yeah, that's cause it's a straight average. Yes, no system will be perfect, but their should be, say, a bonus for qualifying to offset (or at least partially offset), the drop in average, a la the bonuses given for champs league advancement (yes, that is different cause the average is not in games played, but the rule can be applied here), so that teams who qualify and crash out are equal to under the old system, but teams who advance far in actual important tournaments get those points added on with a multiplier, so say like a win is three points, but in wc quarterfinals it is multipled by 1.25, semifinal 1.4 and final 1.5, while giving bonus points along the way as you are now getting more games, so you don't want losing in the semis to bring down someone's ranking. that is essentially what fifa rankings do, they multiply to give more weight to important wins, etc. I haven't worked out the exacts of this, but this current system could lead to some really dumb results, worse than fifa rankings. poland is better than italy (if they weren't world cup champions) and france and spain and portugal and england, blah blah. this is even moreinceible when you take into account some of those teams hqad really long unbeaten streaks, italy got to 25 games before croatia b team friendly, france also and I think spain did too until the world cup. it is just nonsensical to me that croatia, sweden, and poland are so high above all those powers who advanced far in the world cup. admittedly, the exact numbers and procedures would have to be worked out, as I haven't given too much thought to them, but that seems like a start.
The results of WC 2006 and Euro 2008 qualifying: Poland WC 2006: 24 points from 10 matches Euro 2008: 16 points from 7 matches (so far) total: 40 from 17 = 2.353 points/match France WC 2006: 20 points from 10 matches Euro 2008: 12 points from 5 matches (so far) total: 32 from 15 = 2.133 points/match Edit: Sorry, I only see now it was already posted.
this is a very stupid and comical system, why does it not take into account the WC and the Euro championship themselves instead of qualifying. This is worse than just using the fifa rankings. I have never seen such a ridiculous method used before.
As explained above it's not as bad of a system as our resident crybaby and physical football hater would have us believe. After all the draw is to decide pots for qualifiers, so the teams that have been most successful in a lenghty, demanding home and away round-robin in the recent past should be given the best seeds - once the Championship stage is reached, then performance in recent tournaments should be used to determine pots. I agree though that it perhaps would be beneficial to make some statistical amends for the uneven quality of past groups - but would it make that much of a difference? Is Poland's present Euro group with Portugal, Belgium, Serbia, and Finland any worse statistically than France's with Italy, Ukraine and Scotland? Let's see, based on current FIFA rankings, using only the rankings of France's and Poland's opponents, and omitting those countries themselves since they can not play themselves: Italy - 2; Ukraine - 11; Scotland - 16; Lithuania - 76; Georgia - 85; Faroe Isl - 182. Total: 372. Average FIFA position: 62 Portugal - 8; Serbia-28; Finland -32; Belgium -55; Armenia -119; Kazakhstan - 143; Azerbaijan - 123. Total: 532. Average FIFA position: 72.5 So we have an average difference of about 10.5 spots in the FIFA ranking in favor of France's opponents. What does it mean, if anything? And how to account for that advantage with respect to pots, I don't know.
If the purpose is to qualify the best teams from Europe, then this system automatically eliminates some of them, and gaurantees that a few featherweight sides will qualify. Oh well, hopefully my team gets a side like Poland or Scotland in their group.
wambach, with all due respect a straight average is absolutely silly, as the difference between #100 and #180 is negligible (for big nations will easily dispose of both 99 out of 100 times) and not near as big as the difference in quality betweeen #15 and #30. that is why in elo ratings, a win over #100 gives a good team about the same amount of points as a win over #180 (basically nothing for both), but a non-negligible difference in points between beating #10 and #25. in your system, the difference between faroe islands and Kazakhstan exactly makes up for the difference in quality of italy over portugal, ukraine over serbia and scotland over finland combined. In something like the elo ratings, the bottom three or four teams would all basically cancel each other out, and then the top three opponents all having such vast differences in quality, would make france's multiplier over poland's pretty vast. your system way overvalues the comparison of the bottom teams.
