The most comprehensive test of a club side?

--amadeus--

I'll admit right off that I am a Liverpool fan but that's not really the point... A lot of people slag off the Champions League, they claim it's been devalued by some of the recent winners (Porto, Liverpool, to an extent Milan) and that fluke results allow bad teams to do well.

Which I think is bull!

The name "Champions League" is daft, it hasn't been that in years. What it does do though is concentrate the best teams from European club football in one place, domestic champions or not. And is that such a bad thing? Are FK Ventspils (Latvian champions) really more valuable to a competition than Barcalona? Because restricting it to the domestic champions would have Ventspils in and Barca out. I can't see how that would improve the quality of the winners?

Even so you still have to finish well in a domestic league to qualify, meaning every team in there has at least a year of consistently good results behind it. And once into the Champions League proper poor teams are found out. With a league system you can't defend and hope for draws, or be brilliant but patchy. Over 6 games quality comes out, consistency is rewarded and - without exception - the best teams based on results go through. When a "top" team fails to progress it has nothing to do with luck, they just didn't perform because over a league campaign (even one only 6 matches long) luck levels out.

Then, having proved the consistancy, the 16 remaining teams have to prove that they have the talent to win in knockout football, which is a different skill. They need mental toughness and the ability to do the unexpected, to rise to the occasion. A team might be tough but limited and so get through the league section but the knockout phase is where they get found out. Only a team able to produce moments of magic will get through subsequent rounds of a knockout tournament.

The idea of the restructure of teh Champions League was to minimise the chance of a top club getting knocked out early. An unintended consequence of this is that luck and fluke has been legislated out of the competition, luck might turn an individual match but not 6 league games plus 8 knock outs.

So there you are - the UEFA Champions League, by accident the toughest and most comprehensive test of a football team!

Helix

dunno, id still rate the top domestic leagues as far far far harder to win than the champions league where a bit of luck in the draw and a few decisions going your way can see you into the later rounds

Melion

People are just going to come in here and ramble on about how Liverpool have been lucky to reach 2 finals and a semi-final in 4 years.

Xavi6

I disagree completely with the title 'Champions League'. It's not. It's the 'Top four from the big leagues plus the winners of the shit leagues who never get anywhere anyway' League.

Rename please.

L'prof

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Having said that, it would not surprise me if they reached the final again! I don't think they'll need any luck against Chelsea!

Whether or not they could beat Barcelona/United in the final, who knows?

Yes, I am an Arsenal fan btw, so I still have a bitter taste in my mouth after the last round!

--amadeus--

But that's my point - you might get lucky in a game or two but not over 14! Especially not with 7 away from home.

Yes seedings for teh group stage make it easier for some teams to get through and then a "soft" draw might get you into teh quarters but you can't tell me that there are easy games once you get down to the last 8? Fenerbache were as soft as any left and they scared Chelsea.

And I know that a domestic league means performing over 3osomething games but the CL includes a league element and the standard of opposition is stratospherically higher - Galatasery were awful but you can't tell me that Derby are significantly better!

Melion

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Why dont they deserve to be in the semi's?

--amadeus--

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

I didn't want to get into this team versus that team but LFC do deserve to be through because over the two legs they scored 5 goals against Arsenals 3, nothing else actually matters.

And the eventual winner of this contest will be either a team who have won teh CL within the last three years as well as reaching last years final, the champions elect of England, the recent champions of England or the recent champions of Spain and Europe! Much as I may hate the team that wins it you will not be able to argue they don't deserve it.

gucci

Xavi6 wrote: »

I disagree completely with the title 'Champions League'. It's not. It's the 'Top four from the big leagues plus the winners of the shit leagues who never get anywhere anyway' League.

Rename please.

Which category to FC Porto fit into??

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Yes, I am an Arsenal fan btw, so I still have a bitter taste in my mouth after the last round!

Ya dont say, i never would have guessed it after your first statement

Xavi6

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Oh good God what have you done? There's worms everywhere.

