CL Group Stage Draw

[Jarrek]

18:00 CET live on video at http://www.uefa.com/

Pot 1                          coef.     Pot 2                          coef.

------------------------ --- -------     ------------------------ --- -------

AC Milan (TH)            Ita 133.808     Valencia ***             Esp  99.374

FC Barcelona             Esp 119.374     Olympique Lyon           Fra  95.706

Liverpool ***            Eng 112.618     FC Porto                 Por  89.107

Internazionale           Ita 107.808     Sevilla/AEK ***               87.374

Arsenal ***              Eng 104.618     PSV Eindhoven            Ned  81.995

Real Madrid              Esp 104.374     AS Roma                  Ita  78.808

Chelsea                  Eng  99.618     Benfica ***              Por  67.107

Manchester United        Eng  99.618     Werder Bremen ***        Ger  63.640


Pot 3                          coef.     Pot 4                          coef.

------------------------ --- -------     ------------------------ --- -------

Celtic ***               Sco  62.064     Glasgow Rangers **       Sco  47.064

Schalke 04               Ger  60.640     Shakhtar Donetsk **      Ukr  44.726

VfB Stuttgart            Ger  58.640     Besiktas **              Tur  43.791

Steaua Bucuresti **      Rom  55.255     Olympiakos Piraeus       Gre  42.415

CSKA Moscow              Rus  53.920     Dinamo Kiev ***          Ukr  38.726

Sporting CP Lisbon       Por  52.107     Fenerbahçe ***           Tur  36.791

Lazio Roma ***           Ita  51.808     Slavia Praha **          Cze  32.851

Olympique Marseille      Fra  51.706     Rosenborg BK **          Nor  31.509

[Guest Jeffery S.]

Thank the lord Chelsea is now in the first pool, two years of them in the group stage was a bit much.

I would like to get Rosenborg to see Lars and even AEK -tougher as they have to take out Sevilla 3-0 on Monday- to see Tam.

I think given the pools that we are going to see close to all 16 teams in the first two pools go through, with maybe Celtic or one of the pool 3 German sides taking PSV's or Benfica's spot or something like that. But it is the year for the favourites and the ranked teams I think, not a year for suprises.

[Massive Attack]

If AEK manages to upset Sevilla on Monday, both Celtic and Rangers would be screwed, as they could have been one pot higher. Sure, its highly unlikely to happen, and it is an extreme circumstance. But maybe UEFA should have waited until Tuesday to complete the draw, for the fairness of the competition.

[River City]

Interesting draw. For the most part, very even.

Group B looks the toughest with Chelsea, Valencia and Schalke. Group H looks weak as does Group A.

[Jarrek]

Group A

Liverpool

Porto

Marseille

Besiktas

Group B

Chelsea

Valencia

Schalke

Rosenborg

Group C

Real Madrid

Bremen

Lazio

Olympiacos

Group D

Milan

Benfica

Celtic

Shakhtar

Group E

Barcelona

Lyon

Stuttgart

Rangers

Group F

Man United

Roma

Sporting

Dynamo Kyiv

Group G

Inter

PSV

CSKA Moscow

Fenerbahce

Group H

Arsenal

Sevilla/AEK

FC Steaua

Slavia

[Start fan in exile]

Tough draw for Lars Hischfeld and Rosenborg! Lars will get plenty of work throughout the fall and winter... If all players manage to play to their potential and beyond, they might grab 3rd, but I kinda doubt it. I think the most vulnerable of the top three teams in that group is Valencia, as they can be inconsistent.

[SCF08]

Quite a thought there start fan.

I think Rosenborg can be happy if they pick up 3 point out of those 6 fixtures. I personally think they wont get any point at all. Chelski , Valencia and Schalke are just way too strong for a team like Rosenborg.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

I am not at all bursting with confidence about Barça's group. I think we will lose points away, but doubt we will lose unless it is late and we are already qualified. Fortunately the French champion is less dominant this year and the German champ was a bit lucky last year and cannot be considere any stronger than Werder.

I would go so far as to pick the top seed in each group as the eight quarter finalists, changing maybe Sevilla for Arsenal.

