Spanish 4th team always underperforming?

[Aidann]

It has been said many times in this forum that Spanish 4th team always under-performs in the Champions League. Well, I have been looking at the performance of the teams that finished lowest in their leagues and had a spot in the UCL over the last 4 seasons and this is the result. (Chelsea finished 6th in 2011-12 Premier League but got a spot as UCL title holders. Metalist Kharkiv was disqualified in 2013-14: no Ukrainian team replaced them)

Code: Select all

          Eliminated Eliminated Finished  Finished  Eliminated Eliminated
          in 3rd-QR  in PlayOff 4th in GS 3rd in GS in Last-16 in Quarters
Spain                              X         XX                   X
England                                      XX         XX    
Germany                  X                   X          XX    
Italy                    XXX                            X    
Portugal                 XX        X                              X
France                   XXX       X            
Russia                             XX        X          X    
Netherlands  XXX         X                
Ukraine      X                               XX        
Belgium      XX          XX                
Turkey       X           XXX                
Greece       XX          XX                
Switzerland  XXX                    
Austria      X           X                
Czech Rep    X                    
Cyprus       X                    
Denmark      X           XX                
Romania      X                    
Scotland     X                    

So, I don't see big difference between Spanish teams and the rest. England succeeded twice in advancing to Last-16, but never put that team in QF. Germany even had a team eliminated in the PlayOffs, not to speak of Italy or France, who got three each. Portugal did have a team in Quarters, but not much more.

So, I don't see a problem of underachievement in Spanish 4th team. Do you see any overachievement in the table above?

[Aliceag]

The problem with the 4th spanish team is the fact of Villareal ended up with 0 points and Real Sociedade with 1 point in GS in very recent years, while Valencia failed to get out from a group having Gent, Lyon and Zenit. It's context. Instead of "Xs" please present number of points. Because it's very different to end up 4th with 0 points or ending up 4th with 5 points. And it's certainly very different ending up with 0 points being called "Dinamo Zagreb" and being called "Villareal". The point being, If 4th teams from ITA, SPA, GER and ENG are not delivering that great performances (and they are not) then better give chance to other teams (3rd or 2nd places) from other countries that could improve their leagues if they deliver similar performances. I believe the 3rd from Russia or Portugal, or the 2nd of Ukraine is no worse than the 4th of any of the top countries.

[Dragonite]

1999/2000: Valencia – beaten finalist – fantastic
2000/2001: Valencia (they were actually 3rd, the 4th Zaragoza was replaced by title holder Real Madrid that was only 5th) – beaten finalist again – fantastic
2001/2002: Barcelona – semifinalist – good
2002/2003: Barcelona – quarter finalist – good
2003/2004: Celta de Vigo – last 16 – good
2004/2005: Real Madrid – last 16 – bad
2005/2006: Bétis – group stage (3rd place with 7 points, behind title holder Liverpool and Chelsea) – ok
2006/2007: Osasuna – eliminated in the qualifiers by Hamburg – bad… but then reached UEFA Cup semis – great. Overall – good
2007/2008: Valencia – group stage (last place) – bad
2008/2009: Atlético Madrid – last 16 (undefeated) – good
2009/2010: Atlético Madrid – group stage (3rd place behind Chelsea and Porto) – ok… and then won the EL – awesome! Overall – very good
2010/2011: Sevilla – eliminated in the playoff by Braga – bad… and then in the EL last 32 by eventual winner Porto – ok
2011/2012: Villarreal – group stage (0-0-6) – awful
2012/2013: Málaga – quarter finalist – fantastic
2013/2014: Real Sociedad – group stage (4th place) – normal
2014/2015: Athletic Bilbao – group stage (3rd place) – normal… and then EL last 32 eliminated by Torino – very bad. Overall – bad
2015/2016: Valencia – group stage (3rd place) – very bad… and then EL last 16, eliminated by Athletic Bilbao – very bad again
2016/2017: Villarreal – eliminated in the playoff by Monaco – bad… and in the EL - ???

Summary:
While the quality of the 4th Spanish team has been decaying over the last few years, it’s still much better than the quality of the 1st placed team in most countries.

