Rangers will receive funds needed to challenge Celtic, says vice-chairman Paul Murray

[calscot 0]

Same for Benfica.

[buster. 5,257]

If you look in the qualification for 16/17 page it says:

 

23 Scotland 17.900---------------------------------------- CL1= (ch/Q2) CW= (eu/Q2) EL2= (eu/Q1) EL3= (eu/Q1)

 

That says Scotland's coeff is 17.900

 

Now the country ranking for 2015 is:

 

[TABLE=class: t1, width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD]22[/TD]

[TD=align: left]Denmark[/TD]

[TD]6.700[/TD]

[TD]3.100[/TD]

[TD]3.300[/TD]

[TD]3.800[/TD]

[TD]2.900[/TD]

[TD]19.800[/TD]

[TD]5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]23[/TD]

[TD=align: left]Scotland[/TD]

[TD]3.600[/TD]

[TD]2.750[/TD]

[TD]4.300[/TD]

[TD]3.250[/TD]

[TD]4.000[/TD]

[TD]17.900[/TD]

[TD]4[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]24[/TD]

[TD=align: left]Sweden[/TD]

[TD]2.600[/TD]

[TD]2.900[/TD]

[TD]5.125[/TD]

[TD]3.200[/TD]

[TD]3.900[/TD]

[TD]17.725[/TD]

[TD]5

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

and 2016:

 

[TABLE=class: t1, width: 100%]

[TR]

[TD]24[/TD]

[TD=align: left]Denmark[/TD]

[TD]3.100[/TD]

[TD]3.300[/TD]

[TD]3.800[/TD]

[TD]2.900[/TD]

[TD]5.500[/TD]

[TD]18.600[/TD]

[TD]4[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]25[/TD]

[TD=align: left]Scotland[/TD]

[TD]2.750[/TD]

[TD]4.300[/TD]

[TD]3.250[/TD]

[TD]4.000[/TD]

[TD]3.000[/TD]

[TD]17.300[/TD]

[TD]4[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]26[/TD]

[TD=align: left]Azerbaijan[/TD]

[TD]1.375[/TD]

[TD]3.000[/TD]

[TD]2.500[/TD]

[TD]3.625[/TD]

[TD]4.375[/TD]

[TD]14.875[/TD]

[TD]4[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

So need to check further...

 

No

 

That applies to the access list which is different to the club seedings.

 

The access list determines how many and what euro spots various countries will have.

They need to be determined prior to the season starting so that the clubs know what they are going for.

Hence they don't use the co-eff points won in the season that determines what clubs qualify.

[calscot 0]

It seems they use the country coeff from 2015 and the team coeff from 2016...

 

That's a shame and a massive blow to us as it's going to be very hard to qualify, a seeded place up to Q4 would have made the journey relatively much easier.

[buster. 5,257]

It seems they use the country coeff from 2015 and the team coeff from 2016...

 

That's a shame and a massive blow to us as it's going to be very hard to qualify, a seeded place up to Q4 would have made the journey relatively much easier.

 

Got to beat Hibs first

Edited April 19, 2016 by buster.

[calscot 0]

I'm speaking hypothetically...

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

We really must have been, I was getting pretty frustrated with a lot of them as they were incredibly poor and either went out or to a Celtic player. Some were just unnecessary and maybe down to tiredness or lack of ideas. I take it you didn't see the noticeable number of clearances by Foderingham as well as some of the goal kicks which were generally poor also?

 

They were more prevalent in the second half and the longer the match went on, when Celtic pressed much higher up the park at times. I watched it on a stream so can't play it again in fast forward to count them...

 

I don't particularly mind the number of them, although I think it would have been better to be less, but the pass completion was very low which is worrying.

 

For me it demonstrated we need to be able to do them well. As I've said before, if you're predictable and refuse to change then the opposition can take advantage of it - if you always pass short then they hassle your defenders more and more - but if you send the odd one over their heads, they can be well short of numbers at the back, which keeps them having to be careful and not pressing too much. Luckily, that's what we did but they benefited from that as well.

These long balls you're so concerned about are all in your head, as is us playing 5 at the back. We had 63% possession and stuck to a possession based game as we've done all season. In the last 10 minutes of the first half we had almost 80% of possession. You don't get that playing long balls.

 

It's funny, I don't recall you ever complaining about long balls when we played them one after the other for 90 minutes each week.

[RANGERRAB 3,732]

On Sunday we actually seemed to have a gameplan and caused them problems throughout which they didn't seem to expect.

Contrast that to the LC semi last year

[ranger_syntax 4,422]

“It’s not always about spending £2m, £3m, £4m or £10m - whatever it might be. It’s about adding quality and adding characters who fit into our squad. A lot of our homework and research is on the characters, to see how we think they fit in.”

 

More reassuring words.

[Bearman 9]

Another couple of Andy Halliday types with character and ability will be more than welcome.

[calscot 0]

These long balls you're so concerned about are all in your head, as is us playing 5 at the back. We had 63% possession and stuck to a possession based game as we've done all season. In the last 10 minutes of the first half we had almost 80% of possession. You don't get that playing long balls.

 

It's funny, I don't recall you ever complaining about long balls when we played them one after the other for 90 minutes each week.

 

RTFP! Or just get someone to explain it to you.