Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: rooster
Date: 14-05-2006, 23:59

looking at the uefa rankings and the no of points accumulated for this season is it right that steau bucharest are 4th ranked team this season (based on points accumulated) ahead of champions league semi finalist ac milan. i think in the past some teams have gained more co-efficient points for winning uefa cup than the team which won CL. should it be 2 points for a win in UEFA and 2.5 points in CL??? and 1 and 1.25 for a draw - you cannot really say that sevilla steau and boro are 3rd 4th and 6th best team in europe this season ahead of the likes of ac milan. any views?

Author: STK
Date: 15-05-2006, 00:12

@rooste,

On the whole issue you are right, it is not fair. Steaua must have a better position than the current, but the CL teams are awarded with better bonus points (3p only for qualifing from their groups) and one for 1/16s, bonus points dat are missing in UC "competition".
So teams like, Barcelon, Mila, Arsena are helped to be were they are, regarding bonuses, regarding country coefficient, regarding direct access. So no need to be more greedy, dud.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: miktceltic Date: 15-05-2006, 00:21	@ rooster. What u are missing is the 1/3rd of the countries coeff. Take Seville, apart from this season, what have the done? Not a lot. Look at all the teams they have jumped in the rankings because of the country they come from!

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: STK Date: 15-05-2006, 00:25	@ miktceltic, What is your opinion about the country coefficient contribution to a team's coefficient? It has any right to influence this coefficient?

Author: miktceltic
Date: 15-05-2006, 00:45
Edited by: miktceltic
at: 15-05-2006, 00:52

@ stk
Scrap the country coeff. If a team comes from a strong country with no coeff then they should not be worried about a team from a small country with a high coeff.
The coeff should be about what a team has done in europe, not what the rest of the teams in your league have done.
The seeding for the CL and EC would be slightly different if this was done and would help teams that had previous euro experience.

Author: STK
Date: 15-05-2006, 00:56

The coeff should be about what a team has done in europe, not what the rest of the teams in your league have done.

I agree with you.

In the present form , 33% and let's not forget that the current coefficient are calculated in 4 years with 50%, he influence seedings and direct access in a ireparable way.

How about, the fact that all teams from country 1-8th have dirrect acces in UEFA Cup, without any individual team coefficient to be taken in consideration?

Author: miktceltic
Date: 15-05-2006, 01:07

STK
CL
How about expanding the group stage of the CL to let in the champions of each country regardless of coeff? After all its the CL!
This would help the emerging leagues get stronger and would encourage UEFA to fufill its obligations to promote football in these countries. Its not all about Sp, It, Eng or Ger.
Then add the teams from the stronger leagues as usual.
EC
Do the same.
Example
Imagine the champions of Andora playing Barca? What would that do to football in Andora, as J Lennon said 'Imagine'

Author: STK
Date: 15-05-2006, 01:19

Its not all about Sp, It, Eng or Ger.

Unfortunately it is!

A CL with all CHAMPIONS would be great, because with be with teams that won a domestic trophy, not with "loosers" (that finished 2nd, 3rd, 4th). No offence for these teams, but i saw someone using this word in a wrong place.

This is what the most fans wants in Europe, but it is not what most fans from Sp, It, Eng or Ger wants, so it's not gonna happen, unfortunately.

Only when that countries would loose their current position in ranking top, they will become open to this, so this is what we fight for.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: Nick Date: 15-05-2006, 07:26	Every 3 months somebody is demanding more point for CL teams and we have the same discussion over and over again with no new arguments for or against this.

Author: ferdi
Date: 15-05-2006, 08:17
Edited by: ferdi
at: 15-05-2006, 09:55

{i>If a team comes from a strong country with no coeff then they should not be worried about a team from a small country with a high coeff.{/i>

Yes, but the team from the small country should be worried.

{i>The seeding for the CL and EC would be slightly different if this was done and would help teams that had previous euro experience.{/i>

This is a false conclusion, and you have allready mentioned it in the first sentence I cited from you. If you put strong teams into the unseeded pot, then you lower the seeding advantage for the seeded teams.

The country protection should not be seen as an instrument to help smaller teams from strong countries, but as an instrument to avoid seeded teams getting strong opponents.

Author: executor
Date: 15-05-2006, 08:26

I'll try to see if I can bring something new to this debate.

