Football
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
kept and got rid of at the same time!
Show More
They should keep it exactly the same but with some small changes
How different would European Football history be if there had never been an away goal rule. So many teams have gone through having drawn a tie over two legs rather than having won it.
Should be extra time and pens.
Should be extra time and pens.
Away goal is there for a reason and it works.
Seems like Barca backers done their coconuts and look to change things..............
Seems like Barca backers done their coconuts and look to change things..............
how boring would it be without the away goals rule. Park the bus away from home
I'd say as many games are killed by the rule (or nearly as many) tonight being a case in point, Team on top, no away goal and game over as soon as away goal scored. Best team over 2 legs (even with disallowed goal) won but the game was over as soon as Liverpool scored.
Players at this level are paid millions to kick a ball and they're not even expected to overcome a defensive team?
Fairness is more important, teams going through when they've drawn the tie is a cop out.
Fairness is more important, teams going through when they've drawn the tie is a cop out.
muggerised I don't think those who have never won it have a valid opinion.
Charlene you tart, you know full well you won 4 European cups when it was a micky mouse version of the real thing today you mug.
could go to lg cup rules where they only count after extra time,but then they,d argue you get extra 30 mins in 2nd leg to score away,home goal
I actually liked the Golden Goal option.
Play for another couple of hours if necessary until a goal is scored.
Survival of the fittest.
Play for another couple of hours if necessary until a goal is scored.
Survival of the fittest.
Apr 10, 2018 -- 9:50PM, charwell. wrote:
Away goal is there for a reason and it works.Seems like Barca backers done their coconuts and look to change things..............
Too true char a lot of Barca backers seething here
Geez Mike, are you sure!? We tried the Golden Goal and what an anti-climax it was. Room 101 many moons ago and good riddance
Charlene you tart, you know full well you won 4 European cups when it was a micky mouse version of the real thing today you mug.
Ah right. I presume Arsenal won loads during that time then?
Ah right. I presume Arsenal won loads during that time then?
Wonder if Arsenal would have won the European Cup in 89 when English teams were banned, or maybe 98, 02, or 04 if there were only 1 team per country rule brought back? History can be skewed in anyone's favour. Madrid especially, first 5 on the bounce in the 50's when football was no better than the standard today of Grimbsy reserves.
Kind Regards.
Kind Regards.
Funnily we won it when we weren't even champions of our league in 05.
Wouldn't have been possible in the 'easier' days............over to you squire.
Wouldn't have been possible in the 'easier' days............over to you squire.
https://img.4plebs.org/boards/sp/image/1446/83/1446832030306.png
A goal is a goal and shouldnt matter whether its home or away. Now 0-0 is viewed as being halfway decent in the home teams first leg result as they know they can get a score draw away from home and go through like Seville for eg. It actually makes a mockery of the competition when a teams playing in terror at home incase of the dreaded " away goal"
Seville weren't the team playing for 0-0 in Seville. None of the home teams played with fear at home that I could see, apart from Chelsea maybe
The competition is obviously easier to get into given they're are more places available, but it's much harder to win it when you're in it given you have to play 13 matches win instead of 9. Against the worlds best players in the worlds best teams as opposed to playing 2 legged tied against Pub champions from Finland / Scotland / Bulgaria round after round. That's why it was changed, 4th placed teams in England, Spain, Germany are more of a challenge than league titles winners where teams are made up of part time milkman and the local vicar.
You haven't won the Champions League 5 times, you've won it once, Champions League and European Cup are two very different competitions. And that's not to do down Liverpool or any other teams history for the sake of it, it's just the way it is.
You haven't won the Champions League 5 times, you've won it once, Champions League and European Cup are two very different competitions. And that's not to do down Liverpool or any other teams history for the sake of it, it's just the way it is.
So how many times have real madrid and all the teams with a history of winning it pre 1990's won it then - and how many times have you won it again even though it was so very easy to win for so very long? What was your record - 2 finals (and 2 wins) of the most worthless cup even then and 1 q/f - good god you must have been really crap to have that record when winning in Europe was so very easy!
