Smaller teams shouldn't be in international matches?

redspider

Einst&#252 wrote: »

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?
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 ...

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)

No, seeding is not a way for determining who comes out of a group, its to ensure that the battles across groups are fair. For example, taking an extreme case, if the draw was open, and if Grp A had the top 8 countries (according to Uefa rankings) and Grp B had the bottom 8 countries (according to the Uefa rankings), there is a strong chance that many teams that would be knocked out in Grp A were better than the teams that qualified from Grp B. The aim is to make sure that the best teams get through as a whole, its not for money reasons, but of course the better the teams, in theory the better the football, and in theory the more viewers, and thus the more money, etc. If it was based on pure commercials they would seed teams according to their market sizes.

Whilst its nice in romantic terms to think that Brazil could meet Malta in a World Cup final if we took an open draw to the extreme and where Malta had an 'easy' path to the final playing the likes of Lesotho, Mongolia, San Marino, Andorra, Faroe Islands, Greenland, Bhutan, etc, etc ... it is possible, but do people really want that. I know I wouldn't.

In terms of the divisional structure, the suggested 4 x 13 teams (as in 4 layers) wouldnt work as it would take too long to get up from the lowest division and the divisions are too big. A more fragmented divisional/group system and something like:

Layer 1: 8 groups of 4 teams (32) - 8 relegated (top 16 play for the European Championship)
Layer 2: 4 groups of 5 teams (20) - 8 promoted (the 8 could play off for the B Cup!)

That perhaps could work.

But with such a system we would miss out on the romance of a San Marino 0-13 Germany match, but my point is that these are worth missing anyway, unless you are personally Podolski. The question is, would we miss out on NI 1-0 EN and NI 3-2 ES, and I would hope that with we wouldn't with the right structure.

By the way, Ireland (and NI?) would have a chance of winning that B Cup, and perhaps the only chance of silverware in our lifetime! I do not subscribe to Dunphy's pie in the sky assessment (such as in 2002) that Ireland should be winning the WC.

Wouldnt a B Cup suit us too ???

For countries such as Ireland that are currently on the 4th rung (seeding) this is a difficult choice.

Anybody from Wales or NI or Scotland with an opinion on this? Or San Marino for that matter ??

redspider

eirebhoy

ziggy67 wrote:

Sorry but you will have to explain that one to me.

Open draw, the top 2 go through in a group.
Seeded draw, the top 2 go through in a group.

See, no difference except the big nations don't gain an unfair advantage.

Seedings are against the ethos of sport & no amount of sponsorship will change that.

How is it an unfair advantage? As for seedings, we've had seedings in football for years now. Ireland are 4th seeds. What if Italy, France, Germany and Holland got drawn in the same group while San Marino, Andorra, Luxembourg and Azerbaijan were drawn in another group? The European championships are supposed to have the best teams 16 in Europe. Seedings are essential for this and if Andorra are one of the best teams in Europe they have to show that they are at least better than the 2nd seeds in their group.

The Rooster

Not seeding qualifying groups for World Cup and European championships will never even be considered.

As someone alluded to above, if you make the World Cup or European championships a straight knock-out competition from the beginning, then like the FA Cup you wouldnt need seedings - but it aint goina happen either.

loyatemu

Zebra3 wrote:

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

Armenia
Azerbaijan
Cyprus
Georgia
Iceland
Israel
Kazakhstan
Turkey

who taught you geography!?

Iceland and Cyprus are 100% part of Europe

as for the others - 4 are former Soviet republics and are entitled to play in europe as the USSR was part of UEFA.

Turkey could probably play in Asia if they wanted to, and it would make it easier for them to qualify for the world cup, but it would be very bad for their club football.

And Israel playing regularly against Arab nations would be a security nightmare for all concerned.

Töpher

redspider wrote:

A more fragmented divisional/group system and something like:

Layer 1: 8 groups of 4 teams (32) - 8 relegated (top 16 play for the European Championship)
Layer 2: 4 groups of 5 teams (20) - 8 promoted (the 8 could play off for the B Cup!)

That perhaps could work.

I'd agree with you on that. Perhaps thats where I've been losing the rest of the pack, as in I thought it was being mooted that only 1 team would step up from the lower groups. Hence my disagreement, as I was under the impression teams could potentially be left for decades without any sort of chance of making the step up.