Malice

Melion wrote: »

People are just going to come in here and ramble on about how Liverpool have been lucky

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

:rolleyes: Wow, that didn't take long did it? Seven minutes only!

Xavi6 wrote: »

I disagree completely with the title 'Champions League'. It's not. It's the 'Top four from the big leagues plus the winners of the shit leagues who never get anywhere anyway' League.
Rename please.

Hmm, that's not catchy enough, it doesn't roll off the tongue right. How about this: Since it's a cup involving European teams, could it be called the "European Cup"?

Xavi6

malice_ wrote: »

Hmm, that's not catchy enough, it doesn't roll off the tongue right. How about this: Since it's a cup involving European teams, could it be called the "European Cup"?

:eek: You sir are a genius!

gucci

malice_ wrote: »

Hmm, that's not catchy enough, it doesn't roll off the tongue right. How about this: Since it's a cup involving European teams, could it be called the "European Cup"?

What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers" cup

ShiverinEskimo

gucci wrote: »

What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers" cup

"Oi can see you've played knoifey schpooney befower!!"

Mad_Max

Im a united fan so i'm might be accused of saying the league is the greater test cause we've won it and not the champions league recently.

I do genuinely think the league is the greater test.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Over 6 games quality comes out, consistency is rewarded and - without exception - the best teams based on results go through. When a "top" team fails to progress it has nothing to do with luck, they just didn't perform because over a league campaign (even one only 6 matches long) luck levels out.

I think theres somewhat of a contradiction in this. Over 6 games quality comes through but not over 30+. Teams can go on good runs and win 6/7 in a row but then fall apart e.g. Arsenal. If the champions league was over by xmas they may well have won. But the truer test is the league where the weakness in a team will come out and luck is only a minor part.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Then, having proved the consistancy, the 16 remaining teams have to prove that they have the talent to win in knockout football, which is a different skill.

I agree that its a different skill and i think that liverpool have that skill but that doesn't mean they've passed a tougher test.

But thats just my opinion and I in no way de-value the CL, i'd love to win it again and have been gutted everytime we got knocked out since 99.

Tusky

jasonorr wrote: »

I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

:rolleyes:

Yes, I am an Arsenal fan btw,

Thought so.

I definitely think the league is harder to win. It requires you to be good over a longer period of time. Having said that, I believe a league title and a champions league win carry a similar amount of prestige as to win the Europe, you will usually have to beat the best in the world.

On the whole 'luck' thing. I dont buy it (not directed at you Jason)

Liverpool were lucky in both legs against Inter Milan this year.

They were lucky in both legs against Arsenal too.

They were lucky in both legs against Barcelona last year.

They were lucky in both legs against Chelsea last year.

They were lucky to beat AC Milan in the final in 05.

They were lucky in both legs against Juventus that year.

They were lucky in both legs against Chelsea that year as well.

PHB

In England, the best team is the team who wins the league, not the FA Cup.
That's cause leagues are better than cups.

Problem is, the english league is of worse quality than the european cup.

A European league would be a true test of skill imo. A cup not so much. To win the cup you need to get through the group stages, normally relatively easy, with sides of quality like the top 5-8 in the premiership, then you need to go through knockout stages, with the first round normally being easyish, then you have to beat 3 teams over 2 legs (and a final) of the highest quality.
Considering you play 3 top teams in the league aswell, of equal quality, the PL is a better thing than the CL.

If I had to pick this year, I'd pick the League.

Its that time of year again. "This will be our year" ramblings are replaced by "Champions League is the big one anyway". These kinds of threads and the answers are all dependant on who you support.

Frankly my best mate, a Liverpool fan, told me at the start of the year that if he could pick one trophy this year it'd be the Premiership. Now thats not going to happen he says its all about the Champions League. But Ive a feeling if Liverpool were still in the hunt then he may stil be saying the Premiership is the big one.


