Forget Arsenal for a moment, take Chelsea as an example of how you can make a case the opposite way.
Last season we were CL semi-finalists, following on from winning both the Champions League and Europa in consecutive years before that. If these new rules had already been in place we wouldn't have been among the top seeds this season despite everything we've achieved in Europe, yet City would be?
However, it could be argued that the league is the ultimate gauge of who is the better team. Regardless of past performances, players move in and out of clubs every year. Last season's champions are likely to be a better team than the team from the same country who reached the Champions League semi-finals, but finished third in the league.
Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but what do you guys think of this? Reckon it's better than the current way of doing things where Arsenal are ranked higher than City?
'From the 2015/16 campaign, the holders plus champions from the top seven ranked European nations will be in pot one, meaning club co-efficients will not be taken into account for the top seeds'
At last. A club doing well in the CL a few year's ago shouldn't get a better seeding than a team from the same league who have proved over a whole season that they are a better team currently. The better team get a harder group and the feeble illusion that tie other club are better in Europe continues.
However, it could be argued that the league is the ultimate gauge of who is the better team. Regardless of past performances, players move in and out of clubs every year. Last season's champions are likely to be a better team than the team from the same country who reached the Champions League semi-finals, but finished third in the league.
Not hard and fast, but in general.
The problem with that though is whilst you can gauge teams in the same domestic league, you end up with a situation where the Ukrainian champs have top seed status over the 2nd or 3rd best team in England or Spain who are stronger teams than them.
The problem with that though is whilst you can gauge teams in the same domestic league, you end up with a situation where the Ukrainian champs have top seed status over the likes of the 2nd or 3rd best team in England or Spain who are stronger teams than them.
Which is fine by me. It helps to break up the hegemony.
I've already said, I'd rather that seeding was scrapped altogether. The cream will always rise to the top.
If Chelsea (or whoever) can't beat Bayern Munich and Barcelona in the group stage, the they've been proven to be unworthy of winning the competition, in my opinion.
Which is fine by me. It helps to break up the hegemony.
I've already said, I'd rather that seeding was scrapped altogether. The cream will always rise to the top.
If Chelsea (or whoever) can't beat Bayern Munich and Barcelona in the group stage, the they've been proven to be unworthy of winning the competition, in my opinion.
I agree witn this, that's why I don't really think excuses can be made for City's showing in Europe so far. Whichever system we have the same can be said.
As a Chelsea fan we've qualified from groups with Barca and Bayern in the past so it wouldn't bother me. I just think if we have to have seeding then the present system has more merit overall, but I can also understand why people would prefer a change.
Which is fine by me. It helps to break up the hegemony.
I've already said, I'd rather that seeding was scrapped altogether. The cream will always rise to the top.
If Chelsea (or whoever) can't beat Bayern Munich and Barcelona in the group stage, the they've been proven to be unworthy of winning the competition, in my opinion.
If you go on what would have happened this season though you could say:
If Manchester City (or whoever) can't beat Barcelona in the group stage, they've been proven to be unworthy of winning the competition.
The overall thing is this: it's not going to mean a magic wand is waved and mean any system is perfect. I would suggest that the current system is better than the new system.
As soon as you have a team like Real Mardid draw a top seed like Bayern Munich or Manchester City there will be uproar (guaranteed to happen.)
I agree witn this, that's why I don't really think excuses can be made for City's showing in Europe so far. Whichever system we have the same can be said.
As a Chelsea fan we've qualified from groups with Barca and Bayern in the past so it wouldn't bother me. I just think if we have to have seeding then the present system has more merit overall, but I can also understand why people would prefer a change.
If you go on what would have happened this season though you could say:
If Manchester City (or whoever) can't beat Barcelona in the group stage, they've been proven to be unworthy of winning the competition.
The overall thing is this: it's not going to mean a magic wand is waved and mean any system is perfect. I would suggest that the current system is better than the new system.
