Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: Kaiser
Date: 14-04-2008, 14:52

Advantage:

- more nations in CL, which is perhaps the best solution

Disadvantage:

- second team has a chance to qualify while champion not! Look at here more attentively and you'll find it!

---

I used to offer my format but for those who don't remember, I offer to leave 3 qualifying rounds and reduce second teams from nations 10-15.

How:

1-3 - 4 teams
4-6 - 3 teams
7-9 - 2 teams
10-52 - 1 team

It seems to me I remember I offered it in this topic but it was not supported by Overgame and amirbachar. So I hope the last ones won't leave any comments here and others - please, do.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: executor Date: 14-04-2008, 15:02	{i>second team has a chance to qualify while champion not!{/i> I think it's the other way around. The quality of those non-champions will be higher than that of most of the champions.

Author: Kaiser
Date: 14-04-2008, 15:06

I think it's the other way around. The quality of those non-champions will be higher than that of most of the champions.

I have mentioned CL teams dropping to UC to earn good coefficient. Everyone said, that normal and decent team wouldn't do like that. But the possibility still exists!

And the same in this case. Although, I agree with you, non-champions of grandee countries class is much better than champions from lower countries however, the possibility exists, so Platini didn't decide 1 from 2 main problems.

Author: dzomba
Date: 14-04-2008, 18:52
Edited by: dzomba
at: 14-04-2008, 18:57

Kaiser, You do not distinguish possibility and reality. We already had similar discussion about dropping.

Possibility doesn't matter if reality does not follow it.

Personnally, i can't predict what will be the influence of new format (6 games in UC group, more QRs, more teams, ... etc.). I need one season to say what are pros&cons.

I like changes in CL. About changes in UC i don't know. We will see ...

PS Only way to prevent non-champion qualifying to CL, while champion not, is to forbid participation to non-champions.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 14-04-2008, 19:00	PS Only way to prevent non-champion qualifying to CL, while champion not, is to forbid participation to non-champions. ...Or just look at my suggestion in the link of my first post in this topic. I think that actually 'prevents non-champion qualifying to CL, while champion not'. Just try.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 14-04-2008, 21:20

Kaiser,
by not even let the runners up of 10-15 play qualification, while automatically qualifying champions 1-9, you indeed make it sure that it is only possible to qualify for runners-up if their champions is automatically qualified.
But I don't like it. It means that topteams from subtop countries will make place for subtop teams from top countries. That's not improving.
I'd like to see:
Autotmatic to GS:
Titleholder
Champions 1-10
Runnersup 1-5

In qualification(in whatever sheme, possibly with champions/non champions seperate):
champions 11-52
runnersup 6-15

Let there be surprises. Let about 6 out of 16 be in the 1st KO round and was there too last year - and not 10-12 like lately.

to get back to the topic
Advantage:
more lower ranked champions

Disadvantage:
3! direct qualified teams for top-3

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Lyonnais Date: 14-04-2008, 21:43	yes, I expected this system to be implemented next season Ricardo (it was in line with Platini's proposals) but I presume that it has been difficult to sell to the key TVs who wanted to the big names to be there every year (or so).

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: amirbachar Date: 14-04-2008, 22:07	Ricardo, as I said before, 3 teams from top countries qualify directly is good for the unseeded champions (and they might be better than the seeded sometimes), because otherwise they could meet the top teams and not qualify, when other worse teams will qualify just because they were seeded or had an easier draw.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 14-04-2008, 22:36

amirbachar, I understand that. But I prefer to only have 2 teams per country!!
And I understand what you say, but why not let them be afraid a bit ( the subtop teams from topcountries). Especially in august some are pretty beatable. Inter was almost eliminated by a Swedish club, etc. Why this lazy seat? Maybe we can give them a direct pass toe ht e1st KO phase, as they normally get there too, and the teams that get in teh same pool has because of that more trouble in getting there......

Author: Overgame
Date: 14-04-2008, 22:45

"Disadvantage:
3! direct qualified teams for top-3"

Direct qualification or just one tie against a small team (in 99% of the case) is no difference for me. Can someone shows me when was the last time a third-placed team from a top3 country was beaten in the CLqR3 ?