1. Qualifying rounds

You can't put ALL teams in CL or UC in R1, so some teams HAVE to play QR. What teams? Those that work less to get in R1. You see, it's like the Golden Shoe award. If you check the standings in UEFA, you'll see that in some countries a goal is worth 2 points, in other 1.5 and in the rest 1 pt. Do you find this unfair? No. Because it's harder to score a goal in Spain than in, let's say, Azerbaijan. It's the same with the access list. It show the value of National Leagues. It's harder to qualify for Europe in Spain than in Romania. Not convinced? Then look at our league: when it was on ~25th place Dinamo had no problems qualifying for UEFA. Now that we are on 10th it's a different story. To summarize this here's a formula:

Qualifying for Europe from a country ranked 1-8 = Qualifying for Europe from a country below 8th + QR

2. Points

To say that Steaua (or even Rapid) deserves to be ahead of AC Milan, Lyon, Chelsea, Liverpool,... just because they gathered more points in UEFA Cup is absurd. If you're not convinced make a comparrison between the opponents of Steaua, Rapid, Milan, Liverpool and even Sevilla and M'Boro. The comparison should be based on the ability of these opponents to qualify for next season in European Cups. You'll be surprised. Steaua had an extremly easy path to the semifinals. They met only one team of at least the same level with them (Rapid) and took only 2 points from them. The other teams were average. Based on this I really think there should be a difference between CL and UEFA Cup just as it is between QR and proper Cups. And don't talk about how many bonus points there are in CL. It's harder to get them.

3. Country coefficient

Some of you think that all new teams (or those that haven't play European football for more than 5 years) should start with 0 points. Why? Again, look at the 1st point. a new team from Spain fights harder to gain European berth than one from a country below 25th. So why do you want to put them on the same level? Because some newbees from top 3 countries will have a coefficient higher than those of some teams that played in Europe for 5 consecutive years?? Well, what stopped those teams for gathering points? Maybe lack of value. Maybe 33% is a bit high and perhaps it should be arround 20-25% but it MUST be.

Hope this enlightens you. If not, I don't know what would.

Author: ferdi
Date: 15-05-2006, 11:02

Of course there can be no doubts that the whole seeding system is biased towards the smaller countries. Giving the same weight to points achieved in UC as in CL is just one example, counting qualification points to the country ranking is another example, and allowing even countries like Luxembourg or the Faroer Islands to send three teams to Europe is ridiculous if you only take competitiveness into account.

But this advantage for smaller countries is intended. We live on a continent where some countries have some ten thousends of inhabitants, and others have 50, 80, or even 140 millions inhabitants. So there is some "unfairniss" build into the construction of Europe, and UEFA tries to counterbalance this as good as possible. But one should not expect to reach a state of absolute fairness. There can only be relative fairness in regard to the size of the countries, in regard to the strength of the teams, to the wealth of the teams and/or the countries and so on...

Author: STK
Date: 15-05-2006, 11:03

Ok, i don't mind to explain again, because is for a good purpose.
I explained for many times, and the issue is not understanded. So i begin to think to other things ... It is one thing to have a different opinion, but each must be based on some logical arguments, to give a heathy conclusion.

First situation
1. Country X has 1 spot/CL and 2 spots/UC
2. Country Y has 1 spot/CL and 2 spots/UC
3. Country X has a valuable internal competition than Country Y

The logical conclusion : YES, a european spot is harder to get in Country X than in Country Y, because the internal competition is better, and are more competitive teams in Country X than in Country Y.

The second situation
1. Country X has 4 spots/CL and 4 spots/UC
2. Country Y has 1 spot/CL and 2 spots/UC
3. Country X has a valuable internal competition than Country Y

The logical conclusion : The chances for a european spot, are at least THE SAME. Every team (from 20) from Country Y must fight for just 1 CL spot, and that gives them 1/20 chances of winning, and 1/10 chances for a UC spot. Meanwhile, every team from Country X, can fight for 4 CL spots and 4 UC spots, and that gives them 1/5 chances to a CL spot and 1/5 chances to a UC spot.

So you see, this "harder to win" have been compensate by UEFA, by giving different spots to every country, based on a country top, and not anyhow ... UEFA took the liberty to decide how much better is a league from another: a league with 4 CL spots is 4 times better than a league with 1 CL spot. Very acurate data has this organisation.

