Has the 'Champions League' got any credibility now?

redspider

I didnt read all of this thread. There are of course various points to be made in relation to the merits of the structure of the CL/European Cup, etc, many of which have been discussed before on this forum over the years and a lot of the points have been re-iterated here again.

Whether this is the right time to discuss it or not is another question though. I'd say a discussion in October might have different emotions running through it.

One thing though is clear:
OP> Has the 'Champions League' got any credibility now?

I think the OP has lost his credibility with asking such a question ......

I'll join the discussion later .... in October!

Redspider

iregk

smemon wrote:

I just think Chelsea got a rough deal on that.. the two had premiership matches, and due to the 4 CL places available, Liverpool were given a massive advantage if they wanted it - and they took it.

Ok even as a Chelsea fan I'm perplexed at this comment. So basically Chelsea should be given some sort of compensation for the fact that they are still competing on 3 fronts? Ok well lets do this, the big clubs are winning everything so lets make it easier for them and fiddle the fixture list to suit just them so they have a better chance of keeping a hold of everything they won?

PHB

Yeh, I could see Hamann because the best performer to. The point I was making is that Liverpool had some great individual performances that day to win the title, just like Keano against Juve, just like Zidane against etc. etc. etc.

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

I think the OP has lost his credibility with asking such a question ......

I'll join the discussion later .... in October!

Redspider

It's probably take until then for you to write your post on it.;)


Why should the question not be asked now?

el rabitos

The Muppet wrote:

It's probably take until then for you to write your post on it.;)


Why should the question not be asked now?

because it wasnt asked pre-wednesday night. ie when utd were still in the tournament.

coincidence?

Mr Alan

because at the moment . . . .

UTD fans are just pissed off they are not in it anymore.
Same for Chelsea.
Liverpool fans feel that people are just trying to be-little their achievement in reaching it.

In October when Liverpool are running away with the league, it'll be a more unbiased conversation

therecklessone

smemon wrote:

it's not. But 2nd is more worthy of a champions league place than 4th. 4th is outside of the gold, silver, bronze system. If you come second, you're more than likely challenging first.

Really?

France

1. Lyon 74pts
2. Bordeaux 55pts

Italy

1. Inter 87pts
2. Roma 69pts

Between those two leagues, 7 sides enter the CL at some point.

One might point to Utd's 3rd place finish two years ago, when they finished a whopping 18pts off the pace, with Arsenal in 2nd 12pts behind champions Chelsea.

I mean, if its competing for the league title that counts, why don't the Eircom League get two places in next year's competition seeing as goal difference had to be used to separate 1st from 2nd?

Why aren't the German or Dutch leagues being rewarded for thrilling ends to their seasons? Surely they're more deserving of extra places than Italy or England, based on their competitive nature?

Four sides from one league is too many, but then so is two teams. I am very suspicious of anyone arguing against four teams in the CL but at the same time supporting the status quo which favours the bigger sides from the bigger leagues, given the timing of this thread.

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

It's probably take until then for you to write your post on it.;)
Why should the question not be asked now?

Muppet, you really live up to your name aptly again, dont you?

Yourself and PleHB are since Wed night in shi.t stirring mode, sneaking digs, slyly and coyly and you know it to boot. Adding smilies and winks doesnt give you a carte blanch to say whatever whenever, at least it shouldnt to a neutral mod.

Your first sentence can be construed as a direct and personal insult, which according to the charter is a banning offence.

You and your type are probably those that get mileage and entertainment from trying to wind people up. With that attitude, people wont take any serious comments you attempt to make serious at all. Mind you, I'm not surprised by your juvenile behaviour as we have seen it in the past before.

Grow up ....

Redspider

iregk

redspider wrote:

With that attitude, people wont take any serious comments you attempt to make serious at all.

Stopped listending to anything he said long ago...

