Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 27-08-2011, 12:38	I often said it, and i see the same every year. Seeding is quite nonsense. if you see the groups which came out in CL and EL, we really should stop all that crap of seeding. there are monster-groups, and ridiculous groups ! It EL and CL. It cannot be worse without any seeding.....so STOP seeding, UEFA !

Author: Lorric
Date: 27-08-2011, 13:29
Edited by: Lorric
at: 27-08-2011, 13:45

If I hadn't seen you earlier, I would have taken you for a troll. You do realise that if you're arguing against monster groups and easy groups, if you took seeding away, you'd massively increase the chances of them, right? It's a meritocracy. Teams and leagues earn their places in the rankings through victory on the pitch, not because someone decides who they think is better. And if a few "unfashionable" teams rise high while a few "big" teams end up being passed, well I'm all for that. I wouldn't want Dortmund for instance higher than the bottom pot. They won the Bundesliga, but have proved nothing in Europe. They couldn't qualify out of the Europa league groups last year, and their only other appearance was getting knocked out before the Europa groups two years before that. They have proved nothing in Europe. Similarly, Manchester City. Last 16 in the Europa League is not last 16 in the Champions league. It's a hell of a lot better than Dortmund though, so Pot 3 is correct. They haven't dominated the Europa league, so why should they dominate the Champions league just because they have money? Both teams need to prove themselves.

There was a similar situation to Dortmund with Wolfsburg two years ago. They won the Bundesliga, they were in the bottom pot, no one wanted them, and in the end they were weak. They were beaten by CSKA Moscow to the KO stages, and that season finished 8th and didn't even qualify for Europe that season. Who says Dortmund won't do the same? The system is based on results, Ws, Ds and Ls, not what you or I think are the strong teams.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: kurt Date: 27-08-2011, 14:05	seeding is fair but the teamranking is now based 20 percent of the countryranking each year the countryranking of topcountries are rising so it would be more fair if it was 10 percent instead of 20 percent

Author: Lorric
Date: 27-08-2011, 14:13

20% is tiny. It doesn't need to go any lower.

For instance 1pt for a big country is divided by 7, then divided by 5. It adds a miniscule 0.029 to a single club's coefficient. It takes 35 points earned by the collective to put one point on a club's coefficient. It would thus take 70 at 10%. I bet new/no europe in 5 years teams from big countries would end up being unseeded 2 qualifying rounds before the Europa league group stages, which is just wrong.

Author: Malko
Date: 27-08-2011, 14:36

Lorric: "you'd massively increase the chances of them, right?" I do not think so. Like i said : It couldn't be worse........
About teams and leagues....see Dortmund. This team is better than most teams in pot 3 , equal to some teams in pot 2 ...Dortmund was german Champion. Let behind itself Bayern Munich and others.......on a whole season. and they are in the weakest pot. So, don't tell me about...leagues.......... as soon as such things remain possible,...seeding has no sense...
So : Country-Coefficient should count stronger, much stronger if we really want "equal" groups.
So you say, Dortmund and ManCity have proved nothing....well, ask jhust the teams which got them in tehir groups if they are happy about this.....
Now, believe me, i would be glad if Dortmund was eliminated in the group-stage...that offers another possibility to OM :-)

Author: badgerboy
Date: 27-08-2011, 14:50

Come on Malko - this must be a wind up/ troll post - right?

What you want isn't no seeding but different seeding to what we have now.

I guess you want seeding that puts the teams from the top 5 countries automatically in the top two pots so you don't get "difficult" CL groups.

If you had NO seeding you might have got Real Madrid, Manchester United, Milan & Bayern in one group: Barcelona, Chelsea, Inter & Lyon in another & then Otelul, Basel, Dinamo Zagreb & Genk drawn together.

Ridiculous to suggest that what we have now suggests no seeding would be better.

Author: Lorric
Date: 27-08-2011, 15:05
Edited by: Lorric
at: 27-08-2011, 15:13

Europe is completely different to domestic football. There are teams which perform way above the "better" teams from their own league when they are in Europe. Liverpool being the easiest example back when they were one of the most feared teams in Europe despite usually being 4th in the Premier League. They took the cup and finished 5th one year! Some teams handle/prioritise European football better than others. A couple more easy examples, until recently Milan massively outperforming Inter despite Inter dominating Serie a, and Real Madrid, until recently, not being able to pass the last 16.

Dortmund have had two forays in European football and accomplished little. Anyway, it's more about punishing Dortmund for not doing anything than punishing the teams in their group. It's a balance. Manchseter City, if they'd acted like a powerhouse in the Europa League, they'd be pot 2 easy. Who says they'll act like a powerhouse in the Champions League? Manchester City took the Europa League very seriously I should point out too. Full strength teams.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Zhund0r Date: 27-08-2011, 15:37	UEFA would give clubs an advantage which were bought from rich investors. This won't happen ever. Besides, they draw interesting pairings, so why the hell would they wanna change that? :P

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 27-08-2011, 16:39	Badgerboy....with: FC København (DEN) R. Standard de Liège (BEL) Hannover 96 (GER) FC Vorskla Poltava (UKR) you have such a (joke)-group like Otelul, Basel, Dinamo Zagreb & Genk drawn together.in EL......... on the other side, you have: Club Atlético de Madrid (ESP) Udinese Calcio (ITA) Stade Rennais FC (FRA) FC Sion (SUI) with clubs from 3 major leagues !

Author: Lorric
Date: 27-08-2011, 17:05
Edited by: Lorric
at: 27-08-2011, 17:14

You're missing the point here. Teams earn their seedings. And big league teams often don't do very well in the Europa League, so have no right to be seeded high. Palermo and Mainz lost in the third qualifying round! Roma, Seville and Sochaux also didn't even make it! Last year in the last 16, from the top 5 leagues, there was only 2 English, 1 Spanish, 1 German, 0 Italian and 1 French. 5/16. Quarter finals, it was only 1/8, only Villarreal left.

Though you're starting to look like a troll, because you're just ignoring what people are saying. Seeds are based on results on the pitch, not what league you're from. What league you're from plays a role, but takes a back seat to European results.

A team like Rangers have a way better coefficient than they actually are as a team these days, but they still earned that coefficient and deserve the privileges that go with it.

Author: Cloakmaster
Date: 27-08-2011, 20:37

No more Seeding you say?

Group A
Barcelona
ManU
Milan
Bayern

Group B
Otelul Galati
Vitoria Pilzen
APOEL Nicosia
Trabzonspor

Complety fair without seeding...

Maybe there could be changes. Maybe it would have been better to keep the 33% Nation's points intead of reducing them to 20% in club coefficient.
That would have pushed Leverkusen to Pot 2, and Dortmund to Pot 3.
But: Just because one team was better than Bayern in one year that doesn't mean, they are overall better. And: its a matter of fairness to give "weaker" teams/nations at least the chance to play the "big ones".
Romania was surely an extreme example, but a good one. If you are good, you can come up relativly easy. AN bringing three teams to semi finals is definitly good.
You can even come up by just being lucky. But remaining in the Top line is another question. And so, romania went down again almost as fast as they came up.

Otherwise you could place the top Teams like BarCa, ManU, Milan etc directly to knockout stage with no group matches at all. Or just play the final match Barca-ManU every year...

Author: ferdi
Date: 28-08-2011, 03:53

I think the groups are a bit unbalanced this year, but that shouldn't matter. It makes sone groups more interesting to follow. The "mistakes" will certainly be corrected during the following knock-out rounds.

What was really undesirable was the Sevilla-Hannover pairing during the qualification for EL. I don't think that top seeded teams should have to face any teams from the top 5 countries as early as in the qualification rounds.

The solution could be:

- Either increase the contribution from country coefficient to the team coefficient.

- Or, instead of two pots of 38 teams, make pot A with the top 25 teams, pot B with the 26 intermediate teams, and pot C with the bottom 25 teams. Then teams from pot A are drawn against teams from pot C, while teams from pot B are drawn against each other.

Author: zender
Date: 28-08-2011, 09:04

Why don't we just pick the top 5 countries and make them seeded all of the time,no matter the name of the team they send in. Because all the other clubs are just figurines in the top 5's show.

We could also just qualify all of them.

Lorric is absolutely right here, the teams who were in pot 2 or 3, deserved to be there for taking the whole competition seriously over several years. Do some people here even realize that these so called littler teams, in order to perform well here in Europe.. They sacrifice home league performance???

The system isn't perfect but unless there comes a guy with an idea that drastically improves things,... leave it alone for it does its job.

Author: ferdi
Date: 28-08-2011, 09:38
Edited by: ferdi
at: 28-08-2011, 10:22

In CL qualification, the teams from the top five countries are already protected sufficiently, since 13 of 18 teams from the top five are directly qualified for CL group stage, and the remaining 5 also have a decent chance to reach CL group stage within one qualification round, and are qualified anyway for GS in either CL or EL.

It's the EL qualification that needs to be improved. I don't think Hannover felt "punished" in any way by getting a well named opponent in their qualification matches. It was Sevilla - as the highest ranked of all teams, not as a team from a top five country - who did not deserve such a strong opponent that early in the competition. Why have they been "punished" with getting Hannover?

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 28-08-2011, 10:34	Or I have a solution : no change to the current system.

Author: Malko
Date: 28-08-2011, 11:26

Lorric, the UEFA-coefficient of a team depends mostly on its results in european cups, okay. But those results depend on the frequency of participation in those cups. And this frequency depends again on the strongness of the league they play in.....for example: Bordeaux, playin in the.....Belgium league, would regurlarly qualify for an European cup....in France they do not, cause other teams are stronger......i think if seeding is maintainesd (and i have no doubt, it will....even if i have the right to say my opinion about the fact it's useless), country-coefficient should count some more......

Cloakmaster. You say it : Dortmund's place is rather in pot 3 than in pot 4,.....country coefficient should count 33%......About the 2 groups you give, if there was no seeding, yes, they are possible, but not probable.......anyways, groups which came out this time with seeding are not quite different......
compare

Équipes J pts
1 Bayern 0 0
2 Man. City 0 0
3 Napoli 0 0
4 Villarreal 0 0

to

1 Zenit 0 0
2 Porto 0 0
3 Shakhtar Donetsk 0 0
4 APOEL 0 0

yes i know, there is Porto........., but the others copared to the 4 above?????

bye the way, i really would likeit would go from KO-stage from the first round on, with all the teams involved from the first round on, but ONLY THE CHAMPIONS in CL....

bye the way, you always spek to "the Tip5-nations teams are already protected...." Seeding teams like Dortmund not in Pot 4 would not only protect Dortmund, but also all the others from the other pots, think about it........even more.

