Click here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/3113596.stm for all the possible pair-ups (although Germany aren't listed in Group 5, which is were they'll be if they lose to Iceland!)
Scotland are unbeaten at home (in competitive matches) & Lithuania lost 6-0 overall to Iceland while we beat Iceland 4-1 overall - Its the Faroes we dread!!! The U21s will also beat Lithuania & will win their group. Then its a lottery in the play-offs. What are the odds on Scotland-England? or perhaps bringing Dick Advocaat & Holland back to Glasgow?
In that case ya better hope Germany don't lose form again. By the way, I meant no offense to the Tartan army. Just thought it'd be ironic if they didn't qualify after that massive e-mail campaign. Good luck in the lottery.
Re: Source for Runners-up rankings Geez, I am really amazed by you folks here. Do you all yourselves European fans albeit not knowing the history of this ranking? Why was ranking runners-up needed? In WCQ98 and ECQ00, there were both odd numbers of groups. You can't have an odd # teams playing in the playoffs. Thus UEFA, to their infinite wisdom, invented this "best runners-up qualifies automatically". And how was the best best runners-up determined? by counting results against the 1st, 3rd and 4th place teams. In 1998 WCQ, the best runners-up ranking was: http://www.rsssf.com/tables/98q.html 1. Scotland 2. Italy 3. Belgium 4. Russia 5. Croatia 6. Yugoslavia 7. Ireland 8. Ukraine 9. Hungary So Scotland got the automatic berth. And there were no seeding (at least using the UEFA runners-up ranking) for the playoffs, as #2 Italy played #4 Russia,and #5 Yugoslavia played #8 Hungary. Ditto for Euro 00 qualification. The ranking of runners-up were: http://www.rsssf.com/tables/00e.html#note2 1. Portugal 2. Turkey 3. Scotland 4. Denmark 5. Ukraine 6. Ireland 7. Israel 8. England 9. Slovenia Again, there were no seedings for the playoffs, althoug it just happened that teams #2-#5 played #6-#9. It's funny that Scotland would have been a seed while England wouldn't. Why is this policy of "best runners-up automatically qualifies" stupid? As I've said it here years ago, a team can intentionally lose a game to grab the automatic spot. Now, fast forward to WCQ 2002, there were also an odd number of grups in Europe. However, the odd team played against Iran in the playoffs. Thus sparing the stupidity of "best #2 automatically qualifies".
I don't see why it's stupid that the best number 2 qualifies automatically. How would you want to do it then?? Let 3 runners-up play each other in which the best 2 qualify? Then you would need 6 matchdates, while there are only 2 available.
Yes but UEFA determined that there would be 10 groups, so they knew that there would be an even number of teams. Why then did they not clarify before qualifying commenced whether or not there would be seedings for the play-offs?
English fans rampage through cities all over the world smahing people over the head with beer bottles & fighting with plastic chairs while we sit at home & send emails
Anytime you set up a system that a team can directly benefit (i.e. qualify to the finals) by losing, it's an absolute no-no. It damages the integrity of the game. Having the best #2 qualify directly is OK in principle. UEFA's way of doing it (only count results vs. #1, #3 and #4) is the absolute no-no. Last game in the qualification round, - you team will grab the automatic spot if it loses this last game - you team will enter the playoffs if it wins or draws how do you like it?
Am I missing something? Heh? Your example makes no sense. If your gonna the best second place team despite losing you've already earned an automatic spot. How will picking up additional points hurt?