Furthermore how has the CL lost credibility? Because 3rd and 4th place teams can now win it? Just because the top clubs aren't winning it all the time doesn't make it any less prestigious. Ok so Barca, Madrid, Milan are expected to go for it every year, how boring would it be without Liverpool, Porto et all being in there with a shout? I know if the same top 4 were winning it all the time I'd have switched off long ago.

Had it stayed as it was and only the champions allowed entry then the gap not between rich and poor but between 1 team and the rest would have grown. There would now be a core group of possibly 4-6 elite teams in Europe with lots of money while the rest fight it out for the scraps of the Uefa cup. As it is we have the wealth spread across a much larger base of teams.

Remember its nothing new that the two finalists are nowhere in their respective leagues. This has been the case for years. As I recall when Porto won it in the 80's they weren't too far off relegation that year. So why all of a sudden now does this mean its lost all its credibility where as in the past it didn't?

shatners basoon

Don't take it too personally red, its only the internet after all. As for the champions league, it should probably be just the best teams in Europe and thus i like the current system most. Its also useless use league standing as material to supprort change. It'd be like saying United wouldn't deserve to win the league if say they lost points twice to a lower placed team this season. The champions league is a great competition and displays the best club teams in Europe. Thats all the credibility it needs.

LuckyLloyd

shatners basoon wrote:

The champions league is a great competition and displays the best club teams in Europe. Thats all the credibility it needs.

.

Probably should end thread (not that it will).

~Rebel~

smemon wrote:

lol, i've got a fan club

But i truely believe 4 sides from one league is too much. Even 3 is pushing it.

Think about it. The reason the champions league exists is to reward sides that win. That win domestically.

Isn't it a bit of a farce if a 4th place side is allowed in? They might just fluke that position. (like ipswich/everton have done lately - punching way above their weight and qualifying for europe).

If a mens 100m runner finishes 4th in the oylmpics that's nothing. He can't compete. He's not good enough. 2nd and 3rd might have a chance.

By having 4th place as a guaranteed slot, we have seen liverpool deliberately neglect their own league to focus on the champions league which shouldn't be allowed imo. You shouldn't be able to rest a squad when your league position can still change up or down mathematically.

Had there been 3 slots available, liverpool would have HAD to played their best 11 at the weekend and thus, could well have been jaded against Chelsea who had to do just that.

So Chelsea were a victim of their own success. Success is supposed to be rewarded.

Liverpool lost to portsmouth who are 8th. Had liverpool won that match (which we'll never know because they didn't field a full side), portsmouth could be -3 points and thus spurs would be 8th.

This doesn't really matter to those sides, but had liverpool been playing west ham for example, it could cost the other bottom clubs their place in the premiership.

Now im not blaming liverpool here, they are simply being economical, but the FA / Uefa should stop that sort of carry on.

In principal i agree with you, though some of the reasoning doesnt quite add up.

I do think it would probably be better for there to be only 3 places max for the champions league per league. i think most years 4th in any of the top 3 leagues is still perfectly capable of competeing and winning (liverpool 2005 ) but it is a bit much really that nearly a quarter of the top 3 leagues gets in.

I disagree however with the reasoning behind it, as having 3 spots would not solve the problem. It would solve it for this year, but every season is different. This year for instance, its a close run thing between 3 and 4, so if theres only 3 spots they both have to keep playing their best teams. But if for instance only 3 teams are allowed and theres a big gap between 3rd and 4th, then you still have the same problem (gap between arsenal and everton in 2005 for example, even liverpool to arsenal last year). 3rd place can chill out, no pressure, rest their players and lose expendable matches. So what then, down to 2 spots? Bottom line, this problem will be there some years no matter how many places are allotted.

Pepe LeFrits

redspider wrote:

Muppet, you really live up to your name aptly again, dont you?

Yourself and PleHB are since Wed night in shi.t stirring mode, sneaking digs, slyly and coyly and you know it to boot. Adding smilies and winks doesnt give you a carte blanch to say whatever whenever, at least it shouldnt to a neutral mod.

Your first sentence can be construed as a direct and personal insult, which according to the charter is a banning offence.

