Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: EnricoPalazzo
Date: 24-12-2008, 14:19

I've been wondering about something, that I wasn't able to answer to myself, so I thought I'd ask the question in the forum. If this has been discussed before, then I apologize already for doubling up topics and please let me know where to find the discussion.

Here is my puzzle:
With all these upcoming changes in the competition format of CL and UC...err....EL and the related changes in the calculation methods of the rankings I was wondering if this creates a distortion or a discontinuity in the team and country rankings.

The basic question is:
With the new format are there overall going to be more or less points available to the countries and teams? Has someone maybe worked this out already?
If there is overall more or less points, then this would mean that in the next 5-year period the upcoming season would "weigh" more or less than the preceding four seasons (which includes the current season).
Example: Let's say a country made constantly 10 points in the last three years and also this year. Let's assume there are more points available due to next year's changes in the competition format. And let's also assume the same country performs equally well next year. But because there are overall more points available it scores 12points, which gives the country an overall score of 52, instead of 50. This is what I call a "distortion", "discontinuity" or "mistake". In this example the mistake is rather small, but if a country does exceptionally well in the next season, it's performance could be overrated in the ranking.

Does this make sense to you? Or do I look at it wrong?

How has it been handled in previous occasions, when the format has been changed? Were there all of a sudden more points available from year to another? (I noticed, that the points were significantly lower some 20 years back)

On a similar occasion: Bert has updated the team rankings with the new 20% rule. This rule has been applied retrospectively, otherwise if the previous four years would have stayed with the 33% rule, we would have overall less points in the team rankings of this season (with the 20% rule).
(btw: is it officially confirmed by Uefa that the 20% rule will be applied to the four previous seasons, in order to determine the coefficient at the end of this season?)

Again, I hope my inquiry makes sense.

Author: PureManchester
Date: 24-12-2008, 15:14
Edited by: PureManchester
at: 24-12-2008, 15:18

I'm not sure that there will be a distortion. It's a relative figure that counts in the ranking not the absolute. Even if there is a tiny "distortion" caused by a sudden outburst of some countrys' performance in the year when more points are granted, it will be negligeable 'cause 5 consecutive years are taken into the account. It will not affect the overall ranking unless we'are talking about the countries ranked 40-50. Of course, in 5 years it will all go away. After all, its the new rules. we can't even call it a distortion.

Author: Cirdan
Date: 24-12-2008, 16:47

there is a distortion: if there are more points available now, the years after the change will be more important for future rankings than the years before the change.

The total number of matches in the Champions League (not including qualifying) will remain the same: 96 (gs) + 29 (ko) = 125 matches.
total bonus points cl:
current: 96 (gs) + 30 (ko) = 126
new: 128 (gs) + 64 (r2) + 14 (qf, sf, f) = 206

-> total points in the CL: old 376, new: 456

The total number of matches in the EL will decrease slightly:
80 (r1) + 80 (gs) + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 1 = 221
144 (gs) + 32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 1 = 205

bonus points will increase, since we'll now get 2 points for reaching the group stage: old: 8+4+2=14, new: 96 (gs) + 14 = 110

-> total points: 456 (old), 520 (new)

We should also look at qualification, but I'm too lazy to calculate that now...

I think: the no of points in CL and EL proper will slightly increase, the CL:EL ratio will remain pretty much the same. The additional points are bonus points for both group stages and the CL 2nd round, so teams that reach those stages will benefit, in particular the big 3, but probably also Portugal, as long as they get more teams in CL 2nd round as their competitors.

What I think will have a significant long term effect (though distortion is probably the wrong word) is the new method of awarding points in qualifying rounds. fast-rasing nations like Romania and Russia made 2-3 pts in qualifying rounds more than in one year, points that Portugal or Holland could not make. Now, the best a country low in the ranking can get is catch up with the top countrys who are already qualified, which will make fast rises quite a lot harder, getting 5 teams down to the 15th in the ranking will contribute to that.

Author: bert.kassies
Date: 24-12-2008, 17:01

@EnricoPalazzo

Yes, you are right. There will be a discontinuity in coefficients of different years in the same ranking when not all changes are applied retroactively. See the forum discussion Changes in calculating club coefficients from 2009 on this subject. UEFA did not confirm any details. See the News section for published info.

It has happened before. E.g. the bonus points for the Champions League were changed in 1996 and 2004. But also the format and more specifically the number of matches (and thus the amount of coefficient points) have changed over the years.

But the alternative: apply all changes retroactively might be worse. In that case you should map the matches played from 2005-2009 onto the new format. Which is not so transparant. E.g. do you count the current UC-R1 as a qualification round, etc.

