You are not currently logged in
||No replies possible in the archive|
Date: 27-04-2006, 23:02
|after boro - steaua i want to wish u all health and good luck and all respect to bert for what he is doing...|
Date: 27-04-2006, 23:06
Edited by: Maluyaca
at: 27-04-2006, 23:15
|Is is sad but congratulations to Romania with their fantastic year.|
Romania got more points this year then in the previous 4 years together.
Date: 27-04-2006, 23:10
|I'm sorry for Steaua but..where are you going ?? |
Date: 27-04-2006, 23:12
|i would like the administrator too delete my account , thx in advance|
Date: 27-04-2006, 23:14
|Don't go like that..this is not the end of the world, there is always next year |
Date: 27-04-2006, 23:42
|Yes is not the end of the world. It 2 years we will bring reinforcements, to stop the western invasion. And next year Steaua will hunt the CL trophy, i hope with an more appropiate goalkeeper.|
Date: 28-04-2006, 00:47
|Unbeliveble! I'm shocked.I don't know what heppened with the players, it's pity that Steaua didn't qualified for the final. This is life. I hope and i know that they will do another good games in next season.|
Date: 28-04-2006, 00:54
|Boro equalized the favour it did to Turkey by helping Greece today.But it is discussable if it will be a favour for Greece or not while considering 4 remaining teams don't do anythink for years beside pao and olym...|
Date: 28-04-2006, 08:56
|this is one of the moments when i'm glad dinamo wasn't in steaua's place... i think i would have commited suicide...|
Date: 28-04-2006, 10:08
|Football doesn't deserve this.|
Having such a disappointment sometimes helps a lot for the future.
The oldest of the forum might remember that France had a similar disappointment in WC82 (defeat vs. Germany while we were leading 3-1 at the 100th minute).
Two years later, again in semi-final, we were in the opposite situation 1-2 at the 115th vs. Portugal and finally won 3-2.
Most players said at that time that they would have certainly not recovered if they had not experience such a disappointment 2 years before in Sevilla.
So watch at Steaua in 2 years time!
Date: 28-04-2006, 11:09
|Congratulations to M'boro !|
They showed they are very hard team.
They eliminated Basel in a miraculous way. They repeated the miracle against Steaua.
I think that finally the megalomania of some people will end. If a country has 4 disastrous seasons and 1 that earns it more than the previous 4, then why the people from that country expect wonders.
The same with Bulgaria. Levski eliminated two good teams coming from CL and the fans started dreaming for the cup. After that Schalke smashed them and they blamed the referee. Of course, every fan believes his team is the best and nothing, but the refs or the weather or anything out of football stopped them.
Now about Steaua. I see so many Romanians blaming UEFA seeding system on the other threads. Even STK stated that seeding was the reason that there will be a "top-5" final in UC.
Hey, come back to the ground. If Steaua played badly in the second half they deserved to lose. It is their fault, not the seeding system.
Anyway, congratulations to Steaua and the other Romanian teams, and to levski and the other Bulgarian teams. They did it very well this year. I hope the next year will be at least as successful, as this one !
Date: 28-04-2006, 11:31
i assure you that i'm totally on the ground, and for that reason i will explain you again in other words, what i've already explain on another topic.
What the seeding system means..., what the fact that a team play lesser matches than the other (actualy 4, 2 q rounds) and using your own words:
Seeding system eliminated the possibility for a team (Boro) to have 8 bad rounds (meaning 4 matches) like the one have by Steaua. Now you understand or i have to explain over and over again? Because i will do it, untill you understand that teams starting in different rounds not mean competition.
Date: 28-04-2006, 11:36
Edited by: Knallie
at: 28-04-2006, 11:37
|Romania wouldn't have had this high a coefficient if it didn't have to play qualifying rounds. You wouldn't be in 10th place, we wouldn't have this constant whining about disadvantages of the seeding system for Romanians on this board... Wait a minute, that's a good thing! You're right, no qualifying anymore please! That way, Romania will slide back to 30th place, where they belong!|
English #14 beating Romania's #1.
Don't you think this kinda proves the whole country coefficient thing actually has meaning?
Date: 28-04-2006, 11:46
Edited by: STK
at: 28-04-2006, 11:51
the qualification matches are poor awarded with points; I don't care for Romania's position in the ranking system, i care for a team to have the same chances like any other. If you love q rounds, be my guess. I'm in total agreement like your teams to play them and take aditional rating points, and i will have no more arguments then if they will reach the competition after qualifing, but eliminating this posibility, is totally cowardly. I doubt that you know where romanian football belogs, you hardly know where your football belogs, you just like make offensive comments to mask your inferiority regarding football knowledge.
