Top Clubs demand right of passage to knockout stages

uberwolf

this did read UTD demand right of passage but changed to avoid massive recriminations. However it Utd who voiced it & it was Utd with profit problems this year prompting this IMO

effectively they're upset that that they didn't get through to the last 8. Big teams that see as it their birthright are finding progress difficult to the last eight and want it made easier. I think they're wrong. Having glamour ties such as teh last round is great and equally I think underdogs progressing keeps it interesting. Otherwise the rich will keep getting richer and football poorer.

I wonder is this related to their reduced profits this season? They shouldn't be relying so heavily on prize money if that's the case

from BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/man_utd/4373075.stm

Big Ears

So basically what they want to do is make sure the big teams stay big and the small stay small , fair enough their only looking after their own interests but seeding after the group stages is bollocks , if they had topped their group maybe they would have gotten Bremen instead and would be in the quarters , but thats their own fault .

p.pete

"More big clubs reach the last 8" ??? There can never be more then 8. I agree that on current form Arsenal and United would have more justification to be there but it has to be a competition of sorts - otherwise as uberwolf said, the rich get richer. It's already the case anyway, it'd just be more-so.

I think what they're looking for is a European league with little possibility of demotion.

Aquos76

Sour grapes if you ask me, and I am a Man U supporter. We were not good enough this year and when you go back over the last 5 years since winning it in '99, we have only gotten past the second knockout stages once and that year we went out in the quarter finals to Real Madrid.

Slash/ED

I propose Man U actually get a team worthy of being in the last 8 and stop their bloody whinging. Idiots.

Davey Devil

That's total rubbish, maybe Man Utd shouldn't have played a reserve team in the final game and they wouldn't have got Ac Milan.

Edit: you lads are quick.

smemon

the final last year, porto-monaco was a classic example of how unpredictable the CL can be. personally, i dont want to see those guys in the final who fluke their way to it when their average at best.

id prefer a madrid/barca final or utd/arse, but thats me. look at it from a fairer view and you say everyone should be equal and not favoured due to size/history which is fine.

but the arguement is that when the group stages are seeded, why isnt all of the tournament? uefa have already helped the big guns by letting the top 3/4 of each major nation in to the cl so in a way it's already fixed. but how many of you object to that?

id imagine not too many. you want to see madrid, utd, barca, arse, juve etc in the cl.

SteM

I'll jump on the bandwagon and agree this is a stupid statement. However, quoting from the BBC report:

He added: "It's not good for the big clubs, not good for TV and sponsors if there are no Spanish clubs in the quarter-finals.

"When the draw for the group stage is made, each club's co-efficient is used.

"Given it is unlikely we will ever go back to a situation of having two group stages, maybe we should use a system during the knock-out phase that also reflects the rankings.

"AC Milan were discussing this before we played them, so it is not a knee-jerk reaction."

Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger, whose side also exited the competition at the first knockout phase, is another calling for changes.

He said: "You can't afford to have Real Madrid and Manchester United - big clubs who invest so much money - going out in the last 16.

but of course it's 'UTD demand right of passage to knockout stages'.

Draupnir

that is the biggest load of sh't ive ever heard actually. the above post by smemon is ridiculous aswell. the whole point is that the thing is a competition.

if the big clubs win all the time and advance all the time, we will be looking at Formula One type proceedings. United should grow up, grow some balls and buy in a few decent players instead of the muck theyve been getting the last couple of seasons.

growler

smemon wrote:

uefa have already helped the big guns by letting the top 3/4 of each major nation in to the cl so in a way it's already fixed. but how many of you object to that?

it is called the Champions League for a reason you know. Do you propose an alternative Random Euro League with teams for all levels entered into a competition based on a lottery ? I think that would be a really really cool idea, then you would never know what to expect and there would be no real need to compete for silly things like 2nd and 3rd place in the PL, and you could get exciting draws like Plymouth Argyll v AC Milan .. quality idea.

jesus_thats_gre

smemon wrote:

the final last year, porto-monaco was a classic example of how unpredictable the CL can be. personally, i dont want to see those guys in the final who fluke their way to it when their average at best.

id prefer a madrid/barca final or utd/arse, but thats me. look at it from a fairer view and you say everyone should be equal and not favoured due to size/history which is fine.

but the arguement is that when the group stages are seeded, why isnt all of the tournament? uefa have already helped the big guns by letting the top 3/4 of each major nation in to the cl so in a way it's already fixed. but how many of you object to that?

