tha destruction of UEFA's minnows!

[~F8~]

Time for a hypothetical situation :D

Let's take two mid-level UEFA sides: Wales and Finland from Group 4. Let's say they both finish level on points despite tha fact that Wales beats Finland twice (I'm not implying anything, this is just an example). Then let's say that FINLAND advances over Wales due to goal differential because it put 6 goals past Liechtenstein while Wales (maybe due to injuries, club duties, or just resting its starters) only put 4 past said minnows. After losing twice to tha Welsh, could we truly call Finland tha better team?

I ask this because it seems like tha minnows of UEFA are constantly used as punching bags for tha quality sides to improve their goal differential against, and rarely anything more. Even with UEFA sending 12-14 sides to every World Cup, is there really a chance that Malta or San Marino will EVER qualify?...especially with tha current format that puts one team from each of tha six pots into each group? In order for San Marino to qualify, it would have to face 2-3 top flight teams, as well as tough competition further down tha table. Of course there are upsets and these are fun to see at times. Yet is tha "ability" to "consistently" pull five points or less from a 10+ match campaign really that impressive? Couldn't a team like Mongolia or Bangladesh do this if they consistently played in an AFC group with a mixture like Japan, Syria, and Indonesia?

With tha worthy exception of CONMEBOL, every FA besides Europe's has early rounds of qualifying that allow tha minnows and non-factors a graceful exit while at tha same time giving them a couple games to show what they (don't) have. Asia's qualifying started a year ago and 17 teams were eliminated in tha first round. Some of these series were close, but most? Not so much.

Couldn't UEFA take notes from these early phases in other zones? Do we really need to see a San Marino or Andorra play 10 games to know that they're as terrible now as they were 20 years ago? Does it advance tha prestige of European football to watch Germany score on Southern Transylvania every ten minutes? Does it make tha qualification process very interesting when we know that tha next time Southern Transylvania takes tha field, it will be more of tha same? Should tha fortunes of a competitive side (again, Wales vs. Finland example) hinge on how mightily they crush a non-competitive one? Couldn't injuries, travel, card accumulation, national vs. club duty disputes, etc be lessened amongst tha teams who are worthy of qualifying by playing a couple less games per year?

Just something to think about. I'm not opposed to UEFA's current format, yet I think an opening series like Faeroe Islands-Malta or Andorra-San Marino would cut down on tha number of massacres we see during qualifying. Spain-Andorra is no more of a game than my school's side against Manchester United woulda been...

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

[JLSA]

Time for a hypothetical situation :D

...

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?

Personally, I think these arguments are all basically crap.

1) Most players in these national sides play ALMOST ALL THEIR FOOTBALL FOR THEIR CLUBS where they are already (if the clubs have got it right) ranked according to their individual abilities. They play (at least) 40 league/cup/friendlies for their clubs each year and around 8 matches (if that) for their countries. Switching 1 or 2 of these games to minnows is not going change anything about the ability of these players.

2) The comparisons between confederations in WC qualifying are similarly misguided. First, small nations in other confederations face a dramatically different cost/revenue mix in their matches to UEFA sides. They play few matches because playing more would bankrupt them not because they think it's good for their play. Second, the fact that UEFA has 13 spots and (for example) CONCACAF has 3 means CONCACAF has to have a multi-stage approach (otherwise you'd need 3 groups of 11 or 12 sides each playing for one spot which would be just ridiculous). Once you need a multi-stage approach you natural tend towards what CAF/AFC and CONCACAF all have - two group stages. And because the first group stage needs to be of X equal sized groups, you will almost always need some preliminary knockout matches to get yourself to the correct number of countries. The nature of the way qualifying needs to work with a small number of spots with a large number of nations is what is driving the structures, not some perceived need to stop minnows playing big teams.

3) I would argue that, despite some massacres, UEFA is less scattered in ability than other confederations (with the possible exception of CAF), not more. For every Germany 6 San Marino 0 there is an Andorra 0 France 1 (or Liechtenstein 2 Portugal 2). The biggest win so far in UEFA for WCQ is Bosnia 7-0 over Estonia - and Bosnia came out of Pot D!! Blow out scores are not always indicative of quality - Man Utd lost 5-0 in a season they won the Premier League. Indeed, you yourself note that many of the AFC ties were not very close - yet these did not include the top AFC sides. If exlucding top sides from early rounds and letting the minnows at it is meant to have improved relative quality, it has failed dismally. I would argue that CONCACAF is the same.

4) San Marino, Andorra etc aren't going to qualify for WC2010. Well Duh!!! Portsmouth ain't going to win the Premier League, but we don't chop that down to 6 sides because only a few can possibly win. Can't do it -> Don't try is no way to go through life.