Re: Am I missing something? That's the ugliness of this scheme. Come to think of it, how can a team picking up additional points hurt if it has already wrapped up the automatic spot? No, it has not wrapped up the automatic spot, but the team can wrap up the automatic spot by losing, i.e. the team can rise in the runners-up ranking by losing. Absurd, huh? Say, there is a group of 5, Germany, Scotland, Poland, Cyprus, Faroe Islands. Let's say this is the group matrix: Germany (splitted with Scotland, swept Cyprus and Faroes, 1W against Poland) Scotland (splitted with Germany, swept Poland, 1D-1L vs Faroes, 1W against Cyprus) Poland (swept by Scotland, 1L against Germany, swept Cyprus, 1W-1D against Faroes) Faroes (swept by Germany, 1W-1D against Scotland, 1D-1L against Poland, 1D-1L against Cyprus) Cyprus (swept by Germany, 1L against Scotland, swept by Poland, 1W-1D against Faroes) Last games in the group: Germany x Poland, Scotland x Cyprus Before the games are played, here is the group standing: ----------- P Pts Germany 7 18 Scotland 7 13 Poland 7 10 Faroe Is 8 6 Cyprus 7 4 Scotland has already swept Poland, so it is locked at #2, using head-to-head results as the first tie-breaker. If Cyprus had finished 4th, Scotland's (W-D-L) record against #1, #3 and #4: 4-0-2, 12 points If Faroe Islands had finished 4th, Scotland's record against #1, #3 and #4: 3-1-2, 10 points Let's say, at 12 points, Scotland is sitting on top of all group runners-up, yet both Denmark and Croatia are sitting at 11 points as runners-up in other groups. Let's say, all other qualifying games had been played. The Germany x Poland and Scotland x Cyprus games are the last games to kick-off, simultaneously at 19:30 GMT. So, last game against Cyprus at home. If Scotland loses, it will automatically qualify. If it wins or draws, it will enter the playoffs. What do you think Berti will do? So, to answer your question, how can a team picking up additional points hurt? it hurts - because the additional points do not count in the runners-up ranking (the additional points turn out to be against the #5 team); notice the group standing has already been decided at the top (Germany #1, Scotland #2), so the additional points are meaningless within the group's top. - the additional points determines the standing at the bottom, in a scenario that the your record against the #4 (Faroes) is very unfavorable (1D 1L), which is worse than the record even if you had lost to Cyprus (1W 1L) and made Cyprus #4. The ugliness of this scheme is that a team is NOT punished for bad results against the #5 team.
I agree you should take all group results in acount to determine the best runner-up, but most of the times not all groups consist of the same amount of teams, i.e. for WC 98 and Euro 2000: 5 groups of 5 teams and 4 groups of 6 teams. So you can't compare the runners-up of all the groups by taking all the results. Also taking a average is not fair, because the teams in groups of 6 have 1 weak opponent more. Also let the best runner-up from a group of 6 qualify is not fair, because then not all the teams have the same chance of qualifying.
That's why I say giving an automatic berth to the best #2 team is OK "in principle", but the implementation of this principle is a mess. - if we count only games vs. #1, #3 and #4, there is a possibility (albeit very small probability) that a team can advance automatically by losing, and that is against the integrity of the game, an absolute no-no. - if we count all games, groups of 5 teams vs groups of 6 teams will become an issue - on top of that, it's really up to which group has the San Marinos and the Andorras. Notice, the minnows are not equal. Having San Marino as the 6th team is definitely better than having Luxemburg as the 6th team. And if counting points and goal difference in all games, we will likely see scores like Czech Rep. 13 San Marino 0 Holland 15 Andorra 0 We were spared of these ridiculous scores in the past only because games against #5 and #6 weren't counted (in the rankings of group runners-up). Look what happened in 1984 ECQ when Spain needed to win by 11 goals against Malta.
Your example is strictly hypothetical. Face it, in an 8 game group stage 13 points would never be enough to earn automatic entry. What you describe would never happen.
Why not? can you dispute 13 points enough to finish 2nd place? yes or no? Then can you dispute 12 points enough to finish atop the ranking of all groups runners-up? It's obvious that you still don't understand what the issue is. You think Scotland's 13 points are for them to win the group. Do you realize that the group's automatic entry is already won by Germany (18 points)?
Why not? can you dispute 13 points enough to finish 2nd place? yes or no? Yes Then can you dispute 12 points enough to finish atop the ranking of all groups runners-up? No, not from 8 games anyway. It means you've lost half your games and will be lucky to be in playoff @ all. It's obvious that you still don't understand what the issue is. You think Scotland's 13 points are for them to win the group... I understand, but 13 points means would mean you've dropped 11 points. That ain't gonna be anywhere near the top of a runner-up pool. Anyway, it’s a moot point. Ten teams in the playoff pool simplifies things.
