Has the 'Champions League' got any credibility now?

Mr.Nice Guy

I will preface this post by saying that I respect the efforts of both Liverpool and Milan in making the Champions League final and they deserve a lot of credit for doing so. I don't wish to belittle their performances but rather to make the following point:

Current Premiership standings:


1 Man Utd - 85 pts
2 Chelsea - 80 pts
3 Liverpool - 67 pts


Current Serie A standings:


1 Inter Milan - 87 pts
2 Roma - 69 pts
3 AC Milan - 59 pts


Now it would seem to me that a European Cup final ought to showcase the two greatest teams in Europe. Based on the above domestic tables, that is not what we are going to get this year in Athens at all.

So my question to you all is this - is it time to revamp the format of the Champions League?

Royale with Cheese

Sure, revamp it.

Play no games at all until the end of the season where the two teams with the most points per game in their own leagues play a one-off game to decide the best team in Europe.

The format is fine. It's a knock out competition. Anybody can win. Nobody says that the winners of the Champions League are the best two teams in Europe.

A Dub in Glasgo

This is not the fist time nor will it be the last time that the monkier 'Champions League' is sadly deficient

redzerdrog

yeh your right there was no point in playing the stupid tournament they should have just let man utd into the final and let inter play barca in the semis to see who get the chance to play the great man utd in the final. It would have saved an awfull lot of time and hassle.

royal with cheese got there before me.

Call Me Jimmy

Oooh u ain't gonna be too popular with this thread :P

Well in fairness milan were docked how many points? The would be a lot closer to inter this season if they didn't start on minus points. But other than that, I would say that it has always been far from guaranteed that the two finalists would be league leaders in their respective leagues.

bbbbb

Qualifying is based on last season, not this. But then neither of these were champions last year.
Also Milan started this season with a points penalty (eight I think)

PauloMN

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I will preface this post by saying that I respect the efforts of both Liverpool and Milan in making the Champions League final and they deserve a lot of credit for doing so. I don't wish to belittle their performances but rather to make the following point:

Current Premiership standings:


1 Man Utd - 85 pts
2 Chelsea - 80 pts
3 Liverpool - 67 pts


Current Serie A standings:


1 Inter Milan - 87 pts
2 Roma - 69 pts
3 AC Milan - 59 pts


Now it would seem to me that a European Cup final ought to showcase the two greatest teams in Europe. Based on the above domestic tables, that is not what we are going to get this year in Athens at all.

So my question to you all is this - is it time to revamp the format of the Champions League?

Why revamp it? What do you suggest? Would it only work for you if current league title holders were in the competition?

I think the format of the competition is spot on and makes for great games for the most part. It also allows "lesser" teams the chance for the ultimate in silverware or at least to have played a series of games against the best teams of Europe.

Guy:Incognito

Liverpool finished 5th in 2005 and it was one of, if not the best final ever. If it was champions only, Liverpool, Utd and Milan wouldnt have been in the smie's. The fact that UTd are going to win the league this year has no bearing on the champions league as the qualification is based on last season so using the current league table is irrelevant. It used to be a knockout only, and with only the winners. the result was that teams like Malmo got to the final. It was easier to win years ago, so yes, it is credible and is harder to win.

The champions of each country have as good a chance to win it as anyone, yet they arent there.When Utd won it in 99 they hadnt won the league the year before wither.


Taking Liverpool as an example, to win it it2005 they had to beat the top 2 in Italy, the English champions and a Leverkusen side that had torn Real apart. This time they beat Barce (Spanish champs), PSV (dutch champs) and Chlesea again (English Champs). You cant argue with the calibreof sides that they are beating to win the competition/get to the final.

Zaph

This year's tables have nothing to do with this year's Champions League, you should have shown last season's. Not that there's any real difference, just sayin'.

DerekD Goldfish

I think there should be a max of 2 teams from each country in the CL
still both milan and liverpool are deserved finalists

Stky10

If ManU can't beat the third best team in the Italian league, then they shouldn't be considered one of the two best teams in Europe, and so shouldn't be in the 'Champions League' Final no matter what format you decide on.

