Where next for English teams in Europe?

PhlegmyMoses

With Arsenal losing convincingly at the Emirates tonight against Bayern, effectively ending their chances in Europe, and United facing a tough task against a strong Madrid team, it's not unthinkable that it will be the first time since the second group system was done away with in '03 that an English team hasn't won a knockout round.

Does that signify endemic problems within the English game or is it just a year to write-off and start again next year? I reckon it's a bit of both. Chelsea are in a transition period and have some of the game's future stars like Hazard and Oscar at the club. City will improve their CL performances in the future, they're better than what they have shown so far. United have a tough draw and will be strong again next year and Arsenal's reduction of their debt coupled with FFP could see them turn a corner sooner rather than later.

All that being said, you can't see a similar period of consistent semis and finals on the horizon any time soon with the Spanish behemoths and the likes of Bayern and Juve really upping their game. This is without clubs like PSG spending truckloads of cash on quality players.

So, where next for English football?

cson

Jesus man relax.

Insect Overlord

I had a useful line recently for threads like this...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83160624&postcount=2

Xavi6

Relax, United will beat Madrid.

AdamD

United are doing fine
Arsenal lost to an extremely good team
City will get a new manager who will actually be capable of getting them out of the group stages. (taking the Europa seriously would be a good start, they need the co-effiicient points)
Chelsea won it last season.

If it happens again next season, then it can be discussed as something other than an anomaly.

5starpool

AdamD wrote: »

United are doing fine
Arsenal lost to an extremely good team
City will get a new manager who will actually be capable of getting them out of the group stages. (taking the Europa seriously would be a good start, they need the co-effiicient points)
Chelsea won it last season.

If it happens again next season, then it can be discussed as something other than an anomaly.

City aren't in the Europa.

VW 1

AdamD wrote: »

United are doing fine
Arsenal lost to an extremely good team
City will get a new manager who will actually be capable of getting them out of the group stages. (taking the Europa seriously would be a good start, they need the co-effiicient points)
Chelsea won it last season.

If it happens again next season, then it can be discussed as something other than an anomaly.

Do co-efficient points have any bearing at all on individual clubs, do they not contribute to the league as a whole?

AdamD

VW 1 wrote: »

Do co-efficient points have any bearing at all on individual clubs, do they not contribute to the league as a whole?

Seeding points? The reason why City are 4th seeds whereas Arsenal, United and Chelsea are 1st seeds. Makes a big difference when it comes to the group draws.

If City aren't in the Europa then apologies, they were last year though and didn't make any use of it.

PhlegmyMoses

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I had a useful line recently for threads like this...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83160624&postcount=2

I'm not suggesting that it's an era, tbf. United could beat Madrid and it looks better. The English teams have looked awful in Europe despite the clubs collectively spending a fortune on players. Just find it interesting that there hasn't been much of a decline in the money being spent at the top but the monopoly they had for a few years on the latter stages of the CL seems to be waning. United were awful last year, as were City, and Chelsea did well to win it but they were hardly putting on vintage performances.

P_1

United - In fine shape, level on goals scored and have an away goal
Arsenal - Probably gone, down by 2 goals and conceded 3 away goals

Tottenham - In ok shape, a goal up but conceded an away goal
Liverpool - In a bit of bother, 2 goals down with no away goals scored
Newcastle - In ok shape, level on goals and no away goals conceded

ArmaniJeanss

VW 1 wrote: »

Do co-efficient points have any bearing at all on individual clubs, do they not contribute to the league as a whole?

'Country co-efficient' decides what round you start in so if for example West Brom got fourth in the EPL they would still go into the final round of qualifying for the Champions League despite no European record.

'Club co-efficent' decides your seeding within each round.

eagle eye

While its not an era as such you have to remember that City and Chelsea went out in the group stage and the other two could go out in the first knockout round. Last year United and City didn't get out of the group stage, Arsenal failed to win a knockout round but Chelsea saved the blushes by going all the way.

So while an EPL team won it all last year the league hasn't exactly looked strong based on the performances over two years. Even if one team make it to the last eight this year its still not making the league look very strong.