Author: Cirdan
Date: 28-08-2011, 13:23

I guess now that arguing the Ligue 1 above the Bundesliga is getting more and more ridiculous, Malko needs something new to flame about...

No matter what method you use for seeding, you will get some strong and some weak groups. If only because not everyone agrees on which teams are strong or weak (Shakhtar was a quarter finalist, ahead of Arsenal in the group and beating Roma home and away last season, but yup, they are clearly weaker than Villarreal or Napoli. They are not from a big 5 nation, after all.)

Author: Lorric
Date: 28-08-2011, 13:33
Edited by: Lorric
at: 28-08-2011, 13:37

@ Ferdi

That's a terrible idea. The top teams don't need any extra protection. They're the best! They should be able to beat anybody on the unseeded side. In addition, these big teams sometimes look down upon the Europa League. They deserve nothing more than being seeded. Look at Roma losing to the Slovaks. Also, giving them the lower seeds is a terrible idea, punishing the teams that have battled their way through the lower rounds, basically telling them they're garbage that needs taking out. I don't want the Europa League to look like the damn Coppa Italia! (I hate that cup's format.)

On country coefficient, I'm fine leaving it at 20%, but I'd have no problem with an increase to 25%, to offset the extra points coming into the system for qualifying failures. 33% is too much.

As for the Champions League, I see it more as protecting other teams from the top countries' teams than protecting the top teams. The top teams almost always win their qualifiers. There's simply no point in them qualifying, they almost always just doom the unlucky team that draws them. I think Asian World Cup qualifying's early stages should be run in the same way as Champions League qualifying. I think I calculated a system of qualifying that would have meant no extra matches, but the top 13 teams in Asia automatically qualifying for the groups. But that's another story...

Seville weren't "punished". They've won this competition twice in recent years, they should be able to beat any team in the competition. They could have got anybody, that's just how it went.

And unlike the Champions League, top 5 league teams have earned no protection in this competition, as their record is nothing special. Check my post above somewhere about 5/16 being from the top 5 countries last year, and just 1/8 in the quarters.

@ Zender

Also, teams from smaller countries have to table more results to acquire the same coefficient as teams from bigger countries. I think I'll do a little comparison. Let's say BATE Borisov were a Premier League team. BATE's current coefficient is 23.216. If they were Premier League, it would be 37.157.

@ Overgame

Short. Sweet. Correct imo.

Author: Lorric
Date: 28-08-2011, 13:41
Edited by: Lorric
at: 28-08-2011, 13:50

@ Cirdan

It's funny you say that, and Malko says that. I was planning before I realised he was a troll to put out a group of death/joke group scenario for a no seeding system, but decided that someone else would do it for me eventually, so chose not to. Shakhtar would have gone in my group of death. It would have been Barcelona/Manchester United/Bayern Munich/Shakhtar Donetsk. I rate them above any team Italy or France have to offer. They won the Europa League, got to the quarters of the Champions League, winning a group that contained Arsenal and Europe League finalists Braga, and took Barcelona to extra time in the Super Cup. The Ukranian League is a strong league, and they completely destroy it. I think they could win Ligue 1 or Seria a.

Author: Overgame
Date: 28-08-2011, 14:33

Oh, as a french talker (south of Belgium), I surf on many french websites. And sometimes I wonder if, in France, most of the posters are watching football.

Last in date : Sochaux - Metalist. Metalist is unknown (hi Retro too) and being eliminated by a no-name like that is such a shame. Just after the draw of the ELqR4, Eurosport.fr was talking about how Rennes got the most difficult draw with Red Star .....

And now, Malko comes and explain how no seeding would be better, after explaining with Ligue 1 was amongst the top 3 in Europe, and how Ligue 1 is the mosst difficult in Europe.

Btw, Bordeaux in Jupiler League = 5M instead of 33M for the TV rights, only 2 spots for CL (and no direct qualification for sure), and a bit less country protection. But at least he haven't said "Bordeaux would be Belgian champion every year".

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Lorric Date: 28-08-2011, 15:42 Edited by: Lorric at: 28-08-2011, 15:43	@ Overgame Metalist were the seeded team, and are one of the higher seeded teams in Pot 2. There is a reason for that. They're a good team, and Ukranian football is on the rise. Anyone who said Red Star was the tougher draw is judging on name recognition only. The gulf between the two clubs is vast.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 28-08-2011, 15:47	I know :p I was just showing you what I can read on some french forums :p

Author: Lorric
Date: 28-08-2011, 15:50
Edited by: Lorric
at: 28-08-2011, 15:55

@ Overgame

Oh don't worry, I know you weren't thinking that. Perhaps I should have mentioned that.

Those people are far from the first to underestimate Metalist. That team has caused many "upsets" and people still haven't noticed.

I just went and watched the highlights of the Metalist match. They have a player called Christaldo, which amused me. He netted twice. Can't hurt to be a footballer with a name that's like a shortening of Christiano Ronaldo.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 28-08-2011, 22:13	Lorric, you really (and i hope it) don't think its easyer to become french champion than german champion? .. Dortmund in the top 3 in french Ligue? c'mon, very "unwahrscheinlich".......Monaco and Lens relegated in second Bundesliga?....rather "unmöglich"! Coefficient is not everything!

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 28-08-2011, 22:39	Aachen qualified and passing the UEFA Cup groups as a Bundesliga 2. team ? When was the last time a L2 team was in UC ? Chateauroux ? And when was the last time one passed the first round ? Never ? Seriously, please stop posting here about how L1 is one of the most difficult league in Europe. 20 years ago, perhaps. Now, the subtop teams cannot even pass the ELGS.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Lusankya Date: 29-08-2011, 09:43	Oh wow, Malko managed again to turn a completely unrelated discussion into a "Ligue 1 vs. Bundesliga" argument. :rolleyes: How about we get back to the topic? Malko could you justify, why you think no seeding is BETTER than the current seeding method?

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Lusankya Date: 29-08-2011, 10:31	Btw. there are some things that are really annoying during the draws. The tons of restrictions because of maximizing the profits from broadcast rights!

Author: Malko
Date: 29-08-2011, 12:55

Overgame, i think guegnon did pass the first round in UEFA-Cup some years ago.....about 10 years ago, France didn't have an as good coefficient than the 2 last years. and...when did Germany for the last time qualify 2 teams for the quarterfinals of the Championsleague? or did this never happen?

Lusankya, the "no seeding" would be interesting with KO-stage from the beginning and all the teams involved.......all the "champions" only of course....

Author: Ricardo
Date: 29-08-2011, 14:40

Getting back to the topic, as I think the topic itself is not that stupid, though most of the posts here are.
My opinion:
Current seeding puts together tougher and easier groups. true. Can this be avoided? Yes, by bringing up the coutry coefficient. But I was happy it went down cause it used to be like English newbies were immediatly top-seeded compared to regular teams from lower countries. So it's ok. No seeding at all would be worse, terribly worse. Maybe, I say maybe as I am not sure what the consequences would be, maybe there could be a split up between the champions and non-champions. But I guess there would be uneven groups then too.
Keep it like this. Plzen and Basel are now just lucky and Napoili and Dortmund have bad luck. This year. If they perform OK, they will be higher seeded next year!

Author: JK
Date: 29-08-2011, 14:51

@ Malko

France performance in the CL is really not better than Germany's. Here are all the times a German or French team reached the knock out stage. With the exception of the 2009/2010 season, all of the French teams were eliminated before the quarter final in the last few years.

2010/11
Germany: 1 SF, 1 R16
France: 2 R16

2009/10
Germany: 1 F, 1 R16
France: 1 SF, 1 QF

2008/09
Germany: 1 QF
France: 1 R16

2007/08
Germany: 1 QF
France: 1 R16

2006/07
Germany: 1 QF
France: 2 R16

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: dzomba Date: 29-08-2011, 15:18	Being seeded is so easy: you just have to put your best 11 in EL matches continuosly. And occasionally rest your players in Premier L, Primera, Serie A, Bundesliga, FA Cup, Coppa Italia etc. Oooh, you don't want to ?? OK then. Who cares what you will say one or two years after in CL GS ... Every sin has to be payed.

Author: JK
Date: 29-08-2011, 15:34
Edited by: JK
at: 29-08-2011, 15:36

Seeding and not seeding have both advantages and disadvantages.

Seeding

advantages:
- you will have most of the better teams in the later rounds, because good teams don't often eliminate each other at the beginning of the competition
- there are more famous clubs in the later rounds, which increase the interest among viewers worldwide
- more viewers -> more money (better for those, which get that money)

disadvantages:
- a lot of predictable games in the qualifying and group stage
- strong teams generally don't get hard opposition, they qualify quite easy and also dominate groups
- underdogs/minnows won't go far

Not Seeding

disadvantages:
- more strong/famous teams won't reach the knock out stages, which may cause lost of interest among viewers
- some very weak teams may reach the knock out stages, only to get trashed 10:0 against very strong teams, when they stop having luck with the draw (ties with clear results are not very interesting)
- the overall quality of teams in at least the first knock out stage will decrease
- Small teams will go more often out against other small teams, but it is more financial attractive, to go out against a big team. You can easier get the stadium full. There is also more prestige/excitement for a small team, when they get the opportunity to play against a big team.
- some strong teams may be lucky and get only VERY weak teams in the group stage -> boring/very unequal results

advantages:
- There will be more exciting games of top teams earlier in the competition. Strong teams can meet each other already in qualifying. It will increase the chances of "groups of deaths", which are more exciting than groups with two clear favourites and two weaklings.
- small teams have a bigger chance to get another small team in qualifying, so they may easier qualify, which means new teams in the group stage/more diversity
- small teams may also get a very easy group and reach the knock out stages, which otherwise would hardly be possible for them (would made fans of the team/people of the country of the clubs very happy)
- some of the weak nations would have a bigger chance to get a team in the group stage
- all in all there is a higher chance of the meeting of equals (strong vs. strong, weak vs. weak)

Personally I could live with both. Seeding and not seeding have both advantages and disadvantages.
The UEFA will of course keep the seeding method. They want the biggest, richest and most famous teams in the later rounds of the CL. They can only guarantee this with seeding.