I think that in the Poland-France discussion people might be confusing "Better team" with "Better results". I think that everyone would agree that France is better than Poland; however the same is not true if you look at their results in Euro08 & WC06 qualifiers. WC06 Poland only lost points(6) to England, they swept Austria, Northern Ireland and Wales (playoff in 2004) - very good performance for a 2 seed. Before you dismiss Northern Ireland - in their last 9 qualifiers they have beaten England, Spain and Sweden as well as tied at Denmark. France lost points to Switzerland(4), Israel(4) and Ireland(2) - poor performance for a 1 seed. Euro08 Poland (still a 2 seed) - Tie with Serbia (expected), loss to Finland (very bad) somewhat made up for by a win over Portugal (1 seed). France (still a 1 seed) - Loss to Scotland (4 seed). Right now Poland has the lead over France - they started this campaign with a 4 points lead and now have 8 points, but France has two games in hand. The biggest advantage that Poland has is that group A has two 7 seeds which effectively gives them an extra 0.250 points (6/24) combined with the 4 points carryover France is 0.417 behind. This seems like a lot, but the reality is that if France can get as many points as Poland (in two fewer games) they will pass Poland. Both teams have 7 games left (France needs to make up 4 points): Code: Poland France @Azerbaijan Ukraine @Armenia Georgia @Portugal @Italy @Finland Scotland Kazakhstan @Faroe Islands Belgium Lithuania @Serbia @Ukraine No one will be shocked if Poland drop points in Portugal, Serbia or Finland and even a tie with Belgium will not make headlines - if they don't they earned a 1 seed. France on the other hand is expected to win 5 of the 7 games, if they don't they probably don't deserve to be a 1 seed.
i don't think anyone is saying that the qualifying results don't matter... but why shouldn't the results at those championships count for something? france was just in the world cup final, if they aren't in pot 1 isn't something wrong?
They were a 1 seed for the Euro 2008 qualifiers (draw was done before the WC). All the system says is that in order to keep that 1 seed for WC 2010 qualifiers they need to perform well as a 1 seed during this campaign. It will probably take an average of 2.20-2.30 to be in the top 7 (Italy as champions gets a 1 seed). This means that France needs 17 points out of the last 7 games (15 or 16 might do it with some luck). Since 1 seeds requires around 75%, France needs an 80% average this time in order to bring their average up from 67% last time. If France is one of the top 7 UEFA teams, they should be able to do that (they had 100% in Euro 04 qualifiers). If they don't, teams like: Germany, Netherlands, Croatia and Portugal will surely finish ahead of them and England (if they get 13 points in 6 games) and Sweden (13 in 7) are also looking good for a top seed, this leaves us with one spot and France has to show that they are better than Serbia, Turkey, Poland, Czech, Romania and Spain (if they go 7 for 7). If this is "wrong", you are basically saying that two games against Spain and Brazil in which France was very good (maybe excellent) during less than a week in June 2006, are much more important than 22 games covering more than 3 years Sep 2004 to Nov 2007. More than that, for this to be "wrong", these two WC games should erase home ties with Israel, Switzerland, Ireland and a loss to Scotland, away ties at Israel and Switzerland plus some other poor result(s) (otherwise they will still get 17 points in 7 games). Just like Arsenal (as CL finalist) didn't get a head start in the EPL (the "qualifier" for the CL) France as the WC finalist, should not get a head start in the next WC qualifier - they need to earn it. The UEFA system is not perfect, but it is reasonable and rewards teams for their on the field accomplishments.
your point would be very well taken i were saying 'throw out the qualifying games, just use the 6 cup games!', but i'm not. but the world cup is a fifa thing and not a uefa thing, so it generally makes sense. but the teams that would suffer from what could be considered a misjudgment would not be a france, it would be the lesser teams that face france as a pot 2 team. but i see your point.