I agree. I'm not trying to make 'excuses' for City.
But anyone arguing that Arsenal should automatically be a top seed, considering their relative lack of achievement, whilst City have been 'bobbins' in the Champions League, should really take into account that the current seeding system is also far from fair.
You could say that the current system is fairer though, and that due to Arsenal's consistent record of going further in the competition than many other clubs, and also qualifying for it year after year that they deserve to be top seeds.
Manchester City knew what the current system was, and have only ever got out the group stage once with it.
The idea that Arsenal are some sort of "also-rans" is of course nonsense. They have comfortably qualified every year, and have comfortably got out the group stage every year. They have not ever "scaped" through, ever.
So protecting the 'status quo' is what you two want? Even though the 'status quo' are hugely underwhelming in Europe? Ok.
Only Chelsea are likely to do anything of interest in the Champions League, any time soon.
Nice of you to ignore that Arsenal have done f*ck all in the Champions League, and that City have struggled DUE to their seeding, mind.
I don't want to protect the status quo, I just want to reward those that do well in the competition, it shouldn't be that hard to understand really.
Do well in the Champions League, and your seeding will go up, don't do so well, and it goes down, that is how it should be, yes there should be some level of impact on the seeding if you are coming into this as Champions of your country, but not basically getting a bye to the top group.
You could say that the current system is fairer though, and that due to Arsenal's consistent record of going further in the competition than many other clubs, and also qualifying for it year after year that they deserve to be top seeds.
Manchester City knew what the current system was, and have only ever got out the group stage once with it.
The idea that Arsenal are some sort of "also-rans" is of course nonsense. They have comfortably qualified every year, and have comfortably got out the group stage every year. They have not ever "scaped" through, ever.
I fully agree with what you are saying in this post.
On the subject of Arsenal you could question whether it's right that Dortmund who were finalists as recently as 2013 were ranked below them in the seedings. I think if UEFA were set on adjusting something then a review of the current coefficient points system employed for determining rankings would have been a better move than changing the format altogether for the top seeds.
Forget Arsenal for a moment, take Chelsea as an example of how you can make a case the opposite way.
Last season we were CL semi-finalists, following on from winning both the Champions League and Europa in consecutive years before that. If these new rules had already been in place we wouldn't have been among the top seeds this season despite everything we've achieved in Europe, yet City would be?
Either way is not without flaws, but I think on balance the present system makes more sense overall where teams earn their seeding in Europe itself.
The problem with the current system is its a catch 22 situation - taking Arsenal as an example - they get top seeding, so get easier games, so get a better co-efficient, so keep their top seeding unless they really screw up badly and finish bottom as even by finishing 3rd they still get a chance to add to their co-efficient by dropping into the Europa League.
IMO I think the change is a good one as we might get different sides getting to the knock-out stages for a change - personally I'd go further and just seed the top side and the rest of the group be a random draw with no country protection.
I agree. I'm not trying to make 'excuses' for City.
But anyone arguing that Arsenal should automatically be a top seed, considering their relative lack of achievement, whilst City have been 'bobbins' in the Champions League, should really take into account that the current seeding system is also far from fair.
It might be a while back now, but at least Arsenal can point to the fact that they have reached a Champions League final, what have City got to show as their highlightbin the competition? Getting out of the group stage once, before quickly getting knocked out? Yeah that isn't bobbins at all is it?
The current seeding system is not perfect, but it is far better than what is being brought in, as it rewards teams for doing well in Europe, which is how it should be.
Just incase anyone was wondering the top 7 ranked nations are:
1. Spain
2. England
3. Germany
4. Italy
5. Portugal
6. France
7. Russia
Ukraine are 8th, Netherlands 9th and Belgium 10th.
I think it would be almost ideal if they did it like this:
1. Spanish champions
2. English champions
3. German champions
4. Italian champions
5. Portuguese champions
6. French champions
7. Title holder
8. Highest 5-year coefficient of the remaining teams
If the title holder is one of the top 6 champions, that slot would go the team with the 2nd-highest coefficient.
