Liverpool FC Forum

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:52 am

I wouldn't deprive them of the opportunity to at least mix it with the big boys, they should be entitled to the opportunity. That is why a preliminary microstate group stage would be the best solution, in my view. Simply banishing them from the competition altogether is far too elitist for my liking.

If there was no desire for these national teams to exist, they probably wouldn't. Should they wish to abolish their national teams, they have every right to do so. It cannot be enforced from any exterior body, for example, UEFA cannot 'downgrade' a national team to club status. They are two separate types of organisation altogether.

The 'downgrading' option, is not an enforcable or feasible option. It's akin to abolishing the national teams of these microstates. Once abolished, they cannot return. If there is no desire for these teams to be abolished, it will not happen, and I suspect there is no desire for the likes of Andorra or Liectenstein to abolish their national sides. The opportunity to enter the Euro's allows these countries to gain exposure in their own little way, it enables them to interact with fans from different countries and visit stadia across Europe, and undoubtedly provides economic benefit.

Despite not being a remotely feasible option, another point against it would be "where does it end?".

Are Iceland included in this 'downgrading'?

Malta perhaps? or Estonia? How about Azerbaijan? or Slovenia?, Latvia? or Puskas' country of birth - Hungary (just the 5 points between them and the total achieved by Liechtenstein). Despite this 'limited pool of players' which you say will always prevent them from ever being a threat, a team who has access to a nation of 10m people can only achieve 5 more points than a team who has access to a population of just 35 thousand (I'm equating pop'n with 'pool of players' just to give a rough idea of the proportions involved, despite the fact that the 'pool' may be distinctly smaller).

Defining the boundary is difficult, as it is clear from the point tallies that there are an abundance of sides who achieve a low points total

It's also not a question of whether they will be competitive or not, it's a question of allowing them the opportunity at the very least. These countries can be competitive in as much as, they can get results against footballing nations of a significantly higher stature e.g. Liechtenstein drawing against Slovaki and Portugal in their 2006 WC qualifying campaign.

This is all speculative, as the proposal is simply not feasible in any case. An external body cannot abolish a country's national team, only they can and for as long as there is no desire to do so, it will not happen.

The preliminary group would be the best possible route to take as far as I can see. The worst sides from the actual group stages should be knocked down into this group. Whoever wins the preliminary group would then go forward into the group stage proper.

It's just the microstates I feel should have their status changed. The other nations you mentioned have the potential to develop and improve because of their larger populations. However the microstates stand little to no chance of doing so.

Take San Marino for example.

In EURO 2008, they played 12, won 0, lost 12, drew 0, scored 2 and conceded 57.

It's just a farce.

by **dawson99** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:50 am

so in the same respect derby and sunderland shouldnt be allowed in the premiership?

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:22 am

dawson99 wrote:so in the same respect derby and sunderland shouldnt be allowed in the premiership?

In their case, I also think reform is needed.

Along with parachute payments for going down, the payments made when they go UP should be larger to give them a chance to buy players needed for survival.

I would go further than that and reform the play-off system too. Ideally I would like all leagues to be capped at 18 teams with a three up and three down system.

Short of that, the new play off system would be as follows.

6th place vs 5th place.

The winner plays 4th place.

The winner of that plays 3rd place in the final.

The winner gets promoted.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:49 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:It's just the microstates I feel should have their status changed. The other nations you mentioned have the potential to develop and improve because of their larger populations. However the microstates stand little to no chance of doing so.

Take San Marino for example.

In EURO 2008, they played 12, won 0, lost 12, drew 0, scored 2 and conceded 57.

It's just a farce.

Nobody can alter the status of a national team, other than the respective FA's of each state. The situation, on UEFA's part, can only be managed.

UEFA shouldn't deprive these states of at least the opportunity to gain entry to the competition.

They should however, in the interests of trying to improve the competitiveness of the qualifying stages, create a preliminary qualifying group. Whoever finishes bottom of the actual qualifying group stages should be relegated to a sub-group for the following year. This would provide a greater degree of motivation to those nations who really want to play against the big teams.

I believe this approach would strike the right balance between fairness and competitiveness.

You shouldn't discriminate against a nation based on its population, whether they qualify or not should be determined by results - a preliminary group stage would achieve this.

As it's been shown, Luxembourg achieved just 5 points less than Hungary in the qualifiers, so there is clearly scope for teams with small populations to gain points. Whether they will ever be a 'threat' to the competition is besides the point. There are a number of national sides who have comparitively larger populations, who may also be considered no 'real threat' to the competition, e.g. Azerbaijan, Estonia, Slovenia, Albania, Armenia.

Of course, there is a big difference between these sides and, for example, San Marino.

However, creating a preliminary qualifying group would force sides such as San Mario to battle it out for the place in the actual group stages. It would improve the competitiveness of the competition, whilst at the same time remaining fair, giving every nation an opportunity at least to get into the competition.

Like I said, it's not about whether these microstate nations will be a threat to the competition outright, it is about the oportunity.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:35 am

Nobody can alter the status of a national team, other than the respective FA's of each state. The situation, on UEFA's part, can only be managed.

UEFA shouldn't deprive these states of at least the opportunity to gain entry to the competition.