Updated after this week's results. I went ahead and gave Sweden the 3 points against Denmark. Also, I've separated the teams into eight groups so you can see what the pots would look like. Eight groups seems like the most likely scenario. [result]Poland really hurt themselves by losing today. France seems likely to overtake them now. Romania also is charging up the ranks and has a serious shot at the top pot. Czech, Ukraine, and Turkey hurt themselves also. Meanwhile, Israel and Russia are knocking on the door of the second pot.[/result] This includes results from the 2006 and 2008 qualifying campaigns, so most teams have 17-19 games taken into consideration here. Code: PPG 1 Italy 2.294 2 Germany 2.714 3 Netherlands 2.556 4 Sweden 2.471 5 Croatia 2.412 6 Portugal 2.316 7 England 2.294 8 Poland 2.263 9 France 2.235 10 Romania 2.211 11 Czech 2.158 12 Serbia 2.118 13 Spain 2.059 14 Ukraine 2.056 15 Greece 2.053 16 Turkey 2.000 17 Russia 2.000 18 Israel 1.944 19 Norway 1.824 20 Switzerland 1.800 21 Denmark 1.778 22 Bulgaria 1.765 23 Ireland 1.765 24 Bosnia 1.706 25 Slovakia 1.684 26 Scotland 1.647 27 Finland 1.500 28 Austria 1.500 29 N.Ireland 1.375 30 Hungary 1.176 31 Albania 1.158 32 Belgium 1.056 33 Belarus 1.000 34 Lithuania 1.000 35 Latvia 1.000 36 Slovenia 0.941 37 Wales 0.938 38 Estonia 0.895 39 Macedonia 0.842 40 Georgia 0.800 41 Armenia 0.737 42 Liechtenstein 0.632 43 Cyprus 0.500 44 Iceland 0.471 45 Azerbaijan 0.444 46 Malta 0.412 47 Moldova 0.412 48 Kazakhstan 0.350 49 Andorra 0.263 50 Faroe Islands 0.056 51 Luxembourg 0.000 52 San Marino 0.000 53 Montenegro 0.000
im prefer head to head record in case of same points. we dident qualify to the last world cup becuse goal diffrences with swis
Some back of the napkin analysis: Pot 1: (Guess 2.250 and you are in) Italy is in (WC holder) Netherlands (needs 8 points from 6 games), Sweden (8/5) and Germany (8/5) are in barring total collapse Croatia is in if they can average 1.8 pts/game considering they have 6 of the 9 points it looks promising; so all they need is a win over Israel or @FYRM (three ties will also do the job). Portugal will probably need 15 points in 7 games and they have 12 in the bank already. So all they need is 3 points from home game vs Finland, Poland and Serbia. England is in if it can win its 4 home games, all they need is 11 points from 5 games (this will also put them in Euro 2008). Last spot is to be contested by: France (12/5) Serbia (17/7) Czech Rep (13/5) Romania (12/5 they still need to play @Bulgaria and vs. Netherlands so two ties will drop them below 2.25). Pot 2: (Guess 2.000 needed) The 3 teams that didn't make it to pot 1. Spain (9/5, can get to 2.25 if they win out), Poland (5/5, needs 11 for 2.25 ave) and Greece (9/5, needs to win out for 2.25 ave) are in. Ukraine needs 11 points and have 6 in the bank, if they can beat Lithuania away, a pot 2 spot looks safe. The last spot is between Turkey (12/6), Russia (10/5, but they have to play England twice and @Israel), Israel (9/4, no easy games). Norway (13/5), Ireland (15/5), Bulgaria (15/5), Denmark (16/6) and Bosnia (15/5) can also reach 2.00 average. Pot 3: (1.600) Switzerland (done with 1.800), Turkey (3/6) or Russia (1/5) and Israel (1/4) are solid. Norway (5/5), Ireland (6/5) and Bulgaria (6/5) all probably safe since all have at least one easy game. The last 2 spots are between Denmark (7/6), Bosnia (7/5), Slovakia (7/5) and Scotland (8/5) whoever will have a stronger finish will get pot 3. Pot 4: (1.100) The two left over from pot 3 and Austria (done at 1.500). Finland is also safe since they can't drop below 1.154 (need 12 points in 6 game to average above 1.60). Northern Ireland (3/6) is also solid (they will need 14/6 to reach 1.60). The contenders for the last 3 spots are: Hungary (5/5) Belgium (8/6) Wales (10/6) Belarus (8/5) Albania (5/5) I don't think that any of the others has a realistic chance to reach 1.100 Some of these include: Latvia (9/6) Lithuania (8/5) Slovenia (9/5) It might be that a team with a 1.000 average will make pot 4
Good analysis Sagy. Here's the best and worst possible scenarios based on these pots: Toughest Possible Group Italy France Denmark Belgium Slovenia Iceland Montenegro Easiest Possible Group Poland Greece Bosnia Albania Estonia Malta San Marino
Wow, exciting news. At least for the 5-10 of us who follow this stuff religiously. So that means that there will be less qualifying games, and definitely less room for error for the favorites. That's definitely a good thing for the USA, Romania, or any other non-superpower.
