Co-Efficiency
Interesting piece on The Daily Mail website on Wednesday afternoon, presumably published in the knowledge that nothing could quite eclipse the weirdness of Martin Samuel's treatise on Joey Barton and homosexuality.
Under the headline 'Look out, you may now have to finish in the top three to make the Champions League after Man City's humiliating failure', Matt Barlow writes:
'The downward trend for Barclays Premier League clubs in the Champions League could yet produce more damage than a quick flash of embarrassment.'
Barlow goes on to argue that City's exit could harm England's UEFA co-efficient, knocking them out of the top three countries that each receive four Champions League spots.
This, predictably enough, is what those in the trade call 'hysterical bullsh*t'. While England's co-efficient has been damaged by City's shambling, it isn't being harmed nearly enough for Barlow's prophecies of doom.
With thanks to the magnificent website of Mr Bert Kassies, at the start of this season England were second in the co-efficient table with a rating of 84.186, while fourth-placed Italy had 59.981. Now, even after the departures of Chelsea and City, England are still in second with 77.106, while Italy remain on exactly the same score - 59.981. So England have dropped, sure, but the country with the best chance of overhauling them haven't progressed.
The good news is that even Barlow seems to recognise his premise is tish and fipsy, writing:
'UEFA president Michel Platini is looking at changing the format beyond 2015-16 but, as it stands, Europe's top three ranked leagues are awarded four Champions League places. The fourth, Italy at the moment, have three.
'There is a sizeable gap between the top three and the chasing pack and one reassuring factor is that no emerging country has putting together a consistent challenge.'
Look out...good work all round.
We need third!
Re: We need third!
From F365