Author: JK
Date: 29-08-2011, 15:49

@ dzomba

You first have to qualify in the EL. A team which wasn't able to do this in past years, will have a bad coefficient and will get therefore harder opponents, which will make it harder to improve the coefficient. For teams which are not regularly playing in Europe, it can be a vicious circle.

bad coefficient -> hard opponents/early elimination -> no coefficient improvement possible -> bad coefficient

If you are all the time playing in Europe, a team will have at least sometimes some luck and get an easy opponent in the draw and can slowly improve its coefficient until they may be even seeded themselves. That is just not so easy for teams, which may play only every 3-5 years or even less often in Europe.

Author: Malko
Date: 29-08-2011, 16:48

Ricardo, you say : "Plzen and Basel are now just lucky and Napoili and Dortmund have bad luck" But i see it the other way: Arsenal and Marseille are the "unlucky" by the fact Dortmund was seeded in the 4th pot......the opponents of Plzen and Basel are very happy now.....

About the advantages and disadvantages....
Do you remeber the times when CL or EL or C2--finals saw teams like Red Star Belgrad? FC Brugge? Borussia Moenchengladbach, SEC Bastia,Dynamo Dresden, Steaua Bucarest, IFK Goetheborg ?????????
There was NO seeding and KO-stage from the beginning with ALL teams involved in 3 competitions............
At each beginning of a season, NO-one had the slightest idea which team could reach the final. Today, we ask: Will it be Barceloa-Manchester or will it be Chelsea-Real?....or maybe with 2 or 3 other possible teams from Italy, Germany France or...Porto?....and that's it. It wo'nt be Goeteborg, neither Brugge, neither Moenchengladbach...... .

You see, the KO-system with no seeding at all brought us much more interesting seasons as today, ....where over a whole season, you can watch at least half a dozen times a real-barcelona.....

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: PullMoll Date: 29-08-2011, 17:09	Don`t feed the troll. Why do you give him always a chance to make his show?

Author: Malko
Date: 29-08-2011, 18:14
Edited by: Malko
at: 29-08-2011, 18:16

Pull Moll, what is wrong if i think that teams like Red Star Belgrad FC Brugge Borussia Moenchengladbach, SEC Bastia,Dynamo Dresden, Steaua Bucarest, IFK Goetheborg would be more interesting in the final stage of CL and EL than the same teams we see each year now with the actual system ?....and saying seeing Real_barcelons 8 times in a season is quite boring.........?
When Europacup was Europacup (KO-stage from the beginning with all teams), a Real_Manchester for example was a real event ! Everyone watched it and looked forward several days before for this event. Today.....bof!

The actual system killed the thrill in football.......it's quite simple

Author: Lorric
Date: 29-08-2011, 18:42
Edited by: Lorric
at: 29-08-2011, 18:47

@ JK

Just to note, if UEFA wanted the biggest, richest, most famous clubs to advance, they'd use a system like the crap the Asian Champions League uses, or to a much lesser extent the CONCACAF Champions League, not the meritocracy we have here in UEFA. Where a team like BATE Borisov can go from being unseeded in the 1st qualifying round of the Champions League 4 years ago, to seeded through all Champions League qualifying and pot 3 in the Champions League group[ stage today. Wouldn't be allowed in those other Champions Leagues, they'd still be unseeded in the first round. They'd get screwed over like the Puerto Rico Islanders do every year in the CONCACAF Champions League. But here in UEFA, we can have Real Madrid in pot B, because the system doesn't care what their name is, only their results.

Author: Malko
Date: 29-08-2011, 18:52

Lorric, I didnt say, it couldn't be worse in UEFA,.....you gave worse examples. But it could be better !
At least, UEFA uses for the seeding of European Cups every year the same criteria.....what neither UEFA nor FIFA does for the seeding of the qualifying groups for Worldcup or European nations Championahip, neither for the final tournaments. there they use every time another criteria, jhust to have seeded the teams they want to seed......sometimes it's jhust the FIFA-ranking, sometimes the last qualification rounds,sometimes the last qualification rounds and final tournaments.....jhust "a la tete du client" , like they say in France.

Author: Lorric
Date: 29-08-2011, 18:53

I kind of think of UEFA's seeding system in simple terms as like a game of king of the hill. With several hills to climb. Unseeded sides are trying to climb the hill and seeded sides on the hill will have the advantage and usually shove the unseeded sides back down the hill. But a few seeds will be pulled from the hill, and the unseeded sides will take their place. BATE Borisov again are a great example. The last 4 years they have pulled many seeds down and climbed several hills.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 29-08-2011, 19:38

@Pullmoll,
as long as it is about giving arguments about seeding there is no problem at all.
I agree with Malko that it's not interesting that we only think about Barca-Manutd or Barca-Chelsea. My conclusion has always been that I don't like more than 1 team of a country in the Champions League. Surprises can and will always happen, and it should mean something. a surprise in the GS can often not be fatal, that's apity, but acceptable, but if a countries champion is eliminated, why should a second team also have a go at the CL-title? To be honest I like it when the best teams reach the furtest, sometimes a surprise should be possible, (especially when I like the team

). Seeding is helping. And current seeding system helps the teams tha have played in Europe before, for me a very good rule.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Tirion Date: 29-08-2011, 20:05	Did anyone notice how Malko changed his opinion from 'Abandon the seeding to avoid groups of death and ridiculously easy groups' to 'I want Gladbach and Gothenburg in the final!' in the course of just this one topic?

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 31-08-2011, 10:47	Tirion, that's the particularity of a beeing human : he can listen to other arguments and modify his position, become less strict in his opinion.....

Author: KRBY
Date: 31-08-2011, 12:34

I agree that seeding must continue. Yes, a team must prove in Europe who they are, so it is a fair system. If Dortmund wanted to be more than pot 4, they should have done something more in qualifications, same with Man City. Some others teams struggled to gain those points.

What I would agree about Dortmund, being the champions, may be making the coefficient to 33%, as it was before. I don't find it too much.
Yes, a team must struggle to gain those coefficients in Europe, however, we must make more into account of how they gained the access to european competitions. It is different gaining access from Germany, rather than Belarus. So I think a fair 33% would have been enough and yes, a Pot 3 would have been fairer for Dortmund.

Btw, I am very disappointed like you for drawing against Dortmund. Olympiakos is my favourite team abroad and I share your feelings about Dortmund. The draw against Arsenal was good for both of us and if we drew from Pot 4 against another team, the battle for the other place for round of 16 would have been just against our teams.

Author: Malko
Date: 31-08-2011, 17:41

KRBY, Olypiakos is "abroad" for you...where are you from?
Myself I am from the small country of Luxembourg (who has recently beaten Switzerland ;- ), and who does a better coefficient this year than any year before. F91 Dudelange had 2 wins, Differdange a win and a draw, and so on.......and Differdange went to the 4th round of EL as the first Luxembourgish team ever.......well yes, cause Volos was eliminated, but then....Differdange went anyways to the 3rd round, and never a Luxembourgish tema did this before........so : for me, all no Luxembourgish teams are "abroad" teams, and there my favourite is FC Metz, actually in the 2nd french league.
Now seriously, concerning Olympiakos, i think it's the "less good" of the 4 teams in that group, but they often have beaten german team....so i hope the'yll beat Dortmund too and get 3rd of the group for continuing in EL. arsenal and Lille are i think out of reach.

Author: JK
Date: 31-08-2011, 19:19

@ Lorric

"Just to note, if UEFA wanted the biggest, richest, most famous clubs to advance..."

They just need to keep it the way it is!

Those teams nearly always qualify under the current rules to the CL and generally survive the group stages. I am really only speaking about the ABSOLUTE top teams.

Sure, the UEFA could make it even easier for them, but that would probably cause protests among smaller teams. So why should they risk this, if the current system already works the way they want?

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Lorric Date: 31-08-2011, 19:49	@ JK Well, if you're only talking about the very top, it would happen anyway no matter what they did. Those teams are just too far ahead of the curve for it not to. The point I'm making is the system is fair, about as fair as it could possibly be. Unlike those other confeds. Unless you oppose the actual concept of seeding itself.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 31-08-2011, 20:03	"the ABSOLUTE top teams" Who are they. I only see 5: Barcelona and Manchester United, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Lyon, Bayern. Cause it's not sure that AC Milan, Inter or Roma make it always, neither Arsenal or Marseille....

Author: KRBY
Date: 01-09-2011, 12:20

Malko,

I am from Cyprus. I misunderstood and I thought you were Marseille fan complaining about the draw with Dortmund.

Differendage success, was something that they could not imagine when they began the season I guess. If I must not mistaken they had the name Red Boys. My cypriot team has its biggest european victory against Red Boys.

I repeat, I would agree if UEFA was counting more the League that the team comes from. However the others are right about counting more the european success. My favourite would have been 33% like before.

I strongly disagree with having pots only from Top seeded. It is unfair, having absolutelly the luck of draw and might be unfair for Dortmund being in Pot 4. We could have almost a group with like APOEL, Otelul, Dinamo Zagreb and on the other Dortmund, Man City, Milan. That would have been even worse than what you are complaining about Dortmund.

FIFA in my opinion is not a good example of making tournaments. I would choose UEFA on that.

Author: Malko
Date: 01-09-2011, 13:45
Edited by: Malko
at: 01-09-2011, 13:46

Difderdange had several teams.....The was Red Boys Differdange, progres Niedercorn, AS Differdange , CS Oberkorn, Luna Oberkorn...all teams from differdange.
2 of them (Red Boys and AS Differdance) made a fusion in 2003.......and became Differdange 03.
"Red Boys" doesn't exist anymore in football, but the club still remains as a handball-team........
KRBY, you understand what I meant, starting this thread, i see........

Author: Cloakmaster
Date: 01-09-2011, 16:05

I still think seeing as it is is quite ok. i am not to happy with the acces list, which protects the top 3 nations too much. But well, that is just my view, and in the end nearly everything is about money. the TV stations wouln't pay more for TV rights in EL, because there is the possibility that no german (english, spanish, ...) team at all will play in EL-GS. That is the main reason why the top 6 cup winners will get direct access to EL-GS in the future.

On the other hand, the current procedure in CL gives the warrant, that at least two teams from q2 stage will enter GS. This year even 4 teams made their way to GS. And that's not too bad.

Mainz was seeded against Metan. Hannover unseeded against Sevilla. But what happend? Seeding does not make winners. It is still a Cup tournament. And no one is the winner before the whistle blows...