English #14 and Arsenal the only english teams in competition. What happened to the other teams? Everton, Bolton, Manchester? Direct acces and where they are. How ridiculos is for some team like Bolton and Everton to be eliminated to their first 2 games?
Any other wise guy?
Date: 28-04-2006, 11:47
|I know the STK theme is: playing QRs gives you more chances to go out. No QRs for big 5 means they are 'protected.'|
But we also observe that experience playing European matches helps teams - I think I have read threads saying that on average, teams do worse in their first few European seasons.
So I think it is equally possible that for top clubs from big countries, QRs would not change their eventual outcomes much. For non-top clubs, they might be as useful in terms of experience over the years than as harmful in terms of more chances to go out.
Analogy: if you enter CL at GS, you probably prefer if your first match is against e.g. FC Thun not e.g. Barca
Date: 28-04-2006, 12:05
|There are 4 teams in European cups and 2 are from England. The fact that they are #5 and #14 only further proves my point: England has many more competetive teams than Romania, that justifies they country coefficient in my opinion.|
Your argument about Steau having to play 2 (or 4) more games in August 2005 having an impact on yesterdays match is just ridiculous. Middlesbrough have played 22 games in the last 8 weeks. And still they beat Steau (and in what fashion too!).
I might be the only one, but I get tired of (I don't want to generalise, it's an observation) all the romanian people on this board complaining about how bad the seeding and coefficient system is, even when theyve gathered a massive amount of points this season.
It seems it's just never enough.
Bottom line: you may have 2 or 3 competitive teams in your country, but it will never get you a spot in the top 5, because they are simply *BETTER* than Romania. It's not because of seedings or coefficients... it's because they're *BETTER*. Many more competetive teams than in Romania.
Date: 28-04-2006, 12:11
So I think it is equally possible that for top clubs from big countries, QRs would not change their eventual outcomes much. For non-top clubs, they might be as useful in terms of experience over the years than as harmful in terms of more chances to go out.
Of course it is posible to have the same outcome (then i'm wrong), but it is possible to be eliminated also (maby not even 50%, maby less, but the precent exists). When excluding the possibility, when making the percent 0%, you create injustice for other competitor, for competition, for performance and for the outcome itself.
The harmfullness will not compensate neither the experience gained, neither the rating gained. Rating points are easily coverd by the country contribution for the teams that play direct (who have certanly a higher country coeff), and don't even counts too much from the moment that all teams from countries 1-8th have direct acess no matter what. The experience in q rounds cannot be compared with the competitional experience. These teams are the hard workers, and the teams with direct access play direct in groups or just one game until the groups, totaly undeserved. They are more close to the league system every year, and this gives them more self-conffidence and professionism. It is more easy to have this two qualities when know that you are respected even if not deserve, and very hard to have them when everything that happen is against some teams, every little detail.
Date: 28-04-2006, 12:17
Edited by: panda
at: 28-04-2006, 12:23
|Yes - again, the Romanian can argue: but the teams are more competitive in other countries because they have more money. That is true, and is also a problem inside a country (every day in England, we hear that Chelsea is best because it is much, much richer than any other club).|
Unfortunately, there is no way round this - maybe there is a theoretical limit (the best players want to play, so even if they are offered more money by Chelsea or Real M, they often prefer to start most matches for another club, than sit on the bench or not even that). Otherwise, yes, money (this in particular means, having a bigger number of good players, to cover injuries / large number of matches) plays a role.
But there is also - especially in a competition with big KO element, passion, skill of coaching, luck, good and bad days etc. Already, we can say in football there are more upsets than in most major sports.
Like Knallie, I have the feeling that if Romanian teams were always performing well, every year, in CL, then complaints about the bias of the system would cease. Instead, Romanians would see it as a system that expresses a correct reality.
@STK last post.
Sorry- did not read this till I had posted mine.
I don't agree that a non-top team from the 'big' country thinks it is respected. This year it is Boro's first Euro final ever. Irrespective of playing strength, most English people would think that Steaua has a far bigger reputation as a team in European competition.
Yes, the 'usual suspects' in Europe, the big teams, have big self-regard (but if they do not do well just one season, they get a lot of criticism, as Man U this year, or Real M) but for the others, just to be in Europe feels like a big achievement.