For the champions of lower countries, if there is no real big team, luck in the draw is less important. Take Fenerbahce this year : they could have played against Liverpool or Arsenal in the qualifications ...

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 15-04-2008, 07:31	Ricardo, you dislike my system only for giving 4 spots to top3?? If you please, I say that my system gives CL participation to at least 13 nations (look: TH-4-4-4-3-3-3-2-2-2-1-1-1-1), unlike the current which only gives CL participation to at least 11 nations (look: TH-4-4-4-3-3-3-2-2-2-2-2). Re-consider.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 15-04-2008, 08:53

Kaiser,
I prefer less domination by the usual names. Let that only start with the quarters or semi's. That means that the big countries will have to have less participants. I would say max 2! (+Titleholder makes 3)
Then I would get something like: TH+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1
That's 21 countries!!

That's my idea: for a top-league you go to England(or Spain), for a European Champions Legue/Cup you get this.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 15-04-2008, 08:58	With your system nobody will watch CL anymore... Champions League match: Dinamo Zagreb - Crvena Zvezda... I'd better watch FA PL Tottenham - Everton than that crap...

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: dzomba Date: 15-04-2008, 10:46 Edited by: dzomba at: 15-04-2008, 10:47	Kaiser This is not an argument. Even with only two clubs from one country, you would have a plenty of excellent games, nobody will force you to watch Dinamo-Zvezda, if you don't want to. Also, let everyone decide which game he wants to watch !

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 15-04-2008, 10:52	OK. Let's return to European Champion Clubs' Cup era after all - that's also an outcome. But in that case I'd suggest to change the format. And by means of your system higher countries will always be on top because they have only one team in CL and which will affect their as it is high coefficient.

Author: dzomba
Date: 15-04-2008, 10:57
Edited by: dzomba
at: 15-04-2008, 11:06

... continuation ...

Just contrary, people would watch more those games. But the problem are sponsors. In the world of globalization, there are the same sponsors all over the world, who want always the same (their) teams in competition. If there would be diversity of sponsors, there would be also diversity of teams, with much increased interest of people, not decreased as you said.

If you look at the European teams, you will see how many of them have the same sponsor ! A few sponsors dominate all football business !

So CL today, is not measured with the interest of people, but with interest of those (a few, the most mighty) sponsors.

Such imaginary CL format with increased diversity (as some proposals) would be watched by far bigger number of people, but wouldn't be supported with the same number of sponsors.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-04-2008, 11:32

I'm just pleased that it's Platini in charge of European football & noone writing on this thread

I wouldn't mind Ricardo's ideas quite so much if I didn't think that you'd just be replacing: "the same clubs every year from the top countries (except Spain)" with "the same clubs from the sub-top countries".

My very early proposal for the CL format from 2012/13 is 16 groups of 4 & then a KO round from the last 32.

1-3 5 teams (15)
4-6 4 teams (12)
7-12 3 teams (18)
13-15 2 teams (6)
+13 Champions from countries 16-52.

The last spot for the top 15 countries should be decided via a play-off system. No pre-qualification except for a certain number of Champions below 15.

Disadvantages: too many games & too "easy" for the top teams to qualify from the groups - but then it's getting that way as it is. Also perhaps too "easy" for certain clubs to qualify regularly even when they aren't playing well.

Advantages:

1. Opens up the possibility of almost any team in Europe playing in the Champions League.

2. Lots of interesting (competitive) group games outside those involving the very top clubs & following on from that double the teams in the KO stages & hence double the teams that can potentially go further in the competition.

3. More clubs to share the CL cash so a bit less for everyone. Perhaps a tough selling point for some.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: dzomba Date: 15-04-2008, 12:20	@ badgerboy That's bullsh.. That's just a way to increase number of English (or Spanish or Italian participants in the later stages of competition). I understand that you don't see a problem in that (i don't blame you, everyone of us is a patriot), but that's the main problem.

