I must say, it seems to me that UEFA decision makers are getting dumber and dumber. And no, I'm not talking about the decision to have the next Euros comprise of 24 teams.
I'm talking about having the main tie-breaking criterion between teams tied on points in the Champions League be the direct results between the teams in question.
How moronic is that?
How idiotic is it, huh, Mr. Platini?
Let's look at it, group by group.
Group A is, surprisingly, unaffected by this rule.
In Group B, Schalke can even lose, no matter by what scoreline, as long as Arsenal does not win in the other match, and still win the group. So, a team that might get crushed - it will not happen, by I'm just saying - 7-0 by someone as weak as Montpellier could still win that group. Stupid!
In Group C, Malaga has already won the group, courtesy of their better head-to-head record against AC Milan. So, then, both Malaga and Milan have nothing to play for in the last matchday. Very stupid!
Luckily, as far as the struggle between Zenit St. Petersburg and Anderlecht goes, their direct encounters ended 1-0 and 0-1, so that will be decided by goal difference. They will have to show up and play, if they wish to finish third and continue in the Europa League. Thank God (for almost nothing)!
Group D also has a decided winner, Borussia Dortmund, because of their better record against Real Madrid. Not that Borussia was not the best team of the group so far, but if they lose at home to Manchester City, on the last matchday, nobody would then say that they were, pound-for-pound, the best overall team if Real beats Ajax and gets the same number of points. (You gotta play well all your matches to be most appreciated!...)
Man. City, likewise, cannot not win their last match, if they want Europa League play, even if Ajax loses 200-0 in Madrid.
Extremely dumb!
But Group E is the worst.
You know, someone watching Juventus - Chelsea (3-0), and not having been aware of these fucked-up UEFA rules, might have thought that Juventus kept pressing, even at 2-0 and with 10 minutes left, because they knew every goal would count on the last matchday and Chelsea would have played Nordsjaelland (a team that is very likely to lose 6-7--nil). Actually, though, NO!
Thanks to any kind of win over Chelsea, and with a point in Donetsk in two weeks ' time, Juventus can then be assured of progressing over Chelsea, last year 's winner.
Even a 1-0 victory for Juventus would have been enough to secure that advantage.
3-0 was a result that brought Juventus no more benefits than a 1-0 would have.
And another unfortunate result of this obvious lack of intelligence from UEFA officials is the fact that Shakhtar Donetsk is already in the round of 16. Yes, they have secured their place, because of their direct results over Chelsea (2-1 and 2-3, away-goals rule) and now Chelsea can only at best tie Shakhtar on points.
So, Shakhtar has only first place to play for, on the last matchday, and clearly a draw in their direct match would satisfy both Shakhtar (who would win the group) and Juventus (who would go through, leaving Chelsea out).
How much do Chelsea fans hate UEFA for these senseless rules?
So, so retarded!!!
In Group F, Bayern leads over Valencia, even though Valencia has a better goal difference. (The two teams are tied on points, yes.) And all Bayern needs to do is match the number of points that Valencia gets on the last day, to win that group.
Also, Lille cannot go to the Europa League, even though they are clearly better than BATE at the present time, even if they win their last match by an astronomical score, and BATE loses theirs by an astronomical score, too, to boot. Why? Well, because stupid UEFA said 1-3 and 2-0 means the team that scored the three goals in that one match will beat the other team, no matter what else happens, if they're tied on points at the end.
Also, retarded!
In Group G, Benfica needs to match Celtic's result, but luckily for the surprising Scottish outfit (who beat Barcelona) Celtic plays Spartak at home while Benfica has to take on Barca away.
Group H contains another team that might be seriously screwed by this deficiency in thinking clearly exhibited by UEFA officials: CFR Cluj.
The Romanians have to go to Old Trafford, needing to beat Manchester United. And, even then, they have to hope that Galatasaray does not defeat Braga in Portugal. (And Braga cannot even finish third anymore. They will be bottom, and might only be playing for pride, if even that.)