The only reason you think this is because you support United. Are you actually that blind to it?

Slash/ED

smemon wrote:

the final last year, porto-monaco was a classic example of how unpredictable the CL can be. personally, i dont want to see those guys in the final who fluke their way to it when their average at best.

id prefer a madrid/barca final or utd/arse, but thats me. look at it from a fairer view and you say everyone should be equal and not favoured due to size/history which is fine.

but the arguement is that when the group stages are seeded, why isnt all of the tournament? uefa have already helped the big guns by letting the top 3/4 of each major nation in to the cl so in a way it's already fixed. but how many of you object to that?

id imagine not too many. you want to see madrid, utd, barca, arse, juve etc in the cl.

Holy christ, it's a mentality like that that has so many people hating teams like Man U.

I prefer seing teams who have earned the right to play in the final playing in the final, but I'm odd that way. How about we give Man U a bye to the final and have it played in a neutrul venue to be rotated between Old Trafford and Carrington Training ground pitch A every year, and let Gill pick which team man U will play to decide who the true champions of Europe are out of a hat. It's the only fair way imo, who wants to see variety in this tournament anyway? Who wants to see new teams winning it because they've earned that right? That's not what football is about.

thejollyrodger

I think its poor form by united if it turns out to be true. The idea of seedings after the group stages is rubbish. As someone says, its a competition, if clubs dont want it badly enough then they should be in the competition. This is very poor form

jesus_thats_gre

Smemon, do you think the world cup should be seeded after the group states?

Guy:Incognito

Considering that acording to Utd they are "the biggest club in the world"tm, why should they care who they get. Utd were by no means one of the better teams in 99 but they won it, such is life, now they are trying to make sure they get to win it again even though imo they havnt deserved to win it since 68 and that has been reflected by the fact that they only won it in 99. They should just count themselves lucky that this isnt the good old days when you had to actually win the league to get into the competition cos they wouldnt have even been in it this year. For the record, I dont agree with clubs from the same country being kept apart either.

The Muppet

I would not be in favour these changes either, The competitiion is fine as it is with everyone being treated equally.


BTW as Man United are not standing alone making this call would the thread title not be more accurate and less problematic if it read somthing like "top Clubs demand right of passage or named all the clubs? Maybe I'm being pedantic but other users have already made the same point and we know how things can go here.

PHB

I find it funny this was said by Wenger about a week ago and now its being picked up on cause Gill said it

You can't afford to have Real Madrid and Manchester United going out in the last 16
Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger

As for the idea, I don't know.
On the one hand I like the idea of randomness and the romance of a good cup run and getting to the final.
However from a players perspective, just said for arguments sake that Real Madrid and Juventus were the best team this year, it kidna sucks to play for Real Madrid and go out in the last 16 when you could beat every other team in the top 16 other than Juve. Is that fair? I don't think it is, but I dont know if its fixable.
Can you properly seed teams?

thejollyrodger

I just read that article there and was astounded. I couldn't believe the outlandish demands United are making. United must think they are kings of Europe, when clearly they are just an good (at best) team.

Obviously the EPL isn't as hot as its as made out to be. It's the same old story, there is less football played in the EPL and more emphasis on running about. They have been found out when they play in Europe and obviously want a hand up.

When have you heard the likes of Real Madrid or Milan complain about the draw. They way they see it is, if you want to go and win the competition you are going to have to beat difficult opposition. Sometimes you might be lucky and draw a weak team.

Man United and Arsenal look it as, give us seeding so we can beat weak opposition and increase our chances of making the final.

That's the difference between the top teams in Europe and the raft of average teams. The top teams are the best and winners. Man Utd and Arsenal are obviously not.

