TranslateEventsThere are no upcoming eventsOlder StoriesThursday 18-JunFriday 12-JunThursday 11-JunTuesday 09-JunMonday 08-JunThursday 04-JunWednesday 03-JunFriday 22-May |
IC2011 - Divisions
1/1: Assuming around 24 nations, how should IC11 be organised?
Other polls | 125 voters | 21 comments
IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Michael Christiansen on
Thursday, April 15 2010 @ 02:46 pm ACST
Something else.... IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Brett Northey on
Thursday, April 15 2010 @ 11:53 pm ACST
IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Cam Homes on
Friday, April 16 2010 @ 12:00 am ACST
12 in the premier division allows 3 pools of 4 teams each playing each other. Winnner of each pool and best performing 2nd proceeding to finals rounds. or best 8 proceeding to finals round (top 2 in each plus best two 3rd place getters if we want more games). If we look at the likely contenders the top 12 only in the premier division will eliminate most if not all the 200 to zilch results in that division. Remember there were 16 nations in the last IC and we got several of those games. I reckon we must avoid that as much as possible. And it seems quite possible that the teams that were on the receiving end of those games could well be the winners in the 2nd division. They could be taking a cup home at the end of the comp rather than a thorough spanking. I know what I would prefer, you'd have to be the 'M' part of S & M to take the other option, Ha Ha. IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Aaron Richard on
Saturday, April 17 2010 @ 05:09 pm ACST
They also need to make sure the teams can play as great a geographic spread of opponents as possible - if we end up with a lot of European newcomers in division 2, you don't want to see sides come all the way to Melbourne to play against the same teams as they play against in Europe. IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Cam Homes on
Sunday, April 18 2010 @ 11:54 am ACST
Good point Aaron, but that could be a little difficult. Half the nations expressing interest are from Europe, and if we look at the likely 2nd half, the only non-Europeans are China and Fiji and maybe Tonga. Maybe a couple of preliminary rounds(pitting Europeans against non-Europeans) need to be played to see who fits into the lower end of the top tier and who stays in the 2nd tier. All assuming two divisions are the go, of course. IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Troy Thompson on
Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 01:47 pm ACST
Cam, will 2 divisions skew your ranking system? Teams that may have won more games that are on the lower end of Div 1 may be worse off, and teams that are the better teams at the top of div 2 being better off? As I recall more weighting given to IC matches? 3 Divisions even moreso. IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Cam Homes on
Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 02:38 pm ACST
G'day Troy IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Brett Northey on
Tuesday, April 20 2010 @ 07:09 pm ACST
IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Cam Homes on
Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 11:38 am ACST
If the IC11 is run as the previous ones and they continue to have classification rounds as well as finals then by having divisions the difference will be that the "losers" will be losing to different teams. Take the last four last time they were losing to the likes of NZ & PNG as well as the teams just higher than them in ablity, the middle group will be still getting their losses and the odd win against the very bottom teams. Remember China, Finland and Peace team all got in a win. If they are "top" of 2nd div they wiil get more wins and they will be against teams closer to them on the ranking scheme. Their losses won't be against teams much higher(fewer 200 zilch games) and losses that cancel out some of their gains when they win. The lower teams in the top div will get a couple of losses they wouldn't get(if they were still in the middle) but they would be against teams very close in rank so the loss won't hurt as much(smaller points exchanges) IF I can put it in a nut shell, the difference will be wins and losses against a different group of teams but a bigger ratio to teams relatively close in rank. (fewer 2 max exchange games I reckon) IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Cam Homes on
Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 12:22 pm ACST
You might have to read that last comment of mine slowly and a couple of times to get what I'm trying to say:-). IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Aaron Richard on
Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 12:45 pm ACST
Well, I guess we try it and see. It's going to be a work-in-progress at least until after the IC11. As long as we've always got a record of every match that's gone into the table, we can always go back and fiddle with it. IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Brett Northey on
Friday, April 23 2010 @ 12:31 am ACST
IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Brett Northey on
Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 12:51 pm ACST
IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Cam Homes on
Wednesday, April 21 2010 @ 02:56 pm ACST
Yep C might edge above B as you say, but, by reducing the number of 2 max games which we have had plenty in the previous IC's, points exchanges are smaller, might only be 0.2 or 0.5 instead of 2.00. B doesn't get any -2.00's so reducing the likelyhood of dropping below C. If C isn't getting any +2.00's even less likelyhood of climbing above B and because all the teams(half dozen or more) are close in rank then the odd wins that the B's get won't have their rise wiped out by those big 2 max losses. IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: tinka13 on
Saturday, April 24 2010 @ 12:21 am ACST
I prefer 8 - 16 split because I'd hate to see the 12th side get completely smashed by the no 1 or 2 side. PNG and NZ are already well ahead of the others, even no 3 and 4, but no matter what we do, there will be thrashings. To keep it all in prospective, PNG and NZ would get thrashed by any sort of Australian side. So no matter what happens the main focus should be on getting the maximum amount of sides to attend and to make this a successful IC 2011, the AFL should be planning NOW, how they will assist this to happen??? IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Brett Northey on
Saturday, April 24 2010 @ 01:16 pm ACST
IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Eurofooty on
Monday, April 26 2010 @ 11:11 pm ACST
I put this up on BF originally, but though it might generate some more debate/comment here.
