What is/was harder to win the Old European Cup or the Champions League.

Dub13

All things considered which do you think was/is harder to win..?


Old Format
Lets look at the old format first.You needed to be National champions to qualify.You also could not afford a bad game early on as you can in the CL,some teams have got out of their group after losing there first few games.So in the old format a good start is required.

But you could feasible get a handy run to the final from the open draw and not meet many/any good teams.Less games required to win it.

The New Format
The round-robin group phase and more teams has meant you can afraid a slow start unlike the old format.I feel the group stages have become a bit of a joke,its just their to feed the monster that is UEFA.I would love to see some stats on how often a team that is not one of the top 2 seeds gets out of the group,I would say its not many.Keeping teams from the same country apart in the last 16 is also wrong,its clearly an advantage to the stronger nations.

Up to 4 teams from a country can enter,some would say this adds to the difficulty in winning it.Its clear for all to see that the CL has a lot more good teams in it but every effort is made to keep them apart for as long as possible.

So lets get some debate going on this,I will add a poll and see what the forum thinks.

Unearthly

Old format was easier to win once you had qualified(which in itself was much harder to do than the new format)

New format easier to qualify, but harder to win.

I'd say it's about equal taking into account that.

That_Guy

I think it's pretty even to be honest. It's easier to qualify now than it used to be but is much more difficult to win. However qualifying was harder in the old format but easier to win.

Even stevens.

gimmick

Champions League

Given the fact that all the big teams are more or less kept away from each other from the start today, and the old format had an open draw, I reckon the older version was more difficult.

Dub13

Champions League

No option added to the poll.

Dave!

Well Liverpool won most of their cups pre-Champions League, and United won most of theirs in the CL format, so the old one is obviously harder and more impressive.

Bubs101

Champions League

The old one is much harder to win on the basis of how hard it is to qualify. Having said that the quality of the teams that do get extra places does something to close the gap

Mitch Connor

Taking the question at its most basic - which competition is harder to win, I have to say the new format is, once you are in it.

There are more games to play, which mean more times for mistakes to occur, you also play a much higher caliber of opposition more often.

Yes, it is easier to get into the new format, but that has just served to massively increased the number of quality sides you can play.

eagle eye

Champions League

The old one was much tougher because it was knockout all the way and there was no seeding.

The new one is set up for the bigger clubs with bigger squads to reach the last eight at the very least so its like you need to win three rounds now and you are Champions, albeit its likely tougher in the knockout stages now.

Frisbee

The same

Dave! wrote: »

Well Liverpool won most of their cups pre-Champions League, and United won most of theirs in the CL format, so the old one is obviously harder and more impressive.

Basically my thinking as soon as I read the title.
This will degenerate into another United vs. Pool thread.

I reckon the new format is harder to win, way more games and a ageneral higher caliber of opposition

Dub13

Champions League

Frisbee wrote: »

Basically my thinking as soon as I read the title.
This will degenerate into another United vs. Pool thread.

I am determined it will not,we can not have United vs. Pool 'feuds' spilling over into other threads.

Mr. Presentable

Champions League

Based on the fact that you had to be champions either at home or of Europe, and that each round was knockout, obviously the European Cup was harder to win. For me, at least, the current European flagship club competition is diluted and boring.

If club A meets club B in the same competition every year it's boring. If club A can get to the final by winning fewer than half their games, it's diluted.

And this is how it happens when you pack a competition with the same sixteen teams every year, and so many extra chances to progress.

So, sorry Man U fans, two wins in the current format is not the equal of what was achieved by, say, Aston Villa. The competition is set up for your club (and similar) because that's where the money is.

Mitch Connor

First off - boring matters nothing in terms of difficulty to win, so discussions of how entertaining it is are moot imo. Also, United will be playing the best team in Spain in the final this year. in the old format this would not have happened.

Yes, the competition is now easier to get in to - but i don't see how anyone could argue it is not harder to win once you get there given there are a lot more sides involved and a lot more quality sides involved.

Paul Tergat

nipplenuts wrote: »

or me, at least, the current European flagship club competition is diluted and boring.

If club A meets club B in the same competition every year it's boring.

While some of your points are pretty valid I have to pull you up on calling the competition boring, cmon really?

