Ross-Kemp Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 After listening to Five-live's radio coverage, Alan green made a very valid point. Should smaller nations i.e Andorra, san marino, luxemburg have to play each other to see who enters the main qualifying stage. Because Andorra had no intention of playing football tonight, they just shut up shop for 90 Minutes. Any thoughts on this ?
LeeCovFox Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 After listening to Five-live's radio coverage, Alan green made a very valid point.Should smaller nations i.e Andorra, san marino, luxemburg have to play each other to see who enters the main qualifying stage. Because Andorra had no intention of playing football tonight, they just shut up shop for 90 Minutes. Any thoughts on this ? It's a question which has been raised before, and there are arguments for and against. Would these sides have any chance of improving if they do not play against better sides? Or is getting stuck in the habit of losing against the more established nations detrimental to their development? I honestly don't know, but it is an interesting thought.
JakeShingler Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 Yes i think they should else its just a waste of time money etc for the bigger clubs ie England.
LeeCovFox Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 Yes i think they should else its just a waste of time money etc for the bigger clubs ie England. Money doesn't come into it. I don't care how much money is spent to be honest, I care about the football. The issue is whether such a move would make the smaller nations more competitive, not whether the bigger nations are arrogant enough to think playing anybody less established than themselves is worthy of their time.
Ross-Kemp Posted 6 September 2008 Author Posted 6 September 2008 It's a question which has been raised before, and there are arguments for and against.Would these sides have any chance of improving if they do not play against better sides? Or is getting stuck in the habit of losing against the more established nations detrimental to their development? I honestly don't know, but it is an interesting thought. Andorra havn't improved, they have now played England 3 times, and are still Sh*t
Corky Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 I think pre-qualifying would be a good idea. It can't be very nice for players of Andorra and San Marino to play big countries and get beaten 7,8, 9-0 or whatever. Andorra offered nothing tonight apart from trying to stop England. It's not what football should be about. Yes, bring in pre-qualifying.
act smiley Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 No - just look at the Champions League. Its fine as it is, and to be honest if a team can't down Andorra or whoever, then they should be in a Pre-Qualifying tournament too.
JakeShingler Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 Money doesn't come into it. I don't care how much money is spent to be honest, I care about the football. The issue is whether such a move would make the smaller nations more competitive, not whether the bigger nations are arrogant enough to think playing anybody less established than themselves is worthy of their time. True but....
James. Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 You can fit the population of Andorra in Wembley. They are never going to be good, there's no point in them being in the main qualifying. In any case getting beat by England once a year is not going to make them any better. A competitive game against Leichtenstein would at least make them play something resembling football.
Ross-Kemp Posted 6 September 2008 Author Posted 6 September 2008 San marino lost 13-0 to Germany last year Please tell me how the fook that will make them better ?
JakeShingler Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 You can fit the population of Andorra in Wembley. They are never going to be good, there's no point in them being in the main qualifying. In any case getting beat by England once a year is not going to make them any better. A competitive game against Leichtenstein would at least make them play something resembling football. This does not mean a thing England are way smaller than China but much better so....
LeeCovFox Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 San marino lost 13-0 to Germany last yearPlease tell me how the fook that will make them better ? I'm not suggesting that it would. Read my post, I simply asked a question, then raised another one to counter it.
Ross-Kemp Posted 6 September 2008 Author Posted 6 September 2008 You can fit the population of Andorra in Wembley. They are never going to be good, there's no point in them being in the main qualifying. In any case getting beat by England once a year is not going to make them any better. A competitive game against Leichtenstein would at least make them play something resembling football. Spot on, Completley agree
James. Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 This does not mean a thing England are way smaller than China but much better so.... That's a rubbish argument. Think about it.
JakeShingler Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 That's a rubbish argument. Think about it. Is true though
Ross-Kemp Posted 6 September 2008 Author Posted 6 September 2008 I see where Jakes coming from but no
James. Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 Is true though First of all comparing a country with 1.3 billion people to a country with 60 million people is not the same as comparing a country of 60 million people to a country with 71,000 people. Second the national sport of China is table tennis. I can go on but surely you see the point.
dandannieldanok Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 No, it's fine as it is. If Andorra want to keep 11 men behind the ball then so be it, teams like England should learn to break them down.
Alexikokopops Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 They've only won one competitive game in over ten years. Surely it can't benefit them get raped every time they play football?
dandannieldanok Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 They've only won one competitive game in over ten years. Surely it can't benefit them get raped every time they play football? It's surely better than not playing at all, plus it helps the economy of these tiny countries.
act smiley Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 A better comparison would be Azerbaijan having a higher population than Denmark. Iceland has a quarter of the people Wales does, yet they've got a reasonable side.
Corky Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 No, it's fine as it is. If Andorra want to keep 11 men behind the ball then so be it, teams like England should learn to break them down. England aren't a good marker, we are an overrated, average international team. Against Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain they normally lose 7-0 or scores like this. It can't be good or healthy.
davieG Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 It's surely better than not playing at all, plus it helps the economy of these tiny countries. Pre-qualifying would give thme games and surely their economy would benefit if the games were suitable for playing in their own country?
Alexikokopops Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 It's surely better than not playing at all, plus it helps the economy of these tiny countries. Well they would play, just against teams of similar level. And I'm not sure how much it helps their economy when Andorra are having to play their matches in a different country.
Alexikokopops Posted 6 September 2008 Posted 6 September 2008 Pre-qualifying would give thme games and surely their economy would benefit if the games were suitable for playing in their own country? Well they would play, just against teams of similar level. And I'm not sure how much it helps their economy when Andorra are having to play their matches in a different country. Well said pretty much the same thing
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.