Author: executor
Date: 15-04-2008, 12:34

At least Ricardo's idea brings this competition closer to its name Champions League. The rest can go to UC. What will be the problem? This way the difference between the 2 won't be that great. And why should No.3 and 4 in Top countries protest they're not playing in CL? Win the league and you will. If you don't, there's another trophy. For non-champions.

But, since this system existed and was scrapped, the chances of seeing it again are slim.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 15-04-2008, 12:43

Though your idea, badgerboy, has something - I mean why not have a grouped CL/UC grouphase until winter, followed by 2 seperate KO- continuation by e.g groupwinners to CL and group runners-up to UC.
But still I would like to avoid so many teams from a (very) limited group of countries continuing in the CL. Can you imagine that you have in the last 16 only English, Spanish and Italian teams, maybe Lyon or Bayern added? To me that is a horror scenario, that I have no interest in watching in

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: dzomba Date: 15-04-2008, 13:37 Edited by: dzomba at: 15-04-2008, 13:43	Kaiser's LIBERALISM concept can't function because the world (distribution of money) is not liberal (fair). So limitations to country representatives are neccessary. For example, English teams (some other too, off course) get much more money from Uefa for the same achievement than for example - Romanian.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: krdel Date: 15-04-2008, 14:25	Well, I'd rather watch Dinamo-Zvezda than any english, italian... "giant". Actually I can hardly imagine a better match than this. That comletely depends on each person himself.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-04-2008, 15:21

dzomba wrote: "@ badgerboy

That's bullsh..

That's just a way to increase number of English (or Spanish or Italian participants in the later stages of competition)".

Actually I'm not thinking so much about the latter stages as the groups. I'm surprised that people are against the idea of a guaranteed two & perhaps three (depending on country ranking) Dutch, Turkish, Belgian etc. teams because they don't like the idea of there being five English teams (or Spanish or Italian) in the latter stages. The phrase that springs to mind is: "cutting off your nose to spite your face".

For me - on the patriotic front - I would like there to be the realistic possibility for any Premier League team to get into the competition (same rule for all of the top 15 countries)- hence the 5th spot (3rd spot down to country 12) & the idea that that spot only be available via play-offs (so it's less likely for a current "top four" to simply become a "top five" after a few seasons).

Depending on draws etc (as always) I wouldn't really expect the 5th English team to be one of the "favourites" to reach the last 16.

Overall the idea is far better for the rest of Europe than the top countries. Lots of spots - both in the groups & the first KO round & (keeping the group winners v runners-up rule & then an open draw after the first KO round) I certainly would expect nearly half of the group winners to be "beatable" in the last 32 & after that - more good draws &/or a very good day against one of the top clubs & who knows... Three extra spots for the top three countries out of 32 and people are spitting the dummy!

As for the relationship with the UEFA Cup that Ricardo mentions -I'm not sure. I'd be in favour of a stand-alone group stage (so still a separate competition) but of not more than 8 groups of 4. That would still be 96 teams playing a European group stage (up from 80 in 2009-10).

I'm not sure if there should then just be a KO round for the 16 teams progressing (so no crossing over of teams) or if the 16 3rds from the CL groups should still cross-over to make a last 32.

Those against it - don't worry though. I suspect my idea wont come to pass. But that doesn't stop me liking it. And thinking it would be pretty good for all countries & individual teams across the continent.

Author: dzomba
Date: 15-04-2008, 15:44
Edited by: dzomba
at: 15-04-2008, 16:03

My intention was not to say anything bad about you badgerboy, sorry if you misunderstood me, i just wanted to be ''expressive''.

I don't like the idea that CL is easy accesible.

There is a chance for every club in Europe to participate in the CL. The route is well known. Through the domestic league.

I don't like the idea to make that path more easy for any club, nor English, nor Turkish, nor Slovakian, nor Moldavian.

I'd like to see CL as an exclussive competition, but ''circulating exclusive''.

I'd rather make that path harder for every club.

But as i mentioned many times, problem is not in format, problem is in (unfair) distribution of money.