Author: Overgame
Date: 01-09-2011, 16:06

Oh, I just noticed that Malko added Lyon in the top 5 teams :p Funny as hell

Inter, winner in 2010, doesn't count

Or, perhaps, is he talking about the consecutive qualifications ?
Then, Inter is at 10 while Barcelona is only at 8 and Bayern's record is at 8 (now, they are only at 4 if I'm not mistaken, they missed one).

Or, again perhaps, is he only talking about what he thinks, and Inter, who kicked Bayern TWICE in 2 years doesn't count :p

Or, for my final perhaps, is he talking about how a team could ALWAYS qualify, and adding Lyon is the biggest joke of my day

We all know how things can go fast in France, check Lens and Monaco :p

Author: Malko
Date: 01-09-2011, 17:00

Well Overgame, I spoke of those team which every year are at least among the last 16 in the last years...... (Inter didnt).....but concerning the strengh of the moment, you can easily replace Lyon or Bayern by Inter, if you like.....

Now, you are right saying for Lyon it is much more difficult than for Inter or Bayern to qualify each year for Championship, duing to the difference between the top-teams and the rest of the league, which, as you well say, is smaller in France then in Italy. Nevertheless, in the last decade, lyon always made it.......and each time passed the groupstage. therefore, they are in that list

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: JK Date: 01-09-2011, 17:22	@ Cloakmaster "That is the main reason why the top 6 cup winners will get direct access to EL-GS in the future." When will this start?

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 01-09-2011, 17:27	I do not think this is a godd thing (cupwinners directly in Group-stage). Cupwinners are often second League temas or outsiders.......

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 01-09-2011, 17:30	ROFLMAO Yes, France is so strong that they have problems to put 3 teams in the last 16 or even 1 in the last 8 :p Do you know why French teams have so much problems ? Check how they're buildind their teams :p That's the problem in France. Lyon has a really good team in the years around 2005. But what did they do with the money ? They bought players from their opponents, becoming weaker.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: flob Date: 01-09-2011, 18:44 Edited by: flob at: 01-09-2011, 18:48	Cupwinners are often second League temas Once again, Malko against facts. Tell me how often cup winners were second league teams in the past 12 years, I'm just too lazy too look it up... OMG

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 01-09-2011, 19:42	well.....11 teams participated for example yet in a Final of Coupe de France. Even if they lose and the winner is qualified for CL, they go to EL.....

Author: Overgame
Date: 01-09-2011, 20:38

Let's check the number of teams taking the Cups spots from France since 1999 (when the C2 was removed) :

L1 = League 1, L2 = League 2.

2011 : PSG (L1)
2010 : PSG (L1)
2009 : Guingamp (L2) (as Cup Winner)
2008 : PSG (L1)
2007 : Sochaux (L1) and Bordeaux (L1)
2006 : Nancy (L1) and PSG (L1)
2005 : Starsbourg (L1) and Auxerre (L1)
2004 : Sochaux (L1) and Chateauroux (L2) (as Cup finalist)
2003 : Auxerre (L1)
2002 : Bordeaux (L1) and Lorient (L1 relegated to L2) (as Cup Winner)
2001 : Starsbourg (L1 relegated to L2) (as Cup Winner)
2000 : Nantes (L1) and Guegnon (L2) (as League Cup Winner)
1999 : Lens (L1) and Nantes (L1)

Five times a team from L2 played in UC/EL. three times in a row between 2000 and 2002, four times in 5 years between 2000 and 2004 and only one time since 2005. Only Chateauroux was qualified with the Cup Finalist spot.

If "often" is 5 times in 13 years, once in the last 7 years and for a total of 26 possibilities (there are 2 cups in France). In 2005, Malko was right, "often" one qualified was from L2. But in 2011, not really.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Cloakmaster Date: 02-09-2011, 16:20	The Top 6 cup winners of the 2012/2013 saeson will get direct acess to EL-Group stage. So next year ther will be a new qualifivcation format. I just have a link to german sports magazine "Kicker". http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/uefa/startseite/543211/artikel_Keine-Qualifi kation-mehr-fuer-DFB-Pokalsieger.html

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: JK Date: 03-09-2011, 12:45	It seems if the winner of the cup is qualified to the CL, the second place team isn't automatically qualified to the GS of the EL. They have to play in the qualification round. So I wonder, how the qualification rounds change depending on the number of 2nd place finalists.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: flob Date: 03-09-2011, 12:58 Edited by: flob at: 03-09-2011, 13:07	I bet UEFA won't change anything. In this case the best placed EL team will get the GS spot. The reason for this whole thing is to get a secured GS spot for the top 6, which makes TV rights for the group stage in these countries more lucrative / easier to sell, nothing else. JHMO

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Malko Date: 03-09-2011, 14:27	Overgame, yes, 5 times out of 13, ...for me it's often.

Author: executor
Date: 03-09-2011, 16:21
Edited by: executor
at: 03-09-2011, 16:26

flob: The reason for this whole thing is to get a secured GS spot for the top 6, which makes TV rights for the group stage in these countries more lucrative / easier to sell, nothing else.

Just out of curiosity, I looked at the last 2 seasons + this one to see what happened to the CW of Top 6 countries (used the Highest placed team if CW was qualified for CL and the same Access lists to determine Top 6). Here are the results:

2009/10

Everton         Q   seeded
Villarreal      Q   seeded
Lazio           Q   seeded
Guingamp        DNQ unseeded
Werder          Q   seeded
Amkar Perm      DNQ unseeded

2010/11

Manchester City  Q   seeded
Getafe           Q   seeded
Palermo          Q   seeded
Bayer Leverkusen Q   seeded
PSG              Q   seeded
Lokomotiv Moscow DNQ seeded

2011/12

Tottenham        Q   seeded
Sevilla          DNQ seeded
Lazio            Q   seeded
Schalke          Q   seeded
PSG              Q   seeded
Spartak Moscow   DNQ seeded

So, it looks more like UEFA wants "to secure a GS place for the Russian CW/EL1"

Apart from them, only Guingamp (unseeded team from Ligue 2, elimination was no-brainer) and Sevilla (quite a shock) failed to make it to GS. To me, it seems that the current system isn't hard for the CW/EL1 teams from Top 5 to overcome (Russia is proving they don't belong in Top 6). The future format will simply give a chance to some teams that really shouldn't play in ELGS. OK, Sevilla was out this time, but imagine the previous years with Amkar Perm, Guingamp, Lokomotiv and (for the current one) Spartak Moscow in them. The latter 2 might be big names, but they failed to qualify while seeded.

So, my vote is NO for this system

. Too bad I don't have the right to vote

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 03-09-2011, 16:34	Five times out of 26. Not my fault if you're giving a spot to the Cup. And in the last 5 years, ZERO time.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: JK Date: 03-09-2011, 16:47	@ flop "I bet UEFA won't change anything. In this case the best placed EL team will get the GS spot." What exactly do you man with this?

Author: flob
Date: 03-09-2011, 18:24
Edited by: flob
at: 03-09-2011, 20:25

@executor:

My vote is NO, too

@JK:

You wrote:
So I wonder, how the qualification rounds change depending on the number of 2nd place finalists.

I think, the number of cup losers is irrelevant.
They'll use just the same system as now:
Cup winners get the highest spot.
If the cup winner plays CL, the (in the league) highest placed EL team gets the the highest spot, which will be Group stage from next year on.

Author: Lorric
Date: 03-09-2011, 21:39
Edited by: Lorric
at: 03-09-2011, 21:40

On the Cup winners, I thought it might be to protect unusual teams from the top 6 countries that might win a cup from being unseeded and eliminated. UEFA place value on domestic cups too obviously, by putting cup winners over league place entrants. I personally agree with this for a variety of reasons, though that's another story. It makes me wonder if they want the cups in the top countries to be taken more seriously, thus the prize for winning one just got a boost. A guaranteed million in your back pocket plus at least 6 games in Europe.

They could also surprise us with a radically altered and superior format for all we know...

Author: JK
Date: 04-09-2011, 02:05
Edited by: JK
at: 04-09-2011, 02:38

@ flob

You wrote:
So I wonder, how the qualification rounds change depending on the number of 2nd place finalists.

I think, the number of cup losers is irrelevant.
They'll use just the same system as now:
Cup winners get the highest spot.
If the cup winner plays CL, the (in the league) highest placed EL team gets the the highest spot, which will be Group stage from next year on.

-----------

I thought it is CURRENTLY so, that the cup looser takes exactly the place of the cup winner and starts in the last qualification round and not earlier. So it doesn't matter on what place the cup second is in the league. The cup looser will still get priority over the other teams. At least this it what it looks like on the DFB site:
http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=3110

Otherwise it seems you are definitely right. I found this article:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=830177&cc=5739

"England, Spain, Italy, France, Germany and Russia are currently the associations who would profit from the move, although UEFA spokesman Rob Faulkner maintained that if the cup winners had qualified for the Champions League, then the runners-up would go into the qualifying tournament. The direct spot would then go to the top-placed league qualifier from the same country."

@ Lorric

I think the cup is take quite seriously in Germany. We have only knock-out games. Teams won't play two times against each other (home and away). There are no group stages. So a small team can eliminate with one good game a big team. So it is relative easy for a small team to go far. But in the end a big team normally wins the cup. Bayern for example has every year the goal to get three titles (CL, Bundesliga, DFB Cup). Other big teams also want to win the cup. I think it has a quite big prestige in Germany. Every year there is the big finale in Berlin, which are watched by millions of people in free TV. Also games of earlier rounds are watched by many, if they involve a popular team like Bayern, Dortmund, Schalke. So all in all there are usually at least a handful of big teams, which really try to win the cup and in the end eliminate the small teams. I think the promise of a direct GS place in the EL won't make a big difference in Germany, because the cup is already taken quite seriously.

And I also think it won't make a big difference in all of the countries, where the cup isn't taken seriously. I don't know, how important the cup is in Italy. But let us assume for example, it isn't important there. Do you really think a direct EL GS place would change this? Most Italian teams don't care about the EL. I have read interviews of trainers/presidents, who were happy after their team got eliminated early in the EL. A few millions are only peanuts for big teams. The EL is only lucrative for them, if they reach at least the quarter final. And for this they have to play tons of games, which takes a huge effort and may weaken the team for the league. A lot of Italian teams see the 6 GS games as a burden, which they are happy to avoid by getting eliminated soon. So a direct GS place in the EL may be for teams like these another reason not to take the cup seriously.