It's the Champions league of Europe. Obviously some leagues are stronger and bigger than others, but what ever teams make it out of the group stages are good enough.

mr_angry

I can understand from a sponsor's point of view that they don't want the big teams going out early as it decreases their revenue. However, if Real Madrid and Man Utd had been good enough to be in the quarter finals, they would have been there. Same goes for Arsenal and Barcelona. Tough sh*t.

I think the competition is already over-seeded. There used to be some really great group matches like Utd vs Barcelona, but most of that has been weeded out now. TBH, I'd prefer to see it go back to just 2 groups, the winners of which meet in the final (or maybe a semi-final stage with 4). I think the current moaning and threats is an example of the clubs involved already weilding too much power.

mike65

Psssssht! This is all abput one thing and its not Utds ego its about the bottom line - the club are in some bother as regards the trading account

Manchester United's half-year profits have dropped by more than 50%, hit by falling TV income and the cost of buying new players.

It reported pre-tax profits of £12.4m for the six months to 31 January, down from £26.8m a year earlier.

TV income was cut following the introduction of a new three-year Premier League contract and also by United's third-place finish in the Premiership last season.

Finishing third reduced its earnings from the European Champions League this season. Revenue from Champions League screenings was £5.8m lower than in the same period a year ago.

However, strong match-day and commercial revenue offset the fall in media earnings, so overall sales were little changed at £91.6m, compared with £92.4m.

United's forays into the transfer market - which included £27m-signing Wayne Rooney along with Alan Smith and Gabriel Heinze - ate into profits.

The signings, together with new contracts for manager Sir Alex Ferguson and striker Ruud van Nistelrooy, pushed the club's wage bill up £5m to £42.7m.

The clubs curently having a moan wont get thier way unless Liverpool win the CL which comming after Porto might be too much!

Mike.

smemon

im saying uefa should seed the whole thing or else just have a random draw. if you want class football at the highest level, seeding is the way forward.

if you want the romance of an fa cup, have it all random, group stages included. of course from a utd point of view i want it seeded so utd have a better chance, well done lads, i am a utd fan!

but i dont see any of u's complaining with the seeding atm with the group stages and the avoiding own nations team rule. its just cause utd are in favour of this proposal everyone jumps in and blasts them.

smemon

thejollyrodger wrote:

When have you heard the likes of Real Madrid or Milan complain about the draw. They way they see it is, if you want to go and win the competition you are going to have to beat difficult opposition. Sometimes you might be lucky and draw a weak team.

i think you should re-read the article. milan are complaining about the system.

thejollyrodger

if you want class football at the highest level, seeding is the way forward.

Not necessarly. Sometimes the bigger teams have poor seasons. Is football really about advertisment and image ? I hope not.

".....AC Milan were discussing this before we played them, so it is not a knee-jerk reaction."

Thats a bit different to Man utd demanding change. I think some of the clubs are getting too big

PHB

The problem isn't going out in the lsat 16, its the money you loose.
People wouldn't be objecting to the system if they didn't recognise the fact that Barca would rape PSV.
Why should PSV get the money for getting into the last 8 when Barca deserve it more?

Tell me why?

Davey Devil

You have made some terrible points in the past but you have really outdone yourself there. Why do Barca deserve it more??

Guy:Incognito

smemon wrote:

but i dont see any of u's complaining with the seeding atm with the group stages and the avoiding own nations team rule. its just cause utd are in favour of this proposal everyone jumps in and blasts them.

I disagree with keeping teams from the same country apart and said so in my post. I agree with seeding for the groups . I like to give everyone a fair chance but you have to weed out the utter crapplus if Shels got through to the group stages I think everyone would rather they were guarenteed to be playing 2 very good teams from top nations, rather than drawing 3 teams that no-one has an interest in and they'd probably lose to anyway.

I think that the bottom tier of teams agree with the seeding in the group stages for the bove reason. They know they arent getting out of the groupthat they were lucky enough to get into in the first place so they like a nice payday against some top teams.

