Link: Copy link
I just made the mistake of having a quick look at the comments under the BBC article... a horrible decision on my part but I did spot plenty of that trend on show in my short visit, including this dictionary-level example:nfm24 wrote:The old classic: anything that requires a modicum of thought to understand must be too complicated and stupid.
269. Posted by badge
on 1 hour ago
I've read this article several times and watched the video twice ... I still don't have a single clue what the $*"! is going on and I've been to school and everything!
Isn't this going to be potentially detrimental to the FIFA ranking of those teams, relative to the others which have more competitive games? Perhaps it'd be best for Scotland not to play any friendlies (ever), for that reason and also because all the possible opponents are in higher leagues.TheRoonBa wrote:There will be opportunities on the 6 matchdays for 9 European teams to play friendly matches (4 from League A, 4 from League B, 1 from Scotland, Israel, Albania in League C).
That's too complicated. Scotland should just withdraw from football, and sell their place in UEFA/FIFA to Lindisfarne.nfm24 wrote: Maybe Scotland should withdraw from UEFA and FIFA, and attempt to join ConIFA under the Old Norse criterion (citing Orkney). But then probably be forced to merge with Yorkshire and Ellan Vannin into the Greater Viking Federation.
I really want that to happen now.nfm24 wrote: A scenario which they apparently haven't considered is the very unlikely case that 15 of the 16 League D teams have already qualified through the traditional groups, and the 16th team won its League D group.
This would mean that the one remaining League D team has no possible opponent in the playoffs.
Probably it's mainly to make those leagues worth covering at all, for the general media (not just those in the countries involved). Liechtenstein vs Gibraltar might now be relevant for qualifying, not only to League D teams but possibly on the qualifying can seedings of other teams.TheRoonBa wrote:Why we need League C and League D teams in the Euro finals, I'll never know.
I think if they didn't it would be in a similar vein to the upcoming Champions League changes and I (amongst others) would be criticising them for giving too much weight to the bigger teams.TheRoonBa wrote:This is what happens when you fanny about with something that should be simple. Why we need League C and League D teams in the Euro finals, I'll never know. It's good enough just having competitive games instead of friendlies for League C and League D teams without having to dangle that dirty great carrot in front of them.
Also so that it is worth doing well in the playoffs of the league (and hence the league itself), and that there will be interest in the competition generally, particularly the lower levels. The worst thing would be to have a convoluted league in which nobody had a reason to care about any of the other groups/levels.mattsanger92 wrote:Because the set-up in allowing League A and League B teams a Play-Off is motivated (at least in part) in giving a safety net to any failing 'big team' (like the Dutch in recent years).
In the last Euros, the opportunities were taken on merit (teams actually qualified in similar-strength balanced groups). Qualifying by winning League D can hardly be said to be qualifying on merit, given that the best teams that have to be beaten are the likes of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia or Macedonia.mattsanger92 wrote:I think if they didn't it would be in a similar vein to the upcoming Champions League changes and I (amongst others) would be criticising them for giving too much weight to the bigger teams.TheRoonBa wrote:This is what happens when you fanny about with something that should be simple. Why we need League C and League D teams in the Euro finals, I'll never know. It's good enough just having competitive games instead of friendlies for League C and League D teams without having to dangle that dirty great carrot in front of them.
Because the set-up in allowing League A and League B teams a Play-Off is motivated (at least in part) in giving a safety net to any failing 'big team' (like the Dutch in recent years). If they go down this route of Play-Offs (essentially taking away a few spots from the main qualification campaign) they should either keep it balanced like what they're proposing or don't do the Play-Offs at all, an everything or nothing situation really.
I get the feeling that the tournament should be as competitive as possible without 'carrots', but that competitiveness can also come from offering opportunities, the last Euros is a prime example of that with all the teams that really stepped their game up in the qualifiers through the added incentive/belief, then in most cases carried that form into France.
Tough one, it's certainly a carrot in that sense and you'd have to think that little bit of extra urgency = more interest.nfm24 wrote:They won't improve Euro 2020, but the prospect of a qualifying place for one of them may improve the Nations League D. In other words, was the AFC Challenge Cup any "better" than it would have been without the direct qualifying place for the winner?
Pieter, welcome to the forum, where all your dreams come truemattsanger92 wrote:There is, not sure if it was a rock you were sleeping under?pieter wrote:is there also a promotion and relegation system in the Nations league or was this just a dream of me?
That's what I was getting at, although as someone who likes seeing more tournaments around that could be a nice way of putting a bit of silverware on it for those Leagues. Run in the same format as the League A Finals, have one of the finalists as host nation and have at it in June.nfm24 wrote:Probably in alternate league editions, there would be no point in the playoffs of League B,C,D other than to give a mickey mouse cup, and then only the League A playoffs to decide the league championship will be worth anything.
Not sure if I was seeing things (mainly because I can't remember where I saw it) but heard something about these 'mandatory friendly dates' required to be against European opposition only? The first part is fine (if a little heavy-handed) to encourage matches but if the second part is true then it doesn't leave many options considering only around 9 teams will actually be open on any given date (and under some quick maffs that would leave at least 1 team unable to comply)...The two Ireland sides will use the fixture to prepare for the final round of Group B matches in the UEFA Nations League, with neither nation having a competitive match pencilled in for the date.
Northern Ireland manager Michael O'Neill outlined how playing their close neighbours makes sense for his side.
"UEFA have made it mandatory that we play a friendly on that date and when we looked at the options across Europe, travelling to Dublin to play the Republic of Ireland made a lot of sense," said O'Neill.
I say should be, but after looking again at the requirements that 150km limit plus 30,000 minimum stadium capacity does put up some unnecessary hurdles.mattsanger92 wrote:Pending meeting the bid requirements (which should be no problem for anyone there)
All very viable options, just think it's more than a bit limiting to what could be done, it takes away a lot of otherwise very suitable locations just because they don't have a similar-sized stadium within 150km.Kaizeler wrote:In theory we could see Milan pairing with Turin/Genoa/Verona, or a Florence/Bologna bid. In Poland, Warsaw might host it on its own, or we could see Poznan/Wroclaw or Chorzów/Krakow. As for Portugal, Lisbon could also manage on its own, or Porto could pair with Aveiro/Braga/Guimarães
Apparently just stick it in the rule book (not the B-team part, but I'm guessing falling on the same international break as a Nations League match that prospect gets nullified anyway).nfm24 wrote:Not sure how they can enforce teams to play if they don't necessarily want to. We might see some B-teams in these friendlies.