Smaller teams shouldn't be in international matches?

_blank_

Hmm.

Having just read this I have to say, I would tend to agree with it.

Basically it reads that teams like Andorra, San Marino and The Faroes should have to play in a 'pre-qualifier' for the Qualification Tournaments of the Euro and World Championships.

UEFA has 52 affiliated nations, it says in that piece, and calls for a two leg play off type situation between twelve of them during the summer of the big competitions. The twelve teams involved are decided on using the previous qualifying competition. The twelve teams with the worst records play off and the six winners then earn the right to be in the next Qualification Competion.

It reminds me of the Qualification rounds that happen before the Champions League group stages, in which Irish sides are involved. If teams are good enough they progress to the next round, and if they are consistantly good enough, as Irish teams have been, then after a run of good results they wouldn't have to play in the qualification round, another team that has not been getting results would drop into the pre-qualification stage.

Thoughts?

eirebhoy

I opened a thread on this last year but it was a 2 legged system.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=266445&referrerid=59211

_blank_

:eek:

I voted no in that poll!

YeatsCounty

1. How does he expect the small time international teams to improve if they face the prospect of two full years with no competitive football (at best)?
2. Yes, the fixture list is overly congested but even if the stronger teams field their big guns against the minnows, it's only 180 minutes of pretty minimal effort against teams who just can't cope with teams of that calibre, even if their opponents are only playing in third gear.
3. Andorra etc have as much right to have a crack at qualifying for the World Cup as Italy or Brazil and should be allowed to do so on an even playing field.

Guy:Incognito

If the fixture list is too conjested, why not get rid of friendlies? They're stupid, pointless and managers treat them as opportunities to hand out as many caps in one game as possible.

Plus the games V the small teams can occasionally be bannana skins to possibly de-rail campaigns. ie Liechtenstein and cyprus.

John_C

I might agree if the 6 'relegated' teams went into their own tournament with a meaningful prize at the end. A guarenteed place in the qualifiers proper next time around, or something similar.

d22ontour

Tend to agree with Yeatscounty.Every country has to have an equal chance to qualify.

Big Ears

d22ontour wrote:

Every country has to have an equal chance to qualify.

Seeding would have to be removed for that to happen .

Töpher

I'd disagree with this, for the same reason I'd disagree with the concept of seeding in it entirity. Its biased and unfair, and only seeks to make it more difficult for the smaller teams to break into the top. The rewards are great once/if this happens, but it is designed so that todays big teams are there tomorrow.

xabi

seansouth wrote:

Basically it reads that teams like Andorra, San Marino and The Faroes should have to play in a 'pre-qualifier' for the Qualification Tournaments of the Euro and World Championships.

You could probably add Ireland into that group!

X.

Pigman II

It's a great proposal. In fact I think he's being generous with 46.

The argument that "these teams need good opposition to improve" I find to be one totally without merit. Take Malta or Luxembourg for example. Malta have come last place in all but one world/european qualifying group (1994 the exception when they came up against a new Estonia side). Luxembourg have come last every time but one too. Their only exception was a time when (ironcially) they got drawn in a group WITH Malta!

These teams are going nowhere. They've been playing the best in Europe for 40 years and have never made a mark. And I'll bet my house right now that they won't in the next 40 either.

This proceedure isn't talking about excluding anyone or making semi-average or teams with potential like Finland, Latvia, Faeroe Island (or let it not be said 'ourselves') pre-qualify. It's simply talking about making teams that aren't, never have been, and probably never will be in the running play teams in at their own level before earning the right to match up against proper footballing sides. It's not saying you don't have the chance to qualify this year or take a scalp. It's just saying that if you want to mix it with the big boys then at least prove you have something more to offer than just 10 games of playing a 8-1-1 formation in order to keep the score down.

eirebhoy

Einst&#252 wrote: »

I'd disagree with this, for the same reason I'd disagree with the concept of seeding in it entirity. Its biased and unfair, and only seeks to make it more difficult for the smaller teams to break into the top. The rewards are great once/if this happens, but it is designed so that todays big teams are there tomorrow.

