Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'UEFA and Europe' started by CShine, Oct 10, 2013.
cool I love it, it would bring more meaning to those games
I'd rather watch friendlies, at least you'll see some different teams rather than the same old European teams you're sick of seeing.
How would this affect who qualifies for the Euro and World Cup? I would hate for there to be teams that were invited to the World Cup without having to qualify because they were in the top division. In 2008 Luxembourg, who would be in the eighth group of six according to the FIFA Rankings, won at Switzerland, who would be in the second group of six according to the FIFA Rankings.
It'd only really be of interest to the teams in the top couple of divisions who would have lots of glamorous games. I mean, if you're a Scotland fan, would you rather see your team play friendlies against the likes of England, Australia and the USA, or division five games against Belarus and Estonia?
If they're going to have such a thing, it should replace qualifiers. The one advantage of this system is that the games would be more evenly matched, so you wouldn't have a group with teams ranked 5, 30, 80, 150, 200. Even San Marino and Andorra would play games they have a chance of winning.
Tbh this just seems like another zany scheme Uefa have cooked up to get themselves out of the knots they've tied themselves into with this 24-team thing. Maybe they could just admit they were wrong, go back to 16 teams and stop trying to fix what isn't broken.
If they are A friendlies sure but too often we see teams far from being their full team. Who wants to watch that? At least this nations league would force teams to field full teams or something close to it.
Friendlies are often more entertaining than competitive games. This wouldn't force anyone to field a full team as no-one would give a shit. I can't see it being of much value to broadcasters either.
because they are afraid of accidents....
How can you say that?they haven't even tried it yet. Friendlies more entertaining then competitive games? no, you want to talk about games teams don't care about it's friendlies lol
teams care about the champions league don't they?
Having seen recent England friendlies against Scotland and Brazil, these were far more entertaining than any recent qualifiers. Competitive international games are usually cagey and conservative.
The best part about friendlies is you get to play against teams you don't normally play against. Instead, now you'll end up playing the game teams over and over again until you're sick of the sight of them.
Do you honestly think anyone will give a shit about this league? Winning the 'nations league' will be less important than qualifying for a tournament. Fans won't give a shit, as instead of glamourous friendlies they'll get to look forward to games against the same dreary teams they always play.
Are you telling me a broadcaster would be more interested in England vs Greece in a tournament less important than qualifying, than a friendly vs Brazil or Argentina?
I just don't understand how it would even work. The proponents say it wouldn't add any games to the schedule, and also wouldn't subtract from qualifiers.
But the Nations League, with 6 team groups, would require 10 games. I don't see how there are enough available dates to do this more than once per cycle. Given the "promotion and relegation" aspect of it, I don't see how that's workable. After all, a team's fortunes can swing wildly. Belgium was 33rd in the UEFA coefficient for pot seeding for the 2012 Euros; so if this competition had existed a couple of years ago and they used that coefficient - Belgium would be in division 6. Now they are going to be seeded at the World Cup.
I suppose it would work if it abandoned a home and away format. With only 5 games, there would be enough friendly dates to have Nations League almost annually. But then the competition would be inherently unfair, with some teams getting 3 home games, and others only 2. Unless teams had one mandated neutral site game...and now I'm just ridiculously speculating.
I also think largely getting rid of friendlies wouldn't be great. They might not have the drama of competition, but they are great for testing out new players. Also it would greatly reduce the number of cross federation games. And finally, while it would create compelling games in the top division, it would create several lower divisions that would be utterly uninteresting.
entertaining maybe but no ones gives a shit about them, they don't mean anything.
It may be no world cup but they will for sure care about it more then a friendly because it actually means something. I was actually thinking it would more then just the EUFA though. Have every region join this league. Maybe even have qualification for it just like the champions league.
We have the World Cup and don't need every country to be in a Nations League. Honduras (using them as an example, they're not the only one) is a poor country that could qualify for its second consecutive World Cup, but I don't know how it would be financially for them if they were in a Champions League type group where they had to play three away games in different parts of the world.
I'm sorry I should have been more clear. I would want the International league to be set up like say the EPL or LA Liga so it would be different then the world cup and maybe even have divisions. Of course there would be compensation just like for any tournament. Also it's not like a country has to join but I'm sure they would make it worth while for any country to join.