TBh - and having just looked at your record in Europe - i didn't realise it was so very crap - while other English teams were winning the (very easy to to win European cup) you were embarrassing the country and generally getting knocked out in the very early rounds of the (even easier to win) uefa cup. Damn those (very) easy to beat European teams in a (very) easy comp to win ruining history for you!
Jesus Christ, this has f*** all to do with Arsenal
The point that there is no point in Charlene bragging about how many European Cups you've won when pre 92 it was virtually a different competition, you don't lump them both into one. There is a reason why Pre 92 teams were winning the European Cup 2 times in a row, 3 times in a row, and in Madrid's case, 5 times in a row, since the establishment of the Champions League, it took 26 years for 1 team to win it two years running, the AC Miland teams of the 90's, United's treble winning era, the Galatico's of the early 00's and Pep's Barcelona, all failed to win it back to back. If they were teams in the 80's or 70's, they'd have won it twice, three times in a row. Impossible today.
The point that there is no point in Charlene bragging about how many European Cups you've won when pre 92 it was virtually a different competition, you don't lump them both into one. There is a reason why Pre 92 teams were winning the European Cup 2 times in a row, 3 times in a row, and in Madrid's case, 5 times in a row, since the establishment of the Champions League, it took 26 years for 1 team to win it two years running, the AC Miland teams of the 90's, United's treble winning era, the Galatico's of the early 00's and Pep's Barcelona, all failed to win it back to back. If they were teams in the 80's or 70's, they'd have won it twice, three times in a row. Impossible today.
You haven't won the Champions League 5 times, you've won it once, Champions League and European Cup are two very different competitions
Football began in 1992.
Football began in 1992.
Mesmerised
That's why it was changed, 4th placed teams in England, Spain, Germany are more of a challenge than league titles winners where teams are made up of part time milkman and the local vicar.
It was changed so clubs and UEFA could make more money - no other reason.
That's why it was changed, 4th placed teams in England, Spain, Germany are more of a challenge than league titles winners where teams are made up of part time milkman and the local vicar.
It was changed so clubs and UEFA could make more money - no other reason.
The Champions League, although a contradiction, is a much better competition; last night being a good example. If it makes more money then even better. The downside is the lack of respect for the Europa league and domestic cups. I'm also a fan of the play-off system, which keeps the season alive in the lower leagues.
I also agree with mes on this one, although it isn't virtually a different competition, it is a totally different competition and has no right to be compared with the European Cup (RIP)
Of course it's different pitches players ability speed and fitness is totally different
But that's same in all sports but it's still about a competition to be crowned champions of Europe
So the format changes but the title remains i mean formulae one has changed out of all recognition
But don't tell me ayrton senna never won the drivers championship
Any team who have won it are champions of Europe if it's rebranded every two years it doesn't make any difference imo
But that's same in all sports but it's still about a competition to be crowned champions of Europe
So the format changes but the title remains i mean formulae one has changed out of all recognition
But don't tell me ayrton senna never won the drivers championship
Any team who have won it are champions of Europe if it's rebranded every two years it doesn't make any difference imo
1. Away goals rule should be scrapped.
2. Liverpool have been European Champions five times. Makes no difference what the competition is called or whether it used to be 'easier to win.' It used to be a lot harder to qualify as well.
2. Liverpool have been European Champions five times. Makes no difference what the competition is called or whether it used to be 'easier to win.' It used to be a lot harder to qualify as well.
Champions of Europe are Champions of Europe whatever the format. Barca backers seething.
I have nothing against Liverpool, but you have to say it the way that it is
I haven't said they were not European Champions 5 times, I said they were European Champions 4 times when it was a piss poor version of today's Champions League.
It may have been harder to qualify for the European Cup as there were only 1 team per country allowed, however this is negated by the fact that a) Liverpool practically had carte blanche on the market for the best players in Britain once they were in, and b) you qualified for the following season's comp if you won the competition. As Nottingham Forest also did, they finished runners up in 1979 but were re-entered into the European Cup as European winners, they won it again in 1980.