[SCF08]

Barca will cruise thru the group.

Rangers arent a good side anymore and Stuttgart are not that strong either. Easy top 2 finish.

I dont fancy Liverpool and Inter getting thru to the QF. I'd pick Valencia and Roma instead.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

If AEK manages to upset Sevilla on Monday, both Celtic and Rangers would be screwed, as they could have been one pot higher. Sure, its highly unlikely to happen, and it is an extreme circumstance. But maybe UEFA should have waited until Tuesday to complete the draw, for the fairness of the competition.

What's unfair is the seeding process as it currently stands. I see third and fourth place finishers who have no business in the Champions League in pot #1, while domestic champs of top notch leagues exist in pots 2 and 3?!? How absurd (not to mention, corrupt)!

Yeah, like we wouldn't want to see any new clubs go far into the competition. Then all those glory-hunting tossers in Asia and North America might have to switch allegiances yet again. [)]

There is no rational reason or fairness behind having clubs like Lyon, PSV and Stuttgart excluded from pot 1, while underachievers like Barca, Arsenal and Liverpool are in pot 1. Money is the only reason. Is that fair?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

What's unfair is the seeding process as it currently stands. I see third and fourth place finishers who have no business in the Champions League in pot #1, while domestic champs of top notch leagues exist in pots 2 and 3?!? How absurd (not to mention, corrupt)!

Yeah, like we wouldn't want to see any new clubs go far into the competition. Then all those glory-hunting tossers in Asia and North America might have to switch allegiances yet again. [)]

There is no rational reason or fairness behind having clubs like Lyon, PSV and Stuttgart excluded from pot 1, while underachievers like Barca, Arsenal and Liverpool are in pot 1. Money is the only reason. Is that fair?

That is one delirious post buddy, are you hallucinating on something? I mean, that is so wild you can't even start to answer it. Are we to take it you are upset because you are a Slavia Prague fan for something?

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

That is one delirious post buddy, are you hallucinating on something? I mean, that is so wild you can't even start to answer it. Are we to take it you are upset because you are a Slavia Prague fan for something?

Well, I'm as much a Slavia Prague fan as you are a Barcelona FC fan. But I digress...

Saying that its dumb to have the 4th place club in England ranked higher than the English champions, French champions, German champions, not to mention the Dutch champions that they lost to last season, is "hallucinating"? That's like giving the best regular season team in the NHL a #8 seed in the playoffs, while awarding the Ottawa Senators a #1 seed in the 2007/8 playoffs even if they are crap during the regular season, because they made the final the previous season.

Yes, I'm fully aware *why* its done like this --> money! It's just remarkable to me when people point out unfairness in AEK's hypothetical #2 seeding as if that's a slap in the face of justice. Yeah, as if all the other seeds are properly allocated. [)]

Anyway, I'm gonna take a nap. Wake me up when the quarterfinals begin with 3-4 English clubs involved plus AC Milan, 1-2 spanish clubs and a couple of sitting ducks from leagues that don't matter (at least not according to UEFA). [V]

[Guest Jeffery S.]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

Well, I'm as much a Slavia Prague fan as you are a Barcelona FC fan. But I digress...

Saying that its dumb to have the 4th place club in England ranked higher than the English champions, French champions, German champions, not to mention the Dutch champions that they lost to last season, is "hallucinating"? That's like giving the best regular season team in the NHL a #8 seed in the playoffs, while awarding the Ottawa Senators a #1 seed in the 2007/8 playoffs even if they are crap during the regular season, because they made the final the previous season.

Yes, I'm fully aware *why* its done like this --> money! It's just remarkable to me when people point out unfairness in AEK's hypothetical #2 seeding as if that's a slap in the face of justice. Yeah, as if all the other seeds are properly allocated. [)]

Anyway, I'm gonna take a nap. Wake me up when the quarterfinals begin with 3-4 English clubs involved plus AC Milan, 1-2 spanish clubs and a couple of sitting ducks from leagues that don't matter (at least not according to UEFA). [V]

Seedings are based on results, and not on results since last Tuesday. As it happens the top 8 seeds are the best 8 sides in the competition, with maybe Sevilla challenging. The next 8 will almost all go through, we'll get something like 14 of the 16 in the top two pools through I think to the knock-out rounds.