But the reasonable distinction IS STOPPING HERE. From now on, we enter the realm of economical intersts, of decisions that brings grave prejudices to competition and to clubs that are "awarded" with lesser chances to reach a competition of any kind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Qualification rounds.

a) they are not part of the "harder to win", because the domestic competiton have stoped, they are international matches, there are chances like the opponent to be tougher that all the teams beaten in a whole internal season, practical the opponent is from the same category, and most important, "harder to win" requirment have been fullfilled already by giving different spots, regarding each league difficulty. It is like taxing the same thing twice, which is strictly forbbiden in all democratic legislations.

b) if the team coefficients, GIVE A FIRST IMPRESSION, about a team's reputation (about previous performances), if the domestic spot won by a team give the right to play in a european competition, the qualification rounds are the ONLY instrument to verify that one team is fit on a specific season to enter a competition or not fit, the current footballistic form is prooved in this way, and the results MAY BE different by the one PRESUMED by the seeding system.

c) we established in the section with reasonable distinctions, that there are leagues 4 time "harder to win" then others. Playing qualification matches, for those teams souldn't be a problem, if the distiction is corect made. So qualification rounds with all teams could give also a confirmation if the country spots distribution is acurate.

d) i don't know if wasn't covered by the previous 3 points, but we also speak of different competitons: domestic leagues and european leagues. Very important, the domestic league are disticted one by another like difficulty degree based on the results from the european leagues. So in not necesarely to give to all competitors from european leagues the same chances, for obtaining most acurate results? How can be accepted such a distinction between domestic leagues, if we don't have a good instrument for this messure?

There is one person than can guaratnee that a team with dirrect access could also qualifly if playing qualification rounds? Guaratee means of course 100%. If not the the how could explain the percent difference and how much this percent influence the "harder to win" conclusion?

2. Country contribution

His inopportunity was already explaind to you very acurate. It brings a unjustified adition, to a coefficient (that is already affected by different access and differen chances for european spot), unjustified because of 2 big reasons:
1) it has no direct connection with the achivments of the team that brings benefits to;
2) it want to reward someting that was already rewarded by the different country spots, "harder to win", which is also strictly forbbiden, in any legal context.

From his 2 "features" presented above, you may understand, that its value is not important: 1%, 20%, 33%, 50%, 100%. Its right do not exits.

3. Different points?

There are different points for CL and UC. The difference consits in bonuses (+3p to every team that qualifys from groups and +1p to teams that qualify from 1/16s). The CL places 1st and 2nd benefit automaticaly by 3p bonus and the 3rd place benefits by eventual points in UC. The only place that do not benefit from bounuses or potential bonuses are place 4th, which do not deserve it.

Why souldn't be more? Because of the current advantages that CL has in comparation with UC:
1. bigger prizes;
2. more group maches (6, 3 home, 3 away)
3. rights for some teams to play in CL and UC in the same season;
4. lesser matches needed to win the competition;
5. bigger bonuses for performant teams;
6. because many teams with direct access in CL that finish on the last position would beneficiate by undeserved points; now, only the teams that qualifly have acces to some bonus points and this is more acceptable and performance rewarding; on the other way in UC the access in groups is made more organisate, because the dirrect access in 1st round is not eqivalent with the direct access in CL groups. The 1st UC round serve like a filter (a q round) and make this competition more acurate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer
This little speach has not the purpose to enlight a specific person, to change a opinion, but to corect some ilogical interpretations, that were made in the previous 2 comments.

Author: executor
Date: 15-05-2006, 12:45

STK

Saying that in a league which has 4 CL spots, the chance to get a CL berth is 1/5 is like saying that Brazil has 1/32 chance of winning the World Cup. The percentages vary for each team. In such a league there are already more than 4 (probably even 6-7) big teams that compete for them, so for a new team to gain a place in CL requires a lot of effort. In a league with just a CL spot there are usually only 2-3 big teams. So it's a big difference between fighting 6-7 big teams and competing with only 3. I see the domestic league as a big qualifying pool. Just as there are North, Central-European and Southern-Mediterranean pools (drawn up on geographical reasons), it's the same with domestic leagues.

Also, a team is part of a federation. The latter offers the team the possibility to play European games and earn great incomes. So what does the team offer the federation? Points, that are given to new teams. It's similar to the taxes you pay for the unemployed. They didn't work to earn money, most likely it's not entirely their fault, but they still have to live. Maybe it's not a team's fault for not playing European football for years, but you can't send them out-there empty-handed. You're part of a system, it provides you utilities or opportunities, you have to give back something. Plus, EVERY federation benefits from this. Just some federations are more succesful than other. The Spanish one is more successful than the one in Azerbaijan. It's not fair to treat them equal. I would understand your frustration of only the top leagues would've have this. But since EVERYBODY can benefit from this where is the problem?

Author: STK
Date: 15-05-2006, 13:08
Edited by: STK
at: 15-05-2006, 13:31

Maby i am just stupid ... but still :

7 competitive teams fight for 4 spots -> 4/7 -> 0,57 (almost 50%)

3 competitive teams fight for 1 spot --> 1/3 -> 0,33 (33%)

We are not treat equal Spain and Azerbaijan, Spain has 4+4 (8 spots) + 3 (intertoto) =11 ... Azerbaijan has has probably 1+1+1=3. THIS IS NOT EQUAL, BUT IS ENOUGH.