Potential scorelines Man. U. - Cluj 0-5 and Braga - Galatasaray 2-3 would allow the Turkish team to qualify. If that happens, wouldn't that be fucked-up, retarded, and unfair to Cluj?
Realistically, all the Transylvanian team can hope for is for them to get a point in Manchester, and for Galatasaray to lose to Braga.
They could score, and score, and score, in England, and still get kicked out. Thanks to some serious incompetence from UEFA!
Showing posts with label UEFA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UEFA. Show all posts
Thursday, 22 November 2012
Tuesday, 19 June 2012
How the Mighty Have Fallen
France looked very good, after beating the hosts, Ukraine, in a very decisive manner on the second matchday. And, knowing that they looked better than the English, on the first matchday, too, most people would have probably bet on Blanc's team to win the group.
But Ibrahimovic and his Swedes begged to differ.
In the other match, England was assured of going through with a draw or better. Ukraine needed a win.
All France had to do to advance was not lose by more than one goal. So, they were assured of progressing even with a loss by just one goal, no matter what happened anywhere else!
Sweden, of course, could not finish higher than fourth!
But Sweden really did show up to play for pride, and I guess that's their best incentive.
The best chance of the first half belonged to the Swedes, and came after roughly ten minutes. Toivonen rounded Lloris, after escaping on goal, and sent the ball towards the empty net from an acute angle, but his shot hit the post.
In the other match, Ukraine was pressing England. In the first 15 minutes, or so, Ukraine had 7 goal-scoring opportunities, England had zero.
There were no goals before half-time, in either of the two matches.
And then, 3 minutes after kick-off in the second half, one large defensive error by the Ukrainians, especially goalkeeper Pyatov, allowed the ball to bounce perfectly towards the far post where an unmarked Rooney had only to nudge the ball into the empty net, in characteristic Manchester-United fashion. (Let's admit it, we see quite a few Man.-U. goals like that.)
England was winning the group. And the Ukraine players were seeing their dream slip away.
Roughly ten minutes into the second half, Sweden scored, too. Ibrahimovic was the goalscorer, naturally. And this one was, and probably will be, the goal of the tournament. The Milan striker put the ball past Lloris with a wonderful volley, side-scissor-kick-like, from the edge of the French penalty area.
It wasn't as spectacular as some of the goals Marco van Basten used to score, but it certainly reminded older viewers of those amazing efforts by the Dutch forward.
France was still guaranteed a place in the quarter-finals at this score, though.
Going back to the match in Donetsk, Ukraine should have had their equalizer right after the hour-mark. Ukraine substitute Devic managed to kick the ball strongly enough to make it still go in even after Joe Hart's intervention, but Terry ran after it and saved right on the line.
Or did he?
Replays would show that the ball was actually inside the goal by a (small but reasonable) distance.
The goal was not awarded to Ukraine, though, for reasons unknown. (Maybe it was to compensate England for the refereeing error that helped eliminate them from World Cup 2010, because otherwise it's ridiculous that the entire stadium sees the goal but the referees and it's the referees' dumb decision that stands.)
What we do know is that these organizations, FIFA and UEFA, continue to defend their inability to guarantee 100%-correct refereeing, and continue to protect these inept referees too much.
I, for one, believe the referees who make a bad decision that influence a match that much should be punished by not being able to be a referee again (and make money from such a job) for a very long period of time, such as five years. And that should be for the first offense, mind you. Doing it a second time should be automatic lifetime ban from ever being an official referee again. That would teach them for playing God (or devil) with decisions that could hurt millions of people when they go wrong.
Anyway, though, despite the late introduction of injured Shevchenko, and despite playing better than England, Ukraine could not even get one point in Donetsk.
What a bad stadium and a bad city for Ukraine! Maybe they should have continued to play in the Ukrainian-speaking part of their country.
England, on the other hand, said "thank you very much" and won the group.
Yes, they won the group, because France lost.
But Sweden ended up winning 2-0, not just 1-0.
