This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml | No replies possible in the archive |
| 33% | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 07-01-2008, 21:52 | Dragonite mentioned that UEFA shouldn't give 33% of country's coefficient to its clubs. Why? Advantages: A club will have clear ITS OWN coefficient. Disadvantages: 'New clubs' (clubs that became strong for a short time e.g. Valenciennes, Kielce) won't have a chance to participate in Eurocups properly having last number... And imagine that Valenciennes and Murata. With no country protection they would have equal coefficients! And it's not correct! I'm for 33% (and more  ) |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Malko
Date: 07-01-2008, 21:56 | I'm a completely agreeing with you, it is clear that beeing 3rd or 4th in France or Italy, even if you are a newcomer in European Cups, means more than beeing 3rd or 4th in Hungria or Norway....or...or...or.... |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Dragonite
Date: 07-01-2008, 22:21 | Kaiser, I wrote this in the other topic: “This 33% of country average points is only good for teams below the average, who see 33% of theirs weak record replaced by a better record… For the best teams, to take 33% of theirs points and replace them for a smaller number, it’s bad!! They would have more points on theirs own.” And: “The only thing country coefficient should be used for is to sort teams levelled on points.” This last statement explains answers to your problem. If a French team and a team from Malta both had 0 points, we could sort them by country coefficient… This means the French team would be in front of the team from Malta, for the simple fact they’re French. What I don’t think is correct is, for instance, team X has 45 points on its own, team Y has 30… since just 67% of these points count to the team ranking, team X will have 30 and team Y will have 20… I still have to add the 33% of country ranking… If the country of team Y has over 30 points compared to the country of team X (for instance, team Y from England and team X from Turkey) then when I add the 33%, team Y will be above team X. Is this fair?? On its own team X is better, but since team Y comes from a league where participants use to be better, it automatically puts it above team X??!! |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 07-01-2008, 22:28 | First of all I mentoned San Marino team. And secondly imagine Murata has 0.5 pts and Valenciennes has 0pts. Do you really think poor Murata better than Valenciennes? |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: cankanal
Date: 07-01-2008, 22:34 | 33% is too much. 20% is perfect. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: cankanal
Date: 07-01-2008, 22:44 | If Spanish, England or Italy team is less unprotected, they may be unseeded but if they are strong they should eleminate even if they are unseeded. Spanish team will start with 23.765 points whereas a team whose nation has ineffective coeffecient has total 22-23 points.Actually, probably this team collected 17 or 18 points of 22-23points by itself and only 4-5 points with country effect. In conclusion, spanish team will be above this team although that team collected 17-18 of its 22points by itself. Is it really fair!! |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: amirbachar
Date: 08-01-2008, 01:05 | Dragonite, you missunderstanding the current system. The 33% of the CC comes in addition to 100% of the TC. So it doesn't matter if a team is under or above the average of the teams form it's country. All of them get the same amount of points. It only gives advantage to a team from a better league. And it should, because a team that managed to qualify in Spain for example won matches against better opponents than a team from mid-ranked country. Why does the level of the achievment of qualifing, which influenced by the league strength, should count nothing? |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 08-01-2008, 01:16 | Why does the level of the achievment of qualifing, which influenced by the league strength, should count nothing? Really? Why? Why such teams as Sunderland from England have 0 points while teams from Georgia qualify and get chances to gain points? It's not fair. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 08-01-2008, 11:26 | Kaiser wrote: "First of all I mentoned San Marino team. And secondly imagine Murata has 0.5 pts and Valenciennes has 0pts. Do you really think poor Murata better than Valenciennes?" An extreme example but it explains why some form of country coefficient - whether 5% or 50% is necessary. It does look silly if the likes of Rabotnicki, Vardar Skopje & FH Hafnarfjardar - the three lowest-ranked teams on the 2008 team ranking - are seeded above the likes of Racing Santander, Aston Villa & Saint-Etienne. cankanal wrote: "If Spanish, England or Italy team is less unprotected, they may be unseeded but if they are strong they should eleminate even if they are unseeded. Spanish team will start with 23.765 points whereas a team whose nation has ineffective coeffecient has total 22-23 points.Actually, probably this team collected 17 or 18 points of 22-23points by itself and only 4-5 points with country effect. In conclusion, spanish team will be above this team although that team collected 17-18 of its 22points by itself. Is it really fair!!" Cankanal. You're absolutely right in a way. But the problem with having strong teams unseeded: "but it doesn't matter because they will win anyway if they are good enough" is - what about their opponents? Is it "fair" on the team that is usually unseeded in UEFA R1 but finally breaks the seeding line that they then have to play a relatively strong team from a big country - the sort they thought getting seeded would help them avoid? |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Enrique
Date: 08-01-2008, 12:15 | I agree with badgerboy. The seeding system also protects the teams who achieved small successes. And gained with hard work the right to be seeded...only to be drawn against a team that is really much stronger? No system is perfect, but seeding does make sense ...at least to a certain extend. And isn't it nice to cheer for the team of your country and get the reward for your country? Whether it has to be 33% could obviously be argued. Maybe somebody could do a comparison with different percentages. But now that I think about it, hasn't this been changed just a few years ago from 50% to 33%??? I would assume somebody (in uefa) has analysed this and recommended that change. So I assume it's the most balanced percentage. But I would be happy to see see other values being discussed  |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Dragonite
Date: 08-01-2008, 13:33 | It’s good to know that, amirbachar. I thought that the Club ranking was 33% of country points and 67% of club points… if it is 100% club points, then the “weight” of the country points in fact is just 25%. Before, when it was 100% club + 50% country, the country “weight” was 33%. Seeing things this way, the old method was really bad and the current is much better. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 08-01-2008, 15:20 | List of clubs with 10 points or more if you discount country ranking entirely: AC Milan 101.0 Liverpool 93.5 Chelsea 90.0 Arsenal 85.0 FC Barcelona 82.0 Olympique Lyon 81.0 Internazionale 80.0 Sevilla 78.0 Manchester United 73.0 PSV Eindhoven 72.0 Real Madrid 71.0 FC Porto 66.0 Villarreal 66.0 Bayern Munchen 66.0 Benfica 65.5 Newcastle United 62.5 Valencia 62.0 AS Roma 57.0 Steaua Bucuresti 57.0 AZ Alkmaar 57.0 Werder Bremen 55.0 Shakhtar Donetsk 51.5 Glasgow Rangers 50.5 CSKA Moskow 50.5 FC Basel 50.0 Juventus 48.5 Schalke 04 48.0 Celtic 47.0 Sporting CP Lisbon 45.0 Olympique Marseille 44.5 AS Monaco 44.5 Panathinaikos 43.0 Ajax 43.0 Olympiakos Piraeus 42.0 Fenerbahce 40.5 Rosenborg BK 40.0 Club Brugge 39.5 Lille OSC 39.0 Espanyol 38.0 AJ Auxerre 37.0 Zenit St. Petersburg 36.0 VfB Stuttgart 36.0 Besiktas 35.5 Anderlecht 35.5 Rapid Bucuresti 35.0 AC Parma 35.0 Girondins Bordeaux 34.0 Dynamo Kiev 34.0 Hamburger SV 33.5 Levski Sofia 33.5 Bayer Leverkusen 33.0 Middlesbrough 33.0 Sparta Praha 32.0 Austria Wien 31.5 Dinamo Bucuresti 31.5 Slavia Praha 30.5 Partizan Belgrade 30.0 RC Lens 29.5 Lokomotiv Moskow 29.0 Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk 29.0 Spartak Moskow 27.5 FC Kobenhavn 26.5 Tottenham Hotspur 26.0 AEK Athens 25.0 Deportivo La Coruna 25.0 Galatasaray 24.5 Red Star Belgrade 23.0 CSKA Sofia 23.0 Palermo 23.0 Heerenveen 23.0 Osasuna 23.0 Lazio Roma 22.5 Dinamo Zagreb 22.0 Litex Lovech 22.0 FC Sochaux-Montbeliard 21.0 Maccabi Haifa 21.0 Feyenoord 21.0 Hapoel Tel-Aviv 20.5 Petrzalka Bratislava 20.5 Brondby IF 20.5 Sporting Braga 20.0 Paris Saint-Germain 20.0 Celta de Vigo 20.0 Bolton Wanderers 18.0 Wisla Krakow 18.0 Real Zaragoza 17.0 Udinese 17.0 Blackburn Rovers 16.0 OB Odense 15.5 Grazer AK 15.5 RC Strasbourg 14.0 Genclerbirligi 14.0 SK Brann Bergen 13.5 Atletico Madrid 13.0 Everton 13.0 Panionios 13.0 Valerengan IF 13.0 Groclin Grodzisk 13.0 Ferencvaros 13.0 Grasshoppers Zurich 12.5 Hertha BSC 12.5 Hearts FC 12.5 Real Betis 12.5 Omonia Nicosia 12.0 Maccabi Tel-Aviv 12.0 FC Zurich 11.5 Rapid Wien 11.5 DVSC Debrecen 11.5 FC Thun 11.5 FK Teplice 11.5 Aris Thessaloniki 11.0 Mlada Boleslav 11.0 Helsingborg IF 10.5 Sampdoria 10.5 FBK Kaunas 10.5 FC Salzburg 10.0 NK Domzale 10.0 Trabzonspor 10.0 These include the qualifying points which aren't currently counted in the team rankings. Nothing radically different at the top of the rankings - where in a perfect world the country ranking would indeed be unnecessary. The problem of still needing a contribution from the country ranking doesn't really go away though. However you look at it having NK Domzale - to mention just one - ranked above a Spanish team is pretty silly. By including qualifying points there are actually 371 teams with at least 0.5 points over the past 5 years. For a country ranking maybe divide the total number of points by all clubs over the 5 years by the number of entries. So - Spain for example would have 541.5/38 = 14.250. So any Spanish team not already ranked higher (so including teams like Atletico with less points) would automatically get seeded between Grazer AK & Strasbourg. It's nice pfaffing about a bit but I think the current system does just fine. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Cirdan
