Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 87 comments are related to the topic:
How many European cups would Forest, Liverpool and Villa would have won in the 70/80´s...
How many European cups would Forest, Liverpool and Villa would have won in the 70/80´s...
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 87
|
By:
the reason english clubs did so well is they were allowed to choose from 4 nations (Norn Iron, scot and wal)
Only other country with a similar advantage would have been the soviet Union but as their teams played in the summer they were never fit enough in the spring Mind didnt stop Dynamo Kiev producing some great performances. And BTW if youre looking for an excuse as to why Man U were so sh1te back then its because unlike today the major factor in winning was not having the most amount money/media airtime but having the best coaches Do you actually remember the 80s Man U on ITV every bloody week during their seemingly endless campaigns to avoid relegation Elton Wellsby blethering on about the 'biggest club in the world' M Knighton keepie uppies in front of the stretford bell-enders Every now and again the powers that be may have granted us a merseyside or north london derby Fluck me They (MU) were full of sh1t then and theyre even worse now |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
thelapturps...
You are a case... Was there a rule that you could not sign players from outside your country(S).. Italy and Spain had been blagging the alleged best players for years... |
|
By:
I think there is some truth in this, the pace, athleticism and fitness of today's game leaves anything pre-1990 for dust. George Best nowadays would probably be equivalent to Taarabt, Law to Shane Long, Charlton to Joe Cole.
And it's that kind of point that makes all these arguments utterly redundant: what was harder to win? who is the best ever? greatest team ever? |
|
By:
The thing with the old European cup is, it was a pure lottery. You could get to the final no problem while the bigger clubs knocked each other out.
Example, Malmo's 1979 route to the final....Monaco....Dynamo Kyiv.....Wisła Kraków and Austria Vienna. You look at this years semi's, 2 clubs each from perhaps the strongest nations at the moments in world football. For me, the comparison is Manu winning the World club championship and being crowned as world champions. It happened but the competition was devalued by the teams involved. |
|
By:
Who gives a sh1t?
Liverpool have won it 5(five) times, they even got to keep the cup! Stick that in your collective pipes. ***** |
|
By:
think the italians only allowed foreigners in after about 1980
when did liam brady go? And then it was only 2 allowed per squad Remember Mark Hughes at Barca didnt play because he was 3rd foreigner Got signed by Venables, then unwanted by Cruyff I think cheers loui we know the truth |
|
By:
Not sure about that ours4keeps..
You could only be the best of your generation.. I am cleverer than Einstein but if I was around in the 1930's then I am sure that it would have been me making the tea..... |
|
By:
thelartarps..
Oh Dear Oh Dear.. John Charles Denis Law Puskas Di Stefano Luther Blissett..... |
|
By:
Disagree completely home. I remember watching the Brazil - Italy game from 1982 which was a seminal moment of my youth, I adored that Brazil team and was heartbroken to see them go out. Watching it again 30 years later, given all the tactical analysis we get served on a plate nowadays I'd have to say they'd look like a very mediocre Barca and would just get bullied and run out of the game. The likes of Socrates and Zico made that team tick, but they'd be ridiculously easy to deal with in today's game.
|
|
By:
I think most countries had their own rules aimed at protecting the national team, whether it be 1,2,3 or more foreigners allowed.
|
|
By:
think dynamo kiev was Russian national side in the 1970s/80s
also why were eastern European sides, like d kiev, d Dresden, cska sofia described as 'crack ' by people like brian moore, hugh johns et al? |
|
By:
thats right numbnuts
denis law, puskas et al played abroad in the 70s and 80s I forgot my bad do one Man U mug |
|
By:
You can finish fourth in your league to gain entry to the competition and then lose your first three games and still win it. You may only play one maybe two champions of their countries on the way to the final if the draw works out that way.
How can it be harder to win now when so many teams get so many chances to win it. Much harder to win having to go behind the iron curtain etc.... Id suggest that United 68, Celtic, Forest Villa and Liverpools first 4 were a much greater achievement than a team that gets a crack at it 15 years on the trot. |
|
By:
Makes me laugh when United fans go on about the sides we beat to get to the 1977 European Cup final. When they got to the 2011 final the only difficult side they played was Chelsea. In the semi-final they beat Schalke 6-1 on aggregate. The same side that finished 6 places off the bottom of the Bundesliga. They mock us because we beat the Swiss champions in 1977, yet last year they get knocked out by a Swiss side, & then proceeded to get humiliated by Bilboa in the Europa League.
