Seeding possible for play offs

That would be good news for us. Following this criteria the Netherlands would certainly be seeded. If we beat Moldova in the last game we will have 13 points from these 6 games.

 

when will the play off matchups be announced?

 

Next week UEFA decides if there will be seeding and if yes, what the criteria are.

The draw for the play-off's is Monday 13 October at 12.15 CET.

 

(NB I am speaking as a supporter of a country that would not be seeded - if we get to the playoffs)


I don't think there should be seeding. Big teams like Netherlands and Spain already have had enough advantage to qualify in the sense that they were seeded to win the group in the first place. If they draw each other now, tough.

I also think the seeding system worked badly in the past. There have been a couple of mismatches (eg Denmark v Israel, Austria v Turkey). A straight draw would add to the excitement and perhaps create a match in which there would be a lot of interest.

I also think it is very suspicious that UEFA are only just determing the playoff format now. There has to be the suspicion that if no big countries involved, then there would be no seeding. Now that one big country (Spain) is almost certain to be involved, and others (England, Germany, Italy) might be involved, I am sure there will be seeding.

Or am I just a paranoid cynic?

 

I must correct you on a few points. Netherlands weren't seeded in pot A for the qualifying draw. The Czechs were.

Also in the play-off's for WC 2002 and Euro 2000 there was no seeding. I also thought first that there wouldn't be seeding now, but UEFA might decide otherwise.
For me it's a good idea, but if I were a supporter of a non-seeded team I most likely would find it a bad idea.

 

Just to expand on this point… Scotland and the Holland were seeded equally (both #2 seeds).

 

Well slap me down. I wouldn't have believed that. I think England are also 2nd seeds in their group?

Anyway, I think my point stands. The larger teams (particularly those that were seeded #1) have had enough advantage already.

Scotland had the same seeding as Holland this time, but only just. This is because we only just crept into the 2nd tier with there being 10 groups.

I am certain there was seeding for Euro 2000. Denmark, England, Turkey and the Ukraine were seeded, while Israel, Slovenia, Scotland and Ireland were unseeded.

The result of the draw was:

Denmark - Israel (8-0 agg)
England - Scotland (2-1 agg)
Turkey - Ireland (away goals)
Ukraine - Slovenia (2-3 agg)

(teams in bold won the playoff)

I am not so sure about what the World Cup arrangement was (mainly because Scotland wasn't involved).

 

I'm almost sure there was no seeding in the last World Cup play-off's. But that's also because there were 9 teams involved and 1 of them (Ireland) had to play an Asian team (Iran).

 

I've done a little background reading, and it appears that (officially at least) the 2000 draw was not seeded. But it turned out that way anyway, hmm...

http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/12.Oct.1999/Sports/Article-1.html

The general feeling among journalists in Europe is that if four teams are seeded, they will be Denmark, England, Turkey and Ukraine.

And guess what, those teams were kept apart!

 

I like the idea of seeding, I don't want to see Netherlands-Spain and Wales-Latvia, but I do not like the fact that they are deciding this now. This should have been decided before the tournament started, what are they doing, waitng to see who the teams are and then making up their minds? that's BS.

 

Hmmm...I don't want to see seeding precisely because I would like to see the above match-ups, or similar ones. For a small country like, say, Iceland, part of the excitement of finishing second is that you're entering a lottery. You know you won't automatically draw Holland. Conversely, part of the urgency a country like Holland faces in the group stage is that if they only finish second they know they aren't guaranteed an opponent like Iceland or Latvia. They might get Spain. As such winning the group becomes critical. Seed the teams and Iceland and Latvia's run at second place loses much of it's luster while at the same time England and Turkey's fight for first becomes less intense because there is less at stake. The weaker nations would have little hope of advancing if they do manage second and the stronger nations would have little to worry about if they don't win their group. The group stage would lose a lot to me if there was seeding in the second round.

 

Yeah, I agree 100%! For many countries, a second-place group finish is their only realistic goal.... Also a 2-legged playoff between Spain and Holland could be more exciting than the vast majority of games in the actual Euro 2004 tournament! Why settle for a main course in Portugal next year when you can have a delicious appetizer now and still get that main course later?

 

That's all fine and dandy, but the seeding process described in the original post has been on UEFA Euro2004 website the entire tournament.

Not sure what UEFA officials are discussing next week, but it'd be a travesty to deviate from the original plan at this stage.

 

Seeding could work against the seeded teams. It might rile the unseeded ones to such an extent that they play their socks off. If England do end up in a play-off, I dont want seeding. Besides, we seem to play worse against the poorer sides.

 

well im prettu sure there will be two pots

and in pot 1 (not in random order)
spain(definitly-greece will beat n.ireland)
holland(set)
england or turkey
croatia
ireland/russia


and pot 2
slovenia(set)
wales(italy will get 1st)
norway
latvia
iceland/scotland

Pot 1 looks alot stronger than pot 2 and the draw should be made i mean
why would you want
holland-spain
england-ireland
latvia-slovenia lets say

only the best teams should go and we had enough crap at wc02 with all the crap teams getting into the round fo 16
south korea and so on

 

1.Because they are attractive, competitive matches that would add to the tournament as a complete package. It would also put a greater penalty on finishing 2nd for the big countries, since they would know there is a risk of drawing another big country.

2. It is outrageous that countries like Latvia or Wales, who were seeded only #4 in their group, then are also unseeded in the playoffs. They've already beaten at least two teams seeded higher than them. Why should they be disadvantaged again? Teams like this would then give up trying to qualify, since they would know that even if they did bloody well in qualifying, and finished 2nd, they would still be screwed by UEFA. That is not on.

The overall point is that no seeding creates greater competition. Seeding is like Government support for industry, it is artificial and is not in the long term interest of the industry.

This is nonsense. If the teams that you call "the best", are really the best, then they will win the playoff regardless of who they are drawn against.

 

If that's the case, why seed any round?

 

There's no way it work against England. Its true that they play better against better teams, but they still always come out on top against the weaker sides.

Memo to those in favour of seeding:
Seeding makes the Turkey-England game, among many others, completely meaningless! So how could you be in favour of such a ridiculous system??

 

There's an argument for that. But the utility argument is overwhelming in respect of the group qualifying stage since the gap in standard between (say) France and (say) San Marino is so great. So for this tournament we have 5 bands of ten teams, which still allows for a certain amount of luck in the draw (see the gap in standard between groups 1 and 5 and groups 3 and 9).

But in terms of the playoff stage, this argument is nowhere near as strong. This is because the playoffs are between teams who have performed over the past 15 months (8 games) to roughly the same standard of 2nd place. I don't see how it would hurt the tournament so much to have (say) Wales qualifying and (say) Holland not qualifying. And the probability is that these bigger countries will qualify anyway.

The playoffs should be seen as a risky alternative, not a cushy safety net for underperforming big teams, which it would become if there was seeding.

 

Huh?

 

But when there is a seeding, it is bases on the results the teams got in there groups.

So, "big" countries aren't automatically seeded, but the only thing UEFA looks at is the results in the groups.

 

The way I see it is they all finished 2nd, so they are all equal.

 

Because even if Englan lose to Turkey, they'll beat Iceland or Wales with seeding in place. There's no danger of playing Spain or Holland! So Turkey-England is meaningless