Author: executor
Date: 04-09-2011, 10:45

JK: thought it is CURRENTLY so, that the cup looser takes exactly the place of the cup winner and starts in the last qualification round and not earlier. So it doesn't matter on what place the cup second is in the league. The cup looser will still get priority over the other teams.

No, JK, you're wrong. CURRENTLY, the Cup final loser does not have priority over the other EL teams, unless they themselves are the highest EL team in the ranking. And it has been like that for years (since CWC was disbanded, maybe?).

Many people make this mistake, assuming that the team that qualifies through the Cup is always treated as CW. However, I don't blame them as it is a bit ambiguous. Cup losers are qualified for EL, but not in the CW spot.

Author: Malko
Date: 04-09-2011, 10:47
Edited by: Malko
at: 04-09-2011, 14:27

JK, Cup is taken very seriously in England and Germany, less in spain, not at all in France and Italy......especially that France has 2 Cups, where the "other one", the Ligue Cup, gives more money that the Coupe de France. Iw ould abolish this ligue Cup and give that money to the teams in French Cup....... . Very often, Topteams in France send B-teams to the Cups, especially, nearly never the Number-one Goalkeeper plays in Cups......
France now "protected" the european teams in Ligue Cup, they enter the competition only in the 1/8th finals.... , a round later than the other Ligue 1 teams, and 3 rounds later than the Ligue 2-teams......

Concerning "Cups" in France, you see also very often empty stadiums until the half finals...it's not quite popular there.......

Concerning Bayern, the may have three aims, but one of it, CL, gets more far away from year to year. The difference between teams like Barcelona or Manchester and teams like Bayern 8for example) gets bigger from year to year, as long as the others get players like Abidal, Benzema , and Bayern only Riberys....he was awful vs Albania, really awful.... remeber that it's now for more than 10 years that the last time a German team won any European Cup.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: flob Date: 04-09-2011, 13:36	JK, like executor said, it has been like this for many years, but a lot of people don't know that. Example from this year are f.e. US Palermo, cup finalist in Italy, had to play Q3, because they were below Lazio and Roma in the league. Same with Alania Vladikavkas and some others.

Author: Lorric
Date: 04-09-2011, 14:17
Edited by: Lorric
at: 04-09-2011, 14:26

@ JK

Me, I'm English. In general, the FA Cup is treated with respect, but we also have two cup competitions here, and the league cup sees more B teams put out than the FA Cup. Teams sometimes prioritise the Premier League over the cups, though for the most part the FA Cup is taken seriously, even the League Cup is treated with a respectable degree of seriousness I'd say.

I also know that Italian teams treat the Coppa Italia as a joke. Even an irritation. I think Inter, Roma and maybe one or two other teams take it seriously though. I think 5 of the last 6 finals have been Roma vs Inter. I believe this is down to the final being held at Roma's ground (which would suggest Lazio also would take it seriously as they ground share, and the 6th of these finals was won by Lazio.) Inter, with their until recently dominance of serie a, and until recently early CL exits I expect could afford to commit resources to the Coppa Italia.

I hate the Coppa Italia. The DFB Cup is the exact opposite of it, and my favourite domestic cup after the English cups.

The Italian stance on the Europa League really surprises/puzzles me. Ever since the UEFA Cup became the Europa League, English teams have taken it very seriously. Even Manchester City, despite their deceptive results, fielded full strength sides when in it. I was shocked that even Birmingham managed to win their tie after being relegated out of the EPL. They're looking at a 46 game regular season, which you'd surely think would take absolute priority to get back to the EPL, plus two domestic cups, and they still take the Europa League challenge on. Stoke won their two qualifying rounds. Fulham, starting from the 1st qualifying round fielded full strength teams from the start when everyone expected them not to. There was talk of Tottenham going with reserves against Hearts and they went full strength. I just don't understand the Italian teams. But I love the English teams taking it seriously and going further than usual in recent times. Meanwhile we see Palermo going out to Thun and Roma going out to Slovan. Then Stoke crushed Thun.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: JK Date: 04-09-2011, 18:56	So it seems the DFB site was unclear in this regard and you all are right, that the cup looser won't be treated like the cup winner. I also found this rule on Bert Kassies site now.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Cloakmaster Date: 08-09-2011, 19:25	I thought the rule was pretty clear: the cup winner gets the best availabl EL spot. if a loosing cup finalist may enter EL beacuse the cup winner is playing CL, the loosing cup finalist will get the weakest spot available. Exeption: a fair play spot will not count. these are for fair play teams only.

Author: panda
Date: 15-09-2011, 15:48

I believe that another reason UEFA has such strict seeding is political.

UEFA of course want to stop a breakaway superleague happening. And this is the way to make it is most guaranteed for the biggest clubs to have a lot of European club football.

There is no right or wrong there - or rather, it is of course wrong in idealistic terms, and right if you think UEFA have to compromise to stop any such breakaway.

I believe that in this forum and forum2 there are plenty of threads where romantics like ignjat63 argue for the totally unseeded KO format of the old days.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: ignjat63 Date: 15-09-2011, 22:13	"...romantics like ignjat63..." Really nice way to put it. I thought I was becoming a pain in the butt.

Author: panda
Date: 20-09-2011, 11:27

Of course the KO format is more romantic - it throws up many individual stories, and often they are of a small team making a great cup run.

But domestically (where cups are typically that KO format), certainly here in the UK, that means fans are glad the cup is not the only thing, that there is a more 'objective' measure of who deserves to win in the all-play-all-twice league.

The hybrid formats we get in Europe (not to mention the co-eff) system are also a simple result that we can't have such a league in Europe with 64 play 128 matchdays, nor indeed even 2 European competitions in one season for the team.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 20-09-2011, 16:10

All true, but there is no any reason for having a League competition in Eurocups while the clubs stay in their own national Leagues. It brings us to the main reason why CL GS was introduced in the first place in 1992 - even 20 years ago football was becoming business first and sport second. Other than that, there is no reason, excuse or justification for CL GS (fake league stage) today. Withing the "realm of sport".

Why? Because the QRs are straight KO, and from the last 16 on, it is a straight KO. Only within elimination of 32 to 16 (one straight KO stage) we have inserted a "prolonged KO round" which has the same effect (cutting the number of participants in half). In my humble view, it breaks the logic of the competition.

But so does the transfer of losers from one competition to the other which they can then win and count as competition winners. Talk about Kafkianesque absurdity. The fact that many people approve of it does not make it right.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 20-09-2011, 16:15	A system with KO qRounds, Group Stage for the first round and KO for the later stages is used in many tournaments in many (e)-sports.

Author: panda
Date: 20-09-2011, 16:33

Of course such a format makes sense for things like the World cup, where you have to travel to one place. But I agree, there are marketing / money considerations both of wanting to sell more european games and guaranteeing the GS clubs more European games.

I must admit I find it kind of fun to have those 6 GS nights (I agree that the cascade into the EL of the 3d places seems a bit unsatisfactory, and yet, it gives a bit of spice to the 3 v 4th place contest.

A straight KO would be over quite quickly now we are used to the GS format....

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: ignjat63 Date: 20-09-2011, 16:43	"A system with KO qRounds, Group Stage for the first round and KO for the later stages is used in many tournaments in many (e)-sports." Unfortunately. Look at basketball EC. You had groups of 6 and top 4 went through. How can that be a reasonable format of competition! It is not only football.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: panda Date: 20-09-2011, 18:33	yeah, it can be a big pain in sports like rugby and cricket where there are a few established nations and then loads of emerging or less good ones. The authorities encourage these by having long tournaments where even the rookies get a lot of games. But the real interest often only comes about much later in the tournament.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 20-09-2011, 20:20	Exactly, Panda. Let's take Belgium in basketball. Even when they can qualify, they are trashed by most of the teams in the final tournament. What could they do, if they had only 4/5 games per years ?

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: ignjat63 Date: 20-09-2011, 20:46	That is what I am talking about. Spain, Russia, Greece, Lithuania have to play 8 games in 10 days so that Belgium (or whoever) could get some experience.

Author: Lorric
Date: 20-09-2011, 21:02
Edited by: Lorric
at: 20-09-2011, 21:04

I like seeing a mix of good teams play many games against opposition they wouldn't normally face. It is good these teams are allowed to face each other. Group stages also see that rather than just any 16, mostly the best 16 will advance to the KO rounds, which is good. I was with Cloakmaster in advocating a group stage to qualify for the group stage on here a short while ago.

I would also love World Cups and European Cups to not be hosted and instead be played in home and away games. The vuvezalas destroyed the atmosphere at South Africa and Qatar will be the worst World Cup ever. It would be difficult to find a workable system though. Maybe something where an elite few are involved in a league system for the title, and by getting that far automatically qualified for the next tournament, while everyone else is busy qualifying for the next one.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 21-09-2011, 08:05

Off-topic, this post.

Back there in the 80s (and before), if someone suggested that teams that lose at some stage of CC should be transferred to UEFA cup or CWC to get a second chance they would be ridiculed. Now most people have nothing against it, many think it is a great idea. Or at least, not a bad one.

If someone suggested then, that CC should be tailored to satisfy the interests of few richest clubs, people would be horrified. Now they approve of it as it is now accepted that those clubs would be missed in the quarterfinals and is not fair that they should be out sooner.

So what has changed? The world? The fans? The values? Is it really too much to ask these days that a competition of best European clubs should have some kind of dignity? To me at least (and I am not an overly serious person) arguments like "I like it, so it is a good idea" or "It is fun so it is great" have a ring of infantility to them. It is more like children talking in the playground than discussing what should be a serious competition.

To me, the line was crossed by UEFA when losers were transferred to another cup. With that, they turned their own competitions into a circus (nothing wrong with that, I could say - Circuses are fun and I like them so it is a great idea). Maybe that is what has really changed - these days the most important thing is to keep everyone happy most of the time - the days when you competed on equal terms and had to accept the loss are certainly gone.

Author: KRBY
Date: 21-09-2011, 10:15

Why not to have that chance? To get it they fought for it, like playing in the last qualification round, it means the club fought to be in that round, or at least to be 3rd in group, it is something that makes the club deserving the position.

Imagine now clubs like Udineze saying bye bye Europe from now. Playing just 2 games. That would be unfair. It is like punishing the club for playing in the CL. while some others will continue playing because they play in Europa.

