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

Bubs101

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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.

Because once you qualify, it's harder. Haven't heard people denying that. But qualification in the old format meant so many of those winners never would have gotten into the competition in the first place thus making it the harder competition.

Once you're in you always have a chance.

Also, in the last one Real one there were only 20 teams in it. In the current Champions League there are 66 teams so obviously there is going to be a far bigger variation in the winners

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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

It does because in the older format Liverpool would have had to finish first and then win the Champion's league which is a far harder task then finishing in the top 4 and playing maybe 2 or 3 harder matches than the old format had you play

eagle eye

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

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.

There has only been one back to back winning team since 1981 and thats the great Milan team. Imo they might have won four under the CL system.

Mitch Connor

eagle eye wrote: »

There has only been one back to back winning team since 1981 and thats the great Milan team. Imo they might have won four under the CL system.

Why, once you get past the group stage the CL only has one less knock out round than the entire EC format, and at that the CL has more quality teams, ESPECIALLY if you only compare the knock out sections, so the great Milan side had less quality sides to beat than they would this time round?

You keep banging on about the group stage, but completely ignore the fact that after it there are still 4 rounds to get through, there were only 5 rounds in total in the old format, so why is it that having one less knockout round, against a much higher caliber of opposition in general makes the current format easier?

I will concede the new format is easier to qualify for, but the new format is a lot harder to win once you are there.

eagle eye

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why, once you get past the group stage the CL only has one less knock out round than the entire EC format, and at that the CL has more quality teams, ESPECIALLY if you only compare the knock out sections, so the great Milan side had less quality sides to beat than they would this time round?

You keep banging on about the group stage, but completely ignore the fact that after it there are still 4 rounds to get through, there were only 5 rounds in total in the old format, so why is it that having one less knockout round, against a much higher caliber of opposition in general makes the current format easier?

I will concede the new format is easier to qualify for, but the new format is a lot harder to win once you are there.

The seeding makes a huge difference, the two best teams in the league stage of the competition cannot meet until the quarter finals. You can lose matches and still qualify for the knockout rounds in the CL. You don't have to win your national league to qualify for the Champions League.

Mitch Connor

eagle eye wrote: »

The seeding makes a huge difference, the two best teams in the league stage of the competition cannot meet until the quarter finals. You can lose matches and still qualify for the knockout rounds in the CL. You don't have to win your national league to qualify for the Champions League.

we disagree on many things, and this is another for the list of things we are never going to agree on.

Bubs101

Champions League

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I will concede the new format is easier to qualify for, but the new format is a lot harder to win once you are there.

But the difference in difficulty is clearly in winning the league as opposed to two harder matches

ROCKMAN

The same

Firstly This Liverpool and Utd Format crap , Hmm Both where successful in both formats . So lets just let that die.

For me the new format is the harder , more games , more countries , more quality sides. The fact that the old format was often dominated and retained by clubs ie Real , Ajax , Bayern a feat that has not been achieved yet in the new champions league format speaks volumes for the difficultly of today's competition.
The one fact I would say is that the new format lacks a hell of a lot of the atmosphere and appeal of a true cup competition (specially the early rounds )

ziggy

Champions League

This post has been deleted.

Bounty Hunter

its a 50 -50 really, The new version is harder to win once you get into it but getting into it is much easier as you dont have to win your league to do so. If i was pushed to pick one id say the old version just cos to win that you also had to win another competition.

A7X

Champions League

I have always considered the old cup harder to win.
It was organised the proper way, to qualify you had to be champions of your national league. I don't know how people can't see that that makes it harder overall to win than the newer format.

Of course in the newer one there is more matches but the league stage is a joke IMO, where as the old one was knock-out the whole way.

You also had a chance of meeting all the good teams in the old cup, how does that not make it harder?

Blazer

Champions League

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Firstly This Liverpool and Utd Format crap , Hmm Both where successful in both formats . So lets just let that die.

For me the new format is the harder , more games , more countries , more quality sides. The fact that the old format was often dominated and retained by clubs ie Real , Ajax , Bayern a feat that has not been achieved yet in the new champions league format speaks volumes for the difficultly of today's competition.
The one fact I would say is that the new format lacks a hell of a lot of the atmosphere and appeal of a true cup competition (specially the early rounds )

I hate the new format.
The old format was fantastic and you were watching the champions of each country taking each other on. I remember that I used to watch every champions match all the way through....right up until they diluted it. Now I barely ever watch it bar maybe the semi's and final.
Now it's fairly crap with runners up and third and fourth placed spots.
For me the old format is the reals champions cup
The new format is a more a league of 4 teams from each country, 1 of whom really only deserves to be in it.

dfx-

Champions League

The old competition obviously.

