Non-champions in the Champions League

You are getting too hung up on the Chelsea example. So do you think it's right that Wigan & Swansea were in Pot 2 for the Europa?

 

We agree on Swansea and Wigan I think. Having never played in Europe once to my knowledge they should start at the bottom.

 

That's what is more annoying for me. They were in Pot 2, purely based on their league. That's isn't right in my opinion.

 

If they changed the ranking system to cover just the previous 2 seasons instead of the current 5 seasons Celtic would be in 43rd place instead of the current ranking of 57th.
We would still have to play in 2nd round qualifiers.

However if the country coefficient is taken out of the equation we would jump to 28th place.
This is still 2nd round qualifiers.
If they had removed all 3rd and 4th place qualifiers from the group stages and playoffs Celtic would have moved up to 3rd round qualifiers along with 8 other clubs.
Basel, Austria Vienna and APOEL would have moved to GS, making way for us in 3rd qualifiers.

 

Its little wonder that fans of the glorious EPL are defending the current seeding system. We have Fawlty a supporter of Chelsea, and Biggie a supporter of Arsenal (correct me if im wrong please) both supporting the way the seeding system helps those at the very top. Obviously Chelsea's recent form means they are pot 1 i am not against that, what i am against is a club who have no prior european pedigree being in * pot two.

Farcical.

 

Direct qualification and seeding are two separate issues, I personally wouldn't see much wrong with forcing third-placed English/Spanish/German qualifiers into a qualifying round but it wouldn't achieve much as they would still make it through to the group stage nine times out of ten.

Why the specific mention of Chelsea, Atletico Madrid were 24 points off the pace, Bayer Leverkusen were 26 points off the pace; Chelsea were only 14 off the pace.

Why haven't you responded to my point about Man City, they would have been in pot three on the strength of their European performances alone, regardless of their country coefficient bonus. Where is the injustice in that situation, I certainly can't spot it?

There is nothing divine about the UEFA seeding system! :smiley-laughing002:

Why should Elfsborg get rewarded for Champions League failure with a spot in the Europa League? Why should they get a spot in pot three ahead of Shakhter Karagandy and Ludogorets Razgrad? Why should they be seeded higher than Pandurii Târgu Jiu? Perhaps because winning the Swedish league is a tad tougher than winning the Bulgarian league, winning the Kazakh league or finishing second in the Romanian league?

Every club in Europe gets the same 20% bonus, there is no more injustice in Swansea being seeded above Elfsborg than there is in Elfsborg being seeded above Pandurii Târgu Jiu. If you want to argue for the abolition of seeding then fine, go nuts, but the system benefits everyone at the expense of clubs from the countries below them. Swansea and Wigan aren't getting an advantage over Elfsborg any more than Elfsborg are getting and advantage over Ludogorets Razgrad.

And Elfsborg were in pot 3 based on their league and failure in the Champions League. Is that 'right' in your opinion?

I have demonstrated two instances in which EPL clubs would have remained in the pots they were in regardless of the country coefficient bonus, what is farcical about that?

 

Celtic's individual ranking of being 57th has no bearing on how many qualifiers we play, thats the result of Scotland being ranked 23rd. Celtic's own coefficient gives us our pot seeding.

We need to go up to 16th to play in the 3rd round, then 13-15 for one i think, then 12 for an automatic place.

 

Right, to clear up the Man City point, and this goes for any team really. You say they desreved to be in the Pot which they were. Fair enough. However, did at any point they have to enter a European competition and be drawn out of the bottom Pot. Go back further, the first time they qualified for Europe, which Pot were they in. The point is, any team competeting in Europe for the first time in decades should be made start from the bottom Pot.

By not doing this, it effectively makes it easier for the clubs to then progress further in the competition, and help their seeding for the next year, and so on. Clubs that play in the top leagues are not having to work their way up the pots, they are being placed higher up than teams with past European experience simply because they play in Spain, England etc etc. So it's much more difficult for teams in the lower pots to ever move upwards.

