This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml | No replies possible in the archive |
| Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: eldaec
Date: 04-04-2007, 16:57 Edited by: eldaec at: 04-04-2007, 16:58 | http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/martin_samuel/article1610419. ece This is a decent editorial piece from the London Times regarding Platini's harebrained schemes for the champions league. The writer talks about a lot of the reasons why simple artificial access list changes won't help, and will only really serve to damage the standing of the competition. He argues that a better approach would be to alter the co-eff system to favour more recent performances, and stop countries and teams coasting through the seeding on the basis of a previous generation of players. I agree with him that co-eff system needs work, but I don't think the changes he suggests would have that much impact. He also fails to address the real problem with the CL that reinforces inequality in european football in a big way - distribution of TV money. Anyway, it's good to find a professional journalist with even the most basic understanding of the co-eff system, so we should be thankful for that at least  . |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: eldaec
Date: 04-04-2007, 16:59 | For whatever reason I can't make the link appear on one line. You need to ensure the '.ece' on the end makes it into your browser to follow the link. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 04-04-2007, 17:11 Edited by: badgerboy at: 04-04-2007, 17:22 | It's a good article & here hopefully is a working link From the article: "According to a statistician who updates the coefficient standings match by match, Deportivo are now 26th and falling, while Chelsea have risen to eleventh". I wonder if this site deserves a better "credit" than that? |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Lyonnais
Date: 04-04-2007, 18:36 | eldaec wrote I agree with him that co-eff system needs work, but I don't think the changes he suggests would have that much impact. yes. I made a quick simulation with a degressive weight of coefficients (2006 club coefficient = 2006 coeff. + 2005 coeff * 80% + 2004 x 60% + 2003 x 40% + 2002 * 20%), that presumably should correct some effects of the current coefficient. I then tried to see what would have been the impact on Champions League pots at the beginning of this season. The changes are the following: bolded teams represent teams that would have been "promoted" (better pot) teams in italic are those who would have been "relegated". Pot A: Milan - Barcelona - Arsenal - Inter - Liverpool - Real Madrid - Lyon - Chelsea Pot B: Man. United - PSV - Valencia - Porto - Bayern - Roma - Steaua - Benfica Pot C: Lille - CSKA Moscow - Sporting - Werder - Celtic - Olympiakos - Levski - Shakthar Pot D: Bordeaux - Hamburg - Anderlecht - Kiev - AEK - Galatasaray - Spartak - FC Copenhagen Conclusion: all these changes make sense to me, but don't fundamentally change the world. Even more interesting, Newcastle (traditional benchmark to explain the bias of the coefficient system) would jump from the 18th position (current system) to the 15th position (new). |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: tomcorker
Date: 04-04-2007, 18:57 | I couldn't agree more with what the article says. The seeding system ensures that those who perform well historically are graded the same in the present. Even in a year things change drastically. Perhaps UEFA should consider taking into account domestic performance - after all this is how the clubs qualify in the first place! |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: ikoon
Date: 04-04-2007, 19:37 | British propaganda; presenting fake-apocalyptic projections over few small modififications to reballance CL a small degree. Those articles are now child stories; any attempt to reduce some of the top 6 advantages are confronted with the worst case scenarios, with the begining of football, with unpopular teams that "threat" the top 6 pockets. We got our lesson of "football not a romance" but "our bussiness". I think it is not wise to present here any article that is in english, only because english is the forum language. Keep the highly subjective articles for your personal reading. