quote:

Originally posted by Saviola:

Oh no not the ******* pass completion rate again?!!

What's wrong with it?

It's a valid point.

It's the first time in History that a team not in the top 8 pass completion rate had won the tournament!

Greece were 15th on the list, for crying out loud!

It does seem rather unfair, but unless the really weak teams are forced to play off for the right to compete in the qualifiers proper (also potentially unfair, as it will reduce revenue, number of games they play, etc, etc) FIFA are always going to have this problem unless three new nations are created so that you can add an extra six-team group. This would then require tinkering with the best second place/play-offs system, unless FIFA awarded an extra place to Europe, which they won't because of the fact that the African and Asian nations want more places.

I suppose that something creative could be done - like making Israel play in the correct group, never mind the politics, and perhaps noting that Kazakhstan and Armenia both have longer borders with nations that are not in UEFA and moving their affiliation (which would be to their benefit, as they might stand a better chance of qualifying). However, that's all terribly complicated.

There is, though, a much neater alternative as far as FIFA & UEFA are concerned - and this is for three nations to lose their football teams. Hey presto! Equally sized qualifiying groups... See why FIFA want a unified British team?

The only really fair solution to this is for all eight second placed sides to have play offs. With eight sides, you'd simply have two groups of four and the winners of each group (done by knock-out, of course, not a proper group format) would go through. Which would also add some meaning to the England v Poland game...

quote:

The only really fair solution to this is for all eight second placed sides to have play offs. With eight sides, you'd simply have two groups of four and the winners of each group (done by knock-out, of course, not a proper group format) would go through. Which would also add some meaning to the England v Poland game...

I can't see why that doesn't happen .Dave., that would be the fairest option available.

When Scotland qualified for France 1998 as best 2nd placed team, only results against 1st, 3rd and 4th placed teams were considered.

That's also fair, although I seem to recall that this was criticised since it meant that (in effect) four of the games were totally pointless affairs.

With seven team groups, if you go on the basis that only the results against the 1st, 3rd and 4th teams count, then it could be that half the matches have absolutely no bearing on the decision as to who goes to the World Cup as the second placed side - which seems less than ideal.

Possible the fairest system would be to include all the second placed teams in a draw for Play Off matches/Outright Qualification.

This doesn't seem any less fair than comparing performances in totally different groups.

Who the **** cares about "pass completion rate", for God's sake?! It doesn't mean a thing.
A team could end a game with a 100% pass completion rate, doesn't mean they've necessarily scored a goal - and that's what wins you football games. It's strange you still haven't grasped this concept, Ron.

Agree with MLV.

Pass completion rate means nothing. I imagine their % of successful tackles, headers and interceptions was vastly superior to most teams. They won the tournament by abiding by the laws of the game.

Football has become stat crazy, which is fine for the anorak viewer. However, at the end of the day, the only stat that matters is the goals scored, goals conceded stat. Everything else is totally irrelevant.

Take the FA Cup final last season as a prime example. I'm sure that, had I been bothered to read the countless stats that were availble after the game, I'd have read that Man United were ahead in the majority of them. Unfortunately, Arsenal were slightly better at taking penalties and went home with the silverware. We were left the the "Hard Luck but Opta says you were better than them" certificate.

So true.

How many times have you heard "if it was a boxing match it would have been stopped"?

quote:

Originally posted by MICHAEL_LA_VIOLA:
Who the **** cares about "pass completion rate", for God's sake?! It doesn't mean a thing.
A team could end a game with a 100% pass completion rate, doesn't mean they've necessarily scored a goal - and that's what wins you football games. It's strange you still haven't grasped this concept, Ron.

No, I've grasped that concept.

I am using it in a different context. I only bring that pass completion rate arguement to demonstrate that Greece were fortunate to win the tournament.

How many times would a team get away with passing so poorly? That's my point.

I know that at the end of the day, the result is all that matters. I know that.

eh?

quote:

Striker Michael Owen believes only Brazil are better equipped than England to lift the World Cup next summer.

Looking towards Germany 2006, Owen told The Sun: "We will go there with a squad that, apart from Brazil maybe, I am sure is not bettered.

We have to start playing like contenders for the World Cup."

Owen admits that the side hasn't played well but still...delusions of grandeur! Any squad can be impressive on paper but the team has to be impressive when it plays. England haven't impressed me since Terry Venables was the manager Anyway...i don't think the England squad is that impressive on paper...the back-up players are toilet

I don't know what Owen is talking about, if he is talking about ability on paper then how can he think England are BETTER than Spain?

Anyway, I hope England do well. I do like them.

quote:

How many times would a team get away with passing so poorly?

Well it happened three times out of three in the knock-out stages!
And it must have worked in the qualifying too, since they finished ahead of "your" lot.

You can pass and pass and pass and not go anywhere. France, the Czechs and Portugal tried to pass Greece off the park...but in 270+ minutes, they didn't manage to score past Greece.

Ok, fair enough.

Just ask you to respect my opinion, that's it.

I think Greece did deserve it based on their defensive performances, but I also think they were very lucky. Just my opinion really.

Unusually, I do half-respect your opinion on this matter, because I can see where you're coming from.........that is, until you start bringing meaningless statistics into it.
You're still wrong though.

I don't think so.

Going back to England...

I just wish the F.A would sack Sven now, it's not that I have a problem with Sven as I think he's a good coach, but I just feel he isn't the right man to get the best out of this world-class crop of talent that England have. Just leave now, Sven. You've done your job getting England to the WC Finals, but I think somebody else should be given the chance to make it work and put the pieces together.

I would love if it Jose Mourinho somehow got the job, it's not like he has to worry about much come January anyway, judging by how things in the EPL are coming along.

With Mourinho in charge, England would be the favourites IMO. Just give him a one-year contract, whatever. He has adjusted to the British way of life and their football philosophy.

Problem there, Ron, is that the England players quite like Sven, and would probably have a bit of a sulk (bar Lampard, Terry and SWP) if your plan came to fruition. And, of course, Mr Abramovich would simply quadruple Mourinho's salary making moving would even less attractive than it would be in the first place.

Also, the FA wouldn't be able to afford a decent replacement if they sacked Sven, since they'd have to pay a severance fee that's ludicrously large. SGE isn't going to resign, so if the FA want a new man in charge, they're going to have to find about £4 million (it could be £8 million, I forget) to get rid of Sven, and then the money to compensate a club for taking their manager plus the salary. Of course, they could always re-appoint Howard Wilkinson, but that might be a slightly retrograde step.

I watched some of Czech v Holland today and saw Rude Ruud VN have a sly stamp on someone's ankle. The latter did fly in with a potentially deadly tackle, it has to be said, but Rude appeared to have a have a go back, or it could've been just an accident, I'm not sure.

Anyway, Ruud's looking good this season largely - goals, fouls, and he's just warming up!

I thought the severance fee was about £10M - £11M as he's on £4M per year and is contracted until June 2008. I can't see why, if you're sacked for being rubbish, you shouldn't be entitled to a penny.

If I suddenly became písh at my job and carried this on for a couple of months, my CEO isn't going to say "We'll have to let you go because you're just not performing. The board all agree. Anyway, seeing as you probably would have stayed here for another 4 years, here's £***,000".

Unless I'm missing something, perhaps?