seedings are necessary do you really want to see slovenia or latvia at euro 2004 and imagine holland-spain is drawn and one of them is out i dont think so you want to see groups of death at euro 2004 you dont want this week teams thereso you can just cross them off
What you seem to be focussing on too much is either Holland or Spain not being in Euro2004! But what about the possibility of 2 thrilling matches between Holland and Spain!?? What are you gonna get in a Group of Death that's better than that??
Results speak far more then your opinion. Spain had their chance, they clearly are not the squad that many thought they were as they couldn't get the needed results from Greece or NORTHERN IRELAND. I am sick of people who say that tournaments won't be the same if one of the big teams there, if you don't produce the goods you don't deserve to be there. All of these teams have done the same amount of work (finishing 2nd) and deserve the same treatment. They all had their chance to qualify straight up, there is no way Spain deserves another chance to easily qualify, they already blew one. And who are you to say Spain would be of better quality then a team like Wales at Euro 2004 anyway? Wales has beaten Italy and gotten some results even with some injury problems to key players like Bellamy. Random draw is the way to go, no more favors to underachieving squads. They don't deserve them.
Thats the point though, they haven't, the groups aren't balanced, thats why seeding is used and why the seeded teams tend to win through, because they are better.
Some of you seem to be missing this: So unless the UEFA changes this seeding criteria, if they decide to seed at all, the only thing that matters is how the teams did in their respective groups. So if you say that Spain does not deserve to be seeded over another team because of their results in their groups, then we'll find out after the qualification is over, because the seeding would most likely be based on how the teams did in their groups. But if both teams are in the Euro Cup, that means that match is possible, and Spain vs Italy, Netherlands vs Germany, Spain vs Portugal, Netherlands vs France etc. etc.
I don't believe it is "possible" -- according to how I read it, they 2nd place teams will be "ranked" according to this article on the rules. The rules for the qualifying are listed after those for the finals. http://www.euro2004.com/Competitions/EURO/CompetitionInfo/index,newsId=28066.html Seeding/ranking is NOT based upon FIFA or UEFA rankings such that England/Turkey, Spain, Holland etc. will be seeded high vs. Latvia or Slovenia seeded low. Seeding/ranking is based upon how you performed in your group. Take out the results against the weakest team in the group and then rank them according to their play. Assume that Slovenia, Denmark, Netherlands, Hungary, Scotland, Spain, Turkey, Croatia, Wales and Switzerland are in the playoffs. That would mean that they ended qualifying with the following records. Code: [size=2] Team...... W D L GD Slovenia.. 5 1 2 4 Denmark.. 4 2 2 5 Netherlands 6 1 1 11 Hungary.. 4 2 2 9 Scotland.. 4 2 2 5 Spain...... 5 2 1 11 Turkey.... 6 1 1 12 Croatia.... 5 1 2 8 Wales...... 6 0 2 7 Switzerland 3 4 1 3[/size] Now, take out the results against the 5th place team in the group and you get... Code: [size=2] Team...... W D L GD Slovenia.. 3 1 2 -1 10 Denmark.. 2 2 2 1 8 Netherlands 4 1 1 6 13 Hungary.. 2 2 2 1 8 Scotland.. 3 1 2 3 10 Spain...... 4 1 1 8 13 Turkey.... 4 1 1 4 13 Croatia.... 3 1 2 3 10 Wales..... 4 0 2 1 12 Switzerland 2 3 1 2 9[/size] Based upon this, they would be ranked as (FIFA Rankings in parens): 1. Spain (3) 2. Holland (4) 3. Turkey (7) 4. Wales (52) 5. Scotland (59) 6. Croatia (26) 7. Slovenia (29) 8. Switzerland (40) 9. Denmark (15) 10. Hungary (48) So the top 5 would be in one pot and the 2nd 5 would be in the other pot draw the pairs. Croatia and Denmark, despite being in the top 5 in FIFA Rankings, don't rank in the top 5 according to their play in qualifying. In the Critical 5th spot, Scotland prevails over Croatia even through they both have 10 pts and 3 GD because Scotland has scored more goals (against the 1st, 3rd & 4th place teams).
This makes no sense whatsoever!! How can we compare how these teams did in their respective groups?? They all did the same - ie. they finished 2nd! Whatever source you're referring to doesn't know what they're talking about (or maybe something got lost in a translation from another language).
Ok hold the phone here...I think a lot of this discussion has to do with our individual opinion on making second place. Let me give you an example of what I think. Take a group like say Group 4. Latvia, Hungary and Poland have all stumbled at least a couple of times in their campaigns, yet they are all still fighting for second place. Now say Sweden defeats Latvia at home on the last matchday and Poland and Hungary draw eliminating each other and Latvia backs into the playoffs (which could very well happen btw). Now take say Group 3. Holland and the Czech Rep. for the most part destroyed the other three teams in their group (Austria, Moldova, and Belarus), but the Czech Rep. barely beat out Holland for first place in the group. So here you have Holland who only really faltered once to a very good team, and then you have Latvia who fell on their face a couple of times, struggled, but still made second place, and you say that they should be on level terms going into the playoffs? And this was just one example. The best idea is to do what was said earlier, and that was to base the seedings on a team's record against the first, third, and fourth placed teams because then it is based on recent results in the same tournament. The only thing I don't like is that UEFA is making a decision on this now when it should've been done at the beginning of the tournament. But still, this would be the best solution.
