, you may give a place in the CL for a team from a weak league. That means it didn't have any real opponent on the CL spot.

The current ranking however, shows the real strength of the leagues (or at least the top-half of the league). That means that if a team qualify, it beats good opponents and deserve the spot.