Theyre close in stature for sure, but a league is a true test...can u play your best football every week or are u only able to raise it for the big glamour games. Consistency is a true test of how good you are. Frankly going away from home and keeping it tight and booting long balls in the away games and then going out to win your home games is all well and good for Europe but u will not accumulate enough points doing that in a league. Hence the league is a test of whether u are able to go to the cauldrons of other teams grounds out of your comfort zone (crappy stadiums/crap weather/crap pitches etc) and win games. Henco IMO, the league is the most comprehensive test because you are examined on your ability to beat EVERYONE and not just on your ablity to keep your best in reserve, rotate players so that theyre fresh for a cup competition and then go out and keep it tight and raise your game against the big glamour teams.

Porto won a Champions League beating a United side in transition, a hot and cold Deportivo and an over achieving Monaco in the knockout rounds........U cant win the league by avoiding the tough games.


Im not trying to have a dig at Liverpool, the European strategy they employ works and credit to them, I just think its cheapened byt he fact that in the run in theyre playing reserve teams when all the other teams are battling hard on all fronts. The comprehensive test would be being able to compete on both fronts.

L'prof

Melion wrote: »

Why dont they deserve to be in the semi's?

Because if the big decisions were correctly made over the tie, Arsenal would be through! I don't think anybody can argue that, but at the same time...maybe it's better that Liverpool went through because I don't think Arsenal can handle many more games, their squad isn't strong enough!

Basically, I have no problem with a team not playing well and grinding out a result, but "it really grinds my gears" when there is a direct link to their place in the semi finals and bad refereeing decisions! Let's face it, if Arsenal were given the penlty they deserved in the first leg, it would have completely changed the tie and I think they would have went through and who can debate that the penalty Liverpool got was clearly much softer?

Anyway, I'm not trying to "grind anybody elses gears", but I'm sure it won't sit well with a few people, so sorry about that!

Anyway, back on topic...sorry! I personally feel, the biggest test for a club side is the league, however I still feel the Champions League is a great competition and well worth winning, I'd rate it as a close second to the league and some teams might even want it more than the league (United, Chelsea come to mind) but, this is probably due to the fact that they have won the league recently enough!

smemon

I agree with the idea that Porto and Liverpool have de-valued the Champions League in recent years by winning it.

Much like Greece de-valued the Euro's and this years winners of the FA Cup will de-value that.

Champions and any side which wins trophies, in my eyes, should be firm favourites to retain them the following campaign.

With all of the above, that hasn't and will not happen. Right from the moment gerrard lifted the trophy, every football fan around the globe knew it wouldn't be repeated the following year.

Should Chelsea or Utd, Barcelona or Liverpool win it this year, the first 3 have the x factor to retain it.

In fairness to Liverpool, they've earned respect from me in europe, and i no longer regard them as blow ins or flukes. That's because they've shown consistency and a work rate that's required to win trophies over a few seasons now.

Until they do something domestically though, the knives will always be out and rightfully so as you can't play to win one trophy every year.

Put it this way, i'd be willing to take a punt on Liverpool next year in the champions league as an outside bet. A few years ago after they won it, i wouldn't have touched them the following campaign.

Madrid, Barca, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan are all sides you'd put money on. Liverpool aren't on that level yet, but they're getting close as an outsider.

In the league, i'd sooner burn my money than put it on liverpool. Why? Because they've shown nothing to suggest they can win and keep winning the league.

Melion

Who's to say Arsenal would have even scored the fúcking penalty if they had got it?

Guy:Incognito

smemon wrote: »

I agree with the idea that Porto and Liverpool have de-valued the Champions League in recent years by winning it.

Much like Greece de-valued the Euro's and this years winners of the FA Cup will de-value that.

.

What an utter load of cock. Where are all the so called best teams when it comes to the final if the teams that get there are devaluing it? Surely if they were that good and Liverpool that bad, the cup would be won by Utd, Chelsea and Barce every year.