If, say, Northern Ireland aren't good enough to beat Malta in a playoff then what hope is there for them in the main qualifying?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Big Ears

Pigman II wrote:

They've been playing the best in Europe for 40 years and have never made a mark. And I'll bet my house right now that they won't in the next 40 either.

Luxembourg made a mark when drawing 1-1 with the Dutch and then beating them 2-1 in the second leg all the way back in 1964 in what was the last 16 of the European Championship(although back then that was still part of the qualifying stage) . They then drew 3-3 with Denmark and 2-2 in the second leg before losing the replay game 1-0 in the quarter finals(again still technically at the qualification stage) .

So to say they have never mad a mark is inaccurate(even though you said the last 40 years they have been playing the best for longer than that) to say they will never make a mark again would probably be right though , and the same could be said of Malta .

If anyone wants my view of the situation look to the origonal thread .

Revelation Joe

As Ray Houghton says on that RTE ad:
'Anything can happen on any given day'
Just because Malta haven't beaten a top side (although they drew 1-1 with England in a friendly) doesn't mean they won't one day
There are upsets all the time:
N.Korea v. Portugal (or was it Italy?) 1966
Togo qualifying for WC '06
Norway v. England ('Maggie Thatcher...Your boys took a hell of a beating!')
Northern Ireland v. Spain in 1982

I think they deserve to be given the chance to make a name for themselves

Del

kensutz

If they dont want the "minnows" in proper qualifying competition isn't that the same as telling non league and lower league clubs in the English League not to bother with the FA Cup.

Unearthly

kensutz wrote:

If they dont want the "minnows" in proper qualifying competition isn't that the same as telling non league and lower league clubs in the English League not to bother with the FA Cup.

Well that's why they have a few qualifying rounds for the FA Cup and the 1st and 2nd. It weeds out some of the non competitive teams before the Big teams arrive.

This is no different. Everyone has a chance to stay in, if they win their games...

redspider

It makes sense to thin out less capable/performing countries and I'm all in favour of a tiered system for the European countries. It is much more enjoyable for the fans as well, so rather than San Marino hoping to defend 90 mins against the likes of an England or an Italy, they have at least some chance of winning a match against the likes of Andorra and Malta, etc. Its also better for the top teams, and it could be interesting for Ireland.

For the European Championship qualifiers, I would like to see for the top 32x teams in 8 groups of 4 teams, the top 2 in each qualifying (16 teams), the lowest team getting relegated (8 teams), and for the remaining 'lower' countries playing to qualify and get into the top flight with something like 4 groups with the top 2 qualifying (ie: 8 teams getting promoted).

That way all teams have something to play for and there are more matches of consequence and meaning.

Redspider

johnos

Great proposal. Would rid the competition of nuisances like that Eire lot.

Bounty Hunter

Pigman II wrote:

The argument that "these teams need good opposition to improve"...

it is more apt to state that these Countrys need competitive football more than good opposition IMHO. would teams like San Marino, The Faore Islands and Andorra not improve more from playing each other where they would have a chance to win, instead of learning little from being hammerd by teams who would barely let them touch the ball game after game?

redspider

johnos wrote:

Great proposal. Would rid the competition of nuisances like that Eire lot.

Not quite sure what you are getting at there. Every country has a chance of winning it and being in the final competition. The top tier of 32 within the next 2 years and the bottom tier remainder within the next 6 years (ie: for the following finals). No-one would be removed from the competition at all.

Redspider

DaveH

Completely disagree with this proposal.

We were on course to qualify for Euro 96 after beating Lativa, Norn Iron both away and portugal at home. Then we came unstuck after a 0-0 with Liechestien away!

So those teams add something to the group.

Just to add another great one for Ireland to the list. In the 70's when we beat USSR 3-0 in dalyer did we not draw the next game agaisnt Luxemborg or someone like that?