Well, if the mods were to agree with you on that PC-gone-mad interpretation of what construes an insult, they'd presumably take you down for the above also. Which, considering the richness of you claiming the moral high-ground after baiting PHB yesterday for no reason, would be just fab.

By the way, PHB isn't a mod of Soccer, and as such his moderatorship has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Continually bringing it up belongs to the realm of fight-the-power muppets on the feedback forum who collect bannings. It's a bad similitude to encourage.

shatners basoon

Can't we all get along?!

The Muppet

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

Well, if the mods were to agree with you on that PC-gone-mad interpretation of what construes an insult, they'd presumably take you down for the above also. Which, considering the richness of you claiming the moral high-ground after baiting PHB yesterday for no reason, would be just fab.

By the way, PHB isn't a mod of Soccer, and as such his moderatorship has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Continually bringing it up belongs to the realm of fight-the-power muppets on the feedback forum who collect bannings. It's a bad similitude to encourage.

Fair dues Pepe. Someone must have reported it as personal abuse and the mods have taken the absurd claim seriously as I have recieved a warning about it. Jesus christ it was a joke about the length of Spiders posts , how is it personal abuse ?

Anyway I intend to continue to post as I always have. If somebody wants to perm ban me(next one is third and final) for having a bit of a joke then the forum is not worth contributing to . As some else said . Lighten up its only the internet.

GuanYin

This thread is close enough to being closed without you lot sniping at each other.

Stay on-topic.

Pepe LeFrits

therecklessone wrote:

Four sides from one league is too many, but then so is two teams. I am very suspicious of anyone arguing against four teams in the CL but at the same time supporting the status quo which favours the bigger sides from the bigger leagues, given the timing of this thread.

Surely reducing the number of teams admitted to the CL would only further expand the difference though?

I mean, over the last decade or so, Man United and Arsenal have virtually monopolised 1st and 2nd. Had 3rd and 4th not resulted in CL football, where would Liverpool and Chelsea be now?

therecklessone

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

I mean, over the last decade or so, Man United and Arsenal have virtually monopolised 1st and 2nd. Had 3rd and 4th not resulted in CL football, where would Liverpool and Chelsea be now?

Didn't hurt Arsenal back in 1997/98 when you qualified for the CL for the first time by winning the league...

There's a glass ceiling in English football thats been strengthened by the extension of CL qualification to fourth place IMO. This season and the three preceeding it have seen only one side break into the top four (and if the example set in Spain when Madrid finished in 5th place but took the last CL spot by virtue of winning the tournament had been followed, Everton would never have managed to play in the CL at all).

Contrast that with Spain, where at season's end at least 8 separate teams will have qualified for the CL through their league finish. Hell, contrast it with Germany whose 3 CL places have gone/are likely to go to six different sides.

Pepe LeFrits

therecklessone wrote:

Didn't hurt Arsenal back in 1997/98 when you qualified for the CL for the first time by winning the league...

There's a glass ceiling in English football thats been strengthened by the extension of CL qualification to fourth place IMO. This season and the three preceeding it have seen only one side break into the top four (and if the example set in Spain when Madrid finished in 5th place but took the last CL spot by virtue of winning the tournament had been followed, Everton would never have managed to play in the CL at all).

Contrast that with Spain, where at season's end at least 8 separate teams will have qualified for the CL through their league finish. Hell, contrast it with Germany whose 3 CL places have gone/are likely to go to six different sides.

But Spain has 4 CL places too. Why is there no glass ceiling there? I don't really see the connection to be honest. There's always going to be an imbalance when being successful earns a team more money.

The way I see it, there are only four or five clubs who have a realistic chance of winning the league most years. That's a poor state of affairs but I don't see how reducing the number of CL spots would help - it'd only reduce the number of teams capable of winning the league too. Arsenal won the league in 97/98 to get into the CL, but if they had no CL football for the following 3 seasons it's doubtful as to whether they would have won the league in 01/02. If it were 1 CL place only, barring a Roman Abramovich intervention you could easily end up with Man United being the Rosenborg of the PL.