I would prefer if the 4th placed Spanish continued to play the qualifiers instead of getting direct qualification. If it happened and they weren’t good enough, probably they wouldn’t reach the CL.

[AlanK]

I would prefer if the 4th placed Spanish continued to play the qualifiers instead of getting direct qualification. If it happened and they weren’t good enough, probably they wouldn’t reach the CL.

Agreed.

[greenbay]

Even without having checked the data in detail, I'm quite sure that the Spanish (German, English) 4th in average did way better than the average qualifier from the champions path. Or put to it more widely: The average qualifier from the league path will easily outperform the average qualifier from the champions path, judged by points per game in group stage. As that's why Platini created the two paths in the first place, to prevent the champions ranked 13+ to be eliminated by some 3rd/4th placed team from Spain, Germany, England, Italy in the qualifying rounds.

[Aidann]

I believe the 3rd from Russia or Portugal, or the 2nd of Ukraine is no worse than the 4th of any of the top countries

The 2nd team from Russia had worse performances than the 4th team from Spain.
The 3rd team from Portugal didn't even qualify 2 out of 4 times.
The 2nd team from Ukraine was even eliminated once in the 3rd qualifying round.

better give chance to other teams (3rd or 2nd places) from other countries

Who will you give a chance?
4th team from Portugal?
3rd team from Russia, Ukraine?
3rd team from Greece, Turkey, Belgium, Switzerland?
2nd team from Croatia, Poland, Cyprus?

2003/2004: Celta de Vigo – last 16 – good
2004/2005: Real Madrid – last 16 – bad

This is not the purpose of the thread, evaluating teams performances based on their strength.

I'm quite sure that the Spanish (German, English) 4th in average did way better than the average qualifier from the champions path

After checking that the five 2015-16 Champions Path qualified teams (Astana, BATE, Dinamo Zagreb, Malmo, Maccabi Tel Aviv) finished last in their GS groups, I gave up collecting that data.

[Overgame]

The problem with the 4th spanish team is the fact of Villareal ended up with 0 points and Real Sociedade with 1 point in GS in very recent years, while Valencia failed to get out from a group having Gent, Lyon and Zenit.

Lol. Coming from Portugal, LOL.

It's context. Instead of "Xs" please present number of points. Because it's very different to end up 4th with 0 points or ending up 4th with 5 points. And it's certainly very different ending up with 0 points being called "Dinamo Zagreb" and being called "Villareal".

Ah, the excuse "yes but they had 0 points !" to justify "ending really often 3rd is better than eneding twice with 0/1 point !" but you were forced to add Valencia's ending 3rd in a weak group, so Porto/Benfica 2013/2014 ?

The point being, If 4th teams from ITA, SPA, GER and ENG are not delivering that great performances (and they are not) then better give chance to other teams (3rd or 2nd places) from other countries that could improve their leagues if they deliver similar performances. I believe the 3rd from Russia or Portugal, or the 2nd of Ukraine is no worse than the 4th of any of the top countries.

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
Your "belief" is false. Period. The 4th from spain is better than :
-the third from Portugal
-the third from France
-the second from Russia
-the second from Ukraine
-most champions

So please, get your facts right before posting.

[Aliceag]

The 2nd team from Russia had worse performances than the 4th team from Spain.
The 3rd team from Portugal didn't even qualify 2 out of 4 times.
The 2nd team from Ukraine was even eliminated once in the 3rd qualifying round.

I don't interpret this way. Furthermore, I'm not comparing directly with Spain, because Spain is usually overachiever in global terms. My concern is with the top4 as a whole. In the particular case, the 3rd from Portugal is better then the 4th from Italy, for instance.

Again, go case by case and use POINTS instead of just "qualify". And remind that one of the failures of Portugal was Paços de Ferreira, that was a one-time phenomenon. Usually the 3rd from Portugal will be Porto, Benfica, Braga or Sporting.

So, my point specifically if you asked me "what is your argument and what do you want?", I want that the 4th from SPA-GER-ENG-ITA go to qualification rounds against the 3rd from POR-FRA-RUS-UKR... Data has not backing up that the 4th in Italy for instance is better than the 3rd from Portugal. IF I was based on data solely then I'd say, give 3 automatic places to Italy and 3 automatic places for Portugal. However I also find that unfair, because Portugal might have a "Paços de Ferreira" and Italy might have a 4th team that actually is able to go to GS. The same way, I don't like the idea of Villareal making 0 points and Real Sociedad making 1 point. Qualifiers most of the time prevent those issues.

We alredy seen the "true CL" starts at R16, because among 32 teams, at least 16 have to perform BAD, in order for 16 go to ahead. It's logical. So, I think a better way to choose those 16 that perform bad is to let qualifiers decide it, instead of fixed berths.

I already proposed what seems most fair to me: place competition. Let the 4th places fight between themselves, the 3rd places between themselves, the 2nd places between themselves... or if that seems too complicated just keep the current system: league path separated, and give more berths to league path instead of fixed berths in GS.

Your "belief" is false. Period. The 4th from spain is better than :
-the third from Portugal
-the third from France
-the second from Russia
-the second from Ukraine
-most champions

It clearly wasn't in the years of villareal and Real Sociedad. It was in the year of Malaga.

It is a CASE BY CASE SCENARIO. Team strenght change every year and past history might not mean much. So, I want that every year the 3 portuguese teams have a shot at being in GS. Because more often than not there are years in which they actually deserve it. (actually I want all others to prove that as well, in an ideal scenario all teams should have to pre-qualify to be in GS).

[Dragonite]

2003/2004: Celta de Vigo – last 16 – good
2004/2005: Real Madrid – last 16 – bad

This is not the purpose of the thread, evaluating teams performances based on their strength.

The title says “underperforming”.
Real Madrid reaching the last 16 or Celta de Vigo reaching the last 16 can’t be the same thing. For Celta de Vigo it’s “above expectations” and for Real Madrid it isn’t.

What’s the purpose of the topic then, the “4th Spanish team” in abstract, without considering who it really was and the path they had?

[Overgame]

The 2nd team from Russia had worse performances than the 4th team from Spain.
The 3rd team from Portugal didn't even qualify 2 out of 4 times.
The 2nd team from Ukraine was even eliminated once in the 3rd qualifying round.

I don't interpret this way. Furthermore, I'm not comparing directly with Spain, because Spain is usually overachiever in global terms. My concern is with the top4 as a whole. In the particular case, the 3rd from Portugal is better then the 4th from Italy, for instance.

Ahahah, aliceag and her good old bad faith. And both are WAY weaker than the 4th from England and Germany. So 3 out of 4 are way better, one seems worse but the bad faith is "I only consider what goes in my theory".

Again, go case by case and use POINTS instead of just "qualify". And remind that one of the failures of Portugal was Paços de Ferreira, that was a one-time phenomenon. Usually the 3rd from Portugal will be Porto, Benfica, Braga or Sporting.

AHAHAHAHAHAH and now aliceag find excuses :p And many failures for Italy were with unseeded teams, so ?

So, my point specifically if you asked me "what is your argument and what do you want?", I want that the 4th from SPA-GER-ENG-ITA go to qualification rounds against the 3rd from POR-FRA-RUS-UKR... Data has not backing up that the 4th in Italy for instance is better than the 3rd from Portugal. IF I was based on data solely then I'd say, give 3 automatic places to Italy and 3 automatic places for Portugal. However I also find that unfair, because Portugal might have a "Paços de Ferreira" and Italy might have a 4th team that actually is able to go to GS. The same way, I don't like the idea of Villareal making 0 points and Real Sociedad making 1 point. Qualifiers most of the time prevent those issues.

Funny. Really funny. You want to use ITALY has an excuse to justify anything. Let's try :
-top 2 from Portugal often fails, so Portugal shouldn't have 2 automatic spots. QFD.

We alredy seen the "true CL" starts at R16, because among 32 teams, at least 16 have to perform BAD, in order for 16 go to ahead. It's logical. So, I think a better way to choose those 16 that perform bad is to let qualifiers decide it, instead of fixed berths.

Bye Porto and Benfica then.

I already proposed what seems most fair to me: place competition. Let the 4th places fight between themselves, the 3rd places between themselves, the 2nd places between themselves... or if that seems too complicated just keep the current system: league path separated, and give more berths to league path instead of fixed berths in GS.