Well, if I hadn't waffled on like a muppet I wouldn't have had an explanation like that, so I guess it was a good thing! :eek: Cheers for that.

I would still think that even if something like that came in, there should be open draws for the groups, though.

eirebhoy

loyatemu wrote:

who taught you geography!?

Iceland and Cyprus are 100% part of Europe

I didn't see that post. What in the name of God are Cyprus and Iceland doing on that list? Turkey will be in the EU soon enough too.

WhiteWashMan

and yet the current european champions, greece, are hardly the greatest footballing force in the world.

but dont the deserve the chance to play just as any other team, big or small have?

i still remember that lichtenstein kept us out of a major championships (cant recall if it was WC or EC) with a 0-0 draw out there.
'small' teams will always effect the outcomes of groups. isreal, that premier footballing force for some many decades finished above ireland last time out remember, and are looking strong a tthe moment, and yet no one would entertain the thought of actually losing to them 4 years ago.

so who has the right to tell them they cant play? who has the right to tell them they need to play off to be able to get into the big boys league?

so unless you actually do start playing a league and division method, then it all has to be fair and equitable for all teams, regardless of status.

the only other method that may be acceptable is similar to that used in most knock-out competitions with the 'seeded' teams joining in round 2 or 3. but why should the likes of san marino be denied the right to play germany.
the germans may go on a goal fest, but every footballer wants the chance to play the best. every team wants to play the big teams. i think thats only fair.

gosplan

ziggy67 wrote:

Open draw, the top 2 go through in a group.
Seeded draw, the top 2 go through in a group.

See, no difference except the big nations don't gain an unfair advantage.

Seedings are against the ethos of sport & no amount of sponsorship will change that.

I don''t quite agree here.

Firstly it's a tournament which changes everything. That structure implies that if you are looking for anything that even closely resembles a decent competition you need seedings.

A group with two qualifying from Italy, Germany, France, Spain, England, Holland would just be stupid and would detract from any European cup.

You could say that the big nations advantage is unfair or you could say that Ireland were top seeds a couple of years ago because we played good football, put ourselves on a par with bigger countries and improved our seeding.

On another point, people looking to have smaller teams thrown out. Would Norn Iron back when they hadn't won or scored a goal for a year or something have been included?

astrofool

I think the real solution is to reduce the number of friendlies rather than competitive matches. That way, the friendles that are on can be against teams rarely played, from other continents, with more effort behind them, rather than the farce it is atm (where even Stan can win a friendly.. ).

Benedict XVI

Will people please stop going on about how seeding etc. is not fair in sport and how everyone should have the same crack at the whip etc. What are we trying to live in, some sporting Utopia?

Games like Germany (13) v San Marino (0) have no value to either team (unless you are actually Podoski as someone mentioned.).
Lesser ranked teams have to be placed in a pre-qualifying round, and if the result is a chance to play one of the big boys then it should be a good competition for all those involved.
How many upsets have the minnows pulled off over the past 14 (I think it was around ’92 that Faroes etc joined UEFA and it really started expanding) years anyway.
I know Liechtenstein managed a 0-0 draw against us and the Faores beat Austria in the early days and drew 2-2 with Scotland at home a few years back, surely these do not make up for the constant hammerings and the hands of average teams, not alone hammering by big teams.
What is the goal difference of the ‘minnows’ in qualifying games?, mindbogingly negative I’d imagine?

gosplan

Andorra: 20 0 0 20 5 55
San Marino: 35 0 0 35 4 156
Liechtenstien: 30 1 3 26 6 108
Faroe islands: 38 3 5 30 24 108


So it turns out that the Faroe islands actually rock and that people were totally wrong about them.

gosplan

Anyway, in finding out about these teams I discovered the flaw in everybodys plan.

Once you get beyond Andorra, Faroes, Liechtenstien and San Marino, the level starts improving. Basically above these you have Macedonia, Latvia, Albania, Armenia etc who generally lose about 50% of their matches. These are teams that have competed with the big countries from time to time and held their own on occasion. To kick them out simply because you want a new 'minnows' group would be stupid.

Oh totally forgot about Luxembourg at the start, they totally suck balls.


Lux 78 4 8 66 33 233

AthAnRi

I don't understand why it just can't be left as is. The 'minnows' seem happy enough otherwise they wouldn't bother entering.

