Coefficientwatch

[HibeeJibee]

I've always thought he seemed a dour character - a sort of journalistic equivalent of the Reverend IM Jolly - but Andrew Smith who writes for the broadsheets has finally confirmed it to me.

In today's paper his article focuses not on Rangers excellent run per se... nor their excellent win last night... but how them going 10 games unbeaten is "a great achievement but also show's Scottish game's fall" (that is the headline). He attempts to set out that 50 or 60 years ago, but also in the last decade, such a run could have taken them to a final, or well into the knockouts; and not less than halfway into a groupstage. He assigns this 'failure' - in his eyes - to our "low standing and consequent poor European coefficient".

Rangers finished 3rd last season. We'd have to have been as high as 15th in the rankings for them to enter 1 round later; 12th for 2 rounds; and 4th for direct groupstage entry (which would've been CL). Only 12 clubs enter EL qualifiers later than QR2.

What he perceives is due to breakup of eastern bloc nations, abolition of CWC, establishment of CL+EL and their recent adjustment in favour of big countries, far more than our coefficient or "low standing".

[Yoda8]

The CWC finished 20 years ago, he’s not really wrong 

[Jambo: First Blood]

6 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

What he perceives is due to breakup of eastern bloc nations, abolition of CWC, establishment of CL+EL and their recent adjustment in favour of big countries, far more than our coefficient or "low standing".

You're missing out that the coefficient did fall substantially and quite quickly. We weren't getting the same results we were. And our standing is currently relatively low in comparison to the money our clubs actually have to spend which is quite competitive with many of the league's around and above us in the rankings. 

I think Scottish football is certainly on the up though after the decline and we will be back up to where we really should be soon.

[GordonS]

7 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

I've always thought he seemed a dour character - a sort of journalistic equivalent of the Reverend IM Jolly - but Andrew Smith who writes for the broadsheets has finally confirmed it to me.

In today's paper his article focuses not on Rangers excellent run per se... nor their excellent win last night... but how them going 10 games unbeaten is "a great achievement but also show's Scottish game's fall" (that is the headline). He attempts to set out that 50 or 60 years ago, but also in the last decade, such a run could have taken them to a final, or well into the knockouts; and not less than halfway into a groupstage. He assigns this 'failure' - in his eyes - to our "low standing and consequent poor European coefficient".

Rangers finished 3rd last season. We'd have to have been as high as 15th in the rankings for them to enter 1 round later; 12th for 2 rounds; and 4th for direct groupstage entry (which would've been CL). Only 12 clubs enter EL qualifiers later than QR2.

What he perceives is due to breakup of eastern bloc nations, abolition of CWC, establishment of CL+EL and their recent adjustment in favour of big countries, far more than our coefficient or "low standing".

I don't know about dour, but badly-researched is certainly true. The UEFA Cup had 64 teams and 6 rounds from the start in 1971 until 1994. From 94-95 it had a preliminary round, and from, 96-97 a preliminary round and a qualifying round. It stayed like that until it was merged with the ECWC. Even then, the teams from the top countries only came in one round later than those from the weakest.

By far the biggest factor in our teams having to play 856 games to win a European trophy is changes to the competitions to suit the top 5 leagues, and to accommodate more teams from more countries. But if we were as good as we were in the mid 80s we'd have four teams in the group stage of the CL. 

[HibeeJibee]

2 hours ago, Yoda8 said:

The CWC finished 20 years ago, he’s not really wrong 

 

2 hours ago, Jambo: First Blood said:

You're missing out that the coefficient did fall substantially and quite quickly. We weren't getting the same results we were. And our standing is currently relatively low in comparison to the money our clubs actually have to spend which is quite competitive with many of the league's around and above us in the rankings. 

I think Scottish football is certainly on the up though after the decline and we will be back up to where we really should be soon.

Unless you expect us to be mixing it in the top 10-12 countries or higher (which only reduces the extremity), he is wrong, and those factors are largely irrelevant.

Rangers would have entered in QR1 or QR2 even if we were almost twice as high up the ranking as we currently are. They'd still have played 8 / 10 games upto now.

It isn't because we're rubbish (if indeed we actually are rubbish). It's because the structures have altered radically compared to decades ago, and significantly compared to a few years ago. It just seems a bizarre angle to have taken on their campaign. Only the top nations don't have to go through multiple qualifying rounds nowadays, and Rangers had finished 3rd and weren't using our best slot.

Even in the mid-2000s and early 1990s - two periods he directly draws contrasts with - the structure was substantially different, and easier, than now. Regardless of coefficients, as recently as 2003-04 playing 10 games would've taken you to UEFA Cup QFs or SFs, however ranked.