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 04-04-2007, 19:44 | I think the issue to do with a team like Newcastle being seeded so high is to do with UEFA Cup points rather than weighting by past years etc. While they remain in a different competition I suppose it's not that important - it's just an easy example to quote to show there are faults with the system. In terms of seeding within the CL qualifying rounds. I do agree that - logically Champions should take priority in seeding. I suppose the problem with that is: now - Arsenal seeded due to UEFA ranking but only 4th in England play Dinamo Zagreb - unseeded despite being Champions. But if you switch the two what difference does it make? The only way to make it "easier" for Champions is to split the draw so they can't play the teams from the top countries. Of course even then it's not perfect. A decent Champion might have fancied their chances against any of Hamburg, Osasuna or Chievo this year whereas the thought of Bayern, Milan or Valencia next year might not be nearly as appealing. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 04-04-2007, 19:59 | "British propaganda; presenting fake-apocalyptic projections over few small modififications to reballance CL a small degree." Slight exaggeration perhaps - I don't see any apocalyptic projections. But after re-reading the article I have to say I dislike the attitude that because a club has a "rich history" they're automatically worthy of inclusion whereas some team you've never heard of must automatically be useless & bring the prestige of the competition down. It's like saying - we don't want new teams like Reading in the Premier League because not many enough people have heard of them - we want teams like Wolves & Leeds instead. No we don't! What we really want is enough teams to be decent enough to make a respectable fist of the group stage if they get the chance - I don't care if it's Dinamo Zagreb or Slovan Liberec; Red Star or Ruzomberok. The name doesn't matter - the ability to play half-decent (& preferably reasonably attractive) football does. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: bert.kassies
Date: 04-04-2007, 20:47 | A good article. Thanks for the link. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: eldaec
Date: 04-04-2007, 20:52 Edited by: eldaec at: 04-04-2007, 20:53 | ""Those articles are now child stories; any attempt to reduce some of the top 6 advantages are confronted with the worst case scenarios, with the begining of football, with unpopular teams that "threat" the top 6 pockets. We got our lesson of "football not a romance" but "our bussiness"."" Ultimately each group in the CL first round needs to have 4 teams who can concievably beat each other. Any solution that doesn't provide that is broken. As it stands most teams in pool D only barely meet this criterion. Now if people want to talk about why it is getting harder and harder for pool D teams to beat the pool A clubs, then that is an interesting and worthwhile conversation to have. But you won't fix it by eliminating a few pool B teams, moving some others up a rung and inserting even lower quality sides in pool D. Having lower quality opposition in the group stages is not more romantic either, in my opinion. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Edgar
Date: 05-04-2007, 12:25 | "According to a statistician who updates the coefficient standings match by match, Deportivo are now 26th and falling, while Chelsea have risen to eleventh. Hooray for justice. But Newcastle United (no league title since 1927, no domestic trophy since 1955, no significant European trophy since 1969) are now ahead of them in ninth place." A statistician... he doesn't give Bert the proper credit.  |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Giuseppe
Date: 05-04-2007, 12:28 | Yeah... no credit goes to the site... not to mention that next time the same journalist may rip-off our brilliant ideas regarding revamping European cups  |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 05-04-2007, 12:31 | "Yeah... no credit goes to the site... not to mention that next time the same journalist may rip-off our brilliant ideas regarding revamping European cups" I'm sure he's already quoted me a couple of times as it is... |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 06-04-2007, 18:40 Edited by: Kaiser at: 07-04-2007, 08:18 | Little mistake...  |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: moro
Date: 06-04-2007, 21:35 | As I can observe from this beautiful beach, is that any new ideea coming from Platini has the "presomption of non-sense" in W-Eu journals; even on this forum users are pretty much against. On the other hand, the current system is also criticised. How come? |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: ikoon