It's a great oppurtunity for smaller countries like the Faroe Islands etc to get to see superstars playing in their country. I don't think it's the place of the bigger nations to decide. The decision whould be left to the 'Minnows'.

AthAnRi

I think people need to start looking at this from a different perspective. How would they feel if Ireland were considered a 'minnow'?

How would they feel if they had a little or no chace of pre qualifying for the Qualifiers. If they had only a chance to play a team of Germanys quality, travel to a city like Stuttgart and revel in the atmosphere of low expectations once every 10 years? I'm sure a lot of people on here saying, kick then out, relegate them would change their tune fairly quickly.

Benedict XVI

gosplan wrote:

Andorra: 20 0 0 20 5 55
San Marino: 35 0 0 35 4 156
Liechtenstien: 30 1 3 26 6 108
Faroe islands: 38 3 5 30 24 108.

Thanks gosplan.
From that info the 4 new teams (Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein and Faroe Islands) have managed to take a whopping 5.4% of the points available to them (20 points from a possible 369), if you include Luxembourg then the number goes down to 5.3%.
For every goal they score they concede over 11, 9 if you include Luxembourg.

That is crazy, how are they expected to improve if they keep conceding 10+ goals for every 1 they score

gosplan wrote:

Once you get beyond Andorra, Faroes, Liechtenstien and San Marino, the level starts improving. Basically above these you have Macedonia, Latvia, Albania, Armenia etc who generally lose about 50% of their matches. These are teams that have competed with the big countries from time to time and held their own on occasion. To kick them out simply because you want a new 'minnows' group would be stupid.

Put the ‘minnows’ and the above teams in a pre- qualifying competition and then the ‘minnows’ would get a lot more meaningful games than they currently get and it might give them a chance to improve.

AthAnRi wrote:

I think people need to start looking at this from a different perspective. How would they feel if Ireland were considered a 'minnow'?

Ireland thankfully never was and never will be a ‘minnow’ so it is impossible for us Irish to look at it from that perspective. Fair enough we are poor right now and have been in the past but never have been 6-0 whipping boys.
In a restructured qualifying Ireland may find themselves like Sunderland, constantly moving between first and second tier, the ‘minnows’ would move between second and third tier.

redspider

Einst&#252 wrote: »

Perhaps thats where I've been losing the rest of the pack, as in I thought it was being mooted that only 1 team would step up from the lower groups. Hence my disagreement

I think the best way would be to have a reasonably sized relegation and promotion number, and 8 is reasonable. (Its 25% of the top tier, 8 groups of 4, suggested).

In terms of the 'Greece' problem: it may not be a problem as they qualified for the Euro's and had gained ground in previous comps (WC, Euro) as far as I remember and would have therefore more than likely been at least 4th seeding and in the top tier suggested. Their fall from grace could have resulted in them being relegated, and there is nothing wrong with that in football.

I'm sure some bods at Uefa have done some analysis on this (or could do) to see if such a system would have prevented any team from winning the European championship. I would guess not, but I havent proven that, just a hunch.

As for whether minnows would vote for it, maybe some would, some that realise they will never win anything. And of course it would depend on the proposal. If UEFA could put something together where they would get more money and cups, why would they not vote for it. I would see more desenters in the middle pack, and those countries with a 'history'. So in that camp would be us, Ireland, and perhaps Scotland and Wales.

I (or someone) could look at the groups now and divide them on on rankings and that would give an idea of what it would look like, if implemented.

Redspider

johnos

Qué idea excelente. Convengo totalmente con ése. :mad:

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Pigman II

I'm sorry but not seeding teams makes no sense in this situation. It's hard enough to ensure that the best 16 teams (approx) qualify for a given WC/EC and without seeding that outcome becomes even less likely.

Like has been pointed out, if a team is good enough they will rock the formbook and still qualify under the seeding system (like we did for WC2002 despite being 3rd seeds).

eirebhoy

ziggy67 wrote:

It is unfair because the big teams are guaranteed to be playing teams ranked worse than them & are guaranteed not to play teams of similar ranking.