Don't confuse the past decades because that time, there was not big difference between the european cups. That time playing playing in the Round of 16, a team could eliminate a Maltese team while now you must pass from groups. I was always wondering, what I could consider better achievement. Someone can say that passing in nowdays the qualification round and enter groups, is better achievement than passing one round (which could be against a Maltese team) and play in Round of 16 in CC. We could see Man Utd, Barca, Real in CWC or UEFA Cup. We speak for very different competitions.

What I found it rediculus, are the new changes of Platini, despite that for my country is a very great benefit. The 3rd qualification (which is actually 2nd since the first should not be counted but called something else since it has just 4 teams) to play in Europa Play offs and the CL play offs to the Europa Groups. With that rule, a team may pass a rediculous team and qualify to groups, even if the league they won is not so good.

In 3rd qualification round of Europa some teams play very tough games and pass to play offs, like Thun against Palermo, Trnava against Levski, Rabotninski against Anorthosis and last year Maccabi against Olympiakos. It is unfair those teams that passed a tough round and they r worthy in play offs, and some others to be again to play offs just because they won a weak league and eliminated a weak team in 3rd qualification like TNS last year or this year Zestafoni.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 21-09-2011, 11:01

"Why not to have that chance?"

The reason is very simple indeed. The teams lose. Other teams win and go on to play in following rounds. Losing teams should be out. Ought to be as simple as that.

Today, you have the seeding system, you have better team starting late, many clubs have direct access and if they still do not make it through groups it is considered unfair or unlucky? Poor them, they should deserve to go on!

But my post was not about that. I was only wondering how things came to be this way - that people so readily accept all kinds of perverted innovations that make the system a mockery.

Author: executor
Date: 21-09-2011, 11:27

ignjat63: So what has changed? The world?

Errr... YEAH!! I mean, just look around you and compare it to what it was in the 80s (and before). Just take the Internet explosion for a start. Back then, the Top clubs didn't have so many ways of making money. Their exposure was limited to TV (and not many people behind the Iron Curtain had access to Western media), radio and newspapers. Nowadays, they're everywhere. So that means more ways of making money.

Plus there's also an inflation of teams. Before, the USSR and SFR Yugoslavia sent a TOTAL of 10 (?) teams in Eurocups. Try to calculate how many more teams we have now from the same areas.

The Cold War is also history, there's a lot more freedom regarding traveling, more relaxed rules about migration, more money ... You just can't expect football to be the same when the world changed radically.

This doesn't mean I defend the current system. But I understand why it changed. It's exactly like the "parents-children" conflict. Those born in the 60s regret that their children don't play exactly the way they did back then and spend most of their time in front of the computer. But I would bet 1,000,000 $ that if Microsoft, the Internet and the PC would've appeared in the 40s, the exact same persons would've done what their children are doing now. Just like those people born in the 20s didn't like the "music revolution" of the 50s and wailed about how their children strayed from "the tradition".

You can't expect every generation to behave like the previous ones. Otherwise we'd be stuck on the same level. The society is "doomed" to progress and, with it, the way Eurocups are organized. Sorry, ignjat, but there's is absolutley nothing you can do about it. The exposure Top teams get today and the huge revenues that come with it are no match for what it was in the 80s. So they'll do everything in their power to squeeze as much money as possible.

That's why the Eurocups changed.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: ignjat63 Date: 21-09-2011, 11:44	All true, Executor. Perfectly understandible. It is that as a football lover, I make my case that football has changed for the worse. Progress does not always mean for the better. No amount of money should account for such a mess of the Eurocups format.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 21-09-2011, 11:54	Sorry,n but when was the last time a "richest teams" went far in the UC/EL after an elimination in the CL ? And don't give me names like Porto, unless, for you, a "rich team" = a "western team".

Author: panda
Date: 21-09-2011, 11:56

yeah - I have to agree, executor.

everything has changed the same way - the Olympics, tennis, even cricket.

same with a lot of non-sport things - shopping, food etc.

when I go to countries or regions that have managed to preserve what seem like old values (there are parts of the UK including islands off the coast of Scotland, and actually Vienna has that feel, also parts of ex-East Germany), when I watch films from the 70s, I feel great nostalgia.

but let's also remember - since the beginning of time things were always "better in the old days."

actually overall, I think (non-sport) things are better today, and as far as I respond to football, it is with exactly the same enthusiasm as I had as a child......there, nothing has changed.

IMHO, the formats we have, though, yeah, far from ideal, are indeed a reasonable compromise.....

Author: Lorric
Date: 21-09-2011, 20:06
Edited by: Lorric
at: 21-09-2011, 20:07

@ ignjat63

For me the format is the best it's ever been. Why would you want to go back? It would all be over in the blink of an eye by today's standards. I don't want that, I want to see lots of matches between teams from different countries, and track the different countries jockeying for position and privilege on here. And you still get straight KO in all the comps except for a group stage in the middle. As executor says, the World has changed. The only reason it wasn't done that way before was because it wasn't viable before. If they could have done it back then and made that money, they would have. Money talks, and this money says this is what people want to see. But I like to see all these different teams playing. I don't want to have nearly the entire field wiped out with me only getting to see a handful of teams. How is anyone supposed to make a name for themselves, how are stories on the field supposed to develop except for the teams which get to the very end?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 21-09-2011, 20:28
Edited by: ignjat63
at: 21-09-2011, 20:30

Sometimes I think I am speaking Chinese (Mandarin or whatever), Arabic or Martian...

I never ever said I wanted to go back. Never. Or that I am at a loss to comprehend those changes you are talking about. I wondered how is it that the notion of sportsmanship has changed. How is it that the notion of what makes a sensible, decent competition has changed. How is it that what used to be unimaginable only two decades ago now came to be desirable. It is not about more matches. It is not even about money. If most of todays football followers think it desirable and even normal to have the losers from one cup have a chance to win another cup than it is not just a small change - it is that the values of sportsmanship, ethics of sports, have gone upside down. It is this part (and other things of the sort) that I cannot accept. Of course, that is my own problem. But I just love football too much not to care about it.

Author: Lorric
Date: 21-09-2011, 20:59
Edited by: Lorric
at: 21-09-2011, 21:02

Well you won't be too fond of me then, as I was advocating (and still do) having all CL losers from the qualifiers drop to the Europa League. The Europa League has a lot of unflattering nicknames, but I kind of think of it as the second chance cup. In a good way. It's the cup for the teams which aren't good enough for the Champions League, but good enough to be a worthwhile competition, so whether a team gets in because their qualifying position was below the Champions League places, or gets in because they were weeded out of the Champions League, I see no distinction, or problem with that. It's just another part of the qualifying process for entry into the Europa League. Their entry adds quality, diversity and spice to the Europa League, especially with the teams dropping from the Champions Path.

I was mainly going by what Panda had to say "I believe that in this forum and forum2 there are plenty of threads where romantics like ignjat63 argue for the totally unseeded KO format of the old days." The line which kind of "summoned" you into the topic.

A team relegated from the Premier League can win the Championship next season. A team "relegated" from the Champions League can win the Europa League. It's the same kind of thing in my eyes. Why is it a bad thing?

And of course, it greatly helps to eliminate dead rubbers or matches where a team needs points vs. a team which doesn't care from the CL group stage. A very wise decision in my eyes.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 22-09-2011, 06:15

"Why is it a bad thing?"

I cannot answer that because your comparison with Premiership relegation and Championship promotion shows that Eurocups for you and for me are two conceptually different things. What is the same thing in your eyes for me is absolute absurdity. So, let us leave it at that.

Anyway, about my views on seeding. I did say that I would always vote against it but I can live with it. I did argue however, that best teams are overprotected. 22 of them do not participate QRs so they cannot fail to qualify. 22 is far too much. Others start at later stages in QRs. Plus there is seeding all the way. I would accept seeding if all the teams had to participate QRs and had to start from the 1st QR (perhaps 2nd, to allow to get to the degree of 2).

Author: Lorric
Date: 22-09-2011, 11:42
Edited by: Lorric
at: 22-09-2011, 11:47

@ ignjat63

If you want to change my views, then you're right, you'd very likely be wasting your time explaining it to me. But I am still curious about how you see it all the same. It's up to you if you say anything.

I've said it before on here (not to you) and I'll say it again, those teams aren't being protected, the other teams are being protected from them. Taking those teams out of it gives other teams much more of a chance despite the reduced places. They took 6 teams which would normally just qualify anyway, often by heavy margins, out of the qualifying. And the lesser teams were afforded more protection by being kept away from the big teams that remain in qualifying. For me, everyone wins. I always feel particularly sorry for the team that draws a Premier League team in Champions League qualifying. They never lose. Swiss 2nd place team has had it rough, Tottenham last year, Bayern Munich this year. The qualifying round is simply beneath some teams, and unfair for the teams which are drawn against them.

They should do the same thing for Asian World Cup qualifying. I've said that before somewhere too.

There is no such dominance in the Europa Leage though, by anyone. So I was fine with everyone having to fight for places in the group stage.

Author: panda
Date: 22-09-2011, 12:00

I think tournaments, and that includes season-long ones, do indeed try and protect participants and spectators as much as possible from the 'blink of an eye' phenomenon.

E.g. rowing has repechage - losers get together and winner of the losers can get another chance
Wimbledon (don't know about other big tennis tournaments) has the 'plate' a competition for 1st round losers.

That is the same idea as having seeding to keep the supposedly best teams apart - there can only be an unseeded FA Cup here because there is also the league.

But again I have to return to executor's point - it is the world that has changed.

I mean, look at the now elastic relationship between players, clubs and nationalities (again, not just in football). If I support a club, maybe it doesn't have even one person of the country that club is in playing in the starting XI. I go back 50 years, even less, and I find that the club consisted of players not just from that country, but that city (e.g. the great Celtic side of the 60s). Players change clubs for better money without thinking twice, since they think of it (and so do the courts, post-Bosman) as a job. Sports people change nationality if they can compete for a weaker country and therefore get more individual chances, at the same time the movement of people means that 'indigenous' people now can be of many ethnicities.

Personally, I think sport IS as romantic as before, just differently so, just as we can be as articulate and as strong a community through forums, and PHP as in the old days sitting round a table.

Yes, of course change causes losses, and important ones, but there is progress too - and for me, that means I got the chance to meet and interact with all of you great guys - such a forum and such a rewarding subject as the coefficients and formats would likewise not be possible without the changes of the last 50 yrs.