Date: 28-04-2006, 12:37
I can imagine how you are feeling. Steaua was so close to the final and lost. Last year my team(PSV) was defeated in the last minutes of the semi by Milan, while PSV was better at least 130 minutes of the 180.
But the playing of Qualification results had nothing to do with these 2 matches. I said it already: it made it easier for M'boro to get into the UC-groupstage, but after that they did it on their own.
Date: 28-04-2006, 12:38
you are the best example of not understanding anyting.
Place 14 and 5 still in competition, don't proove anytingelse but the fact that we speak about two different competitions, with different premises, and different circumstantial situation. We don't speak in english premiership of seedings, would we? I wonder how will look like.
What big amount of points are you speaking about? Why this obsession with the rating points anyway? The fact that between 25th position and 10th were countries very close one by another is not eqivalent eith a "big amount of points". Don't u think that you become a little paranoic with this rating points?. I said before, i'll give your country an average of 100.0 every year, i don't care about that, i want to see teams starting at the same level. It is like asking for a game to start from 0-0 and not 3-0, and you making like asking something impossible.
Again you do not understand that, i don't used the higer number of games like an argument for tiredness, but like an argument for excuding elimination chances.
I don't what to say that Romania have more competitive teams that a top 5, for the god seek finish up with this kind of ridiculous conclusions. No one knows how many competitive teams Romania has. If they don't play in european competition, we can't find out. But then again, top 5 countries are not simply better, they might be better but only if they proove; and playing direct in competition do not proove anyting.
And even if they are better, like a whole not individualities, this do not give them any right to this kind of advantages. You seem that you are not able to make the distiction between "a whole" and "a part".
Date: 28-04-2006, 12:52
re: seedings in a league - of course there are no seedings in a league, because everybody plays everybody and the results are the correct rankings for that season. In the doemstic cup, big clubs enter in 3rd round, non-league clubs pre-qualify, otherwise no seedings, but people are not bothered precisely because the league also exists. Surely this is similar for many countries?
Your last point is THE point. If one 'whole' is better than another 'whole,' should the parts have privileges?
On this point, UEFA says - yes - the part is still connected to the whole - we think the REPRESENTATIVE performance of whatever sides qualify each year gives an indication of the strength of the whole league from which they come.
You may complain about the big 5, but precisely as the performance of Romanian teams shows this year, good performances lead to high coefficient, then to promotion in the order, so to more teams. But it just does NOT happen IN A SINGLE YEAR.
I cannot remember exactly, but I think that after English teams were banned from Europe for 5 yrs, they then had to work back up, and it took them really quite a few years to recover a good position, both in terms of coefficient and in terms of learning how to play foreign teams.
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:09
|I do not understand what is the point about qualification rounds in connection to Middlesboro-Steaua.|
Steaua had to play Shelbourne (IRL) in CLQ2, and they made a 4:1 victory over two matches. After those matches they were allready qualified at least for UC.
So even if there was a theroretical chance to be eliminated in CLQ2, they were obviously not eliminated, and of course nobody is surprised about that, at least now after we all know how strong Steaua was this season.
If possible tiredness is as well not a problem - so what is the problem?
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:25
|There is always a problem for some people |
And even if not, someone will *find* a problem!
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:27
big clubs enter in 3rd round, non-league clubs pre-qualify, otherwise no seedings
Sorry i have no knowledge about that. Maby ALL THE TEAMS from a league enter in a higher round and that i know. Again, the number is of the essence. Teams from a same VALORIC LEAGUE haven't other advantages by others league-mates. And teams from the same european league-cup-competition should have the same situation, ALL of them.
we think the REPRESENTATIVE performance of whatever sides qualify each year gives an indication of the strength of the whole league from which they come.
- and for that we have the superior number of teams for some countries and is more than ENOUGH;
- by the way, if you can connect "an indication of the strength of the whole league from which they come" with this aditional ADVANTAGE, given, to be excluded from q rounds, then i will be without words.
Again these are 2 different issues, one is acceptable other not. If giving more spots, it is like an reward for a country, to came with more teams, giving ALL those teams direct access i don't know what it is: it is not a reward, it is something that will increase the gap, it is unfair for other teams, it is many things but not an indicator.
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:38
You make a good point that there is a distinction between 'more teams' and 'enter later, without q rounds.'