The only way to get around this would be to have an actual champions league league, but thats not going to happen any time soon.

eirebhoy

Milan would have beaten any team in the world tonight so I've no problem with them getting to the final. Questions have to be asked how they perform so much better in Europe than domestically but they deserve their place in the final.

The Muppet

It's the most prestigeous cup competition in europe so in that regard it has credability.

Dave!

Yes, it has credibility.

DerekD Goldfish

eirebhoy wrote:

Milan would have beaten any team in the world tonight so I've no problem with them getting to the final. Questions have to be asked how they perform so much better in Europe than domestically but they deserve their place in the final.

They have been on great form the past 2 months its just Iters fantastic seaosn and milans worst home run in 50 years mid season ment they hadnt a hope of keeping up.

Zaph

I think the only problem with it is the name. Because of the fact that non-league winners are in it, it's effectively now a "Super-UEFA Cup". There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but UEFA should change the name to something that actually reflects who's playing in it.

mada999

Troll ??

PauloMN

What was wrong with "European Cup" anyway?

RasTa

Of course it does.

Guy:Incognito

Theres a Utd or Chelsea fan on Your on Sky sports now ranting about this.He's syaing the FA should Jose and fergie letter of commendation for treating the cups and the league with 100% commitement and mentioned the FA and Carling cup specifically.I assume he didnt watch the Utd Carling cup game where they were knocked out by Southend while playing a weakend team. People really need to do their homework before going on a rant about stupid things.

Zaph

mada999 wrote:

Troll ??

I hope that's not aimed at me!

PauloMN wrote:

What was wrong with "European Cup" anyway?

Absolutely nothing, but it wasn't sexy enough for the marketing people.

jank

Well would you be complaining if you were in the final??

Mr.Nice Guy

PauloMN wrote:

Why revamp it? What do you suggest? Would it only work for you if current league title holders were in the competition?

I think it has lost a degree of credibility myself. It's called the 'Champions League' but it will be contested by teams who are nowhere near the best from a domestic standpoint.

I will also point out that Michel Platini has voiced similar concerns...

Four clubs are too many - for the country itself, the fans and TV rights. Three should be the limit, there are not enough national champions in the last 32 of the tournament and that cannot be right.

Just seems like money is making a mockery of the game.

Zaph

Absolutely not. I'm a Leeds fan, I'd be happy with the Championship next season

Töpher

Remove seedings, open cup draw from the first round. Oh wait...

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I think it has lost a degree of credibility myself. It's called the 'Champions League' but it will be contested by teams who are nowhere near the best from a domestic standpoint..

Only because the teams that won their leagues were knocked out by so called "lesser" teams. Is it Liverpool or Milans fault that they knocke dout teams that won their leagues? (actually it is, but you know what I mean:) )

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote:

Only because the teams that won their leagues were knocked out by so called "lesser" teams. Is it Liverpool or Milans fault that they knocke dout teams that won their leagues? (actually it is, but you know what I mean:) )

I take your point and that's why I prefaced my original post by saying that my beef was not with Liverpool or Milan. It's not their fault how the competition is set up.

My gripe is with the format itself which doesn't, in my opinion, reflect what a competition called the 'Champion's League' ought to reflect.

Are Liverpool the best team in England? No. Are Milan the best team in Italy? No. Yet we'll have to accept one of them as being the best team in Europe.

Royale with Cheese

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I think it has lost a degree of credibility myself. It's called the 'Champions League' but it will be contested by teams who are nowhere near the best from a domestic standpoint

So what will happen. They'll take 3rd/4th place teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Valencia out of the competition and replace them with the Finnish champions? You think that'd make a better competition, or give it more credibility? Should Shelbourne be in the competition instead of Bremen? Reducing the number of overall teams would suck as I quite enjoy watching the champions league, and less games for me to watch would not be great. This argument always boils down to people bringing up the name 'champions' league. Lobby for a f*cking name change if it bothers you that much.

The format is spot on at the moment.

Call Me Jimmy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I take your point and that's why I prefaced my original post by saying that my beef was not with Liverpool or Milan. It's not their fault how the competition is set up.

My gripe is with the format itself which doesn't, in my opinion, reflect what a competition called the 'Champion's League' ought to reflect.

Are Liverpool the best team in England? No. Are Milan the best team in Italy? No. Yet we'll have to accept one of them as being the best team in Europe.