Author: Lorric
Date: 22-09-2011, 12:49
Edited by: Lorric
at: 22-09-2011, 12:52

@ Panda

What you describe with clubs is the reason I don't support a club team. I support the England national teams. I support English clubs in Europe, but this is only because they contain English players, and the vast majority of English players ply their trade in England. If a foreign football club lined up against an English one and the foreign club contained more English National Team calibre players, I would root for the foreign club. It's never happened though. The club games are merely a vehicle for preparing players for National Team competition to me, and the further those players progress in Europe, the better for them and the better for England.

I do think there should be protection from the one game and you're out thing as much as is possible. It's sad to spend a whole season qualifying for something, only to get dumped out straight off. I also think people should get away from the mentality that anything other than winning a trophy is absolute failure. A mentality prevalent in many other England supporters. It's still worthwhile beating teams and making progress even if you don't take the cup. I enjoy every England victory, whether vs. Argentina or Andorra. But others can't seem to enjoy wins in qualifiers or friendlies, it's like that part of the tournaments doesn't exist.

Well, that went off topic, but there you go.

Author: panda
Date: 22-09-2011, 13:14

1) Yeah- if you support a less good team (and are interested in European matches), presumably you would not want that team only to play one tie in Europe, maybe UEFA are also thinking about that as well as the obvious concerns of money, marketing and teams themselves.

2) My club loyalties were formed as a child, I don't think I could ever change them - but for sure it's anomalous in England - so many foreign players in England and so few English players playing abroad.

But yes, in respect of the 'mercenary' situation, I am with the 'romantics' - it's a shame there is either very little connection between the club and the locality, or that such organic clubs (e.g. the new Wimbledon AFC and FC United) are minnows.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Lorric Date: 22-09-2011, 13:22 Edited by: Lorric at: 22-09-2011, 13:22	@ Panda It would simply be impossible to make clubs only lay players from the population centre they reside in. The best they can do is have the players connect with the fanbase and do things in the local community, and maybe be fan owned and fan run. The clubs you mention are on the rise. You can bet if they rise high enough they'll look like any other club.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 22-09-2011, 13:33

@Lorric

This discussions are not about changing anybody’s views, Or, as you put it “not being too fond of you” or anybody else.

I have discovered this forum about 7 years ago. During this time we have discussed all possible and imaginable aspects of the game inside out and we are all over Europe, so I have had a great chance to get a very good idea what many people from other parts of the continent think about it all. That is the value of this forum. Exchanging the views. Looking at things from different perspectives. After so many years I think of people from this forum as my virtual friends. Even those I strongly disagree with (like Overgame, for example).

And it helped me get much better bigger picture, so to speak. I did change my views as to why things have to be a certain way in football today. However, those things leave me with a big question mark. If the things have changed to such an extent (and they did) then the concept of the Eurocups has become outdated (obsolete I think is the word) and should be more radically changed. Not even that – the time has come (precisely because the world has changed so dramatically) to abolish those two cups and create some other ones that would be more in tune with the things as they are today. That is why I am critical to CL and EC formats today – I think there are lots of bad compromises which make these cups rather senseless. Most of the others think those compromises good. My most basic point – every new change supposed to be a compromise makes things worse, not better.

As you are curious about how I see it, I will summarize my views as concisely as I can.

As we have witnessed, Benfica drew their match against Man Utd. The fact that Man Utd played with their B team in their toughest group match and drew easily against such an opponent, in my eyes proves the following point – the span of strength of European champions is now so big that it does not make any more sense to have the likes of Barca, Milan, Man Utd etc and on the other hand, Valleta, Tre fiori, Santa Coloma in the same competition. Other important reason for this – TV spectators do not want to see matches between the very strong and weak teams (this has been established in earlier discussions on this forum).

So I suggested that CL be abolished. What I believe should be more in accord with the things as they are today – a competition between 32 top European teams from UEFA’s list playing in exactly the same format as they play from CL GS on. 8 groups of 4, KO matches from the last 16 on. I find much hypocrisy towards weaker teams now of the – we do not want you in CL but we still want you to play - kind. On some topic in the other forum we have checked it – since 2000/2001 season not one team from the country ranked below 30th place (23 out of 53 countries – hardly a small percentage) never made it to CL GS. And during this time, only about 10 or so teams from countries ranked below 20. That means that CL has become a top countries (and top teams) competition, that the whole QR system is a sham, and that the new reality must be accepted in more radical fashion than now.

Another cup should be introduced with teams from all countries whose format could be discussed

Author: Lorric
Date: 22-09-2011, 13:56

@ ignjat63

Well that's nice, I certainly wouldn't mind having a few virtual friends on here. I used the site for years, but didn't know the forum existed until recently.

Anyway though, I don't see how you could do the whole best 32 thing. How would clubs move in and out of the top 32? Plus, the Champions League gives you a top 32 anyway. Part of what you said is why I'd like to see all teams eliminated in CLQ drop to the Europa League. And I'm not sure what changes could be made, because it's expensive to fly teams and all their staff around. And the money difference between the CL and EL is vast. Anything lower level than these two cups would not be financially viable. National teams work because even small nations will pack a stadium and buy up the merchandise, and when they play large nations, their fans come along in the thousands, and the TV deal can be sold for good money. But small nations' clubs cannot do the same.

Me, I do want the smaller clubs in the CL. As long as it's the Champions League, the Champions should have a shot.

I don't know if you watched the match, but Benfica were the side who would have been least happy with a draw. Man U didn't draw that match easily.

Did you check for the Europa League too? I wondered when Ireland got it's first European group stage qualifier this year how many nations have never graced a group stage?

Bottom line though, if every failed team from the CL dropped into the EL, you'd have your cup for all the other teams anyway. And that is something you thought absurd.

Author: panda
Date: 22-09-2011, 14:29

I dunno that it is so bad, ignjat63.

There is nothing to be done about the power of money here - only if you can be Man City (or Chelsea before them) can you buy your way into the top group. but in most countries the domestic league is skewed too, with a few big clubs that always win most things.

But there is still a pyramid system where clubs promote and relegate. The Cl and EL qualifications and format just try to emulate this when a true multi-national league can by definition never be possible.

I know the Man U team for Benfica really upset you, but I think in ANY competition that has GS, let alone any environment where teams are playing in more than one competition, there is squad rotation.

Things often depend in England on how hard or important the previous and next league games are, and that is chance, really.

There are simply too many games to play your A team all the time.

Yes, you can see that as a fault of the GS format; I believe the fact remains, though, that football is a sport where upsets can happen more easily than in most sports, because one goal is such a big % of the average all goals in a match, compared to say a point in tennis or a basket in basketball.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 22-09-2011, 15:23

Well Lorric, in my imagined cups, there would be coefficients too, and top teams doing badly would lose points, teams from the other cup could earn points so the teams would go from one cup to another. Actually, it would be something to the effect of your promotion-relegation analogy, like two-tier cups. What I find absurd is to make such promotion-relegation (if it can be called that) within the same season, which is happening now.

The fact that no such changes will be implemented, never stopped us here discussing different possibilities of formats before. Everybody is entitled to their "This is what I would like..." fantasy.

Author: Dwijaya
Date: 24-09-2011, 14:57

UEFA cannot stop seeding.

Seeding makes some match interesting. How? Well, I've seen historical results from Champions League, Cup Winners' Cup, & UEFA Cup/European League. And I've found out that, the seeding one not always win the match (sorry, I can't pick one for an example).

So, don't freak out because UEFA seeding teams to play in their competition. How do you feel when you saw your team is unseeded but can win the game?

Well, that's all folks.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: JK Date: 25-09-2011, 08:58	@ Lorric I also think that all clubs, which failed during the CL qualification, should get the chance to qualify for the EL GS.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 25-09-2011, 13:07
Edited by: ignjat63
at: 25-09-2011, 13:11

I think that this transferring of losers from CL to EL seriously violates the integrity of the clubs already competing in EL.

So why not have a third cup, that could be named something to the effect of "Losers' delight", "Fans' consolation" or even "Justice in motion", in which all the losers from both cups from every stage could participate and even some clubs voted by all the fans from over the world by SMS stating what clubs deserve to compete in Europe but failed to qualify to both CL and EL. So we could have a cup that could last till the end of june thus saving us from the no football between the seasons boredom.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 25-09-2011, 16:21	In many e-sports, the biggest tournament are "double-élimination tournament". UEFA is just using something similar.

Author: JK
Date: 25-09-2011, 17:54

@ ignjat63

"I think that this transferring of losers from CL to EL seriously violates the integrity of the clubs already competing in EL."

The losers of the 3rd and 4th qualification round of the CL already play in the EL. Why not the losers of the 1st and 2nd round? Among them are better teams than the ones in the 1st and 2nd qualification round of the EL. In a way the champions of the weaker countries are punished. They have no chance in hell to qualify to the GS of the CL, but on the other hand can't take part in the EL, where they may have a bigger chance. Even if they didn't make it to the GS of the EL, they would have at least more international games. That is also a reward for becoming champion in their home leagues.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 25-09-2011, 19:30

I'll rephrase my statement independently of Cl/EL.

"I think that transferring of losers from competition A to competition B seriously violates the integrity of the clubs already competing in competition B."

Maybe, as Overgame says, it has become a common practice in many sports, but I do not have to accept it as fair. There were many discussion about UEFA undermining their own competitions. Two of them were even abolished (CWC and Intertoto). That kind of saved UEFA cup's integrity as it was made at one point the dumping ground for teams all over the place. Transferring of teams is the only thing left to do away with, and the formats could almost be bearable.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 26-09-2011, 14:13

Transferring of 3rd placed teams from groups I agree is terrible. Or at least it seriously undermines the value of the ELGS when at least a few teams that will be among the favorites to win the thing parachute in from another competition part-way through.

Teams that lose in the CL qualifiers crossing over is fine to me. Indeed it makes sense as you might assume that at least some of the teams that lose in the CL qualifiers are better than those starting in the EL.

Yes some of the group 3rds (and even 4ths) might be better too but it's a big difference to me if the transfers happen before the main body of the competition begins.

For the lower-ranked countries - if necessary to make the EL qualifiers manageable - I'd rather see the 4th place team eliminated from Europe completely & the Champions get a second shot. After all - if you discount the IT place - before the 2009-10 season countries from 22 down "only" had 3 European places.