Well, I would need a more detailed knowledge of more different leagues in Europe to know how fair this is, but if I look at England and Scotland (and think that soon Romania will overtake Scotland in ranking if their teams can perform like this season), yes, some English teams go direct to CL GS, but some start in CL QR and I would say that Scottish champions, starting in CL QR3 are roughly the same strenght; likewise, the English teams starting in UC R1 are at least as strong as the Scottish club(S) entering at the same time.
Maybe this 'double reward is too much, but I'm not yet convinced.
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:48
|panda wrote: "soon Romania will overtake Scotland in ranking". They already did, see here.|
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:50
For this elimination, i feel angry, but not on UEFA, but on Steaua's players. They could have easily qualify, but they choose not to, same like with Rosenborg, ineficacity is the word, they got both 2 rounds in their pockets. But i could not to observe that Steaua's recive 4 goals in just one match, just as many as it recived in the whole campain. The result was from, some childish mistakes that cannot be associated with Steaua's usual game and more less with this level of the competition. These mistakes was cleary caused by a psyhical breakdown. So again, wihout trying to find excuses, i guess is very hard for a team to win a competition if comming from the bottom of the qualification round, and more easily for another team that starts in more higher stage. This chance of "a breakdown" can happen with a higer probability to team that play more matches. And this will bring us again to the opportunity of the seeding system (i'm reffering of course to the seeding POTS).
There is nothing new that i say, for you to belive that this is an direct effect for Steaua being eliminated. I express my disagreement many time now, until this unfortunate situation to be happening.
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:54
|STK, ages ago I argued that stronger teams were protected all the way but nobody seemed to agree with me. So I dropped it after a while. We have to accept that we do not live any more in a democratic world of football but in ellitistic one.|
Date: 28-04-2006, 13:56
Sorry, Bert, I have been looking too closely at the forum and not enough at the info pages.
Well, then I confirm my case - the coefficient improves, the ranking goes up, there are 'privileges'. The country's teams start in 'better' positions. Surely the only complaint can be that the reward is not immediate.
Date: 28-04-2006, 14:00
|Although the reward is not immediate, it certainly last for five years.|
I think most teams prefer it this way, especially teams who don't qualify every year for Europe.
Date: 28-04-2006, 14:11
|OK, again ... To say that teams entering the competition at different levels is unfair is a reasonable basis for discussion. To say last night's result was because of it - utter nonsense. |
So, to the reasonable argument. Well - as already said. The same thing happens in all domestic cup competitions. In the Romanian Cup the top teams came in in Round SEVEN. Yes, I believe, as you said before, all the top league teams were treated the same.
Transfer this to UEFA's competitions. Isn't one of the points of their coefficient system to rank countries (as well as teams) and hence decide that the Spanish league is superior to - for example - the Armenian league - as the Romanian Divizia A is superior to Divizia B etc. and hence the teams are treated differently.
Yes, maybe you have a case for some tweaking of the system. Maybe fewer teams should get direct access to the CL Group Stage and/or the UEFA Cup R1. Maybe the number of teams per country isn't quite right. The details might be wrong but the fundamentals are right.
Date: 28-04-2006, 14:12
|STK, after 2 years Steaua probably will be direct in CL GS and we expect to win the title)) In 1989, 89 min in second leg R1 UC macth between Antwerp and Levski result was 1-3 (after 0-0 1st leg in Sofia)and we ... lost 4-3. Im not sure but it may be stay the great come back in european cups. I didnt believe and watched TV screen with stupid look. This things is happened.|
Date: 28-04-2006, 14:13
this thing could happen to me too, i'm not enjoying that i'm the only one that have to answer to the same question all over again, to bring lots of logical arguments and to speak about fair-play, like it is something from another world, which have no place in football. I'm geting tired to do that, and if other fans of the teams disadvantaged by the current seeding system, don't feel this unfainess wave, then they will have the kind of football that they want. If a team so srong this season, like Steaua was, couldn't won the throphy, i can't see who else can. Waiting for robots-teams to win the trophies in an unfair system is a long shot, because there are not robot-teams. And then again the lack of performance will not bring higer investments in football, because in the eastern football the performance affects the investments more than investments affect performances.
Date: 28-04-2006, 14:45
|"If a team so srong this season, like Steaua was, couldn't won the throphy, i can't see who else can."|
It seems that you are saying that Steau is definately the strongest team in UEFA Cup this year and that noone else but Steau deserve to win the cup. But I'm sure we'll see in your next post that's not what you mean...