764dak

In the 2000-01 and 2001-02 seasons no Italian team made it to the quarterfinals in the Champions League. In the 2002-03 season three Italian teams were in the semifinals. If you look at two seasons that means nothing.

klose

United are still in it
City got a stinker pf a group
Arsenal got a stinker of a knockout draw
Chelsea, probably could have qualified but the whole di matteo fiasco didnt help the cause there

Nothing really to see here folks

smileyj1987

I don't think the English clubs are in a bad state this will be the first time in years to not have an English club in the quarter finals of the champions league . If you look at it there are only a few teams who are good enough in europe to win the champions league . So it all comes down to the draw and how teams finish in their group . I would this season the english teams got some very tough draws . Arsenal got Bayern Munich and Manchester United got Real Madrid they could have easily been quarter or semi final games at a push and people would have been to see them and how they played out . Manchester City got a group of death because of low co-efficency once they actually figure out a way or style to play in europe they should do better . Chelsea didn't get out of their group but on paper you would have had them in the knockout stages . So to me Chelsea and Manchester City seemed to have more bad luck then anything else in the Champions League this season .

Will I Amnt

The luck of the draw or lack thereof has made the situation look a lot worse than it probably is.
If United drew Celtic and Arsenal drew Malaga things could be looking a lot different after the first legs.

Rekop dog

cambo2008 wrote: »

The luck of the draw or lack thereof has made the situation look a lot worse than it probably is.
If United drew Celtic and Arsenal drew Malaga things could be looking a lot different after the first legs.

Malaga> Arsenal currently imo.

Will I Amnt

Rekop dog wrote: »

Malaga> Arsenal currently imo.

That may be so but I think Arsenal are far more likely to get a result at the Emirates against Malaga than Bayern.

PhlegmyMoses

klose wrote: »

United are still in it
City got a stinker pf a group
Arsenal got a stinker of a knockout draw
Chelsea, probably could have qualified but the whole di matteo fiasco didnt help the cause there

Nothing really to see here folks

Absolutely, but the English clubs have set a high standard to be judged against in the last decade. The Italian clubs didn't take long to hit the skids in Europe and apart from Juve this year, who haven't had a stern test yet, they haven't looked great for a while.

IRISHSPORTSGUY

The continental teams are just getting stronger.

Barca and Real are the superpowers. PSG are mega rich now. Juve own their stadium now (revenue, atmosphere). Bayern will be strong again for years to come.

batistuta9

It's a glorified cup competition & you can read too much into cup competitions

a full strength arsenal side lost to bradford in the league cup, are bradford a better team?

EDIT: chelsea won it last year & finished 6th in the PL - how can a team who finishes 6th domestically be the best in europe, they can't, only because it's a cup competition

roanoke

batistuta9 wrote: »

It's a glorified cup competition & you can read too much into cup competitions

a full strength arsenal side lost to bradford in the league cup, are bradford a better team?

EDIT: chelsea won it last year & finished 6th in the PL - how can a team who finishes 6th domestically be the best in europe, they can't, only because it's a cup competition

You can read too much (or too little) into all kinds of competitions (including domestic leagues). For instance I've seen final prem tables where the team that finished second had a w4-d2-l0 mini-league record vs the other top4 teams. However the team that actually won the league outright only had a w1-d2-l3 in the same mini league. Who honestly was the better team there?

The point of that is effectively a domestic league is just a measure of a good teams ability to consistently beat bad/weaker opposition and to at least compete vs peers. That's all it is. It is not that be-all end-all solution for ranking teams either. Every team knows the format from the start so whoever wins it deserves to win it imho, but that doesn't make it a perfect or unquestionable system either.

Likewise CL is not perfect but (for the want of a some better solution) is the way we produce the best team in Europe each year and should be recognised as such. The best clubs are generally in it every year and they put out their best teams when it matters. Everyone wants to win it and just because it sometimes throws up an unlikely winner, that doesn't diminish it. If anything (like your Bradford beating Arsenal point doesn't make them the better team) Chelsea beating Barca and Bayern could equally make a nonsense of their league position and losses to 'lesser' clubs like QPR and Villa that season. That logic can work both ways.

IMHO, neither comp is perfect, but this idea of dismissing the CL because it's a cup comp or because a team in 6th won it is also wrong imho. The real question might be "if a team that finishes 6th in the league can win the CL, then how accurate is this league system?"

Winston Payne

roanoke wrote: »

You can read too much (or too little) into all kinds of competitions (including domestic leagues). For instance I've seen final prem tables where the team that finished second had a w4-d2-l0 mini-league record vs the other top4 teams. However the team that actually won the league outright only had a w1-d2-l3 in the same mini league. Who honestly was the better team there?

The team that won the league. That also progressed further than the other side in Europe. Irrelevant having that record if you can't beat Stoke or West Ham at home. It's Man.United and Liverpool that he's on about lads, just so everybody's totally clear.