And when clubs meet consistently it means that rivalries are formed, which adds more spice to the games imo

Both formats were very difficult and there can be arguments made for both sides, very equal id say overall

DSB

Champions League

Yeah definitely the old one, don't have the likes of Arsenal sliding in after a terrible season, and once you get in, you have to consistently perform without the benefit of away goals (I think) or getting away with the odd poor game.

Frisbee

The same

Dub13 wrote: »

I am determined it will not,we can not have United vs. Pool 'feuds' spilling over into other threads.

Your asking which format is better.
The one Liverpool won more in.
Or the one United won more in.

Unfortunately it's going to happen

Frisbee

The same

DSB wrote: »

Yeah definitely the old one, don't have the likes of Arsenal sliding in after a terrible season, and once you get in, you have to consistently perform without the benefit of away goals (I think) or getting away with the odd poor game.

Yeah I mean we only beat Porto, who got to the QF, Fenerbache, Kiev, Roma and Villareal. We had an easy run

DSB

Champions League

Frisbee wrote: »

Yeah I mean we only beat Porto, who got to the QF, Fenerbache, Kiev, Roma and Villareal. We had an easy run

I'm not referring to your CL run at all, moreso saying that a side who performed as poorly in the league as Arsenal have shouldn't be in the CL. Well no actually, not that they shouldn't be in it. But having the opportunity to come 4th in your league and still get to enter definitely makes it easier to win.

Mitch Connor

DSB wrote: »

I'm not referring to your CL run at all, moreso saying that a side who performed as poorly in the league as Arsenal have shouldn't be in the CL. Well no actually, not that they shouldn't be in it. But having the opportunity to come 4th in your league and still get to enter definitely makes it easier to win.

How does having Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Villareal, Inter Millan, Juve, Roma etc all as potential sides to overcome make the competition EASIER to win?

The competition is easier to get in to, but a whole lot harder to actually win.

Frisbee

The same

DSB wrote: »

I'm not referring to your CL run at all, moreso saying that a side who performed as poorly in the league as Arsenal have shouldn't be in the CL. Well no actually, not that they shouldn't be in it. But having the opportunity to come 4th in your league and still get to enter definitely makes it easier to win.

Well if the team that comes 4th in England is able to get to the semi finals I don't see why they shouldn't be afforded a spot.
We went through the qualifying round like many other teams except the difference was that we were good enough to progress in the competition

DSB

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

How does having Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Villareal, Inter Millan, Juve, Roma etc all as potential sides to overcome make the competition EASIER to win?

The competition is easier to get in to, but a whole lot harder to actually win.

But you have to get into it, to win, so that has to be included.

DSB

Champions League

Frisbee wrote: »

Well if the team that comes 4th in England is able to get to the semi finals I don't see why they shouldn't be afforded a spot.
We went through the qualifying round like many other teams except the difference was that we were good enough to progress in the competition

I'd imagine the teams that finish 5th and 6th in the Premiership would probably get out of the group stages too though, and with the money they'd get from that........you see where I'm going with this.

Mitch Connor

DSB wrote: »

But you have to get into it, to win, so that has to be included.

And you have to get in to the premiership in the first place.

So the World Club Cup is the hardest Club competition to win.

DSB

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

And you have to get in to the premiership in the first place.

So the World Club Cup is the hardest Club competition to win.

Without a doubt. Its just looked down on a little, because it gets a little bit easier once you get there.

Bubs101

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

First off - boring matters nothing in terms of difficulty to win, so discussions of how entertaining it is are moot imo. Also, United will be playing the best team in Spain in the final this year. in the old format this would not have happened.

Exactly. In the old format, 3 of the 4 semi finalists who only had to win two ties to win the thing could never have ever gotten that far (Although if the holders got in Chelsea could maybe have qualified based on the fact they placed second in the England and Europe and Man Utd got two places?)

The fact you have teams who have won the Champion's League but never would have qualified in the old format shows that it's harder

Edit: Actually, if we're talking euro wide and not just in England it's infinitely harder for the clubs from **** nations

eagle eye

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Also, United will be playing the best team in Spain in the final this year. in the old format this would not have happened.

Yes, the competition is now easier to get in to - but i don't see how anyone could argue it is not harder to win once you get there given there are a lot more sides involved and a lot more quality sides involved.