Date: 28-04-2006, 15:08
|It's really hard to present the point of view of places different from where you follow the football closely.|
In England everyone except supporters of Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal wonders how to raise their team to that standard and sees that it is almost impossible to approach the wealth and buying power of these teams. Indeed, Man U, Arsenal and Liv supporters wonder about how to approach the power of Chelsea.I believe thereis a similar imbalance in Italy.
This is in some ways the same complaint. But in a market society, I cannot see a solution (in some sports, salary cap is used, and may have some success, but still the same teams are usually the strong ones.)
For the average fan therefore, far more interesting to hope that his individual team has a great season (as surely, Steaua have had) than to be upset that out there, some people are richer and more powerful than other people. I am not syaing that one system is just or another unujust, merely that the structure of European football is sufficiently deep-rooted that one cannot hope for overnight change - assuming one thinks that structure is bad.
Date: 28-04-2006, 15:23
Edited by: pla
at: 28-04-2006, 15:23
|every year the same debate is coming when a no-great team arrives in quarter-semi final of anything competitions.|
I agree that every systems arent perfect, that you are disappointed but THIS system of seedings is representative of the reality.
Only exeptions : a good teams who havent gone in european cup last 5 years and play against big teams.
But as seeing az alkmaar, and villareal or basel three years ago, we can deduce it's possible.
Furthemore for countrys ranked after 8/10, uc clr 1/2...there are opportunity to earn easy half points.
There are no anomaly : only concerns CL with clubs who arent champions and play the cup.
Date: 28-04-2006, 15:43
|Middlesbrough has to play more matches then Steaua throughout a season, against tougher opponents. The decision of letting clubs from the big countries enter in a later stage is a practical one, while some people make the whole discussion ideological. Of course it isnít 100% fair teams from lower ranked countries have to play qualification matches, but trying to make teams like Real Madrid and Neftchi Baku start in the same round is like trying to install communism worldwide: sounds good and fair to some extent, but doesnít work in the real (money-driven football) world. |
Iím from Belgium, and i donít like it either our teams donít stand a chance against top teams. But itís a money thing, not a coefficient thing.
Date: 28-04-2006, 15:48
|If you would let all teams start in Q1. Much more lowercoefficient teams will already be out after Q1. Is that helpfull?|
Date: 28-04-2006, 16:20
Edited by: STK
at: 28-04-2006, 17:03
|Ricardo, You can't assume that! And yes, it helps the performance, and high footballistic value of a competition (better footbal not bigger TV rights). - this applying the same principle that you said you agree: better team wins.|
rakke, then give me one good reason why should i enjoy football? It is not like i win some MONEY from it, is it? And also i'm not a betting freak. Acepting this kind of situation will make it worse year by year.
How long do you think that other teams will accept this situation? The situation is becoming worse with every year and every UEFA decision (decision cleary pointed, so no conspiracy please). Increasing further de number of teams (because top teams have a good climate to progress with this system) will bring 4-5-6 qualification rounds. How much bull.... do you think they can take?
I want to see my club playing in a inter-club european competition. Don't have to be necesarely CL or UC; if UEFA wants to make these 2 copmetitions TOTALY-MONEY-INDUSRIES then is their problem, but count me out. I still want to see real football and competition. And this will happen when more clubs will take the initiative to create an organism to represents their interests in a DEMOCRATIC way.
Real Madrid with a small team in the same round is what DEMOCRACY is all about. Of course the Real Madrid is richer, but no democratic LAWS will not give to a richer entity more rights. Please make a distiction between RIGHTS and POSIBILITIES. Real Madrid have better posibilities, of buying good players, offering big salaries, building infrastructure and marketing image, but rights must be the same. That why i said that UEFA decisions are more likely from a DICTORIAL regim not a democratic one. I don't understand how you can see things on the exact opposite.
PS: i wanted to said Football Association to create an organism, not individual clubs, to not create something ridiculous like G14 is, who has only purpose to INCREASE the financial income. An organism to give to the competitional state his rightful place, practical, not theoretical like UEFA is supposing to do, but fail.
And Ricardo, again : i said that i accept 100% this principle : the better team win, in fact i was the one to point it when many other users were ready do deny it very easily because of some results that they do not understand. And yes on a whole 2 matches, Middlesbrough was better team, because they managed to qualify. I'm ready to accept any other factors that are part of the game : missing goal opportunities, individual mistakes, luck-unluck, refferee mistakes, psyhical breakedown. So i never said that regarding those factor Middlesbrough was not the better team in this round.