Will I Amnt

roanoke wrote: »

You can read too much (or too little) into all kinds of competitions (including domestic leagues). For instance I've seen final prem tables where the team that finished second had a w4-d2-l0 mini-league record vs the other top4 teams. However the team that actually won the league outright only had a w1-d2-l3 in the same mini league. Who honestly was the better team there?

The point of that is effectively a domestic league is just a measure of a good teams ability to consistently beat bad/weaker opposition and to at least compete vs peers. That's all it is. It is not that be-all end-all solution for ranking teams either. Every team knows the format from the start so whoever wins it deserves to win it imho, but that doesn't make it a perfect or unquestionable system either.

Likewise CL is not perfect but (for the want of a some better solution) is the way we produce the best team in Europe each year and should be recognised as such. The best clubs are generally in it every year and they put out their best teams when it matters. Everyone wants to win it and just because it sometimes throws up an unlikely winner, that doesn't diminish it. If anything (like your Bradford beating Arsenal point doesn't make them the better team) Chelsea beating Barca and Bayern could equally make a nonsense of their league position and losses to 'lesser' clubs like QPR and Villa that season. That logic can work both ways.

IMHO, neither comp is perfect, but this idea of dismissing the CL because it's a cup comp or because a team in 6th won it is also wrong imho. The real question might be "if a team that finishes 6th in the league can win the CL, then how accurate is this league system?"

Emmm, the team that finished top?? You don't win a league by raising your game for the big matches and not doing the business against the rest.

roanoke

Winston Payne wrote: »

The team that won the league. That also progressed further than the other side in Europe. Irrelevant having that record if you can't beat Stoke or West Ham at home. It's Man.United and Liverpool that he's on about lads, just so everybody's totally clear.

What's your point? I only ask because in your selective reading/quoting you seem to missed the part where I already said:

Every team knows the format from the start so whoever wins it deserves to win it imho

If you're going to to quote me in front of "the lads" then at least address the core of what I'm saying rather than just cherry-picking one paragraph and trying to turn it into some ManU v Liverpool issue.

Winston Payne

roanoke wrote: »

What's your point? I only ask because in your selective reading/quoting you seem to missed the part where I already said:



If you're going to to quote me in front of "the lads" then at least address the core of what I'm saying rather than just cherry-picking one paragraph and trying to turn it into some ManU v Liverpool issue.

Your core point being what, exactly? That you don't believe the best team wins the league, based on one year of a specific set of results? As evidence, that's thin. Is it that the CL is a bit of a mishmash? REALLY?

bassy

eagle eye wrote: »

While its not an era as such you have to remember that City and Chelsea went out in the group stage and the other two could go out in the first knockout round. Last year United and City didn't get out of the group stage, Arsenal failed to win a knockout round but Chelsea saved the blushes by going all the way.

So while an EPL team won it all last year the league hasn't exactly looked strong based on the performances over two years. Even if one team make it to the last eight this year its still not making the league look very strong.

The same can be said of the leagues in Germany and Spain,very poor.
Bayern ahead on 15 points and barca have it wrapped up with Madrid 15 points behind.

roanoke

cambo2008 wrote: »

Emmm, the team that finished top?? You don't win a league by raising your game for the big matches and not doing the business against the rest.

Your point/question was addressed in the subsequent paragraph of the post you are replying to.

Will I Amnt

roanoke wrote: »

Your point/question was addressed in the subsequent paragraph of the post you are replying to.

You seem to be hinting that the best team doesn't always win by dragging out a silly stat from one season, a season where the best team won.

roanoke

Winston Payne wrote: »

Your core point being what, exactly? That you don't believe the best team wins the league, based on one year of a specific set of results? As evidence, that's thin.

Where did I say that? If anything I said the exact opposite. The Prem and the CL are both worthy competitions that produce worthy winners.

I'm trying to present a more balanced position wrt to the requirements of winning a prem and and/or a CL. For the Prem I want to move away from this idea that it is this flawless metric for ranking English teams. For the CL I want to move away from this idea that it's a tournament that just anyone can bungle a win in if the wind is blowing the right way.

Is it that the CL is a bit of a mishmash? REALLY?

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say there.

roanoke

cambo2008 wrote: »

You seem to be hinting that the best team doesn't always win by dragging out a silly stat from one season, a season where the best team won.

No, I just think it's highly interesting that team that wins only 1 game out of 6 against their peers becomes the title winners.

