aaid Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, Texas Pete said: Or the 1990s? I suppose we did have a 100% record there in the 90s. I was going to say I'd mixed feelings about that game but in reality I don't. It was just yet another failure. Any joy I had at beating England had gone before I left the stadium that night as while we may have won the match, they went through. Edit. Just realised I'd blocked Euro 96 out of my mind completely. So you're talking pish about us having a good records there in the 90s. Edited March 5, 2020 by aaid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 22 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said: It's cos they shat the bed as Germany were relegated, so they did away with the 3 team groups. SPL did the same with Aberdeen and Motherwell back in the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalgety Bay TA Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 17 hours ago, aaid said: What's the point of being in the finals if you don't deserve to be there? Qualifying should be an achievement itself and should mean you are one of the best 32 teams in the World or 24 teams in Europe. i can remember when we'd be embarrassed to be involved in something like this. Again, a fair point that its difficult to argue with. It probably just shows the levels we have dropped to and the desperation to get back to a major tourney that any route will be considered nowadays. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, Dalgety Bay TA said: Again, a fair point that its difficult to argue with. It probably just shows the levels we have dropped to and the desperation to get back to a major tourney that any route will be considered nowadays. I'm a waverer on this one. I keep changing my mind about it. Of course I want us to qualify and when I'm at the playoff(s), I'll be desperate for us to win so that we can qualify for the first time in 22 years. On the other hand if we were to somehow win both playoff games I know that before I'm half way home I'll be thinking "Oh fuk what have we done, we are going to get humped in all 3 games and probably totally rogered at Wembley". But getting there though these playoffs is a perfectly legitimate way to do it. Qualifying via playoffs has always been a second chance for teams that have failed at the first attempt. This format is slightly different but the rules were made perfectly clear before a ball was kicked, and there is nothing wrong with getting there via League C or even League D playoffs. There was a big trade off to get these places and the higher ranked teams did much better out of that trade off than the lower ranked ones did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 13 minutes ago, Orraloon said: I'm a waverer on this one. I keep changing my mind about it. Of course I want us to qualify and when I'm at the playoff(s), I'll be desperate for us to win so that we can qualify for the first time in 22 years. On the other hand if we were to somehow win both playoff games I know that before I'm half way home I'll be thinking "Oh fuk what have we done, we are going to get humped in all 3 games and probably totally rogered at Wembley". But getting there though these playoffs is a perfectly legitimate way to do it. Qualifying via playoffs has always been a second chance for teams that have failed at the first attempt. This format is slightly different but the rules were made perfectly clear before a ball was kicked, and there is nothing wrong with getting there via League C or even League D playoffs. There was a big trade off to get these places and the higher ranked teams did much better out of that trade off than the lower ranked ones did. What was the trade off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 21 minutes ago, Orraloon said: I'm a waverer on this one. I keep changing my mind about it. Of course I want us to qualify and when I'm at the playoff(s), I'll be desperate for us to win so that we can qualify for the first time in 22 years. On the other hand if we were to somehow win both playoff games I know that before I'm half way home I'll be thinking "Oh fuk what have we done, we are going to get humped in all 3 games and probably totally rogered at Wembley". But getting there though these playoffs is a perfectly legitimate way to do it. Qualifying via playoffs has always been a second chance for teams that have failed at the first attempt. This format is slightly different but the rules were made perfectly clear before a ball was kicked, and there is nothing wrong with getting there via League C or even League D playoffs. There was a big trade off to get these places and the higher ranked teams did much better out of that trade off than the lower ranked ones did. I don't agree with regards to playoffs, they're a solution to a problem which means that 24 doesn't go into 55 well in terms of trying to organise a qualifying tournament. Basically the idea of having only group winners - plus hosts - qualify went out of the window with the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia followed by the increase to 16 teams in the finals in 1996 and since that tournament there's been some element of play off involved. At least with the playoff system there's an element of level playing field about it as you generally have to finish second in your group to qualify for them and so the playoffs are about whittling down the "next best" teams to make the numbers fit. The Nations League is completely different as by its design it means that substandard teams will qualify for the finals, teams that -IMHO - don't deserve to be there. That's without even considering the convoluted rules which have seen us playing a team we ought to have already eliminated. There's a wider point here though. This is all about UEFA trying to maximise revenue from TV, having a full international schedule and having control over the rights for all international games in Europe. Everything else is window dressing to support that objective. UEFA have ruined the European Club competitions by going down this path, they will do the same to International football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonny79 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Let's get our sorry asses there!