It's all well and good saying that certain teams deserve to be in Pots 1 & 2 now. But they have been given an easy ride to get into they pots in the first place. I'm not 100% sure what the fairest system would be, but the way it currently is, is certainly not fair in my opinion. I hate to keep mentioning it, but Wigan and Swansea ebing in Pot 2, shows exactly how much of a joke the the seedings are.

 

Man City were winning European games and making deep runs into the UEFA Cup, that's why they were in Pot 3.

It is not difficult to accrue over 16.592 coefficient points if you are a competent football side in Europe, I have demonstrated that already with my theoretical Greek club scenario. Qualify for the group stage five years in a row and lose all 30 matches? You're ranked higher than Swansea and Wigan.

You're acting as if these teams are being parachuted in and making things difficult for teams below who are actually doing well in Europe, it's a nice little narrative but it simply isn't the case: if Vitória de Guimarães had won one more match and drawn one more match in Europe over the last five seasons they would've be seeded above Swansea and Wigan, the same can be said for Legia Warsaw. If Rapid Wien had won two more European matches over the last five seasons they would've be seeded above Swansea and Wigan. It isn't the fault of Wigan, Swansea, Real Betis, SC Freiburg and FSV Frankfurt that clubs from smaller nations are failing to compete consistently on the European stage.

Pot 4-seeded Ludogorets Razgrad currently sit on top of Group B, ahead of PSV Eindhoven and Dinamo Zagreb. Pot 4-seeded Esbjerg currently have 8 more points than Pot 3-seeded Elfsborg and Pot 1-seeded Standard Liege. Pot 4-seeded Maccabi Tel Aviv are on the verge of qualifying through to the knockout stages at the expense of Pot 1-seeded Bordeaux. It doesn't sound as if seeding is holding back these clubs, does it? It sounds like they're taking the Europa League seriously, and any club taking the competition seriously over a consistent period is going to end up with a better coefficient than Swansea and Wigan's measly 16.592.

Wigan and Swansea being in Pot 2 is no more of a 'joke' than Real Betis and SC Freiburg being there is.

 

Your missing the point about Man City. Have they ever had to be drawn from the lowest ranked Pot in a European competition? When was the last time Man City had played in Europe prior to the money men getting involved. And the first time under said people, what Pot were they in. In my opinion, it should have been the lowest ranked Pot. Just like it should have been with Wigan & Swansea this year. By not doing so, it has effectively made it easier for Man City to work their way up the Pots, because they have been handed an easier draw, therefore easier to progress.

Youn seem to think I have a vendetta agaisnt English teams, I have already explained that it should be the same for every team, that includes Real Betis, Freiburg etc.

The seedings might not be holding certain teams back, but I have no doubt that is mainly because of smaller teams in the compeition taking it more seriously than the bigger teams. A lot of the bigger teams see the Europa League as a bit of an annoyance more than anything else, hence why the majority play second string teams. It still doesn't mean that there is any fairness in the seedings though, just because a few teams are punching above their weight in the competition.

I know it isn't the fault of the teams themselves, to suggest it is would be ridiculous. But it is something that needs to be addressed in my opinion.

Edit, I didn't mean to put the post icon up by the way. Clicked that by mistake.

 

They were in Pot 3 of the 08/09 UEFA Cup because of their exploits in the the 03/04 UEFA Cup, prior to the money men getting involved. The UEFA Cup didn't have a pot-seeded group phase until 04/05.

Does this sound like an 'easy' group to you?

1. Schalke 04
2. Paris Saint-Germain
3. Man City
4. Racing Santander
5. FC Twente

I don't see how Man City got much of a competitive advantage there, they earned their Pot 3 seeding on merit and ended up with a tough group. Pot 5 Twente qualified through to the knockouts in second place, their seeding didn't seem to hold them back from beating top notch European sides.

The seedings clearly aren't holding Pot 3 and Pot 4 clubs back in the Europa League, they're doing fine. If a club takes the competition seriously, qualifies regularly and wins a handful of matches over the course of five seasons it will be ranked ahead of a first-time English, German or Spanish qualifier. Or a Swedish one for that matter...