Re: Distorted rankings due to format changes?
Author: PureManchester Date: 24-12-2008, 17:12	cirdan, if you take the QR points being currently awarded into the accout, the difference 456 vs 520 will not be that dramatic. So the impact on the country ranking will be mostly due to the different method of awarding points. and as you pointed out it will slow down the "fast rising countries".

Author: EnricoPalazzo
Date: 25-12-2008, 01:59

Thanks Cirdan.
I've added up the quali games:

CL
current: 28p(Q1) + 28p(Q2) + 32p(Q3) = 88p
new: 1.5p(Q1) + 17p(Q2) = 18.5p

UC
current: 74p(Q1) + 64(Q2) = 138p
new: 6.25p(Q1) + 20p(Q2) + 35p(Q3) + 55.5p(Q4) = 116.75p

So, if I add this to Cirdan's numbers

CL
old: 376 + 88 = 464p
new: 456 + 18.5 = 474.5p
diff: +10.5p or +2.2%

UC
old: 456 + 138 = 594p
new: 520 + 116.75 = 636.75p
diff: +42.75p or +7.2%

Total
old: 1058p
new: 1111.25p
diff: +53.25p or +5.0%

That difference actually is negligible.
(Maybe somebody can double check?)

So this makes sudden rises of nations indeed more difficult.

But it favors the Big 3, assuming that they will continue taking (almost) all their teams through to the knock out stage of the CL. I'm not saying it's unfair.

Would you agree to the following statement?
The new system favors the Big 3 and nations that are in the mid to lower region of the ranking, while it is unfavourable to nations behind the Big 3, like Ger, Fra, Rus, Ned, Por?
I can't demonstrate why, but that's what I feel.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 25-12-2008, 16:26

That the new systems favors the big 3 I agree, that isin Country ranking, but to be honest, who cares. They look to be big 3 or maybe a year 4th for eternity to come.
I don't agree (yet) that it is bad for the place 6-9. There are a couple of changes that are contradictionary:
1. the 2nd (3rd) CL spot will be much harder to fill: bad for money, good for points(!)
2. 10-15 will have 5 spots, so will not so easy pass them with a good year of 1 team
3. 10-15 will not earn more qualification points than they, as each team is awarded for the round they end up in, a team that enters in Q4 will not get any less points then a team that enters in Q1.
4. (subjective) Countries 6-9 have a team that should regularly reach CL 2nd round, and get these 4 bonuspoints (though still questionable if ending 3rd is not better)

So actualy I would say the group 10-15 is more the 'victim' of the new rules. 6-9 is mostly a victim for the money, for reaching the CL is much harder.

To get back to the original question as I understood it: Will this current year have a distortion effect on countries as this is still with points awarded with the old system. Distortion is there if this year is more important then actualy should be. I mean if in 5 years this year is very important despite it is the oldest of 5 years I would call it a distortion.
What could cause this importancy:
1. A country with 4 teams getting lots of points, despite being low on country ranking (Danmark?)
2. A country getting lots of points in qualification poitns, while being low on country ranking ( I expect from the new system that at least half of the countries will get only qualification points. If a country gets much more points now than they will in the future, combined with that they never reach any groupstage (so keep being a low country ranking) it will be distorted.

On one hand, this 'distortion' is here for all countries, but you can check which countries prifted the most from it last year and this year, to see who will be ahead of the others in 4-5- years.
And there is of course the case that a team does reach a groupstage, then they will gather points, maybe 1 year of making the EL groupstage will balance out the profit a team currently has form running good qulification rounds.

I'm afraid we can guess, but the real answer will be there only in 3-4 years...

Author: Overgame
Date: 25-12-2008, 17:50

Well, I don't know.

1) Countries 1-8 lost an IT spot (almost 1 UC spot). Perhaps good coefficient wise, but losing a spot can't be considered good.
2) The bonus points in CL will increase the coefficient of the top3, I agree.
4) It will also help the few countries who are able to put one or two teams in CLR2 (Germany, France and perhaps Portugal).
5) More teams from CL going to UC will probably help mid-ranked countries. Rangers and Anderlecht know what I'm talking about

6) Going directly from CLqR4 (CH or NC) to UCGS will help lowbies to get points (actually, Kaunas or Levski are perfect examples).
7) Coiuntries 10-15 will probably get a team more often in CLGS.
8) Countries ranked 9+ change an IT spot with an UC spot. Getting something can be considered bad, even if it could be bad coefficient wise.
9) 8 new spots in UCGS (and one less team from big countries) will give better chance to mid-ranked teams from mid-ranked countries.
10) 6 games in GS in place of 4, more cvhances to score points.
Etc

We'll see. That change will affect heavily the UC (Europa League :p). Many points are scored there, and I'm not sure that a country like Belgium will be a victim. Anderlecht-Brugge or Standard could be more often in CLGS, will get a higher chance to be in UCGS. The 2 other teams will have a better chance to be in UCGS too.

