Remove this ad

#921 [url]

Jan 23 17 11:44 PM

Zivzivadze is a good one to say fast while eating sweets.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#922 [url]

Jan 30 17 12:11 PM

According to the Serbian FA website last night's match against USA is included as official A-international match, even though with the exception of Jovan Dokic (Atyrau, Kazakhstan), all its players are from Serbian league clubs. It is clear A-international friendly matches are suffering from inflation as it never did before. It is not something new a country labels such kind of matches as official A, but I don't think we have seen this happen so frequently as this month.

What can we do. Leave it as it is? Being more strict in regarding matches as official A or being more flexible? However, it seems individuel FA's even are not consequent regarding this matter.

Quote    Reply   

#923 [url]

Jan 30 17 12:28 PM

Maybe there is a legal issue - advertising such matches as involving "national teams" is false advertising, and is ripping off spectators and TV subscribers, and short-selling advertisers. Take FIFA to the courts!

Quote    Reply   

#924 [url]

Feb 2 17 12:23 AM

TheRoonBa wrote:
Just to clarify this issue - Scotland v Zimbabwe was a FIELD HOCKEY international match. This is why it is not on RSSSF.

Another case for the "wrong sport" errata:

On RSSSF's Mauritius and Madagascar lists (author Barrie Courtney), two matches are listed in December 1986:
 3-12-86 Madagascar 3-1 Mauritius
 6-12-86 Mauritius 0-3 Madagascar

These were volleyball matches (Zone 7 qualifiers for the African Games). And they were a couple of days earlier actually.  Anyway, no international football matches between these two in that period.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,500 Site Admin

#925 [url]

Feb 16 17 1:06 PM

Interesting situation in women's football.

Bangladesh sent a largely youth side to the recent SAFF Championship, and achieved their best-ever result (reaching the final, and also managing a 0-0 draw against regional powerhouse India). The side was essentially the Under-16 side.

They have now sent this team (U-16 + 4 senior players) to Singapore for a women's tournament, where the matches will count as A matches. It seems odd that the U-16 national team can count as the A team, especially as Bangladesh also has U-19 national team - what happens to all the 17+ year old players?

The idea seems to have backfired though. Bangladesh would ordinarily be expected to beat or at least draw with Singapore, but they are currently 3-0 down midway through the 2nd half.

Quote    Reply   

#926 [url]

Feb 16 17 5:49 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:
It seems odd that the U-16 national team can count as the A team, especially as Bangladesh also has U-19 national team - what happens to all the 17+ year old players?
In an ideal world, I've thought the classification of both teams in an international match should be pegged to the higher designation used if there is a difference, so if an U-19 team played an U-20 team, it would be considered a U-20 international as all players involved fit that requirement.

Although complications may arise in the event of Olympic-style "age limit + some overs", or at the senior level over A/B designation, as proven by the [checks] 47 pages of discussion on the topic here.

Quote    Reply   

#927 [url]

Feb 16 17 9:44 PM

It is just the ongoing catch-22 of football "development". If you're going to use youth players in senior tournaments, on the pretext of "developing" them, then one may ask what are they being developed for?

Quote    Reply   

#928 [url]

Feb 16 17 9:58 PM

TheRoonBa wrote:

They have now sent this team (U-16 + 4 senior players) to Singapore for a women's tournament, where the matches will count as A matches. It seems odd that the U-16 national team can count as the A team, especially as Bangladesh also has U-19 national team - what happens to all the 17+ year old players?


The U-16s are U-19s as well..........Probably the 15-16 year old players are from an exceptional generation in their country and better better as the 17-20 year old players.

Quote    Reply   

#929 [url]

Feb 20 17 12:22 PM

Meanwhile the matches Slovakia played last month with its League team are not regarded as official by Slovak FA according to its website. Google translation of the article:

Slovak football team plays in the calendar year 2017 its first official match until March 26 in Malta within the World Cup Qualifiers 2018. Both matches of the team of Slovakia, in the first half of January attended training camp in the United Arab Emirates and have unofficial status.