Edited October 5, 2018 by HibeeJibee

[falkirkthebigclub]

I think I'm correct in saying this: Scotland have gained more points, this season, than any other other nation from games played (without the bonus of Champions League qualification points). 

Brilliant stuff & something we should seek to emulate next season while we still have 4 entrants in the early rounds. Would like to see both Edinburgh clubs have a go at the qualifiers, feeling a bit let down by Aberdeen's annual bottle job.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, badgerthewitness said:

I think I'm correct in saying this: Scotland have gained more points, this season, than any other other nation from games played (without the bonus of Champions League qualification points). 

Brilliant stuff & something we should seek to emulate next season while we still have 4 entrants in the early rounds. Would like to see both Edinburgh clubs have a go at the qualifiers, feeling a bit let down by Aberdeen's annual bottle job.

The last time Hearts were in Europe they lost to a team from Malta. Aberdeen made it to the 3rd qualifying round (ie as far as Hibs did this year) in each of the four seasons before this one, and had to win two matches to get there on three of those occasions. This year was the first time they failed to do that.

[Ginaro]

1 hour ago, badgerthewitness said:

I think I'm correct in saying this: Scotland have gained more points, this season, than any other other nation from games played (without the bonus of Champions League qualification points). 

Brilliant stuff & something we should seek to emulate next season while we still have 4 entrants in the early rounds. Would like to see both Edinburgh clubs have a go at the qualifiers, feeling a bit let down by Aberdeen's annual bottle job.

https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method5/ccoef2019.html If you remove the UCL bonus points we are still behind three countries, though we go top if you do it by the average points as we have fewer teams (but played more games!).

We have an extra opportunity to get a few more points next season as all three of our UEL teams starting from the first qualifying round, but in QR2 and beyond we might not be as lucky with the draw - all three non-Celtic teams would probably still be unseeded.

[Jambo: First Blood]

8 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

We have an extra opportunity to get a few more points next season as all three of our UEL teams starting from the first qualifying round, but in QR2 and beyond we might not be as lucky with the draw - all three non-Celtic teams would probably still be unseeded.

You only really need 5 or so club points to be seeded in round 2 of the Europa League. Aberdeen will be seeded if they get there and Rangers will probably be too if they are also there. 

[Ginaro]

5 minutes ago, Jambo: First Blood said:

You only really need 5 or so club points to be seeded in round 2 of the Europa League. Aberdeen will be seeded if they get there and Rangers will probably be too if they are also there. 

Yes the cut-off for being seeded in QR2 this season was 5.000 CC, but the points have changed - Aberdeen got 1.50 for going out in QR2, whereas they only got 1.00 for going out in QR3 previously. So maybe their 5.500 might not be enough, we'll see. The rest are relying on the country minimum (4.125 just now) though another Rangers win would put them up to 5.250 CC.

[Jambo: First Blood]

5 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Yes the cut-off for being seeded in QR2 this season was 5.000 CC, but the points have changed - Aberdeen got 1.50 for going out in QR2, whereas they only got 1.00 for going out in QR3 previously. So maybe their 5.500 might not be enough, we'll see. The rest are relying on the country minimum (4.125 just now) though another Rangers win would put them up to 5.250 CC.

Yeah true might not be enough for Aberdeen. 

Think Rangers will probably earn at least another 3 coefficient points from their groups games so they'll be seeded for R2 almost certainly unless they don't have qualify or are in the CL instead.

[Guest]

On 05/10/2018 at 20:33, GordonS said:

I don't know about dour, but badly-researched is certainly true. The UEFA Cup had 64 teams and 6 rounds from the start in 1971 until 1994. From 94-95 it had a preliminary round, and from, 96-97 a preliminary round and a qualifying round. It stayed like that until it was merged with the ECWC. Even then, the teams from the top countries only came in one round later than those from the weakest.

By far the biggest factor in our teams having to play 856 games to win a European trophy is changes to the competitions to suit the top 5 leagues, and to accommodate more teams from more countries. But if we were as good as we were in the mid 80s we'd have four teams in the group stage of the CL. 

The problem is that we and countries such as Portugal and Holland can NEVER be as good as we were in the mid 80's simply because success is now based upon your countries population size and pay TV subscriptions, not to mention the odd oligarch or Middle Eastern Royal family owning your club.

The big clubs have obviously always dominated to a certain extent, however nowadays budgets dictate that teams from the smaller countries will never get close to the top, especially with the "fairplay rules" and Bosman stacking everything in the favour of the big clubs from the large countries.