But I have a feeling that UEFA aren't going to listen to me... >:( ;-)
Nice to see all the closet MC Fans welcoming the change, ignoring the fact that Chelsea & Ars were not seeded in the early years & had to "earn" their seeding, just like MC the last few years should have done. Are they also assuming that they will be PL champions, this (or next) year?
But this is the Champions League, once a competition for the champions of their respective countries. This is why the teams have been champions should have preferential treatment over a team that finished fourth in their domestic league. Whether that is Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea or Burnley. It's a cup competition at the end of the day, why should something you did 5 years ago, with players that don't play for you anymore, be of any relevance to your current situation? Besides, this might shake the fixtures up year after year whereby we're not just getting the same matchups each year. Chelsea may very well win the Premier League this season and would rightfully deserve their place as a top seed even if they happened to get knocked out of the group stage.
Are you seriously suggesting that I don't 'understand' either the current system, or the argument that the seeding system should remain as it is?
What a patronising arse.
Err, hold your horses, where have I been patronising towards you?, I was merely explaining myself and my views on this seeding change.
I think that teams should have to earn the right of being in the top seeding group, by doing well in the tournament in which they are competing in, this change just does anyway with any need to do just that, and gives a bye to teams that might not have done well in it in the past.
Personally I didn't see much wrong with the current system, you should have to earn your right to be in the top pot by doing consistently well, rather than having one good season, like this new way now does.
on the flip side its called the champions league, so maybe champions should get more benefits than those that didnt win their leagues?
champions league shouldn't really be about the past imo
As for your 'point', becoming champions of your domestic league is not getting a 'bye' into the 'top group'.
It's a hard-earned achievement, that deserves reward in terms of seeding, in my opinion.
The current system protects the status quo, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
I said in a previous post on this subject that being Champions coming into this tournament, should hold some weight in the mathematics of working out the seedings, but not this much weight, it has gone far too far one way now.
It is now, no longer about how you fared in the actual tournament that you are competing in, but a different one.
Again, I have praised teams that have become champions of their relevant league, but going as far as UEFA have done, is a step far to far.
The current system protects those that have at least achieved something of note in Europe, could it be changed slightly for the better, yes, but not by quite as much as we are seeing in the new rules.
'Champions' league, there's a clue already. Winning the league takes 38 games of commitment and hard work. Getting out of a relatively easy group year after year after finishing 4th takes about 4.
Saying that I would be happy for the seedings to be removed completely, the way the current draw is done resembles a farce whichever way the seeds are chosen.
But City haven't helped themselves with some of their champions league performances.
Comments
However, it could be argued that the league is the ultimate gauge of who is the better team. Regardless of past performances, players move in and out of clubs every year. Last season's champions are likely to be a better team than the team from the same country who reached the Champions League semi-finals, but finished third in the league.
Not hard and fast, but in general.
At last. A club doing well in the CL a few year's ago shouldn't get a better seeding than a team from the same league who have proved over a whole season that they are a better team currently. The better team get a harder group and the feeble illusion that tie other club are better in Europe continues.
The proposal is far fairer.
The problem with that though is whilst you can gauge teams in the same domestic league, you end up with a situation where the Ukrainian champs have top seed status over the 2nd or 3rd best team in England or Spain who are stronger teams than them.
Which is fine by me. It helps to break up the hegemony.
I've already said, I'd rather that seeding was scrapped altogether. The cream will always rise to the top.
If Chelsea (or whoever) can't beat Bayern Munich and Barcelona in the group stage, the they've been proven to be unworthy of winning the competition, in my opinion.
I agree witn this, that's why I don't really think excuses can be made for City's showing in Europe so far. Whichever system we have the same can be said.
