Roiling football blather

[mixed_biscuits]

Croatia shouldn't have to play Andorra, though, because Croatia are actually demonstrably good. They got to the quarters of the last tournament, so they should be able to skip the crappy bits of qualifying. They previous quarter finalists could spend a couple of years playing matches against each other. Meanwhile, the also rans, like England, can scrap for the remaining places.

Alternatively, all these microstates should compete for one qualifying spot, and that would be their achievement -qualifying for qualifying. The point with Andorra, San Marino, Lichtenstein etc is they never, ever get any better. Andorra in particular. Now they'd have to.

Croatia are good, but the thing is these decisions are based on past performances - we don't know how good Andorra are in the present - nor Croatia - until they play each other!*

The only reason to have pre-qualifying is to *allow* tournaments of that scale to take place in the first place (this is a good excuse for the vast FA Cup gradated qualifying system). If fixture congestion is not an issue, then it is obviously fairest to have every team start in the 1st round! South American qualifying has everyone in the same group - this is the most equitable way.

Relegating 'microstates' (maybe this should be decided on land mass, and China/Canada/Russia/US can wait for the rest of us in the finals lol) to a subtournament is not good for football as a game - matches against strong opponents are how everyone progresses.

I'm surprised for such a leftie forum that there is so much support for systems that so obviously give further advantage to those that are already strong.

*cf. Austria 3 - 1 France and Romania 0 - 3 Lithuania both 'shock' results yesterday!

 

[IdleRich]

"I'm surprised for such a leftie forum that there is so much support for systems that so obviously give further advantage to those that are already strong."

I don't see anything inherently inequitable about a system of divisions in general as long as you can move between tiers when you improve or get worse. In the league I play in there are two divisions and none of the weaker sides in the lower division complain that they don't get the chance to play the top sides who would definitely beat them by more than twenty goals - nor do the top sides complain that they don't get to thrash the weakest teams. Basically games like that would be a waste of time for everyone and no fun, particularly for the team that got dicked on. Likewise one of my friends used to play ice hockey for Australia, he went to the world championships or whatever it was but he played in a lower tier that meant he didn't have to face Sweden, Candada, USSR etc because, in his words, they would have been able to "score (and injure us) at will". If that kind of difference in skills did arise in international football then I think a divisional system would be useful. On the other hand, I don't think that that situation has arisen because where are the teams against which England can score at will?

 

[don_quixote]

Relegating 'microstates' (maybe this should be decided on land mass, and China/Canada/Russia/US can wait for the rest of us in the finals lol) to a subtournament is not good for football as a game - matches against strong opponents are how everyone progresses.

really? because i think the best way for a side to progress would be for them to play against teams of their own quality so as to progress the game there. i don't think andorra will have gained anything from yesterday other than even further honed their backs against the wall form of international football.

i don't think this is a further advantage for those who are strong argument, i think it's advantageous for everyone - and further, this is international sport! it isn't a profit making venture, but it would be a lot better for everyone if there was excitement to rival the champions league.

oh and i'm not saying it should be impossible for andorra to qualify, but i'm also really frustrated at a system which currently overwhelming benefits sides who can beat poor sides away from home instead of one which benefits sides who can beat good sides. do you understand what i'm saying?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

If the aim of any competitor is to win the competition, then having to play extra games in a pre-qualifying is a disadvantage to you and an advantage to your opponents = the playing field is not level and the competition is unfair.

Restricting participation also hinders future competition - look at the increasing strength of the 'other' rugby nations, thanks to their involvement in the big tournaments.

If competitors who may perform weakly want to practise against opposition of a similar standard, then they can either neglect to enter in the first place or roll over when the time comes. Andorra's stubborn approach shows that even the weakest teams are motivated by winning, rather than practice or having fun.

In any case, the weakest teams (let's say the bottom 5% - those who have next to no hope of toppling a big boy) make up a small proportion of the competition - too small to undermine it. The next-weakest (5th to 30th percentile) are always in with a shout of an upset.

As for the entertainment argument, that's what the Champions Leagues is now geared to, and as a consequence it has become overblown, repetitive and predictable. It has also shown how favouring stronger teams merely reinforces their power.