If we give OTHER ADVANTAGES, WE TRIPLE REWARDING SPAIN, and put an gap between 2 countries, that cannot be that bigger every year. Those country don't have to live ? What FUN and JOY coud result from this?

Try to visualise a situation, and tell me how good the country contribution is?
- all teams from a country are either weak, either not interested by european competition. One team is good and every year has good results, but the country coefficient could not help this ipotetical team, NEVER to be the best; there will be always dozen of teams, weaker as performances but with a higher team coefficients, helped by the country contribution.

PS: country contribution represents a average of 5.0 (from 8.0 with 50%) every year for the top countries, meaning 25.0 / 5 years, points that could help a lot;

To not forget, the current coefficients are calculated with 50% (4 years) + 33% (this year), meaninig that only in season 2010-2011, the rule with 33% will be fully operational.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 15-05-2006, 13:27

I think the base argument should be:
-there are 32 spots for the CL.
-uefa want the best 32 team of Europe to play there.(This has been a bit transformed into the 32 teams that brings the most money by tv-rights)
-there should be a possibility for small teams to participate.

If you let the number 5 of Spain play against the number 1 of Luxemburg, I think the first one wins. The luxemburg team can be competitive with 2 others, it is on a diffferent level as the Spanish one.
Still all champions have a chance with the qualification rounds(You got to be at least a champion of your domestic league to belong to the best 32). Together with extra teams from countries that usualy perform well in european matches (==have high coefficient), they decide which teams are the 32 best of Europe.

Author: squeal
Date: 15-05-2006, 13:35

Heh. Like Nick said. The same thing over and over and over.

Once, when I visited here regularly, I made a calculation comparing the points awarded to the teams when they played in CL and UC, respectively, and it showed that, except for a few middle-ranked teams, practically any club got more points during the seasons it participated in CL. And another one, which showed that the total_opponent strength (calculated on a basis of coefficients) / total_points_awarded ratio is actually smaller in CL.

The calculations are simple (albeit time-consuming) and anyone can do them by themself if he/she doesn't believe me. And, yes, they both mean it's easier to get points in CL.

The perception of the opposite comes from comparing only the succeful teams from both competitions. Ie. Steaua to AC Milan. Did Milan deserve more points compared to Steaua? Probably. But UC is more competitive, and a lot of clubs gets eliminated early on, while basically 3/4 of CL participants leaves it with a huge amount of points. And, on the avarage, the ranking is pretty much correct (with a slight bias to CL). Noone ever said it's ideal (at least not on a yearly basis, that's why the 5 year avarage is taken, after all), but awarding any more points to CL clubs would seriously break it.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 15-05-2006, 13:38

STK,
What do you mean with the 4 times 50% + this year 33%
If you look at teamranking, the total will be 33% of all 5 years is being used.
The only thing that is true that 4 times(years 01-05)for seeding the 50% was used to get to the countrycoefficient. But you can not let the matches be played again. In the current teamranking for all years only 33% of the countryranking is used.(e.g spain 01/02 was 14.857, each Spanish teams receives 4.903 for their teamranking)

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: STK Date: 15-05-2006, 13:41 Edited by: STK at: 15-05-2006, 13:48	You mean that the country coefficients have been recalculated to each team in the last 5 years with the 33%? @squeal, i said the same thing, and to not speak about the other advantages that CL offers and UC not

Author: dawgs
Date: 15-05-2006, 13:42
Edited by: dawgs
at: 15-05-2006, 13:43

@squeal
Excellent points.

If I may add - only a week ago I made calculations for 2004/05 QRs and the coefficient each country got before the first matches in the CLGS and the UCR1 and posted them on this forum.

Those showed parity b/w all countries, but reading today's posts some people still talk about the "advantages" of playing in QRs as opposed to direct access.

It feels like reading is so much more difficult than writing.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 15-05-2006, 13:54
Edited by: Ricardo
at: 15-05-2006, 14:00

sqeal,
I think the dropping of the second groupphase gave less points to the teams that just passed the CL-groupphase. I mean especially the 8 teams that were knocked out in the first ko-round. They have a teamcoefficient of around 15-17. That's about the same as the 8 3rnd losers in the UC.

equal coefficient should say equal teams. so teams 8-16 in CL are equal to teams 8-16 in UC? I don't think so.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: Ricardo Date: 15-05-2006, 13:56	STK: yes

Author: panda
Date: 15-05-2006, 13:57

1) the calculations by Squeal and Dawgs show that CL participation gains you more points than UC participation - so that is consistent with the idea that CL has stronger teams.