They had many chances of making it 2-0, but only in minute 90' + 1' did they finally succeed. Larsson was the one who thundered the ball into the French net after Holmen made the French defensive line dizzy with an effort that rebounded off the bar to Larsson.
Thus, the French were humbled.
In these conditions, it's interesting to note that, even if Ukraine had managed to turn around the result to 2-1, from 0-1, in injury time, considering the French loss by two goals, England would have still stayed in the competition. If the scores were 2-1 for Ukraine and 2-0 for Sweden, France would have gone home.
But, with the English win, despite the hard defeat, France still advances. They will have to play Spain now, though.
And England is going to play Italy, on Sunday, in Kyiv.
If they had finished second, hmm, the English would have stayed in Donetsk, for their quarter-final match, too. (But yeah, their team base-camp is in Krakow, so I guess it wouldn't have really helped them that much. And, speaking of team base-camps, another interesting fact is that the French will now play their quarter-final match in Donetsk, and their base-camp just happens to be in... Donetsk! Yes, where they won against Ukraine, their best match of the tournament. Hmm, again, one might say. Could that be a good sign for them?)
Highlights from England - Ukraine 1-0:
England Ukraine by anastasio7
Highlights from Sweden - France 2-0:
Sweden France by anastasio7
Oh, and, by the way, by "the Mighty" (that "Have Fallen"), I do mean the French, of course.
The English themselves admitted to having low expectations.
But Ibrahimovic and his Swedes begged to differ.
In the other match, England was assured of going through with a draw or better. Ukraine needed a win.
All France had to do to advance was not lose by more than one goal. So, they were assured of progressing even with a loss by just one goal, no matter what happened anywhere else!
Sweden, of course, could not finish higher than fourth!
But Sweden really did show up to play for pride, and I guess that's their best incentive.
The best chance of the first half belonged to the Swedes, and came after roughly ten minutes. Toivonen rounded Lloris, after escaping on goal, and sent the ball towards the empty net from an acute angle, but his shot hit the post.
In the other match, Ukraine was pressing England. In the first 15 minutes, or so, Ukraine had 7 goal-scoring opportunities, England had zero.
There were no goals before half-time, in either of the two matches.
And then, 3 minutes after kick-off in the second half, one large defensive error by the Ukrainians, especially goalkeeper Pyatov, allowed the ball to bounce perfectly towards the far post where an unmarked Rooney had only to nudge the ball into the empty net, in characteristic Manchester-United fashion. (Let's admit it, we see quite a few Man.-U. goals like that.)
England was winning the group. And the Ukraine players were seeing their dream slip away.
Roughly ten minutes into the second half, Sweden scored, too. Ibrahimovic was the goalscorer, naturally. And this one was, and probably will be, the goal of the tournament. The Milan striker put the ball past Lloris with a wonderful volley, side-scissor-kick-like, from the edge of the French penalty area.
It wasn't as spectacular as some of the goals Marco van Basten used to score, but it certainly reminded older viewers of those amazing efforts by the Dutch forward.
France was still guaranteed a place in the quarter-finals at this score, though.
Going back to the match in Donetsk, Ukraine should have had their equalizer right after the hour-mark. Ukraine substitute Devic managed to kick the ball strongly enough to make it still go in even after Joe Hart's intervention, but Terry ran after it and saved right on the line.
Or did he?
Replays would show that the ball was actually inside the goal by a (small but reasonable) distance.
The goal was not awarded to Ukraine, though, for reasons unknown. (Maybe it was to compensate England for the refereeing error that helped eliminate them from World Cup 2010, because otherwise it's ridiculous that the entire stadium sees the goal but the referees and it's the referees' dumb decision that stands.)
What we do know is that these organizations, FIFA and UEFA, continue to defend their inability to guarantee 100%-correct refereeing, and continue to protect these inept referees too much.
I, for one, believe the referees who make a bad decision that influence a match that much should be punished by not being able to be a referee again (and make money from such a job) for a very long period of time, such as five years. And that should be for the first offense, mind you. Doing it a second time should be automatic lifetime ban from ever being an official referee again. That would teach them for playing God (or devil) with decisions that could hurt millions of people when they go wrong.