We dominated Europe when it was a level playing field. Before the age of billionaires buying success on the field, whilst weakening most of the opposition in the process because they'd buy any half-decent player that was available - As for Manchester United. It's quite simply a paper/scissors/rock scenario under the management of Alex Ferguson. United's cut & thrust, cavalier style of play has been the scissors to most of England's paper defences. But the likes of Barcelona, & other European sides who don't give away possession cheaply, they are the rock that has quite often smashed the scissors to pieces. |
|
By:
It was very difficult to win the trophy then. It is very difficult to win now. It had the same prestige then as it is now, hth
|
|
By:
It was a different game back then, lots of teams could win the comp, these days we have a few clubs looking to create a monopoly by spending hundreds of millions on buying up the best players or thieving the best young players from other countries so that only a small pool of winners of the trophy is possible. Manure though grossly underperforming giving the money they have spent are obviously one of the small clique who can win it these days.
|
|
By:
One team wins it every year so it is just as difficult to win it whatever the format.
The current format is a slight disadvantage to the best teams, as the reward of winning the league is negated. So the likes of Villa and Forest may not have won the European Cup; alternatively, the likes of Ipswich, Man Utd, Arsenal, Spurs etc would have gained entry and possibly won it. So the overall number of English wins probably would have been similar. |
|
By:
Villa ??
ffs ,they were one season wonders |
|
By:
one has to remember that Liverpool were by far the most succesful European side ,but were also dominant in England
|
|
By:
Another ridiculous thread trying to promote the soulless shoite we have today,impossible to compare it with the days when the game was more even.
Imagine what it was like for a schoolkid to watch his team almost relegated to Div 3,playing to hardcore crowds of 4.5/6.5 thousand at home games,to go to school on Monday and your mates who followed Utd/Arse/Pool (without ever seing them kick a ball)  would tell me how crap my team was.To go to Munich and Madrid for two European Cup finals within six years, a miracle never to be seen again given the closed shop that TV created for the european premier leagues. By all means sing the praises of the EPL and the CL,but each to his own opinion, and you will never convince those of us that found another sport,once football became a game for the viewers rather than the fans. |
|
By:
You're absolutely right mate. Imagine if a modern day Brian Clough came along & built a side as good as the one Forest had in the late 70's/early 80's. It would never have the chance to fulfil it's potential, because most of the players would be snapped up by the 'big money' clubs. One of those, United, a team that were lucky to have had the same manager for over 25 years. Were fortunate to start winning league titles at the same time that tv money & sponsorships became crucial to a side's chances of success. A club that had the luxury of seeing a crop of world-class youngsters all come through their youth system at the same time. & as a result of the aforementioned, it's now one of the biggest, & richest, clubs in the world. Yet according to some of their supporters, they've got it much harder than we did back in the days when it was oh so easy to win The European Cup.
Doesn't your heart bleed for the poor mites ? |
|
By:
I agree with clough and taylor- good post
|
|
By:
I watched all of those European Cup's and Liverpool & Forest were just miles better than a lot of European teams Real Madrid got beat by Leeds 3-0.
We had much better home grown players, including Scots like Souness, so probably just the same. TBH the format was not that much different, the first KO stage proper started with 32 teams, after qualifiers. We would have probably just had more all England Finals involving teams like Liverpool, Nottm Forest, Villa, Man City, Tottenham & Everton......Man Utd were just mid table rubbish then with a few luxury players like Best & Law. |
|
By:
If ever a thread could be described as an own goal then this one would be the one imo
|
|
By:
@Ours4Keeps, you cannot strictly compare the 2 era's like that, players now are far better looked after fitness wise etc, and are much more like athletes, players then were no where near as fit, but there were more ball artists who could really play football, before it became a game of chess and gamesmanship.
|
|
By:
If you take into account that it is a 2 year process to win the cup (season one qualifying, season 2 competing) then I would say overall it was probably as hard back then as it is now.
to qualify - winning your league as opposed to finishing top 4 to compete - less games against (arguably) weaker teams (champions of smaller associations) as opposed to more games against more teams from top countries, but with the safeguard of being able to under perform in in the odd game as still go through. No difference over a 2 year period - the best team won then as now. |
|
By:
@Ours4Keeps, you cannot strictly compare the 2 era's like that, players now are far better looked after fitness wise etc, and are much more like athletes, players then were no where near as fit, but there were more ball artists who could really play football, before it became a game of chess and gamesmanship.