Kingp35

iregk wrote:

I know if the same top 4 were winning it all the time I'd have switched off long ago.

Have you given up watching the Premiership?

Something tells me you havent

therecklessone

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

But Spain has 4 CL places too. Why is there no glass ceiling there? I don't really see the connection to be honest. There's always going to be an imbalance when being successful earns a team more money.

The division between top 4 and the rest isn't created by 4 CL places, its strengthened by them. The comfort of CL qualification means the top 4 are reaasonably confident of an extra £15m in TV revenue a year, plus prize money+gate receipts+merchandise. That's extended the gap at the top.

Spain is an interesting case...only Real and Barca feature in Forbes' Football Money League this year, and Barca (La Liga champions) got less in TV money from their CL win than Arsenal (PL runners-up) did from finishing runners-up.

One might say you're happy with the status quo because you know it suits Arsenal, and I'm unhappy because it doesn't suit Spurs...trying to speak objectively, IMO a top 4 or a top 2 or a top 1, its all the same, its still limiting success for other sides.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

If it were 1 CL place only, barring a Roman Abramovich intervention you could easily end up with Man United being the Rosenborg of the PL.

Newcastle managed to challenge when it was only 1 CL place per league...and Rosenborg didn't even qualify for Europe last season...:p

Reducing the number of CL entrants from the top leagues would help strengthen the UEFA Cup (and hopefully a reinstated Cup Winners Cup) and see TV money invested in those competitions, so the difference in income for European qualification would not be so great.

Pepe LeFrits

therecklessone wrote:

Newcastle managed to challenge when it was only 1 CL place per league...and Rosenborg didn't even qualify for Europe last season...:p

I'm not sure if this is meant as an argument for or against 1 CL place per league to be honest!

Reducing the number of CL entrants from the top leagues would help strengthen the UEFA Cup (and hopefully a reinstated Cup Winners Cup) and see TV money invested in those competitions, so the difference in income for European qualification would not be so great.

I think the problem lies with the division of the money, not with the format of the competition.

With the CL you get to see the highest level of football with the the best sides in Europe competing on a regular basis. Cutting some of them out in favour of minnows from Europe's other leagues would only dilute it and devalue it. It'd improve the UEFA cup and the CWC if that returned, but instead of one great competition, you'd have a couple of mediocre ones.

The problem is that the way money is divided at the moment makes it harder for teams that are not currently in the 'top' bracket to move into that bracket. I've no problem with 'smaller' teams getting into the CL as long as they are there on merit, and not on charity.

therecklessone

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

With the CL you get to see the highest level of football with the the best sides in Europe competing on a regular basis.

Depends on what stage you're talking about...personally, I don't get interested in the CL until the knockout stages because its all so predictable. Celtic qualifying at Benfica's expense was about as shocking as the group stages got.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

It'd improve the UEFA cup and the CWC if that returned, but instead of one great competition, you'd have a couple of mediocre ones.

Odd logic. How would a Uefa Cup featuring Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, Real Madrid, Valencia, Osasuna, Sevilla, Roma, Milan, Chievo, Palermo, Bremen, Schalke, Hamburg, Ajax, Sporting Lisbon, Benfica among many others be a mediocre competition?

UEFA have bowed to G14s pressure over the last 10 years, in effect neutering the secondary competition to suit the commercial interests of a small number of clubs. Look at the 90s for an example of the high regard the UEFA Cup was held in:

1989/90 Juventus
1990/91 Inter
1991/92 Ajax
1992/93 Juventus
1993/94 Inter
1994/95 Parma
1995/96 Bayern
1996/97 Schalke
1997/98 Inter
1998/99 Parma

Compare with this decade...

1999/00 Galatasaray
2000/01 Liverpool
2001/02 Feyenoord
2002/03 Porto
2003/04 Valencia
2004/05 CSKA Moscow
2005/06 Sevilla
2006/07 Sevilla/Espanyol

With all due respect to those sides, only Liverpool and Valencia can lay claim to a place among the 1st tier of European sides. Juventus, Inter, Bayern, Ajax and arguably Parma could all have been described as 1st tier sides in the 90s.