The first bit is total nonsense. There have been many finals where the two best sides from diffeent coutries and possibly the two best sides in Europe have met. Juventus vs Liverpool, and Liverpool vs Real Madrid come to mind immediately. There have been many more also.

The competition is now easier to get into, you had to be Champions before, so tougher to qualify for it.
You had to beat every club you met over two legs.
Now you can lose twice to the same club and still advance through the group stages.
You can even play a weakened team in the last two games of the group stages if you have qualifield already. You can actually play a part in eliminating potential opponents from your own group if you are certain to qualify. Its not the same at all, you had to beat your opponents over two legs in the old competition or you were out. You couldn't potentially eliminate opponents unless you beat them yourself.
A good example of this would be 99 where United and Barca played out two 3-3 draws. Barcelona lost twice to Bayern Munich and ended up not qualifying for the knockout stages. United went on to beat Bayern Munich in the final but they did it without beating Barca.

Mitch Connor

eagle eye wrote: »

The first bit is total nonsense. There have been many finals where the two best sides from diffeent coutries and possibly the two best sides in Europe have met. Juventus vs Liverpool, and Liverpool vs Real Madrid come to mind immediately. There have been many more also.

The competition is now easier to get into, you had to be Champions before, so tougher to qualify for it.
You had to beat every club you met over two legs.
Now you can lose twice to the same club and still advance through the group stages.
You can even play a weakened team in the last two games of the group stages if you have qualifield already. You can actually play a part in eliminating potential opponents from your own group if you are certain to qualify. Its not the same at all, you had to beat your opponents over two legs in the old competition or you were out. You couldn't potentially eliminate opponents unless you beat them yourself.
A good example of this would be 99 where United and Barca played out two 3-3 draws. Barcelona lost twice to Bayern Munich and ended up not qualifying for the knockout stages. United went on to beat Bayern Munich in the final but they did it without beat Barca.

with regards to the group stage and being able to lose two games and get through... just look at the realities.

In the old format - you had two round, then the quarters. In the new format, you have the group stage, the second round, then the quarters. So there is only 1 less knockout stage, against tougher opposition. Harder to win.

Bubs101

Champions League

DSB wrote: »

Without a doubt. Its just looked down on a little, because it gets a little bit easier once you get there.

It's looked down on due to European arrogance and the realisation that Europe's not that far ahead. South American teams have won it more

eagle eye

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

with regards to the group stage and being able to lose two games and get through... just look at the realities.

In the old format - you had two round, then the quarters. In the new format, you have the group stage, the second round, then the quarters. So there is only 1 less knockout stage, against tougher opposition. Harder to win.

How can it possibly be tougher when you can lose two games to the same side and still win it

PHB

The same

I don't really know how good the standard was in the 70s and 80s to be honest, but I'd imagine winning it was quite an achievement.

But if you were to take the current set of teams we have, and look at each format, you'd have to say that winning in the modern CL format is much more difficult. You have to have the better of not only the best team from Spain or Italy, but the better of all the tops teams there, and the better of the top teams from England as well.

United are playing Barca this year in the CL final. Last year though, Real Madrid won the league. Inter won their league.

If this year United only had to beat Bayern, Madrid and Inter [and the rest of the teams would be easy], I'd be nearly sure that we'd win the thing.

DSB

Champions League

Bubs101 wrote: »

It's looked down on due to European arrogance and the realisation that Europe's not that far ahead. South American teams have won it more

I think they've won it more BECAUSE of European arrogance to be honest.

Mitch Connor

eagle eye wrote: »

How can it possibly be tougher when you can lose two games to the same side and still win it

Just because there is a league format group stage, you chose to ignore the fact there is only 1 less knockout round.

Is getting though the group stage really that much easier than beating Belfast Crusaders, as Liverpool did in 76 to get through the first knockout round? You point to united getting two draws agasint Barcelona in 99. Are you saying getting though a group with Barcelona, Bayern Munich AND the danish champions Bronby is easier than getting past Belfast Crusaders?

Bubs101

Champions League

PHB wrote: »

I don't really know how good the standard was in the 70s and 80s to be honest, but I'd imagine winning it was quite an achievement.

But if you were to take the current set of teams we have, and look at each format, you'd have to say that winning in the modern CL format is much more difficult. You have to have the better of not only the best team from Spain or Italy, but the better of all the tops teams there, and the better of the top teams from England as well.