I feel they shouldn't replace the friendlies because those matches allow NTs to experiment. Add a competitive aspect and NTs will be afraid to fail ... which hinders the development of (young) players and the team as a whole.
Some say that the renaissance of the Belgian NT was partly realised by focusing on what's best for the development of young players instead of going for a "meaningless" (youth) trophy each season. Getting results is only important when prizes really matter, all the rest is training.
However I would be a proponent of replacing the qualifiers by such a trny. Maybe even organise a global "qualifier trny" with FIFA distributing the extra revenue to participants. So instead of qualifiers and their huge carbon footprint, you'd get all NTs together in one place for a few weeks ... let's say the best 16 or 32 NTs worldwide are first tier ... those that get past the group stage remain in first tier and those that didn't = play-offs with the best 16 second tier NTs to decide who gets relegated, same for 3th/4th tier play-offs, etc. Lots of advantages = several tournaments in which teams of similar quality can compete/develop, no need to qualify so you can organise a big trny every year, FIFA ranking is obsolete, etc.
E.g. start with 3 global trnys in the summer that always have several groups of 4 NTs (tier 1 has 4 groups, tier 2 has 8 groups and tier 3 has 16 groups) ... and several trnys for all the other NTs (minnows):
- all the other NTs (not in 1 of the tiers) organise a bunch of minnow trnys to narrow down their 32 best NTs, those will compete in the play-offs (home & away matches) against 32 NTs that are in danger of relegation (didn't make it past their group stage of that tier 3 trny with 64 NTs) = 32 are relegated/32 are promoted to that tier 3 trny next year and are spread over 2 pots (pot 3 contains those that finished 3th in tier 3 groups or their play-off opponent & similarly for pot 4).
- the 16 NTs that were eliminated in round 2 of that tier 3 trny go to pot 2 for next years draw, the 16 best (reached quarterfinals) take on the bottom 16 of tier 2 (didn't make it past their group stage) = 16 are relegated but get seeded in tier 3/16 are promoted to that tier 2 trny next year (same procedure for pot 3 & 4 as before).
- the 8 NTs that were eliminated in round 2 of that tier 2 trny go to pot 2 and the best 8 of tier 2 (reached quarterfinals) take on the bottom 8 from the Premier Tier = 8 are relegated/8 are promoted to the Premier Tier next year (same procedure for pot 3 & 4 as before).
- finally those that reached the quarterfinals in the Premier Tier/World Cup are safe = best 4 are next years seeds (pot 1 contains those that reached the semifinals) and the other 4 are put in pot 2 for next years draw of 4 groups of 4 NTs).
You can still alternate between cups on confed level and world cups.
I don't see how the fifa rankings would be obsolete. It also doesn't make any sense that a senior national team is there to develop talent. why not just have friendlies or scrimmages behind closed doors during training camps to experiment with formation and players. Only show the competitive stuff on TV.
I do agree with your assessment on Belgium. Not focusing on wins and loses at the youth level and focusing on development of the players skills is what's ideal. I wish the USA would take note. Same with England, a country that has invented the game should be a lot better then they are.
National teams & development was about promoting football in countries that are behind in infrastructure, increasing the interest of the best athletes in football instead of other sports, etc. For instance if the USA, a country that could be a potential powerhouse (tradition of athletic excellence and a huge population), wins a few (2nd) tier trnys and promotes to premier tier it would spark more interest, get more money involved, ... the same reasons why confeds perceived to be weaker have been allocated more World Cup berths than their track record in the World Cup to date would demand.
The FIFA rankings impact is felt when NTs are seeded (at least during WC2010 & 2014). Instead of using the ranking I'd seed the top 4 (pot 1 contains those that reached the semifinals), pot 2 contains the losing QFs, pot 3 contains those that finished 3th in tier X groups or their play-off opponent & similarly for pot 4. It's just an example but I'd seed based on the previous trny (1 year ago or 2yrs when WC and e.g. EURO alternate). As far as looking at where you fit in ... you can base that on where you finished in the most recent trny.