[GordonS]

Scottish women getting two Champions League places next season after Glasgow City made the last 16 (and clearly no further) this year, pushing Scotland up to 11th in the rankings. There's nothing to pick between City and Hibs so this is good news indeed.

 https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scotland-to-be-awarded-two-places-in-20192020-uefa-women-s-champions-league/?rid=13929

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

Scottish women getting two Champions League places next season after Glasgow City made the last 16 (and clearly no further) this year, pushing Scotland up to 11th in the rankings. There's nothing to pick between City and Hibs so this is good news indeed.

 https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scotland-to-be-awarded-two-places-in-20192020-uefa-women-s-champions-league/?rid=13929

Women's Football Forum for this pish.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, WATTOO said:

The problem is that we and countries such as Portugal and Holland can NEVER be as good as we were in the mid 80's simply because success is now based upon your countries population size and pay TV subscriptions, not to mention the odd oligarch or Middle Eastern Royal family owning your club. 

The big clubs have obviously always dominated to a certain extent, however nowadays budgets dictate that teams from the smaller countries will never get close to the top, especially with the "fairplay rules" and Bosman stacking everything in the favour of the big clubs from the large countries.

Erm yes - that'll be why a Portuguese side managed to win the Champions league for the first time in over forty years in 2004: fully a decade after the Bosman ruling and the introduction of pay TV in the UK and other major European countries, which you think have stopped middle-ranking countries from ever producing a good side. Swing and a miss.

Between that logic fail and a bizarre non-sequitur about 'fairplay rules', it's clear that you're the Davie Provan of this forum; a dinosaur with no actual grasp of how the modern game works. 

 

[Arch Stanton]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Erm yes - that'll be why a Portuguese side managed to win the Champions league for the first time in over forty years in 2004

Erm...actually - the same Portuguese side won it in 1987.

[eez-eh]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Erm yes - that'll be why a Portuguese side managed to win the Champions league for the first time in over forty years in 2004: fully a decade after the Bosman ruling and the introduction of pay TV in the UK and other major European countries, which you think have stopped middle-ranking countries from ever producing a good side. Swing and a miss.

Between that logic fail and a bizarre non-sequitur about 'fairplay rules', it's clear that you're the Davie Provan of this forum; a dinosaur with no actual grasp of how the modern game works. 

 

1 winner from outside the “Big 4” in the past 22 years, compared with 6 in the 22 before that.

Not at all shocked to see you talking shite.

[GordonS]

6 hours ago, GordonS said:

Scottish women getting two Champions League places next season after Glasgow City made the last 16 (and clearly no further) this year, pushing Scotland up to 11th in the rankings. There's nothing to pick between City and Hibs so this is good news indeed.

 https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scotland-to-be-awarded-two-places-in-20192020-uefa-women-s-champions-league/?rid=13929

And as @Marten pointed out on the Women's forum, the league winner goes straight into the last 32, avoiding the groups. These can be tough to get out of as you usually play all your games abroad and only one team qualifies. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, virginton said:

Erm yes - that'll be why a Portuguese side managed to win the Champions league for the first time in over forty years in 2004: fully a decade after the Bosman ruling and the introduction of pay TV in the UK and other major European countries, which you think have stopped middle-ranking countries from ever producing a good side. Swing and a miss.

Between that logic fail and a bizarre non-sequitur about 'fairplay rules', it's clear that you're the Davie Provan of this forum; a dinosaur with no actual grasp of how the modern game works. 

 

You really are a fucking idiot.

No doubt you see McCall as "a dinosaur with no actual grasp of how the modern game works", however he managed to do ok against the mighty Morton and their "modern style" when we raped you 5-1 a couple of weeks back.

Incidentally, you seemed to be rather conspicuous by your absence, sadly you've now reappeared with your silly little boy arrogant pish, still, after a good pumping by the Bairns today, I'm sure you'll disappear again.......................

[Ginaro]

Update after this week's games. Only a draw this week thanks to Rangers, though that still moves us closer to 19th. Red Star Belgrade look increasingly unlikely to get anything so we need two wins to move up a position (still doable). Belarus will probably get another win before the campaign finishes, while Sweden and Norway got a draw in their game against each other.

19		Serbia					5.500	21.750	1 UCL
20		Scotland					5.500	20.875 +0.250	2 UEL
21		Belarus					3.500	20.375	1 UEL
22		Sweden					3.125	19.900 +0.250	1 UEL
23		Norway					4.875	19.700 +0.250	2 UEL
24		Poland					2.250	19.250	0
25		Kazakhstan					3.750	18.750 +0.250	1 UEL

https://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method5/crank2019.html