Not old enough to have lived through that era, but having looked up the teams Liverpool played during those 4 wins, they even had a first round bye in 78 to win a European Cup having played 7 matches, other knock out ties were won against the likes of Crusaders, OPS (me neither) who they beat 10-1, Bulgarian champions, Zurich, Trabzonspor, Odense ?
The European Cup back then is probably on a par with the Europa League of today, but even less?
Point being, fans of teams that were dominant in Europe pre 92 should be more humble about achieving success in a much inferior era.
If there were 4 teams per country from the main leagues back then, things would look very different.
I haven't said they were not European Champions 5 times, I said they were European Champions 4 times when it was a piss poor version of today's Champions League.
It may have been harder to qualify for the European Cup as there were only 1 team per country allowed, however this is negated by the fact that a) Liverpool practically had carte blanche on the market for the best players in Britain once they were in, and b) you qualified for the following season's comp if you won the competition. As Nottingham Forest also did, they finished runners up in 1979 but were re-entered into the European Cup as European winners, they won it again in 1980.
Not old enough to have lived through that era, but having looked up the teams Liverpool played during those 4 wins, they even had a first round bye in 78 to win a European Cup having played 7 matches, other knock out ties were won against the likes of Crusaders, OPS (me neither) who they beat 10-1, Bulgarian champions, Zurich, Trabzonspor, Odense ?
The European Cup back then is probably on a par with the Europa League of today, but even less?
Point being, fans of teams that were dominant in Europe pre 92 should be more humble about achieving success in a much inferior era.
If there were 4 teams per country from the main leagues back then, things would look very different.
Could Celtic win the Champions League today?
I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments.
I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments.
Could Celtic win the Champions League today?
I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments.
Is football the same as it was in 1967? That's a nonsense argument. They won the EC in 1967, under 1967 conditions, over 50 years ago. They couldn't win it today because football has changed dramatically since then. How many CL winners couldn't have won the EC because they weren't domestic champions the year before?
Do we throw out Ray Reardon's 6 World snooker titles because he wouldn't win it today?
I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments.
Is football the same as it was in 1967? That's a nonsense argument. They won the EC in 1967, under 1967 conditions, over 50 years ago. They couldn't win it today because football has changed dramatically since then. How many CL winners couldn't have won the EC because they weren't domestic champions the year before?
Do we throw out Ray Reardon's 6 World snooker titles because he wouldn't win it today?
In 1967 Celtic were the best team in Europe...that is a fact
Forget the nonsense of what the competition was called then and now
Often in those days the same 11 or near enough played every game which emphasised how good they were...now its based on wealth and the players bought by a club which determine the relative strength of the squad (is it 25 players)
Forget the nonsense of what the competition was called then and now
Often in those days the same 11 or near enough played every game which emphasised how good they were...now its based on wealth and the players bought by a club which determine the relative strength of the squad (is it 25 players)
I'm not arguing your points; I'm just saying as you two virtually are too, the competitions are not alike and should be treated as two different tournaments with two different sets of stats. I fail to see how this point can be argued but hey ho, we all see things differently.
Historic EC wins are just as valid as today's CL wins, that's what i'm saying, you can't just dismiss EC wins because they upset your stats, your argument to dismiss Celtic's '67 win because they wouldn't win it today is just rubbish.
Aspro
Aspro 11 Apr 18 10:13 Joined: 16 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 8,079 | Blogger: Aspro's blog
The Champions League, although a contradiction, is a much better competition; last night being a good example.
Why is it? and how does last night prove it?
Aspro 11 Apr 18 10:13 Joined: 16 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 8,079 | Blogger: Aspro's blog
The Champions League, although a contradiction, is a much better competition; last night being a good example.
Why is it? and how does last night prove it?
Dirk you're putting words in my mouth; I'm not writing off any of the greats of the past, be it Celtic, Ajax or whoever. Them stats are set in stone and should not be forgotten.
