Euro 2012

[Thommybhoy]

Just realized something.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankin ... index.html</a>

OK, FIFA rankings are often ridiculous, but according to them Europe has 8 teams in top 10 (Uruguay and Argentina are other 2)
And 7 of those 8 teams where drawn into groups B (Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands & Denmark) and C (Spain, Italy & Croatia) at Euros.
Only England out of top 10 was in group D.
Terrible seeding for the draw...

 

[fabo]

Why is Yakubu in this discussion?

For me, Henry > Eto'o > Zlatan.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOzSMAxbKc&feature=g-all-lik" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Casillas asking the refs not to play injury time out of respect for Italy. Classy guy to be fair.

Yup, he was right and I'm glad it happened. There's no need to carry on the game at that point.

 

[GDeep™]

Eto'o pips Ibra for me, 3 Champions League Medals - first goal scorer in two of those victories.

True, but Ibrahimovic has won eight consecutive league titles (2004-2011). Eto'o can't beat that.

3 European Cups, 4 Domestic Titles and being the first player in history to do back to back trebles with 2 different teams out weigh's Zlatans run of 8 straight titles, quite comfortably.

 

[jones]

Not an easy comparison. Zlatan is the better creator and probably a little better with the ball to his feet, while Eto'o is one of the world's best finishers and has ridiculous pace. If I had both in my team, I'd play Ibra as SS with Eto'o up front.

If it's about titles then, as GDeep pointed out, Eto'o's back to back trebles can't be matched by anyone on the whole planet, think he's not only the first but the only player to ever do that.

 

[future heroes]

Just realized something.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankin ... index.html</a>"

OK, FIFA rankings are often ridiculous, but according to them Europe has 8 teams in top 10 (Uruguay and Argentina are other 2)
And 7 of those 8 teams where drawn into groups B (Germany, Portugal, the Netherlands & Denmark) and C (Spain, Italy & Croatia) at Euros.
Only England out of top 10 was in group D.
Terrible seeding for the draw...

The only terrible thing in your post is that your conclusions is based on a lack of research. It is not logical to criticise the Euro 2012 seeding based on the current FIFA ranking (released on July 4 2012 after Euro 2012, which means that it takes the results from Euro 2012 into consideration) when in fact the Euro 2012 draw was held in November 2011 and the seeding and thus pot placements of the qualified teams in the draw for Euro 2012 were based on the 16 November 2011 UEFA National team coefficient ranking.

The coefficients calculated for Euro 2012 were found by averaging:
- 40% of the average points per game, earned in the 2012 Euro qualifying stage.
- 40% of the average points per game, earned in the 2010 World Cup qualifying stage and final tournament.
- 20% of the average points per game, earned in the 2008 Euro qualifying stage and final tournament.

These were the seeding pots based on stats from actual results in competitive games:
Pot 1 : Spain, Netherlands
Pot 2: Germany, Italy, England, Russia
Pot 3: Croatia, Greece, Portugal, Sweden
Pot 4: Denmark, France, Czech Republic, Republic of Ireland
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/competitions/Draws/01/71/66/36/1716636_DOWNLOAD.pdf

Poland and Ukraine were automatically placed in the first pot as hosting nations. The host nation(s) is (are) always placed in the first seeding pot. The same thing happened with relatively weak host nations like Belgium in 2000 and Austria/Switzerland in 2008. You may call it "unfair" but it is the default state of the tournament seeding.

At the draw, the highest ranked teams from Pot 1 (Spain and Netherlands) were paired with the highest ranked teams from Pot 2 (Germany and Italy). That only happened due to chance (unless one thinks that the draw was rigged but that has nothing to do with the seeding). There is an equal probability that Russia would have been paired with Spain instead of Italy.

In the seeding pots mentioned above, the teams are written in order with the highest ranked team being written first. Consequently Croatia was the best ranked team and Greece the second best from Pot 3. Denmark was the best ranked team from Pot 4. Once again, it was only chance that placed Spain (the best ranked team in Pot 1), Italy (the second best ranked team in Pot 2), Croatia (the best ranked team in Pot 3) and Denmark (the best ranked team in Pot 4) in the same group.

It is important to notice that the Uefa coefficent ranking is based on actual results. It does not matter that it is obvious to everyone that Portugal is a better team than Greece. That is only a subjective opinion whereas the objective Uefa ranking placed Greece above Portugal.

To conclude - there was nothing wrong with the seeding at all. Your criticism misses the target completely because you criticise a seeding from November 2011 by backing it up with a ranking in July 2012 that takes the result from the tournament in question into consideration. That is just absurd and defies logic plus common sense.

The only valid criticism at all about the seeding is that the host nations are seeded in the first pot, but that was hardly unique for this tournament as it happens every time.