There was also a proposal a few years back that the world cup qualifing shouldnt be regional, just seeded. Pretty much throwing England in with a load of 4th rate African teams same with Brazil argentina, etc. Would have all the heavy weights in the World Cup but probably no chance for shock's like Togo or Angola to qualify.

Guy:Incognito

Bounty Hunter wrote:

it is more apt to state that these Countrys need competitive football more than good opposition IMHO. would teams like San Marino, The Faore Islands and Andorra not improve more from playing each other where they would have a chance to win, instead of learning little from being hammerd by teams who would barely let them touch the ball game after game?

Celtic and Rangers hsould be dominating European football so. Play crap teams all the time and you get complaicant and bogged down. Playing with better teams and players improves your own level.

Rikand

Completely disagree with this idea aswell. The way ireland are going, it wont be long before we're in that grouping aswell

Big Ears

redspider wrote:

Not quite sure what you are getting at there. Every country has a chance of winning it and being in the final competition. The top tier of 32 within the next 2 years and the bottom tier remainder within the next 6 years (ie: for the following finals). No-one would be removed from the competition at all.

Redspider

The problem is some time one of those teams will come accross their greatest ever side and with the tier two comp at a canter and be good enough to qualify for the main thing.............but they can't for 6 years , by which time the squad may be well aged and not at the same strength it was 6 years earlier .

If a system is worked it has to be one where no team can miss a tournament if they are good enough .

Töpher

It can't be done fairly. If its the World Cup, it should remain open to all FA's of the world, similarly if its the European Championships it should be open to all European FA's.

I disagree with the concept of seeding, and this is the next level up from that. It's just not sporting, everyone's not on a level playing field, its not fair.

redspider

Big Ears wrote:

The problem is some time one of those teams will come accross their greatest ever side and with the tier two comp at a canter and be good enough to qualify for the main thing.............but they can't for 6 years , by which time the squad may be well aged and not at the same strength it was 6 years earlier.

That is a problem I agree but can be solved if UEFA and FIFA agree to the same system. UEFA are in charge of who they put forward for the UEFA region for the world cup anyway so its not a problem to use the same system for both major comps.

4 years is not that long of a wait to get to a tournament finals. It is possible that a team could peak in a matter of a couple of years and miss out, but that would a rare case and history is showing that doesnt happen, although Greece look as if (even with the same players) they are doing that to some degree.

The topic came up in Motson's and Lawro's 'ramblings' during their commentary on the England/Andorra match, which was a bore by the way. They are advocates of a two tier system it seems. And lets not forget, Andorra have a population about half the size of Kildare. Also, anyone who is in favour of the single tier system should be forced to watch the full length of the Eng v Andorra match. That may change your tune.

The advantages weigh out the disadvantages imo. But I'm sure that Uefa are aware of this and would adopt it at a heart-beat if the majority of national associations are for it. However, for some associations who are living on glories past (such as N. Ireland, Wales, Scotland and maybe even us in Ireland), no-one wants to vote for the two tier system.

Most other sports (even soccer) have divisions, so why not Uefa now that it is at an unmanageable level of 52 or so countries.

I think it will happen, its just a matter of when, as it also makes financial sense. And if funds could be shuffled from the top tier to the 2nd teir, that should keep the lower tier happy.

I'd like to see it tried at least and if after 10 years it is deemed a failure, so be it, at least then we will know for sure.

Redspider

redspider

Einst&#252 wrote: »

It can't be done fairly. If its the World Cup, it should remain open to all FA's of the world, similarly if its the European Championships it should be open to all European FA's.

I disagree with the concept of seeding, and this is the next level up from that. It's just not sporting, everyone's not on a level playing field, its not fair.

Its different to seeding, its divisions. This is normal at the moment, such as the Premiership, the championship, etc, etc. For example, Sunderland cant win the premiership this season even if they were the best in England. Its perfectly fair. It allows competitions to be ran more manageable. The CL do it, its done everywhere in football. And as Europe has expanded in terms of coutries from 33 or whatever it was to the 52 now, Uefa should do the same. Split it into divisions.