Date: 08-01-2008, 18:18 | Dragonite: "I thought that the Club ranking was 33% of country points and 67% of club points� if it is 100% club points, then the �weight� of the country points in fact is just 25%." I'm still not sure if you get it right... there are no percentages of own and country points. The clubs get a third of the country coefficiant fixed, and the points they earned themselves are added to that. EG in the club coefficiants used for this season, Atletico Madrid hat 100% country points: since they did not participate and earn their own points in the last 5 years, they only got the 25 points for being Spanish. AC Milan on the other hand had only around 16% country points, since in addition to the 22 points for being Italian, they made 111 points in their CL appearances over the last 5 years. The better the club, the lower the impact of the country coefficiant is... The main purpose of it is to seed clubs from big leagues even if they seldomly qualify, and this is necessary. Like it was said above, a team like Dinamo Zagreb won't thank you if they finally manage to get seeded in the first round of UC, but then get thrown out by an unseeded Atletico or Manchester City |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 08-01-2008, 18:33 | I fear that any "coefficient rookie" might find the explanations on this thread confusing. Cirdan - I know you're right when you say that: the country coefficient proportion of a team's whole coefficient varies depending on the size of the whole. But it's still simpler surely to say that every team gets 33% of the country coefficient added to their own points. So Spain's current country coefficient is 72.013 & every Spanish team has 33% of this (23.765) added to their own points whether these "own points" are currently zero (Racing Santander) or 82 (Barcelona). |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: dzomba
Date: 11-01-2008, 10:26 | I vote for at least 50% country bonus. (I would also like to see qualifying rounds counted somehow.) But some exceptions can be made. For example there can be two values. 50% of a country average value for that season, and a value from club only performance. And for a club ranking system can be taken higher value. Results: Top clubs (regular participants) are not influenced with country rankings (they perform better than average, so they don't get a bonus). Clubs which don't participate regularly are not in disadvantage. Higher bonus (50%) gives better rank for regular participants, but with a not great performance. That will help poor clubs from poor countries (which don't have money), but they are real institutions in their countries (Dinamo Tbilisi, Gothenburg, Tampere or HJK, Dinamo Minsk, Debrecen or MTK, Artmedia ...) to collect some points and to pass a round or two. That will help for a football development in that country (and will have almost zero influence on Eurocups in general). Clubs from great leagues, which perform under 50% of average, are not in disadvantage (Chievo last year, Zaragoza this year) - they get only a bonus rather than their own performance. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: mabo
Date: 02-03-2008, 11:05 Edited by: mabo at: 02-03-2008, 11:05 | uefadirect 3.08 (page 10) about discussions and suggestions at the last meeting of the European Club Forum (which now has given way to the European Club Association): "... On the question of the calculation of individual coefficients, a majority were in favour of no more than 20% (instead of 33%) of the national association coefficient coming into the calculation. The clubs from the smaller countries also asked for the results of qualifying matches to be taken into account in the club coefficients, as opposed to just in the national association rankings, as is presently the case..." |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Aliceag