Date: 07-04-2007, 21:01 | I seen this term, "non-sense", used in general by english people, users, press, to define things or ideas that they don't agree with, not necesarely things or ideas that don't make sense. It is their sense and there is non-sense. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: daggy
Date: 07-04-2007, 22:20 | I support Platini's idea of reducing the number of max teams per country to 3. It will increase the chances of clubs from smaller countries to be able to participate in the CL. And by doing this, those countries' clubs will also improve and be more appealing to better players. In the long run it could have a very satisfying impact in the european competitions, since the gap between the top contries' teams and the rest wouldn't be so big. Also, indirectly, it would increase Uefa Cup's standard, something everyone should look forward to. But I disagree in giving a CL spot to a domestic cup winner or Uefa Cup winner, there's not much reason in doing it. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 08-04-2007, 17:22 | Just think. Champions League gonna be like 'Champions League' with 'unchamion's' play. More 'massacres'. League? I can't even imagine Austria, Zurich, Djurgarden in CL. Groups' stanfings gonna be such as: 1st place - 18 points 2nd place - 12 points 3rd place - 6 points 4th place - 0 points Neither contending nor interest. Result: less money. The idea, in my opinion, is too 'inane' to progress the European Football. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: mark87
Date: 08-04-2007, 22:08 | There is no way a domestic cup winner should get a Champions League place. Could you imagine in 2004 if Millwall had beat Man Utd. They would have taken Liverpool's place. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: HairFU
Date: 10-04-2007, 02:32 Edited by: HairFU at: 10-04-2007, 15:43 | What about this Euro Cup mode? CHAMPIONS LEAGUE 1st Qualifying Round 20 Teams: 6 second-placed teams from countries ranked 16 - 21 14 champions from countries ranked 30 - 43 2nd Qualifying Round 28 Teams: 10 winners from 1st qualifying round 3 third-placed teams from countries ranked 4 - 6 6 second-placed teams from countries ranked 10-15 8 champions from countries ranked 22 - 29 3rd Qualifying Round 32 Teams: 14 winners from 2nd qualifying round 9 second-placed teams from countries ranked 1 - 9 3 third-placed teams from countries ranked 1 - 3 6 champions from countries ranked 16 - 21 Groupstage 8 groups with 4 teams: 16 winners from 3rd qualifying round 15 champions from countries ranked 1 - 15 1 defending cup holder UEFA CUP 1st Qualifying Round 48 Teams: 27 cup winners from countries ranked 23 - 49 10 champions from countries ranked 44 - 53 9 second-placed teams from countries ranked 25-33 1 cup winner from Liechtenstein 3 teams of the Fair Play competition 2nd Qualifying Round 52 Teams: 24 winners from 1st qualifying round 5 cup winners from countries ranked 18 - 22 6 second-placed teams from countries ranked 19 - 24 5 third-placed teams from countries ranked 14 - 23 10 teams eliminated from the 1st qualifying round of the Champions League 3rd Qualifying Round 64 Teams: 26 winners from 2nd qualifying round 4 cup winners from countries ranked 14 - 17 4 third-placed teams from countries ranked 9 - 13 3 sixth-placed teams from countries ranked 1 - 3 14 teams eliminated from the 2nd qualifying round of the Champions League 11 teams of the Intertoto competition Round 1 80 Teams: 32 winners from 3rd qualifying round 13 cup winners from countries ranked 1 - 13 2 third-placed teams from countries ranked 7 - 8 8 fourth-placed teams from countries ranked 1 - 8 8 fifth-placed teams from countries ranked 1 - 8 16 teams eliminated from the 3rd qualifying round of the Champions League 1 defending cup holder I think it is more fair to the smaller football nations to have a chance to qualify to champions league and championsleague would have a more classical touch. By the way UEFA Cup will be more atractive. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: keeganvogts
