|
|
This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml |
No replies possible in the archive |
|
Author: AS
Date: 25-08-2006, 11:45
| The following table I built shows the effect on country coefficient by extra entry.
{B>Qualified by Intertoto:{/B>
N: Name: Country: Target: Points: Effect: Status:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Newcastle ENG 12,697 1,5 -11%
2 Auxerre FRA 10,156 1,0 -11%
3 Marseille FRA 10,156 1,0 -11%
4 Hertha GER 9,673 1,5 -12%
5 Twente NED 8,266 0,5 -13% out
6 Kayserispor TUR 5,233 2,0 -12%
7 Grasshoppers Z. SUI 5,175 1,5 -14%
8 Ried AUT 4,075 0,5 -18% out
9 Odense B. DEN 3,390 2,0 -10%
10 Achnas CYP 2,033 1,0 -13%
11 Maribor SLO 2,033 0,5 -19% out
{B>Qualified by Fair Play:{/B> N: Name: Country: Target: Points: Effect: Status:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 KSV Roeselare BEL 6,050 3,0 -10% out
13 SK Brann Bergen NOR 4,195 3,0 - 6% out
14 Gefle IF SWE 2,650 0,5 -20% out
{B>Target:{/B>
Means the points needed to not alter the national coefficient: it is calculated like the average of national coefficient from season 2001-02 to 2005-06 (last five);
{B>Effect:{/B>
It shows how the current number of points will change the national coefficient if all the other teams of the same nation will get the target number of points to the end of the season. Only for the out teams the effect can be still improved.
{B>Comment:{/B>
Already 8 teams on 14 are not out (only 57%) so the extra entry seems produce very bad effect on national coefficient! |
|
Author: AS
Date: 25-08-2006, 11:57
| I will go on to monitoring extra entry during current season to verify if my idea that this extra teams produce bad effect on national coefficient or not. For teams is always a very good thing to have an European experience (and for money too), but this shouldn’t strike against coefficients in negative way. What do you think? |
|
Author: panda
Date: 25-08-2006, 11:57
Edited by: panda
at: 25-08-2006, 12:01 | Many thanks - I was going to keep track of this, but looks like you have saved me the trouble.
The proposition is, as you say, are the IT and FP teams harming the national coefficient?
I guess a full result waits until all the teams of the country are out, then you get 14 results where the score by the IT/FP team has made the coeff for that year higher or lower (I agree, likely to be usually lower, though some teams, e.g. Newcastle, might outperform the average).
Edit:
Wait a minute AS, shouldn't your target (as yet unknown) be the average performance of the teams of that country for THIS season? It doesn't matter if a team does worse than an average national performance in a past season, surely?
Another point- if the IT /FP team is not the worst-performing team of that country (even if it performs less than average) maybe it should deserve more credit. |
|
Author: Maluyaca
Date: 25-08-2006, 12:20
| @panda
You are right. AS has to compare the result of this year and not the one of the past. |
|
Author: AS
Date: 25-08-2006, 12:21
Edited by: AS
at: 25-08-2006, 12:22 | Of course, to the end of the season the effect must be re-calculated by current coefficient. But, just to do a monitoring during the season an average value for the target seems to be an easy and good choice.
Obviously, bigger is the number of national teams less is (or should be) their average strength, because any add is a team arrived after the others in their domestic league: it means that it is (or should be) weaker. The main idea is that coefficient need a linear correspondence (not a wave) between rank and number of teams qualified or better between rank and denominator in calculations, I think.
I think that current system need same changes become much among these teams take the risk to get out immediately. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 25-08-2006, 12:37
Edited by: panda
at: 25-08-2006, 12:40 | I find this topic (and its previous incarnations) fascinating.
Because in theory the IT (and still more the FP) should have a weakening effect.
Obviously there can be NO conceptual argument that FP team has to count as a denominator, because FP criteria are not about playing strength at all. But never mind, still interesting to see the effects of counting in the FP teams.
However, there are counter-points.
a) a team with a higher co-eff winning through from IT gets seeded in R1 (Newcastle) and so a better 'chance' than an unseeded UC qualifier (here, Spurs) that did much better in the normal league season.
b) in a league where the quality is quite even in the middle (and we know, different leagues differ a lot) and I know some calculations were made in the forum about how evenly points have bene distributed, the IT winner may be even in strength or better than the last UC place.
c) the cup loser may CERTAINLY be weaker than the IT place. Note that the new IT format makes the IT ,more attractive than it used to be, for any country where the team enters in the 1st round. IT become like entering UC QR1.
Also interesting - do these only work in favour of the big countries (in past, there were lots of winners from France and Germany, where the league IS quite even)?
SO, once a country is all out, we need the calculations -
coeff with IT/FP versus coeff without that team.
and maybe -
points gained by the IT/FP team versus the points gained by the worst-performing team of that country. |
|
Author: Floridian
Date: 25-08-2006, 13:12
| For Slovenia European season has just ended, so we can be certain that Maribor heroic feat in the Intertoto cup had in the end reduced Slovenia country coefficient by 0.250 (16.7%). |
|
Author: AS
Date: 25-08-2006, 13:43
| Slovenia case (Maribor) is nearby in perfect agreement with my calculations, more if we take in account that this was a bad year for them. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 25-08-2006, 13:47
Edited by: panda
at: 25-08-2006, 13:51 | OK- so Maribor scored 0.5 pts. so Slov 5/4 instead of 4.5/3
But they did score better than Koper (0).