Anyway, there are another factors that, the external ones, that i cannot agree. This observation is to be made because there was a lot of confusion. Of course the q rounds have not influenced direcly the result, but the q rounds (or the lack of them) hace influenced the right of middlesbrough to reach this phase and others in the first place.
I cannot forget that when applying this principle with, the best team won, to the matches between Steaua-Shellbourne and Steaua-Rosenborg, Middlesbrough was probably in vacantion, so i couldn't apply the same principle to them also.
Date: 28-04-2006, 16:42
|In the debate about qualifying rounds, I agree with STK on one point : QR are bad.|
The current system where countries with bad results are not given a chance to play against good ones in first qualifying rounds is destroying the potential quality of small countries.
Look at World cup qualification system in various continents : in Asia and Africa, there are qualification rounds, and the level will remain crap because losers have a 2 or 4 years period without official matches. In South America (and Europe), it is all against all, even if weak, and it helps every country to enhance its level.
Latvia's example shows that country competition gives a chance for them to qualify for the last stages (Euro or WCup), but their best club has almost no chance to ever go through a group stage at european level, because their opponents are given group stage experience, which is denied to them. Bulgaria and Roumania succeeded this year, but those who did not will soon disappear from the scene, because the gap is increasing.
Even in Intertoto, there are privilegies for high ranked countries, I find it stupid.
Date: 28-04-2006, 16:56
|If you're a Steaua fan and you didn't enjoy football this year, I can't imagine you ever will. Tip: Go watch football because you want your team to win, whatever the opponent or stage of the competition theyíre in. Hope they win everything they participate in. Thatís what i do, and it works for me.|
Not accepting this situation is your right, but wonít change a thing. The only thing you will accomplish by not accepting the situation is a lot of replies in forums like this one. Of all the people who went to watch European football and paid UEFA by doing that, how many per cent you think gives a fuck about seeding/coefficients/democracy in football? They want to see their team win, and hope for an encounter with an even bigger opponent and beat them too, that's it.Trying to tear away football from money and making it into something democratical is very nice of you to pursue, but you will not succeed (unless youíre the president of the Romanian FA going for UEFA presidency). Nor will small clubs.
Date: 28-04-2006, 17:24
|Congratulations to Boro and Steaua from Bulgaria.|
dinamo: cmon man, semifinal is great achievement and great base for future Steaua success. Your team will be "seeded" in the next seasons, no matter what.
Btw, I dont think that your goalkeeper or defence must be punish or banned from your club. Give them another chance ! They work enough and work hard to deserve nothing but respect. And trust me, experiance ...even bad one...is a great thing.
Date: 28-04-2006, 19:59
|If you have seen the match..i could argue with you. I have seened a lot of footbal but never in my life i haven`t seen a entire team (11 +3 players,and coach) drop.Here in Romania the suporters of Steaua don`t cry because they don`t belive that a entire team could drop,it was not a player!!!!!!!!!Steaua played about 12 matches and recieved 3 goals and in 30 minutes have recieved.I belive that a big team like Steaua needs a psiholog not a coach or a player.|
Some people on this forum say that Boro is betther then Steaua .The final score was 4-3 a tight score with a incredible drop 30 minutes. Don`t speak about this team because it has only young players.I think that they lived a good experience and they are very strong now. We will hear from Steaua many years from now.Steaua was the best team for 150 minutes and Boro for 30 minutes.If we play again with Boro we will win fo sure.
Yes i agree with u Boro will play the final because they deserve.But don`t speak to me about the value of football in Romania after a 30 minutes of psihology drop of a team.
Date: 28-04-2006, 21:46
|This isn't the end of the world. This year we performed way beyond any reasonable expectation. Instead of dropping our heads we should try to build upon this succes (because this year was a succes) for the future. There is no shame in losing and I really do think some valuable lessons can be learned from such a defeat (some smart people think that you can learn more from losing then you can from winning).|
P.S. The only thing worse than someone who doesn't know how to lose is someone who doesn't know how to win. I hope you get my drift... Peace!