Does anybody else see a problem with comparing teams that not only didn't play each other, but don't have any common opponents either? I mean, this system of seeding is seriously flawed. I realize they used to do the same thing in the World Cup when it had 24 teams and they compared 3rd placed teams in each group. But that doesn't mean this seeding formula shouldn't be thrown to the garbage! Basically what it does is rank the teams randomly. And since I prefer a random system to determine the playoff match-ups, I guess I'm happy with the end-result of this seeding system. But its still stupid!
It's from the UEFA regulations which can be found HERE (there's a link on the right) I think you need Adobe Reader installed to view it though.
Source for Runners-up rankings My italics for the curious and vague wordings. Will they decide that the runners-up should be ranked? Or is this just to determine which team is indeed the runner up? This would affect two teams that end up tied for second with different results against the fifth place team. From uefa.com (http://www.euro2004.com/Competitions/EURO/CompetitionInfo/index,newsId=28066.html): Runners-up rankings Should it be necessary to decide the ranking of the group runners-up, only their results against the teams in first, third and fourth place in their group will be taken into account, with the following criteria applied: • Number of points obtained in the matches against the teams in first, third and fourth place in the group; • Goal difference from these matches; • Number of goals scored in these matches; • Number of away goals in these matches; • Fair play conduct of the teams in all group matches; • Drawing of lots.
I expect UEFA will wait to see whether seeding under the system mentioned will yield the draw they desire ie Spain, Holland and Turkey kept apart. If not they won't bother and will engineer another way to bring about what they want. For me as a Wales fan, it will feel like a kick in the teeth if we draw Spain or Holland, as qualifying 2nd in our group was a task in itself. However,I understand why people want to see the best teams. I'm going to Euro 2004 and if i have to see Latvia V. Iceland I won't be too pleased.
In the paragraph above the one you posted, it is said how the runners-up are determined; with the first criteria being the results against the team with the same amount of points, which is why Holland can't be 1st in their group anymore because even if they get the same amount of points as the Chzechs, the Chzechs have the better results against Holland. So I took this part: "Should it be necessary to decide the ranking of the group runners-up...." As: if there will be a seeding for the runners-up, then these points will be used to seed the teams. So there's a big chance that they will use those criteria, which is why I don't get why some are getting riled up: if Wales really did do better than Spain in their respective group, then Wales will be seeded and Spain will not. Sounds pretty fair to me. If there would be seeding, then it would beneficial for the teams that did great during their qualifying, because you get paired against a team that didn't do as great in their group: so good results get rewarded, not what number of the coca cola ranking you are.
My understanding is UEFA is meeting this week. Kind of hard to plot these conspiracies when you don't even know if Spain and Turkey are gonna be in the playoff pool. Having said that, it's idiotic that these procedures weren't ironed out before the tournament started. Then again, we are talking about UEFA.
This possible seeding is so stupid!! It's like saying the second-place team in Scotland is better than the second-place team in Spain just because they have a better won-loss record or scored more goals. There's no-way to say which second-place teams played better if they had completely different opponents throughout the qualifying phase. Just put all 10 teams in a lottery like before. If it ain't broke don't fix it!
I understand what you are saying and do agree with it to some degree. However, I think it depends on how much you accept the original draw of the teams for the 10 groups. By that I mean do you believe that all the first seeded teams are "equal" as with the second seeded teams and so on? Now, we know they are all not equal, but in theory they really are since they are all in the same pots. You make the point that a second place team in Scotland is not equal to a second place team in Spain and you're absolutely right. However, these are not leagues, these are groups of nations within the same tournament and seeded accordingly. So technically, every team has an "equal" chance to finish in second place so every team is on the same level, so if one can defeat the other teams in their group better than another team can, then they deserve to be seeded higher than a team who struggled but finished in second place.
BTW, claiming there was no seeding for the Euro2000 playoff isn’t entirely correct. Portugal were deemed to be the best 2nd place team and avoided the playoff entirely.
I expect UEFA will make a judgement as to the likelihood of certain results, and make their decision based on that. Even if Turkey aren't in it, England will be, and UEFA will not want Holland-England. If you don't set out procedure until the final stages you leave yourself open to accusation of corruption and bias. Why would they wait, unless they wished to influence the draw?
Apparently UEFA is going to decide at this meeting that there will be no seeding of the draw (heard this on Radio Scotland ten minutes ago). http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/3113596.stm Newspapers here reported that UEFA had received hundreds of emails from Scottish fans angry at the prospect of seeding, which is ironic given that one poster here suggested that we might be seeded. But no seeding doesn't necessarily mean a fair draw - just look at Euro 2000!
Hmmm.... Hmmm, I didn't realize the Norwegians were organizing a massive e-mail campaign. You wouldn't happen to have the UEFA e-mail address handy, would you?