Code: PPG 1 Italy 2.294 2 Germany 2.714 3 Netherlands 2.556 4 Sweden 2.471 5 Croatia 2.412 6 Portugal 2.316 7 England 2.294 8 Poland 2.263 9 France 2.235 10 Romania 2.211 11 Czech 2.158 12 Serbia 2.118 13 Spain 2.059 14 Ukraine 2.056 15 Greece 2.053 16 Turkey 2.000 17 Russia 2.000 18 Israel 1.944 19 Norway 1.824 20 Switzerland 1.800 21 Denmark 1.778 22 Bulgaria 1.765 23 Ireland 1.765 24 Bosnia 1.706 25 Slovakia 1.684 26 Scotland 1.647 27 Finland 1.500 28 Austria 1.500 29 N.Ireland 1.375 30 Hungary 1.176 31 Albania 1.158 32 Belgium 1.056 33 Belarus 1.000 34 Lithuania 1.000 35 Latvia 1.000 36 Slovenia 0.941 37 Wales 0.938 38 Estonia 0.895 39 Macedonia 0.842 40 Georgia 0.800 41 Armenia 0.737 42 Liechtenstein 0.632 43 Cyprus 0.500 44 Iceland 0.471 45 Azerbaijan 0.444 46 Malta 0.412 47 Moldova 0.412 48 Kazakhstan 0.350 49 Andorra 0.263 50 Faroe Islands 0.056 51 Luxembourg 0.000 52 San Marino 0.000 53 Montenegro 0.000 The following teams move up a pot: France Israel Russia Slovakia Scotland Finland Belarus Lithuania Latvia Slovenia Armenia Liechtenstein Cyprus Iceland Azerbaijan Andorra Faroe Islands Luxembourg San Marino Montenegro Edgar, you have Malta and Azerbaijan switched (or I do).
Here's a mock draw based on the new pots: Group 1: England, Serbia, Switzerland, Albania, Armenia, San Marino Group 2: Croatia, Israel, Slovakia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan Group 3: Netherlands, Spain, Scotland, Slovenia, Estonia Group 4: Sweden, Greece, Norway, Hungary, Wales, Moldova Group 5: France, Czech, Finland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Montenegro Group 6: Portugal, Romania, Ireland, Austria, Macedonia, Faroe Islands Group 7: Germany, Russia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Iceland, Malta Group 8: Italy, Ukraine, Denmark, N.Ireland, Cyprus, Andorra Group 9: Poland, Turkey, Bosnia, Belgium, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg Seems like there's the possibility for more unbalanced groups this way as well (since 9 teams is a lot for one pot).
Little of both I was in a hurry and I used the right order of teams, but the old values for the coefficients. I fixed it now -> link On the other hand, we don't have the same values for Armenia and Azerbaijan because I already gave them 2 games more after UEFA cancelled their games -> uefa.com (the same article with the WCQ)
I take that news to mean that since neither game will be played, then they'll only have 12 games played instead of 14.