As a Chelsea fan we've qualified from groups with Barca and Bayern in the past so it wouldn't bother me. I just think if we have to have seeding then the present system has more merit overall, but I can also understand why people would prefer a change.
If you go on what would have happened this season though you could say:
If Manchester City (or whoever) can't beat Barcelona in the group stage, they've been proven to be unworthy of winning the competition.
The overall thing is this: it's not going to mean a magic wand is waved and mean any system is perfect. I would suggest that the current system is better than the new system.
As soon as you have a team like Real Mardid draw a top seed like Bayern Munich or Manchester City there will be uproar (guaranteed to happen.)
I agree. I'm not trying to make 'excuses' for City.
But anyone arguing that Arsenal should automatically be a top seed, considering their relative lack of achievement, whilst City have been 'bobbins' in the Champions League, should really take into account that the current seeding system is also far from fair.
Manchester City knew what the current system was, and have only ever got out the group stage once with it.
The idea that Arsenal are some sort of "also-rans" is of course nonsense. They have comfortably qualified every year, and have comfortably got out the group stage every year. They have not ever "scaped" through, ever.
I don't want to protect the status quo, I just want to reward those that do well in the competition, it shouldn't be that hard to understand really.
Do well in the Champions League, and your seeding will go up, don't do so well, and it goes down, that is how it should be, yes there should be some level of impact on the seeding if you are coming into this as Champions of your country, but not basically getting a bye to the top group.
I fully agree with what you are saying in this post.
Well said man
IMO I think the change is a good one as we might get different sides getting to the knock-out stages for a change - personally I'd go further and just seed the top side and the rest of the group be a random draw with no country protection.
It might be a while back now, but at least Arsenal can point to the fact that they have reached a Champions League final, what have City got to show as their highlightbin the competition? Getting out of the group stage once, before quickly getting knocked out? Yeah that isn't bobbins at all is it?
The current seeding system is not perfect, but it is far better than what is being brought in, as it rewards teams for doing well in Europe, which is how it should be.
I think it would be almost ideal if they did it like this:
1. Spanish champions
2. English champions
3. German champions
4. Italian champions
5. Portuguese champions
6. French champions
7. Title holder
8. Highest 5-year coefficient of the remaining teams
If the title holder is one of the top 6 champions, that slot would go the team with the 2nd-highest coefficient.
But I have a feeling that UEFA aren't going to listen to me... >:( ;-)
I wouldn't call winning the Premier League having not done anything
Are you seriously suggesting that I don't 'understand' either the current system, or the argument that the seeding system should remain as it is?
What a patronising arse.
Err, hold your horses, where have I been patronising towards you?, I was merely explaining myself and my views on this seeding change.
I think that teams should have to earn the right of being in the top seeding group, by doing well in the tournament in which they are competing in, this change just does anyway with any need to do just that, and gives a bye to teams that might not have done well in it in the past.
Right here:
As for your 'point', becoming champions of your domestic league is not getting a 'bye' into the 'top group'.
It's a hard-earned achievement, that deserves reward in terms of seeding, in my opinion.
The current system protects the status quo, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Why on earth should teams be seeded for what they achieved 5 years ago?
on the flip side its called the champions league, so maybe champions should get more benefits than those that didnt win their leagues?
champions league shouldn't really be about the past imo
I said in a previous post on this subject that being Champions coming into this tournament, should hold some weight in the mathematics of working out the seedings, but not this much weight, it has gone far too far one way now.
It is now, no longer about how you fared in the actual tournament that you are competing in, but a different one.
Again, I have praised teams that have become champions of their relevant league, but going as far as UEFA have done, is a step far to far.
The current system protects those that have at least achieved something of note in Europe, could it be changed slightly for the better, yes, but not by quite as much as we are seeing in the new rules.
Saying that I would be happy for the seedings to be removed completely, the way the current draw is done resembles a farce whichever way the seeds are chosen.
But City haven't helped themselves with some of their champions league performances.