Why do you keep saying I'm dismissing them. I'm just saying in my very humble opinion that the two sets of stats should be seen independently. You think differently, that's your prerogative.
Why do you keep saying I'm dismissing them. I'm just saying in my very humble opinion that the two sets of stats should be seen independently. You think differently, that's your prerogative.
All of them, bar none. Winners, goals, records you name it. Two different competitions entirely. Spurs (for example) have never and will never win the European Cup. It is highly unlikely they'll win the CL either but whilst it still exists there is still a chance.
Dirk, just accept that to you both tournaments share the overall stats; to me they don't. No biggie.
Dirk, just accept that to you both tournaments share the overall stats; to me they don't. No biggie.
Aspro:
You said you're not writing off any of the greats of the past, but then say Celtic's team isn't worthy of comparison to today's CL winners, so to me it sounds like you are. If we take into account things like pitches and fitness and equalize them, could you hand on heart say that Ajax's 70s teams or Milan's late 80s early 90s teams couldn't beat today's elite teams?
Because I think player for player they could without a doubt.
You said you're not writing off any of the greats of the past, but then say Celtic's team isn't worthy of comparison to today's CL winners, so to me it sounds like you are. If we take into account things like pitches and fitness and equalize them, could you hand on heart say that Ajax's 70s teams or Milan's late 80s early 90s teams couldn't beat today's elite teams?
Because I think player for player they could without a doubt.
Where did I say Celtic are not worthy of comparison? I said the tournaments are not worthy of comparison because they are two entirely different tournaments. Again, you're trying to put words in my mouth. Just agree to disagree and save your fingers some energy. I feel one way about the two tournaments (not teams) and you feel another. Celtic was no more than an example.
If the European cup was still in existence I wouldn't write off Celtic or any other team that qualifies for that matter. Spurs (again) beat Real Madrid over two legs but now Spurs are out and Real Madrid are favourites.
That couldn't happen in the European Cup. Two different tournaments.
If the European cup was still in existence I wouldn't write off Celtic or any other team that qualifies for that matter. Spurs (again) beat Real Madrid over two legs but now Spurs are out and Real Madrid are favourites.
That couldn't happen in the European Cup. Two different tournaments.
Joined: 16 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 8,081 | Blogger: Aspro's blog
All of them, bar none. Winners, goals, records you name it. Two different competitions entirely. Spurs (for example) have never and will never win the European Cup. It is highly unlikely they'll win the CL either but whilst it still exists there is still a chance.
Dirk, just accept that to you both tournaments share the overall stats; to me they don't. No biggie.
I'll see your Spurs and raise you Leicester City?
Why dodge my Ajax and Milan question?
You do realise they still play for the same trophy and are still crowned CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE right?
Ah, now we get to it, what you want is to throw wins by clubs you don't like, and stats from the past that you don't like and pretend all that counts is what's occurred since the CL's inception.
Who are you a fan of?
All of them, bar none. Winners, goals, records you name it. Two different competitions entirely. Spurs (for example) have never and will never win the European Cup. It is highly unlikely they'll win the CL either but whilst it still exists there is still a chance.
Dirk, just accept that to you both tournaments share the overall stats; to me they don't. No biggie.
I'll see your Spurs and raise you Leicester City?
Why dodge my Ajax and Milan question?
You do realise they still play for the same trophy and are still crowned CHAMPIONS OF EUROPE right?
Ah, now we get to it, what you want is to throw wins by clubs you don't like, and stats from the past that you don't like and pretend all that counts is what's occurred since the CL's inception.
Who are you a fan of?
"I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination, two different tournaments entirely"
Right, now answer my question re: Ajax and Milan.
Right, now answer my question re: Ajax and Milan.
I'm still waiting for you to explain why the CL is a much better competition and why last night proved it.
What's the point Dirk, you've twisted every post I've written so far that it isn't worth my while continuing. When you learn to read what is actually written then maybe we'll continue this discussion further.