Maybe the revamp should be that they rename it to the less-misleading and imo better name of 'The European Cup'. I think it has a greater weight to it, and it also doesn't imply that you have to be the best team in your country to win it.

EDIT: ^^^^ Pipped to the post

Tusky

Really really stupid thread. Lets just ban all the other teams from all competitions and have Chelsea v Man Utd & Barcelona v Real Madrid week in week out.

Its a cup, anyone can win it and I personally prefer when underdogs do well.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I take your point and that's why I prefaced my original post by saying that my beef was not with Liverpool or Milan. It's not their fault how the competition is set up.

My gripe is with the format itself which doesn't, in my opinion, reflect what a competition called the 'Champion's League' ought to reflect.

Are Liverpool the best team in England? No. Are Milan the best team in Italy? No. Yet we'll have to accept one of them as being the best team in Europe.

Are Italy the best national team in the world ? Are Greece the best European team ?

Mr Alan

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I take your point and that's why I prefaced my original post by saying that my beef was not with Liverpool or Milan. It's not their fault how the competition is set up.

My gripe is with the format itself which doesn't, in my opinion, reflect what a competition called the 'Champion's League' ought to reflect.

Are Liverpool the best team in England? No. Are Milan the best team in Italy? No. Yet we'll have to accept one of them as being the best team in Europe.

Fair enough, but i'd love to know the amount of Champions over the years that weren't the winners of their league the previous season. For example pretty sure United didn't win the league the year before they beat Munich?!

Champions League should have all the top teams in Europe involved, and in my opinion it does.

Mr.Nice Guy

Royale with Cheese wrote:

So what will happen. They'll take 3rd/4th place teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Valencia out of the competition and replace them with the Finnish champions? You think that'd make a better competition, or give it more credibility? Should Shelbourne be in the competition instead of Bremen? Reducing the number of overall teams would suck as I quite enjoy watching the champions league, and less games for me to watch would not be great. This argument always boils down to people bringing up the name 'champions' league. Lobby for a f*cking name change if it bothers you that much.

The format is spot on at the moment.

If the format was spot on you wouldn't hear Platini calling for change.

Yes having more national champions in the competition would give the competition more credibility.

Your argument about quality is unfair to other teams. Should the SPL stop other teams besides Rangers and Celtic from competing on the grounds that they have a problem with their style of play?

Really really stupid thread. Lets just ban all the other teams from all competitions and have Chelsea v Man Utd & Barcelona v Real Madrid week in week out.

Sorry I wasn't aware I was the only person in the whole world to have a problem with the current format.

Please accept my apologies.

Tusky wrote:

Are Italy the best national team in the world ? Are Greece the best European team ?

At the time I'd say they were, yes.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Nice Guy

millersangel wrote:

Fair enough, but i'd love to know the amount of Champions over the years that weren't the winners of their league the previous season. For example pretty sure United didn't win the league the year before they beat Munich?!

I think you're right about that, yes.

millersangel wrote:

Champions League should have all the top teams in Europe involved, and in my opinion it does.

Then should we expand the competition then? Allow more teams from the Premiership at the expense of other nations? Where does one draw the line?

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

If the format was spot on you wouldn't hear Platini calling for change..

Why, does he know everything? It's his opinion.

If Pele or Maradonna says it's fine as it is, is it?

Royale with Cheese

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

If the format was spot on you wouldn't hear Platini calling for change.

Yes having more national champions in the competition would give the competition more credibility.

Your argument about quality is unfair to other teams. Should the SPL stop other teams besides Rangers and Celtic from competing on the grounds that they have a problem with their style of play?

Rangers & Celtic, what are you on about? You want the competition to have more credibility and now you're comparing it to the Scottish League? That makes sense.

Platini was fishing for votes with his comments. How can you think letting rubbish teams in based on their location (yes they may have won their own league, only because all the other teams in said league are even worse) gives the competition more credibility than by having 32 of the best European teams compete. The league champions from smaller nations have the chance to play in the competition proper by qualifying against the 3rd/4th place teams from the bigger nations. Guess what? They usually get creamed. If you think watching Barcelona destroy some little team from Georgia would give the competition more credibility then you're delusional.