Date: 28-04-2006, 22:28
Edited by: Tano
at: 28-04-2006, 22:30
Romanians did it fantastic this year! U should be proud of your teams. Bulgarian teams also did it well, but the Romanian performance was briliant. U have 3 teams at UCGS, 2 at quarters, 1 at semis... Dinamo was elimianed by a referee mistake - a goal was not allowed at the game with Olimpic; two Romanian teams met each other at the quarters, so one have to leave the competition; and St. lost a game which was already won at the semis, but they have a good team which will probably win the championship this year in Romania and will be seeded in CLQ3, so they will probably play in CLGS, and I'm sure that they have strenght to pass it. I know that S. won the CL in 86, but now the times are very different, the system is changed and teams of small counries have less chances to win CL or UC. Romania has the highest coefficient of all contries. Be proud of that!
Date: 28-04-2006, 22:59
|Great post from Tano.|
Boro is not a ordinary team, and any defeat is not a shame.
They crash teams like Manchester United and Chelsea...this season..
and teams like Roma and Basel with the spirit from the semi last night.
Date: 29-04-2006, 12:25
|@Francois D; STK|
I suppose that from uefa point of view, the point is not to have a competition with equal chances for all; the point is in CL (CL is a clearer case) to arrive at the strongest 32 teams at the GS.
So when we discuss QRs, the defenders of the present system could argue: if a country has a strong domestic league, that domestic league IS the qualifying competition - all through the season, there is interest not only, who wins the domestic championship, but ALSO who gets the Cl places, especially the last CL place? The strongest teams from strongest leagues get a GS place; because their domestic league counts as a real strong qualifying competition. It just happens, because of geography and organisation, that each year, you play your qualifying competition (your domestic league) against the same teams - you cannot one year suddenly swap half your league with the neighbouring country (Interesting fantasy).
If the country's league is not so strong, or if the team's performance in the strong league is good but not best, these teams go into a UEFA qualifying competition.
The World Cup qualifiers are an excellent example. Whereas for Euro Champ, all teams can be drawn together in one set of groups, in World one does by definition play people in one's own continent. Then FIFA has to negotiate how many finals places each continent gets. Many times I heard complaints (less so now, as other continents develop) how this meant World Cup finals had some poor teams, and was less strong than Euro Champ finals. Most world football supporters want o see close matches between strong teams in the finals. There are only a few continents, but occasionally, like a CL QR one continent must play-off against another for a finals place.
So yes, to answer your point, STK, about 'valorific/ valoric' leagues, UEFA deliberately WANTS the different leagues in Europe to carry DIFFERENT valuations. Just as each continent carries different valuations in World Cup for nations.
The relative strength of the leagues is determined by the coefficients resulting from the team performances - we argue all the time on this forum about what are the right heuristics for the details. (How many bonus points? results determined at 90 mins or 120? Why count/ not count penalty shootout? etc)
Does this work?
Well, again to take the examples I know at home, I think it works quite well. As a result of the performance of its teams, Scotland get two candidates in CL QR and some teams in UC. Historically, Celtic and Rangers sometimes perform well in Europe, sometimes not. A team that is not these two, but can secure the second CL QR spot must be also reasonably competitive to have knocked Celtic or Rangers off.
Similarly, in England, to get the 4th CL spot, you must have been better than one of Chelsea, Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, so chances are you are reasonably competitive and go into QR3. Also we can say that for many years, English fans regard Celtic and Rangers are competitive, but not quite as good as the best English teams over a big number of games (they have often enough beaten English teams in CL and UC etc).
Again, I can quote the example of England's 5 yr suspension. Admittedly, when they started again, there were only 32 countries, but after the 5 yrs, they started off with coefficient ZERO. It took them plenty of years to become a big 5. But England did have a strong league, obviously, so this system means strong teams can bring their country to near the top. If the system were just biased in favour of the status quo, a country starting from zero would be more likely to stay low.
So- if the Englnad/ Scotland situation is replicated across Europe (and I have to say I do not know) the coefficient system determines the number of places and the positions AND it is a reasonable reflection of the real empirical situation. Rosenborg always wins domestic champ in Norway; it has no real domestic rivals, so it's right it fights with foreign teams to get into GS; its performances in GS have not been good enough to let it get into Euro finals.
STK- yes, of course this system leads to 'undemocratic' GS. But there is no way round this without changing the ideology of Western Europe. As I said in another post, in England, if you are not a Chelsea supporter (even if you are Man U or Arsenal) you will complain that money is the ONLY cause of Chelsea success. If you are not a Man U supporter, you think it is unfair Man U can make so much money from merchandising and non-football But when the match comes, you hope your own team will play especially well and beat Chelsea or Man U.(Many, many non Man U supporters laughed a lot at this year's CL GS). And when you switch on the TV, if it is not your own team, you usually hope to watch matches with world-class players.