It is no different from tennis. If you can't upset someone superior than you in the rankings you can't move up. Just being the champion of Slovakia or Georgia should give you no privileges. Right now, if we had the system you want, it would be an even weaker European Cup than when it started, when there were 15 less countries in Europe and a champion from Yugoslavia or the USSR meant something. Who wants to see weak soccer from mediocre clubs? It only benefits the little guys. Let them beat someone supposedly better than them, like Copenhagen last year and Slavia this with Ajax, and then we'll respecct them.

By the way, where are the darlings of yesteryear, Artmedia, Basel and the like? Flashes in the pan.

Oh, and tell us which league does not work on money, give us an example where success is not tied to it. I mean even in Wales it is fundamental.

[SCF08]

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

What's unfair is the seeding process as it currently stands. I see third and fourth place finishers who have no business in the Champions League in pot #1, while domestic champs of top notch leagues exist in pots 2 and 3?!? How absurd (not to mention, corrupt)!

Yeah, like we wouldn't want to see any new clubs go far into the competition. Then all those glory-hunting tossers in Asia and North America might have to switch allegiances yet again. [)]

There is no rational reason or fairness behind having clubs like Lyon, PSV and Stuttgart excluded from pot 1, while underachievers like Barca, Arsenal and Liverpool are in pot 1. Money is the only reason. Is that fair?

There is something called a Coefficient system. Each team that plays in European Competitions gathers points with every win they make in a European Competition. The fact is that teams like Barcelona , Liverpool gather more points than clubs from smaller countries because they simply have a better team and WIN more matches....

It's the same with tennis. If you win more matches and your higher up the rankings then you are better seeded and you have more chance of playing a lesser opponent...

It's as simple as that. Nothing unfair about it.....just your lack of knowledge that haves you hallucinating..

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by SCF08

There is something called a Coefficient system. Each team that plays in European Competitions gathers points with every win they make in a European Competition.

Please tell me more about this coefficient system. I've never heard of it...

quote:

The fact is that teams like Barcelona , Liverpool gather more points than clubs from smaller countries because they simply have a better team and WIN more matches....

Liverpool wins more matches than Man United? Wow! I was under the impression that United won about 10 leagues since Liverpool last won it. Just goes to show we learn something new everyday in this forum.

quote:

It's the same with tennis. If you win more matches and your higher up the rankings then you are better seeded and you have more chance of playing a lesser opponent...It's as simple as that. Nothing unfair about it.....just your lack of knowledge that haves you hallucinating..

Nope, its not like tennis at all. Who is ignorant about the UEFA coefficient system now?

The UEFA coefficient system ignores about 90% of the matches played. And the WTA doesn't put the same weight on a tennis match played at the Tampa Bay open in 2002 as the ones played during Wimbledon in 2007 to determine the current rankings.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Seedings are based on results,

Not quite. They are based on selected results. They ignore league results yet weigh a UEFA Cup match against Bohemians in 2003 the same as a CL final match from last season. [)]

quote:

and not on results since last Tuesday. As it happens the top 8 seeds are the best 8 sides in the competition, with maybe Sevilla challenging.

So you see nothing wrong with a ranking that puts the 4th place club in England ahead of the league champions of England?

quote:

The next 8 will almost all go through, we'll get something like 14 of the 16 in the top two pools through I think to the knock-out rounds.

That's because the seeding system ensures that all the same clubs go through year after year.

I confess you have a point about the top 8 sides all being in pot 1 this season. But that's more of a fluke that anything else. In previous seasons, Chelsea were even stronger than they are today, yet they were in pot #2. And Man United could've easily wound-up in pot #2 this season using the UEFA system, despite being the best club in Europe last year.

My system (see below) elminates the chance of the champions of a top league getting a low seed.

quote:

It is no different from tennis. If you can't upset someone superior than you in the rankings you can't move up.