Most
Stupid
Idea
Ever

[Overgame]

2003/2004: Celta de Vigo – last 16 – good
2004/2005: Real Madrid – last 16 – bad

This is not the purpose of the thread, evaluating teams performances based on their strength.

The title says “underperforming”.
Real Madrid reaching the last 16 or Celta de Vigo reaching the last 16 can’t be the same thing. For Celta de Vigo it’s “above expectations” and for Real Madrid it isn’t.

What’s the purpose of the topic then, the “4th Spanish team” in abstract, without considering who it really was and the path they had?

To see if 4 spots are justified ? Madrid MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO wasn't the current team. That's like saying "Celtic not winning the Cup is an underachievement".

[Aliceag]

Fine. How about this: if a team "fails" (not qualify for CL R16), the next time that SAME team qualifies to play in CL they have to go to qualifiers. There are only direct GS entries for the teams that last time they played in GS they reached at least R16. So it's a case by case berth attributed to past performance merit. And the number of berths in GS and qualifiers thus varies each year and it is decided by the end of each year. Therefore, Villareal, Napoli, Porto had to go to qualifiers because they failed to qualify last time, but Benfica, Zenit or Monaco would go directly to GS because last time they advanced.

[Dragonite]

This is not the purpose of the thread, evaluating teams performances based on their strength.

The title says “underperforming”.
Real Madrid reaching the last 16 or Celta de Vigo reaching the last 16 can’t be the same thing. For Celta de Vigo it’s “above expectations” and for Real Madrid it isn’t.

What’s the purpose of the topic then, the “4th Spanish team” in abstract, without considering who it really was and the path they had?

To see if 4 spots are justified ? Madrid MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO wasn't the current team. That's like saying "Celtic not winning the Cup is an underachievement".

I’m asking Aidann, not you, so stop sticking your nose in every single thing that anyone writes anywhere!



An analysis with 17-18 seasons is much better than looking at just 4 seasons.

Even in Aidann’s 4 seasons, only Valencia was underperforming to me, Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao were normal and Málaga overachieved, so overall Spain was normal, with Málaga’s success cancelling Valencia’s failure.


If the point is to question Spain’s 4th spot, I’d say that Spain deserves it much more than anyone else.
England’s fourth, Germany’s fourth, and in the future the infamous Italian 4th (and even 3rd), all are a lot more questionable than Spain’s 4th (or even 5th) spot.

But I ask again, what’s the purpose of this topic?

[greenbay]

If the point is to question Spain’s 4th spot, I’d say that Spain deserves it much more than anyone else.
England’s fourth, Germany’s fourth, and in the future the infamous Italian 4th (and even 3rd), all are a lot more questionable than Spain’s 4th (or even 5th) spot.

Last five years:
The average league path qualifier earned 7.2 points in group stage.
The average champions path qualifier earned 4.1 points in group stage.

Per country:
England 9.25 points
Germany 7.8 points
Spain 5.2 points

Above figures are including the German playoff losers Mönchengladbach as 0 points in 6 games, so even diluting the German average which would be 9.75 points otherwise.

So shut up, questioning the German or English 4h spot, finally! Those teams are doing better than the Spanish fourth, better than the Portugese or French third or any other league path team. And they are doing way better than any champions path team. Nuff said!

[Overgame]

An analysis with 17-18 seasons is much better than looking at just 4 seasons.

Even in Aidann’s 4 seasons, only Valencia was underperforming to me, Real Sociedad and Athletic Bilbao were normal and Málaga overachieved, so overall Spain was normal, with Málaga’s success cancelling Valencia’s failure.


If the point is to question Spain’s 4th spot, I’d say that Spain deserves it much more than anyone else.
England’s fourth, Germany’s fourth, and in the future the infamous Italian 4th (and even 3rd), all are a lot more questionable than Spain’s 4th (or even 5th) spot.

But I ask again, what’s the purpose of this topic?

And, again, you forgot to read. Calling "bad" the result for a team and "good" the exact same result is pure hypociry, when the topic is about pure performance. And Madrid in 2004/2005 was just a name, like Milan AC now, and not an european giant.

And England's fourth, are you kidding us ? Do the same useless analysis.