Why did Greece win it with the magical talents of the other teams around?

smemon wrote: »

With all of the above, that hasn't and will not happen. Right from the moment gerrard lifted the trophy, every football fan around the globe knew it wouldn't be repeated the following year.
.

Yet if the following 3 years we got to a semi and a final, not bad for a team with no chance. Incidentally where were the mighty Utd during all this, surely they shoudl be carvign up the competition every year?



Stop talking crap, after 4 years it's gettign really old.

L'prof

Melion wrote: »

Who's to say Arsenal would have even scored the fúcking penalty if they had got it?

At home, I'm pretty sure they would have!

Guy:Incognito

jasonorr wrote: »

At home, I'm pretty sure they would have!

Is the goal bigger when a team is playing at home?

PHB

Are Barnsley better than Chelsea or Liverpool?

It's a cup, will always have an element of 'luck', in that some times some teams will play above themselves, and the better teams will play below themselves.

zAbbo

Clearly whoever wins the world cup is jokers, and it's the team which gets the most qualifying points.

Or the real answer is, It's a more comprehensive test of a club side to have won whatever trophy the team you support has won last.

United got lucky in the CL in 99, but I wouldn't begrudge them as being worthy winners, they deserved it. It's just a little sad when people say that Liverpool got lucky (consistent luck...) in the CL in recent years.

zAbbo

zAbbo wrote: »

Clearly whoever wins the world cup is jokers, and it's the team which gets the most qualifying points.

Or the real answer is, It's a more comprehensive test of a club side to have won whatever trophy the team you support has won last.

United got lucky in the CL in 99, but I wouldn't begrudge them as being worthy winners, they deserved it. It's just a little sad when people say that Liverpool got lucky (consistent luck...) in the CL in recent years.

In fairness, United didnt lose any of their games in the CL in 99, not one. Thats not lucky. There was no luck about the goals, it could be viewed as lucky because they scored so late but it wasnt due to a gift penalty, a penalty that was or wasnt given, an offside that wasnt given or anything else like that. United did well to hang in there wihtout Keane and Scholes but Schmeichel being a great keeper isnt luck.


This thread isnt about who got lucky when though. Its about whether or not winning the CL alone is the most comprehensive test and I say no. However winning the league alone is not that either. I believe you have to be competitive in both to be regarded as a great team.

Melion

jasonorr wrote: »

At home, I'm pretty sure they would have!

What difference would that have made to the best penalty stopper in european/world football?

L'prof

zAbbo wrote: »

Clearly whoever wins the world cup is jokers, and it's the team which gets the most qualifying points.

Or the real answer is, It's a more comprehensive test of a club side to have won whatever trophy the team you support has won last.

United got lucky in the CL in 99, but I wouldn't begrudge them as being worthy winners, they deserved it. It's just a little sad when people say that Liverpool got lucky (consistent luck...) in the CL in recent years.

This will be my last post in this thread otherwise, I'll just be repeating myself but, I don't mind a team being lucky at all! United were lucky I suppose in that final, but they won because they never gave up...the same with Liverpool in Istanbul, they never gave up...It actually pleases me to see teams do that!

However, it drives me wild if I feel a team has progressed through bad refereeing decisions!

Melion wrote: »

What difference would that have made to the best penalty stopper in european/world football?

Reina is a great shot stopper, but the fact that it was in the Emirates means that there is less pressure on the kick taker! When was the last time Reina saved a penalty anyway, it has to be a couple of months at least?

zAbbo

smemon wrote: »

I agree with the idea that Porto and Liverpool have de-valued the Champions League in recent years by winning it.

Just like United devalued it in 99 I suppose (knocked out in the quarters in 98 & 2000)

smemon wrote: »

Should Chelsea or Utd, Barcelona or Liverpool win it this year, the first 3 have the x factor to retain it.