PS
If you want to make it easier for other English clubs to participate, you (FA) can change the FA rules, a play-off for CL spots may be a solution (that becomes pretty popular lately).
Other countries do not have a problem with that.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Ricardo Date: 15-04-2008, 16:24	badgerboy, And what is your idea then about the UC? There is hardly any team left. And those that are left are not the ones that should win the UC

Author: badgerboy
Date: 15-04-2008, 17:37
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 15-04-2008, 17:40

Dzomba

Don't worry I didn't take offence. I was just "arguing my case" a bit more.

The problem I have with simply introducing a play-off system for CL places is that such a system doesn't actually get you into the Champions League. Look at Holland. OK - Ajax has failed to pass QR3 in the last few seasons anyway but if they win the play-offs they will probably again be favourites (unless they get a very bad draw) but if a team like NAC Breda wins them they will be unseeded & depending on the draw their chance will range from: "nigh on impossible to very difficult". The same would be true in England (or anywhere else) if a play-off system were to be introduced under the current format.

I do accept that my idea is very much going down the lines of diversity rather than quality & can see the argument that it will be "too easy" for teams to get into the CL. Then again a surprising number of people still support a "Champions only" option regardless of how easy it might be to win a particular domestic league...

For me the UEFA Cup is a bit more of a difficult issue. Thinking about it I might be tempted to go back to a straight KO (& open it up to a lot more teams) - so either start with 128 teams - perhaps with preliminary rounds for some of the smaller teams - or even 256 teams. Even with 256, four KO rounds (same number of matchdays as from QR4 under the new format) would bring the number of teams down to 16 - at which point the 16 CL 3rds join in. I agree that this crossover would probably be necessary in terms of quality assuming "the best" 64 teams are in the CL.

Author: dzomba
Date: 15-04-2008, 18:21
Edited by: dzomba
at: 15-04-2008, 18:54

What's the point of European competitions ?

In my view, the point is to determine who is the best from the best (CL) or who is the best from the rest (UC). Allowing a lot of teams from the same country into a competition makes no sense to me.
Every country gives a representative (or a few of them) which fight for those titles. European competitions are just geographical enlargement of competitions area.

Similarly as there are for example, two third divisions, but one second and one first (talking generally). What's the point of making unique fifth division ? That just enlarges expenses. That's why many countries have smaller sub-divisions than top division (or two of them).

There is no point in allowing relegating teams to Eurocups.

When a team is a master in his ground (country), then it seeks for a greater challenge. What's the point of some higher challenge when you fight for more simple cause (avoiding relegation)?

In my opinion, Eurocups are only for succesfull clubs - clubs from upper half of first division.

Even now we see that teams like Parma and Bolton put reserve squad in Eurocups, and first eleven in domestic league.

PS

That about Ajax-NAC ...

Maybe UEFA could give up seedings !? That would solve that problem. I would accept that. Then it would be all about luck, like in other Cups competitions. That's the reason why UC is more interesting, because UC seedings are less precise than CL (they are often wrong!), what enables more interesting pairs.

I think you would agree that FA cup is interesting (especially this year) because there are 3 lower division teams in semis. It would be boring if it would repeat every year, but once in 10 or 20 years it is interesting. And why is it possible ? Because it's possible that ManU can meet Arsenal or Liverpool in quarters or even much earlier ...

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 15-04-2008, 18:29 Edited by: Kaiser at: 15-04-2008, 18:34	badgerboy, I think you are not real copy cat but the idea you mentioned belongs to me However, I'd like to see this: 1-3 - 4 teams 4-6 - 3 teams 7-9 - 2 teams 10-52 - 1 team So that means 4-4-4-3-3-3-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 -1-1-1-1-1-1-1 Almost all champions from Europe? Even your Dinamo Zagreb and Crvena Zvezda! Why you all, don't like this idea?