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 11 minutes ago, aaid said: I don't agree with regards to playoffs, they're a solution to a problem which means that 24 doesn't go into 55 well in terms of trying to organise a qualifying tournament. Basically the idea of having only group winners - plus hosts - qualify went out of the window with the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia followed by the increase to 16 teams in the finals in 1996 and since that tournament there's been some element of play off involved. At least with the playoff system there's an element of level playing field about it as you generally have to finish second in your group to qualify for them and so the playoffs are about whittling down the "next best" teams to make the numbers fit. The Nations League is completely different as by its design it means that substandard teams will qualify for the finals, teams that -IMHO - don't deserve to be there. That's without even considering the convoluted rules which have seen us playing a team we ought to have already eliminated. There's a wider point here though. This is all about UEFA trying to maximise revenue from TV, having a full international schedule and having control over the rights for all international games in Europe. Everything else is window dressing to support that objective. UEFA have ruined the European Club competitions by going down this path, they will do the same to International football. It may take a decade or so for the Nations League to settle into a format which works, but surely we can give it that time? I agree that it’s madness to be setting aside routes to the final specifically for teams ranked 25-39 in Europe and another for teams ranked 40 and below. That takes away sporting integrity, and is something that needs sorted. The Nations League can link in with the qualifiers, but it has to be done on merit, rather than handing out places at random points way down the rankings. An alternative suggestion would be keeping the Nations League completely separate to qualifying, but using teams’ Nations League position as their seeding for the qualifying draws. Maybe that is something which would work? As mentioned previously, any attempt to do away with international friendlies deserves our support. I don’t think that it’s only a money-grab by UEFA, as there are plenty of other beneficiaries as well. It’s a win-win scenario, as it benefits the teams as well. There are only 10 international matches per year (excluding major tournaments), compared to 40-70 club matches. We don’t have enough time to be playing non-competitive international matches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, aaid said: I don't agree with regards to playoffs, they're a solution to a problem which means that 24 doesn't go into 55 well in terms of trying to organise a qualifying tournament. Basically the idea of having only group winners - plus hosts - qualify went out of the window with the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia followed by the increase to 16 teams in the finals in 1996 and since that tournament there's been some element of play off involved. At least with the playoff system there's an element of level playing field about it as you generally have to finish second in your group to qualify for them and so the playoffs are about whittling down the "next best" teams to make the numbers fit. The Nations League is completely different as by its design it means that substandard teams will qualify for the finals, teams that -IMHO - don't deserve to be there. That's without even considering the convoluted rules which have seen us playing a team we ought to have already eliminated. There's a wider point here though. This is all about UEFA trying to maximise revenue from TV, having a full international schedule and having control over the rights for all international games in Europe. Everything else is window dressing to support that objective. UEFA have ruined the European Club competitions by going down this path, they will do the same to International football. I agree with you on the TV money thing. But was that not started with the week of football stuff and that was just automatically applied to the Nations League as well? I'm not sure the Nations League caused that. TV money is ruining football at all levels. Not sure scrapping the Nations League would have any effect on that? I suppose that one of my main reasons for liking the Nations League is that I have no interest in watching friendlies. Never have done. I think it is great that the WC finals always include some lower ranked teams. I see no reason why the EUROs shouldn't do the same. Edited March 5, 2020 by Orraloon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, dohadeer said: It may take a decade or so for the Nations League to settle into a format which works, but surely we can give it that time? I agree that it’s madness to be setting aside routes to the final specifically for teams ranked 25-39 in Europe and another for teams ranked 40 and below. That takes away sporting integrity, and is something that needs sorted. The Nations League can link in with the qualifiers, but it has to be done on merit, rather than handing out places at random points way down the rankings. An alternative suggestion would be keeping the Nations League completely separate to qualifying, but using teams’ Nations League position as their seeding for the qualifying draws. Maybe that is something which would work? As mentioned previously, any attempt to do away with international friendlies deserves our support. I don’t think that it’s only a money-grab by UEFA, as there are plenty of other beneficiaries as well. It’s a win-win scenario, as it benefits the teams as well. There are only 10 international matches per year (excluding major tournaments), compared to 40-70 club matches. We don’t have enough time to be playing non-competitive international matches. Give it 10 years to settle down, God only knows what a shambles it'll be by then. The reason why there's no time to play non-competitive matches is