So? If San Marino are good enough to be in the europe championships then they'll have to get by the Germany's of this world. There's no other way of getting the 16 best teams in Europe into the championships other than Seeding.

finnpark

I think it should be regionalised at first stage to qualify for a cup like competition to make competition. So NI, Walse, ireland, engurland and ROI would be in 1 group.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

John_C

ziggy67 wrote:

Why bother with qualifying at all? Just let the top 16 straight in.

Are you John Delaney in disguise?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Pigman II

ziggy67 wrote:

There is my whole problem with seeding- it is designed to give the better teams the best chance of getting through.

Why bother with qualifying at all? Just let the top 16 straight in.

So you DON'T want the best 16 teams in the finals? What you are suggesting is akin to constructing the English Premiership based on those teams that got to the Fifth Round or further in the FA Cup. Based last years FA Cup the Prem would could contain Liverpool, ManU , Chelsea .... and Colchester United! Arsenal would miss out.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Pigman II

ziggy67 wrote:

No what i'm saying is that all teams should be given an equal chance from the start to qualify then whoever gets through gets through

Yeah but look at it this way. Ireland drawn in a group with England, Holland, Germany, Italy and France isn't equal to Ireland being drawn in a group with San Marino, Malta, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Andorra. Both are equally likely selections under your suggestion.

The only thing that is equal in your process is liklihood of any group of selections happening Anything after that will be biased to one way or another. Some teams may get impossible draws and others a practically free ride to the finals.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Royale with Cheese

The idea of having no seeding is completely retarded. You'd end up with teams like Armenia playing at the world cup. It's bad enough watching Trinidad & Tobago as it is. Seeding is there to ensure the major tournaments are of the highest quality they can be.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Royale with Cheese

ziggy67 wrote:

How would you get Armenia at the world cup? They are rubbish with or without seeding.
Bad teams will still be bad & the good teams will still beat them. Look at South America- they have no seeding.

It's very simple. Without seeding it would be possible to have a qualifying group consisting of France, Italy, Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Portugal, Czech Republic. It would also be possible to have a qualifying group consisting of all those minow teams everyone wants to have to pre qualify. Seeding is there for a reason.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Pigman II

ziggy67 wrote:

Yes but now there are teams in practically every group who have a free ride to the finals. So is it ok for better teams to have a free ride but not others?

So your basically saying that in a group containing Ireland, Macedonia and France that France have an unfair advantage because they don't actually have to play France (or a team as good as France)? Sure throw Germany and Italy in there if you like but the big boys *still* have an advantage as they only have to play 2 superpowers where as Ireland and Macedonia still have to play 3. So it makes no difference.

I'm trying to understand pov but I'm really finding your logic/justification hard to comprehend?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Zebra3

eirebhoy wrote:

I didn't see that post. What in the name of God are Cyprus and Iceland doing on that list? Turkey will be in the EU soon enough too.

Redspider wrote:

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.

Hmmm, let me see.....

Greenland would be considered part of North America and Icelend is a helluva lot closer to it than it is to Europe. So imo Iceland is not part of Europe, even if it was colonised by Europeans.

Cyprus is clearly in Europe? Turkey mostly covers the area known as Asia Minor so therefore Turkey is not geographically (~98%) in Europe even if the American regime is pushing for it to be admitted to the EU. And where is Cyprus in relation to Turkey? Northwest of it? :rolleyes: Again, is it acceptable to let them in 'cos it was colonised by Europeans? Sure if that's the case let America in. And Australia. And Iraq. And South Africa.

As for Israel....fck them. Not Europe's problem.

Big Ears

Zebra3 wrote:

Hmmm, let me see.....

Greenland would be considered part of North America and Icelend is a helluva lot closer to it than it is to Europe.

Sorry but your little theory is flawed , Iceland might be closer to Greenland than mainland Europe but Iceland is in Europe itself so therefore it doesn't matter how close it is to N.America...........cause it's in Europe .

Ask people which N.American country do they prefer the most USA/Canada/Iceland and they will look at you with a wtf kind of expression on their face .

1/3 of Turkey is in Europe the rest is in Asia , 1/3 is good enough for me though .

Zebra3

Big Ears wrote:

Sorry but your little theory is flawed , Iceland might be closer to Greenland than mainland Europe but Iceland is in Europe itself so therefore it doesn't matter how close it is to N.America...........cause it's in Europe .

Ask people which N.American country do they prefer the most USA/Canada/Iceland and they will look at you with a wtf kind of expression on their face .