Yet everyone would rather have the high standard of football there is in England, rather than either poor standard or to be in a sport where there is no money, no TV coverage and no one cares what happens.
What most football supporters want is the POSSIBILITY of upsets, small teams winning (e.g. Thun reach GS this year); but most accept that the major contest is between big teams.
Francois - Intertoto - I think 1 team from each federation is OK, though I agree it seems like a sneaky way of getting extra big fed teams into the UC but it would be a shame if when some federations drop out, the big ones then get a second team (if this is what is going to happen). Nature of QRs - again, I agree - if you play in strong competition, your standards will go up, other things being equal - for some federations, I guess there can only be a very slow change.
Date: 29-04-2006, 15:11
|@STK and the other people discussing QRs in CL and UC|
I agree that it is not fair when we have 16 teams directly seeded in CL groups. But I disagree that if all teams start at the same round (QR1), then it will be better for the football as a sport.
If we have e.g. Barca-Milan in QR1 and on the other hand e.g. FC Vaduz (Liechtenstein)-Domagnano (San Marino) - is it fair that one marvelous team will go to QR2 together with a pretty weak team ?
And if we seed teans - Barca-Vaduz and Milan-Domagnano. OK, but will the smaller teams be happy to always go out in QR1. Remember that countries like Liechtenstein earned their first points when this system was introduced. There was NO case in the past for a team from such a small country to earn any points - they always had 2 defeats against the top teams.
So, STK, I agree that there should be no direct entries to CL GS. But if all teams start at the same round, you see the examples above. Either we have giant teams eliminated between one another, or we have disincentived smaller teams always losing in QR1.
Date: 29-04-2006, 16:19
|And Vaduvz have to earn points?No,they don`t deserve to earn points in a "Champions League".In this system big teams are forced to qualfy from groups(they have been put there with force),they only have to present them selves each year.Yes this system helps giants and helps people fom China too see a match they waant in seminfinals or final,and no great match in groups,except one for place 1-2. But this system doesn`t help the teams in great form,the teams with young players(except if they are in the first 16).|
For exemple a team from pot 4 if thay play the maximum they can`t in my opinion they could go to second place in grtoup.But in 1/8 they play with first team from other group.If you calculat the chanses for a great team with small coeficient to reich the semifinals (like Steaua did in UEFA) you will see the chanses are very small.But if you take a team like Roma,with their coeficient they could qualify easy from group stage in CL or UC.
Date: 29-04-2006, 18:06
|benfica (pot 4 to quarter final) and monaco (pot 3 to final) were in form and they coefficient haven't empeach them to do a good european season.|
Date: 29-04-2006, 18:34
|That's the game. sometimes you win in the last seconds, sometimes you lose in the last seconds...|
What would be football if we knew in advance??????
My favorite teams goes down to League2 this year (FC Metz), that's no reason why i abandon football and the fora.
Date: 29-04-2006, 19:21
|These really long threads with really long posts are getting really old, really fast. Nothing new can come out of all this talk. Everybody has expressed his opinions on the (un)fairness of the system at least once and no conclusion was reached. And no general conclusion can be reached because everybody seems to have his own premade personal conclusion. |
No one from the big countries will attack a system that intentionally or not does provide a certain level of protection for their teams and no one from the smaller countries will back-up as system that is to an important extent enforced by the big boys. In fact many people will attack the current system not necesarelly because it's bad, but because it's enforced by big countries.
This happens because people (mostly from the East) are tired of letting The Powers That Be take decisions for them (we've had enough experience of that during a really bad and really red part of our history). Curiously enough most westerners think that democracy in football is a nice idea, but they also say it's not gonna happen.
The even more curious thing is that when there where communist countries in Europe (up until around 1991) football was relatively democratic. When communism failed and the big countries started having it their way unopposed football started being less and less democratic. The end of communism was the beginnig of a bold new direction in European football where rich teams got even richer, medium teams struggled to cope with the big ones and the rest where left to battle it out for the bread crumbs that fell from the big teams' table. Ironic, isn't it?
P.S. It's even more ironic that I started by bashing these really long threads and I ended up by adding to them Well it's not like Lennhart Johansson reads this stuff anway...
Date: 29-04-2006, 20:07
|Giuseppe, of course he will read! He reads all our posts here ;-)|