2) anomalies appear to arise if the UC team does well, and so gains more points than the CL team. BUT
as ranking is not calculated by a single year, but five years, the team needs to become regular European performer to go high up in the rankings.

3) The situation can arise in theory where a team does well in UC year after year; that means it keeps qualifying for UC and not CL, or keeps cascading into UC as a CL loser.

If that were to happen, presumably it means the domestic league is very strong (which is a justification for country co-eff points.)

Or it is the country's best team, gets into CL regularly, loses in QR or is 3rd in GS; in that case the country co-eff adjusts it not to be as high as the teams that regularly make CL last 16.

I guess on the forum one gets the same arguments over and over again, because each new member takes time to understand how the system works and develop a view of how fair or not it is (I speak as one such new person). So, looking at the archive, there is of course a hard-core that use the site and the forum for the info and because they have an interst in the relation between the co-eff system and the football, and then every time there is an issue local to one country (especially a perceived injustice) there is a spike of memebers from people who follow football in that country.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: dawgs Date: 15-05-2006, 13:59 Edited by: dawgs at: 15-05-2006, 14:01	@Ricardo Average UCR3 loser: 3pUCR1+4pUCGS+1pUCR3=8p Average CLR2 loser: 3pCLGSb+7pCLGS+1pCLR2b+1pCLR2=12p How is that equal again?

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: Ricardo Date: 15-05-2006, 14:07	8 losers in CL 1/8 finals and their coefficient for this year(incl. country): Chelsea 17.761 Real Madrid 17.068 Werder Bremen 14.444 Bayern Munchen 17.444 PSV 13.503 Ajax 15.503 Liverpool 17.761 Glasgow Rangers 13.403 8 losers in UC-1/8 finals: HSV 16.444 Strasbourg 17.568 Roma 19.068 Betis 16.068 Palermo 19.068 Marseille 15.568 Udinese 16.068 Lille 16.568 Fair???

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: Ricardo Date: 15-05-2006, 14:10	@dawgs, there is a misunderstanding about round 3. in Bert's matches overview, the 1/8 finals are called Round 3(groupstage doesn't count in UC!) I intended the nr's 8-16 in UC, so the losers of the 1/8 final. see my post above. Then you get another 3 points for the UC extra.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: dawgs Date: 15-05-2006, 14:11	Disregard country bonus, because Italy=Scotland is obviously wrong and what you have is... Udinese got as many points as Rangers? I say fair play to that. Udinese finished 3rd and Rangers 2nd in CLGS only by a close margin each. And then where rangers got sent home in the first KO, Udinese knocked out Lens. Where is the problem?

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: Ricardo Date: 15-05-2006, 14:12 Edited by: Ricardo at: 15-05-2006, 14:14	Look at Chelsea and Liverpool. They have less as Strasbourg(relegated in France) and Palermo. PSV kicked Schalke out of UC - for what reward....

Author: dawgs
Date: 15-05-2006, 14:21
Edited by: dawgs
at: 15-05-2006, 14:27

Look, Villareal didn't have the best of domestic campaigns either. The simplistic transition "Vilareal is 7th in Spain, SF in CL, no German team made the SF in CL => The German Bundesliga is worse than the top7 in Spain" is just as wrong as the Real vs. Strasbourg relation you are making.

Hell, no German team made the QF in the CL this year, and Benfica did - can we honestly believe that the third in Portugal is better than the whole of the Bundesliga???

How about when AstonVilla won the European cup and finished 12 in England. Did people back then say: "Look, the top 12 teams in England are the top12 in Europe"? I don't think so. Let's not mix domestic w/ international. Let's not think that simply because RealM sport Beckham they can beat Strasbourg in a KO European tie.

edit:
The problem now comes w/ the mixing of CL and UC. Yes - Steaua got more points than Rosenborg. Yes Schalke got more points than PSV.

But no - it wasn't UEFA's fault. It was because Schalke and Steaua were strong when it came to UC and Rosenborg and PSV were weak when it came to CL. They should have known better and gone for the "less competitive" tournament.

Author: STK
Date: 15-05-2006, 14:30
Edited by: STK
at: 15-05-2006, 14:38

I don't understand the point in taking specific teams and comparing with other specific teams by choice ...

You want to demonstreate that "big clubs" like Chealse and Liverpool took lesser points then a little club, or the fact that some CL teams took lesser points than some UC team?

@dawgs, CL teams like Lille, Rosenborg and Betis had the chance to confirm in UC also, but failed, they were too weak for CL and UC at the same time. More than that they got 3rd place and more points in CL than in UC.