Date: 10-04-2007, 03:45 | HairFU wrote: "6 second-placed teams from countries ranked 16 - 21 14 champions from countries ranked 30 - 43" What about the champions from countries ranked 44-53? |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 10-04-2007, 08:41 Edited by: Kaiser at: 10-04-2007, 15:12 | And my one, of course. Champions League (Liechtenstein's out) Group Stage - involving 32 teams 1 title-holder 18 winners of the 3rd Qualifying Round 7 champions from countries ranked 1-7 6 runners-up from countries ranked 1-6 3rd Qualifying Round - involving 36 teams 13 winners of the 2nd Qualifying Round 6 champions from countries ranked 8-13 3 runners-up from countries ranked 7-9 6 third-placed teams from countries ranked 1-6 5 fourth-placed teams from countries ranked 1-5 3 fifth-placed teams from countries ranked 1-3 2nd Qualifying Round - involving 26 teams 17 winners of the 1st Qualifying Round 5 champions from countries ranked 14-18 4 runners-up from countries ranked 10-13 1st Qualifying Round - involving 34 teams 34 champions from countries ranked 19-53 (except Liechtenstein) UEFA Cup 1st Round - involving 80 teams 26 winners of the 2nd Qualifying Round 18 losers of the CL 3rd Qualifying Round 18 cup-winners from countries ranked 1-18 5 runners-up from countries ranked 14-18 7 third-placed teams from countries ranked 7-13 1 fourth-placed teams from country ranked 6 2 fifth-placed teams from countries ranked 4-5 3 sixth-placed teams from countries ranked 1-3 2nd Qualifying Round - involving 52 teams 33 winners of the 1st Qualifying Round 11 winners of the UIC 3rd Round 4 cup-winners from countries ranked 19-22 4 runners-up from countries ranked 19-22 1rd Qualifying Round - involving 66 teams 5 teams of the Fair Play competition 31 cup-winners from countries ranked 23-53 (involving Liechtenstein) 30 runners-up from countries ranked 23-52 (except Liechtenstein) |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: HairFU
Date: 10-04-2007, 16:01 Edited by: HairFU at: 10-04-2007, 16:09 | keeganvogts wrote: "What about the champions from countries ranked 44-53?" They play in UEFA Cup 1st qualify round. I think they are to weak to stand on Championsleague and it is better for making points for the 5-Yeahrs Ranking for them. If they really improve theire skill, they can play in Champions League Qualifying in the next periode. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 10-04-2007, 16:15 Edited by: Kaiser at: 10-04-2007, 16:18 | It's a prompting for absent-minded |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Edgar
Date: 11-04-2007, 15:19 | I used a different approach: 1. Give more points for a CL win, based on the following formula: x * CL_Matches + CL_Bonus = 1.5 * (2 * UC_Matches + UC_Bonus) Thus x = (1.5 * (2 * UC_Matches + UC_Bonus) - CL_Bonus)/CL_Matches x = points for a win in CL 2. Use weights for coefficients (the same as Lyonnais) Pot 1: FC Barcelona, AC Milan, Arsenal, Internazionale, Olympique Lyon, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Chelsea Pot 2: Manchester United, PSV Eindhoven, Bayern München, FC Porto, Valencia, AS Roma, Benfica, Werder Bremen Pot 3: Lille OSC, Steaua Bucuresti, CSKA Moscow, Olympiakos Piraeus, Sporting CP Lisbon, Celtic, Shakhtar Donetsk, Dinamo Kiev Pot 4: Levski Sofia, Anderlecht, Girondins Bordeaux, Hamburger SV, AEK Athens, Galatasaray, Spartak Moscow, FC København |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Edgar
Date: 11-04-2007, 15:30 | The 2006 Country Ranking with the new rules:1. ( 1.) Spain 87.707 |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 11-04-2007, 15:34 Edited by: Kaiser at: 11-04-2007, 15:36 | Edgar Respect! At last Chelsea is in 1st pot. Lille is out of the 2nd pot. Meritely. I agree with you. CL is much better, in my opinion, than UC, so points should be much better either. Participating in CL you need more strength than in UC. And according to your rule we see top6 edgy contour. P.S. Where did you dig this table up? Or if it yours, tell me how did you count that. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Edgar
Date: 12-04-2007, 07:35 | It's computed the same way as Bert's table with the 2 modifications mentioned yesterday. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: poll
Date: 13-04-2007, 00:57 Edited by: poll at: 13-04-2007, 00:59 | Before 11 Years Champions League was really Champions League. Remember season 1995/1996. Champions of England and Germany lost group phase CL. Teams from Poland, Russia, Denmark move up in quarter final CL. In season 1997/1998 German und England performed 2 teams in CL. In season 2000/2001 German und England performed 4 teams in CL. Champions of Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ireland thereafter never play in CL Group Phase. That was nonsense! Why Teams from this Countries cannot play in CL? The Teams and Leagues from this Countries are weak. Why are weak? They are poor. Why are poor? Because cannot play in CL. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Overgame