Date: 02-03-2008, 16:56 | I'd say: I don't know if I really want to see the newbies of Spain, England and Italy unseeded due to lack of country contribution. What seeded club from a non top5 country would want to meet them?? Let's be realistic: the only ones who benefit from country contribution are the top5 countries, whose coeff is big enough to put a newbie seeded. And I find that is a good measure to help big teams from smaller countries. What chances fancy Dinamo Bucharest, Slavia Praga, Besiktas or Brugge if right in first qualifying round they meet Osasuna, Palermo or Everton?... I rather want NOT to see thoses clashes happening!... We must have conscience that if newbies become unseeded, some seeded teams will meet them. That can ruin a whole country coeff for a small country because he will lose not only the unseeded teams, but also their seeded team! |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Cirdan
Date: 02-03-2008, 17:06 | @Aliceag: I totally agree for the last qualifying round, but what about the earlier ones? In the first and second round, teams are seeded only on country coefficiants, it might be usefull to rate team coefs/points from qualifying higher in those cases. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: executor
Date: 03-03-2008, 09:31 | Aliceag: {i>What chances fancy Dinamo Bucharest, Slavia Praga, Besiktas or Brugge if right in first qualifying round they meet Osasuna, Palermo or Everton?...{/i> 2005/2006 UC R1: Dinamo Bucharest - Everton 5-1 0-1  Honestly, Alice, experience is in most cases more important then form or value. CFR vs. Anorthosis is another example. I don't know if the country coefficient should be decreased, but I'm definetely in favor of counting the points obtained in QR towards team coefficent. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 03-03-2008, 10:23 Edited by: badgerboy at: 03-03-2008, 10:37 | "... On the question of the calculation of individual coefficients, a majority were in favour of no more than 20% (instead of 33%) of the national association coefficient coming into the calculation. The clubs from the smaller countries also asked for the results of qualifying matches to be taken into account in the club coefficients, as opposed to just in the national association rankings, as is presently the case..." I wouldn't have a huge problem with 20% rather than 33 - but I fear things might start to get a bit silly if you start adding club coefficient points for qualifying rounds at the same time. The best way of resolving the "debate" - which I suspect wont happen - would be for UEFA to calculate a coefficient list based on both systems (33%+ no qualifying points & 20% with qualifying points). One would of course be the "official ranking" (I'd say the current one but I'm fairly indifferent) but when it comes to the qualifying rounds & UEFA R1 then the draw could be organised to ensure that teams seeded under one ranking system but unseeded under the other would always face those with the opposite seeding status. So in other words any top 5 teams unseeded due to the reduction in country coefficient value would get the chance to prove on the pitch that they "deserve" seeding status more than the teams that become seeded under the 20% + qualifying points system - or vice versa of course. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: blue_shark
Date: 03-03-2008, 13:26 | the main idea here is to protect the good teams in smaller countries (sheriff, astana, bate and others). since they are the only teams bringing points to their respective national coefficient, their own coefficient is doomed to be low forever. thus, they can't pass more than 2 qr and fight for real points. i've watched sheriff for some years now and, despite dominating the domestic league and bringing in some good players, still they can't pass that 2nd qr. of course the one year they managed to do that they were destroyed both in 3rd qr and uc 1sr round. of course they wouldn't have been seeded in any system in the universe, but if playing several years in a row with the big ones, in the end they would have had a chance. so give these clubs a hand, otherwisw football will never flourish in these countries the way platini said he wanted (of course he just said it to get some votes). |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: kurt
Date: 03-03-2008, 20:45 | 20 % is perfect, but points in qualifying rounds will never be, in the late 90's it was like that and then countries ranked 15-21 collect so many points that they will go over countries ranked 9-15 because those countries had less qualifying rounds, so russia went down place 22 and now with 4 qualifying rounds in uefacup,next upset, if you then count points for qualifying rounds then the ranking is a jojo. |
| Re: 33% | |
| Author: Cirdan
Date: 03-03-2008, 20:49 Edited by: Cirdan at: 03-03-2008, 20:50 | erm... I think you mix something up, points from qualifying rounds still count for the country coefficiants (or 50% of them), they just don't count at all for team coefficiants, that's the point some want to change, that will have no effect at all on the country rankings... Plus, the 4th qr of the UEFA Cup is the same as the 1st knock out stage this year, it was just rebranded to reduce the amount of points given (and probably because it will be played out earlier) |