UEFA Nations League

[HibeeJibee]

On the basis of the system Craigkillie has described - I've put the countries into their divisions using the coefficients as they stood before the draw for Euro 2016 (placing each pot from left to right); highlighted 20 qualifiers in yellow (taking France + Turkey, highest in 3rd place rank, as only 9 groups); then listed playoffs, again placing tied finishers from left to right... as an example.
 

Division A

Germany     Spain       England     Portugal

Belgium     Italy       Netherlands France

Russia      Switzerland Austria     Croatia

 

Division B

Bosnia & H. Ukraine     Czech Rep   Sweden

Poland      Romania     Slovakia    Hungary

Denmark     Turkey      Eire        Greece

 

Division C

Norway      Slovenia    Iceland     Wales

Israel      Scotland    Albania     Montenegro

N. Ireland  Serbia      Finland     Bulgaria

Armenia     Estonia     Lithuania

 

Division D

Belarus     Georgia     Azerbaijan  Latvia

Cyprus      Moldova     FYR Maced.  Kazakhstan

Luxembourg  Liechtenst. Faroe Isl.  Malta

Andorra     San Marino  Gibraltar   Kosovo


Division A Playoff

Netherlands, Denmark*, Eire*, Greece*

(*uplifted from Division B)

 

Division B Playoff

Bosnia & Herzegovina, Ukraine, Sweden, Hungary

(Hungary priority over Eire)

 

Division C Playoff

Norway, Slovenia, Israel, Scotland

(Montenegro miss-out on ranking of tied finishers)

(Israel and Scotland priority over Finland)

 

Division D Playoff

Belarus, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Latvia

[Pie Of The Month]

The playoff semi finals being a home game for the team with the best record in the league section then the final being drawn at random seems a bit daft. With both the semi finals and finals being held in March 2020 fans will have a few days notice of where the final is and the FAs have to organise tickets etc in the same time frame.

Unless of course the final is announced in advance but there doesn't appear to be any mention of neutral venues for any group other than League A. 

[Dunning1874]

Bumping the lower placed teams in a division up to a higher level playoff when fewer than four have qualified is much fairer than allowing automatic qualification if only one team has failed to qualify, or bumping the highest placed sides at a lower level up and punishing success. Bearing in mind that you're also rarely going to have four teams in Division A failing in the normal qualifiers, this also defeats any argument about it being better to be in Division C than Division B as it's easier to win. In C you're probably going to need to win your group to make the playoff, in B there's a fair chance you'll make a playoff having finished bottom.

The one issue I still have is Division C due to the split of three and four team groups. As I understand it, teams qualify for the playoff in order of first placed non-qualifiers from Group 1 to 4, then second placed non-qualifiers from Group 1 to 4 and so on: it doesn't matter the number of points etc, the second placed team in Division C Group 1 always go in ahead of second placed team in Division C Group 2.

In the unlikely but not impossible event that playoff entrant spots go down to third place for teams in C, you could have a team in C1 losing all four games and finishing third with 0 points, then entering the playoffs ahead of a side in C2 who've finished third with 8 points from their 6 games. That doesn't seem fair at all and they really should have made sure every group within a division was the same size to avoid this scenario. 

[forameus]

I was sure they were holding all the playoff games at neutral venues, but could be wrong (or it could have changed).

I thought this was a really good idea when it was brought in, and from playing through it quite a few times on FM, it seemed fairly sound.  But as time's going on, more questions are being raised than answers given.  Can't wait for next Autumn when our media has to try and explain what is going on when UEFA don't even seem to know.

[Blootoon87]

I have no idea what's going in here, I'm just going to go with the assumption that winning games is good and losing games is bad and see where that takes us.

[Gordopolis]

13 minutes ago, Blootoon87 said:

I have no idea what's going in here, I'm just going to go with the assumption that winning games is good and losing games is bad and see where that takes us.

You'd think so, unless you take the view of losing games to drop down a division and get a diddy group for the next cycle!

I'm sure they've just devised this to baffle us all and draw our eye off the ball while they sneakily rubber-stamp Team GB.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Looking at the groups it seems that being in the top group is good... the vast majority will qualify automatically so you could, ludicrously, lose every game in the Nations League, have a shit qualifying campaign in which you never to finish in the top two and still get a playoff spot, pretty much by default.