United are playing Barca this year in the CL final. Last year though, Real Madrid won the league. Inter won their league.

If this year United only had to beat Bayern, Madrid and Inter [and the rest of the teams would be easy], I'd be nearly sure that we'd win the thing.

You had stronger eastern European leagues back in the day though so it wouldn't be a glorified competition between 4 countries and considering the money it brings in, it would enhance the growth of countries in worse football areas now so the clubs would be bigger

Mitch Connor

Bubs101 wrote: »

You had stronger eastern European leagues back in the day though so it wouldn't be a glorified competition between 4 countries and considering the money it brings in, it would enhance the growth of countries in worse football areas now so the clubs would be bigger

It wouldn't bring in the same money if there were only 7 rounds, and a lot more poorer teams competing in those games.

Bubs101

Champions League

DSB wrote: »

I think they've won it more BECAUSE of European arrogance to be honest.

Don't think so. United pulled out of the FA cup to play in it for example and most teams play strong teams there. The Italians always take it seriously, especially against Argentinian opposition. Most European teams make it sound like they couldn't care less after they lose

PHB

The same

Yeh I think you'd be right, also the winners of Portugal, Holland and Germany would be much stronger.

As such, it's difficult to compare the past European Cup with the present CL, sinc efootball has changed so much and major leagues have started to dominate, all I'm saying is that in terms of the two formats, at the present point in time, the old european Cup format is much easier to win.

DSB

Champions League

Bubs101 wrote: »

Don't think so. United pulled out of the FA cup to play in it for example and most teams play strong teams there. The Italians always take it seriously, especially against Argentinian opposition. Most European teams make it sound like they couldn't care less after they lose

United didn't want to play in it, and pulled out of the FA Cup almost as a protest if I remember correctly.

LuckyLloyd

The same

Once the competitions begin, the Champions League is a looooooooooooot tougher to win than the old format. How anyone would even wish to debate that aspect of the question posed is beyond my comprehension.

Bubs101

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It wouldn't bring in the same money if there were only 7 rounds, and a lot more poorer teams competing in those games.

I see what your saying but considering the money in football now and the elite status of the competition it would still bring in more money than any other qualifiable tournament and give the qualifiers a big financial push and Champion's League money has contributed greatly to the prices of modern football so if there wasn't as much money in it prices could be lower (pre-Abramovich definitely) and wages certainly would be

A Primal Nut

To get into - the old format, obviously
Group - Its similiar - you could afford to lose your first three games in the old format too - 2 teams out of 4 qualify in both.
Knockout - much more difficult now. In the past Rosenberg, Dynamo Kiev and teams of that lesser quality got to the quarters and semis. Now its only teams from the top 4 leagues who qualify for the second round, and of course there is an extra round of matches. 4th place in Italy, Spain or England is much better than Rosenberg or any of those teams.

So overall, I'm going for the new system being much harder.

Bubs101

Champions League

A Primal Nut wrote: »

In the past Rosenberg, Dynamo Kiev and teams of that lesser quality got to the quarters and semis. Now its only teams from the top 4 leagues who qualify for the second round, and of course there is an extra round of matches. 4th place in Italy, Spain or England is much better than Rosenberg or any of those teams.
.

Dynamo Kiev also got to a semi final in the current format unless I'm mistaken and teams like Kiev and Red Star were legitimate forces back then

Mitch Connor

People say United and Barcelona are the best sides in the world at the moment. If United were playing Real in the final next week, a Madrid side that have been humped quite a lot over the last few weeks, people would not think beyond United winning it. If United did win that final, they would say Barcelona would have beaten them if they had been there, that Barcelona were better than Madrid as proven in the league this year and that they are the best team in the world at the moment.

I think the top sides being in the CL means that you will always get the form sides in Europe in the latter stages, you are more likely to have the best sides in europe THIS season, as opposed to the previous season.

eagle eye

Champions League

A Primal Nut wrote: »

To get into - the old format, obviously
Group - Its similiar - you could afford to lose your first three games in the old format too - 2 teams out of 4 qualify in both.
Knockout - much more difficult now. In the past Rosenberg, Dynamo Kiev and teams of that lesser quality got to the quarters and semis. Now its only teams from the top 4 leagues who qualify for the second round, and of course there is an extra round of matches. 4th place in Italy, Spain or England is much better than Rosenberg or any of those teams.