Of course, it's very sad - beat Villareal and damage your country's coeff.....
edit:
AS - the use of the 5yr coeff DOES have a point - I change my mind! - in giving some indication of the strength of the IT team versus the general strength of the country; it gives numbers to the idea of 'Is it a good performance neverthelss to have done better than Koper?' |
|
Author: MalcolmW
Date: 25-08-2006, 14:02
| Newcastle took the IT route, but having got there have the highest coefficient of all. They have drawn to team with the lowest coefficient, so they are likely to proceed to the group stage where they will be in the pot of top seeds.
Tottenham were the highest EPL placed entrant but they didn't quite reach the seeded status mark (because of the IT increase from 3 to 11 teams). They have a tough match - but all 5 potential opponents were tough (arguably the easiest would have been Bayer Leverkusen).
West Ham qualified as FA Cup finalists, but meet Palermo.
Blackburn are seeded but meet Salzburg, probably the most dangerous opponents available after the pre-draw.
So if Newcastle are 95/05 to qualify, the others are at best 60/40 each (and probably less). Whatever happens the extra team from IT is likely to boost the English coefficient, or at least outperform the other UEFA entrants. |
|
Author: antonio62tr
Date: 25-08-2006, 14:19
| interesting point...but Villereal and Bourdeux played finals coming up from IT...thats the dream ofteams joining intertotocup... |
|
Author: panda
Date: 25-08-2006, 16:04
| I think Malcolm W is right, of course.
But their good seeded position is a result of past European success, and that has made a difference in R1 fixtures.
Of the four English UC teams, none played in Europe last year and except for Newcastle, the others haven't for a while; but in terms of last year's league, Spurs were the strongest. The last few weeks of the domestic season saw a lot of changes in position, and especially that teams well-placed (in particular, Malcolm's own Bolton)fell away and newcastle got in with a late run.
Hence the idea that the IT benefits a league with a lot of strong 'middle' or sub-top teams, because let's say one unseeded UC club drew the TH or another very strong club in R1 and goes out, there is the compensation of a Newcastle-type club that gets in the GS. At the same time, with a lot of equal-ish teams, there is no possibility that the same teams play UC every year.
BUT, in a league where ability decreases in a straight line, and the last UC team is likely to be significantly better than the IT team, the IT team has much less chance of helping the coefficient.
Yes - if you talk about Villareal or Bordeaux, these are clubs from precisely 'strength in depth' leagues. |
|
Author: MalcolmW
Date: 25-08-2006, 16:37
| Newcastle's coefficient come from very good UEFA Cup runs, but all it needs is to be in seeded half of the draw.
Blackburn have had 2 derisory European campaigns in the past 5 seasons, but the extra 3 points sees them seeded.
Newcastle could just as easily drawn Standard Liege and Blackburn could be playing Randers (or Hearts?).
Both West Ham and especially Spurs have difficult matches, which was inevitable seeing the outcome of the pre-draw.
The only point that matters is top 40 or bottom 40. The chances of qualifying through the round double at that line. I know it's arbitrary, but it's not 'fair' in the sense that no other positions matter at all. If Bolton reach UEFA Cup again in the next 4 seasons they will benefit from the 10 points earned last season. But as it stands if WHU or Spurs draw at home and lose away they will still probably fall on the wrong side again (hee hee). If Arsenal had finished 5th and Spurs 4t, Arsenal would now have a seeded UEFA tie and Spurs (unless they overcame a seed in CLQ3) would have been unseeded - just as they are. That can't be fair - so it's unfair. But nothing will happen because staus quo suits G14+. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 25-08-2006, 16:40
| @malcolm w
'derisory Blackburn!' The Bolton man has spoken.
Again, I have to agree with you. But if I play devil's advocate, would I say, if the team is good, you qualify for Europe more tha once in 5 yrs, and you have to be twice unlucky in the draw to R1 not to get a punt at the GS? In the same way, newcastle ARE top seeds, but it beenfits them no more than being bottom seed.
? |
|
Author: MalcolmW
Date: 25-08-2006, 17:08
| panda
Re Blackburn, just look at the results in 2003 and 2004!! DDLLLD
I've yet to see any media comment about Spurs' situation and Arsenal's if they had either finished 5th in EPL or lost in CLQ3.
In the top 5 or so countries regular participation is far from guaranteed, so the 'B grade' clubs are placed at an extra disadvantage compared to the 'A grade'. If Newcastle get an IT chance they will be more favourably treated than Charlton. If ManUnited slip to a UEFA place they will be more favourably treated than ManCity.... |
|
Author: panda
Date: 25-08-2006, 17:47
| @malcolmW
I was just teasing you! I was sure from what you said Blackburn's performance must have been pathetic.
But what is your bigger point here? at the moment, for sure, it rewards performance in a previous season that may have no relation to present strength (we see plenty of griping in the south-friendly media here about Chelsea not in Pot A). To which I'm always saying - it evens itself out over n years.
But your point is of course, it only evens itself out if you are one of the top tops, therefore you can expect European football every year, and this is not true of the any EPL club outside the top 4.
How would you change it? back to higher % of country coeff, or shorter time span? Or what? |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 25-08-2006, 17:49
| See some stats here
In terms of both individual match results and percentage of ties won, Blackburn have the worst European record of any English club that has played more than a dozen European ties in it's history. Coincidentally, Tottenham has the best record - better even than Liverpool!
As for the seeding. You're never going to find a system to please everyone. Some people claim it's unfair that clubs who haven't played in Europe for 5 years have any possibility at all of being seeded but you say league position should take priority over any European record.