Mr Alan

I have to say, the timing of this thread makes it very hard to think of it as anything other than sour grapes.

Liverpool - 5 (possibility of 6)
Man Utd - 2.
Nottingham Forest - 2.

...............................

Guy:Incognito

millersangel wrote:

I have to say, the timing of this thread makes it very hard to think of it as anything other than sour grapes.

Liverpool - 5 (possibility of 6)
Man Utd - 2.
Nottingham Forest - 2.

...............................

Villa won 1 aswell.

Mr.Nice Guy

SteKelly wrote:

Why, does he know everything? It's his opinion.

If Pele or Maradonna says it's fine as it is, is it?

Platini is President of UEFA.

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Rangers & Celtic, what are you on about? You want the competition to have more credibility and now you're comparing it to the Scottish League? That makes sense.

Your bizarre argument is that national sides should be excluded from the CL on the grounds that they wouldn't measure up to the rest of the bigger teams with more resources. I'm just curious if you think the same should apply to the SPL where teams besides the Old Firm wouldn't measure up to Celtic and Rangers with their resources.

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Platini was fishing for votes with his comments. How can you think letting rubbish teams in based on their location (yes they may have won their own league, only because all the other teams in said league are even worse) gives the competition more credibility than by having 32 of the best European teams compete.

Who says that needs to happen? The CL is an invention of the early nineties. Football was fine before that you know.

Royale with Cheese wrote:

The league champions from smaller nations have the chance to play in the competition proper by qualifying against the 3rd/4th place teams from the bigger nations. Guess what? They usually get creamed. If you think watching Barcelona destroy some little team from Georgia would give the competition more credibility then you're delusional.

Please. It's a cup competition. The FA Cup has done well over the decades hasn't it? We've had smaller teams knock out the heavyweights and it made for compelling viewing.

Out of interest what do you call watching Man Utd cream Roma? The height of football?

Royale with Cheese

The Scottish League is a national league tournament and bears no significance on how the Champions League is run. I'm not even gonna bother arguing with the rest.

If you think any of your arguments make sense well then good luck to you.

Man Utd are out, deal with it.

Chucky the tree

So what way do you want it MR. Nice guy?

Jagera

As said already, entry to CL is based on the previous year's tables - essentially the previous year's "Champions" (read champions as the top two/three clubs per country, rather than just the actual winners )

Chelsea and ManU both had their chances this week and both lost out. So what now.. we change the format because the current finalists are 3rd in their leagues?

Just wondering what you think would be a fair way to dictate entry into the champions league? Not taking the p**s, just want to see if you have a fairer way..?

I'd agree with your statement if the likes of Scunthorpe Utd were in the final - but liverpool and AC - what more can you expect?

GuanYin

The stupidity of threads like this really saddens me.

Look, the league format is a domestic thing, you take a long campaign and play clubs of varying levels. Some teams will play football against you, some teams will kick you off the park, some teams will put 11 players behind the ball for 90 minutes.

At the end of the day, winning your domestic league is as much about squad strength as it is about anything else.

The Champions League takes the best teams from their respective leagues around Europe and puts them in a situation where 11 men behind the ball and kicking tactics won't work. With the exception of Porto, no team has profited from negative tactics in the Champion's league. Chelsea were shown up last night trying it.

The Champion's league is and should be about the best footballing teams, not the richest clubs or the strongest squads.

I'm happy to see teams like Liverpool and Valencia do well. Because they put together teams that by and large play good football they show what it should be about.

Ok, so these teams don't have the squad strength or haven't had the depth to keep a consistant league campaign, especially when they play clubs who are about as negative as you can get. Playing for points and playing for progression are very different things. As a celebration of european football, the CL does very very nicely.

MisterAnarchy

psi wrote:

With the exception of Porto, no team has profited from negative tactics in the Champion's league.

What about Bayern Munich in 2001 ?
One could argue that Liverpool used pretty negative tactics in 2005 bar the final .

Jonny Arson

Royale with Cheese wrote:

So what will happen. They'll take 3rd/4th place teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Real Madrid, Valencia out of the competition and replace them with the Finnish champions? You think that'd make a better competition, or give it more credibility? Should Shelbourne be in the competition instead of Bremen? Reducing the number of overall teams would suck as I quite enjoy watching the champions league, and less games for me to watch would not be great. This argument always boils down to people bringing up the name 'champions' league. Lobby for a f*cking name change if it bothers you that much.