Every game mattered, every performance mattered, every result mattered in an open draw of champions.

kinaldo

The same

Had this season been reverted to the old format we would have had the following teams:

Man Utd
Real Madrid
Inter Milan
Bayern Munich
Lyon
FC Porto
PSV Eindhoven
Olympiakos
Galatasaray
Rubin (Russia)
Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine)
Dinamo Zagreb (Croatia)
FC Basel (Switzerland)
Standar Liege (Belgium)
Stabæk (Norway)
AaB (Denmark)

Man Utd should win that comfortably.

In the current format Barcelona remain slight favourtes.

eagle eye

Champions League

kinaldo wrote: »

Had this season been reverted to the old format we would have had the following teams:

Man Utd
Real Madrid
Inter Milan
Bayern Munich
Lyon
FC Porto
PSV Eindhoven
Olympiakos
Galatasaray
Rubin (Russia)
Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine)
Dinamo Zagreb (Croatia)
FC Basel (Switzerland)
Standar Liege (Belgium)
Stabæk (Norway)
AaB (Denmark)

Man Utd should win that comfortably.

In the current format Barcelona remain slight favourtes.

You are missing 16 teams. What about Bohs?
And then there are all the new coutries which have been formed since the European Cup became the CL.

kinaldo

The same

eagle eye wrote: »

You are missing 16 teams. What about Bohs?
And then there are all the new coutries which have been formed since the European Cup became the CL.

You're right, I thought the old format was only 16 countries for some reason.

Still, those would probably be the top 16 and the teams to make it to the 2nd round if it were seeded. (edit: forgot about the Czechs)

Adding some new countries and the likes of Ireland is not making it any more difficult.

kinaldo

The same

Look at some of the ridiculous scorelines from the last two years of the old format in round 1...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Cup_1990-91

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Cup_1991-92

In 1992, the last European Cup before the CL, the old format system was modified so that after round 2 it was divided into 2 groups of 4, with the winners of each contesting the final, thus making it even easier to win.

Highsider

Champions League

Old one without a doubt

ziggy

Champions League

This post has been deleted.

grahamo

The same

The hardest part about winning the old European Cup was qualifying. Winning your national league is hard to do and it was Champions only in the competition in them days.
The format was 1st rd., 2nd. rd., QF, SF, Final so only 9 games to win it and as it was knockout and champions only there were only maybe 2 teams with any chance of winning in every tournament, if they could avoid each other they could get a handy run to the final.
These days it takes 13 games to win it and you have the 2nd and 3rd (4th place in some cases) place teams from the top leagues in the mix too. Much more difficult to win these days.

leninbenjamin

The same

as a standalone competition the new format is definitely more difficult.

more matches places a greater burden on the squad. the seeding ensures you have to hit a heavyweight at some stage to win and the greater financial incentives has meant teams aspire to win it to a much greater extent than they used to.

purple_hatstand

The CL is way harder to win, especially if you are Champions of one of the smaller countries because the seeding keeps the big clubs apart until the latter stages. If Platini etc... really want to see a more even spread of potential winners, the problem is not that there are 4 EPL teams (for example) allowed in; but that they are kept apart until the QF stage.

ArmaniJeanss

The same

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

I hate the new format.
The old format was fantastic and you were watching the champions of each country taking each other on. I remember that I used to watch every champions match all the way through....right up until they diluted it. Now I barely ever watch it bar maybe the semi's and final.

I assume you mean late 80s, early 90s?

I'm old enough to remember the competition from the late 70s and it wasn't actually on TV back then - the final was the only game shown live and you'd get edited highlights of the English teams game at 10.45 on the Wednesday night.
And if the English/Scottish teams got knocked out then the competition ceased to exist, literally zero coverage or mention whatsoever until the final.
(luckily English teams were on a roll back then)

I'll never complain about 'too much football on tv', because I remember the bad old days of 4 live matches a year. I don't understand a lot of football fans attitude, what do you want to see on telly instead, more Eastenders?

Mr. Presentable

Champions League

eZe^ wrote: »

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...

What? Isn't this the first year of the current format?
Check that. You mean since the introduction of also-rans to the competition. Fair enough, but the original was in place for a lot longer than the current one.

ITT-Pat

eagle eye wrote: »

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

If anything that points indicates that there was a lot more luck involved in winning the old one.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

+1

Dub13

Champions League

The Poll is very close,only one vote in it.