Chelsea and Barcelona look set to go through a rebuilding stage - in fact both teams look least formidable this year than they have in the previous 3 years, talking through your hoop there.

smemon wrote: »

Until they do something domestically though, the knives will always be out and rightfully so as you can't play to win one trophy every year.

Until United do something in Europe, the knives will always be out and rightfully so as you can't play to win one trophy every year. (see what I done there )

smemon wrote: »

Madrid, Barca, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan are all sides you'd put money on. Liverpool aren't on that level yet, but they're getting close as an outsider.

United and Chelsea have reached one CL final between them in 15 years, I'm not a betting man, but thats hardly inside bet form... (but don't like the rose tinted glasses disguise that)

smemon wrote: »

In the league, i'd sooner burn my money than put it on liverpool. Why? Because they've shown nothing to suggest they can win and keep winning the league.

Your betting nous has already been highlighted above

zAbbo

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, United didnt lose any of their games in the CL in 99, not one. Thats not lucky. There was no luck about the goals, it could be viewed as lucky because they scored so late but it wasnt due to a gift penalty, a penalty that was or wasnt given, an offside that wasnt given or anything else like that. United did well to hang in there wihtout Keane and Scholes but Schmeichel being a great keeper isnt luck.

See how infuriating it is when someone says you got lucky?

I agree United made their luck, they could easily have been down 2-0 in the first 20mins in the final, and were all but dead until the final few minutes.

Where they a little bit lucky? Yes, but they made their luck and were worthy winners, fully deserved it.

Pigman II

smemon wrote: »

Much like Greece de-valued the Euro's and this years winners of the FA Cup will de-value that.

Eh? If anything it was one of the greatest things I've witnessed ever in football. Even better than Demark winning it in 92. Greece deservedly won that competition. They were better organised and smarter than the other teams they played against and should be applauded for their achievement not written off as some fluke or insult to the game.

Also unlike say Liverpool/Chelsea in the FA cup this year it wasn't as tho the so called "deserving" teams at Euro2004 such as France, CzechRep or Portugal didn't want the trophy or sent scratch teams to the finals. They wanted it but just weren't good enough to beat a team that had each of their respective numbers.

Seeing Greece makes fools of of these prima-donnas gives me hope that one day a small country like Ireland can also win a trophy of that calibre.

LuckyLloyd

Consistency? Liverpool have played 54 champions league games since August 2004 and have reached two finals; a second round; with a semi - final and further progression in the tournament yet to come. Is that not consistent?

EDIT: Great post Pigman II

shane86

PL v CL. Its all a bit like saying FIFA rankings are more important/exciting than the WC or the Euros. After all, to win the WC you have to "only" win 5 matches in a row. A bit of luck can mean a single win and two draws see you through to the last 16. To stay high in the FIFA rankings you have to be 100% on top of your game year round, including friendlies iirc.

CL is simply more exciting than the PL. Away goals, penalty shoot outs, banging out results 1000 miles from home in stadia with 1000 away fans and 60,000 insane local ultras in attendance, the fact that, often unlike the PL, every single game counts. Name a PL game this year that was as tense, as exciting and had as much hinging on it as Arsenal v Liverpool on Tuesday (bar maybe Man C v Utd, for bragging rights ) Every football fan in Europe knows who won the 2005 CL- who the **** abroad knows or cares who won the 2001 EPL?

Trizo

The thing about cup competitions is that on any given day any team can win.
That’s why people love cup competitions so much because generally the league is predictable within reason.
We can see that with the FA cup this year what odds would you have gotten on that final??
The reason the league is the true best indicator is because you have to do it week in week out.
Added to this you have the poor decisions which can make or break a cup run
in the league these tend to even themselves out over the season.

Cup competitions have been devalued in the past few years but a cup is a cup who would say no to winning one?

Tusky

jasonorr wrote: »

Because if the big decisions were correctly made over the tie, Arsenal would be through! I don't think anybody can argue that, but at the same time...maybe it's better that Liverpool went through because I don't think Arsenal can handle many more games, their squad isn't strong enough!