because UEFA introduced another competition meaning more competitive matches. This whole proces started with the introduction of the ridiculous "week of football". The Nations League is just the next step. Introducing the finals qualification is a carrot to get associations to buy in, just as they did with giving Champions League qualification to the winners of the Europa League. I had hoped that this would all die a death with Platini discredited but sadly I seem to be wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonny79 Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 Tend to agree that friendlies are pointless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 14 minutes ago, aaid said: Give it 10 years to settle down, God only knows what a shambles it'll be by then. The reason why there's no time to play non-competitive matches is because UEFA introduced another competition meaning more competitive matches. This whole proces started with the introduction of the ridiculous "week of football". The Nations League is just the next step. Introducing the finals qualification is a carrot to get associations to buy in, just as they did with giving Champions League qualification to the winners of the Europa League. I had hoped that this would all die a death with Platini discredited but sadly I seem to be wrong. There are only 10 international matches per year though. Those should all be competitive. There’s no time in 10 matches to be playing friendlies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 5 minutes ago, Orraloon said: I agree with you on the TV money thing. But was that not started with the week of football stuff and that was just automatically applied to the Nations League as well? I'm not sure the Nations League caused that. TV money is ruining football at all levels. Not sure scrapping the Nations League would have any effect on that? I suppose that one of my main reasons for liking the Nations League is that I have no interest in watching friendlies. Never have done. I think it is great that the WC finals always include some lower ranked teams. I see no reason why the EUROs shouldn't do the same. Yes, the Week of Football was the start of it. Spread what was a program of games played primarily over two days - Saturday/Tuesday - to six days. That was done for one reason and one reason only, not necessarily to increase the number of games on TV - they'd generally be shown live in by broadcasters in the countries involving each team - but the spread across the whole of the world. That meant that UEFA could sell the whole thing as a package and get more money from it. How many peopl in Greece are really interested in watching Wales v Republic of Ireland though. Of course, the people who lose out of this are the fans who actually go to games but as we've seen, they're of secondary priority, if indeed they even count at all. The first problem the faced in that though was that some nations - Scotland being one - weren't taking up their full complement of "friendly" spots so that made the package less appealing to broadcasters. Individual associations also had control over the rights to their home friendlies. The solution to this was the Nations League which forced associations to play on the appointed dates and it was given this pseudo-competitive element to try and make it attractive to broadcasters. The second stage of this has been to gerrymander the structure of the "competition" to accommodate unexpected circumstances like Germany being relegated and also to ensure there were no gaps in the international schedule. The World Cup and European Championships are - or at least should be - different types of competitions. The World Cup necessarily, due to the differentials in standards across the World, will have "weaker" sides involved but if it's to reflect football across the world then that's as it should be. If not, it would effectively be a European and South American competition. The European Championships should be the best 24 nations - and that's too many for me - in Europe and that should be sorted out by *one* qualifying tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceudmilefailte Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 I think the nations league gets rid of the luck of the draw in the in the actual group stages of the qualification and allows the better lower ranked teams into the play offs. Places for the likes of San Marino are a joke though. Maybe they could have one team qualify for the play offs or something like that. Just in case Luxembourg produce their own "Golden Generation" Take the spot of the worst placed team still in through group C perhaps. The Nations League is a million times better than friendlies, this thread reaching 9 pages proves that.. We're a 100/30 to win our nations league group next time round, don't all pile on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 21 minutes ago, aaid said: Yes, the Week of Football was the start of it. Spread what was a program of games played primarily over two days - Saturday/Tuesday - to six days. That was done for one reason and one reason only, not necessarily to increase the number of games on TV - they'd generally be shown live in by broadcasters in the countries involving each team - but the spread across the whole of the world. That meant that UEFA could sell the whole thing as a package and get more money from it. How many peopl in Greece are really interested in watching Wales v Republic of Ireland though. Of course, the people who lose out of this are the fans who actually go to games but as we've seen, they're of secondary priority, if indeed they even count at all. The first problem the faced in that though was that some nations - Scotland being one - weren't taking up their full complement of "friendly" spots so that made the package less appealing to broadcasters. Individual associations also had control over the rights to their home friendlies. The solution to this was the Nations League which forced associations to play on the appointed dates and it was given this pseudo-competitive element to try and make it attractive to broadcasters. The second stage of this has been to