Guy:Incognito

PHB wrote:

The problem isn't going out in the lsat 16, its the money you loose.
People wouldn't be objecting to the system if they didn't recognise the fact that Barca would rape PSV.
Why should PSV get the money for getting into the last 8 when Barca deserve it more?

Tell me why?

Because PSV beat the team they were drawn against in the last 16, Barce didnt, tough ****. Such is life. They only have themselves to blame, they were ahead after the first leg, but they lost. Why should they be guarenteed a route through to a certain round. Maybe they should think bout winning the Spanish title first because until they secure the title they arnt even the best team in spain.

PHB

Because Barca would beat PSV if thye played?
Do you deny that?
I want a league system, so this is the closest were going to get imo, so I'd take this

Guy:Incognito

Well if they had beaten Chelase they might have gotten the chance to test that, but they didnt so they'll have to wait till next year.

Valencia may well have beaten PSV aswelland would probably be seen as the bigger club, do they deserve preferential treatment aswell?

Memnoch

if you don't make it to the finals under the current system, you just aren't good enough, it's that simple really.

Doesn't matter if u lost to chelsea or milan. If you want to be considered a top side, you can't use that as an excuse. There is already a massive advantage with seeding in the group stages and then the winner of the groups getting an easy draw. If you don't win your group then obviously you don't deserve to be classed as a "top side".

Since when are teams "top" because of history? I thought that the team that is the best, is the one that performs on the football pitch. All this stuff about being a top side is a load of hot air really.

You're top if you perform on the pitch and win. (baring ofc extreme circumstances like moronic refereeing decisions) And then you will go through to the next round as the "top" team.

It's only fanatical supporters of over-hyped teams that get knocked out (deservedly so) of the competition that will support this kind of thing.

PHB

Well whats the goal of the compo?

Is it to find out who the best team in Europe?
Or is it to find out the top 16 teams in europe? As in, are the teams that get to the last 8 better than the teams that get to the last 16?

If its the former, then theres a problem with the prize money system.
If its the latter, then you need to change the seeding system.
Either way, I think it needs to be changed, one way or the other

eirebhoy

Seeding the knockout part tournament like this is nonsense. Every tournament that contains a group stage gives the winner of the group the benefits (in this case the benefit was playing the 2nd leg at home which history proves to be an advantage).

PHB

Thats not the problem eirebhoy, what these clubs don't want, obviously for obvious reasons, is for Milan to play Chelsea in the first round of the knockout stage when it could easily be the final.
Why let another ****ter team play on, thus lowering the quality of the compo.

Take a tennis knockout system for example, 1st seed vs. 16th and so on and so forth.
It ensures that good teams don't get knocked out before they are 'supposed to', while worse teams go through.

Memnoch

the problem being that a lot of teams that consider themselves good are actually average at european level, or even crap. English Premiere league teams for example are consistantly over rated.
Also a team can be good one year but crap the next year

eirebhoy

Teams are seeded in the group stages though. If we want to see the best teams go further than they should all win their groups. Lyon, Chelsea, Inter and Monaco won their groups this season by 13, 13, 14 and 12 points respectively. They deserved to win their groups and they don't deserve to go from clearly winning the group to be one of the non-seeds (which they would have been). The 4 Italian teams, Milan, Juve, Inter and Roma were all in Pot 2 this year. 3 of those teams won their groups and they deserve to be the teams favoured, not those who scrape second in their group but have a good history in the competition.

Jivin Turkey

It is right to seed the groups. As has been pointed out, its in pretty much everyones favour.

Groups are on average in and around the same standard, the "worse" teams get a game or two against the big boys providing great revenue. Also they have a chance of a possible upset, and getting into the next round or at worst a UEFA cup spot.

The bigger teams dont get all pooled together, ensuring a good standard in the knockout phase.

The knockout should be group winners against second place. Teams from the same country should definately be allowed play each other. The draw is flawed if they are not, because assuming 4 Italian teams qualify with one in second place. That second place team cannot draw any of the other three Italians or their group winners, resulting in an easier draw "on paper".

Add to that, for example, suppose they scrape through on goal difference with eight points through the group. Why should they get an easier draw "on paper" from someone from another country who qualified second on goal difference with 15 points.