Also it's one of many alternatives (of division based/tiered trny structure with relegation/promotion matches in between and the opportunity to hold onto friendlies). E.g. you could have a Premier Tier World Cup (16 best NTs spread over 4 groups = 4 NTs each), 2 second tier trny's e.g. also 16 or 32 NTs that compete for their own cup + promotion into Premier Tier World Cup (maybe 2 super confeds to lessen time zone diff. = more prime time viewers), and so on till you reach the minnows trny's which should be a local event (e.g. the Caribean)
Here's a silly example to clarify a triple tiered set up of trnys: By divine intervention Vatican City has been blessed with a generation of priests that can easily beat Messi, Ronaldo, Cavani, Hazard, Bale, etc. in a few years. How long will it take before they can lift the Premier Tier World Cup? First that new Vatican NT enters a minnows trny in the summer of 2014 (e.g. all of Europe's mini-states). Of course they win that minnows cup and proceed to the minnow play-offs where they meet 1 of the other 31 best minnows around (e.g. they draw Aruba). They face off and win both home & away matches which means they've earned another round of play-offs against a NT that finished 4th/last in their tier 3 trny-group that summmer. It's Vatican city vs Qatar. Eventhough Qatar had put together a decent squad and made huge investments, they get obliterated. Now Vatican NT receives a pot 4 berth in next years Tier 3 trny. Summer 2015, Vatican City is that Tier 3 trny's revelation, lifting their second cup so far. To promote to Tier 2 they'll go to the play-offs after the summer in which they need to beat the Peruvian NT (4th place in their Tier 2 group). Vatican city wins and the pope consoles the Peruvian NT. So they've earned a new berth and will be in pot 4 of the 2016 Tier 2 draw. Summer of 2016 approaches and the Vatican squad is in the worst shape that they ever have been in. Still they're able to reach the quarterfinals of Tier 2 and proceed to the play-offs in which they face the USA (USMNT finished 3th in their Premier Tier group). All previously injured players have returned to form and the stellar Vatican team wins those play-offs eventhough the USMNT didn't make it easy on them. Finally they can go to the Premier Tier/World Cup 2017. Because Vatican NT players had matured and had many incentives going through several levels of competition they're now ready to take on football superpowers. During the draw they end up in group A together with Brazil (pot 1), Italy (pot2) and Holland (pot 4). Vatican city goes deep but in the end loses the final ... Brazil collects another trophy. Vatican city players started to show promise in the minnow trnys around 2014 and during the World Cup 2017 they already could have been World Champions. No messing about with a FIFA ranking, a transparant procedure in all stages of the World Cup, truly a WORLD Cup, etc.
Of course you can still alternate between world and own confed cups ... they become 2 yearly events when the need for qualifiers is eliminated. Draws can be eliminated to if you'd like to get rid of the luck involved.
I know this wasn't you point but even still. The only thing to fix the current state of USA soccer is to improve their youth development. They have the same ideas for youth development as say England. More money is not going to change that.
This is entirely another discussion. Still if UEFA becomes an even more closed "league" how would that help to promote football? As an alternative to qualifiers in each confed, I'm aiming to achieve the opposite: less about where you live and more about at which level does your NT perform. Minnows trnys, OFC merging with AFC, etc. would be a good start.
PS qualifiers have a huge carbon footprint ... imagine getting rid of (the bulk of) the back & forth between clubs & NTs, the preparation leading up to each match and the sheer volume of qualifiers, etc. ... in global divisions you can still go for more regional trnys (for the lower tiers) ... minnows trnys being more or less local events.
Using the previous World Cup to seed the next one might work if there were the same 32 teams, but nobody knows in advance how many teams from World Cup 2010 will qualify for World Cup 2014. I wouldn't like if World Cup seeding was done only by World Cup results.
It's not about the World Cup as we know it. I wrote a few (longwinded) posts on a completely different idea = more or less applying a similar structure as this Nations League idea to "global qualifiers" instead of UEFA friendlies. I feel no one wins when UEFA decides to close off the confed even more than it is at the present.
so global qualifications in a nations league format, ok, yeah that might be cool.
League of Nations: New Uefa tournament will see countries win qualifying places for World Cup - The Independent
The exact format has still to be confirmed, but Uefa sources said European countries would be split into four divisions ... would begin after the 2018 World Cup and have a climax of semi-finals and final at a neutral venue, while in the lower divisions there would be a final to decide on promotion and qualification places for the World Cup and European Championships (award the four qualification spots that are currently decided by the play-offs).
Is this league going to replace the traditional qualifying groups for World Cups and European Championships?
No it replaces friendlies