Redspider

eirebhoy

Maybe the decision should be left up to the teams in question. You'd be suprised that the smaller teams may actually like to win a match now and again. As it is there isn't a hope in hell of some teams ever getting a win. I watched Andorra play England and there is no way they enjoyed playing in that match. 11 men literally behind the ball for 90 minutes and just hoof it up if you get the chance. They seemed to enjoy that match as much as a labourer would enjoy working on a Saturday morning.

Bounty Hunter

Stekelly wrote:

Celtic and Rangers hsould be dominating European football so. Play crap teams all the time and you get complaicant and bogged down. Playing with better teams and players improves your own level.

your comparison using Celtic/Rangers and the Scottish league is like how it currently is with teams like Scotland/England playing Andorra/Faore's where you end up with 5-0 and 6-0 scorelines. My point was that if Andorra were playing the Faores instead of both being last seeds in there group there matches might actually be competitive instead of them getting hammerd and only learning how to be a good loser.

finnpark

That would be the same as it is in CL for eircom sides. I totally disaggree with it. How the hell would it work anyway. When the main qualifiers start they would have to play friendly matches. They are up against it as it is already.

eirebhoy

finnpark wrote:

That would be the same as it is in CL for eircom sides. I totally disaggree with it. How the hell would it work anyway. When the main qualifiers start they would have to play friendly matches. They are up against it as it is already.

Up against what? If they're anywhere near half decent surely they can beat the likes of Andorra. The minnows could have a little mini league while the main qualifiers are played.

Guy:Incognito

Bounty Hunter wrote:

your comparison using Celtic/Rangers and the Scottish league is like how it currently is with teams like Scotland/England playing Andorra/Faore's where you end up with 5-0 and 6-0 scorelines. My point was that if Andorra were playing the Faores instead of both being last seeds in there group there matches might actually be competitive instead of them getting hammerd and only learning how to be a good loser.

Just because Scotland won one match 6-0 dotn let that overshadow anything, Scotland have struggled against the Faroes in recent years.

redspider

I'm not letting Scotland's 6-0 win be a factor for the proposal. Its just that Uefa is now unwieldy at 52 nations and some level of division is needed. Its not seeding as teams get to their level on merit. If you win your group in the lower division, you get promoted, if you are last in a group in the top division, yopu get relegated, perfectly fair.

By the way, here is another minnow, Gibraltar:
http://www.rte.ie/aertel/p226.htm
The population of Gibraltar is 27,884.

What next, Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Monaco(?), Greenland,
Lapland?

Anybody fancy entering Rockall?

Redspider

KdjaCL

Would it not be better for UEFA to organise a smaller nations cup that the lowest seeds gain automatic entry to every 4 years.

So these teams wouold play each other

44 Malta 1.166 0.833 0.333 0.333 0.000 2.665 3
45 Wales 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.000 0.666 2.332 3
46 Northern Ireland 0.333 0.333 0.500 0.666 0.500 2.332 3
47 Azerbaijan 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.500 1.333 1.999 3
48 Luxembourg 0.333 0.500 0.166 0.333 0.500 1.832 3
49 Kazakhstan 0.000 0.500 0.166 0.000 1.000 1.666 1
50 Faroe Islands 0.500 0.166 0.000 0.333 0.666 1.665 3
51 Andorra 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1
52 San Marino 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1

Knock out format winner winning the Intertoto of European Nations but still being in the real ones qualifications, gives them meaningful games to play in.


We not far off them tho.


kdjac

eirebhoy

KdjaCL wrote:

Would it not be better for UEFA to organise a smaller nations cup that the lowest seeds gain automatic entry to every 4 years.

So these teams wouold play each other

44 Malta 1.166 0.833 0.333 0.333 0.000 2.665 3
45 Wales 1.000 0.333 0.333 0.000 0.666 2.332 3
46 Northern Ireland 0.333 0.333 0.500 0.666 0.500 2.332 3
47 Azerbaijan 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.500 1.333 1.999 3
48 Luxembourg 0.333 0.500 0.166 0.333 0.500 1.832 3
49 Kazakhstan 0.000 0.500 0.166 0.000 1.000 1.666 1
50 Faroe Islands 0.500 0.166 0.000 0.333 0.666 1.665 3
51 Andorra 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1
52 San Marino 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1

Knock out format winner winning the Intertoto of European Nations but still being in the real ones qualifications, gives them meaningful games to play in.