The fact that no 3rd place CL teams, could play the final; just 1 CL team reaching UC quarters, show to me that the teams that qualified for CL 1/16s hadn't very tough opponents; if 3rd place was so weak? What about 4th place?

Author: panda
Date: 15-05-2006, 14:32
Edited by: panda
at: 15-05-2006, 14:34

OK, I get the point about the unfairness in those lists.

I guess the UEFA argument is - as regards TEAMS, the system isn't supposed to work for 1 yr only; it rewards repeated performance in Europe.

If you look at the team rankings over 5 yrs Udinese or Palermo or Strasbourg are not up there with Chelsea or Liverpool; they do not play every year. And of course if you do not play in Europe at all, you are not ranked. To say Millwall (relegated to 3rd tier) and Southampton (poor in 2nd tier) are ranked above a lot of 1st and 2nd tier clubs in England is nonsense - but the uefa ranking doesn't try to accommodate clubs that don't play UC and CL except by giving them the country ranking.

We can say that Chelsea were 'unlucky' this year to draw Barca. If they can reach KO stages every year, sooner or later they will get 'lucky' draws. A co-eff system that does not rank the strength of your OPPONENT can't work perfectly over just one year.

Strasbourg will need to promote before they are likely to play in Europe again etc etc period, so will come back, when they do, with quite a low co-eff.

the idea is that over the 5 yr assessment the team ranking system is OK.

And within a single season, the points are contributing to the country - the idea is to be able to measure the relative performance of different countries at the same time; if the points gained seem to reflect how each country has performed in Europe then I guess uefa is happy, and doesn't worry about the anomaly at the level of detail.

Maybe ?

@dawgs

Yeah- it's quite obvious Middlesboro, for example, put effort into the Domestic cup and UC, and just made sure they were not relegated from EPL.

So again - for a team, it works over time only. For a country, the co-eff is not trying to say '14th in england, 2nd in Europe' or whatever; it is saying 'teams of country X are doing well/badly this year against other European teams.'

Author: dawgs
Date: 15-05-2006, 14:43

About the relative strength of the CL vs. the UC there is a topic in the other forum:

4 CLGS 3rd placed were sent packing in the first UC KO round.
3 more joined them in the second KO round.
Only Schalke survived to the SF.

The UC so much less competitve than the CL? I don't think so. How many rounds would have Rosenborg and PSV have survived if they chose the big coefficient in the UC over the big money in the CL - one... zero? I don't know. None of them look like they would have won it anyway, so it really doesn't matter imo.

Author: exile
Date: 15-05-2006, 14:49

Indeed.

Look at the 16 highest coefficients for 2005-6

1. Barcelona - CL finalists
2. Arsenal - CL finalists
3. Sevilla - UC winners
4. Steaua - UC semis
5. Milan - CL semis
6. Middlesbrough - UC finalists
7. Lyon - CL quarters
8. Schalke - UC semis
9. Villareal - CL semis
10. Inter - CL quarters
11. Rapid - UC quarters
12. Juventus - CL quarters
13. Zenit - UC quarters
14. Basel - UC quarters
15. Palermo - UC round 4
16. Roma - UC round 4

So - 16 teams - 7 from the CL, 9 from the UC - surely this
is wrong!

Looking at the CL last 16 and the UC last 16, and
the domestic league positions of the teams that too part

CL last 16

Spain[1> - Barcelona (1st), Real Madrid (2), Villareal (7th)
England[2> - Chelsea (1), Liverpool (3), Arsenal (4)
Italy[3> - Juventus (1), Milan (2), Inter (3)
France[4> - Lyon (1)
Germany[5> - Bayern (1), Bremen (2)
Portugal[6> - Benfica (3)
Netherlands[7> - PSV (1), Ajax (2)
Scotland[10> - Rangers (3)

Only Villareal, Benfica and Rangers did not, this season, manage to finish in the top 2 of their own league, or the top 4 in the case of England, Italy and Spain.

UC last 16

Spain[1> - Sevilla (4/5), Betis (14)
England[2> - Middlesbrough (14)
Italy[3> - Roma (5), Palermo (8), Udinese (13)
France[4> - Lille (3), Marseille (5), Strasbourg (19)
Germany[5> - Hamburg (3), Bremen (4)
Russia[13> - Zenit (9th in 2006)
Switzerland[19> - Basel (2)
Bulgaria[21> - Levski (1/2)
Romania[25> - Rapid (1/2/3), Steaua (1/2/3)

So - we have, from the top 5 nations, 5 champions for 2005-6 in
the CL, none in the UC. Look at the top 2 in the top 5 nations - 10
clubs altogether - 8 in the CL, none in the UC. (the other 2 were Man U (1st round of CL), Bordeaux (non-qualifiers).