So overall, I'm going for the new system being much harder.

WAT???

Bubs101

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

People say United and Barcelona are the best sides in the world at the moment. If United were playing Real in the final next week, a Madrid side that have been humped quite a lot over the last few weeks, people would not think beyond United winning it. If United did win that final, they would say Barcelona would have beaten them if they had been there, that Barcelona were better than Madrid as proven in the league this year and that they are the best team in the world at the moment.

I think the top sides being in the CL means that you will always get the form sides in Europe in the latter stages, you are more likely to have the best sides in europe THIS season, as opposed to the previous season.

What, like Liverpool winning it from fifth or the Real team of 97,98 winning it from 7th in there domestic league. I call shenanigans

Mitch Connor

Bubs101 wrote: »

What, like Liverpool winning it from fifth or the Real team of 97,98 winning it from 7th in there domestic league. I call shenanigans

So at no point in the past did the winning team not so awesome in their league? They still beat teams that were on form in their own leagues.

ctrl-alt-delete

The same

When was the change from old to new?

Blackburn played in the champions league when it was only for the champions,

There was also a group stage, which theoretically allowed you to lose 3 games and still win it.

Id go for the most recent version being tougher to win than one of the very first versions, mainly for the higher number of quality teams in it.

eagle eye

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

People say United and Barcelona are the best sides in the world at the moment. If United were playing Real in the final next week, a Madrid side that have been humped quite a lot over the last few weeks, people would not think beyond United winning it. If United did win that final, they would say Barcelona would have beaten them if they had been there, that Barcelona were better than Madrid as proven in the league this year and that they are the best team in the world at the moment.

I think the top sides being in the CL means that you will always get the form sides in Europe in the latter stages, you are more likely to have the best sides in europe THIS season, as opposed to the previous season.

Nonsense, or else I claim Wolfsburg are the best side in Europe or Bordeaux or AC Milan after a rough patch are back and the best. They will all be in it next year but are not there this year.


You mentioned Belfast Crusaders, Liverpool had to beat whoever was put in front of them over two legs. The group stage just favours the richer, deeper squads who won't go out because of one brilliant performance by a weaker club or one horrific performance by a bigger club, ergo it favours the big clubs and one performance doesn't change anything.
In the old system if you lost 4-0 in the first leg, you still had a chance to go through but you were down to that one game to do it. Now you can lose that game and still qualify easily.
New system might be fairer to the better teams but its easier.
In the old system it was possible for a team to meet all the toughest opponents on their way to winning it, now that will not happen due to seeding.

eZe^

The same

Real Madrid won 5 old European Cups in a row back in the 50's, and a good few other teams won it consecutively. There has never been a back to back winner of the champions league in it's current format (obviously that could change this year). I think that shows how it's more difficult to win modern version of the CL...

Mitch Connor

eagle eye wrote: »

Nonsense, or else I claim Wolfsburg are the best side in Europe or Bordeaux or AC Milan after a rough patch are back and the best. They will all be in it next year but are not there this year.


You mentioned Belfast Crusaders, Liverpool had to beat whoever was put in front of them over two legs. The group stage just favours the richer, deeper squads who won't go out because of one brilliant performance by a weaker club or one horrific performance by a bigger club, ergo it favours the big clubs and one performance doesn't change anything.
In the old system if you lost 4-0 in the first leg, you still had a chance to go through but you were down to that one game to do it. Now you can lose that game and still qualify easily.
New system might be fairer to the better teams but its easier.
In the old system it was possible for a team to meet all the toughest opponents on their way to winning it, now that will not happen due to seeding.

So explain why there are no back to back winners of the current format? If it is so much easier to win than the previous version.

Bubs101

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So at no point in the past did the winning team not so awesome in their league? They still beat teams that were on form in their own leagues.

I'm only 20 so I can't remember how those teams did in their leagues but you'd never get a situation like Liverpool's where they became the best team in Europe despite being constantly bad domestically

Mitch Connor

Bubs101 wrote: »

I'm only 20 so I can't remember how those teams did in their leagues but you'd never get a situation like Liverpool's where they became the best team in Europe despite being constantly bad domestically

True - but that doesn't mean the competition is easier to win.