Q for the Euro fans

[SoccerScout]

I have a question for the Euro fans since you have first hand experience here. The Brazilian league in 2003 will for the first time ever be played with 24 teams, home and away and thats it, no playoffs, nothing. The team that gets to the end with most points is the champ. Isnt this how they do it in most of Europe? Is it any good, doesnt it get boring half way through since most teams would be virtually eliminated by then?

Why they are doing this NOW in Brazil after a SENSATIONAL 2002 Cup with drama from day 1 to the last day is BEYOND me.

[skipshady]

It's a trade-off, I think.
In a non-playoff system, every match is meaningful - you can conceivably lose a championship by having a bad stretch in the beginning of the season, whereas under a playoff system, regular season matches have less significance, especially after the seeds are determined.

Plus, you still have teams fighting relegation and playing for places in Europe, so there are actually very few "meaningless matches" at the end of the season.

While I appreciate the appeal of seeing the best teams go head to head in a playoff, I wouldn't call the non-playoff system boring.

[SoccerScout]

It just surprises me, the 2002 Brazilian Championship was 26 teams, 25 games, top 8 go into a playoff, home and away. Up until Round 24 and 25 only 4 teams were seeded while another 10 were still fighting to get a seed.

As a matter of fact the Champs Santos were seeded 8th and just made it in in the final round.

Meanwhile another 6 teams in the last 2 rounds were fighting to stay out of relegation. Only about 3 teams were eliminated and had no worries about relegation. After so much success they go to this ne wformula.

Making things worse is that city rivalries are so HUGE that say Inter (Porto ALegre) is in first along with Flamengo (Rio) during the last round. But say Gremio (Porto ALegre - Inter Rival) faces Flamengo, Gremio would most absolutley let Flamengo win to NOT LET Inter win the Championship. That is such a no brainer any of the major rivals would lose so that their enemy is benfited. And that is bound to happen in 2003. Will seem like WC 78 all over again...

[AFCA]

RENSEBRINK... OP DE PAAL!!!!

[michaec]

Maybe it's just because I'm used to it, but I prefer the straight league system with no play-offs at the end. Yes the play-offs lead to some high drama games at the end of the season, but the league system is definitely a fairer way of doing it.

I think it depends on what you are looking for, dramtic games at the end of the season or a system that shows who are the best team. I mean, last year in England, Arsenal finished first. Aston Villa finished eighth. If Villa then have a great couple of weeks in the play-offs and win the championship, does that mean they are the best team? Certainly not in my book.

As for teams letting other sides win because of rivalries, I remember a few years ago when Blackburn went to Liverpool needing to win to make sure of the championship. They lost at Anfield which could have meant that Man U. won the league. They only drew at West Ham, so Blackburn won. Now there is no love lost between Liverpool and Man Yoo and as Liverpool had no chance of winning the league, they could have let Blackburn win to make sure Man Yoo didn't. It's down to the integrity of the players involved I suppose, match fixing has happened in England in the past, but the instances are few and far between.

[AFCA]

Errrr... since when do European players care? Are there any left (maybe a few) that really feel connected with the club they play for?

[gerr18]

Originally posted by AFCA
Errrr... since when do European players care? Are there any left (maybe a few) that really feel connected with the club they play for?

The one player who really comes to mind is Alan Shearer...that man is black and white through and through. He'd go to war for Newcastle.

[SoccerScout]

Well its not about the palyers caring (many players are from out of town), its about the frontoffice and fans caring. In Brazil if the situation came up and Inter had to lose so that Gremio wouldnt be champs you can bet your a$$ that Inter fans would prefer they lose than see half of the city on the streets celebrating Gremio's championship. The players would be hounded by media, fans and management (even if casually) to understand the logic behind winning this match and losing it.

Over there fans constantly rub in titles for decades and 1 meaningless game for a team is well worth losing than to "hand" the enemy the title.

[AFCA]

The same goes here in many situations but media and the management consider sportsmanship more important.