Anyway, though, despite the late introduction of injured Shevchenko, and despite playing better than England, Ukraine could not even get one point in Donetsk.
What a bad stadium and a bad city for Ukraine! Maybe they should have continued to play in the Ukrainian-speaking part of their country.
England, on the other hand, said "thank you very much" and won the group.
Yes, they won the group, because France lost.
But Sweden ended up winning 2-0, not just 1-0.
They had many chances of making it 2-0, but only in minute 90' + 1' did they finally succeed. Larsson was the one who thundered the ball into the French net after Holmen made the French defensive line dizzy with an effort that rebounded off the bar to Larsson.
Thus, the French were humbled.
In these conditions, it's interesting to note that, even if Ukraine had managed to turn around the result to 2-1, from 0-1, in injury time, considering the French loss by two goals, England would have still stayed in the competition. If the scores were 2-1 for Ukraine and 2-0 for Sweden, France would have gone home.
But, with the English win, despite the hard defeat, France still advances. They will have to play Spain now, though.
And England is going to play Italy, on Sunday, in Kyiv.
If they had finished second, hmm, the English would have stayed in Donetsk, for their quarter-final match, too. (But yeah, their team base-camp is in Krakow, so I guess it wouldn't have really helped them that much. And, speaking of team base-camps, another interesting fact is that the French will now play their quarter-final match in Donetsk, and their base-camp just happens to be in... Donetsk! Yes, where they won against Ukraine, their best match of the tournament. Hmm, again, one might say. Could that be a good sign for them?)
Highlights from England - Ukraine 1-0:
England Ukraine by anastasio7
Highlights from Sweden - France 2-0:
Sweden France by anastasio7
Oh, and, by the way, by "the Mighty" (that "Have Fallen"), I do mean the French, of course.
The English themselves admitted to having low expectations.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Last Minute, Again!
Inter Milan is out of the Champions League. (Ha, ha!) And they had a lucky draw, in facing Marseille.
They've been eliminated by a team that hasn't won in the French league for six matches (and hasn't gained a point in the French league for four matches).
And, to tell you the truth, I think they would have also been eliminated by Lyon, or Bayer Leverkusen, or Basel, all teams that have also shamefully left the competition.
So, does this not make anybody wonder how in the world they did what they did in 2010?
They pretty much have the same players, still...
Is Mourinho that good?
No, he's not. (That was a rhetorical question, yes.)
Clearly, moratti spent a lot of money in those seasons.
But on what? That's the question.
Maybe referee De Bleeckere and his colleagues (who officiated Barcelona - inter 1-0, where a perfectly good goal, that would have seen Barca through to the final, was cancelled, in error) and FIFA/UEFA might know more.
For now, though, all hail Brandao!
Once more, yet another team shows inter Milan isn't worth squat.
Oh, and I liked how Marseille scored again, just as the game was about to end, like in the first leg. Brandao made it 1-1, following a Diego Milito (- Blecch! This guy, again? -) goal (75), just when the second minute of the three indicated by the fourth referee was about to elapse.
Immediately after, Pazzini got a penalty kick, that saw Mandanda, the man of the match in my opinion (not only because he saved 2-3 big opportunities for Inter, but because he also was instrumental with an assist for Brandao's goal), eliminated. But, even though Pazzini scored the PK, the game was over immediately afterwards. Cool!
What happened to moratti's money? Has it all been eaten up by that CL campaign, two years ago?
(If it has, though, that's good... for Italian, and even world, football.)
Highlights:
Inter Milan vs Olympique Marseille (2:1) by larrsson
They've been eliminated by a team that hasn't won in the French league for six matches (and hasn't gained a point in the French league for four matches).
And, to tell you the truth, I think they would have also been eliminated by Lyon, or Bayer Leverkusen, or Basel, all teams that have also shamefully left the competition.
So, does this not make anybody wonder how in the world they did what they did in 2010?
They pretty much have the same players, still...