Date: 13-04-2007, 01:17 | Non-sense. Anderlecht played the 2nd GS after many years without CL, and now will be probably unsedded in 2 years while playing the CL year after year. Why they don't play the GS ? Beofre they're weak. Why are they weak ? Mainly because they're poor. Why are they poor ? Mainly because noone invests in them. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: eldaec
Date: 13-04-2007, 09:15 Edited by: eldaec at: 13-04-2007, 09:15 | That's the Anderlecht which not so long ago was setting records for the number of consecutive defeats and number of games without a goal in the CL? They strike me as a pretty good example of a side that shouldn't be securing a good seeding tbh. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: rakke
Date: 13-04-2007, 09:35 | About Anderlecht: the last 5 times they played the 3rd qualifying round they won every time, beating Porto, Wisla Krakow, Benfica, Halmstads & Slavia Praha. So they earned their place. But there is a gap between the European top 15-20 teams or so and all the rest, and it is growing... And obviously Anderlecht is not in it. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: badgerboy
Date: 13-04-2007, 11:53 | Yes. As Overgame says the idea that the only reason clubs from smaller countries are unable to compete with the big clubs anymore is "lack of opportunity" is a nonsense. List of teams by number of group stage appearances in the past 8 seasons (since 32 team CL) - second number is number of times the team has passed to the last 16/second group stage. Arsenal 8 7 Bayern Munich 8 7 Man Utd 8 7 Olympiakos 8 0 PSV Eindhoven 8 3 Real Madrid 8 8 Barcelona 7 6 Dynamo Kyiv 7 1 Lyon 7 5 Milan 7 6 Anderlecht 6 1 Galatasaray 6 2 Juventus 6 5 Porto 6 5 Rosenborg 6 1 Sparta Prague 6 3 Bayer Leverkusen 5 3 Chelsea 5 5 Deportivo La Coruna 5 4 Inter Milan 5 4 Liverpool 5 4 Panathinaikos 5 2 Spartak Moscow 5 1 Valencia 5 4 Ajax Amsterdam 4 2 Celtic 4 1 Lazio 4 2 Rangers 4 1 Roma 4 3 AEK Athens 3 0 Borussia Dortmund 3 1 Club Brugge 3 0 Fenerbahce 3 0 Feyenoord 3 1 Lille 3 1 Lokomotiv Moscow 3 2 Monaco 3 2 Shakhtor Donetsk 3 0 Werder Bremen 3 2 Benfica 2 1 Besiktas 2 0 Boavista 2 1 Bordeaux 2 1 CSKA Moscow 2 0 Hamburg 2 0 Marseille 2 1 Paris St Germain 2 1 Schalke 2 0 Sporting Lisbon 2 0 Sturm Graz 2 1 AIK Solna 1 0 Artmedia Bratislava 1 0 Auxerre 1 0 Basle 1 1 Celta Vigo 1 1 Dinamo Zagreb 1 0 FC Kobenhavn 1 0 Fiorentina 1 1 Genk 1 0 Heerenveen 1 0 Helsingborgs 1 0 Hertha Berlin 1 1 Leeds United 1 1 Lens 1 0 Levski Sofia 1 0 Maccabi Haifa 1 0 Maccabi Tel-Aviv 1 0 Maribor Branik 1 0 Molde 1 0 Nantes 1 1 Newcastle United 1 1 Partizan Belgrade 1 0 Rapid Wien 1 0 Real Betis 1 0 Real Mallorca 1 0 Real Sociedad 1 1 Steaua Bucharest 1 0 Stuttgart 1 1 Thun 1 0 Udinese 1 0 Villarreal 1 1 Willem II Tilburg 1 0 You immediately see a team like Olympiakos - 8 attempts (no qualifiers for them by the way) & no passes. Dynamo Kyiv 1/7 passes -lack of opportunity can hardly be their excuse for being so abject this season - their seventh appearance in 8 years. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Edgar
Date: 16-04-2007, 13:41 | Top 50 with the new rules (more points for CL and progressive formula for coefficients):1. ( 1.) AC Milan 105.848 |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: putzeijs
Date: 19-04-2007, 15:44 | Oh boy, this is the never ending story. If you want to have the best 32 teams of Europe, you have to select on budget. Is that what we want? no way. If you want 32 topteams, you have to select the top 8 of England, Italy and Spain, and the top 2 of France, Germany, Holland and Portugal. Is that what we want? No way. Some of us want to go back to 32 Champions, and all the rest to the UEFA cup. This is not my proposition, but at least it fit in with the name of the game. And it would be a huge upgrade to the UEFA cup. As long that we don't agree upon our goal (international diversity or top budget teams), we can't agree on a schema. I didn't like the artikel at all. Wasn't it the Slovenian champion of last year who humilated Celtic? Is it not due to Russian money that part of the Brittisch succes is gained? The position against Newcastle I can understand. All the rest seems to be misplaced national egoism. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: Kaiser
Date: 19-04-2007, 16:13 | No way. It was Slovak. |
| Re: Times article about Platini's CL nonsense | |
| Author: seleucus
Date: 19-04-2007, 16:13 | 2005/2006 CL - 2nd Qualifying Round Petrzalka Bratislava (Svk) 5-0 Celtic (Sco)0-4 Actually it was a slovakian one. |