IMO that is all that needs to change in the current system.

smemon

Memnoch wrote:

English Premiere league teams for example are consistantly over rated.

i agree but then why are chelsea in the last 8 and not barca? imo barca are a better side but on the day caught chelsea in good form.

the point where im coming from is that porto won the champions league last year, barca were knocked out in the last 16 this year. now is anyone brave enough to say porto deserved to win it last year more than barca this year?

barca this year were playing football on a different planet, imo its a shame to see it not being rewarded. fifa and uefa always change rules/regultions to try and favour the attacking side, with no seeding atm, it favours the cup teams-usually defensive minded sides that on a one-off can beat someone but they couldnt do it every week.

from a marketing/business/tv point of view it also damages image/reputation/viewing figures which in theory could result in a loss of money for football in general.

its all well and good saying if you want to win it, you have to be able to beat anyone but if your competing on all fronts domestically aswell and up against someone who's not, surely the more competitive side deserves to be rewarded?

im not backing them statements, i dont want to see anyone spoonfed a trophy but i can see where gill is coming from and why. from a business and glamour tournament side of things, it makes good sense to seed.

eirebhoy

So basically you are saying you want to see good attacking football being rewarded? Lets cut the gap between Chelsea and Arsenal in half so. Yes, Porto did deserve to win the CL last year (Ok, a bit of luck against United but thats part of football).

thejollyrodger

Its wrong to seed the draw after the group stage. Its against the whole idea of a sport competition and is all about advertisment and money.

Milan are giving out because that idiot berclasui owns it. Didnt he have them playing funny formations last season as well ? He hardly has the best intrests of football at heart.

Its only the English clubs that are starting this racket. The top 3 teams are set up to knock the rest of the weaker teams down. They are playing against crap opposition in the EPL. When they play sides on the continent they fall apart.

If Man Utd got their formations right against Milan they wouldnt be shouting about this.

Fergie has been pushing for a European super league with Man Utd in it. Its all business and no sport. AFAIK the arguement is,
were a bigger club so we have the right to be in the competition more than a "lesser" team. We cant afford to loose money and we dont want to play against a tough team because they might actually beat us.

Its jsut money money money.

smemon

eirebhoy wrote:

So basically you are saying you want to see good attacking football being rewarded? Lets cut the gap between Chelsea and Arsenal in half so. Yes, Porto did deserve to win the CL last year (Ok, a bit of luck against United but thats part of football).

a bit of luck aswell as timewasting and blatent unsporting behaviour both in the cl and uefa cup meant they scooped both.

you cant take away luck or punish a side for beating a better side but it's quite clear porto are no barcelona and as a result shouldnt have ended up with the cl. had everything been seeded theres a good chance porto would have gone out earlier and a better side would have won.

its the same with the euro's with greece winning. a part of me liked to see the nobodys win it but then hang on a second had ireland been playing greece along the way and knocked us out we'd be cursing them for their defensive tactics and say we are the better side and SHOULD have won it had it all been seeded.

PHB

It is right to seed the groups. As has been pointed out, its in pretty much everyones favour.

Which is better?
The situation you outlined where lesser clubs like Celtic get to play the big boys once or twice, or if they take a chance on a seeding, and possibly get through to the knockout stages and get a cup run to the final.

IMO you can't have one without the other without being hypocritcal.
The point is that you're willing to draw the line at a certain level of team, and not at another level.

For example, you're willing to screw over Celtic, but not willing to screw over Werden Bermen.

p.s. THe system they are advocating is in no way based on the fact that Man Utd for example are very well known or anythign like that, they want it worked out using a coefficient formula in relation to the results in the group stages.

----

To outline:

Current system up to group stages.
Using a coefficient based on the group stages, and previous record over 3 years, like is used for the group stages, seed the teams in a 1-16 type knockout stage so that seed 1 and seed 2 do not play each other.

eirebhoy

smemon wrote:

you cant take away luck or punish a side for beating a better side but it's quite clear porto are no barcelona and as a result shouldnt have ended up with the cl. had everything been seeded theres a good chance porto would have gone out earlier and a better side would have won.