Personally, I think seeding is only critical if you are really fortunate (like Newcastle) or really unfortunate with the draw. Most of the teams in the middle-rank are much of a muchness. Yes it would have been nice for Spurs to draw one of the bottom twenty or so ranked teams but being unseeded is hardly the same as being unseeded in CLQR3. There are no Barcelona's or Milan's to worry about here. Slavia Prague? They might prove to be a competent team but if you can't beat a team like that over two legs I'm not sure what UEFA can do for you (that's a general you - not a specific one).
Maybe do away with the knockout round all together - for "top" clubs at least - thus ensuring the importance of seeding is reduced. No danger of one unfortunate draw (or one bad day) ending your European season?
It's alright STK - before you go into a frenzy I'm not putting that forward as a serious suggestion... at least I don't think so... |
|
Author: panda
Date: 25-08-2006, 17:59
| For sure, having followed it 1000x more closely this year because of the forum, CL QR3 and UC R1 have a 'cup final' feel. I agree, there are teams in CL QR3 that one really would not want to draw (this year, I guess, Milan and Arsenal topped the list), and the same is not true of R1 - it's like 'You're an English club, you should enter UC with the realistic hope of winning it, if you can't pass R1 you don't deserve a good cup run.'
But I'm interested in what would suit Malcolm - is it the opposite of the 'team is everything' position, or is it a shorter timespan, or what? |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 25-08-2006, 18:12
| hard to say that the teams that enters to UC will destroy or not their country coef. at this point (with so few data available).
but it is very possible that if a team pass the UC R1 it will improve their country coef. (at least 6 games in UC + 2 or 4 games in qualification rounds with a minimum 1+1+2 for FP or 1+2 for IT).
for countries with more that 4 teams at start a +1 team will not ruin their coef because a point earned has a lower value, but for countries with less that 4 teams a +1 team could (where a point is very valuable) help or destroy coef. |
|
Author: ferdi
Date: 25-08-2006, 20:12
Edited by: ferdi
at: 25-08-2006, 20:26 | digitb wrote:
{i>but for countries with less that 4 teams a +1 team could (where a point is very valuable) help or destroy coef.{/i>
But if you are already down to 3 spots you have nothing to lose anyway.
Has any country ever lost more than one spot in the following 5 years because of an FP or IT entry?
In principle, it could be possible that one losing FP entrant makes the difference between 8th and 9th place in country ranking in the following 5 years, thus a country could lose up to 10 spots. But what is the average loss of spots per additional FP or IT entry? I guess that it is smaller than one, and this would be OK for me.
After all some price should be payed for an additional entry of a sub-top team, and the price is (I presume) less than one entry in average, there is only a small risk of losing more than one spot in the following years. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 25-08-2006, 20:45
| I put some stats on this archived thread .
As you thought Ferdi - no significant affect on places. |
|
Author: eydur_fb
Date: 25-08-2006, 21:22
| Basicly, at least those teams should pick average points of their countries coefficient to talk about good effect on national coefficient.
So, teams should pick roughly the points below to improve their nationals coefficient.
1 Newcastle ENG 63.486/5= 12.69 pts (1.5)
2 Auxerre FRA 50.781/5= 10.15 pts (1.0)
3 Marseille FRA 50.781/5= 10.15 pts (1.0)
4 Hertha GER 48.364/5= 9.67 pts (1.5)
6 Kayserispor TUR 26.166/5= 5.23 pts (2.0)
7 Grasshoppers Z. SUI 25.875/5= 5.17 pts (1.5)
9 Odense B. DEN 16.950/5= 3.39 pts (2.0)
10 Achnas CYP 10.165/5= 2.03 pts (1.0) |
|
Author: Dario
Date: 25-08-2006, 21:28
| Why only Scandinavian teams get always a fair play entry? |
|
Author: ferdi
Date: 25-08-2006, 21:40
Edited by: ferdi
at: 25-08-2006, 22:36 | {i>Why only Scandinavian teams get always a fair play entry?{/i>
It's a matter of ethics and culture. The idea of fairness has its origin in the ethic principles of protestantism, and such principles endure to some extent in our times when people are less "religious" than they were in ancient times. |
|
Author: MalcolmW
Date: 26-08-2006, 00:04
| Because they have more women's internationals with fewer bookings!!! |
|
Author: SHEV
Date: 26-08-2006, 00:15
| I think because we have one scandinavian person in european football that has his own fair play views. |
|
Author: Lupta_Steaua
Date: 26-08-2006, 08:32
| I think that MalcomW's explantion is the right one.
ferdi, don't generalise on religion, etnnic, or other grounds.
Shev, I agree with you - what fair play means should be known by at least all interested people! |
|
Author: ferdi
Date: 26-08-2006, 10:54
Edited by: ferdi
at: 26-08-2006, 10:58 | {i>I think that MalcomW's explantion is the right one.
ferdi, don't generalise on religion, etnnic, or other grounds.{/i>
Why not? This is a fascinating task to me. I mean, I don't want to overgeneralize, so do not regard my statement as the only true explanation. You should regard it as a hypothesis which is worth to be discussed. The topic I am particulary interested in is the - sometimes hidden - effect of long lasting religious or ethical principles and values on the developement of modern societies. Fairplay ranking is just an example, and I may of course be wrong with my assumtion in this particular case.
MalcomW's statement may also be correct, but I see no contradiction to my hypothesis. Instead Malcoms "explanation" rises two more questions to me which need explanations:
{i>Because they have more women's internationals with fewer bookings!!!{/i>
So, why do they have more women's internationals, and why do women's internationals have fewer bookings?
