Coefficientwatch

[Monkey Tennis]

3 hours ago, DiegoDiego said:

In terms of club football, yes, it has impacted our standing, but only slightly. Take a quick look at the coefficients and see how many of these new countries are ranked above us. Not enough to make a meaningful impact in our participation (certainly compared to where we stood in 1990).

That's probably fair.

Any introspection must of course recognise that a country our size can no longer possibly have lots of clubs participating at the far end of the European tournaments.  That's got more to do with how the tournaments themselves have changed; than it does, our admittedly fallen standards.

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Do you not think that the huge increase in the number of countries in Europe has impacted on our standing then?

If anything it ought to have helped us. Russia are weaker than the USSR, without Dynamo Kiev and others. The former Yugoslav countries only have one or two big clubs each instead of all being together, so it's easier for us to be in front of any of them than it was to get ahead of Yugoslavia - which we often were.

[GordonS]

5 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Nice idea, but as you know, had current qualification rules been in place for some time by 1984, we'd be in nothing like such good shape.

Such rules have played a part in putting us where we are now, as of course has the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.

And that of course comes before we recognise that even current rules wouldn't possibly allow us so many CL places, as our country boasts far too few TV viewers.

You don't get places based on TV money, you get places based on your clubs' results in the preceding 5 years. Our clubs were 12th, 14th and 16th on merit. The CL rules are exclusive and unfair, but if the money revolution had happened in the early 80s the Scottish league may have been at the level of Portugal's now.

It wasn't the money that caused Scotland's slide - it was because we stopped producing good players, and others got better at it. It's not like we were still producing great players and our clubs just couldn't afford to keep them, there used to be far more Scots playing for top English teams too. Money is locking us and others out now but our fall in the first place was all our own fault. 

[Monkey Tennis]

17 minutes ago, GordonS said:

You don't get places based on TV money, you get places based on your clubs' results in the preceding 5 years. Our clubs were 12th, 14th and 16th on merit. The CL rules are exclusive and unfair, but if the money revolution had happened in the early 80s the Scottish league may have been at the level of Portugal's now.

It wasn't the money that caused Scotland's slide - it was because we stopped producing good players, and others got better at it. It's not like we were still producing great players and our clubs just couldn't afford to keep them, there used to be far more Scots playing for top English teams too. Money is locking us and others out now but our fall in the first place was all our own fault. 

Of  course our standards have declined, but let's not pretend that the current set up is based on anything other than the biggest wealthiest leagues being disproportionately favoured.

It's to do with technology altering how football can be screened.  Yes, places are awarded on ostensibly meritocratic lines, but it's self fulfilling that the bigger leagues will yield the wealthier clubs who go further, allowing it all  to perpetuate itself. 

English sides had so many Scots then, largely because their players virtually all came from the British Isles.  Now they come from all over the globe.

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[GordonS]

20 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

English sides had so many Scots then, largely because their players virtually all came from the British Isles.  Now they come from all over the globe.

 

You think that's why there's no Souness, Hansen, Dalgliesh, John Robertson, Archibald, Archie Gemmill, Bremner, Joe Jordan, Denis Law, McQueen, Lorimer? These guys would be playing at top English clubs today. Do you think the 10th, 11th, 12th best Scottish footballer now would have been playing for Leeds, Man Utd, Liverpool then?

[Monkey Tennis]

Just now, GordonS said:

You think that's why there's no Souness, Hansen, Dalgliesh, John Robertson, Archibald, Archie Gemmill, Bremner, Joe Jordan, Denis Law, McQueen, Lorimer? These guys would be playing at top English clubs today. Do you think the 10th, 11th, 12th best Scottish footballer now would have been playing for Leeds, Man Utd, Liverpool then?

Why does everyone in this thread insist on dealing in absolutes?

Of course there's been a decline and we no longer produce as many good players as we once did.  How many times do I need  to recognise that fact before it stops getting broken to me as news?

The reasons why our clubs no longer do as well in Europe and we don't have plenty at England's top clubs anymore, do however go well beyond what we do.

It's possible you know to recognise the role played by a range of factors.

[GordonS]

5 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Why does everyone in this thread insist on dealing in absolutes?

Of course there's been a decline and we no longer produce as many good players as we once did.  How many times do I need  to recognise that fact before it stops getting broken to me as news?

The reasons why our clubs no longer do as well in Europe and we don't have plenty at England's top clubs anymore, do however go well beyond what we do.

It's possible you know to recognise the role played by a range of factors.