The point is the European Cup has been ripped of it's soul and is now nothing but a moneymaking super league for the G-14's of this world. The old European Cup had credibility because it was a genuine competition, Champions of the Champions - nothing is more credible than that. The ''Champions League'' as we know it is has been lowered to nothing but a TV tournament.

Your point about Shelbourne and other champions from smaller nations is frankly insulting towards any Irish football fan who bothers to support their league and a Shelbourne fan like myself. The Champions of Ireland or Finland or whoever has far more right to compete in the European Champions Cup than f**king 3rd/4th place sides like Bremen, Roma, Chievo or Valencia. If you want to banish sides from smaller nations like Ireland from competing in the top competition in European football because they can't afford to have the likes of Kaka or Ronaldo, massive stadiums or massive corporate sponsors, so called fancy football or whatever materialistic properties than one must comform to compete in the ''Champions League'' according to your beliefs then lobby the G-14 to do fans of clubs from smaller nations a favour by forming a Sky Sports Wednesday night European Superleague.

Mr.Nice Guy is spot on with his point. the Champions League has become a pretty souless competition just for the mighty big boys and is lacking in genuine credibility. It represents alot that is rotten about the money obsessed game of football today.

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Platini is President of UEFA.

I'm aware of that. It still doesnt mean he knows anymore than anyone else on the subject though.

Mr.Nice Guy

I'm astonished at the level of hostility on this thread to the idea of revamping the current system.

I've not seen one good argument yet that the current format has credibility. Yes there may be quality but is that the be all and end all?

Are Liverpool really the best team in Europe? Are Milan?

Hell maybe we should exclude the lower level teams in England from playing in the FA Cup on the grounds that a system of 32 teams involving the Premiership and Championship would be better.

There's probably money to be had with that so who knows it may become a reality soon enough. Shame.

Royale with Cheese

Jonny Arson wrote:

Your point about Shelbourne and other champions from smaller nations is frankly insulting towards any Irish football fan who bothers to support their league and a Shelbourne fan like myself. The Champions of Ireland or Finland or whoever has far more right to compete in the European Champions Cup than f**king Bremen, Roma, Chievo or Valencia.

Do the smaller teams not get a chance to play via the qualifying rounds, is the reason they're not in the competition not because they're not good enough to beat the bigger teams?

The teams who play are there based mostly on ability, with obvious exceptions to include teams from most European countries. I couldn't give a sh*t if I insulted you or other Eircom league fans. If an Eircom League team was good enough to play in the competition then they'd qualify for the competition.

Chucky the tree

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I'm astonished at the level of hostility on this thread to the idea of revamping the current system.

I've not seen one good argument yet that the current format has credibility. Yes there may be quality but is that the be all and end all?

Are Liverpool really the best team in Europe? Are Milan?

Hell maybe we should exclude the lower level teams in England from playing in the FA Cup on the grounds that a system of 32 teams involving the Premiership and Championship would be better.

There's probably money to be had with that so who knows it may become a reality soon enough. Shame.

Why are United one of the best in europe? When was the last time they did anything good in europe? When was the last time they won the league?

Why didnt you start this thread before? Why do it on the night united were humilated in europe?

Mr.Nice Guy

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Do the smaller teams not get a chance to play via the qualifying rounds, is the reason they're not in the competition not because they're not good enough to beat the bigger teams?

Why should they have to beat the "bigger teams"?

Why not have the 3rd/4th placed teams play each other for the right to make it to the Champions League? Shouldn't actual champions take precedence over teams who finished 3rd and 4th?

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that one.

Mr.Nice Guy

Chucky the tree wrote:

Why are United one of the best in europe? When was the last time they did anything good in europe? When was the last time they won the league?

Why didnt you start this thread before? Why do it on the night united were humilated in europe?

I didn't start the thread before now because it dawned on me following the conclusion of the game that the two teams in the final makes a mockery of the spirit the competition is supposed to convey.

I don't get the relevance of your points on United either. Sorry.