For the match with Sweden, it was known from the beginning, as well as our rival arrived in Abu Dhabi with the league selection. Duel with Uganda to be prepared within the Association FIFA deadline for the African Nations Cup, originally figured in the FIFA calendar on its official website as the official (friendly). To change it to the unofficial (ie such, the outcome of which is not included in FIFA Ranking) took place on the day of the procedure, confirming the relevant department (Data Management), as well as leading international and Organization Department SFZ Peter Palenčík - stated that if the change classification zápasu agreed Uganda.

Unofficial ends (nezapočítavanými in FIFA Ranking) that during the period occurred in the United Arab Emirates were the duels Sweden - Ivory Coast, Morocco - Finland and Finland - Slovenia. In terms of history and statistics, this means that Sully Jakubech, Kotula, Vavro, rabbits, Bukata, Huk, Gergel, Duck, greaves, Oršula, Šafranko, Malec, Guba and Hlohovský you on your first official national team start must wait Denis Vavro and on his first national team goal.

Quote    Reply   

#930 [url]

Feb 21 17 9:50 AM

mattsanger92 wrote:
In an ideal world, I've thought the classification of both teams in an international match should be pegged to the higher designation used if there is a difference, so if an U-19 team played an U-20 team, it would be considered a U-20 international as all players involved fit that requirement.

Although complications may arise in the event of Olympic-style "age limit + some overs", or at the senior level over A/B designation, as proven by the [checks] 47 pages of discussion on the topic here.

For competive matches as World or Continental Championships I would say any team that plays should be regarded as A. Regarding friendlies it is quite a different matter. If the match is arranged as friendly A, it should be regarded as such. In this case both teams should be regarded as A.

If team Z play with its A-side and Team Y with i.e. an U-20 team we should know what is the purpose of that match. If Z wants to use it as a rtest for i's A-team and Y for its U-20 team, the latter should be considered as U-20.

A very interesting case is Brazil at the 2000 King's Cup in Thailand. They played with its full A-team against Thailand and with an U-20 (or U-17?) against Estonia and Finland.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#931 [url]

Feb 21 17 9:57 PM

I think it's virtually fraudulent that the status of a match at this level can be changed on the day. Granted, these are just off-season preparation friendlies, and of zero real importance to anybody on their own merit, but the principle that you could have a game be arranged, advertised etc, sponsors on board, selling tickets, bookies taking bets, and then at the last minute it just becomes a trial instead of a "proper" match.

Quote    Reply   

#932 [url]

Feb 22 17 10:51 AM

I remember according to FIFA regulations in the 1990s the status of arranged matches could be changed ultimately 48 hours before the kick off.

Nevertheless in case of regarding matches as full A-international I think we won't have be too strict, especially when one of the sides is a B-team. If a match has been arranged between an A-team and an age restricted team or - if the country has a domestic professional league - amateur restricted team, it should not be an A-international match.

For A vs B exceptions are possible, especially when the B-team is a mix of A and B. Some of these sides are even more representative teams as many teams which have been labelled as A. Sometimes the objections obviously were to prepare the A-team, as Belgium B did in 1934 (World Cup preparation) and Holland in 1948 (Olympic Games preparation) and 1965 (World Cup qualifying match preparation). Another example will be Italy B in 1962 against Hungary as one can read here (and further comments).

Last Edited By: Fast Midfielder Feb 22 17 10:54 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#933 [url]

Mar 3 17 10:04 PM

Fast Midfielder wrote:
For competive matches as World or Continental Championships I would say any team that plays should be regarded as A. Regarding friendlies it is quite a different matter. If the match is arranged as friendly A, it should be regarded as such. In this case both teams should be regarded as A.

If team Z play with its A-side and Team Y with i.e. an U-20 team we should know what is the purpose of that match. If Z wants to use it as a rtest for i's A-team and Y for its U-20 team, the latter should be considered as U-20.