[michaec]

Originally posted by AFCA
Errrr... since when do European players care? Are there any left (maybe a few) that really feel connected with the club they play for? I never said they care about the club, although even if they are not from the area or didn't come through the youth team, they may still have strong ties with the club. Ian Wright is an example who can often be seen at Highbury on match days. I said they had integrity, professional pride if you will. Obviously there is some home grown talent at every club (like Alan Shearer mentioned above) who will go above and beyond the call of duty.

[SportBoy321]

I don't like the one table everyone plays each other twice format because for example, Manchester United should play Manchester City more times than they play lets say oh a Southhampton. You need to play your regional and geographic rivals more times than you play a team thats on the other end of the country.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by SportBoy321
I don't like the one table everyone plays each other twice format because for example, Manchester United should play Manchester City more times than they play lets say oh a Southhampton. You need to play your regional and geographic rivals more times than you play a team thats on the other end of the country.
One question - WHY?

Do you have any comprehension as to how big England is?

Who are Southampton's regional rivals?
Portsmouth (div1), Bournemouth (div3)?

We have a compact little country here, which is why the home and away format against ALL teams works so well.

Or should we go over unnecessarily to the US sytem of events? Where one side of the country plays entirely different teams from the other side - then meet at the end of the season to decide who's best? Our (and others) system works well and provides a resultant table that people can trust as to which teams are the best in the country.

Yet again sportboy, you've excelled yourself.

[SportBoy321]

not just England I meant all countries. I don't think LA Galaxy should play Metrostars the same amount of times they play SJ for example. Europe too.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by SportBoy321
not just England I meant all countries. I don't think LA Galaxy should play Metrostars the same amount of times they play SJ for example. Europe too.

The US splits things up for the sake of ease due to the size of the country.
Europe as a whole is about a similar size, so by that reasoning Europe is regionalised into groups - they are called countries.
The Italian/German/Spanish/Dutch etc etc leagues are already regionalised within Europe.
It doesn't need to be further regionalised.
The single league format tells everyone - without argument - who is the best team in a league.
Without that format there will always be arguments and as there are European places at stake, this is an important issue.

[SportBoy321]

Well I never said they should have playoffs. I just want to see Arsenal and Tottenham play each other more times than they play Bolton.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by SportBoy321
Well I never said they should have playoffs. I just want to see Arsenal and Tottenham play each other more times than they play Bolton.

Aaarrrghhh!!!

But that would mean the end results of any league table would be skewed.

Everyone needs to play everyone else the same number of times to result in an end of year table that can be relied upon to tell people who is the best team in the country.

If (for example) England was regionalised as per your point. Bolton would have to play more difficult teams more often than Leeds would have to. So Leeds would supposedly be higher in the table, simply because they've had 'lesser' opponents.
The key to any league table is consistency - otherwise the proceedure is pointless.

[Craig the Aussie]

I think its just what you are used to. In all Australian sports there are end of year finals - top 4, 6 or 8 depending on the number of teams in the comp.

All that matters all year is getting into the finals. Top position is irrelevant (except that you get home ground advantage in the finals). Noone remembers who finished the year on top of the league ladder.

Unless you have promotion/relegation and Euro competitions etc to qualify for to keep interest going - the straight league system gets pretty boring.

[Heywood Jablohmi]

Originally posted by Craig the Aussie
I think its just what you are used to. In all Australian sports there are end of year finals - top 4, 6 or 8 depending on the number of teams in the comp.



I thought in Australia, the BOTTOM 8 advance! Get it, down under, har, all that!?

[RichardL]

Originally posted by Heywood Jablohmi
I thought in Australia, the BOTTOM 8 advance! Get it, down under, har, all that!?

I'm just wondering, what is your day job? Are you perhaps considering giving it up? I'd advise against it.

[Heywood Jablohmi]

Originally posted by RichardL
I'm just wondering, what is your day job? Are you perhaps considering giving it up? I'd advise against it.

Too much eggnog.