Is Mourinho that good?
No, he's not. (That was a rhetorical question, yes.)
Clearly, moratti spent a lot of money in those seasons.
But on what? That's the question.
Maybe referee De Bleeckere and his colleagues (who officiated Barcelona - inter 1-0, where a perfectly good goal, that would have seen Barca through to the final, was cancelled, in error) and FIFA/UEFA might know more.
For now, though, all hail Brandao!
Once more, yet another team shows inter Milan isn't worth squat.
Oh, and I liked how Marseille scored again, just as the game was about to end, like in the first leg. Brandao made it 1-1, following a Diego Milito (- Blecch! This guy, again? -) goal (75), just when the second minute of the three indicated by the fourth referee was about to elapse.
Immediately after, Pazzini got a penalty kick, that saw Mandanda, the man of the match in my opinion (not only because he saved 2-3 big opportunities for Inter, but because he also was instrumental with an assist for Brandao's goal), eliminated. But, even though Pazzini scored the PK, the game was over immediately afterwards. Cool!
What happened to moratti's money? Has it all been eaten up by that CL campaign, two years ago?
(If it has, though, that's good... for Italian, and even world, football.)
Highlights:
Inter Milan vs Olympique Marseille (2:1) by larrsson
Friday, 27 January 2012
Next Euro - To Have 24 Teams
UEFA Euro 2016 will be the first to have 24 teams in Finals.
What?! Why?
So, half of the countries in Europe will be there? But we have so few surprises, as it is!
Who's not there now, and should be? Belgium?... Switzerland?... Norway?... ooh, Serbia!... Come on!
All this means is that countries like Germany, Spain, Italy, England, etc., will always be in. Why should they even bother with qualifiers, then?
Perhaps, like a buddy of mine suggested, they should have raised the number to 20 teams first, if they really needed to raise it.
But with this decision, it seems that Bosnia-Herzegovina could now be a tournament regular.
Hmm...
What?! Why?
So, half of the countries in Europe will be there? But we have so few surprises, as it is!
Who's not there now, and should be? Belgium?... Switzerland?... Norway?... ooh, Serbia!... Come on!
All this means is that countries like Germany, Spain, Italy, England, etc., will always be in. Why should they even bother with qualifiers, then?
Perhaps, like a buddy of mine suggested, they should have raised the number to 20 teams first, if they really needed to raise it.
But with this decision, it seems that Bosnia-Herzegovina could now be a tournament regular.
Hmm...
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Do Football Rules Need Revitalizing?
Sunday. May 11th, 2008. It's the last matchday of the season in the Premier League.
Apparently, a lot is still to be decided in the title race. Manchester United has 84 points, and a +56 goal difference, while Chelsea also has 84 points, but only a +39 goal difference.
That means that, if Manchester United was to win, by, say, one goal, (and they are playing at Wigan, a team renowned for always being crushed with ease by Ferguson's team, no matter what the venue), Chelsea would have to win by 20 goals, or more, to obtain the title.
Of course, Man. U. ends up beating Wigan, by two goals, and Chelsea is so abject on the day that they cannot even bag a win against Bolton, at home.
Apparently, a lot is still to be decided in the title race. Manchester United has 84 points, and a +56 goal difference, while Chelsea also has 84 points, but only a +39 goal difference.
That means that, if Manchester United was to win, by, say, one goal, (and they are playing at Wigan, a team renowned for always being crushed with ease by Ferguson's team, no matter what the venue), Chelsea would have to win by 20 goals, or more, to obtain the title.
Of course, Man. U. ends up beating Wigan, by two goals, and Chelsea is so abject on the day that they cannot even bag a win against Bolton, at home.
Almost one year later. Spain. Primera Division. May 2nd, 2009. Real Madrid has a chance of getting to within one point of Barcelona, at the top of the standings, by beating their eternal rivals in El Clasico, at the Bernabeu, with four more matches left.
But they fail miserably. Barcelona wins 6-2, away from home, and Real never gets another point till the end of the season.