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

I've no problem with 'smaller' teams getting into the CL as long as they are there on merit, and not on charity.

You might be confusing merit and charity there...some would argue that winning your league deserves more merit than settling for 4th place in one of the big leagues. Some would argue that 4 CL places to one league is charity (to an undeserving cause)

Pepe LeFrits

therecklessone wrote:

Odd logic. How would a Uefa Cup featuring Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Spurs, Real Madrid, Valencia, Osasuna, Sevilla, Roma, Milan, Chievo, Palermo, Bremen, Schalke, Hamburg, Ajax, Sporting Lisbon, Benfica among many others be a mediocre competition?

Not really.

Mediocre by comparison to the current CL. You'd be diluting the CL to strengthen the UEFA cup. Instead of one extremely strong competition you've got two weaker competitions. Replacing the best-of-the-best competition with two some-of-the-best competitions.

UEFA have bowed to G14s pressure over the last 10 years, in effect neutering the secondary competition to suit the commercial interests of a small number of clubs. Look at the 90s for an example of the high regard the UEFA Cup was held in:

With all due respect to those sides, only Liverpool and Valencia can lay claim to a place among the 1st tier of European sides. Juventus, Inter, Bayern, Ajax and arguably Parma could all have been described as 1st tier sides in the 90s.

I'm not disagreeing. It's the distribution of the money that is the problem though, not the competition format.

You might be confusing merit and charity there...some would argue that winning your league deserves more merit than settling for 4th place in one of the big leagues. Some would argue that 4 CL places to one league is charity (to an undeserving cause)

I define merit in terms of ability. If for example, the champions of the Irish league were stronger than the 4th placed team in the PL, they'd get through the qualification stages of the CL and thus, would have merited it. Putting them straight into the competition because they're the best of a bad bunch would be charity.

redspider

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

You'd be diluting the CL to strengthen the UEFA cup. Instead of one extremely strong competition you've got two weaker competitions. Replacing the best-of-the-best competition with two some-of-the-best competitions.

Agreed. All that's happened between the 1960's and now is the change in emphasis and balance of each of the European Cups. There were 3 (European Cup, Uefa/Fairs Cup, and the Cup Winners Cup) and now there are two, with the vast bulk of the money and the better clubs going to the CL.

Btw, the Uefa Cup had a natural higher standard in the past as mainly 2nd placed teams in their leagues were in it. Now its 5th, 6th, 7th etc.

Here is a possible solution:

Just hold ONE European Cup .... that all the best teams play in. Just one. Qualification from each country would consist of the best in their league and the winner (and possibly runner-up) in their Cup. (Yes, Uefa should insist on just one Cup in each country too).

An addtional train of thought however might be to have a B Cup. They do something similar in other sports. With some money going into it, you could have it as an attempt to help level the playing field. Although its what the Uefa Cup is now, except it would block off those CL 3rd placed group teams from getting in via the current 'backdoor' system. Having a B Cup does have some merits in an attempt to improve the game. Maybe a barrier to it would be just to allow those clubs from those countries that are in the bottom half of the Uefa league of coefficients. It would be something that league clubs in Ireland could aspire to win possibly as well.

Redspider

Kingp35

Pepe LeFrits wrote:

I'm not disagreeing. It's the distribution of the money that is the problem though, not the competition format.

I define merit in terms of ability. If for example, the champions of the Irish league were stronger than the 4th placed team in the PL, they'd get through the qualification stages of the CL and thus, would have merited it. Putting them straight into the competition because they're the best of a bad bunch would be charity.

I disagree. The way that the CL is set up at the moment is totally geared towards the G-14 and it doesnt give the smaller clubs the chance to reach the level of ability required to qualify for the Champions League. Having four teams from one league is two much because it takes a potential place away from one of the smaller clubs. There is no way that these smaller clubs are ever going to improve without them getting money and they are not going to get money until they qualify for the CL. There should be a limit of three teams from one country then I would have no problems with the format.