 

[IdleRich]

"If the aim of any competitor is to win the competition, then having to play extra games in a pre-qualifying is a disadvantage to you and an advantage to your opponents = the playing field is not level and the competition is unfair."

I dunno, in Grand Prix you have qualifying on one day and then the one that qualifies fastest goes at the front, is that unfair? I think that it depends on when you consider the tournament as starting from; if all the teams now played to divide into two pools one of which played to pre-qualify for the qualifying rounds of the Euros/World Cup and the other of which went straight into the qualifying rounds next time around then that wouldn't be unfair (as they all start from the same place) at this point would it?
From then on, a team in the pre-qualifying pool would be less likely to win the next world cup than one in the top tier just as the guy who went slowly in qualifying for Grand Prix and starts at the back is less likely to win than the guy on pole or a team in the Championship is less likely to be the Premiership Champion the year after this one than a team already in the premiership (and much less likely this to be champ this year).
Do you think that it's unfair to have divisions in the English league, perhaps you think that all the teams in the top four divisisons (though why stop there?) should play each other twice over the course of a four year season to see who is the best team in England?

"As for the entertainment argument, that's what the Champions Leagues is now geared to, and as a consequence it has become overblown, repetitive and predictable. It has also shown how favouring stronger teams merely reinforces their power."

But CL and internationals are not analogous in this way - Andorra can't grow in size and attract better players even if they do beat England.

 

[crackerjack]

But CL and internationals are not analogous in this way - Andorra can't grow in size and attract better players even if they do beat England.

Exactly, the microstates (certainly Andorra) aren't countries, they're independent towns. It can't be compared to cricket, where the likes of Bangladesh clearly have immense potential (see the rapid rise of Sri Lanka).

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I dunno, in Grand Prix you have qualifying on one day and then the one that qualifies fastest goes at the front, is that unfair?

Qualifying in Grand Prix uses very recent performance to sort competitors, and the competitors are sorted because sorting is necessary for practical purposes, not because giving some drivers a head start makes the race fairer. Presumably a 5000m Olympic Final would also have a qualifying round if they could only use one lane of the track!

if all the teams now played to divide into two pools one of which played to pre-qualify for the qualifying rounds of the Euros/World Cup and the other of which went straight into the qualifying rounds next time around then that wouldn't be unfair (as they all start from the same place) at this point would it?

It would be unfair, as the pre-qualifying teams would have to play and win more games to become champions. Teams meeting the pre-qualified teams would also be advantaged, as their opponents would be more fatigued. The time lag from qualifying for the first division of teams to the competition is also too long - much, much longer than that between qualifying for a GP and competing in it, for instance.

Do you think that it's unfair to have divisions in the English league, perhaps you think that all the teams in the top four divisisons (though why stop there?) should play each other twice over the course of a four year season to see who is the best team in England?.

Presumably this is the argument behind including everyone in the FA Cup, though.

But CL and internationals are not analogous in this way - Andorra can't grow in size and attract better players even if they do beat England.

Well, the experience of playing England is not confined to the players' internal consciousnesses; everybody involved with the Andorran team can learn from such encounters. The Rugby Union comparison is more relevant here.

In any case, there are instances in which countries can attract players (from choosing to play for other countries) if they can offer attractive opportunities - look at the Republic of Ireland team!

The carrot of playing against big teams can also serve to grow the game *as a whole* in a country, from the grass roots upwards - I expect this is something that the World football governing bodies have as one of their prime directives (and a reason for starting up an all-inclusive World Cup in the first place).

 

[crackerjack]

Presumably this is the argument behind including everyone in the FA Cup, though.

With qualification rounds for the 'non-league' teams and a bye to the 3rd round for the twop two divisons, so no.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

With qualification rounds for the 'non-league' teams and a bye to the 3rd round for the twop two divisons, so no.

I mentioned this earlier: there's a trade-off with practicality cf. F1 qualifying.

And obviously, the idea of 'giving everyone a chance' is what makes the FA Cup 'special,' gives it its 'romance' etc - inclusivity is the defining feature of the FA Cup!