Barca wins the title with a +70 goal difference, and Real finishes with +31.
But they fail miserably. Barcelona wins 6-2, away from home, and Real never gets another point till the end of the season.
Barca wins the title with a +70 goal difference, and Real finishes with +31.
How can two teams be so close on points, but so far apart in goal difference? (which, quite frankly, oftentimes says more about form and consistency than points do)
This, to me, signals that there is something very wrong with official football rules.
I'm talking about rules everywhere, not just in Spain or England.
How come a team that wins 8-0 gets the same reward, in points, as a team that barely makes it 2-1 in the 90th minute? It's weird, and nasty, for the team that plays well, and for its fans.
On the other hand, it takes only one miserable error, one slip-up, or even a refereeing mistake, leading to your team conceding one unlucky goal, at the wrong time... and, if you're just leading by one, all of a sudden you lose two points and possibly the nice position you fought so hard in hope of achieving.
No! These rules that give three points for any kind of a win, and just one for a draw, are stupid, dumb, old-fashioned, retarded rules. They don't really succeed in making teams always go for the win, regardless of what those people who introduced them everywhere in the footballing world, in the early '90s, said.
They took a pathetic rule, from a pathetic league (- guess which federation was awarding three points for a win first? -) and thought this would revolutionize football.
But it made it more unfair, is what it did.
That's not to say that the two-points-for-a-win rule was much better. ...Although it was more balanced, I would argue.
However, not to beat around the bush any further, here's what I'm proposing:
To truly reward spectacular, deserving teams, larger goal differences in a match have to be worth more. And teams who lose big have to be going down easier, too.
(For example, in the Portuguese Primeira Liga 2009-2010, Belenenses finished with 23 points and a -21 goal difference, and was relegated, while Setubal had 25 points but a -28 goal difference and stayed up. Moreover, Belenenses won at Setubal 2-1 on the last matchday, but they knew they were going down no matter what. Just imagine if Setubal could have lost points that game [sic!], and if Belenenses could have gained more than 3 points with a victory there. It could have been a cracking encounter!...)
So, let's get to the point:
1) A win by a one-goal difference should be worth 2 points in the standings;
2) A win by two or three goals should be worth 3 points;
3) A loss by one or two goals should not cause any gain in the standings for that team, so it should be 0 points;
4) A loss by three or four goals should be -1 [sic!] points;
5) A win by four or five goals should give the winning team 4 points;
6) A loss by five, six or seven goals should be worth -2 points;
7) A win by six, seven or eight goals should award 5 points;
8) A loss by anywhere from eight to eleven goals should be -3 points;
9) A win by nine to twelve goals should be 6 points;
10) A loss by more than and including twelve goals should be -4 points;
11) A win by more than and including thirteen goals should award 7 points to the victor;
Note: In those leagues where such goal differences of more than 12-13 goals are more frequent than just being freak occurences, obviously the rules could be taken further;
12) Any kind of draw should still give 1 point to each team involved.
To illustrate, Real Madrid - FC Barcelona 2-6 would subtract 1 point from Real's total and add 4 to Barcelona's points.
Make it interesting and rewarding, is what all of this is saying! Every goal should count.
Additional Mention: Goal difference very rarely makes a difference, but it should still be counted in those truly, actual, head-to-head races, where the difference between goal differences is very close to zero. (What I'm saying is, only if the rules above still lead to two teams having the same number of points, the goal difference as a separating criterion could still apply because it is possible that one team would have +39 goal difference, let's say, and one could have +37 goal difference, even though they could be tied on points at that point.)
To sum up, I know there are always people who say "Oh, we don't need any change. We feel everything is fine the way it is. Long live the status quo!" But isn't that the atitude of a person who wants to control things, and who cares more about his current financial well-being and power than about fairness and future progress?
And imagine how hard it would be for the teams who spend money getting their adversaries to drop points to anticipate when, where and how that money would be best spent.
(And how interesting final matchdays would be, if turn-arounds of 10 points or more in one matchday could be possible.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)