The second group has possibilities. There are likely to be six or seven teams who qualify for the playoffs due to teams "moving up" to fill available spots in the first group. Again, you'd assume that a few of the teams will qualify via the main qualification campaign. You couldn't lose every game and get in the playoffs here, but a mediocre campaign would still likely be enough.

The bottom group gives teams who would normally have no chance a reasonable shot at qualification. They'd have to win lots of games and then win the playoffs, but as you're talking about pish like Lithuania and Kazkahstan, this will still present a far easier path to the finals than they have currently.

The one group that seems to be thoroughly disadvantaged by the new proposals is group three. There will still be tough teams here, Balkan powerhouses and Scandinavian competitors. Few will qualify automatically so only those having a really good campaign will make the playoffs. Even then, the playoffs would likely be against someone quite decent. This seems the worst group to qualify from. This is the group that Scotland will be in.

[Dunning1874]

50 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

The one group that seems to be thoroughly disadvantaged by the new proposals is group three. 

I wouldn't say disadvantaged, necessarily. Yes, it will be the most difficult Division to qualify from, but it's still offering a second chance at qualification and teams in that section will be there because they haven't been good enough in previous campaigns to qualify. They'll be there because they deserve to be so we can't really complain.

[Bully Wee Villa]

It's reasonable to complain that some teams will get a virtual bye to the playoffs regardless of how well they do, and it's also fair to complain that teams in the group below are rewarded for their consistent losing with an easier path to the finals.

 

The previois qualifcation system has some flaws but is, at least, mostly fair. And teams know what they have to do to qualify before the tournament starts.

 

Have ten groups, top two in each qualify, best eight third place teams go into playoffs.

 

By all means have the Nations League as a separate competition, the promotion and relegation element, and the playoffs for the overall competition winner, seem fair, easy to understand and, quite possibly, reasonably exciting.

 

It should have no interaction with qualification for the Euros in its current format, though.

 

 

[charger29]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

The one issue I still have is Division C due to the split of three and four team groups. As I understand it, teams qualify for the playoff in order of first placed non-qualifiers from Group 1 to 4, then second placed non-qualifiers from Group 1 to 4 and so on: it doesn't matter the number of points etc, the second placed team in Division C Group 1 always go in ahead of second placed team in Division C Group 2.

In the unlikely but not impossible event that playoff entrant spots go down to third place for teams in C, you could have a team in C1 losing all four games and finishing third with 0 points, then entering the playoffs ahead of a side in C2 who've finished third with 8 points from their 6 games. That doesn't seem fair at all and they really should have made sure every group within a division was the same size to avoid this scenario. 

Surely that can't be the case? Although that's what the video seems to show, but maybe it just doesn't go into enough detail.

I was expecting it to be the team left in their league with the most points then goal difference etc. (for A,B & D), and for League C remove the bottom placed teams results and do the same thing (actually is that even possible in this format?).

It says, "next best ranked team in the uefa nations league". There's no reason for them to give Group 1 priority over any others, it'll be a random draw.

[forameus]

57 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

It's reasonable to complain that some teams will get a virtual bye to the playoffs regardless of how well they do, and it's also fair to complain that teams in the group below are rewarded for their consistent losing with an easier path to the finals.

 

The previois qualifcation system has some flaws but is, at least, mostly fair. And teams know what they have to do to qualify before the tournament starts.

 

Have ten groups, top two in each qualify, best eight third place teams go into playoffs.

 

By all means have the Nations League as a separate competition, the promotion and relegation element, and the playoffs for the overall competition winner, seem fair, easy to understand and, quite possibly, reasonably exciting.

 

It should have no interaction with qualification for the Euros in its current format, though.

 

 

This, really.  From the perspective of nations in the bottom pot, it's a good thing undoubtedly.  Sides like Lithuania now stand a real chance of qualifying, and that's brilliant for them.  But if they were being really honest they'd probably agree that they shouldn't.  I love the idea of the competition and pretty much every aspect, but the qualification route just puts it into sideshow territory.  It's like having a ten round quiz then told that the tenth round counts for more point than the previous 9, then losing it because you don't know much about the finer points of eating crayons.

Metaphor might've got a bit away from me there.

EDIT: Also makes it a bit odd when only every 2nd tournament carries this qualification advantage - in World Cup years you don't get that incentive.  Will we then see bottom pot sides desperate not to get promoted so they can stay in the bottom ahead of the next Euros?