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: dzomba Date: 15-04-2008, 18:50 Edited by: dzomba at: 15-04-2008, 19:54	Kaiser, i don't like your idea because: 1) there is a huge difference between 1st (or 3rd) and 4th, between 1st and 7th, between 1st and 10th, BUT There is no difference between 10th and 50th. Top countries would be in huge advantage over middle countries, while middle would be in equal position as the lowest.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: badgerboy Date: 15-04-2008, 19:07 Edited by: badgerboy at: 15-04-2008, 19:10	Kaiser Sorry but the very lowest Champions are just rubbish. 28 Champions out of 64 teams is plenty. I would expect Dinamo Zagreb (or Hajduk) and Crvena Zvezda (or Partizan) to be among the best 28 Champions anyway. There is a huge difference between these teams & the Champions of Estonia & Latvia - even more to the likes of Luxembourg & San Marino.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 15-04-2008, 19:07	Top countries are in huge advantage over middle countries, while middle are in equal position as the lowest. So why do you want to change CL participation exactly to give spots to middle countries, if you don't like my system? Or you consider Slovakia, Serbia and Israel so great countries which have participants in quarterfinals every year? I think you just contradict yourself.

Author: dzomba
Date: 15-04-2008, 19:10
Edited by: dzomba
at: 15-04-2008, 19:38

You go to the extreme again. Extremes are never good.

If i can modify your proposal then it would be:

3 teams for 1st-5th
2 teams for 6th-15th
1 team for 16th-50th

All 3rds have to play quals, and some 2nds.
10 champions directly to GS, 3 runner-ups directly to GS.

Remains 19 spots for qualification ...
(Maybe diversifying champion and non-champion route)
(Maybe forcing every club to pass at least two rounds of qualification, clubs which are not directly to GS)

Author: amirbachar
Date: 16-04-2008, 00:54

I don't see why you don't like the new system.
It has something for everyone:
at least 18 champions (including CL),
unseeded champions can't meet big teams in the qualifing,
tough mathces for 4th of the top3 in qualifing,
Champions of top 12 or 13 countries (which is a lot directly in CL),
chamions get rewarded,
RU still have a chance to qualify if they are good (for example Scotland's one which I think will qualify quite regulary),
it will still be interesting in the GS (not too many teams)...

I could continue this list, but I think you get the point (the only thing that Platini wanted and didn't get is CW in CL, which could give a chance to new teams from the big countries).

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: badgerboy Date: 16-04-2008, 10:03	amirbachar I do really like the new system. I think it's better than just about all the options I've read on here - certainly 32 team options. I'm just really "toying with ideas" as to what might happen in the future. Right now I'm really looking forward to 2009 & almost wishing we could skip next season (or at least get the changes introduced faster).

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: dzomba Date: 16-04-2008, 11:46	I also like new system. @ badgerboy I am strongly against any enlargement of number of participating teams.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 22-04-2008, 19:59	In fact, it would be better if UEFA decided to place all champions from 13 to 53 country to Q1 instead of spreading them over Q0, Q1 and Q2. Advantages: no stupid Q0 and the same system.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: amirbachar Date: 23-04-2008, 17:46	The reason that they don't do it is so champions of 13-15 countries won't start earlier than RU of those countries

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 23-04-2008, 17:50	The reason that they don't do it is so champions of 13-15 countries won't start earlier than RU of those countries So what?

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: amirbachar Date: 24-04-2008, 12:09	So there will be no advattage in the next year for the RU that will start the season later than the champion.

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Overgame Date: 24-04-2008, 15:52	And so the champions from countries 13-15 can lose their first game and still be in the UC. Imagine this : Standard (champion) lose their first game in CL in qR1 and would be out, while Anderlecht (Runner-up) could lose their game and still have a chance in UC !

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 24-04-2008, 16:56 Edited by: Kaiser at: 24-04-2008, 16:57	Imagine this : Standard (champion) lose their first game in CL in qR1 and would be out, while Anderlecht (Runner-up) could lose their game and still have a chance in UC ! Agree. Due to you I have just noticed another 'bug' in the new system: the runner-up can be eliminated to UEFA Cup while the champion losing in QR1 - not! Unfair... More and more I think my system is better...

Re: CL format 2009/10 - advantages & disadvantages
Author: Kaiser Date: 24-04-2008, 16:58 Edited by: Kaiser at: 24-04-2008, 16:59	Have just realised my stupidity... Of course, it's impossible that I mentioned in 2nd paragraph. However think UEFA should get rid of this system... after 2012