Sevilla moved up by beating a bunch of minnows in the UEFA Cup.

And its a lot different than tennis. Do you think the current rankings in this US Open is purely based on US Open results from the previous 5 years (weighed equally, no less), with all other tournaments during that time-frame ignored?

quote:

Just being the champion of Slovakia or Georgia should give you no privileges.

What about being the champions of Germany or France? Or better yet, the English champions get no priviledges ahead of the 4th place club in England? Do the 2004 Arsenal "invincibles" really have anything to do with the 2007/8 side?

quote:

Right now, if we had the system you want, it would be an even weaker European Cup than when it started, when there were 15 less countries in Europe and a champion from Yugoslavia or the USSR meant something. Who wants to see weak soccer from mediocre clubs? It only benefits the little guys. Let them beat someone supposedly better than them, like Copenhagen last year and Slavia this with Ajax, and then we'll respecct them.

If we have the system I want, the seedings will be based on only 2 variables: league ranking from the previous season only, and coefficient of your league.

So my ranking will look like this:

1) Real Madrid (#1 in top rated league)

2) Man United (#1 in second best league)

3) Inter Milan (you get the idea)

4) Lyon

5) Barcelona

6) Chelsea

7) Stuttgart

8) AC Milan (defending champions - automatic top seed)

9) Porto

10) PSV

11) Sevilla

... etc.

quote:Oh, and tell us which league does not work on money, give us an example where success is not tied to it. I mean even in Wales it is fundamental.

Yup, that's just my point. That it's not fair. It works only on money.

[Massive Attack]

amacpher, why stop there then? Why not make the first 2 pots have teams from the top 15 nations plus the title holder? Why should some nations get 2 teams in the first pot? That would seem a lot fairer to me.

The bigger nations could then have their extra teams in Pots 3 and 4, if they qualify.

The current coefficient system isn't perfect, but at least its based on actual results in Europe. Plus, I don't buy the 'its created to perpetuate the stong' argument. Romania has proven that any country and or club can improve. You just need to get the results.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack

amacpher, why stop there then? Why not make the first 2 pots have teams from the top 15 nations plus the title holder? Why should some nations get 2 teams in the first pot?

Well, it was just an example I put up. It all depends how much weight is put on the league coefficient variable in the formula compared to where the club finished in the league variable.

I wouldn't have a problem if the 8 #1 seeds were the league champs from the 7 best countries plus the holder.

quote:

The current coefficient system isn't perfect, but at least its based on actual results in Europe.

Well my formula is based on results in Europe AND the league. Much like the formula used to derive the tennis rankings, if includes all results. If you ignore 90% of the results like UEFA does, you can expect to arrive at a mickey-mouse ranking that puts clubs like Chelsea in pot #2.

Wait until Juventus wins the Italian league and winds up in pot 4 of the draw. That'll help highlight how dumb the UEFA formula is.

quote:

Plus, I don't buy the 'its created to perpetuate the stong' argument. Romania has proven that any country and or club can improve. You just need to get the results.

Let see if Romanian clubs get anywhere in the Champions League. Too early to say.

[SCF08]

Results in the League shouldnt count in EUROPE and the coefficient system works fine.

You cannot compare a league game with a euro game. Both are completely different.

In a European competition results should be based on European games. It's as simple as that even if you dont like it Amacpher.

This is the most fair solution for everyone.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by SCF08

Results in the League shouldnt count in EUROPE and the coefficient system works fine.

You cannot compare a league game with a euro game. Both are completely different.

In a European competition results should be based on European games. It's as simple as that even if you dont like it Amacpher.

This is the most fair solution for everyone.

Well, quite a change of tone from your last post where you wrote "It's the same with tennis... its as simple as that"

As I've shown since then, MY formula is the one that's more or less "the same with tennis" since it includes all results.

I don't buy the argument "In a European competition seedings should be based on European results."