Of the last 16 in the CL, 12 are at least in the qualifying round
2006-7, and only 1 of the last 16 of the UC (Hamburg, plus, probably, Levski and possibly Sevilla).

This pattern is repeated over the past few seasons. The CL last 16 is certainly stronger than the UC last 16 - so why the same points per win/draw and bonus points?

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: dawgs Date: 15-05-2006, 14:54 Edited by: dawgs at: 15-05-2006, 14:57	Are you seriously suggesting that Rangers is stronger than Schalke and on what grounds? edit: You know what - I have an even better idea: list the UC and CL last 16 side by side and explain which teams from the first list are better than which teams from the second list.

Author: panda
Date: 15-05-2006, 14:57

Again, I'm going to say- it works over time.

1) who cascades into UC from CL? - it's losers from QR3 and 3rd in GS; of course it's NOT losers from last 16 and last 8 - they WOULD be likely to be very strong in UC.

2) you CAN decide to concentrate on europe, not league, but unless you win and get a TH spot, you make your chances of coming back next year smaller; so to be a big club, you have to be able to fight well on 2 or 3 fronts. otherwise, lots of points one year, none the next.

3) again- maybe uefa is not so worried about relative strength of CL and UC; the points are for relative strenghts of countries; and since CL is the top competition, if you are a strong club, or representing a strong country, you are sooner or later going to rise to challenging for the CL.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: STK Date: 15-05-2006, 15:07 Edited by: STK at: 15-05-2006, 15:11	The answer is actually simple, UEFA has it in his "survey" and i answer afirmative. A single cup/league, and finish with nonsese and ethernal CL vs. UC. A extended competition. Something huge, 8 groups with 11 teams each, quarters, semis and final. And the matches: 5 home, 5 away to fit the schedule

Author: Ricardo
Date: 15-05-2006, 15:24

My intention was to not call team-names, but use an avarage. That's why I had the 2 lists of 8 teams. Exile gave it even more info. Though things might even out in 5 years, there are always the teams that fall in between: every time making the CL(so beating a UC team), but not being good enough to really get some points there.
Best solution to end this discussion is follow STK suggestion: make it 1 competition.

For my sake there can be a re-bound mechanism, where losers of a round get a second chance in a losers-cup. But that is always only second best. All losers should go there up until the semi-final! Not stopping it half way the competition!(What if Chelsea and Steaua had met, who would have won....)

Author: panda
Date: 15-05-2006, 15:35

We want to have the best clubs playing one another - so it is somehow intellectually unsatisfying to have these discrepancies.

At the same time we want the excitement of knock-out; and without a league format there is always luck in who you draw as well as in the game itself.

But maybe we are losing the normal fan perspective - we follow the team we follow; we want it to win and get further in the competition; while it is in, we do not worry if this competition is worth less than the other one.

Author: FrancoisD
Date: 15-05-2006, 15:58

Best 16 of year ranking are 9 from UC, 7 from CL.
Participants in UEFA are 80(+8) in UC, 32 in CL.

So what ? nothing, because year ranking is never used for anything except coef computation detail, as panda said.

Teams like Sevilla or Steaua have some points this year, but not many previous years. It appears "unfair" to some to "rank them at same level as Real Madrid, PSV and others big names". Yet what would have happened, were you to give more bonus points to CL ? You would have had Villareal in pot 3 or 4 in CL, instead of 2nd. Does it really lead to more accurate seeding, to give less points to UC ?

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: dawgs Date: 15-05-2006, 16:15	It depends on what you want to see. Some forum members will be very happy if for example Groningen was seeded in the CL and the UC all the way to the final and the WC had the perfect number of 48 teams... While other forummembers would rather not.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: bert.kassies Date: 15-05-2006, 16:41	I don't like to see FC Groningen seeded.

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: rooster Date: 15-05-2006, 23:19	great post by panda in the comparisons made

Author: badgerboy
Date: 16-05-2006, 10:02

I've already given my opinions elsewhere as to the relative merits of the two competitions. I see no need to get into it again.

As for the points. I don't see a huge problem with the current points system. Maybe some "UEFA Cup" teams have a falsely high position. But if that's the case then they simply become an "easy" option for unseeded teams in the next season's draw - especially if they "upgrade" to the CL.

Next season for example there are - potentially at least - four teams who will be seeded in CLQR3, whose points primarily come from UEFA Cup campaigns - Sevilla, Levski Sofia, Steaua (or Rapid), and CSKA Moscow. Of these only CSKA are definitely qualified (and have fairly recent CL experience) but at least two of the other three are likely to be there too. I'm hoping Sevilla makes it four.

