Mexico - 1st June - Travel/Accomm/General chat

^ reading that actually, I hope MON puts out a strong team against Iceland, that game will f**k both of our rankings but if we win (and of course they lose) then its a plus for us in making up ground on them. (ground that we'll weakly hand back to them in the USA on June 1st but still).

rolo wrote: Likely playoff teams, in brackets are the world rankings for March 2017 which will be published by FIFA on 9th March. Ive included Ireland as well, to see how we'd fare out if the draw was tomorrow. Spain (10)/Italy (15) Switzerland (11)/Portugal (8) Holland (21)/Sweden (45) Iceland (22) Ireland (23) Slovenia (58)/Slovakia (25) Northern Ireland (35)/Czech Republic (42)/Azerbaijan (89) Bosnia (29)/Greece (46) Group who look likely to miss out (can change): Romania (39)/Denmark (48)/Montenegro (64) Seeds Spain (10)/Italy (15) Switzerland (11)/Portugal (8) Holland (21) Iceland (22) Unseeded Ireland (23) Slovenia (58)/Slovakia (25) Northern Ireland (35)/Czech Republic (42)/Azerbaijan (89) Bosnia (29)/Greece (46) OR less likely: (if sweden finish ahead of Holland) Seeds Spain (10)/Italy (15) Switzerland (11)/Portugal (8) Iceland (22) Ireland (23) Unseeded Sweden (45) Slovenia (58)/Slovakia (25) Northern Ireland (35)/Czech Republic (42)/Azerbaijan (89) Bosnia (29)/Greece (46) So as it stands we are set to miss out on a seeding by ONE world ranking position. We are also just two places behind one of the other likely seeds, and just two places ahead of one of the likely unseeded teams. It's neck and neck. It will go down to the wire. We can help ourselves by improving our ranking though.   Now, what has this got to do with the Mexico match?  Well, even if you win a friendly game, it lowers your average, because its worth so few points. To simplify it, imagine you had a system where you had 10 points for each of ten competitive games, so 100 points over 10 games, thats obviously an average of 10 points per game. Now, throw in an extra game, a non-competitive game, worth say, 4 points, so now we're calculating an average over 11 games. So that's 104 points, divided by 11. That's an average of 9.45454545.  That's a very simplified way of showing how your average ranking score gets skewed by a silly, meaningless, money-grabbing exercise, flying across the Atlantic ocean and back to play a friendly game against Mexico in the United States of America (three days before we play another friendly which has already been organised against high quality opposition, another game which unfortunately will skew our average even further, and these points aren't easy to get back). I've no time for hypothetical this and hypothetical that, the maths are the maths.

First of all, just as an aside, I've put all the hypothetical and theoretical bits in bold in your post, along with your last comment. There is plenty of "hypothetical this and hypothetical that" in your post and you clearly spent quite a bit of time on it too; to say you have no time for hypotheticals is, frankly, a little disingenuous, particularly in light of the number of hypotheticals in your post. The maths, on a more fundamental basis, in terms of who actually makes the playoffs and who qualifies for the tournament, quite clearly depends on the outcome of the qualifying games between now and October, and the Mexico game may (potentially) have some benefit in this (for the reasons outlined below).

Now, just to be clear again, I'm not disagreeing with your maths and the potential for this game to cost us a seeding. We'd all agree that the Mexico game is *almost certain* to have an adverse effect on our ranking. However, the potential for it to make a difference, *if* we make the playoffs, and *if* we miss out on seeding because of the effect of this game, is a different matter. And, having said that, *if* we end up in that exact position and lose in the playoffs, it is also entirely hypothetical to say that we would have made it *if* we'd been seeded (much and all as everyone accepts that an easier draw increases our chances of qualifying, and being seeded increases our chances of an easier draw). It would also be entirely hypothetical to say that the Mexico game was the only reason for our failure to be seeded: hell, if we beat Austria, we may only make the playoffs in the first place because of the match fitness given by the Mexico game! Also, if we are seeded fifth of eight ultimately, we could equally draw the team seeded fourth, just as the reverse could happen if we are seeded fourth in which case the effect of seeding out be limited (although of course there is the home-leg-second advantage to being seeded too).

I'm just not sure the Mexico game will *necessarily* have an adverse effect on our chances of qualifying; it may well have a positive effect, for the reasons set out below. The chances of qualifying do not directly correlate with our ranking points, remember.

If it gives a few more players a bit more game time ahead of the Austria game, and we can call on them during that game to help us to victory, there's an argument to be made that the Mexico game will have helped us. Indeed, if we use it to give players game time together or practice certain formations and tactics, it may well help our regular players too. Actual qualifying group points count more than ranking points. The Mexico game is about more than just money. A trip away could also help improve squad togetherness and morale (which is already high, and there's no reason to suppose this trip will harm); I'd say it will certainly help more than sitting in a hotel in West Dublin and training in Abbotstown. A bit of game time could also help players who may be coming back to game fitness, especially where the Austria game comes fully five weeks after the end of the English Football League regular season (and three weeks after the end of the Premier League season, albeit of course the Championship playoffs will likely only end two weeks before).

The game has more meaning than simply relating to ranking points. If that was all that mattered, I don't think there'd be any dispute that this game was meaningless. However, there are plenty of useful things a trip like this encourages that can't be quantified in ranking points but may result in an increased number of actual points in competitive games and thus more ranking points. Put it like this: if we lose to Mexico but beat Austria, our overall position (in terms of likelihood of qualifying I mean, and possibly ranking points too) will be better than if we don't even play Mexico but lose to Austria.