It's a lot of things, but  we stopped producing good players just at the time money started gushing into football. Celtic and Rangers were big enough not to have to rely on home-grown players and so did alright in the earlier years of the Champions League (also helped that Rangers weren't paying their taxes, obv), but the rest couldn't, and instead of Aberdeen beating Real Madrid and Dundee Utd beating Barca, they were losing to the likes of Skonto Riga and Bohemians. That had nothing to do with money - we were losing to much poorer clubs.

Now we're locked out along with similar countries. Norway is a good example - Rosenborg had a great CL record for years, but they weren't getting the same cash as others with similar records because they come from a small country. They could only defy gravity for so long. 

[Monkey Tennis]

8 minutes ago, GordonS said:

It's a lot of things, but  we stopped producing good players just at the time money started gushing into football. Celtic and Rangers were big enough not to have to rely on home-grown players and so did alright in the earlier years of the Champions League (also helped that Rangers weren't paying their taxes, obv), but the rest couldn't, and instead of Aberdeen beating Real Madrid and Dundee Utd beating Barca, they were losing to the likes of Skonto Riga and Bohemians. That had nothing to do with money - we were losing to much poorer clubs.

Now we're locked out along with similar countries. Norway is a good example - Rosenborg had a great CL record for years, but they weren't getting the same cash as others with similar records because they come from a small country. They could only defy gravity for so long. 

Nothing much to disagree with there.  

Of course, as with the national team, we've slipped further than we should have.  But many of the reasons why we've slipped from where we've been, were beyond our control.

There is a place for introspection, but how our clubs did at an incomparable high point, is not a good  location to start it from.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[GordonS]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Nothing much to disagree with there.  

Of course, as with the national team, we've slipped further than we should have.  But many of the reasons why we've slipped from where we've been, were beyond our control.

There is a place for introspection, but how our clubs did at an incomparable high point, is not a good  place to start it from.

No, we can never get back there, nor can any club from a smaller country. But I think some younger fans don't realise just how good we were, and that maybe if they did they'd understand better how much the current system works against us.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

No, we can never get back there, nor can any club from a smaller country. But I think some younger fans don't realise just how good we were, and that maybe if they did they'd understand better how much the current system works against us.

Yes, I suppose that's a noble enough intention.

I just think that these stark comparisons confuse matters because the massive structural changes tend to be overlooked.   The uneducated eye sees that past picture as an aspirational target if we just keep plugging way, just keep trying to improve that coefficient; when of course the reality is that it's nothing of the sort.

[wastecoatwilly]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

No, we can never get back there, nor can any club from a smaller country. But I think some younger fans don't realise just how good we were, and that maybe if they did they'd understand better how much the current system works against us.

 

28 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, I suppose that's a noble enough intention.

I just think that these stark comparisons confuse matters because the massive structural changes tend to be overlooked.   The uneducated eye sees that past picture as an aspirational target if we just keep plugging way, just keep trying to improve that coefficient; when of course the reality is that it's nothing of the sort.

You two auld codgers living in the past and reminiscing of bygone days,start trying to look forward on the five period that the coefficient can provide,football is moving forward weather you like it or not,the coefficient is based on a results driven business, the knock out competition has home and away advantages,every team has the chance to progress into the next round.

Edited August 5, 2018 by wastecoatwilly

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

 

You two auld codgers living in the past and reminiscing of bygone days

You've not even read the exchange properly, have you?

[wastecoatwilly]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

You've not even read the exchange properly, have you?

I have no interest in how football got to this point,my only interest is how Scotland can move up the rankings,i accept the place we are on the food chain but i'm starting to enjoy the qualifiers each year so having qualifiers is better than having friendlies at this stage of the season,in the grand scheme of things sitting between 15th and 20th is about right for a country of our size,having two European finals in the last 15 years is not too bad.

Edited August 5, 2018 by wastecoatwilly

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

You two auld codgers living in the past and reminiscing of bygone days,start trying to look forward on the five period that the coefficient can provide,football is moving forward weather you like it or not,the coefficient is based on a results driven business, the knock out competition has home and away advantages,every team has the chance to progress into the next round.

Bless.

How many teams are in the Europa League qualifying rounds, and how many can get to the group stages?

How many domestic champions from the countries ranked 12th to 55th can get into the CL group stages? I'll give you that one - it's four.

The money only starts when you make the group stages, and the places available to teams from outside the top ranked countries are extremely restricted. 

The teams from the big countries are guaranteed riches every season, while everyone else gets a crack at the lottery.

3 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I have no interest in how football got to this point,my only interest is how Scotland can move up the rankings,

It can't. That's the point. And that's why you should learn the history.