Basically, I have no problem with a team not playing well and grinding out a result, but "it really grinds my gears" when there is a direct link to their place in the semi finals and bad refereeing decisions! Let's face it, if Arsenal were given the penlty they deserved in the first leg, it would have completely changed the tie and I think they would have went through and who can debate that the penalty Liverpool got was clearly much softer?

Anyway, I'm not trying to "grind anybody elses gears", but I'm sure it won't sit well with a few people, so sorry about that!

Anyway, back on topic...sorry! I personally feel, the biggest test for a club side is the league, however I still feel the Champions League is a great competition and well worth winning, I'd rate it as a close second to the league and some teams might even want it more than the league (United, Chelsea come to mind) but, this is probably due to the fact that they have won the league recently enough!

What about the blatant handball in the first leg which should have resulted in a Liverpool penalty ?

oobydooby

The CL is the toughest to win, I agree with the OP. Consistency wins leagues and all the entrants are consistent by default (some maybe much more than others). As a Liverpool fan I would love to win the English league because it's been so long since we won it. But I still think the CL is the bigger competition. Only an opinion, not a dig.

Also, in england I can name Liverpool 77 and 84 and Manchester United in 99 who won both their domestic leagues and the European Cup in the same year. Leaping to mind are the Lisbon Lions and Barca in 2006. Porto 2004. I would really not be sure who won domestic leagues across Europe even over the last 10-20 years but I'd know who won the European cups those years.

Ask Derry City whether their domestic league or the European Cup is the bigger challenge!

FatherTed

Great. Another thread that has turned into a Liverpool vs Man Utd slag fest.

Liverpool are better at the CL than Man Utd. Man Utd are better in the Prem than Liverpool. Which competition is more important/better? Depends on who you support because nobody can be objective about it.

SantryRed

The most comprehensive test of a club side is to win both the Champions League and their domestic league in the same season.
Then they would be classed as proper Champions of Europe as they have been consistently playing well for the whole season.

Trizo

SantryRed wrote: »

The most comprehensive test of a club side is to win both the Champions League and their domestic league in the same season.
Then they would be classed as proper Champions of Europe as they have been consistently playing well for the whole season.

I think that’s a pretty reasonable argument shows that you have competed on all front and beaten all comers. It has to be a hell of alot easier for a team if they only have one aim or chance of winning something be it league or cup.
Also you could prob throw in the intercontinental cup and then the team would be classed as world champions.

walshki

Agree with renaming the competition but more importantly lets rename this thread the 'big swinging mickey thread'.

The unbelievable thing is that there's a bit of an underlying presumption that united will win the league and Liverpool might win the Champions league (we can all pretend to be objective but lets stop pretending). Will we all salute Chelski if they do the double - inwardly I won't - I think the way their playing is crap at the moment and deep down no matter what all the united and liverpool fans say (and I'm a liverpool fan) we'll all be gutted and will feel that the right team didn't win.

Winning competitions is about just that - winning - best? most difficult? You can never tell. Prestige is all you can really think abour and there's no real answer to that one either. CL is more glamorous, PL involves a lot more playing time so both have their selling points.

Now, where did I see that 'Whats the sound of one hand clapping thread?'

Unearthly

As a Man Ud fan(before i get accused of being a scouser with a logical post), I think it's a bit pathetic how Liverpool are being accused of devlauing the cup. They have proved beyond any doubt they have the requirements, tactics and skill to beat any team and progress. Anyone who has tried to belittle their achivements are just embarrassing themselves.

As for which proves who is the better team, I would go for the league. You have to be more consistent in the league in order to win it. I think it takes 2 different skills to perform in the league and CL though

Guy:Incognito

walshki wrote: »

Liverpool might win the Champions league'

Well they might. So might Chelsea, Utd or Barce.

smemon

Too many quotes to mention but in order for liverpool to be considered a top side they have to prove themselves across the board - they have to challenge for all.