If these teams prove to be overrated (in ranking terms) they will either (a) lose to a better (or luckier!) team in QR3 or (b) make the group stage but fail to pick up many points once they are there. The UEFA Cup points give them a better chance to achieve their initial goal but - if they don't cut it out on the pitch they don't win anything. For me the fact that success in the UEFA Cup improves a teams chances of making it to what - for me anyway - is the bigger stage is a good thing. I like the fact that the make-up of the Champions League changes - a little - from year to year.

The picture for next year has been helped by a few domestic surprises (no Prague team, no Club Brugge, no Rosenborg, no Rangers) which means the likely unseeded list contains - for me at least - only one name I'd associate with regular Group Stage appearances - Fenerbahce. You could add Spartak Moscow but only if you went back a few years. So I personally hope that Levski and Steaua/Rapid both avoid Fenerbahce in the draw which will immediately guarantee two relatively new names at the group stage.

Back more on the point. In a year with fewer domestic surprises - add Roma, Club Brugge, Rangers, Sparta Prague and Rosenborg back into the mix - Levski and Rapid are unseeded anyway and the list of tougher - on paper anyway - unseeded opponents grows. Dynamo Kyiv, Shakhtor Donetsk, Galatasaray.... If you're not good enough to pass one of these teams then you're out - "cheap" seeding points or not.

That's my personal view - as a neutral. Of course - if you're a Fenerbahce fan (for example) you might want to argue that your low position in the rankings is unjust. That playing in a CL group containing Milan, PSV and Schalke made it difficult to pick up points (a bit tougher than the six matches making up UEFA R1 and the Group Stage) - that three bonus points were not enough. "Give me Steaua or Levski and I'll show you who the CL team is". But of course - being unseeded - you could draw Liverpool or Inter-Milan or Valencia (or arguably Sevilla) - making qualification more difficult.

Back to my neutral hat. The only thing I could say to teams like Fener (and others) is learn from this. If you do end up in the UEFA Cup make the most of it - win as many games as you can and bump up your own ranking. Prove that you're not just the best team in a bad league who benefits from a free CL pass - go out and make some points....

Re: is it fair for same points for uefa cup and CL
Author: STK Date: 17-05-2006, 12:19	I would like to here thoughs about the UEFA Cup winner, beating 2 of the best clubs in Europw, CL permanent guests, Real Madrid and FC Barcelona, in spanish Primera.

Author: panda
Date: 17-05-2006, 12:27

Well, I can immediately compare the English example - Middlesborough beat both Man U and Chelsea; it was Chelsea's biggest defeat of the season 3-0.

But, I don't think it tells us anything. Because league is league and cup is cup. In the league, it's only important whether you finish higher at the end (for example, Chelsea ended with two defeats, but they were already champions and they did not care, really.)

for the team without chnce of the title, no matter whether their goal is - to get a Euro place, or even not to be relegated - every match in EPL against the big boys is like a cup final.

One side has passion, the other side has probably some world-class players. If the lower side makes mistakes, it is almost impossible to recover; but if the higher side does not play well, it is easy for them to lose.

But the big sides have another advantage, which is the big squad. So, they also win matches because of having more good players when there are the inevitable injuries /lots of games.

In england we much enjoyed the domestic victories I refer to at the top (indeed, unless you are Chelsea fan, you enoy EVERY Chelea loss) but no-one seriously thinks Middlesborough is the same sort of class team like Man U, or Chelsea.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 17-05-2006, 15:51

I'd also give a (very subjective) opinion that Sevilla are a very good side. OK - they beat a Barca side that rested something like eight first team players (so forget that). But they then beat Real Madrid in a game both teams wanted to win. Ironically the result proved irrelevant to both but that's beside the point! And anyone watching their performance in the UEFA Cup Final could see their quality.

I think Sevilla would have made a very strong CL contender (for knockout stages minimum). But then if Middlesbrough made the CL I think just getting to the group stage would be an achievement and they'd feel finishing 3rd and going back to the UEFA Cup was a success. Both were UEFA Cup teams but one was slightly different class to the other.

Author: panda
Date: 18-05-2006, 12:26

I agree, Badge. Unfortunately for English football, both Sev and Barca were justified favourites in their finals.

Expectations always adjust to where you are. For Thun, it was a fairy tale just to get in GS (this ex is often used, I know). For Boro, way above what they expected to get to the final, likewise Arsenal (who were supposed to be in a reconstruction season), probably Villareal for the SF; in each case, the next stage was a dream too far.

But for Chelsea, Liverpool and especially Man U, and ultimately for the standard we want from English clubs, the European season is still a failure. All season, people spoke of Barca as the benchmark; so it's proved.