If there are in-fact 20+ teams coming.. * A premier division of 16 teams divided into 4 pools, while I realise that only NZ, PNG or SA can realistically win it, I think it is important to have an incentive to make all that effort to come and participate, and compete against the very best teams to gauge improvement since the last tournament * A developing division of the remaining teams, where the top finisher advances automatically to the premier division in IC2014. The developing division could potentially include a quota for long-term permanently based Australians (5 years residency + passport) to assist with squad numbers, quality, experience. This intermediate, flexible step, while not without criticism from some quarters, has been in place with tournaments like the EU Cup since its inception. It has seen a number of teams participate start out initially with some Australian support but are now attending with squads composed entirely of locally developed players, with little drop in competitiveness * All weekend matches in Melbourne to align with the AFL matches. Mid-week games nearby in historical Ballarat - travel by bus or rail. Use proper stadiums and hold games as curtain raisers to VFL / AFL matches, where possible. * Pool games of 4 by 12 minute quarters. This will reduce the potential for blowouts plus help teams even more to back up and play another game every 2nd day. It's sheer endurance to play 5 games in 11 days, and be completely tested in terms of squad depth or decimated by players lost to injury. * Finals matches 4 by 20 minutes. * As a curtain raiser to the final at the MCG, hold a World XVIII match (with the best players selected from the tournament) v Indigenous Australian / Australian or Victorian Amateur (VAFA) representative team, featuring players not in the final. Both for reasons of local publicity and to benchmark the playing standard of international footy is with respect to Australian based amateurs. Plus it would give more participants the MCG experience. If not for 2011, then 2014. * IC11 on TV: Lobby SBS and Foxtel to show key matches live or delayed in Australia. Show matches on Eurosport, ESPN & Australian network particularly with respect to country involvement ie ESPN for US & Canada games, Eurosport for Euro teams etc Atleast live webstreaming and local language commentary of all games at the very minimum to give the folks back home an opportunity to watch and support their nation/players * Find a major event sponsor(s) to help ease some of the operation and on-the-ground costs for the teams! It's costing many of the European teams around €100,000+ to get a squad down to Australia every 3 years, which, unfortunately results in the squad most likely to able to afford to tour, rather than the squad that deserves (based on merit & ability) to tour IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Aaron Richard on
Tuesday, April 27 2010 @ 04:12 pm ACST
Hi Phil, IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Cam Homes on
Tuesday, April 27 2010 @ 04:56 pm ACST
G'day Eurofooty IC2011 - Divisions
Authored by: Brett Northey on
Tuesday, April 27 2010 @ 07:21 pm ACST
Hi Eurofooty, I agree with most of your points, in fact some of us at WFN have argued for many of those points too over the years. In particular:
Where I disagree is a 16 team premier division. As Cam said, that is a recipe for absolute beltings. I know you speak from experience as an official with Sweden in 2008, but there seems to me to be an increasing acceptance by teams in the middle ranks (say 8 to 14) that they can't compete with the very top nations at this stage so why spend those €100,000+ just to get thrashed in 3 or 4 of your 5 games? Our poll seems to indicate that most people are happy with 12 or less teams in the top division. Do you have a feeling for what most of the current Sweden players would like? They're right on the boundary of what might be a dividing line between divisions. If it went top 12 then based on 2008 Sweden would be in - IC08 finishing positions. Similarly our 2008 rankings, assuming no Australian side competes, would have Sweden 12th - World Rankings 2008. I just fear 13th and certainly 16th would just get demolished in every game and it would do more harm to them than good. --- |
Who's OnlineGuest Users: 25What's NewStories2 new Stories in the last 3 daysComments last 3 daysNo new commentsMedia Gallery last 7 DaysNo new media itemsLinks last 2 weeksNo recent new links |
Copyright © 2021 World Footy News All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. |
Hosted courtesy of Ripefruit, supporters of Only Melbourne |
Powered by Geeklog Created this page in 0.11 seconds |