The exact same reasoning is used for the World Cup. If you were basing it on ability then teams like Trinidad and Tobago should not be allowed to enter but FIFA rightly know that these nations will not develop if they are not allowed to enter the big competitions.

Having a team that wins their League having to play three qualifying matches whereas a team that finishes third in another League doesnt have to play any is just wrong. G-14 are ruining football imo. The days off a small club with little or no money like Nottingham Forest winning the European Cup two times in a row is over and to me that makes the game less interesting.

Pepe LeFrits

Kingp35 wrote:

I disagree. The way that the CL is set up at the moment is totally geared towards the G-14 and it doesnt give the smaller clubs the chance to reach the level of ability required to qualify for the Champions League. Having four teams from one league is two much because it takes a potential place away from one of the smaller clubs. There is no way that these smaller clubs are ever going to improve without them getting money and they are not going to get money until they qualify for the CL. There should be a limit of three teams from one country then I would have no problems with the format.

You disagree with what? I've said more than once that the way the money is divided is detrimental to the smaller clubs. The money from the CL should be spread more evenly out into European football so that weaker sides can improve, but until they do improve, they shouldn't be given an easy ride into the competition.

The CL is the pinnacle of world football and should stay that way. In England the premiership teams get way more money than the rest of the teams in the football league. That money should be spread out there too so that lower league teams have a chance to build themselves up. They shouldn't however be promoted straight from League One to the Premiership.

The exact same reasoning is used for the World Cup. If you were basing it on ability then teams like Trinidad and Tobago should not be allowed to enter but FIFA rightly know that these nations will not develop if they are not allowed to enter the big competitions.

Er, if I were basing it on ability then teams like Trinidad and Tobago would have to qualify fair and square like everyone else, only they wouldn't get positive discrimination helping them along. "Welcome to the World Cup T&T, admittedly you're not here on merit as you're **** but we want a country from that part of the world as it's good for the coffers."

This is the international game that is slowly falling apart. It's been recognised for ages that this approach has weakened the World Cup, as you get pointless games at it like Germany vs Saudi Arabia, whereas the standard at the Euros is generally much better.

Having a team that wins their League having to play three qualifying matches whereas a team that finishes third in another League doesnt have to play any is just wrong. G-14 are ruining football imo. The days off a small club with little or no money like Nottingham Forest winning the European Cup two times in a row is over and to me that makes the game less interesting.

Personal preference I suppose. Whether you prefer the 'romance of the cup' and would rather see Man United maul Millwall in the FA cup final than Liverpool beat West Ham on penalties. Personally I'd rather see the highest standard of football possible.

homerjay2005

i aint read all the thread but im sure there are has been a few arguments about this. the champions league will, if platini has his way, be revamped over the coming season, probably more in terms of the qualifications.

id like to see an extra champions cup played pre season, with only league winners playing each other, on a knockout basis. most of the big clubs play in one tournament or another every pre season, this would not affect the fisture list and would aid preparation.

as re some of the comments on here, the credibility of the champions league is never going to be questioned, the only thing that is becoming more apparant is that it is getting harder and harder to concentrate on a close title race and do well in the champions league at the same time.

Jazzy

yeah, i think we should just forego the FA cup as no one outside the premiership will ever win it so whats the point of entering.

I think it should just be between 1st & 2nd place of the PL every year with Barcelona as a special guest referee and its a CAGE MATCH!!!

redzerdrog

Jazzy wrote:

yeah, i think we should just forego the FA cup as no one outside the premiership will ever win it so whats the point of entering.

I think it should just be between 1st & 2nd place of the PL every year with Barcelona as a special guest referee and its a CAGE MATCH!!!

.

PHB

id like to see an extra champions cup played pre season, with only league winners playing each other, on a knockout basis. most of the big clubs play in one tournament or another every pre season, this would not affect the fisture list and would aid preparation.