I don't even question/belittle such a title win either (Congrats to ManU! ). I don't because everyone knows the format at the start of the season. I'm just saying that a system that allows something like that to happen shouldn't be viewed on as perfect/unquestionable in the way a lot of footy fans seem to casually view the league system.

Winston Payne

roanoke wrote: »

No, I just think it's highly interesting that team that wins only 1 game out of 6 against their peers becomes the title winners.

I don't even question/belittle such a title win either (Congrats to ManU! ). I don't because everyone knows the format at the start of the season. I'm just saying that a system that allows something like that to happen shouldn't be viewed on as perfect/unquestionable in the way a lot of footy fans seem to casually view the league system.

It's pretty close. It's a test over a year involving thirty eight games. A set of poor results against your peers is somewhat cancelled out by dropping two points against the bottom ten over the season. I don't see a better way to do it.

onemorechance

LARGE

Morzadec

In fairness I do think this thread could have merit in a couple of weeks, but as of now it's a little premature.

The United vs Madrid match is anyone's game. However, if United do get knocked out I think this definitely warrants discussion.

England clubs were the most dominant force in Europe for a good 5 or 6 years. For a while it seemed the only real contenders for the Champions League were the top 4 and Barcelona.

In 2007-2008, no English team was knocked out by another European team - Arsenal were knocked out by Liverpool, Liverpool by Chelsea and Chelsea in the final lost to United. At this stage English teams were definitely the most dominant, with Barcelona the only realistic threat to this dominance.

Despite Chelsea's miraculous win last year, there's definitely substance to the argument that English teams are declining in Europe.

In my opinion a victory for Madrid against United would be a definitive blow to the status of the Premier League as the top European league. It would signify an end of English dominance that Chelsea's win delayed, and probably a shift towards Spanish dominance.

This subplot makes the United vs Madrid tie even more interesting for me, and is one of the reasons why I grudgingly am favouring a United win.

But for now I think the thread has little merit. Lets see what happens on the 5th of March first.

LuckyLloyd

2005: Two Semi Finalists (Winner)
2006: One Semi Finalist (Runner Up)
2007: Three Semi Finalists (Runner Up)
2008: Three Semi Finalists (Winner)
2009: Two Semi Finalists (Runner Up)
2010: No Semi Finalists
2011: One Semi Finalist (Runner Up)
2012: One Semi Finalist (Winner)
2013: ?

Four different finalists / three different winners

I think there was an obvious high point between 2007 - 2009 and would agree that the depth and strength of the top four English sides during that period was superior overall to what it is now. The main difference is the likes of City and Spurs earning berths without experience / quality to challenge and the gradual decline of Arsenal.

Between 05 and 09 all four entrants were potential champions I think. Since 2009 I think only one or two of the four entrants in any season had a realistic shot.

v3ttel

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

The English teams have looked awful in Europe despite the clubs collectively spending a fortune on players.

United didn't look "awful" drawing 1-1 in the Bernabeu. Similarly, they didn't look awful qualifying from their group after only 4 games.

Man City were drawn in a group with the Bundesliga champions, the La Liga champions and the Eredivisie champions. To be fair to them, the group couldn't have been any stronger. As a team, they don't have an awful lot of Champions League experience. It's a relatively new problem for them.

Arsenal, who are the weakest of the English sides (imo), were drawn against an outstanding Bayern Munich side. The toughest draw they could have faced except Barcelona.

Chelsea under performed this season. It happens. The fact that they won it last year while only finishing third domestically would indicate the the EPL is quite strong.

United got hardest draw they could have possibly gotten in the last 16, against a side that is generally held up along side Barcelona as being a level above everyone else.

One season is not indicative of some sort of endemic problems within the English game. Bat-sh!t crazy to draw some sort of wild conclusions at this stage, especially when you've still got a side that could yet make it to the Quarter final or beyond.

It's a topic to be raised if there is a decline in a countries CL's representatives performance over 2, 3 or 4 years.

KaiserGunner

Rooney10 wrote: »

United didn't look "awful" drawing 1-1 in the Bernabeu. Similarly, they didn't look awful qualifying from their group after only 4 games.

Man City were drawn in a group with the Bundesliga champions, the La Liga champions and the Eredivisie champions. To be fair to them, the group couldn't have been any stronger. As a team, they don't have an awful lot of Champions League experience. It's a relatively new problem for them.