1/3 of Turkey is in Europe the rest is in Asia , 1/3 is good enough for me though .

You reckon one-third of Turkey is in Asia? :rolleyes: http://anatolianworld.com/images/Turkey-map.jpg

From wikipedia:
Turkey's area inclusive of lakes is 814,578 square kilometres (314,510 sq mi), of which 790,200 square kilometres (305,098 sq mi) occupies the Anatolian peninsula (also called Asia Minor) in Western Asia, and 3% or 24,378 square kilometres (9,412 sq mi) are located in Europe.


Iceland geographically is part of N. America-the fact that people are ignorant about it doesn't change it. Only its ties with Denmark kept the illusion that it is in Europe.

John_C

ziggy67 wrote:

Explain please?

Your sarcastic comment that we shouldn't bother with the qualifying games and pick the biggest 16 teams for the finals is very similar to Delany's plans for the league.

Guy:Incognito

finnpark wrote:

I think it should be regionalised at first stage to qualify for a cup like competition to make competition. So NI, Walse, ireland, engurland and ROI would be in 1 group.

erm, Scotland? or are we that good we get 2 teams?

John_C

Zebra3 wrote:

Icelend is a helluva lot closer to it than it is to Europe. So imo Iceland is not part of Europe, even if it was colonised by Europeans.

Iceland is closer to Greenland than continental Europe, the Faeroe's are closer to Iceland, Scotland is closer to the Faeroe's and England is closer to Scotland. Therefore England should play in North America?

The logic falls down on the difference between 'close to' and 'in'. Iceland is close to North America but in Europe.

Zebra3

John_C wrote:

Iceland is closer to Greenland than continental Europe, the Faeroe's are closer to Iceland, Scotland is closer to the Faeroe's and England is closer to Scotland. Therefore England should play in North America?

Eh, Faroes are closer to Iceland than where? Scotland is closer to Faroes than where? What are you on about?

John_C wrote:

The logic falls down on the difference between 'close to' and 'in'. Iceland is close to North America but in Europe.

No, the logic doesn't fall down. Iceland is closer to and in North America. In reality is has nothing to do with Europe geographically.

John_C

Zebra3 wrote:

Eh, Faroes are closer to Iceland than where? Scotland is closer to Faroes than where? What are you on about?



No, the logic doesn't fall down. Iceland is closer to and in North America. In reality is has nothing to do with Europe geographically.

The where in each case refers to continental Europe.

Guy:Incognito

I might have missed it but how come al of the "get the small teams out" brigade have completely ignored numerous posters saying that friendlies should be scrapped to reduce the amount of games? At the end of the day San Marino -Germany was still a competitive game whereas Wales - Brazil was a pointless extra game for about 25 players.

_blank_

...and here's the flipside of the argument, from the same site as the opening post.

redspider

Stekelly wrote:

I might have missed it but how come al of the "get the small teams out" brigade have completely ignored numerous posters saying that friendlies should be scrapped to reduce the amount of games? At the end of the day San Marino -Germany was still a competitive game whereas Wales - Brazil was a pointless extra game for about 25 players.

Well, I want to declare that I am NOT in favour of getting the 'small teams' out. Thats not the basis of my suggestion. I'm just in favour of introducing a system that will see closer match ups and is already used in football and other sports the world over. Closer match-ups => more interesting.

I agree that the amount of friendlies should be reduced. I dont think that they can be eliminated completely as managers/players, etc, will want to practice. Is there any sport in the world where a team/person cant practice? I dont know of any off-hand. But at the moment there may be too many friendlies (2 a year should be enough) .


> San Marino -Germany was still a competitive game

Not from San Marino's point of view, or indeed Germany's!

Vokes

I wouldn't be in favour of a two tier system. Would prefer friendly games to be reduced to the bare minimum.

I think given a choice the 'minnows', despite the high scorelines, prefer having the opportunity of playing against world famous players rather than playing against low-profile teams.

Another article.

redspider

SofaKing wrote:

I think given a choice the 'minnows', despite the high scorelines, prefer having the opportunity of playing against world famous players rather than playing against low-profile teams.

It is a valid point that they should get a chance to play the higher teams on the rankings at some point. This could be facilitated by a parallel knock-out Cup, open draw, only one leg. A pure cup. That should throw up some interesting match ups due to complete randomness, and the top teams could treat them like freindlies in approach.