The answer on the second question might be found in the different nature of men and women, but what is the answer on the first question? |
|
Author: panda
Date: 26-08-2006, 10:57
| I appreciate the ferdi comment 'does the damage to the coeff result in the loss of a PLACE? No.'
I also find the concept of fairness very interesting - because we use it all the time in football assessment and in life, (but the law is usually something slightly different).
I think it probably DOES have a cultural dimension, but to say what it would be is very complicated - for example, we know that as children 'It's not fair!' is a very common feeling. So 'fair' must be a very specific combination of nature and culture (I mean, everything is, but the configuration of the combination is interesting.)
I never looked at FP stats, but if it is true the % of women (and youth?) matches is higher in some countries, then for sure they are likely to score higher FPpoints. |
|
Author: Ricardo
Date: 26-08-2006, 11:06
| 'fair' is still a very subjective feeling. For children it's also only compared to what they are used to intheir environment(==culture)
For instance if a child is brought up in an environment where everybody obeys him, than if suddenly one is not obeying he will say 'It's not fair', while the other child might be brought up where nobody has to obey nobody would say 'It's not fair' if he would have to obey the other.
I tend to agree with Ferdi. I used to think that religion and culture are quite interchangable, but we got more Muslims here in Holland and I think they should adapt to the Dutch culture but don't have to take the Dutch religion. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 26-08-2006, 11:27
| are refs consistent across Europe? If you put one country's refs into another country's football, would the FP results be different?
@ricardo
we have these multi-cultural stuff things here in UK of course, and so far no one found ood answers, but the country is muddling along somehow |
|
Author: panda
Date: 26-08-2006, 11:34
| @malcolm W
overnight I got a solution.
You say what matters is to be above the seeding threshold in UC R1.
If you look at this yr, It and Sp teams could do this on % of country c alone. eng could not.
So the answer is for all Eng teams to do well, raise natioal coeff and then 33% will be enough.
An interim soution - as you say with bolton, Eng is sufficiently close to that seeding threshold even derisory Euro pfs wll do it.
In the worst case for non-top 4 supporters (=top 4 in CL every yr), now with the IT place, 12-13 teams (for the sake of argument don't count the 3 bottom, even though I know it's not the same 3 each yr) fight for 4 places, you might get in 1 yr in 3 or 4 and that's enough. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 26-08-2006, 12:12
| One thing UEFA could do (though I know it wouldn't be a universally popular move and I'm not sure about it myself) would be to change their seeding pots in R1 so that the strongest ten always play the weakest ten etc.
So teams ranked 1-10 are always drawn against teams ranked 71-80, 11-20 against 61-70, 21-30 against 51-60 and 31-40 against 41-50.
That way the importance of being 40 or 41 is reduced somewhat as you'll still only be facing a team ranked fairly closely with you.
But, of course the importance of being ranked 10 or 11, 20 or 21, 70 or 71 etc. would greatly increase. |
|
Author: SHEV
Date: 26-08-2006, 13:18
| @badgerboy
This is great idea which I was thinking about not so long ago. But unfortunately there is negative moment. Many thinks that whole seeding system is unfair for unseeded teams and with your change it will be even more unfair for teams 71-80. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 26-08-2006, 15:03
| Shev - that's why I said I'm not so sure about it myself.
In many ways it's good. Likely to ensure most of the strongest teams reach the Group Stage, a lot of very evenly balanced matches in the middle of the draw and a guaranteed decent pay day for the low-ranked teams who make it to R1.
But then it does reduce greatly the chances of the low-ranked teams actually making it to R1. Takes away more of the chance element which the current draw provides.
It's keeping a balance between a completely open knockout draw (as in the old days) and making life as "comfortable as possible" for the big clubs. To me as soon as you have any form of "group stage" you want the strongest possible line-up at that stage to ensure as many competitive matches as possible, which does swing me slightly in favour of my "new" idea. |
|
Author: MalcolmW
Date: 26-08-2006, 15:34
Edited by: MalcolmW
at: 26-08-2006, 15:36 | badgerboy
I agree with SHEV - you cannot condemn those teams locked near the bottom to perpetually meet top 10 teams. Otherwise your idea is sound, with mild steps after each 10th place instead of one massive step at 40/41.
But the whole procedure is just designed to enable UEFA to conduct the draw smoothly - fairnaess isn't an issue.
Furthermore the group stage in UC is ludicrous without home and away ties. A second class arrangement for a second class competition (in UEFA's eyes - not mine).
A better approach is to have 16 groups of 4 as a round 1 group stage.
Then there can be 4 pots of 16 - similar to that other competition.
How to reduce fairly from 80 teams to 64?
Dispense with the joke Intertoto - the only cup with 11 winners! Even those who enter only consider it as a last resort and it would not be missed. Moreover, with the increase in summer leagues it now serves no useful purpose.
Save another 3 by dropping Fair Play places - they are based on irrelevant and false data. I appreciate the political desire to support Fair Play. Calculate as now and give the winning association a large pot of money - but not qualifying places in UEFA Cup (mostly based on a lottery after the initial points scoring lottery!).
I see this as a positive and viable solution........ |
|
Author: SHEV
Date: 26-08-2006, 15:47
| @MalcolmW
I think that your solution will lower interest in UCGS cause many weak teams will be there. Also witout 13 Intertoto winners Uefa Cup will be even more weaker. With Fair Play solution I agree.