We'll see, but I don't expect a big change :p

Author: Cirdan
Date: 26-12-2008, 00:22
Edited by: Cirdan
at: 26-12-2008, 00:23

Only regarding the coefficiants, not the access lists:

The new system definitely favours the big3. Germany is disfavoured in the regard of catching up with Italy, a hope that relies almost entirely on bad UC results of Italy (Italian CL teams are better), on the other hand France and Germany are even more sure to stay in the top 5, because they hardly lose any teams before group stage.

Apart from that, I believe that Portugal is favoured as long as Porto and the occasional Benfica or Sporting continues to show up in CLr2. Portugal and Holland will also be less threatened by a new Romania or Russia, that gets a lot of points in qualifying and UC with few teams in the competition. Russia might struggle, unless they improve their CL performance. Apart from that, there are no losers in particular... Any countrys that will have some unexpected success in qualifying and UEFA Cup I guess. Possibly Switzerland, Denmark or the likes. They'll find it harder to get into the top 10 than their predecessors.

Author: EnricoPalazzo
Date: 26-12-2008, 02:11

From the responses there seems to be the opinion that the big 3 will profit from the new system, mainly due to the higher bonus points being awarded.

The new system appears to be unfavourable to GER & FRA with regard to catching up with the top 3, but reaching the UCGS with many teams will help them defend their positions.

POR, NED, RUS etc. could benefit if they manage to keep sending one or two teams to the CLR2, which could help them catching up with GER & FRA, that is if they don't loose too many teams in the UCQ.

Nations from the lower regions might find it more difficult to maintain their position, because there are actually less points in the qualification rounds.
Which means nations from the lower regions that manage to get most of their teams through to the GS might actually benefit more than now.
Maybe not to the extend a la ROM, who almost managed to end up in the Top6, but maybe to climb into 10th to 15th spot.

With regard to my question regarding a distortion, I now know that the difference in total points is very minor and will have little overall impact.
But their could be some distortions with selected countries, without them actually performing much different then before, but simply because how points are awarded. Only time will tell which nations it will affect.

I'm definitely looking forward to the new system. I guess there will be a few threads next season regarding this issue, a lot of comparisons, a lot of different opinions.

Author: putzeijs
Date: 30-12-2008, 22:25

Well I have to admid that I thought the difference in points between old and new system was bigger.
But I'm convinced that the new system will be favorable for the better countries.

Where got the better countries most of their points? In the group stages! Where are more points to earn?
Where got the lower ranked countries (from +/-18 and lower) their points? In the qualies, where the number of points is lower. And the difference in points to be earned in qualifications may not be that big (20p or 15%), if you take into account that most of these countries will now have 4 entries the difference becomes huge ( +/- 37%).
And I think that in the yearly country ranking we will have a lot of ex-equo teams at the very bottum. Countries ranked 45or lower hardly passed a round. They could sometimes differ one from another by winning a home game, but in the new system they all end up with the same number of points.

So for the club rankings the new system is better, for the country ranking the old system was better. For the moment I don't know what I prefer.

Re: Distorted rankings due to format changes?
Author: amirbachar Date: 30-12-2008, 23:20	The country ranking doesn't really matter in the bottom.

Author: hamlett
Date: 31-12-2008, 09:37

In old system, the team ranking didn't take into account qualification games. Will it now take into account bonuses at each level ? I guess so.

For country rankings, it will clearly provide more stability. Romanian case won't be possible any more.

In top ten, I don't think it will really make a difference. Over the past five seasons, including this one, England got 19 teams in CL-R3, Spain and Italy got 15 teams : 6 to 8 more points due to 4 pts bonus (divided by seven). Germany, France, Portugal got 8, 7 and 6 teams : 3 to 4 more pts (divided by six). Netherlands, Scotland, Greece 4, 3, 2 teams : 1 to 2 more pts. Turkey got one team : less than 1 pt. On the other hand, Q wins won't be taken into account. France, Germany and sixth spot country got few Q points, less than England, Spain, Italy (two teams involved in CL-Q3), less than mid-level countries.