The only catch I see at the moment is that friendly matches are popular with managers because they can break the rules and use huge numbers of subs. England used 11 subs at half-time a few years ago. I think if Uefa tightened up on that, and surely it is against the rules of the game (these are not really official football matches at all ?!?), then managers would have less of an advantage with freindlies, and indeed players.

I agree with this blog responder (except for the Scotland implication) who wrote in this:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2006/09/07/fears_for_tiers.html

TeamNameHere wrote:

Lets take Sunderland as an example. Sunderland won barely any games last year, and guess what? They got relegated. They won't be playing top level football this year. Carry on this form, and they'll get relegated again. And again, untill they find their level, and become competitive. They may even start winning more games than they lose at that point. They may even get to dominate all their opponents, once they reach League 2, and guess what'll happen? They'll get promoted. Then they might do it again.

Arguments against pre-qualifying would have them remaining in the Prem for ever more, constantly getting battered, and doing no good to anyone.

Surely it would be better for these international minnows to play each other, find a competitive edge that will give them more of a chance to get a result when they do find themselves coming up against bigger and better sides.

The Faroe Islands can get spanked 13-0, probably get spanked again in every other game they play, and their reward for being utter rubbish? The chance to get spanked all over again come the next qualifying competition! Thus wasting their own time and everyone elses.

The likes of Andorra, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Faroes, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Estonia, Malta, Scotland (:-)) and so on, should only be playing each other in their own pre-qualifying group whilst the big boys play theirs. The reward for finishing in the top two of this group whould be the chance to play in a proper qualifying group. They are not going to improve by getting hammered every game. They will improve if they play competitive fixtures which they actually have a chance of winning. They will be able to continue this learning curve once they get to the big boys. They might get battered and go straight back down to the pre-qualifier much like teams such as Bolton and Charlton did when coming up from the 1st division to the Prem. Then they might come back stronger and actually start to hold their own, much like Bolton and Charlton.

They improve, the quality of their matches improves, the quality of the big boys matches improves as every one becomes competitive, the likes of Crouch will get taken seriously (or dropped) for playing against proper teams, an already saturated football calender won't be filled with the non-events we've had over the last few days, and everyone is happy!

redspider

Attractive Nun

You can't compare national teams to club teams. The former are based almost purely on the pool of talent in the relevant country, while the latter are based, largely, on money. The reason Charlton and Bolton improved when they were promoted to the Premiership is that they received more sponsership money, TV rights, ticket/merchandise sales etc. They could then use that money to improve stadia, training facilities, coaching staff and - crucially - buy better players. While any minnow team promoted to a 'proper' qualification group would undoubtedly receive more money, the most dramatic thing they could do with that money would be invest it at grassroots level, or maybe hire a new manager. No realistic amount of grassroots investment is going to make Andorra competitive.

On another note, the minnow group would likely receive next to no TV attention, giving even less money to those unfortunate countries condemned to it. In the long run, it would damage them further in my view. And all for what reward, that the winner would be able to play against the proper teams and be given the privilege of being the only team being hammered every match? Whoop.

redspider

Attractive Nun wrote:

You can't compare national teams to club teams. The former are based almost purely on the pool of talent in the relevant country, while the latter are based, largely, on money.

My mistake for quoting somebody else's article that I did not agree with 100%. It would have been easier just to have written something myself, and I have several times on this thread.

You are of course right AN, national teams are not comparable to clubs. I would not have used the success of Charlton as a standard-bearer and case example of how Luxembourg could increase their chances.

If you take the time to read this thread, you will see that there are advantages for the '2nd tier' countries (33-52) to compete with themselves and gain promotion to the 1st tier (1-32). Money can be increased for them by Uefa, and they can actually compete to win things, promotion to the top tier and the chance to win a B Cup.

There's a lot more interesting and competitive ways to run it than it is currently being run, that's for sure.

Redspider

Pigman II

Promotion-Relegation does not work as there is no guarentee that International teams can maintain a particular standard for any sustainable period of time (even longer than 2 years!). Pre-qualifiers is the only way to go imho. That way a small team gets 2 or 4 games to gain experience and a few wins under their belt. The rewards of harder games will be immediate whilst they are still on their roll.