The line doesn't have to be that high. Right now there are 19 CLQ losers that don't get another shot in the EL. So - with Liechtenstein & countries 52 & 53 keeping their current spots countries from 32 down would lose a EL spot. It would also be nice to have a significant promotion/relegation spot in the rankings lower than country 15.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: panda Date: 26-09-2011, 15:52	currently the rugby union world cup is going on. there are some painful matches in the group stages between established countries and emerging ones. there are also some weird cases where a weak country has played reserves against a strong country because its ambition is to beat the other weak team in the same group and not finish last. No solution to this.....

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: JK Date: 26-09-2011, 18:04	@ panda There is a solution. Make a world cup with less teams. Not that rugby has anything to do with this thread.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Lorric Date: 26-09-2011, 19:36	@ JK If anything the World Cup is the other teams' day in the sun, as they are largely shunned and iced out of everything by the big teams the rest of the time and their development is stifled. It's a lot more complicated than that. But anyway, the thread is about football.

Author: JK
Date: 26-09-2011, 20:29

@ Lorric

I am really not interested in rugby. I have never seen more than snippets of a game in my whole life. But if there are a lot of very uncompetitive games in a world cup, you can only make it more competitive with less weak teams. If they are some other interests involved, like promoting a sport in more countries, you have to decide what is more important: competitive, close games or the promotion of the sport. I guess the rugby sport chose the later option, after reading panda's comment.

Author: ignjat63
Date: 26-09-2011, 20:45
Edited by: ignjat63
at: 26-09-2011, 20:47

It is interesting, this argument that it is good that little ones have a chance to play against stronger teams for experience's sake - is not that the argument also for abolishment of seeding?

Let's say there is no seeding in CL and EL KO stages, and only in GSs. Little teams cannot beat several strong ones in a row, they could beat perhaps one. So, they cannot go far even with some luck in the draw. The top teams, almost all of them will get to the later stages anyway. But not seeding would enable little teams and especially middle strong teams to gather some experience by playing a few matches against teams of equal strength or slightly better.

With seeding it is more boring than interesting for a neutral. Teams of middle strength, that could be a surprise, in the first round or two play against weaker teams that are not really a challenge, but then come against stronger teams and lose most of the time. We are lucky if we have a surprise or two.

So, another point - seeding makes a competition boring (not only football). Look at the excitement of domestic cups - no seeding, one leg only, plenty of surprises...One follows every stage of the cups like these, as opposed to say, tennis at the 4 big ones - most people start following those from the quarterfinals. CL and EL too.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Lorric Date: 27-09-2011, 00:33	@ JK It's still not that simple. But even I'm not really the person to ask, and you're not interested anyway. The Rugby World Cup is the only thing in Rugby that interests me, and I don't even understand the rules of the game properly.

Author: Lorric
Date: 27-09-2011, 00:46

@ ignjat63

You can never decide a champion of a country with a domestic cup though. Domestic cups can add spice like this because you have the league system. Thus, you can't do that with European competition either.

I think it would help if you stop treating them as seperate competitions. Of course, they are seperate competitions, but they're intertwined. The qualifying process for both tournaments is the same (domestic leagues and cups). Teams drop from the CL to the EL. The coefficients work the same for both competitions. The CL even has it's bonus points structured to take the EL into account. You didn't like my analogy before, but basically the CL is European Division 1, and the EL is European Division 2. It would be nice if the winner of European Division 2 earned a "promotion" into European Division 1 next season

I actually do have a middle ground suggestion that I'd like to see in the EL/CL - permanent coefficient stealing in the qualifying rounds. Take out a team that would be seeded all the way through? The team that did it should get seeded all the way through. If they were beaten though, I wouldn't have their conqueror take that inflated coefficient. Coefficients reset at the group stage.

The only thing which bugs me in the Europa League is the Champions League group stage dropouts being split between the pots. I believe they should be put in a seperate pot, and drawn against each other. Then there'd be 4 left for the open draw in the last 16, and group winners wouldn't be "rewarded" by having to face a team which drops down, potentially a strong one from a strong group that didn't make the seeded pot.

Personally I would dislike European competition without seeding. I certainly enjoy the FA Cup without it, and would be set against it if they wanted to seed the FA Cup, I loathe the Coppa Italia, which is the opposite and seeded right through, and seeded heavilly. Not only that, but the seeds get to play at home. With the top 8 coming in at the last 16 stage. But Europe is a different thing. You would see teams getting a grossly unfair deal and other teams getting a free ride. And with the money involved, this could unfairly give someone a huge advantage in their own domestic league that they didn't earn, they just got lucky by being fed some weak teams.

Author: panda
Date: 27-09-2011, 11:04

1) sorry if I put the rugby comment in without more context. Basically it was to comment on the idea that in a part-GS, part-KO format, the GS were often put in a) to spin the competition out and b) to give more chances of playing matches at all to weak / emerging nations

2) actually, there is an issue here also about different sports. It's often said that the chance of an upset in football is greater than in a lot of other sports, because 1 goal has such a big effect. So a KO football tournament is that much more exciting than unseeded in a lot of other sports. So again, you'd have to say that the primary motivation for seeding etc in these competitions is for TV reenue, protect the interests of the big clubs, stop breakaway etc etc.

3) I have to agree that the "cascade" format and the position of the CL GS 3rds when they drop to the EL feels a bit wrong. Not even sure about the champions / non-champions paths. But the format-makers have my sympathy here - can't think of an ideal format....

Author: ignjat63
Date: 27-09-2011, 12:46

“You can never decide a champion of a country with a domestic cup though. Domestic cups can add spice like this because you have the league system. Thus, you can't do that with European competition either.”

I believe this is a flawed way of thinking. If I understand correctly you imply that only a league can determine which is the best European team? That essentially maybe true, but that was never the point of CC and could never be measured with the present CL GS. 8 groups of 4 are not really format to determine European champion. Remember, CL is a KO competition with one league stage inserted. It is not a league. Or perhaps I have misinterpreted your comparison. In which case I apologize.

It is quite all right to compare the formats of different sports. As good old Kipling said:”What do they know of football who only football know?”

I think we begin to repeat ourselves. I would not mind the cups to be intertwined, even promotion relegation from one cup to another would be all right, but not within the same season . That is in disharmony with my sense of fair play and the competition/teams integrity.

And yes – in my humble view, seeding does make a competition uninteresting. QR stages certainly. The GS also – the only thing I can follow is whether Basel can surprise Benfica, and the same in other groups. And at the end of GS to see which teams are relegated to EL so I can cheer against them. To follow more than that is pointless as come quarters, all the usual suspects will be there anyway.

That is why I mentioned tennis. I never actually follow it the first week. It really gets interesting from the quarterfinals just like CL. And EL too. Because of the seeding.

Author: panda
Date: 27-09-2011, 13:11

just to play devil's advocate re: seeding -

1) straight KO cup - yeah, of course one is more or less guaranteed some fascinating and big clashes each round, but one is not, sadly ALSO guaranteed big matches in the later stages. If I think of the FA Cup in England, there are often one-sided SF and final, because the random draw has made one side stronger than the other.

2) following tennis? I think there is a difference here, and that is tennis is played by individuals, one cannot by definition replace them. So there are always new stars appearing and old ones declining (the actual men's tennis situation has been distorted by the long-term domination of Federer, then Nadal, now Djokovic, such that very few in the top 100 are really young) and each big tournament therefore has its share of shocks and 'seeds out' in the same way as it has a lot of boring one-sided matches. If one is a tennis fan, I think those shocks equate to the big ties in early rounds of a KO football cup. But because those 3 male players are so good, they get to the last 4 all the time so by chance, current tennis is more 'predictable.'

Author: Dwijaya
Date: 29-09-2011, 15:41

I wonder why the club in which won the domestic cup cannot join the Champions League. I mean, they were champion(s), isn't they?

And why the 3rd rank on group stage join UL, that makes UL is losers' cup if one of them won the competition, isn't it?

Why UEFA set Champions League for the champions only? So, this seeding stuff will not exist, no more. Just draws all the champions equally, so they can proof who is the real champion.

Money beats football?

Oooh, so many questions.

Author: KRBY
Date: 11-10-2011, 16:16

"Back there in the 80s (and before), if someone suggested that teams that lose at some stage of CC should be transferred to UEFA cup or CWC to get a second chance they would be ridiculed. Now most people have nothing against it, many think it is a great idea. Or at least, not a bad one." ignjat63

I want to remind that back much from 1980s, in 1959-60, but mostly in 1960-61, Barcelona played both in Champions Cup and International Fairs Cup, the precedor of UEFA Cup. We are not talking from playing in the Champions Cup, stop playing after defeat and then relegation to IFC but at the same time!

They began in Champions Cup, then played matches in IFC and then again CC and in winter again IFC when they were eliminated. At the end of season they were European Champions!

We are talking how irony is to loose from Champions League, may be as 3rd place team and then win the Europa, but how to happen the opposite!!! That happened in 1960-61.

You are going to tell me IFC, was not UEFA competition and you will be right. However since this is for Official reality, I think we could use it as an example that I think not just 1980 but 1960 was not rediculus!

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: ignjat63 Date: 11-10-2011, 22:51	"You are going to tell me IFC, was not UEFA competition and you will be right. However..." No "however...". No need for me to answer, you already did. Wrong example.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: KRBY Date: 12-10-2011, 00:10	Well, that's just official. Unofficially it is considered continuation. If someone was gonna tell that a team could play in 2 european competitions in a season, he could have remembered that.

Re: UEFA stop seeding
Author: Overgame Date: 12-10-2011, 12:40	Again, a double elimination tournament is often used in e-sports. UEFA is using a similar system. In basketball, a similar system (and even semi-closed) is used, for the 3 Cups. But holly hell. When this system was introduced, people were whining about how the big clubs are a safety net if they played bad in CLGS. But in reality, they don't. Even when a top team is 3rd, they don't win it.

Author: ruicosta
Date: 18-10-2011, 11:23

KRBY said:
I want to remind that back much from 1980s, in 1959-60, but mostly in 1960-61, Barcelona played both in Champions Cup and International Fairs Cup, the precedor of UEFA Cup. We are not talking from playing in the Champions Cup, stop playing after defeat and then relegation to IFC but at the same time!

They began in Champions Cup, then played matches in IFC and then again CC and in winter again IFC when they were eliminated. At the end of season they were European Champions!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In 60/61 and 61/62 my Benfica won European Champions Cup twice.
Barcelona didn't won ECC in those years.