Author: hamlett
Date: 02-01-2009, 08:24
Edited by: hamlett
at: 02-01-2009, 08:27

putzeijs : every team will score points, except (or even ?) if eliminated in Q1. Only two countries get all their teams in Q1 : Andorra and San Marino. Next year, it will be Malta and San Marino. Malta will score this season some points from EL-Q2. And the six lower countries will play a three games knock-out Q1 in CL. This will be enough to untie them.

(added to last post) : new calculation method wouldn't change top ten, except for Romania and Russia, who would be lower if new method had applied.

Author: hamlett
Date: 06-01-2009, 16:25
Edited by: hamlett
at: 06-01-2009, 16:27

I made simulations, taking into account :
- the new bonus system and new EL group stage (see the new topic - comparison between old and new bonus system) ;
- the new access list, modifying the number of teams accordingly
- and no other criteria

Comparison is made for three seasons, starting in 2006-2007 (country ranking for 2011).

To modify the number of teams, I did the following :

Teams who won their Intertoto final are taken into account with their real results, except for top 8 and 16/21 position countries, because those countries won't get another entry.

Additional teams are counted for 1 pt : another team from each country played in Intertoto and got a chance of going into UC. Teams that didn't qualify to UC are considered as being eliminated before EL - group stage in new system (those teams will start in Q1/Q2, and have very little chance to go all the way through Q2/Q3/Q4). Belgium and Russia (twice) would have got two more teams. The second one is also counted as 1 pt, as no russian or belgian team has reached UEFA from Intertoto.

Top 16 remains the same, except for Switzerland/Czech Republic, but positions do slightly change. Russia (-5), Turkey (-4), Ukraine (-3), Netherlands (+4), Greece (+4) and Portugal (+2) are the bigger changes. Top 5 countries, Netherlands, Portugal and Greece increase their numbers while all other top 30 countries lose ground.

The first figure is the simulated coefficient, the first in parenthesis is the difference between simulated and real coefficient and the second figure in parenthesis is the impact of number of teams taken alone.

54,204 --- / 1 / England ( 9,816 ) / ( 3,274)
51,071 --- / 2 / Spain ( 7,634 ) / ( 1,000)
40,212 --- / 3 / Italy ( 8,409 ) / ( 3,008)
36,819 --- / 4 / Germany ( 5,132 ) / ( 1,276)
33,497 --- / 5 / France ( 8,712 ) / ( 4,695)
28,082 --- / 6 / Portugal ( 6,429 ) / ( 1,381)
23,956 --- / 7 / Netherlands ( 5,409 ) / ( 2,100)
21,207 --- / 8 / Greece ( 2,791 ) / ( -0,750)
18,798 --- / 9 / Scotland ( -0,077 ) / ( -4,077)
18,615 --- / 10 / Russia ( -6,260 ) / ( -6,885)
18,349 --- / 11 / Turkey ( -3,501 ) / ( -2,451)
15,549 --- / 12 / Ukraine ( -4,201 ) / ( -3,201)
14,912 --- / 13 / Denmark ( -3,138 ) / ( 0,587)
13,207 --- / 14 / Romania ( -3,368 ) / ( -1,526)
12,549 --- / 15 / Czech Republic ( -0,701 ) / ( -2,201)
12,541 --- / 16 / Belgium ( -0,909 ) / ( -2,809)

Changes in CL qualification course seem to me of lower impact. This could be discussed though (clearly, qualification will be easier for mid-countries Champions).

Re: Distorted rankings due to format changes?
Author: Cirdan Date: 06-01-2009, 17:09	Well, I see that as another indication that the changes that were made are enough to prevent a nation like Russia to get 2 teams in CL for free without having reached 2nd round for 5 years, while Portugal or Holland have to suffer from too many mediocre teams struggling and failing to qualify for UC group stage

Author: hamlett
Date: 06-01-2009, 17:44

Clearly, Russia will remain in top 8/9 only if they can have from time to time a team in CL-top16, and if 5th and 6th teams don't underperform too much. Last three seasons, they got a chance for a fifth team, but Intertoto teams were eliminated by Hertha Berlin, Stuttgart and Rapid Wien. We'll see next year what Perm can do.

For the past five seasons, they only had 20 teams engaged in E-cups, while Portugal, Greece and Netherlands had from 28 to 32. Fifteen nations engaged 21+ teams (even Switzerland) !!! Isra�l, Bulgaria and Serbia, for instance, had the same number of teams.

From now on, and for the next three or four years, Russia gets as many teams as France, Germany, Portugal, Netherlands, which should be a handicap, since no russian team is expected to perform at Lyon, Bayern, Porto and PSV level.

Re: Distorted rankings due to format changes?
Author: amirbachar Date: 06-01-2009, 19:49	That's non-sense. You can't change the number of teams retroactively, because the extra teams didn't have the chance to get points.