"If the European cup was still in existence I wouldn't write off Celtic or any other team that qualifies for that matter. Spurs (again) beat Real Madrid over two legs but now Spurs are out and Real Madrid are favourites.
That couldn't happen in the European Cup. Two different tournaments."
Surely that devalues any argument about the Champions League being better - the fact that a team "effectively" beat another over 2 legs and yet the beaten team are now favourites for the very competition they competed in that season
In the european Cup if you lost on aggregate over 2 legs you were out
However the original concept was and what we have now the teams who are reflected in the history books are still European champions of their time
That couldn't happen in the European Cup. Two different tournaments."
Surely that devalues any argument about the Champions League being better - the fact that a team "effectively" beat another over 2 legs and yet the beaten team are now favourites for the very competition they competed in that season
In the european Cup if you lost on aggregate over 2 legs you were out
However the original concept was and what we have now the teams who are reflected in the history books are still European champions of their time
Strange that. I thought the history books reflect the European Cup Winners and The Champions League Winners. We must meet and compare books one day.
Listen guys; I do respect your point of view but my opinion feels that because the two competitions are not alike and differ in so many ways they cannot be compared. Sorry!
I haven't twisted anything Aspro. Maybe you should go back and read your own posts pal.
You've said that the CL is a better competition without telling us why, and why last night showed that.
You've said that Celtic aren't the equal of today's CL winners without telling us why, other than the format is different, which doesn't alter the inherent qualities of historic teams.
I've given the opportunity to tell me why Ajax's and Milan's old EC teams couldn't win today's CL, given a level playing field which take into account improvements in areas such as like pitches and fitness, and you've failed to do so.
You've said that the CL is a better competition without telling us why, and why last night showed that.
You've said that Celtic aren't the equal of today's CL winners without telling us why, other than the format is different, which doesn't alter the inherent qualities of historic teams.
I've given the opportunity to tell me why Ajax's and Milan's old EC teams couldn't win today's CL, given a level playing field which take into account improvements in areas such as like pitches and fitness, and you've failed to do so.
Of course the modern day CL is better as instead of one decent team from Spain you have 4 , 3/4 from other top leagues. Google liverpools opponents when they won the European cup in the 80s, most of them wouldnt have even made the knockout stages now.
You haven't twisted anything? You say and I quote "Ah, now we get to it, what you want is to throw wins by clubs you don't like, and stats from the past that you don't like"... Where the feck did I say that??? You're making it up as you go along, hence why it isn't possible to have an adult conversation with you.
I accept your opinion that the two formats are different, that's irrefutable. But you claimed that Celtic weren't the equal of today's winners and haven't told us why, never mind why historic 'dynasties' from the old EC like Milan or Ajax aren't the equal of today's teams. Simply stating 'the formats are different' over and over doesn't answer the question.
I didn't say they weren't equal, I said or assumed they couldn't win it in today's format. What they did back then was a great feat and better than any English club of their day. Please PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth, it is getting tedious now.
You haven't twisted anything? You say and I quote "Ah, now we get to it, what you want is to throw wins by clubs you don't like, and stats from the past that you don't like"... Where the feck did I say that??? You're making it up as you go along, hence why it isn't possible to have an adult conversation with you.
But you won't answer straightforward questions, so i'm left to draw my own conclusions. It's no possible to have an adult conversation with you because you can't/won't back up your opinions.
But you won't answer straightforward questions, so i'm left to draw my own conclusions. It's no possible to have an adult conversation with you because you can't/won't back up your opinions.
I won't answer you because you keep twisting my words and you are still doing it. What's the point, you'll only twist it again.
My only point to this entire debate is that I feel that the two competitions are entirely different and the records should indicate that. You feel they should be kept together. Fair enough!