I would even propose to give extra UC spot for top-5 countries to make UEFA Cup more competetive.
About badgerboy solution - with such draw teams with low coefficient will never achieve good ranking even if they are stronger then half of UCR1 teams and will almost never qualify. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 26-08-2006, 16:14
| SHEV
You do the lower-ranked teams something of a disservice.
Last year:
Rapid (68) beat Feyenoord (3), Tromso (72) beat Galatasaray (9). In addition a number of very low-ranked teams are simply outclassed by anyone in the top 40 (Siroki Brijeg, Anorthosis, MyPa spring to mind from last year).
MalcolmW
Since you mention UEFA Cup formats this is my preferred one:
QR = 144 teams - 22 from IT Cup
- 13 from CL Preliminary Round
- 109 qualifying direct
- 2 teams from countries ranked 9-10
- 3 teams from countries ranked 11-15
- 4 teams from country ranked 16
- 3 teams from countries ranked 17-30 - 2 teams from countries ranked 31-49
- 1 team from Andorra, Liechtenstein & San Marino
- 3 Fair Play teams
R1 = 128 teams - 72 from QR
- 28 from CL Qualifying Round
- 28 qualifying direct
- 3 teams from countries ranked 1-6
- 4 teams from counties ranked 7-8
- 1 team from countries ranked 9-10
Then your group stage and a 32 team knockout with no transfers from the CL Group Stage.
So I'm transferring all CL Qualifying losers (not just QR3), doubling the Intertoto teams (allowing two from each country so again increasing the "strength in depth") and increasing the UEFA Cup allocation of all countries ranked from 9 to 30. |
|
Author: SHEV
Date: 26-08-2006, 16:17
| You can't cancel group stage. It is proved to raise interest in UEFA cup autumn phase. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 26-08-2006, 17:01
| I'm not doing away with the group stage. I'm having 128 teams in R1 (rather than 80 now) and then a 64 team group stage.
Yes - I agree this might be a few too many weak teams. But personally I consider the UEFA Cup to be partly about giving more teams the chance of more European fixtures. You also retain the excitement of the knockout rounds from the Last 32 on - but the UEFA Cup is no longer a "consolation" prize for Cl group failures. |
|
Author: SHEV
Date: 26-08-2006, 17:07
| You making a big mistake. UEFA Cup isn't for giving more european fixtures for small teams. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 26-08-2006, 17:33
| Not small teams, mid-ranking teams.
OK - take the top 60 teams in the UEFA R1 draw (possibly switching a few below the line for a few above) - add the seeded CLQR2 teams - Zurich, Djurgardens, Valerenga & Debrecen. Doesn't seem a particularly atrocious line-up to me... |
|
Author: SHEV
Date: 26-08-2006, 19:40
| Yes they aren't the worst european teams. But UEFA wants not the mid-ranked teams but really tough above good teams that would make competition attractive for not only fans of participating teams. For that purpose UEFA changed Intertoto. I think UEFA wants groups like: Sevilla, Auxerre, Rangers, Fenerbahce, Livorno and not some Debrecens, Zulte, Xanti. Main aim is to make competition as tough is it can be and not make compromises. |
|
Author: MartinW
Date: 27-08-2006, 10:44
| I agree that separating into pots of 10 teams so that 1-10 play against 71-80 etc. is too harsh for the lower seeded teams. To me it seems there is an obvious middle compromise:
Divide the teams into 4 pots of 20 teams each. Then draw the teams ranked 1-20 against 61-80, and also the teams ranked 21-40 against 41-60.
Based on the current year teams the co-efficient cut-off for each of these pots would be as follows: Pot A >38.634, Pot B >21.016, Pot C >10.504. |
|
Author: doctor
Date: 27-08-2006, 10:57
| why does Portugal nevear have a team in intertoto ? |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 31-08-2006, 12:34
| I make some calculus for the last 5 years (2001-2005) and found some interesting things:
only one team from FP had managed to improve their country coefficient (Viking Stavanger from Norway last year), in other 2 cases (in 2004-2005 for Sweden and Armenia) had sustained intact their coefficient and in all other cases the teams involved in competition loses points for their country.
In the same period of time teams from IT (only from the top 5) had strike differently (in 8 cases from 14 had improved coefficient).
If Spain managed to improved its coefficient every time when participated (in IT 3 seasons 2002/2003-2004/2005) England on the other way had damaged its coef each time both with FP teams (2002/2003 and 2003/2004) and IT teams (2001/2002 and 2002/2003). Also Italy (with only one season 2003/2004) had bad luck.
For Germany and France (both with 4 seasons out of 5) the result are mixed 50-50%. The same for Norway but with only 2 seasons.
For all the rest the results are bad (except from Sweden and Armenia see above). |
|
Author: AS
Date: 31-08-2006, 13:31
| Very interesting calculation, but now Intertorto has changed much and everything have to be analysed from the beginning. With 11 winners from 11 country (France 2 for lots of situations) there will be more teams coming from middle-value country end the effects will get worse. I will go on monitoring the effect and I will update my table after UEFA Cup 1st round. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 31-08-2006, 14:35
| @digitb
Are you able to say by how much Spain improved, and England and Italy damaged their co-effs?
Would it have had any effect on their relative placings 1-2-3?
@AS
You are quite right to say that the new IT system changes things a lot - please carry on monitoring!! |
|
Author: MalcolmW
Date: 31-08-2006, 15:52
| panda
- good question, but why can't you be bothered to dig around on this site - which holds all the answers (OK, you still have to divide by a single digit number)?
Spain gained 1.108.