Author: hamlett
Date: 06-01-2009, 22:17

amirbachar : this is what I thought, but in fact they did. Since 2006-2007, every country or so registers an extra team in UEFA qualifiers through Intertoto. Those teams are not taken into account for rankings unless they proceed to UC-Q2. But they do have a chance of qualifying.

In three seasons, 16 teams from countries ranked 9+ qualified for Q2. 7 were eliminated in Q2, 5 in R1, and 4 went to group stage were they combined for 2 victories, 10 defeats and 4 draws. None of the teams went into R3.

So, those 4th and 5th teams from Norway, Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and other mid-level countries are pretty weak. And teams who don't even qualify for UC-Q2 (unless they lost their final to Aston Villa, Stuttgart or Marseille) wouldn't have gone very far in EL-qualifications anyway.

Maybe, it's a bit too simple to attribute 1 pt to any Intertoto team that didn't qualify for UC (the same figure for Macedonian and Russian or Czech), but I believe it being close to reality.

Re: Distorted rankings due to format changes?
Author: amirbachar Date: 06-01-2009, 22:48	Oh, you counted only teams that participated in the IT retroactively. I though that you counted Russia as having 6 teams because that's what they get now. In that case it makes more sense, although IT was harder than UC qualifying.

Author: AlbanScot
Date: 06-01-2009, 23:23

I've been looking in particular at English performance vs Scottish and while I dont think its a distortion in the rankings, my comments will highlight how the new system will provide a reality check for a country like Scotland.

This year in England Aston Villa were in the IT, Man City entered via a fair play place and Tottenham as winners of the League Cup. All 3 have progressed to the knockout games at least. My point is that below the 'big 4' in England lies real quality hence sustained average points accumulation.

However in Scotland there is only really the big 2 - Rangers and Celtic. The Uefa Cup entrants for the previous years have often been CW RU and have all performed miserably (Scotland are 29th this year as a result)
08/9 Motherwell and Queen of the South
07/8 Aberdeen and Dunfermline (although Rangers dropped into the Uefa cup and then progressed to be losing finalists)
06/7 Rangers and Gretna(now deceased)
05/6 Hibs and Dundee United
04/5 Hearts and Dunfermline
03/4 Hearts and Dundee
02/3 Aberdeen and Livingston. Celtic dropped into the Uefa cup and beat Liverpool on the way to the final.

Scotland are currently ranked 10th and get 2CL and 3EL. If they perform as badly as previous years then they could drop to 13th. This would give both CL teams 2 qualifying games to reach the group stage. If they perform poorly with this additional handicap and then drop to 16th then Scotland only has 1 CL team and 3 EL teams meaning they might actually perform ok on average and get back to 13-15th.
This rather negative situation is where I see a country like scotland ending up because the 3 EL teams will drag them down.

Are there other countries who could be similarly affected?

Author: hamlett
Date: 06-01-2009, 23:52
Edited by: hamlett
at: 07-01-2009, 00:00

amirbachar :

Concerning Russia and Belgium, I had in fact to consider 6 teams instead of 5, when they were in 9th spot. Russian and Belgium mid-teams have never performed well in Intertoto, so I considered those teams as being weak teams. But maybe that's a little bit pessimistic for Russia.

With 5 teams, they would be around 41 instead of 37, at the same place.

We'll see next year if Russian 5th and 6th teams are able to cope with EL qualifiers.

Albanscot :

In fact, if they had five teams, Scotland would be nearer to 13th place by now, threatened by Greece, Turkey, Ukraine.

They would stay over 14-20 rk countries, because all those countries (Switzerland, Denmark, Czech, Belgium, Romania) have similar problems with their 5th teams.

At least, if Rangers and Celtic still perform well.

Author: AlbanScot
Date: 07-01-2009, 00:39

Hamlett, thanks

I had a look at the 5th team for the following countries in 2008/9 and agree that they may have the same problems competing with bigger teams;

10 Scotland ITp=Hibernian
11 Ukraine ITp=Tavria Simferopol
12 Belgium ITp=Germinal Beerschot
13 Czech ITp=FK Teplice
14 Turkey ITp=Sivasspor
15 Greece ITp=Panionios
16 Bulgaria ITp=Chernomorets Burgas
17 Switzerland IT=Grasshoppers Z�rich

So I expect scotland to drop from 10th to 13-15th but I remain concerned that at that level both Rangers and Celtic (presumably) would have to play 2 difficult games to get to the group stages (as opposed to one automatic group qualification) and so the new rankings will adversely affect a country like scotland.