They should however, in the interests of trying to improve the competitiveness of the qualifying stages, create a preliminary qualifying group. Whoever finishes bottom of the actual qualifying group stages should be relegated to a sub-group for the following year. This would provide a greater degree of motivation to those nations who really want to play against the big teams.

I believe this approach would strike the right balance between fairness and competitiveness.

You shouldn't discriminate against a nation based on its population, whether they qualify or not should be determined by results - a preliminary group stage would achieve this.

As it's been shown, Luxembourg achieved just 5 points less than Hungary in the qualifiers, so there is clearly scope for teams with small populations to gain points. Whether they will ever be a 'threat' to the competition is besides the point. There are a number of national sides who have comparitively larger populations, who may also be considered no 'real threat' to the competition, e.g. Azerbaijan, Estonia, Slovenia, Albania, Armenia.

Of course, there is a big difference between these sides and, for example, San Marino.

However, creating a preliminary qualifying group would force sides such as San Mario to battle it out for the place in the actual group stages. It would improve the competitiveness of the competition, whilst at the same time remaining fair, giving every nation an opportunity at least to get into the competition.

Like I said, it's not about whether these microstate nations will be a threat to the competition outright, it is about the oportunity.

I think nations like Estonia could very well benefit from the prelim tournament you advocate. But not the microstates. Hungary may have only scored 5 more points than Luxembourg, but with their population being greater (which must be taken into account as it offers a greater potential pool of players to choose from) it's Hungary rather than Luxembourg who are most likely to improve.

The microstates have got to go.

by **LFC2007** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:38 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:
Nobody can alter the status of a national team, other than the respective FA's of each state. The situation, on UEFA's part, can only be managed.

UEFA shouldn't deprive these states of at least the opportunity to gain entry to the competition.

They should however, in the interests of trying to improve the competitiveness of the qualifying stages, create a preliminary qualifying group. Whoever finishes bottom of the actual qualifying group stages should be relegated to a sub-group for the following year. This would provide a greater degree of motivation to those nations who really want to play against the big teams.

I believe this approach would strike the right balance between fairness and competitiveness.

You shouldn't discriminate against a nation based on its population, whether they qualify or not should be determined by results - a preliminary group stage would achieve this.

As it's been shown, Luxembourg achieved just 5 points less than Hungary in the qualifiers, so there is clearly scope for teams with small populations to gain points. Whether they will ever be a 'threat' to the competition is besides the point. There are a number of national sides who have comparitively larger populations, who may also be considered no 'real threat' to the competition, e.g. Azerbaijan, Estonia, Slovenia, Albania, Armenia.

Of course, there is a big difference between these sides and, for example, San Marino.

However, creating a preliminary qualifying group would force sides such as San Mario to battle it out for the place in the actual group stages. It would improve the competitiveness of the competition, whilst at the same time remaining fair, giving every nation an opportunity at least to get into the competition.

Like I said, it's not about whether these microstate nations will be a threat to the competition outright, it is about the oportunity.

I think nations like Estonia could very well benefit from the prelim tournament you advocate. But not the microstates. Hungary may have only scored 5 more points than Luxembourg, but with their population being greater (which must be taken into account as it offers a greater potential pool of players to choose from) it's Hungary rather than Luxembourg who are most likely to improve.

The microstates have got to go.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:43 am

LFC2007 wrote:
The Manhattan Project wrote:
Nobody can alter the status of a national team, other than the respective FA's of each state. The situation, on UEFA's part, can only be managed.

UEFA shouldn't deprive these states of at least the opportunity to gain entry to the competition.

They should however, in the interests of trying to improve the competitiveness of the qualifying stages, create a preliminary qualifying group. Whoever finishes bottom of the actual qualifying group stages should be relegated to a sub-group for the following year. This would provide a greater degree of motivation to those nations who really want to play against the big teams.

I believe this approach would strike the right balance between fairness and competitiveness.

You shouldn't discriminate against a nation based on its population, whether they qualify or not should be determined by results - a preliminary group stage would achieve this.

As it's been shown, Luxembourg achieved just 5 points less than Hungary in the qualifiers, so there is clearly scope for teams with small populations to gain points. Whether they will ever be a 'threat' to the competition is besides the point. There are a number of national sides who have comparitively larger populations, who may also be considered no 'real threat' to the competition, e.g. Azerbaijan, Estonia, Slovenia, Albania, Armenia.

Of course, there is a big difference between these sides and, for example, San Marino.

However, creating a preliminary qualifying group would force sides such as San Mario to battle it out for the place in the actual group stages. It would improve the competitiveness of the competition, whilst at the same time remaining fair, giving every nation an opportunity at least to get into the competition.

Like I said, it's not about whether these microstate nations will be a threat to the competition outright, it is about the oportunity.

I think nations like Estonia could very well benefit from the prelim tournament you advocate. But not the microstates. Hungary may have only scored 5 more points than Luxembourg, but with their population being greater (which must be taken into account as it offers a greater potential pool of players to choose from) it's Hungary rather than Luxembourg who are most likely to improve.

The microstates have got to go.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I can't agree with agreeing to disagree.

:no

by **babu** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:38 am

by **Big Niall** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:19 am

I think Mourinho or Capello are head and shoulders above the others that have been mentioned. they have a great track record at club management - although international management different. I don't know too many international managers that are available. What is Lippi doing?

Liverpool FC Forum

Euro qualifiers - england post mortem here

Who is online