Out of the 8 seeded teams after the group stages, chances are one of them are going to get an easy side of the draw and stroll to the final. Porto had to beat Man U, Lyon and Deportivo to get to last years final. Yet you feel the former would deserve to get there more by playing the likes of lower ranked teams? Instead of there being a few big teams play each other in every round you want to wait til the semi's to see them meet.

PHB

Instead of there being a few big teams play each other in every round you want to wait til the semi's to see them meet.

Thats exactly what I want, except I think it would happen in the quarters.
I assume there will be some upsets along the way, but thats football.

eirebhoy

I don't know. I don't know whether I'd prefer to wait until later on to see the big teams meet but the unfairness on the group winners means I don't think the system should be changed.

Big Ears

The best system is the current one plus the small tweaking of clubs from the same nation being able to play each other .

thejollyrodger

Seeding isnt guaranteed to make for better football matches. Look at the Milan vs Inter final a few years back, hardly exciting to watch.

It all comes down to attitude. If you have a great team and think you can win, then you will beat who ever is in front of you.

If your simply a money making machine then your just trying to stay in the competition as long as possible.

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

Which is better?
The situation you outlined where lesser clubs like Celtic get to play the big boys once or twice, or if they take a chance on a seeding, and possibly get through to the knockout stages and get a cup run to the final.

IMO you can't have one without the other without being hypocritcal.
The point is that you're willing to draw the line at a certain level of team, and not at another level.

For example, you're willing to screw over Celtic, but not willing to screw over Werden Bermen.

Seeding the group stages if fair because many of the teams have not played any games. Teams that win or come second in tougher leagues deserve to have an easier draw on paper than those who dont. The are there on merit.

In the knockout stages, every team has played games. Teams should be seeded on merit, which they are to an extent, by winners playing runners up. Say if Milan are seeded first at the beginning of the tournament, and come second in their group losing to the winner 0-3 in both games against them, and only scraping through on goal difference, there is no way in hell that they should be seeded ahead of the team that finished above them for the knockouts.

As I read back through that its not the slighest bit hypocritical. Teams get seeded on the basis of how they got to that round. Makes perfect sense to me.

/edit I dont know what youre on about screwing Celtic and not Weder Bremen. The current set up pits Celtic against two better sides on paper, and a side of in and around the same. And its the same in most groups, there are two larger sides of roughly equal ability, and two smaller sides of roughly equal ability, if one of the smaller sides think they are worth their place in the second round they have to prove it.

But as I said before the reason it is ok to seed the "bigger" teams in the first round, is because they havnt kicked a ball yet.

PHB

I agree with you about that if Milan got seeded one at the start of the tourney, and came second in the group stages, it would be stupid for them to hold their seed, henec why I didn't, nor did any of the top clubs say that.
If the seeding was done after the group stages, it would be fair, and I can't htink of any criticism for it, except keeping the romance.

Why you are screwing over Celtic and not screwing over Werdem bremen is because:

Celtic have the chance to get a group with the worst 3 teams in the compo, and thus would have a chance to get to the knockouts.
We don't have this because we think it'd be stupid to have a group with Milan Juve Barca and Chelsea, as one of them would get knocked out.
We want seeding so that there is Milan Juve Fenerbache and Celtic in a group, so that Milan and Juve get through, and Barca and Chelsea get through elsewhere.
So you are being bisaed towards Celtic, which I think is good.

However you don't follow this logic through in the knockout stages.
Werdem bremen now have the chance to draw the weakest team in the compo and then hopefully get a lucky cup run to get to the final.
You aren't discriminating against them when you should have beause of their group preformance.
If you seeded the teams, post group stages, you wouldn't have this problem, and you wouldn't be hypocritcal, and you would treat Werder the same as Celtic. However udner the current system you don't, and thus I think its hypocritical.

---

p.s. Some people think the 0-0 draws with like 2 shots on goal are the most exciting matches there are, people like different things in football

Jivin Turkey

smemon wrote:

i agree but then why are chelsea in the last 8 and not barca? imo barca are a better side but on the day caught chelsea in good form.