That is something that'd I'd like to see, not as part of a pre-season preparation, but say at the end of the seasons that don't have a Euro Cup or a World Cup.
Winner of the five big leagues, Spain, England, Italy, France, Germany, playing in a league, playing each other once.
That would be incredible Also, incredibly profitable, so everybody wins.
Who would it be this season?
Based on current league standings,

Man Utd
Barca
Inter
Lyon
Schalke

That'd be a tourney I'd like to watch

That said, I still really want to see the CL revamped, so that after the group stages, only one team gets out of it, into an 8 team league, the winner of which is the winner of the CL. It'd be a similar amount of games, and a lot better imo.

gosplan

Yawn Yawn Yawn.

Maybe the 'champions' moniker doesn't fit but maybe it's also true that the champions of England aren't the best English team when put up against European clubs.

Man United will win the league due to their ability to simply put away most of the premiership. They do not draw with mid-table teams and have attacked their way to the premiership title. All credit is due.

On the other hand, it says a lot about the tactical quality of mid table premiership teams that they've lost to Roma, Milan, Copenhagen and Celtic.

The kick and rush style of the premiership is different to the European game. That's why liverpool are in the final as much as fixture congestion or anything.

Man U played their game by leaving three up front against Milan and they were destroyed. To be honest, they were second best by far in the first leg until Gattuso went off and Scholes was given acres of space.

It's a nonsense argument but start a petition to have it changed back to the 'European Cup' and I'll gladly sign it.

Essentially, United's barnstorming attack which obliterates unorganised 'headless chicken' premiership defences translates as tactical naiveity in Europe. That's why the best team in England is not the best English team in Europe.

gosplan

shatners basoon wrote:

Can't we all get along?!

you must be new

griffdaddy

I was just thinking there, now that teams who don't do well in the champion's league are doing well in the premiership, has the premiership got any credibility?

Guy:Incognito

PHB wrote:

That is something that'd I'd like to see, not as part of a pre-season preparation, but say at the end of the seasons that don't have a Euro Cup or a World Cup.
Winner of the five big leagues, Spain, England, Italy, France, Germany, playing in a league, playing each other once.
That would be incredible Also, incredibly profitable, so everybody wins.
Who would it be this season?
Based on current league standings,

Man Utd
Barca
Inter
Lyon
Schalke

That'd be a tourney I'd like to watch
.

But that would be eliteist and homophobic, and also racist agianst smaller euopean teams from **** leagues etc etc etc. Not to mention anti-shels, shich is the root of this whole thread, truth be told.


In all seriousness though, how does everyone win? those particular 5 temas win (financially I mean, assumeing its not a hippy, share the wealth love in) and exactly against what a lot of people in this thread are going on about (small teams being excluded for the gain of bigger teams)

Sizzler

The quality served up in the semi doesnt seem to have sat well with this ex-Real Madrid chappie

http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/?jp=MHAUSNGBEYMH

PHB

In all seriousness though, how does everyone win? those particular 5 temas win (financially I mean, assumeing its not a hippy, share the wealth love in) and exactly against what a lot of people in this thread are going on about (small teams being excluded for the gain of bigger teams)

No, I mean like a World Cup style thingy, after the season has ended. The CL would still exist.
I think it'd be cool

Personally, what I really want to see, is a CL in league format.

redzerdrog

I think the current champions league format is perfect. The only thing i would change is the name to the european cup.

kaimera

You mean back to the European Cup?

PHB

I always found the name change funny, considering Champions League would have been more appropriate for the previous format, and European Cup would be more appropriate for the current format.

griffdaddy

Sizzler wrote:

The quality served up in the semi doesnt seem to have sat well with this ex-Real Madrid chappie

http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/?jp=MHAUSNGBEYMH

how come it seems like everyone in the football world is turning into an amateur psychologist these days?

PHB

That's a pretty interesting take on it
That said, wasn't Wenger a **** player?