I mean, we could maybe get to top 12-ish at best, but there's a glass ceiling for any country that can't put a few million eyes in front of screens for CL matches. That's the whole ball game, and no amount of trying very hard can make any difference. Porto got less money for winning the Champions League than English teams who went out on the quarter finals, Rosenborg qualified 12 years in a row and never made enough money to keep up, it has become much more imbalanced since, and unless your plan is to increase the population of Scotland by about 30 million of join with England, you're pissing against the wind.

I think you've decided to hold a position regardless of the evidence, so I doubt there'll be any need to go over this again.

[JamesM82]

On 8/5/2018 at 02:07, GordonS said:

If the current qualification arrangements had been in place in 1984, for 84/85:

Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee Utd and Rangers would all have gone straight into the Champions League group stage.

Dundee Utd were ranked 12th (same as Borrusia Dortmund now), Celtic 14th (now Liverpool) and Aberdeen 16th (now Zenit), so they would have been in the top two pots, though Aberdeen might have slipped into pot 3 if they were unlucky. Rangers, ranked 31st, would likely have been in pot 4.

Hearts and St Mirren would have gone straight into the Europa League group stage.

Hibs would have gone into Qualifying Round 2 of the Europa League.

 

We were good, man.

Having seven teams qualify for Europe out of a ten team league would have been a bit mental. Only one team (Dundee) wouldn't have done anything (bottom two were relegated automatically). 

The thing that has really buggered Scottish teams in Europe is the domestic TV contract. That's why clubs from other countries that look smaller on the face of it normally dick everyone, other than maybe Celtic.

Edited August 6, 2018 by JamesM82

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, JamesM82 said:

 

The thing that has really buggered Scottish teams in Europe is the domestic TV contract. That's why clubs from other countries that look smaller on the face of it normally dick everyone, other than maybe Celtic.

And a thing that has really buggered many Scottish teams in Scotland is the CL TV contract.  That's why clubs who would be smaller and at a disadvantage anyway, are now utterly dwarfed.

[JamesM82]

48 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

And a thing that has really buggered many Scottish teams in Scotland is the CL TV contract.  That's why clubs who would be smaller and at a disadvantage anyway, are now utterly dwarfed.

Not really. Celtic have only qualified for the CL ~12 times in 25 years. Rangers something similar, and they haven't been in it recently for obvious reasons. In fact, Rangers desire / need to be in the CL every year was a major reason why they went bust, which in turn gave the other Scottish teams greater opportunities to win cups in the 2012-16 period.

Bosman and just general football wage growth / globalisation have had far bigger effects on inequality within leagues. e.g. when a team produced/found a top-class player 30-40 years ago, they could pretty much keep them if they wanted to. It was harder to retain a top manager (e.g. Stein / Ferguson), but the club could continue to have success with the core of players left behind.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, JamesM82 said:

Not really. Celtic have only qualified for the CL ~12 times in 25 years. Rangers something similar, and they haven't been in it recently for obvious reasons. In fact, Rangers desire / need to be in the CL every year was a major reason why they went bust, which in turn gave the other Scottish teams greater opportunities to win cups in the 2012-16 period.

Bosman and just general football wage growth / globalisation have had far bigger effects on inequality within leagues. e.g. when a team produced/found a top-class player 30-40 years ago, they could pretty much keep them if they wanted to. It was harder to retain a top manager (e.g. Stein / Ferguson), but the club could continue to have success with the core of players left behind.

Once more, I'm saying that it's one large, significant factor amid some others.  Once more,  I'm trying to recognise that this is best not seen in  terms of absolutes, but it's a lonely position.

To be dismissive of the thing that can and often does present tens of millions to individual clubs in the context of what most of our clubs turn over, is bonkers.  

This thread is about the coefficient and the financial gains some posters see as resulting from improving it.  That's why it's the element I'm focusing on here.  It doesn't mean it's not been accompanied by other damaging factors.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Monkey Tennis

[wastecoatwilly]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Once more, I'm saying that it's one large, significant factor amid some others.  Once more,  I'm trying to recognise that this is best not seen in  terms of absolutes, but it's a lonely position.

To be dismissive of the thing that can and often does present tens of millions to individual clubs in the context of what most of our clubs turn over, is bonkers.  

This thread is about the coefficient and the financial gains some posters see as resulting from improving it.  That's why it's the element I'm focusing on here.  It doesn't mean it's not been accompanied by other damaging factors.

So your emphasis on the dosh is diminishing money tennis your starting to see a bit of sense. 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

So your emphasis on the dosh is diminishing money tennis your starting to see a bit of sense. 

Make some sense for Christ's sake.

Use punctuation and stuff.