Chance and only chance made group B and C that strong, but chance at a draw is not a penomenon that is open to criticism.

 

[Thommybhoy]

Not sure if you are trolling. Post is too long for that.

FIFA rankings November 2011:
1 Spain 1564 0
2 Netherlands 1365 0
3 Germany 1345 0
4 Uruguay 1309 0
5 England 1173 0
6 Brazil 1143 0
7 Portugal 1100 0
8 Croatia 1091 0
9 Italy 1082 0
10 Argentina 1067 0
11 Denmark 1035 0

Not a big difference, is there?
Denmark should not have been in 4th seed.
And I find it more and more annoying that home teams get first seed. Just because it has always been like that doesn't mean it should continue to be.
Some time ago defending champions didn't have to qualify, now they do.
Home teams as hosts made sence when there was only one host, but now we tend to have 2 teams that would most likely fail to even qualify as 1st seeds and they have half of 1st seed positions at Euros.

 

[say yes]

Not an easy comparison. Zlatan is the better creator and probably a little better with the ball to his feet, while Eto'o is one of the world's best finishers and has ridiculous pace. If I had both in my team, I'd play Ibra as SS with Eto'o up front.

If it's about titles then, as GDeep pointed out, Eto'o's back to back trebles can't be matched by anyone on the whole planet, think he's not only the first but the only player to ever do that.

Eto'o is also the ultimate big game player, whilst Ibra is characterised (often unfairly I feel) as your standard big game bottler.

 

[future heroes]

Not sure if you are trolling. Post is too long for that.

If you actually took the time to read my post it would be very obvious to you that my post is informative. Instead you chose to counter my post with a oneliner on the theme "I'm not sure if he is trolling", an unnecessary response that is both childish and uncalled for.

FIFA rankings November 2011:
1 Spain 1564 0
2 Netherlands 1365 0
3 Germany 1345 0
4 Uruguay 1309 0
5 England 1173 0
6 Brazil 1143 0
7 Portugal 1100 0
8 Croatia 1091 0
9 Italy 1082 0
10 Argentina 1067 0
11 Denmark 1035 0

Not a big difference, is there?

In my previous post I strongly questioned the logic of criticising the Euro 2012 seeding (as the seeding was made in November 2011) based on a FIFA ranking released after Euro 2012. Now you present the FIFA ranking released in November 2011 which is a much more pragmatic way to look at it. At a closer look the top11 on the FIFA ranking November 2011 and the FIFA ranking July 2012 both contain the same teams, just in a different order.

However, the FIFA ranking is totally irrelevant (even when it is from the right month) as the Euro 2012 draw and seeding were based on the UEFA National team coefficient ranking. I repeat: the UEFA National team coefficient ranking - NOT the FIFA ranking. I tried to stress this fact and notice you on this in the first paragraph of my post above by putting this information in bolded text.

The FIFA ranking and the UEFA National team coefficient ranking are both based on teams earning ranking points with their results, but the ranking points earned are calculated in different ways. One example is that the FIFA ranking includes friendlies, the UEFA National team coefficient ranking does not.

In the end it won't matter which of the two rankings you prefer or find the "truest", only the UEFA National team coefficient ranking matters to the Euro's seeding. Denmark would have been placed in the 3rd seed if they had performed better than one of Russia or Greece or Sweden during the competitive matches that the 16 November 2011 UEFA National team coefficient ranking was based on (see the second paragraph in my post above). Denmark was and should have been in the 4th seed, that is actually nothing to argue about.

And I find it more and more annoying that home teams get first seed. Just because it has always been like that doesn't mean it should continue to be.
Some time ago defending champions didn't have to qualify, now they do.
Home teams as hosts made sence when there was only one host, but now we tend to have 2 teams that would most likely fail to even qualify as 1st seeds and they have half of 1st seed positions at Euros.

Everyone knows the conditions when the draw is made. If a team wanted a better seed, it should had delivered better results.

Host teams getting the first seed may change in the future although I doubt it. It is a football political issue.

With a fair seed purely based on results and no advantage for host nations, Ukraine would have been ranked 15 and Poland 16 at the seed. Germany/Italy, Croatia/Greece and Denmark/France would all have moved up one step to a better seeding group. If that was your actual criticism in your 10:28 am-post above, then you should have targeted this instead of referring to an irrelevant FIFA ranking. A seed without host nation advantage benefits the 8 highest ranked teams and disbenefits the 8 lowest ranked teams. Croatia for example could have been placed in a group with Spain, Denmark and one of Czech Republic/Ireland/Poland/Ukraine.