Chelsea are in the last eight because they are a better side. Any side that conceeds four goals in a single game will be lucky to go through any two legged tie.

Barcelona have some smashing attacking players, but their defence leaves a lot to be desired. And for all their "attacking football" Chelsea outscored them over two legs.

smemon wrote:

the point where im coming from is that porto won the champions league last year, barca were knocked out in the last 16 this year. now is anyone brave enough to say porto deserved to win it last year more than barca this year?

To be honest, I dont think this makes me the slightest bit brave (mind you my mommy always told me I was a little soldier) but HELL YES Porto deserved to win it last year more than Barca this year. Porto lost one game out of 13 last year. Barca lost three out of eight this year. Porto qualified from a group with the Spanish champions, eliminated the English champions, then the French champions, then Depor who knocked out "the mighty" Milan, and then won the final 3-0.

smemon wrote:

barca this year were playing football on a different planet, imo its a shame to see it not being rewarded. fifa and uefa always change rules/regultions to try and favour the attacking side, with no seeding atm, it favours the cup teams-usually defensive minded sides that on a one-off can beat someone but they couldnt do it every week.

Thats total bull. Ronaldinho was playing football from another planet. The draw doesnt favour defensive teams, if you look through the teams left in that have a goodchance of lifting the trophy they are built on a solid defence but each team has incredible attacking players (Juve: Nedved/Del Piero/Ibrahimovic; Milan: Kaka/Shevchenko/Inzaghi/Seedorf/Rui Costa; Chelsea: Duff/Robben/Lampard).

smemon wrote:

its all well and good saying if you want to win it, you have to be able to beat anyone but if your competing on all fronts domestically aswell and up against someone who's not, surely the more competitive side deserves to be rewarded?

The three teams mentioned above that I think have a good chance of winning it are all competing on all fronts. As are Munich, Lyon, PSV. As were Porto last year (they did a treble did they not?). So I dont understand why you think the "more competitive" sides arent being rewarded. Unless you meant to say the "better" sides, to which I would say, they reward themselves.

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

We want seeding so that there is Milan Juve Fenerbache and Celtic in a group.

We're not a bottom seed. :mad:

Jivin Turkey

PHB wrote:

I agree with you about that if Milan got seeded one at the start of the tourney, and came second in the group stages, it would be stupid for them to hold their seed, henec why I didn't, nor did any of the top clubs say that.
If the seeding was done after the group stages, it would be fair, and I can't htink of any criticism for it, except keeping the romance.

There is seeding after the groups. Winners against runners-up. It is logical to assume that winners of groups you would imagine would be stronger than the runners up of groups.

In your case, and given the knock-out teams, who is to decide who is better between, Juve, Milan, Chelsea, Inter? It is hardly something that is clear cut.

PHB wrote:

Why you are screwing over Celtic and not screwing over Werdem bremen is because:

Celtic have the chance to get a group with the worst 3 teams in the compo, and thus would have a chance to get to the knockouts.
We don't have this because we think it'd be stupid to have a group with Milan Juve Barca and Chelsea, as one of them would get knocked out.
We want seeding so that there is Milan Juve Fenerbache and Celtic in a group, so that Milan and Juve get through, and Barca and Chelsea get through elsewhere.
So you are being bisaed towards Celtic, which I think is good.

However you don't follow this logic through in the knockout stages.
Werdem bremen now have the chance to draw the weakest team in the compo and then hopefully get a lucky cup run to get to the final.
You aren't discriminating against them when you should have beause of their group preformance.
If you seeded the teams, post group stages, you wouldn't have this problem, and you wouldn't be hypocritcal, and you would treat Werder the same as Celtic. However udner the current system you don't, and thus I think its hypocritical.

To be honest I dont really follow.

I am biased towards Celtic? Is that scenario biased against Celtic (which I would also agree with)?

And how do Weder have the chance to draw the weakest team? Surely one could argue the weakest team is the team who finished second with the lowest number of points, if Weder can draw them they have obviously topped their group and deserve said "easy draw" based on merit?