A very interesting case is Brazil at the 2000 King's Cup in Thailand. They played with its full A-team against Thailand and with an U-20 (or U-17?) against Estonia and Finland.
Agree of completely with the first paragraph, for the second one I think a compromise should be that both teams are classified as B. An A team 'punching downwards' shouldn't be rewarded with full caps by their FA, and if a U20 team insists on punching upwards but doesn't want the full caps that should come with it, then a B cap isn't going to throw the record books for a loop.

For the Brazil example, I'd say that all teams fielded at the tournament should be considered 'A'. They started it that way (or at least 'peaked' that way), they can finish it like that too (unless all teams involved were willing to become B for the whole thing), although what kind of ridiculous squad size (just checked the page, 18 + 22 = 40) allowed them to take away all their 'overage' players and still have plenty of room to spare? I'm guessing they chartered their flight to Bangkok...

Quote    Reply   

#934 [url]

Mar 4 17 10:28 AM

mattsanger92 wrote:


For the Brazil example, I'd say that all teams fielded at the tournament should be considered 'A'. They started it that way (or at least 'peaked' that way), they can finish it like that too (unless all teams involved were willing to become B for the whole thing), although what kind of ridiculous squad size (just checked the page, 18 + 22 = 40) allowed them to take away all their 'overage' players and still have plenty of room to spare? I'm guessing they chartered their flight to Bangkok...

This reminds me on Czechia and Romania who went with large selections to Cyprus for a tournament and did not regard all matches as A, even though some of the players appeared in all matches. A same kind of situation occurred with Finland who were on tour in Holland and Luxembourg in 1951 and played three matches: 4-4 and 4-1 defeat against Holland, 3-0 defeat against Holland. The Dutch regard their second match as official B-international even though half the team played full internationals within the same year, one player apeared in the first match and the others were selected for the first match.

Regarding Brazil. As they fielded an U-20 (some even say U-17) both Estonia and Finland got very cheap wins against Brazil for their records if these matches were count as A. Same would have count for Holland if a 1927 match against Czechoslovakia amateurs was arranged as Holland A vs Czechoslovakia. One can read more details about this on this topic.

Last Edited By: Fast Midfielder Mar 4 17 10:31 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#935 [url]

Mar 5 17 9:55 AM

Fast Midfielder wrote:
For competive matches as World or Continental Championships I would say any team that plays should be regarded as A.

I also agree with this point. It would be interesting to make a list of those countries who preferred not to field their "A" team during a major competition. Maybe I'm going to open a topic about this as soon as I can.
The very first examples I'm aware of are Egypt at the 1990 Africa Cup of Nations, when they employed a young and restricted squad, and Brazil at the 1996 and 2003 Gold Cup, when they competed with their Under-23 team in order to prepare the Olympic qualifiers. But I'm sure also Australia did the same during an old edition of the OFC Nations Cup, and, if I well remember, also Japan (or South Korea?) during the Asian Cup a lot of years ago.


Quote    Reply   

#936 [url]

Mar 14 17 1:11 AM

Luca wrote:
Fast Midfielder wrote:
For competive matches as World or Continental Championships I would say any team that plays should be regarded as A.

I also agree with this point. It would be interesting to make a list of those countries who preferred not to field their "A" team during a major competition. Maybe I'm going to open a topic about this as soon as I can.


Personally I disagree.  There is nothing special about the World or Continental cups to justify waiving the criteria above any formal tournament, just a different organiser.

There are various examples for your list over the years, but usually they are just more examples of FAs wanting to "have their cake and eat it" by fielding weakened or "development" teams for inconvenient fixtures.

What about (for example) the recent case of Mexico playing in two different continental tournaments simultaneously?

Quote    Reply   

#937 [url]

Mar 14 17 2:57 PM

nfm24 wrote:

Personally I disagree.  There is nothing special about the World or Continental cups to justify waiving the criteria above any formal tournament, just a different organiser.

There are various examples for your list over the years, but usually they are just more examples of FAs wanting to "have their cake and eat it" by fielding weakened or "development" teams for inconvenient fixtures.