On the other hand, there would be less incitement for the likes of Poland and Ukraine to host a Euro if the seed is set up so that they are almost certain to get embarrassed by teams that all are superior. With the current seed system, no host nation is embarrassed unless they are really really terrible. It is in the interest of the tournament that the host nations don't go home with 1-2, 1-3, 0-4 in the group stage.

You may call it unfair, but in the end it benefits football when the population in countries such as Poland and Ukraine can feel proud for hosting the Euro's and also unite around their national teams. To avoid both an unfair seed and weak host teams getting embarrassed in the group stage (which would affect the atmosphere around the tournament in a negative way), the only alternative would be to have a pool of Spain, Germany, Italy, England and France (teams that traditionally are strong and have the infrastructure to arrange the Euro's alone) who rotate in arranging the Euro's. That would be far from ideal.

For Croatia and Denmark (and teams in a similar situation), there will be a new chance in the World Cup, the next Euro, the World Cup after that etc. For the population of the host nation Ukraine, the tournament was a memory for life and they could actually feel proud of their NT.

At the end of the day, you will never have a reason to complain about "a terrible seeding" if you take your chances and get the necessary results to qualify.

 

[Cudareli]

Ibrahimovic > Eto'o for me, although I can understand why people think otherwise. The rest I agree with.

they have distinctly different styles tbh. to each his own, but ibra can carry a team, eto'o makes a decent team much better by goals at the very least.

Spot on.

 

[outlaw_member]

Eto'o is my favourite striker after Henry, and is the archetypal CF for me. Fast, great movement and a top finisher, just how I like them. If I were to form my own team, I'd always go after a striker like him, or the old Torres to lead my line. I really do dislike the slow link-up orientated CF's that we seem to favour these days. However, Ibrahimovic just has more in his locker, and is the superior footballer.

 

[Dokaka]

Ibrahimovic to me is really the complete forward. He's got no weaknesses other than his rather mental persona.

He's basically everything everyone hoped Bendtner would become.

 

[Tranquil]

Ibrahimovic is without doubt an amazing striker. But there is something about him that makes him extremely easy to dislike.

As outlaw said, I also prefer the quick, movement oriented forwards ala Henry, Eto'o, Torres. They do however seem to be getting more and more rare at the top level.

 

[clockwork orange]

Van Gaal has been appointed as new Holland manager.

 

[darkgunner]

Ibrahimovic can be arrogant at times, which does make him a bit unlikeable. But he is one of the best strikers I have ever seen, he might be underrated at times, but he's quality.

 

[Jury]

Ibrahimovic to me is really the complete forward. He's got no weaknesses other than his rather mental persona.

He's basically everything DJ Markstar hoped Bendtner would become.

Amended.

 

[GG8]

I read yesterday that of the four players facing disciplanry hearings from the French Football association only M'Vila was going to turn up. Menez was in the US and Nasri and Ben Arfa declined to attend.

Just seen the following on the live news feed on Goal.com:

Reports of some serious drama reaching Goal.com tower's via French radio station RMC, with the father and agent of Newcastle's Hatem Ben Arfa coming to blows and scrapping outside the French FA HQ.

"You stole my son," Ben Arfa senior reportedly shouted - Yikes!

What is going on with French football these days

 

[leo_ense]

I read yesterday that of the four players facing disciplanry hearings from the French Football association only M'Vila was going to turn up. Menez was in the US and Nasri and Ben Arfa declined to attend.

Just seen the following on the live news feed on Goal.com:

Reports of some serious drama reaching Goal.com tower's via French radio station RMC, with the father and agent of Newcastle's Hatem Ben Arfa coming to blows and scrapping outside the French FA HQ.

"You stole my son," Ben Arfa senior reportedly shouted - Yikes!

What is going on with French football these days

:| So many despicable French players these days, glad Arsenal have got 3 of the good ones in Giroud, Koscielny and Sagna

 

[jerome2158]

Wouldn't nasri be in China with man city right now? That would make attending a hearing mightily inconvenient.

I'm not sure what to think of nasri for France. He's undeniably good for them on the pitch, but he's an absolute pain in the ass everywhere else.

The rest of the suspensions, from what I gather, are more a case of the FFF putting their foot down and demanding respect from their players towards their coaches and captain. That's been the major problem all along, the '87 generation has some brilliant players, but they all have huge egos. They lack professionalism.

Except maybe Benzema. He seems relatively good at keeping his head down and doing work.

Blanc did a pretty good job of keeping them in check, but i think he completely lost control during the spain match because he was overwhelmed. From what I've read, Deschamps has a bit of a history of ruling with an iron fist. So either more clashes to come, or absolutely none of this.

 

[mo50]

"You stole my son," Ben Arfa senior reportedly shouted - Yikes!