For the WC 2006 qualifying the same thing will be there: UEFA's proposal is to form 8 groups (5 groups of 6 teams and 3 groups of 7 teams) and let the group winners and the 2 best runners-up qualify. The other 6 runners-up would then go to the play-off's.
Then you are not aware of the reality. In ECQ 04, in groups of 5, Slovenia has already clinched 2nd place with 13 points (Group 1), ditto for Wales (group 9). Latvia and Iceland can win 2nd place with 13 points. Russia can even grab 2nd place in group 10 with 11 or 12 points. The ranking of group runners-up count games against #1, #3 and #4. Please enlighten us, how the counting of home and away games of ***THREE*** opponents would result in "8" games. As far as 13 points are enough to be in the playoffs (finishing 2nd in a group), Slovenia and Wales already proved that it's enough. See, you still don't understand what this fuzz is about. Ranking of runner-up pool count only ***6*** games. How 18-13=11 (the 13 is wrong also) is really a mystery. Just for your reference, in ECQ00, Portugal and Turkey led the runners-up pool with 13 points (out of a possible 18). In WCQ98, Scotland top the runners-up pool with 13 points. So in a hypothetical situation, it's not too far-fetched to say a team can top the pool with 12 points.
Sorry, let me try again: Why not? can you dispute 13 points enough to finish 2nd place? yes or no? Yes, as in yes 13 points is enough to finish in 2 place. Then can you dispute 12 points enough to finish atop the ranking of all groups runners-up? Ah, now I understand! This switching from total ‘group’ points to ‘2nd place seeding’ points was causing confusion. Yes, 12 ‘seeding’ points could earn an automatic bid. Now that that’s cleared up… the whole scenario is still seems more hypothetical than plausible. To be honest, I'd like to see UEFA rethink the entire qualifying process rather than simply tweaking the playoff seeding.
Well, yes, the Germany/Scotland/Poland/Cyprus/Faroe Islands group is a hypothetical situation. The problem is, if you have a system that in 1 out of 10000 chances that a team can benefit by losing, then this system is flawed. In every sport's playing format, no such hole is tolerated. Imagine the fans who buy the tickets into the stadium for that last game, and find out Scotland tries desparately to lose the game in order to get the automatic berth.
Again, it’s a moot point this time as no 2nd place team gets an automatic berth. I’m more bothered by how big a part lady luck seems to play in the qualifying process.
I am from a big country which would profit from seeding (Germany) but I am very happy now that there will be no seeding, although I don´t think it will be our problem (if Germany doesnß ´t manage to at least draw Iceland at home we don´t deserve going to Portugal). - All finished 2nd, any comparisons of points are moot since they have been achieved against different points. - It is a big task and achievement to finish 2nd in their respective group. After they´ve achieved it, they shouldn´t be robbed of this by making their way harder. - It would be ironic that an underachieving site like Spain would again have an easier route than for instance Wales. If a team doesn´t finish first in its group and doesn´t manage to beat ANY opponent in the play-offs, the team maybe doesn´t deserve to be in Portugal. And I for one would really like to have Wales at Euro 2004 instead of Holland :-D One thing that has not been mentioned is that they NEED to make an OPEN draw. I don´t remember if it was for Euro 2000 or WC 2002, but the play-off draws were behind closed doors and miraculously no big teams played another...
UEFA have confirmed the play-off draw details. http://www.euro2004.com/competitions/EURO/news/Kind=1/newsId=117476.html BTW, the U21 qualifying seems a bit of a joke. Scotland should win their group ahead of Germany and could still miss out. UEFA want a simple 8-team cup so 10 group winners and the 6 best runners up are drawn together with the winners going to the finals. Why not just have 2 groups of 5 group winners?
so who are the play off teams?? I know Holland, Spain, Turkey, Wales, Scotland. Could be some major games.