I'm not anti-liverpool more than i am anti-arsenal or anti-chelsea...

I recognise Chelsea and Arsenal as top sides as they have the style of football and the consistency in all trophies to merit being labelled a top side.

Liverpool quite simply do not have the x factor those two sides + Utd have. They're getting there, as i said before. The have the work rate, like Greece did. That's a huge reason why they're so successful in europe.

They also have Torres who is the real deal and forces you in to acknowledging Liverpool have a certain cutting edge about them. But overall, Utd & Chelsea are the top two in english football, followed by Arsenal and then Liverpool.

There's not much between Utd and Chelsea imo, Arsenal are a good bit behind them and are punching above their weight i believe (i said that throughout the season), and Liverpool are very close to Arsenal, but still a bit behind.

To win a Champions league & return to another final shortly afterwards is obviously a sign that Liverpool are doing something right. But when you look at the bigger picture, failing to secure a 4th place finish in the league or even playing for 4th spot tells you all you need to know.

Like i said above, i'm not any more anti-Liverpool than i am Arsenal or Chelsea, i'm simply looking at the form over a number of years and also taking in to account the potential i think all the sides have or don't have.

Of course it's nice to see under dogs win every now and then and of course every side is going to need and get luck - that's football. But when underdogs rate themselves as top dogs, they need to be put in their place.

kryogen

Winning your domestic league is the most comprehensive challenge any team from the top leagues can have

end of story

DSB

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Oh my, I actually wretched a little reading this post.

kryogen wrote: »

Winning your domestic league is the most comprehensive challenge any team from the top leagues can have

end of story

Oh, we may aswell close the thread now then.

kryogen

thanks DSB, good to see you got the point

Dont be at yourself

How many more threads can we have this same discussion in? This board will never reach a consensus on the merits of Liverpool, and all the arguments have been heard countless times. Lets put it to bed instead of dragging every thread down that route.

iregk

I agree, lets put this one to bed. Do we really need this discussion every time liverpool or united win a game in europe.

The fact is, liverpool are not good enough in the league while they propser in europe. To some extent its a mystery wrapped up in an enigma. United have been great in the league but not good enough in europe. Ditto for Chelsea and Arsenal (one final appearance a side).

The fact though remains, anyone other than united fans are going to point at uniteds lack of european cups and say they are not the best. Anyone other than liverpool fans are going to poke fun at them saying they can't win the league hence they are not the best. Even if they win the league people are bound to say they are still not the best as they didn't win the toyota corolla world club cup (or what ever its called) by failing to beat sporting shangai or something in 60degree heat!
If chelsea win everything people win still poke fun because its chelsea and it will pi$$ them off no end. They are old arguments that we have heard countless time so please can we put it to bed.

Mr Alan

smemon wrote: »

I'm not anti-liverpool more than i am anti-arsenal or anti-chelsea...I recognise Chelsea and Arsenal as top sides as they have the style of football and the consistency in all trophies to merit being labelled a top side.

Stop going on about the ****ing X-factor Mr Cowell!

So Arsenal are a top side yet they have finished below Liverpool in the last two seasons, and havent won a trophy since 2005? But Liverpool arent despite winning the Cl in 2005, the FA Cup in 2006 and finishing ABOVE arsenal in the league the last two seasons (and the way things are going at the minute for Arsenal, may well do again) are not a top side?

Your logic is baffling to say the least.

but the simple fact is, League is priority for Liverpool this year and most years as it has been so long since we won it. If we won the league every year, the CL would be priority.

there is no doubt that the CL is the more prestigious trophy to win and is regarded as number 1 in every country except England. this explains why Liverpool are so respected throughout Europe, but ridiculed by opposing fans in England.

gucci

ShiverinEskimo wrote: »

"Oi can see you've played knoifey schpooney befower!!"

Haha, wasnt sure if anyone would have known what i was on about there :pac::pac: