Battle for important ranking positions 2023-24

[eye]

That’s my point, this year Spain with Osasuna (0.5 points), Sevilla (6) and Real Betis (7), a total of 13.5 points (1.688 contribution to country) didn’t have a “deep bench”.

For example 6-8 teams for England got 31 points(3.875), Italy 6&7 (no got 33 (4.714) even Germany 6&7 got 15.5 (2.214). Italy and Germany also have the benefit of the total being divided by 7 and not 8.

For the clubs coming from the strongest 5 Big leagues, we can give a general evaluation of the performances by the points won:

below 10 points - negative (1)
10-14 points-enough (2)
15-19 points-good(3)
20-24 points - very good (4)
25 and more points - excellent (5)

The Spaniards have as many as three clubs with a negative performance this season: Ossasuna 0.5 (catastrophe), Sevilla 6.0, Real Betis 7.0. This is the main reason why they are not in the game for the Top 2 places according to the Country coefficient. Germany and England each have 2 clubs with a negative performance, namely Union Berlin 6.0 and Eintracht 9.5 for Germany, or Manchester United 7.0 and Newcastle 8.0 for England. In comparison, Italy and France do not have a single club with a negative performance. Italian clubs are all in the category good(3) or above.

There should be more osasuna look like catastrophes for spain if uefa has not improvised with competition format by protecting big four leagues. Out of 7 teams, 6 of them clinch the group stage at the begin of the season. Multiplying by 6 games yields 36 secured games at the group stage. If any of those teams is obliged to play qualifying rounds, that number would be significantly decreased. I remember the summer when both st etienne and nice were eliminated by cypriot and danish club. Mainz was eliminated in the 3rd qr of europa league twice. Such scenarios are now impossible because such clubs received a bye to the group srage.

The Osasuna example is actually a way to see that UEFA is not protecting the clubs from top leagues but is actually protecting clubs like Brugge from being eliminated from them. All 8 clubs of CL QFs are from top5 leagues, 7 of 8 clubs of EL QFs are from top 5 leagues also (Benfica is the other one) so these clubs doesn't need the protection. It is clubs like Brugge that needs it cause they were close to being eliminated from Osasuna (Osasuna was qualifying till 70+ of return leg) and later Brugge won easily the group and reached QFs of ECL and has good chances to continue at later stages or even win the competition.

[babaluj1]

For the clubs coming from the strongest 5 Big leagues, we can give a general evaluation of the performances by the points won:

below 10 points - negative (1)
10-14 points-enough (2)
15-19 points-good(3)
20-24 points - very good (4)
25 and more points - excellent (5)

The Spaniards have as many as three clubs with a negative performance this season: Ossasuna 0.5 (catastrophe), Sevilla 6.0, Real Betis 7.0. This is the main reason why they are not in the game for the Top 2 places according to the Country coefficient. Germany and England each have 2 clubs with a negative performance, namely Union Berlin 6.0 and Eintracht 9.5 for Germany, or Manchester United 7.0 and Newcastle 8.0 for England. In comparison, Italy and France do not have a single club with a negative performance. Italian clubs are all in the category good(3) or above.

There should be more osasuna look like catastrophes for spain if uefa has not improvised with competition format by protecting big four leagues. Out of 7 teams, 6 of them clinch the group stage at the begin of the season. Multiplying by 6 games yields 36 secured games at the group stage. If any of those teams is obliged to play qualifying rounds, that number would be significantly decreased. I remember the summer when both st etienne and nice were eliminated by cypriot and danish club. Mainz was eliminated in the 3rd qr of europa league twice. Such scenarios are now impossible because such clubs received a bye to the group srage.

The Osasuna example is actually a way to see that UEFA is not protecting the clubs from top leagues but is actually protecting clubs like Brugge from being eliminated from them. All 8 clubs of CL QFs are from top5 leagues, 7 of 8 clubs of EL QFs are from top 5 leagues also (Benfica is the other one) so these clubs doesn't need the protection. It is clubs like Brugge that needs it cause they were close to being eliminated from Osasuna (Osasuna was qualifying till 70+ of return leg) and later Brugge won easily the group and reached QFs of ECL and has good chances to continue at later stages or even win the competition.

All those clubs listed above with negative performances would have big problems in the CL qualifications and most of them would certainly be eliminated in the qualifications. They are not top clubs in their respective leagues fighting for the championship title, therefore they are not untouchable.
All those third and lower placed clubs of the strongest leagues should be sent to the qualifiers, so let them prove that they deserve the GS CL. But those qualifications should be the Swiss system, so the luck of the draw plays a minimal role. Let's say 125 clubs in 5 strong groups according to UEFA rating. Each club plays 4 games with clubs outside its strong group, 2 at home, 2 away. The first 20 go to the CL, the second 20 to the EL, the third 36 to the ECL. You leave direct places in the CL to the champions and runners-up of the Top 5 countries, and to the champions of countries from 6-10 places, as well as the current winner of the CL. With the Swiss system, you protect all clubs from an unlucky draw, and even with one defeat, you can reach the CL with 9 points.

[nogomet]

[Sagy]

That’s why I have an issue with bonus points to teams that didn’t have to qualify for league stage.

"Bonus" points in qualifying rounds do not count for the country coefficient. That's why I prefer to call them "qualifying points". Without these points almost all clubs of "lower ranked" countries would have the same coefficient for seeding.

I think @Sagy is referring to clubs that have direct qualification to league stage of CL and the bonus of 6 points (4 in the previous ranking system) and didn't need to play a single qualification match to get this bonus.

Correct, there are the bonus points I was talking about.

[Lyonnais]

incredible to see how the situation has changed in one round
(well, this one is not finished yet but both Liverpool and West Ham are in a big trouble and presumably are not expected by Opta to come back)

[Sagy]

All those clubs listed above with negative performances would have big problems in the CL qualifications and most of them would certainly be eliminated in the qualifications. They are not top clubs in their respective leagues fighting for the championship title, therefore they are not untouchable.
All those third and lower placed clubs of the strongest leagues should be sent to the qualifiers, so let them prove that they deserve the GS CL. But those qualifications should be the Swiss system, so the luck of the draw plays a minimal role. Let's say 125 clubs in 5 strong groups according to UEFA rating. Each club plays 4 games with clubs outside its strong group, 2 at home, 2 away. The first 20 go to the CL, the second 20 to the EL, the third 36 to the ECL. You leave direct places in the CL to the champions and runners-up of the Top 5 countries, and to the champions of countries from 6-10 places, as well as the current winner of the CL. With the Swiss system, you protect all clubs from an unlucky draw, and even with one defeat, you can reach the CL with 9 points.

I like where you are going with this.

My concern is that 125 is too small a number and will really hurt lesser ranked countries in terms of how many teams they send to Europe.

Given some teams today have to play 8 games to get to league stage and many play 6 qualifying games, it is not unreasonable to have the new qualifying include 6 rounds as well. I would have 7 groups of 24 for a total of 168 teams in the “Swiss qualifying” each team plays six teams, one from each of the other groups. Each country gets the same allocation as today, non-champion from the lowest x countries have to play in pre-qualifying home and away to reduce the total number on teams in qualifying to 168. I think that next season we expect about 192 teams, if that is correct then 48 teams will have to pre-qualify. This means, if my math is correct, that non-champions from countries 35-55 (CW from 35-44 are given a pass) will have to participate in the pre-qualifying (which will be seeded based on club not country).

Q1 in UCOL next year will have 52 teams with countries 30-55 represented. This means that less teams will be eliminated after only two games while many teams will have a better opportunity to be placed in the “right” competition.

Following was based on an error in number of team taking place in qualifying

I don’t think that this change (37 vs 26 teams eliminated after 1 round, 2 games) is too drastic. If that is a problem, simply have the Swiss qualifying include 7 groups of 26 team for 6 games). This way the pre-qualifying includes only 46 team (only 23 teams eliminated after 1 round).

Apologies if the number of teams scheduled for next year is not 192, the numbers will be slightly different, but the concept is the same.

*** Edited to correct numbers

[nogomet]

incredible to see how the situation has changed in one round
(well, this one is not finished yet but both Liverpool and West Ham are in a big trouble and presumably are not expected by Opta to come back)

England were dealt a horrible hand in quarterfinal draws across all competitions. But still, few people expected them to perform this badly. If they are down to 1 club after tonight, it's over. They desperately need Liverpool or West Ham to turn it around.

[Sagy]

incredible to see how the situation has changed in one round
(well, this one is not finished yet but both Liverpool and West Ham are in a big trouble and presumably are not expected by Opta to come back)

England were dealt a horrible hand in quarterfinal draws across all competitions. But still, few people expected them to perform this badly. If they are down to 1 club after tonight, it's over. They desperately need Liverpool or West Ham to turn it around.

In retrospect, “horrible hand” might be true, when it happened that was not the case.
UCL: both Real (after poor performance vs RB) and Bayern (after losing the first leg vs Lazio and disappointing Bundesliga performance) were not considered hard for two of the top 3 EPL teams.
UEL: Atalanta was viewed as one of the weaker 1/4 finalists and Liverpool (the third of the EPL top 3) was expected to easily win the tie. West Ham got a tough draw with Leverkusen (some people viewed it as easier than Milan, Roma, or Liverpool since they struggled so much with Qarabag).
UCOL: Lille was not an easy draw, but most people didn’t expect them to be a tough opponent to Villa (the 4th or 5th team in EPL, this was before their recent poor performance).

Overall, the expectations was that 4 semi finals are likely, worst case 3, and that 5 is more likely than 2.

[ultra2013]

Serie A likelihood is moving like a snail since December, 90%, 94%, 96%, 98%, 99.9% 99.9999%....

[bugylibicska]

I think Liverpool were solid favourites against Atalanta, but City and Aston Villa only slight favourites over Real and Lille while West Ham were heavy underdogs against Leverkusen and Arsenal slight underdogs against Bayern. So realistically England could count on 3 teams in the semis.

[Sagy]

I think Liverpool were solid favourites against Atalanta, but City and Aston Villa only slight favourites over Real and Lille while West Ham were heavy underdogs against Leverkusen and Arsenal slight underdogs against Bayern. So realistically England could count on 3 teams in the semis.

The odds after the 1/4 final draws (reflecting people expectations, might be different from team quality or “true” odds)

UCL:
Man City 2.75
Arsenal 6.00
Real Madrid 7.00
Bayern Munich 8.00
PSG 8.50
Barcelona 11.00
Atletico Madrid 12.00
Borussia Dortmund 23.00

UEL:
Liverpool 1.91
Bayer Leverkusen 4.50
AC Milan 7.50
Roma 13.00
West Ham 15.00
Benfica 17.00
Marseille, Atalanta 21.00

UCOL:
Aston Villa 2.75
Fiorentina 4.00
Lille 6.00
Fenerbahce 7.00
Club Brugge 12.00
Viktoria Plzen, PAOK 21.00
Olympiacos 26.00

Looks like (in all cases the winner has the same path remaining so the difference in odds is mostly the expected winner)
Clear favorites:
Liverpool 1.91 over Atalanta 21.00
Villa 2.75 over Lille 6.00
City 2.75 over Real 7.00

Favorite:
Arsenal 6.00 over Bayern 8.00

Big underdog:
West Ham 15.00 to Leverkusen 4.50

I’ll stand by “the expectations was that 4 semi finals are likely, worst case 3, and that 5 is more likely than 2.”