Super-Rush

The same

New format - Larger number of quality teams means harder matches. Coupled with the fact that you have to play so many games makes it harder. Also the pressure to do well(financial)

Mr. Presentable

Champions League

You might as well have polled who's under 25 vs who's over 25.

The simple fact that for Spain, England and Italy it is four times as easy to get into the current competition is enough to show it must be easier to win, given that you have to be in it to win it. To illustrate, the worlds self proclaimed biggest and greatest club won once in 40 years, vs twice in the 10 of the new competition. Which kind of makes it eight times easier to win

eagle eye

Champions League

ITT-Pat wrote: »

If anything that points indicates that there was a lot more luck involved in winning the old one.



+1

Agreed, more like a donkament versus a cash game. We all know how hard it is to win a donkament.

Mr. Presentable

Champions League

super-rush wrote: »

New format - Larger number of quality teams means harder matches. Coupled with the fact that you have to play so many games makes it harder. Also the pressure to do well(financial)

That's a bit misleading though. Depending on how you look at it, by the time the "top" clubs are in it, many national champions are knocked out. Also the fact you can now proceed without winning games makes it softer.
Man U winning 2 from 6 would be unlikely to have made the final 20 years ago for example.

Super-Rush

The same

nipplenuts wrote: »

That's a bit misleading though. Depending on how you look at it, by the time the "top" clubs are in it, many national champions are knocked out. Also the fact you can now proceed without winning games makes it softer.
Man U winning 2 from 6 would be unlikely to have made the final 20 years ago for example.

Yes many national champs are gone by the group stages but the teams that knock them out are of superior quality.

Zonda999

The same

Wasn't really sure what i was voting on but i assume it meant which was the easier to win, after qualification.

The thing about the old format, though, was that say in a particular year, the so called "Champions of Europe" would as such have been the champions for the previous season if you get me, given the fact the fact their qualification was based on winning their domestic league the previous season

I definitely prefer the current format. We have way more matches to banter about, and lets be honest, football at the highest level would not have prospered as it has if the champions of a given league were the only team to progress to European competition.

Johnny_the_fox

the biggest difference between the two formats - IMO is the increase on the foreign player limit.

I didnt think the English clubs would have been as successful, it this was still in place.

patmac

The same

Ah the great misnomer that is the Champions League. The old format should have been the European Champions Cup, the new format should be called the European League, oh wait you can't call it that because UEFA don't want a European League so we have this bastardised competition that will inevitably feature at least 12 of the 'Super 14' teams in the last 16 dividing up the TV money so that their wealth increases making it impossible for a team outside the elite to win it, ergo the 'Champions League(aka the Super 14 Love-in Cup) is the harder of the competitions to win.

stovelid

Champions League

Can only repeat the stuff said already: old format, all champions and one bad result = out.

kinaldo

The same

stovelid wrote: »

Can only repeat the stuff said already: old format, all champions and one bad result = out.

maybe if it was like the FA Cup and didn't play 2 legs

stovelid

Champions League

kinaldo wrote: »

maybe if it was like the FA Cup and didn't play 2 legs

Sorry, round would have been a better word to use than result. I meant knock-out stages from the word go.

kinaldo

The same

stovelid wrote: »

Sorry, round would have been a better word to use than result. I meant knock-out stages from the word go.

Plus was the away goals rule used in the old competition or was it straight aggregate score?

So by that do you also think that an FA Cup format one off game would make it even more difficult?

And that cup format is more difficult than league format?

Also you say dallying around in a group (at least I think you said this...), what about the frequent so called groups of death that sometimes throw the likes of Man Utd, Barca and Bayern together?

And to answer your question:

The away goals rule was first applied in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup when Budapest Honvéd FC beat Dukla Prague in the second round in 1965–6. It was introduced in the Fairs Cup in 1966–7,[8] and in the European Cup in 1967–8 for the first round, [9] 1968–9 for the second round,[10] and 1970–71 for later rounds.[11] Previously, ties level on aggregate had gone to a playoff on neutral ground.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Away_goals_rule

stovelid

Champions League

Groups of death are not the norm. At least not right across the range of groups.The groups usually fulfill the requirement of maximizing the chances of the two expected teams going through. You can better afford a duff game, even in a really tight group, not so much in a straight knock-out round.

I concede that the league format is more tiring though, but the bigger teams also have the squads for this.

I do like the league format mind you.

Sorry, I did remove the original away goals bit because I quickly looked it up. Couldn't remember offhand. For some reason I though it had been phased in more recently.