[charger29]

7 minutes ago, forameus said:

EDIT: Also makes it a bit odd when only every 2nd tournament carries this qualification advantage - in World Cup years you don't get that incentive.  Will we then see bottom pot sides desperate not to get promoted so they can stay in the bottom ahead of the next Euros?

Didn't a press release from a while ago say this will be how the world cup qualifying will be done eventually too? At least in terms of seedings anyway, not sure about the whole playoffs positions from nations league.

[forameus]

1 minute ago, charger29 said:

Didn't a press release from a while ago say this will be how the world cup qualifying will be done eventually too? At least in terms of seedings anyway, not sure about the whole playoffs positions from nations league.

Hadn't heard that, although I wouldn't be surprised.  Pretty raging though - you'd  presumably be taking away the playoff spots from regular qualifying, meaning just the one spot.  Talk about a closed shop.

[charger29]

22 minutes ago, forameus said:

Hadn't heard that, although I wouldn't be surprised.  Pretty raging though - you'd  presumably be taking away the playoff spots from regular qualifying, meaning just the one spot.  Talk about a closed shop.

It'd mean taking a place away from a good team who finishes second (i'm thinking of Italy in this campaign) and giving it to a team like Georgia.

I believe it was this quote from 2014 which I saw:

Quote

In addition, for the 2022 World Cup, the same principles will apply to both the UEFA Nations League and the European Qualifiers, but will be adapted to the number of slots available and final tournament dates.

Not 100% sure how to interpret that but it does seem to suggest that it will be used in World Cup qualification. Although the fact that it's from 2014 and doesn't seem to be mentioned in any official releases since, suggests that it might have changed.

[HibeeJibee]

4 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

The playoff semi finals being a home game for the team with the best record in the league section then the final being drawn at random seems a bit daft. With both the semi finals and finals being held in March 2020 fans will have a few days notice of where the final is and the FAs have to organise tickets etc in the same time frame.

Unless of course the final is announced in advance but there doesn't appear to be any mention of neutral venues for any group other than League A. 

Again that is subtle alteration from what was originally announced IIRC. Each playoff was to be held in one city - whether neutral, randomly drawn of the 4, or the highest ranked I can't recall.

It must surely be that tied places for the playoffs are decided by ranking on points GD and GF not taking section 1 first. That would be almost akin to just doing  by random draw or a coin toss.

I'd be stunned if the system applied to World Cup qualifying. That would mean only 9 group winners qualifying from WC 2022 qualifying and 3 of the 4 playoffs going to lower-ranked outfits?

[charger29]

22 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Again that is subtle alteration from what was originally announced IIRC. Each playoff was to be held in one city - whether neutral, randomly drawn of the 4, or the highest ranked I can't recall.

It must surely be that tied places for the playoffs are decided by ranking on points GD and GF not taking section 1 first. That would be almost akin to just doing  by random draw or a coin toss.

I'd be stunned if the system applied to World Cup qualifying. That would mean only 9 group winners qualifying from WC 2022 qualifying and 3 of the 4 playoffs going to lower-ranked outfits?

They might bypass the 2022 WC (use the same format as just now) and wait for 2026 WC with 3 additional UEFA places (16 total). Then you can have 9 group winners, best three runners up and the four nations league places . I still don't like it but it'd make slightly more sense for a ridiculously sized world cup with mince coming from most other confederations and 60/70% of CONMEBOL.

Georgia would fit in well with Iraq, New Zealand, Trinidad & Tobago etc.

(I hadn't read much about the 2026 WC before, but jeez does that look bad...)

[Bully Wee Villa]

The 2026 World Cup looks brilliant, but I won't ruin another thread banging on about that...

[craigkillie]

The qualification process for the World Cup has to be approved by FIFA, and I'm not sure how keen they would be on any sort of system involving the Nations League.  They won't even allow UEFA to seed the WC qualifiers using UEFA coefficients, so it seems a stretch to think they'll let them use Nations League rankings.

[King Kebab]

[HibeeJibee]

5 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The qualification process for the World Cup has to be approved by FIFA, and I'm not sure how keen they would be on any sort of system involving the Nations League.  They won't even allow UEFA to seed the WC qualifiers using UEFA coefficients, so it seems a stretch to think they'll let them use Nations League rankings.

They do allow sharing of qualification (e.g. Asian Cup doubles-up) and other tournaments acting as pre-qualifiers (e.g. Pacific Games) but it'd be a new step to use 2 formats/'return' to one for playoffs, agreed.