Finally, just on the maths, Iceland are likely to drop a few places between now and the playoff draw: the weighting on their Euro performance will drop with the July rankings, as it moves from the last year to over one year ago (as will ours, admittedly, but not by as much, as we didn't go as far as Iceland - the reduction is large enough, from 100% counted to 50% counted). Similarly, while the Netherlands were not at the Euros, and thus won't lose any Euro points, they will lose some points relative to us and Iceland based on losing all the bonus points they got from the 2014 World Cup (while the weighting for older games is lower, remember they won five World Cup games and made a semi final, so the drop in weighting of those will have a substantial enough effect, as it goes from the "one to two years" weighting to the "two to three years" weighting, 50% to 30%). There are a few things helping us there; I'd agree it's a pity we don't try to maximise that, though. With half of all ranking points coming from the most recent calendar year, it is important we maximise our points: the win in Austria really helped (and will still be in the last twelve months come the playoff draw, which may help), and a win over the Welsh at home in a qualifier would be massive, especially given their current ranking and the effect that would have (plus of course the effect beating Austria again would have).

I don't disagree with the general point of your post (this game is bad for our ranking points) but it's not accurate to say that the game is totally meaningless and definitely harmful. It certainly has the potential to be helpful.

Too long? Here's the post in two sentences:
The Mexico game will cost us ranking points.
Losing ranking points is not, necessarily, the be all and end all, if the positives from the Mexico game help us overcome Austria.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 26 Feb 2017 at 3:56am

rolo wrote: Likely playoff teams, in brackets are the world rankings for March 2017 which will be published by FIFA on 9th March. Ive included Ireland as well, to see how we'd fare out if the draw was tomorrow. Spain (10)/Italy (15) Switzerland (11)/Portugal (8) Holland (21)/Sweden (45) Iceland (22) Ireland (23) Slovenia (58)/Slovakia (25) Northern Ireland (35)/Czech Republic (42)/Azerbaijan (89) Bosnia (29)/Greece (46) Group who look likely to miss out (can change): Romania (39)/Denmark (48)/Montenegro (64) Seeds Spain (10)/Italy (15) Switzerland (11)/Portugal (8) Holland (21) Iceland (22) Unseeded Ireland (23) Slovenia (58)/Slovakia (25) Northern Ireland (35)/Czech Republic (42)/Azerbaijan (89) Bosnia (29)/Greece (46) OR less likely: (if sweden finish ahead of Holland) Seeds Spain (10)/Italy (15) Switzerland (11)/Portugal (8) Iceland (22) Ireland (23) Unseeded Sweden (45) Slovenia (58)/Slovakia (25) Northern Ireland (35)/Czech Republic (42)/Azerbaijan (89) Bosnia (29)/Greece (46) So as it stands we are set to miss out on a seeding by ONE world ranking position. We are also just two places behind one of the other likely seeds, and just two places ahead of one of the likely unseeded teams. It's neck and neck. It will go down to the wire. We can help ourselves by improving our ranking though.   Now, what has this got to do with the Mexico match?  Well, even if you win a friendly game, it lowers your average, because its worth so few points. To simplify it, imagine you had a system where you had 10 points for each of ten competitive games, so 100 points over 10 games, thats obviously an average of 10 points per game. Now, throw in an extra game, a non-competitive game, worth say, 4 points, so now we're calculating an average over 11 games. So that's 104 points, divided by 11. That's an average of 9.45454545.  That's a very simplified way of showing how your average ranking score gets skewed by a silly, meaningless, money-grabbing exercise, flying across the Atlantic ocean and back to play a friendly game against Mexico in the United States of America (three days before we play another friendly which has already been organised against high quality opposition, another game which unfortunately will skew our average even further, and these points aren't easy to get back). I've no time for hypothetical this and hypothetical that, the maths are the maths.

f**k the seeding win the group. I think we we get at least 8 points from our 4 home game and 2 from our Away.

I thnk the moment Serbia overtake us in the group is the moment ppl will pay more attention to what I was talking about above.

For now, people arent interested as we're top of the group. It's all "much of a muchness" who we play and other similar statements.

Very easy to be dismissive of the relevance of the ranking but the simple fact is, if Ireland could face one of Spain, Holland and Portugal in the playoff, that is not as nice an idea as possibly facing Czech Republic or Slovakia.

Easy to say now that it comes down to how teams play on the day. I certainly wouldnt be interested in seeing how Spain play on the day when we face them in the away leg in Madrid. Sucha draw in the playoffs would really focus some minds on here.

As I said, people arent interested now in listening to warnings about trouble down the tracks, they're enjoying the good times too much and believe they will continue. Playoffs? Sure we're top of the group!

I also don't get how some posters are dismissive of the playoffs. We've topped a group once in our history. If Wales beat us, everything changes.

No one is being dismissive of the playoffs: I know all I'm saying (this is a lot shorter than the way it is put above) is that, ultimately, it is entirely hypothetical that the rankings impact of the Mexico game on our rankings will make a meaningful impact on our chances of qualification by resulting, in and of itself, in us not being seeded for the playoffs.

Rolo

I always felt the 2015 Friendly with England was the final nail in the coffin for friendly matches. No passion, no pride. Just going through the motions. Not necessarily the end of them, but an end in the interest that the public would have with them.

SuperDave84 wrote: That's not really the argument; the argument is about the sheer number of friendlies. Over the last five years (well, since the 1st January, 2012) we have played a total of 27 friendly games. The Welsh have played 12 in the same period and it doesn't seem to have harmed their ability to blood new players and make progress. That's one of the reasons their ranking is above ours (although rankings are done over a four year period, I used five because it's a bigger sample size and shows it in even more stark terms - the relevant numbers over the last four years are 19 and 8). Also, you can blood new players in the easier games, much and all as we have few enough of those in this group. I'd rather be second ranked with fewer friendlies played than third ranked with more played. I haven't counted the Northern Ireland training game because I don't think it counted.