Fine: have pre-qualifying for the World Cup for practical reasons, but don't pretend it's to make it fairer - seeding already does a good job of making sure the more skilled and/or experienced are allowed to show what they can do.

 

[IdleRich]

"It would be unfair, as the pre-qualifying teams would have to play and win more games to become champions."

Yes, but at the point before it has been decided who will fall into those groups then it is not unfair on anyone because they all have a chance to avoid being in the lower group. Once you're in a particular group you're there by merit and as long as you can move out of that group by merit then there is no problem - just as Swindon Town don't say "It's not fair we should be in the premier league" at the start of the season because they got to the position they are in by virtue of where they finished last season plus the season before that and so on and so forth.

"Fine: have pre-qualifying for the World Cup for practical reasons, but don't pretend it's to make it fairer"

Yeah, for practical reasons is exactly what I'm talking about - I'm not saying that it would make things fairer, just that it could have practical advantages and it wouldn't make things less fair.
Of course, this would only be necessary in a world where teams where thrashing minnows by stupid amounts so the point is moot.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Yes, but at the point before it has been decided who will fall into those groups then it is not unfair on anyone because they all have a chance to avoid being in the lower group. Once you're in a particular group you're there by merit and as long as you can move out of that group by merit then there is no problem - just as Swindon Town don't say "It's not fair we should be in the premier league" at the start of the season because they got to the position they are in by virtue of where they finished last season plus the season before that and so on and so forth.

The problem is when 'Swindon Town of the pre-qualifying vintage' is not the same thing as 'Swindon Town now.' This system is fine if the decisive performances were recent and are relevant to the current team, but become increasingly unfair with a growing period of intervening time.

This why giving teams a leg-up for long-gone performances (eg. number of World Cup wins - like ours in 1966) would be ridiculous.

By way of elucidation:



Note that a 0-team tournament is the easiest to run.

 

[IdleRich]

"This why giving teams a leg-up for long-gone performances (eg. number of World Cup wins - like ours in 1966) would be ridiculous."

Well, yeah, that would be a stupid criteria. The obvious one would be over your last x many competitive matches though obviously x is open to debate. There could be more weighting for matches later in a tournament, again up for debate. Maybe some weight could be given to friendlies which would give them some significance as well.

 

[don_quixote]

maybe just weight to having qualified for the last tournament... finishing in the top 4 of the last group... having scored more than two goals in the whole of your last qualifying campaign?

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Well, yeah, that would be a stupid criteria. The obvious one would be over your last x many competitive matches though obviously x is open to debate. There could be more weighting for matches later in a tournament, again up for debate. Maybe some weight could be given to friendlies which would give them some significance as well.

Well, there's always the FIFA World Rankings.

I think the 'past wins of the World Cup' criterion has been proposed at some point in the past, sadly.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

maybe just weight to having qualified for the last tournament

Then you wouldn't have to have a qualifying round at all.

My argument regarding the non-identity of teams that have 4 years between them is also pertinent (assuming that a team = its players, rather than its name/stadium/manager etc).

 

[don_quixote]

i guess croatia are worse than andorra then

 

[crackerjack]

Well I never saw that coming. Does that mean Croatia should be playing one of these preliminary qualifiers

Fair play to England. They looked second best until the goal came, then bossed it afterwards. Once Kovac was sent off, England were actually quite brilliant. Capello's Munich.

 

[IdleRich]

"Fair play to England. They looked second best until the goal came, then bossed it afterwards. Once Kovac was sent off, England were actually quite brilliant. Capello's Munich."

I missed the first fifteen minutes or so, after that England got a lucky but well taken goal - which came from a promising enough move which caused confusion in the defence so they deserve some credit for that. Surprised how easily Croatia folded after the (slightly harsh I thought) sending off but it should be recognised that England for once showed the composure and intelligence to make the extra man count.
Croatia were lucky that their goal stood, if that wasn't dangerous feet I don't know what is. Oh well.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

Switzerland 1 - Luxembourg 2

 

[crackerjack]

(slightly harsh I thought)

You're kidding? I thought Kovac could've been arrested.