[Lorric]

incredible to see how the situation has changed in one round
(well, this one is not finished yet but both Liverpool and West Ham are in a big trouble and presumably are not expected by Opta to come back)

England were dealt a horrible hand in quarterfinal draws across all competitions. But still, few people expected them to perform this badly. If they are down to 1 club after tonight, it's over. They desperately need Liverpool or West Ham to turn it around.

In retrospect, “horrible hand” might be true, when it happened that was not the case.
UCL: both Real (after poor performance vs RB) and Bayern (after losing the first leg vs Lazio and disappointing Bundesliga performance) were not considered hard for two of the top 3 EPL teams.
UEL: Atalanta was viewed as one of the weaker 1/4 finalists and Liverpool (the third of the EPL top 3) was expected to easily win the tie. West Ham got a tough draw with Leverkusen (some people viewed it as easier than Milan, Roma, or Liverpool since they struggled so much with Qarabag).
UCOL: Lille was not an easy draw, but most people didn’t expect them to be a tough opponent to Villa (the 4th or 5th team in EPL, this was before their recent poor performance).

Overall, the expectations was that 4 semi finals are likely, worst case 3, and that 5 is more likely than 2.

I don't know where this underestimation of Real Madrid this season has come from. They have lost ONE game in La Liga and ZERO games in the Champions League with a perfect group stage. People are acting like they're not that good this season when they're having an absolutely storming season. Even if they weren't it's Real Madrid in the CL. There isn't anyone else who you'd really put above Bayern by any more than a small amount. Leverkusen's dominance makes them look weaker than they actually are imo. West Ham drew by far the best team in the EL, I do think Liverpool had a kind draw, they screwed up with a poor performance and Villa had a hard draw.

[Sagy]

England were dealt a horrible hand in quarterfinal draws across all competitions. But still, few people expected them to perform this badly. If they are down to 1 club after tonight, it's over. They desperately need Liverpool or West Ham to turn it around.

In retrospect, “horrible hand” might be true, when it happened that was not the case.
UCL: both Real (after poor performance vs RB) and Bayern (after losing the first leg vs Lazio and disappointing Bundesliga performance) were not considered hard for two of the top 3 EPL teams.
UEL: Atalanta was viewed as one of the weaker 1/4 finalists and Liverpool (the third of the EPL top 3) was expected to easily win the tie. West Ham got a tough draw with Leverkusen (some people viewed it as easier than Milan, Roma, or Liverpool since they struggled so much with Qarabag).
UCOL: Lille was not an easy draw, but most people didn’t expect them to be a tough opponent to Villa (the 4th or 5th team in EPL, this was before their recent poor performance).

Overall, the expectations was that 4 semi finals are likely, worst case 3, and that 5 is more likely than 2.

I don't know where this underestimation of Real Madrid this season has come from. They have lost ONE game in La Liga and ZERO games in the Champions League with a perfect group stage. People are acting like they're not that good this season when they're having an absolutely storming season. Even if they weren't it's Real Madrid in the CL. There isn't anyone else who you'd really put above Bayern by any more than a small amount. Leverkusen's dominance makes them look weaker than they actually are imo. West Ham drew by far the best team in the EL, I do think Liverpool had a kind draw, they screwed up with a poor performance and Villa had a hard draw.

I agree with what you said. Not 100% sure what is the reason for the Real estimation is, my guess is that it has to do with how they looked vs RBL. My point was that people in general (not everyone) had them as an underdog to City.

[BurningStorm]

Liverpool and West Ham KO'd. Could Aston Villa still do it for England with 3/3 wins in the ECL if Germany's teams lose all six semi final games?

[TommyChat]

Liverpool and West Ham KO'd. Could Aston Villa still do it for England with 3/3 wins in the ECL if Germany's teams lose all six semi final games?

Villa actually helped Germany if Marseille advances.

Edit: England got 4 points and Germany 2. Villa needs 5 points, if Germany's teams lose all games. Two wins needed. With 3 wins England can afford 1 win or 2 draws by German clubs.