gerrymander the structure of the "competition" to accommodate unexpected circumstances like Germany being relegated and also to ensure there were no gaps in the international schedule. The World Cup and European Championships are - or at least should be - different types of competitions. The World Cup necessarily, due to the differentials in standards across the World, will have "weaker" sides involved but if it's to reflect football across the world then that's as it should be. If not, it would effectively be a European and South American competition. The European Championships should be the best 24 nations - and that's too many for me - in Europe and that should be sorted out by *one* qualifying tournament. You could just do away with qualifiers and let the highest 24 ranked teams play in the finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 14 minutes ago, Orraloon said: You could just do away with qualifiers and let the highest 24 ranked teams play in the finals. No, you couldn’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 20 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said: I think the nations league gets rid of the luck of the draw in the in the actual group stages of the qualification and allows the better lower ranked teams into the play offs. Places for the likes of San Marino are a joke though. Maybe they could have one team qualify for the play offs or something like that. Just in case Luxembourg produce their own "Golden Generation" Take the spot of the worst placed team still in through group C perhaps. The Nations League is a million times better than friendlies, this thread reaching 9 pages proves that.. We're a 100/30 to win our nations league group next time round, don't all pile on. I don’t think there are any places for the likes of San Marino? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceudmilefailte Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 1 minute ago, dohadeer said: I don’t think there are any places for the likes of San Marino? Georgia , North Macedonia Kosovo or Belarus will qualify, ok not quite San Marino, but they are the lowest ranked teams that have made the playoffs. Or at least made the playoffs by competing against other weak countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said: Georgia , North Macedonia Kosovo or Belarus will qualify, ok not quite San Marino, but they are the lowest ranked teams that have made the playoffs. Or at least made the playoffs by competing against other weak countries. Yeah, not the likes of San Marino, but still undeserving of a specific route into the finals. As are League C undeserving of a specific route, but not quite as noticeably so, in terms of standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 27 minutes ago, Orraloon said: You could just do away with qualifiers and let the highest 24 ranked teams play in the finals. If the main objective was to get rid of friendlies then why not have 5 groups of 11 teams. That would give you 20 matches over two years. Have the top four teams qualify and then some playoff to sort out the additional four spots. That would at least ensure that the teams that fared best in qualification competed in the finals which really should be the only criteria. Of course the problem with that is it means less games between Germany, Spain, France, England, Belgium, Portugal and Holland and more games between smaller, less appealing nations and that's not going to work for the broadcasters. BTW, I'm not suggesting this as a solution as this has its own problems but at least it's a solution that rewards success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 6 minutes ago, dohadeer said: Yeah, not the likes of San Marino, but still undeserving of a specific route into the finals. As are League C undeserving of a specific route, but not quite as noticeably so, in terms of standard. Israel could potentially qualify ahead of Slovenia - who finished above them in their group and who they failed to beat in qualification so I suggest there's an obvious problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 4 minutes ago, aaid said: Israel could potentially qualify ahead of Slovenia - who finished above them in their group and who they failed to beat in qualification so I suggest there's an obvious problem. Yeah it’s another problem with the current set-up. The Nations League is good in doing away with friendlies, and in allowing teams to compete in a league structure, against teams of a similar standard, but they have to find a better and fairer way for it to link in with European Championships and World Cups - if at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceudmilefailte Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 I cant find any of the final group position from the last nations league, but I'm going to assume that Israel are still in as they have taken Finlands place as they qualified automatically It' well flawed if the team that finished second to Finland in the nations league has to miss out as they had the hardest group in the nations league Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohadeer Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 2 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said: I cant find any of the final group position from the last nations league, but I'm going to assume that Israel are still in as they have taken Finlands place as they qualified automatically It' well flawed if the team that finished second to Finland in the nations league has to miss out as they had the hardest group in the nations league I don’t understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 5, 2020 Share Posted March 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said: I cant find any of the final group position from the last nations league, but I'm going to assume that Israel are still in as they have taken Finlands place as they qualified automatically It' well flawed if the team that finished second to Finland in the nations league has to miss out as they had the hardest group in the nations league Hungary finished 2nd to Finland and they got a playoff spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.