What about (for example) the recent case of Mexico playing in two different continental tournaments simultaneously?

In Europe it happened occasionally. Hungary played on 29-04-1934 two competitive matches. Against Czechoslovakia for the Inernational Cup (later Dr. Gerö Cup) and against Bulgaria for the World Cup.

In 1953 France played a World Cup qualifying match against Luxembourg with it's U-23 team and all its players bever have won full caps before. Raymond Kopa, who was U-23 at the time and had won some caps before, did not play. Nevertheless France won 8-0, which was at the time a joint record win (until 1995).

In 1987 Greece fielded their Olympic team in a ENC qualifying match against Holland, because the Greek FA did not agree Holland was not punished with a 0-3 defeat against Cyprus after a bom incident into the Cypriot penalty box.

Quote    Reply   

#938 [url]

Mar 15 17 10:28 AM

If the rules of a tournament or of a friendly don't provide any sort of restriction, it's right to regard such matches as "A" category, independently of the FAs' decisions.

FIFA has recently decided to recognize also the CHAN matches as "A" category, even if the rules clearly prevent the African countries from fielding their footballers playing abroad. That's a clear restriction in my opinion.
Same for Superclásico de las Américas, whose matches are regarded as "A" category by FIFA even if both Argentina and Brazil were obliged not to field their footballers playing abroad.
Also the Olympic Games from 1908 to 1948 are considered by FIFA as major tournaments for "A" national teams, even if restrictions were strong and evident (professional footballers could not take part in the competition).

Quote    Reply   

#939 [url]

Mar 15 17 10:51 PM

nfm24 wrote:
Personally I disagree.  There is nothing special about the World or Continental cups to justify waiving the criteria above any formal tournament, just a different organiser.

There are various examples for your list over the years, but usually they are just more examples of FAs wanting to "have their cake and eat it" by fielding weakened or "development" teams for inconvenient fixtures.

What about (for example) the recent case of Mexico playing in two different continental tournaments simultaneously?
As a famous mad scrawling on the wall of a video game once said, the cake is a lie.

I agree there that unless something's been specifically arranged as a 'restricted' tournament, it is for a full national team. Whether the teams choose to send a full-strength squad is then up to them, and if they want to participate in two at once, then they clearly have the resources to manage the participation of two at once, the records show any 'U23' teams at the Copa America are counted as full international caps and rightly so, if that means a worse performance for the ranking of said nation if they underperform, then so be it, they picked out that cake after all.

For Luca's examples, I'd say the Superclasico and to a lesser extent those Olympics are both regarded by the participants as full internationals, and it could be argued that the 'amateur' restriction was not a hindrance to most of the teams while the culture of the time meant there weren't too many objections to that status (other than that little thing called the World Cup, but the fact they both existed as 'full internationals' for a couple of decades suggests they were both widely accepted at that level for a while at least, even after the Olympics was forced down a level there were countries (India, etc.) that considered it the most important football event).

CHAN meanwhile is a whole different beast, it has the 'permission' of the participants to be considered A but at the same time has an obvious restriction, where to begin with that one?

Fast Midfielder wrote:
Regarding Brazil. As they fielded an U-20 (some even say U-17) both Estonia and Finland got very cheap wins against Brazil for their records if these matches were count as A.
Going back to my earlier point, I'd say that was more 'very cheap defeats' for Brazil than cheap wins for the others. They entered a senior-level tournament and should be treated like that for the duration of their stay no matter who they put on the pitch. If a club in the Champions League puts out a youth squad for a dead rubber game and loses they can't just turn around and claim the result doesn't count towards their co-efficient.

Quote    Reply   

#940 [url]

Mar 16 17 12:16 AM

The problem with heavy-handed rulings made by people who don't really understand the subject (hello FIFA) is that you then have e.g. the ridiculous situation that matches of clear youth teams are counted as if they were "A" teams (because it is a continental championship match), whereas on the other hand matches between clear "A" teams are discounted (because it was an Olympic match or a friendly with some minor breach of protocol).

Working with reality is preferable.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help