England lost 1.964.
Italy lost 0.125.
So no impact on their positions. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 31-08-2006, 15:59
| @MalcolmW
It's 'cos I'm really lazy! And it's not the first time I've fallen foul of your scorn at my maths....and after I defended you against that looney on the other thread....
Anyway, thanks. I still hope we overtake Spain some time in the next 10 yrs. (And yes, I did read the projections on the database for future years where the past years drop off) |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 31-08-2006, 16:11
| @AS
All for sure FP spots are bad for coefficients.
IT spots on the other hand for the last 5 years (with only 3 teams) were ocupated by strong teams with good team coefficient. Please note that the IT spots were gained by top 5 countries. Spain, France and Germany sent good teams in comptetition.
Not to forget that for the last 2 years the UC have a group stage where these teams can acumulate more points.
For this year with 11 teams involved in UC will be more interesting to see the result and for the next year I foresee a much more interest from teams in IT rounds and why not better teams :-)
@panda
Spain gaind an overall + 1.100, Germany +0.03, Norway +0.225
England loose -2.965, France -1.300, Italy -0.125, Ukraine - 1.400, Czech Republic -1.300, Slovakia -0.500, Danemark -0.800
There are no changes at the top in the curent ranking (2005-2006) but if you consider the heavilly loose of England and the good result of Spain then the ranking for the next years will be different on top 3 |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 31-08-2006, 16:14
| when I said that England loose 2.965 I take into account both FP and IT teams. Valid for all the rest. |
|
Author: putzeijs
Date: 01-09-2006, 14:16
| On topic :
I think that Fair play teams harm the ranking a lot. It is said to be a gift, buth most of the time it is a poisoned one. All 3 FP teams are already out, and had a negative influence.
Best solution in my view: don't count the FP teams as participating teams.
Intertoto seems te be OK for me. Here you are allowed not to take part(Portugal); you have to show at least some quality to win some games.
Little bit off topic : I'm totaly pro the UEFA cup format proposed by badgerboy |
|
Author: ignjat63
Date: 01-09-2006, 14:22
| me too. well worked out. |
|
Author: exile
Date: 01-09-2006, 14:44
| Yet again, I can't agree with banning the CL drop-outs from the UC. At the moment, teams losing in the CL QR3 have quite high coefficients. They then end up with 0.5 or 0 points towards the national coefficient and 0 towards their own team coefficient
This season the QR3 losers are ranked (out of the 80 UC R1 entrants)
6,29,30,31,33,38,44,45,46,47,48,51,66,67,74,78. Slightly worse
on average than the mean ranking of 40.5 - but not much more so.
In many cases the team finishing 1st in the league is unseeded in QR3 and loses to, say, Arsenal or Liverpool, while the team that was 2nd gets into the UC and faces a far easier task in getting to the UC group stage - and here is the main point - may get 1 or 2 points towards the national AND team coefficients. Already the UC participants get far too many points (see Newcastle and Middlesbrough) - so at the very least I would only support this proposal if the coefficient points are increased for the CL or decreased for the UC.
Put it this way - the UC is a consolation prize for teams that FAIL TO MAKE THE GROUP STAGE of the CL, whether by finishing too low in the domestic league OR by losing in the final qualifying round.
Possibly a better case for not admitting the 3rd team from the CL groups. Though again, these are often stronger than many of the surviving 24 from the UC group stage. |
|
Author: toverkol
Date: 01-09-2006, 15:04
| Another thing cmoes to mind reading this discussion.
The people here say the IT team shouldn't harm the coefficient, and say it does now. I'd say that should logically be true every time. The Intertoto team, in for instance the case of Holland, is the 7th entrant from the country. You wouldn't expect your sixth team (not the IT one), which is only subtop in your country to reach it's country coefficient?
What you should expect is all clubs together managing your county coefficient, and that usually should mean you champion and runner-up outperform your coefficient, so countries from ranks 5 or 6 can have a below average coefficient. A better way of calculation would for instance be letting the middle team reach the coefficient (team 4 in Holland), the teams above that should respectively reach 8/7, 9/7 and 10/7th of the coefficient, the teams below should reach 6/7, 5/7 and for the Intertoto entrant only 4/7. Now of course Twente didnt reach that either, but 4/7 or alike is a much better 'obligative goal' for the IT entrant. (the fractions change according to number of entrants of course) |
|
Author: panda
Date: 01-09-2006, 15:29
| @toverkol
I agree 100% with you.
I think all the figures have to be done twice - once in terms of the average, once in terms of comparing the performance of the IT team with the bottom result of the other teams.
As I have posted somewhere else, it could well be that if the sub-top teams in a league are in a close race for the last UC position, the one below the UC place, that now gets the IT place, is actually a stronger team at the beginning of the next season.
And, as AS says, 11 IT winners (+ still the unfortunate 3 FP teams) with the higher ranked countries starting their teams later, gives a lot more info. |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 01-09-2006, 16:11
| It's a bit more complicated that I saw at first (and I discuses only for IT teams).
Analyzing more closer this informations I make a theory:
think that the teams which came from IT are distribute in UC and here they have some chances to win and make point.
I don't agreed with toverkol regarding calculating the points of those teams in regard with the last place own by respective country to UC. (a good example is Villarreal - semifinal in 2003/2004 and quarterfinal in 2004/2005
also Malaga in quarterfinal in 2002/2003, VfB Stuttgart to round 4 in 2003/2004, Lille OSC to round 4 2004/2005).
instead look for country of origin. England don't do better with more that 7 teams - when they have 8 or 9 teams they loose 2.9 points.