 

I am not a fan per se but I like them better than any other team besides celtics and it may cloud my judgement slightly.

Who's in pot 2 if you don't mind me asking?

Edit. It's Swansea and Wigan.

I agree that's wrong. The likes of Chelsea, arsenal and city are in the pot they're in deservedly so however.

 

Got their by merit. They got turfed out in the second round by the powerhouses of World Football Groclin of Poland. Hardly startling stuff is it. I'm failing to see how reaching the second round and losing to Groclin then allows you to be placed in Pot 3 of 5. And that was 5 year prior. Regardless if they ended up with a hard Group or not, the point still stands.

Yes, it may not be holding them back this year in the Europa, but as I said, I think a lot of that is down to the bigger teams in the compeition fielding weakened teams, as the compeition has become somewhat of a hindrance for certain teams.

 

Dortmund have only had 1 good season in their last 10 or so...

 

Some rules I'd introduce.

Teams that have never won their league title (but come 4th) automatically go into the first QF available to them.

Teams that have never played in Europe (within the last 5 seasons, Wigan,Swansea) are automatic unseeded in QF rounds and pot 4 in groups.

Bonus points add to club coefficients of teams that overachieve, us last year for example - or perhaps add a difficulty multiplier for the lower leagues.

 

They won four matches and drew two, they qualified for the 08/09 group stage and got coefficient points for that as well. You can only beat what's in front of you, should Celtic have their coefficient points earned from beating Cliftonville twice stripped?

The point doesn't stand, you're claiming that City gained a competitive advantage due to their status as an English club but that plainly isn't the case. They were seeded in Pot 3 on merit, if they hadn't have been in Europe during the five previous seasons they would have been seeded in Pot 5 with a coefficient of 15.145!

In the 08/09 Europa League seven of the eight Pot 5 teams qualified to the knockout stages... seeding making teams struggle? I don't think so.

 

The fact that they had only reached the second round 5 year earlier should not entitle them to get into Pot 3, that is madness in my opinion. I would be interested to know all the teams that were in the Pots below them. I would be very surprised if all of them had done as little as Man City had in that 5 year spell.

Also, did Wiagn & Swansea not receive a compeitive advantage this year purely because they play in England? That fair as well is it?

 

Reaching the second round five years earlier did not entitle them to get into Pot 3, winning four European matches and drawing two five years earlier got them into Pot 3. They didn't get coefficient points for reaching a specific stage of the UEFA Cup, they got them for winning and drawing European matches.

On the one hand you're portraying the situation of Swansea, Wigan, Real Betis and Eintracht Frankfurt as a 'joke' and yet failing to see how easy it was for Man City to rack up the coefficient points. If a club from Austria, Israel or Romania won four matches and drew two in one year of UEFA Cup competition and didn't qualify again until five years down the line they would have a superior coefficient to Swansea and Wigan.

This is missing the point completely, the 'little' Man City had done was good enough to get them into Pot 3, that's how easy it is to earn enough coefficient points to move up the pots in the Europa League. Seven out of eight pot 5 sides advancing, how can you possibly argue that seeding held them back?

 

They ended up in Pot 2 because this years Europa League is unusually weak.

In the 09/10, 10/11, 11/12 and 12/13 group stages a coefficient of 16.592 would only have gotten them into Pot 3. In the 08/09 group stage it would have only gotten them into Pot 5. In the 07/08 and 05/06 group stages it would have only gotten them into Pot 4. The only reason Wigan and Swansea ended up in Pot 2 is because this seasons Europa League is an aberration in coefficient terms, in any other year they wouldn't have been as high as Pot 2.

 

I would make the argument that winning the domestic league, or finishing runners up should be a mandatory requirement in terms of being seeded for pot 1. It was a farce that Man City were Pot 4, while Arsenal were pot 1 last season

The seedings were put in place by the richest clubs to maintain the status quo. The main reason being that Arsenal got the same amount of ranking points for beat Montpellier last season, as Celtic got for beating Barcelona. Two easy fixes would be to have a higher multiplier for beating a better team, and multipliers that favour more recent results. Rather than weighting them equally over five years.