J

[Lusankya]

Time for a hypothetical situation :D

Let's take two mid-level UEFA sides: Wales and Finland from Group 4. Let's say they both finish level on points despite tha fact that Wales beats Finland twice (I'm not implying anything, this is just an example). Then let's say that FINLAND advances over Wales due to goal differential because it put 6 goals past Liechtenstein while Wales (maybe due to injuries, club duties, or just resting its starters) only put 4 past said minnows. After losing twice to tha Welsh, could we truly call Finland tha better team? Yes, because Wales is so damn stupid to not finish better than Finland, despite HAVING A 6 POINTS and +4 GD LEAD! :rolleyes:
So If they just put 2 goals less past Liechtenstein, they would still be leading with 6 points and +2 goals.

.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
San Marino, Andorra, Malta etc, don't want to be excluded. And the other countries don't want it, too. They love to play vs the giant teams even if they lose. And they are improving. They're getting better and better.
I think JLSA just said the right things.

[Cirdan]

I think UEFA qualifying groups should have points from direct confrontation as a decider rather than goal differential.

It's really pretty stupid imho... in the CL, where goal differential/goals scored is usually be quite a good method to compare teams over the whole group stage, they take direct confrontation, and in WC and EURO qualifications, where goal differential is often merely a measure of who put the most effort in humiliating an amateur level opponent in 2 of 10 matches, they take goal differential. I'll never understand that.

[Jwaksman]

Personally, I think these arguments are all basically crap.

1) Most players in these national sides play ALMOST ALL THEIR FOOTBALL FOR THEIR CLUBS where they are already (if the clubs have got it right) ranked according to their individual abilities. They play (at least) 40 league/cup/friendlies for their clubs each year and around 8 matches (if that) for their countries. Switching 1 or 2 of these games to minnows is not going change anything about the ability of these players.

2) The comparisons between confederations in WC qualifying are similarly misguided. First, small nations in other confederations face a dramatically different cost/revenue mix in their matches to UEFA sides. They play few matches because playing more would bankrupt them not because they think it's good for their play. Second, the fact that UEFA has 13 spots and (for example) CONCACAF has 3 means CONCACAF has to have a multi-stage approach (otherwise you'd need 3 groups of 11 or 12 sides each playing for one spot which would be just ridiculous). Once you need a multi-stage approach you natural tend towards what CAF/AFC and CONCACAF all have - two group stages. And because the first group stage needs to be of X equal sized groups, you will almost always need some preliminary knockout matches to get yourself to the correct number of countries. The nature of the way qualifying needs to work with a small number of spots with a large number of nations is what is driving the structures, not some perceived need to stop minnows playing big teams.

3) I would argue that, despite some massacres, UEFA is less scattered in ability than other confederations (with the possible exception of CAF), not more. For every Germany 6 San Marino 0 there is an Andorra 0 France 1 (or Liechtenstein 2 Portugal 2). The biggest win so far in UEFA for WCQ is Bosnia 7-0 over Estonia - and Bosnia came out of Pot D!! Blow out scores are not always indicative of quality - Man Utd lost 5-0 in a season they won the Premier League. Indeed, you yourself note that many of the AFC ties were not very close - yet these did not include the top AFC sides. If exlucding top sides from early rounds and letting the minnows at it is meant to have improved relative quality, it has failed dismally. I would argue that CONCACAF is the same.

4) San Marino, Andorra etc aren't going to qualify for WC2010. Well Duh!!! Portsmouth ain't going to win the Premier League, but we don't chop that down to 6 sides because only a few can possibly win. Can't do it -> Don't try is no way to go through life.

J



While the first line of this post wasn't very artful, and there is no need to be dismissive, I have to say that I strongly agree with the four points here.

I would add a 5th point also:

In CONCACAF and AFC you have a handful of teams that are World Cup quality (USA, Mexico, Iran, Australia, etc.). And then you have dozens of teams that are just absolutely dreadful (Bahamas, Nepal, etc.). Since the vast majority of teams are dreadful, it makes sense to have early rounds where you eliminate a whole bunch of team. Then you have a small final round (6 teams in CONCACAF, 10 teams in AFC) where all of the teams have a legitimate chance to qualify for the World Cup.

In UEFA, on the other hand, basically every team is at least decent. You only have about 5 or 6 teams that really are unable to compete (Andorra, San Marino, and a few others). But even in the 2nd-to-last group in this year's WCQ draw, you had some decent teams (Austria, Latvia). Even the WORST group had Luxembourg, a team that just won a WCQ match at Switzerland.

So an early round would either be a pointless exercise in eliminating 4 or 5 teams, or else you'd end up eliminating teams with a real shot to compete in WCQ matches. A squad like Luxembourg or Slovenia doesn't have any real shot at making the World Cup, but they are perfectly capable of defeating World Cup quality teams on any given day. There's no reason to boot them out.

I would agree that head-to-head should take precedence over goal differential. But I don't agree with changing the basic group structure.

[amirbachar]

I think UEFA qualifying groups should have points from direct confrontation as a decider rather than goal differential.

It's really pretty stupid imho... in the CL, where goal differential/goals scored is usually be quite a good method to compare teams over the whole group stage, they take direct confrontation, and in WC and EURO qualifications, where goal differential is often merely a measure of who put the most effort in humiliating an amateur level opponent in 2 of 10 matches, they take goal differential. I'll never understand that.