Spain on the contrary, manage very well with 8 teams. Italy on the other hand it seems don't want to have more that 7 teams involved (valid also for Portugal).
France and Germany have mixed results with 8 teams and I say that this teams could do better with 7 teams.
And not to forget the annual coefficient for this countries (flat one). Spain is on 14,5, Italy with 13,3, England 12,7, France 10,1 and Germany 9,7.
10 points meaning 3 rounds to qualified and for this teams involved it is not to much I believe. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 01-09-2006, 16:37
| I'd say for all countries outside the top five the extra Intertoto team is likely to bring down the coefficient of the country concerned.
Within the top five it will be much more variable - some (Villarreal) certainly increase it, others maybe not. But the difference between 5th, 6th, 7th & 8th in those leagues is usually fairly negligible and which of those teams is weaker or stronger the following season a lot to do with budgets, the success of new signings etc. In fact I would say the teams from those countries qualifying via their cup exploits alone are more likely to bring the coefficient down than the Intertoto teams.
Outside that top five, countries normally have three - or at best four clubs (of course some have two or arguably less...) likely to contribute significantly towards the coefficient total. Any team in excess of that is likely (though of course not certain) to bring down the coefficient to some degree or another.
Personally, I don't see any need to compare the performance of the IT team with the "worst" performing of the other teams. The question is about the effect of the IT team on the overall coefficient. The fact that the Intertoto team might outscore the worst performing "direct entrant" doesn't alter the fact that they bring down the coefficient unless they score above the average contribution of all the other teams. |
|
Author: shrike
Date: 01-09-2006, 21:46
| Still this is a strange discussion. We don't want an extra IT team because it will often has a negativ effect for a country's coëfficient. We want a good coëfficient because we all want more teams in CL and UC. With other words; we want less teams to get more teams?????????? What kind of contradiction is this? |
|
Author: Overgame
Date: 01-09-2006, 22:14
| Not really.
A good place gives more teams, but also less qRounds, more teams in CLGS and a better coefficient for newcomers (they could be seeded).
An IT spot isn't. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 02-09-2006, 11:00
| Shrike
I totally agree with you. It is daft for people to hope their IT team fails to qualify because it may have a negative effect on the coefficient. To me the more representatives a country can get in Europe the better - by whatever route. Competing is what it's all about. Coefficients are merely a side issue - all be it an interesting one.
If UEFA have any sense though pretty soon they should start counting IT matches as part of the coefficient calculation (as extra qualifying rounds) - so everyone counts an extra team whether they reach the UEFA Cup or not. It's always been a bit of an anomaly to me that teams winning the old IT "finals" and then losing in UEFA R1 have been bad for the national coefficient while the teams losing those "finals" have not affected them at all. In the past with three winners always tending to come from the "big five" this hasn't mattered that much but with the new format it does... |
|
Author: AS
Date: 04-09-2006, 11:30
| My focus is to share with you the idea that some anomalies could be hidden behind the Intertoto format and the way to access to UEFA Cup by it, concerning consequences on coefficients. Here inside is included an attempt to monitoring this idea during the current season by a mathematical strategy. Lots of good critics have been raised waiting final data for a final discussion but this is the role of a monitoring system. More over, at the base of mathematical strategy there is the target to do the most easy choice (and often this isn’t the best, it just the easier).
Next step will be after UEFA round 1 with new data.
Obviously, for each of us, the interpretation of data can be independent by our opinion about format of competitions, the system to calculate rank, …
For example, in my opinion the are two fundamental points:
a) format of competitions don’t care enough about the rights and necessities of middle-value teams (and low-value teams);
b) the system to calculate rank shouldn’t permit that less ranked countries to have a bigger denominator than an higher ranked country (for example for an extra-entry - to any reason – that could cause a lost in coefficient for its country when this team reached a result that other missed: in that case it shouldn’t be a premium but should a penalty).
Obviously, each country wish have the biggest number of access point in UEFA competitions and the best start position but aren’t like these all Intertoto spots? Why do Intertoto spots have to count only if the team reach UEFA Cup? If past season show that it is a good entry only for top country aren’t UEFA doing something of bad for the rise to top-3?
So, I don’t see any contradiction to fight for more access spots and at the same time to use the same criteria for all teams! |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 04-09-2006, 14:56
| All here we must start with the begin: the IT cup was more a tournament for inter-season in the early stage for betting propose. At lest UEFA don't agreed with it and reject participations of the teams involved in euro cups.
Much later UEFA permit and encourage participation by giving the winners the right to enter UEFA Cup (first 2 places, then 3 and now 11).
But many clubs dislike the competition because seems to disrupt the preparation for the new season and they do not nominate themselves for participation even if they are entitled. Also UEFA made clear that every country it is oblige to comply (although there are some forfeits) threats to ban from all European competitions.
So many countries send week teams just no upsetting UEFA and ranking was irrelevant except for the round to start.
Many teams starts from the first round and for them were very difficult to access the final. But for a small number of teams it was interesting to participate because they have to compete in only one or two rounds (and not five) to access the final. This teams were from the "top five". With the bonus on entering in UC the spot for IT cup became even more appealing for this teams. And for most of them what count 2 more games to enter to ROUND 1 in UC (until this year) ?
Think this: teams from week countries plays 10 games to enter UC - this is a lot !!! but teams from top 10 only plays 2 games - not so much to obtain the same goal. And this games cames very early when teams start to prepare for the next season. The possibility of 10 games plus even more for those "so-so" teams seems a lot and more of them ignore IT cup. Participation from countries ranking below 10 (lets say) are really bad.