Arsenal, who are the weakest of the English sides (imo), were drawn against an outstanding Bayern Munich side. The toughest draw they could have faced except Barcelona.

Chelsea under performed this season. It happens. The fact that they won it last year while only finishing third domestically would indicate the the EPL is quite strong.

United got hardest draw they could have possibly gotten in the last 16, against a side that is generally held up along side Barcelona as being a level above everyone else.

One season is not indicative of some sort of endemic problems within the English game. Bat-sh!t crazy to draw some sort of wild conclusions at this stage, especially when you've still got a side that could yet make it to the Quarter final or beyond.

It's a topic to be raised if there is a decline in a countries CL's representatives performance over 2, 3 or 4 years.

Sorry for being pedantic as I actually agree with your post and you have made some good points, but Arsenal came third last season domestically. Chelsea actually finished sixth and only got back into the champions league after winning it, at the expense of fourth placed Spurs.

FatherTed

It's a Cup competition at this stage so sh*t happens.

When there were 3 English teams in the CL semis nobody was talking about the demise of spanish/italian/german football. Except the English pundits who though England was on TOP of the WORLD!

EdenHazard

Rooney10 wrote: »

United didn't look "awful" drawing 1-1 in the Bernabeu. Similarly, they didn't look awful qualifying from their group after only 4 games.

Man City were drawn in a group with the Bundesliga champions, the La Liga champions and the Eredivisie champions. To be fair to them, the group couldn't have been any stronger. As a team, they don't have an awful lot of Champions League experience. It's a relatively new problem for them.

Arsenal, who are the weakest of the English sides (imo), were drawn against an outstanding Bayern Munich side. The toughest draw they could have faced except Barcelona.

Chelsea under performed this season. It happens. The fact that they won it last year while only finishing third domestically would indicate the the EPL is quite strong.

United got hardest draw they could have possibly gotten in the last 16, against a side that is generally held up along side Barcelona as being a level above everyone else.

One season is not indicative of some sort of endemic problems within the English game. Bat-sh!t crazy to draw some sort of wild conclusions at this stage, especially when you've still got a side that could yet make it to the Quarter final or beyond.

It's a topic to be raised if there is a decline in a countries CL's representatives performance over 2, 3 or 4 years.

I hate when people bring this point up. I said this before but its not as if the likes of David Silva, Yaya Toure and Aguero adopt the personas of Paul Dickov and Nicky Weaver just because they play for Man City. The City before is irrelevant to the one now. I remember they used it last season as an excuse, yet it was Napoli's first time in the Champions League as well. Look at Malaga they were fine getting through to the knockouts.

EdenHazard

FatherTed wrote: »

It's a Cup competition at this stage so sh*t happens.

When there were 3 English teams in the CL semis nobody was talking about the demise of spanish/italian/german football. Except the English pundits who though England was on TOP of the WORLD!

Eh there kinda was?

v3ttel

KaiserGunner wrote: »

Sorry for being pedantic as I actually agree with your post and you have made some good points, but Arsenal came third last season domestically. Chelsea actually finished sixth and only got back into the champions league after winning it, at the expense of fourth placed Spurs.

Yes, apologies for the brain fart on that one. I have no idea why I said third. It was sixth.

bassy

The op may start a new thread now of where now for Spanish teams in the champions league with both the big 2 looking 50/50.

onemorechance

bassy wrote: »

The op may start a new thread now of where now for Spanish teams in the champions league with both the big 2 looking 50/50.

:pac:

Johnny Utah

United out now,

ciano1

Johnny Utah wrote: »

United out now,

They're not if you're watching ITV +1 :P

Johnny Utah

ciano1 wrote: »

They're not if you're watching ITV +1 :P

Sorry, spoiler alert- don't read the United v Real match thread so!

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Chelsea/Spurs will win Europa.

fryup

and there's still two british teams left in the champions league don't forget..Celtic & Arsenal

(are you allowed call celtic a british team?)

Dubliner28

Inter Milan will beat Spurs over 2 legs IMO

everdead.ie

fryup wrote: »

and there's still two british teams left in the champions league don't forget..Celtic & Arsenal

(are you allowed call celtic a british team?)

Yes you can call them British they are on the Island however childes called them English last night on UTV that's definetly unacceptable!

GavRedKing

fryup wrote: »

and there's still two british teams left in the champions league don't forget..Celtic & Arsenal

Only for another 90 minutes, barring an unlikely set of results.

(are you allowed call celtic a british team?)

They are British so why not? Call them Scottish if they want.