There used to be a great footie phone-in on Century Radio going back a few years now. It was on from 6pm to 7pm Monday to Friday, & the 4 presenters were ex-Everton legend Graham Sharpe. Mickey Thomas ex United player. Alan Kennedy who was Liverpool's left-back in the late 70's & early 80's. & Gary Owen, who was a top player for Man City during the same era. I recall a United fan ringing in about 10 years ago & asking the question that if it were possible to give the great Liverpool sides of the 70's & 80's the same advantages relating to diet, fitness, training etc. Who would come out on top ? The decision was unanimous with all 4 going for Liverpool. Mickey Thomas stated that the Liverpool sides back then would starve the opposition of the ball, so it wouldn't matter how good Fergie's team was, they'd struggle to do anything without possession. I think this point is also a good indicator of why United have only won the CL twice in 19 attempts under Ferguson. |
|
By:
cloughandtaylor absolutely spot on
Too many here under the misapprehension that football didn't really exist until about 1998. The other main point of note is The European Cup was a team competition, The Champions League is a squad competition, with the format of course loaded in favour of the big boys who run the whole show. You can finish third in your domestic league, and probably afford to lose 4 or 5 fixtures along the way to being crowned kings of Europe a year later. |
|
By:
football started in or around 1998 probably because football was in such a dire state prior to around 95
- rusty stadiums ,boring hoofball ,quagmuire pitches ,matches called off regularly ,toilets stinking of p1ss ,hooligans and foul language and that was just my local village side |
|
By:
Oh look. Liverpool fans talking about history. Never seen this before.
|
|
By:
As they say how many scousers does it take to change a lightbulb, answer none, they just like to sit around and talk about how good the old one was
|
|
By:
Watching Chelsea win last years cup was a bit flat compared to the elation of seeing L'pool, Forest, Villa win it in the past.
Maybe that is because of Chelsea trying to buy everything, i find this obscene, or because of all the foreigners in todays teams....... or maybe it's just me getting older and less bothered about British teams doing well in European competitions. |
|
By:
Historically most teams...well, pretty much every team bought success, I really don't see the difference between Chelsea and City doing it now and other teams doing it in the past.
Maybe a bit harsh to slate the scousers for talking about history ITT isn't it? Considering the whole point of the thread was to talk about teams who won previous trophies n that. Speaking of European Cups, Arsenal are the real underachievers for me. That invincibles era team should've picked at least one up. |
|
By:
atom80 02 May 13 11:58
Oh look. Liverpool fans talking about history. Never seen this before. I think you've missed the point. Bit difficult to not mention past history when discussing the 70s and 80s isn't it? |
|
By:
Historically most teams...well, pretty much every team bought success
All depends which way you look at it I suppose. In his 9 years in charge at Anfield, Bob Paisley's net spend was £1.7 million. He left a side that won 3 major trophies the year after he retired (League title, European Cup, & League Cup). Only one player (Phil Neal) was left from the side that won the league & European Cup some 7 years earlier. So yes, you could say that Paisley bought success. But just to put the amount he spent into some kind of perspective. In 1981 Manchester United splashed out nearly £2.5 million on Bryan Robson & Frank Stapleton. It's not as though Liverpool were the big money club that Chelsea & City are now. Most of the players who signed for us were also available to a lot of other clubs. It goes back to the 'old level playing field' argument. That doesn't exist anymore. Money doesn't just talk in the modern game, it dictates the futures of managers & clubs alike. |
|
By:
Either way, it is now an awfully over-bloated competition run by money.
Drags on far too long with too many "outs" for all of the "big" teams. Players look very jaded towards the end of the "mini-leagues" and a great deal of the "cup" excitement is gone.  Mind you, I'm a miserable get at the best of times. |
|
By:
TBH the format was not that much different, the first KO stage proper started with 32 teams, after qualifiers.
Are you seriously suggesting the quality of the 32 teams in the old format matched the quality of the current champions league? |
|
By:
The argument whether yesterday's great platers could play today is a non debate.
The likes of Best Charlton, socrates, zico would have been great players what ever the time. The current games is played mainly by athletes who can run faster for longer. I don't think they are better footballers though, the current generation are more talented. |
|
By:
Does anyone actually enjoy the champions league before Xmas? Pretty much a waste of time. You might get 1 or 2 teams eliminated who are unexpected, but that it is. And so many meaningless games.
|