Then why are league results used to determine the clubs that enter the Champions League and when they enter it? e.g. Scottish champs enter at 3rd qualifying round, Scottish #2 club enters at 2nd qualifying round? They are essentially seeding the Scottish clubs based on their league position the previous season. Yet, oddly enough, when it comes to the group stage, they throw that concept to the bin and decide to ignore league position and focus on that 2003 UEFA cup match against Bohemians.

It's inconsistent.

[Guest Jeffery S.]

YOUR formula, I wonder what the chemical composition is.

YOUR formula makes for a much lower quality Champions with weaker matches and poorer play, ensures less money, and if put into place would be the perfect reason for the G-14 to rebel and set up an alternative League of Champions that the majority of fans would be interested in.

Why do you insist on being so literal about the word "Champions", there is absolutely no principle written in stone that says because you won a league in some mediocre footballing country you should be treated with honours over another team that can really play the game. The current system could be retouched, as Platini looks to be doing in fact, but it is way better than having worse teams ranked higher and demoting better ones on some obscure, for me unconvincing principle.

As is, as I say, Barça has an uninteresting group for Champions, so much so that the best football we'll see at Camp Nou this year before February will have to come from the Sevillas, Valencias, Madrids and such in La Liga.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

YOUR formula, I wonder what the chemical composition is.

YOUR formula makes for a much lower quality Champions with weaker matches and poorer play, ensures less money, and if put into place would be the perfect reason for the G-14 to rebel and set up an alternative League of Champions that the majority of fans would be interested in.

I don't know what you are smoking over there, but MY formula determines seedings and doesn't change which 32 clubs are involved in the group stage at all. ( I do think having 4 clubs from one country in the CL is a bit excessive and makes it boring, but that's another debate)

My formula would make for a higher quality knockout stage of the Champions League, since the best clubs will get an easier route to the knockout rounds (the current format doesn't favour the best clubs, it favours the clubs that went furthest in Europe in 2003, 2004, etc. counting a UEFA Cup win as much as a CL win -- sort of like trying to determine the best clubs in England based on league cup results from 5 years ago)

quote:

Why do you insist on being so literal about the word "Champions", there is absolutely no principle written in stone that says because you won a league in some mediocre footballing country you should be treated with honours over another team that can really play the game. The current system could be retouched, as Platini looks to be doing in fact, but it is way better than having worse teams ranked higher and demoting better ones on some obscure, for me unconvincing principle.

No. The current system has worse teams ranked higher and demotes better ones. Do you not see that? They are ranking the English champions lower than England's 4th place finishers. Or am I just "hallucinating " [)]

quote:

As is, as I say, Barça has an uninteresting group for Champions, so much so that the best football we'll see at Camp Nou this year before February will have to come from the Sevillas, Valencias, Madrids and such in La Liga.

That's beacuse the Champions League is overrated. How many classic matches has it produced in the last 5 years?

[Guest Jeffery S.]

All I can say is that a good week in the Champions League, like in the round of 16 legs, you get more football than in an entire World Cup. Club play is far superior to national team play. And Champions league give us great football, it has been a treat and a success. For me it has produced a ton of classic matches, but if you don't follow any team involved you may not have the same feeling.

What would be really nice would be to play the better teams outside of Europe more, I am glad they made the club cup in Japan longer, but here is the one thing I miss: watching a Barça-River or Barça-America or Barça-Sao Paulo at Camp Nou in a competitive game, with something on the line.

[River City]

My pipe dream is that FIFA will one day develop the World Club Cup into a world super league with the best 3 best teams from each confed in the first year, then the bottom 6 teams automatically dropping out and the winner from each confed coming in after that.

[amacpher]

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

All I can say is that a good week in the Champions League, like in the round of 16 legs, you get more football than in an entire World Cup. Club play is far superior to national team play.

Yes, I agree with that. With all the dozens upon dozens of internationals being played in the next 7 days, I'm willing to bet that there aren't more than a handful of real good matches.

OF course the Champions League (and World Club Cup) actually hurt club football. They cause domestic leagues to be less balanced by making the rich richer. I don't deny that I watch the Champions League (although I don't bother with the World Club cup and from what I've heard its never produced a good match ever) as it contains some good football. But European football would be better off without it.