MisterAnarchy

Sizzler wrote:

The quality served up in the semi doesnt seem to have sat well with this ex-Real Madrid chappie

http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/?jp=MHAUSNGBEYMH

Valdano is dead right.
The standard of football in that match was abominable,caveman like.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

griffdaddy

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Valdano is dead right.
The standard of football in that match was abominable,caveman like.

How is he dead right? you can't infer that because 2 teams play a shít game of football both of the managers have an inferiority complex relating back to their days as failed footballers, one of whose condition is aggravated by the fact that his father was a prominent goalkeeper. Unless this guy is part of CSI: Buenos Aires or something.

MisterAnarchy

griffdaddy wrote:

How is he dead right? you can't infer that because 2 teams play a shít game of football both of the managers have an inferiority complex relating back to their days as failed footballers, one of whose condition is aggravated by the fact that his father was a prominent goalkeeper. Unless this guy is part of CSI: Buenos Aires or something.

I dont agree with his view that a managers lack of success as a player makes him a negative coach,that is absurd.
I do agree with him on nearly everything else

Football is made up of subjective feeling, of suggestion - and, in that, Anfield is unbeatable. Put a s*** hanging from a stick in the middle of this passionate, crazy stadium and there are people who will tell you it's a work of art. It's not: it's a s*** hanging from a stick,' he wrote in Spanish newspaper Marca.

'Chelsea and Liverpool are the clearest, most exaggerated example of the way football is going: very intense, very collective, very tactical, very physical, and very direct.

'But, a short pass? No. A feint? No. A change of pace? No. A one-two? A nutmeg? A backheel? Don't be ridiculous. None of that. The extreme control and seriousness with which both teams played the semi-final neutralised any creative licence, any moments of exquisite skill.'

The lives of Mourinho and Benitez have crossed in a world that is ever more scrutinised and exposed by the media, which is why they look at each other with such distrust.

'But they have two things in common: a previously denied, hitherto unsatisfied hunger for glory, and a desire to have everything under control.

PiE

As 'sporting director' of Read Madrid, what has Senor Valdano won lately?

DerekD Goldfish

as much as it pains me to agree with a Real man most of what he has said is quite true.
I dont follow anyone in particular in the premership so dont take this as some anti-pool rant but they are woefull to watch.
You would think years of being an eircom league fan and watching games against the likes of Longford,UCD and my team Pats to an extent for many seasons whould have desenitised me to dull football but liverpool take it to a new level.
Under Houlier they were bad but if naything benitiz has made it worse the odd Goal full euro final aside Its like watching last of the summer wine re-runs. The Liverpool Man City game recently is the worst game of football ive ever seen in my life absolutly soul destorying.
Dont get me wrong I like defening in not nessesary in favor of careless gung ho football but I like to see something reselbeling creativity or imagination. Chelski are slightly better but not a lot.
When Greece wod the European Championships with a dull workmanship side it wasnt great to watch but it was understnadable they are a country with adverage players this is the only way they can compete.
When a club like Liverpool one of the most succesful in european history resorts to this caveman football what kind of example does it set?
I was glad (apart from loseing money on a bet) that Man Utd beat Chelsea to the title and I hope that in the CL final aside from the fact im a bit of a milan fan that the better footballing side wins.
The more this kind of crap is rewarded the worse it is for football.

as I said this is not a personal attack on Liverpool or thier fans just Benitiz.

But that would be eliteist and homophobic, and also racist agianst smaller euopean teams from **** leagues etc etc etc. Not to mention anti-shels, shich is the root of this whole thread, truth be told

Youve completly missed the point Im extremly anti-shels only one club in the world I dislike more. But I still feel the CL needs changing.

MisterAnarchy

PiE wrote:

As 'sporting director' of Read Madrid, what has Senor Valdano won lately?

Ah not much really.:rolleyes:
3 Champions Leagues and 2 Spanish leagues during his time 1997-2005.

PiE

I said lately.

(Regrets not googling)