Conclusion: It is not like CL or UC qualification spots it is worse. Teams which normally win the right to participate to IT cup don't take start to this competition and in this place their country send a weaker team. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 04-09-2006, 17:14
| @digitb
Could you clarify why it is 10 games (weak country) versus 2 games (strong country) to get to UC?
I thought the maximum difference is Round 1 and Round 3 of the IT- that means 4 more games. Then you are in the same QR of the UC. Isn't that right?
However, I have the same reservation as you and AS about the general point. The new IT format is much more attractive for a big country's club, if they know they can come in at R3, play one tie and they are in QR of UC.
So yes, like you, I do ask, does new IT format benefit only the strong countries? On the other hand, if we can show that the 'harm' done to the coeff by the IT team does NOT result in the loss of a team through the country falling down the rankings too many places (or into the wrong places) then Uefa 'got away with it.' |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 04-09-2006, 17:45
| Yes it probably does benefit the big (or at least top 5) countries most.
But with the old format the three available UEFa Cup places were always (except for Silkeborg 10 years ago) carved up by the big five. Now there are 11 places available and those big five can (as long as UEFA stick to the one team per country rule) only have five of them.
So, even discounting the possibility of "off-season" surprises (Maribor-Villarreal) that still leaves six spots for everyone else to carve up between them.
Yes possibly the overall coefficient of a country might suffer slightly due to the extra team getting to the UEFA Cup but not much further. I already gave my opinion (more than once) how UEFA should change things to resolve this.
But if we're talking about "the opportunity to participate in European football" - which is what UEFA competitions should be about - I think the "balance of beneficiaries" from the new IT format is pretty good. |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 05-09-2006, 08:42
| @ panda and badgerboy
the 10 games were valid until this season. from now on we will see what will happen with the new IT format.
I said that for week countries IT cup was not an objective but more a "pain in the ass" :-). With the new format of IT cup I still don't think there will be so many changes: some countries will still forfeit the competition and the top five countries will have more that one team in IT. Teams from "top five" will advance in UC because this are good teams and for the rest of 6 (or less) will be difficult to gain points. So I presume we will have the same situation only that will be multiply by 3 (at least 3 times more teams) |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 05-09-2006, 12:12
| digitb
But in a worse case scenario (assuming you're against so many teams from "top" countries taking UEFA Cup places) the new format gives a maximum of two additional places in UEFA R1 for "top 5" teams.
In the past ten seasons the IT always gave three extra spots. Now it might give five (plus six to other countries). This year it's given four as Villarreal lost.
I'd also say that the reduction of IT teams (at least nominally) to one per country has potentially weakened the impact of the teams that do qualify.
In past seasons the top five countries that took most interest in the competition (France, Germany & latterly Spain) usually had a minimum of two or three entries - so a number of chances to provide an extremely competitive team. Hamburg reached the last 16 of the UEFA Cup last year but wouldn't have even qualified if Germany had only one spot available. Ditto for Villarreal when they did so well.
Under the old format, to reach the UEFA Cup a team from those top countries had to pass three (or in some cases four) potentially tough fixtures so had to be of a pretty high level and in form. Last year there were ten "top 5" teams fighting for a maximum of 3 IT spots. This year 5 for 5 spots. Marseille last year had to see off Young Boys, Lazio & Deportivo to reach UEFA R1. This year just Dnipro & Young Boys (again). So a much easier route this year - which is why the competition appeals to more clubs. But whereas the old format pretty much guaranteed you'd end up with three strong teams the current one doesn't. |
|
Author: digitb
Date: 05-09-2006, 13:12
| badgerboy wrote:
But whereas the old format pretty much guaranteed you'd end up with three strong teams the current one doesn't.
Correct. In the new format I presume that the teams from top five (5 or 6, even 7 who knows) will be strong one and the rest will be more like a FP teams for the new format.
But also it is very possible that the new format will attract more (teams who not qualified to CL or UC will pursuit to IT - they will have to play 2 round to enter R1 in UC or almost
4 rounds to achive the same goal). I think that teams from top five will for sure submit for IT and with some little help and a good coefficient will be seeded in R1 :-) |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 05-09-2006, 13:57
| digitb
Yes but in the past 10 years UEFA R1 always had three high-seeded IT qualifiers, now it is likely to have four or five - so maximum two more. These teams can also be beaten but if you're looking at how much big (by which I mean top 5) countries benefit as against the rest then the maximum is two extra spots. I don't think the seventh placed teams in Portugal, Netherlands & Greece (or 5th placed elsewhere) would be considered by anyone as "big".
My point is that - although these "top 5" teams might (and probably will) be seeded they are not necessarily going to be as competitive as the teams that came through the old Intertoto format. If you have ten "top 5" teams competing for 3 spots then the teams progressing are likely to be teams that are of a high standard in the current season as well as the old. With the new format it's quite feasible for a very mediocre top 5 team to pass matches with - say FK Moscow & Ameri Tbilisi. Hertha Berlin might well prove to be a level above Odense, Auxerre than Dinamo Zagreb etc. but I'd be much more confident of that if those teams had had to get past say Lazio, Deportivo & Bolton to get where they are. |
|
Author: panda
Date: 05-09-2006, 16:03
| A top 5 team will be seeded in UC R1 if it has gained some team points. if relying on country alone (= not in Europelast 5 yrs) then I think you currently have to be Spanish or Italian only. |
|
|