We not far off them tho.


kdjac

That's league seedings, not international seedings. Wer'e 25th in the international seedings.

Zebra3

Simple solution. Throw out the non-European teams from UEFA's tournaments.

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Cyprus
Georgia
Iceland
Israel
Kazakhstan
Turkey

Slán!!!

Töpher

Remove seedings and draw groups where anyone can be in with anyone. Thats the way it should be done, but surely money says otherwise. Crap.

Zebra3

So would you agree to scrapping our two divisions and have all the teams compete in one division? Is it not unfair that 10 teams cannot be crowned champions of Ireland this year cos they're crap?

Töpher

I think yearly competitions are different, and a division structure is fair. All teams also get a chance in 2 annual cup competitions to win trophies, and European adventures.

In competitions that occur at instances nearly half a decade apart, a division structure seems somewhat unfair. If you finish second one year, you can't regroup your team and push for promotion the following season, you have to wait 48 months.

dohboy

San Marino 0 Germany 13

Sorry but these tiny nations are adding nothing to the competition. Give them a group of their own to qualify out of and then they might have something to play for.

Pigman II

Einst&#252 wrote: »

Remove seedings and draw groups where anyone can be in with anyone. Thats the way it should be done, but surely money says otherwise. Crap.

So lets say France, Germany and Italy get drawn in the same group. It's fair one of them should automatically miss out on the finals purely due to the luck of the draw?

KdjaCL

Remove my 8 with woever is 8th last in country rankings same idea.

Pigman is right there, if it was trimmedthey and us wouod never qualify with3 better seeds ahead of us.


kdjac

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Guy:Incognito

No teams should be taken out. If there are too many fixtures, get rid of friendlies, they are truely pointless.

astrofool

ziggy67 wrote:

Yes, why not? Open draws are the fairest way to conduct any sport, not just football.

If you are into seedings then do you think the FA Cup should be seeded?

Almost every sport in the world has seedings, its a reality the second sponsorship comes into effect.

Besides, the idea of the qualifiers is to get the best teams at the time into the competition, which means that seeding must be used, otherwise you might as well have a straight knock out tournament that lasts over 2 years

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Zebra3

ziggy67 wrote:

Yes, why not? Open draws are the fairest way to conduct any sport, not just football.

If you are into seedings then do you think the FA Cup should be seeded?

The FA Cup is not out to determine who the best team in Engerland is-that's the job for Engerland's national league.

However, the EC is out to determine the best NT in Europe and the WC the best NT in the world. Therefore imo seedings are appropiate for the EC and WC, but not for Engerland's national cup competition.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

redspider

I think this result from last night:
San Marino 0-13 Germany
Podolski 11, 28, 53, 64, 72
Klose 30, 45
Ballack 35
Schweinsteiger 47
Hitzlsperger 66, 72
Friedrich 87
Schneider Pen 90

demonstrates why minnow teams shouldn't be compelled to play all the same games as everybody else. It is pointless for them, and for the higher teams. Of course around the middle it gets more competitive and there can always be shocks, such as:

Northern Ireland 3-2 Spain
Healy 20, 64, 80 Xavi 14, Villa 52

A big congratulations to Northen Ireland for this result by the way which was a deserved win and played with some style and panache and definitely determination.

The other problems with the minnows is that they can be inconsistent and as was shown with the Spain 12-1 Malta (wasn't it Malta?), which was 2-1 at half-time, and with Spain needing a goal diff of 11 to qualify, it was a game that was thrown, allegedly! :-)

I think that tiering, divisioning, call it what you will, will come in, now that Uefa is 52 countries and growing! The question is just how to do it. Qualifying rounds, as in the CL, have been suggested. Most people accept the CL system that's in place as fair. Its based on rankings on how well clubs from a league perform. Fail to do well and your ranking will drop, etc.