There is no difference between the tiebreakers in the qualifying and in the main tournament.
In UEFA's competitions (for example EURO) the tiebreaker is H2H, and in FIFA's competitions (for example WC) the tiebreaker is GD (except in 2006WC where it was H2H and returned to GD after that).

[Eric B]

While I agree with the basic premise, there are valid arguments on both sides. My main problem with this thread is the OP's annoying habit of spelling the "tha". That deserves a beating...

[Lusankya]

A squad like Luxembourg or Slovenia doesn't have any real shot at making the World Cup, but they are perfectly capable of defeating World Cup quality teams on any given day. There's no reason to boot them out.

Slovenia already qualified for the EURO and the World cup, in 2000 and 2002.
While not winning a single game there, it was very impressive to reach the final tournament at all.

[Jwaksman]

Slovenia already qualified for the EURO and the World cup, in 2000 and 2002.
While not winning a single game there, it was very impressive to reach the final tournament at all.


Well that's my point. Teams like that can COMPETE. On any given day, Slovenia can beat anybody. If you put them up against Portugal, they probably win 1 out of 20 times, but it's always possible for them to rack up a couple of those 1-out-of-20s in a row.

My point was that if you talk about teams that can't compete at all, you've really only got a list of 4 or 5 teams - out of 53 teams in UEFA. So either you have a silly round to eliminate 4 teams out of 53, or you have early rounds that eliminate legitimate teams like Slovenia.

Either way, it's worse than the current system.

[pablo85]

when you lose twice against somebody it doesn't mean you are not good enough, maybe that teams playing style is the only where you can't play against. every team has their 'angstgegner'. you have to prove that you can gain points in a constant way, so that it isn't luck that you are at the World Cup.

[Gibraldo]

Some decades ago countries like Cyprus, Malta, Albania and Luxemburg were those minors and look how they developed now.

Look how the Faroes develop and even Liechtenstein are gaining some points.

San Marino might never develop, but i am sure Andorra will cause some upsets the next years.

[pramos]

Time for a hypothetical situation :D

Let's take two mid-level UEFA sides: Wales and Finland from Group 4. Let's say they both finish level on points despite tha fact that Wales beats Finland twice (I'm not implying anything, this is just an example). Then let's say that FINLAND advances over Wales due to goal differential because it put 6 goals past Liechtenstein while Wales (maybe due to injuries, club duties, or just resting its starters) only put 4 past said minnows. After losing twice to tha Welsh, could we truly call Finland tha better team?

I ask this because it seems like tha minnows of UEFA are constantly used as punching bags for tha quality sides to improve their goal differential against, and rarely anything more. Even with UEFA sending 12-14 sides to every World Cup, is there really a chance that Malta or San Marino will EVER qualify?...especially with tha current format that puts one team from each of tha six pots into each group? In order for San Marino to qualify, it would have to face 2-3 top flight teams, as well as tough competition further down tha table. Of course there are upsets and these are fun to see at times. Yet is tha "ability" to "consistently" pull five points or less from a 10+ match campaign really that impressive? Couldn't a team like Mongolia or Bangladesh do this if they consistently played in an AFC group with a mixture like Japan, Syria, and Indonesia?

With tha worthy exception of CONMEBOL, every FA besides Europe's has early rounds of qualifying that allow tha minnows and non-factors a graceful exit while at tha same time giving them a couple games to show what they (don't) have. Asia's qualifying started a year ago and 17 teams were eliminated in tha first round. Some of these series were close, but most? Not so much.

Couldn't UEFA take notes from these early phases in other zones? Do we really need to see a San Marino or Andorra play 10 games to know that they're as terrible now as they were 20 years ago? Does it advance tha prestige of European football to watch Germany score on Southern Transylvania every ten minutes? Does it make tha qualification process very interesting when we know that tha next time Southern Transylvania takes tha field, it will be more of tha same? Should tha fortunes of a competitive side (again, Wales vs. Finland example) hinge on how mightily they crush a non-competitive one? Couldn't injuries, travel, card accumulation, national vs. club duty disputes, etc be lessened amongst tha teams who are worthy of qualifying by playing a couple less games per year?

Just something to think about. I'm not opposed to UEFA's current format, yet I think an opening series like Faeroe Islands-Malta or Andorra-San Marino would cut down on tha number of massacres we see during qualifying. Spain-Andorra is no more of a game than my school's side against Manchester United woulda been...

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? I dont think that would solve anything because for Example you have a qualifieing with San Marino, Malta, Faroe islands, Leichstein, Luxemburg, Cyprus one of them will come out of this qualifieing and they will still get there butts handed to them so there will always be teams getting sacrificed the teams that make it out of these early qualifieings in asia and africa still doesnt meen they will make it to the WC. One thing that can be done to Avoid pointless blow outs, actually put fifa rankings to use when there puttin together the qualifieing groups.