One thing is what to do with the countries that get knocked out at these early rounds, and the standard system of playing whats known in sport as a 'B Cup' is ideal. We see it in GAA, with Nicky Rackard cup, etc, and in other sports. It makes sense and gives the 'minnows' a chance to win some silverware.

Whether its better or not than divisions is another thing. Divisions also work, and are prevalent in all types of sports over the world, Tennis, Basketball, GAA, Rugby and Soccer, so it would definitely work for Uefa, and if silverware (and money) is given for winning promotion then there will be incentive.

Its up to the countries to discuss and by all accounts it is on the agenda, its just a case of what the smaller countries are willing to vote for. At the moment, Uefa is 1 vote per country, as is FIFA. However, there is also a discussion going on to mimic the EU system more closely where countries get a scaled level of voting depending on their population. ie: Malta and San Marino can currently out-vote Germany. That shouldnt be the case.

In terms of having no seedings and having an open draw, that is a different discussion as it is a different type of competition. Even the FA Cup and the FAI Cup have qualifying/preliminary rounds before the 'big teams' are tasked to get involved. I would have no problem for Uefa to run a competition which is completely open, knock-out, no seedings. Also, no need for home and away, a true Cup competition. Sure, there is luck involved, but it does give minnows a chance. But its really luck which throws out the winners in the end and which progresses the smaller teams rather than performance on the pitch.

There is no reason why both competitions couldnt be ran in parallel.

I think it is clear that the current system of groups of 8 is unsatisfactory.

Zebra3 wrote:

Simple solution. Throw out the non-European teams from UEFA's tournaments: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Kazakhstan, Turkey

Whilst there is an argument that the links that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Israel and Kazakhstan have with Europe are tenuous to say the least, Turkey is the border case but clearly Cyprus and Iceland are part of Europe.

Redspider

Töpher

astrofool wrote:

Almost every sport in the world has seedings, its a reality the second sponsorship comes into effect.

Besides, the idea of the qualifiers is to get the best teams at the time into the competition, which means that seeding must be used, otherwise you might as well have a straight knock out tournament that lasts over 2 years

If the seeding is used to make sure the 2 best teams get through the groups, why bother with the groups at all? Why not just pick all the top seeds and leave it at that? Afterall, if the seeding is there to make sure that the top 2 get through anyways... The best teams at the time will top their groups, regarless of who else is in them.

With or without seeding, the top 2 teams in a group will go through.

If Italy Germany and France get the same group, the best 2 will go through, the strongest 2, the 2 that played a better campaign over 10 matches or whatever. Whichever one of them doesn't go through, obviously wasn't strong enough to win it, and so should have no basis for complaints. "But its not fair, we had other good team in our group. We wanted a group with the Faroes and Lichenstein because we wanted to stuff them and be promised a place in the finals just because of who we are." If they don't get out of the group, no matter who's in it, they have no reason to believe they could have been Champions Of Europe - because they weren't good enough.

Picking any of those 3 teams out of a hat, and then deciding to pick teams out of another hat - a hat with teams decided to be worse than them - to ensure that they go through, seems to defeat the idea of a competitive sport.

I'm not saying its not done. I'm saying its done for the money, and that sucks - especially when it's not at club level, and the smaller countries will have similar expenses relative to the big ones.

I'm not saying a divisional structure wouldn't work, but for it to work there should be no knockout stages. Something like 4 divisions of 13, playing each other team twice over a 2 year period (or once with an even number of home and away games), where the top and bottom 2 of each tier change places. And the winners of the top group are the champions. (I still think it wouldn't work, as 4 years between promotion and relegation would suck).
That will never happen, so relegating the smaller teams just to make it so the big teams "don't have to bother"with them. Besides, under the current unfair seeding setup, who will make up the bottom seeds in the groups then? The team that comes last? Team 'Boys in Green', perhaps?