Apr 11, 2018 -- 2:37PM, geordie1956 wrote:
In 1967 Celtic were the best team in Europe...that is a factForget the nonsense of what the competition was called then and nowOften in those days the same 11 or near enough played every game which emphasised how good they were...now its based on wealth and the players bought by a club which determine the relative strength of the squad (is it 25 players)
It isnt a fact that because Celtic won a knockout competition they are " the best in Europe" . Liverpool could theoretically win the CL but arent even best in their own country. Celtic beat Zurich , Nantes , footballing powerhouse Vojvodina and Duck prague to reach the final lol. They beat Inter in the final but one game against one decent team does not make them the best in Europe necessarily just European champions. I can guarantee if Celtic played for eg Real Madrid 100 times in that era they would lose at least 60 of them ... see it for what it is a knockout cup competition. The winners of the FA cup arent the best team in England , and the same applies to the European cup. In 2005 Liverpool won the European cup but couldnt even win their own league- the league is always a better indication of quality over more games than a knockout competition.
Could Celtic win the Champions League today?
I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments.
I didn't say they weren't equal, I said or assumed they couldn't win it in today's format. What they did back then was a great feat and better than any English club of their day. Please PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth, it is getting tedious now.
You just said, from your direct quote above 'I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination'...
How are they not equal? Why is it a better tournament? Why couldn't Milan or Ajax win today? Why are they not equal to today's elite?
You won't answer because you haven't got any answers.
I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments.
I didn't say they weren't equal, I said or assumed they couldn't win it in today's format. What they did back then was a great feat and better than any English club of their day. Please PLEASE stop putting words in my mouth, it is getting tedious now.
You just said, from your direct quote above 'I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination'...
How are they not equal? Why is it a better tournament? Why couldn't Milan or Ajax win today? Why are they not equal to today's elite?
You won't answer because you haven't got any answers.
I haven't answered Dirk... they are two different tournaments and bear no comparison to each other. Geez, how clear do you want it?
The answer is that some of those players probably could have gotten into day's elite sides but as a team, it's unlikely that those European Cup winners such as Celtic, Ajax or AC Milan would be winning Champions Leagues if they were sides in the competition today.
This is based on the fact that CL winning teams today are made up of the very best International players there are rather than a near on full first 11 of players from 1 country who would mostly play against other clubs where players all mostly from the same country, countries, like Finland, Turkey, Bulgaria and Denmark.
AC Milan were largely made up of Italians with 2 or 3 Dutch players, the Celtic side were all born in the same city, and the Ajax were all Dutch. Where does this happen today? The chances of a team from back then made up of mostly the same countryman taking on and beating a team full of international superstars is unlikely.
The teams that dominate today, your Barca's, Madrid and Bayerns, are not made up of mostly Spanish or Germans.
Real Madrid started with just 3 Spanish players in last years final. 2 the year before that, Barca 4 spaniards in 2015, Madrid again just 3 in 2014 and 4 Germans for Munich in 2013 and 4 English for Chelsea in 2012.
This is based on the fact that CL winning teams today are made up of the very best International players there are rather than a near on full first 11 of players from 1 country who would mostly play against other clubs where players all mostly from the same country, countries, like Finland, Turkey, Bulgaria and Denmark.
AC Milan were largely made up of Italians with 2 or 3 Dutch players, the Celtic side were all born in the same city, and the Ajax were all Dutch. Where does this happen today? The chances of a team from back then made up of mostly the same countryman taking on and beating a team full of international superstars is unlikely.
The teams that dominate today, your Barca's, Madrid and Bayerns, are not made up of mostly Spanish or Germans.
Real Madrid started with just 3 Spanish players in last years final. 2 the year before that, Barca 4 spaniards in 2015, Madrid again just 3 in 2014 and 4 Germans for Munich in 2013 and 4 English for Chelsea in 2012.
List of European clubs in the knockout stage of the 1967 European cup:
Malmö FF
1–5
Atlético Madrid
0–2
1–3
Admira Energie Vienna
0–1
Vojvodina
0–1
0–0
KR
4–8
Nantes
2–3
2–5
Celtic
5–0
Zürich
2–0
3–0
Ajax
4–1
Beşiktaş
2–0
2–1
Liverpool
3–31
Petrolul Ploiești
2–0
1–3
Esbjerg
0–6
Dukla Prague
0–2
0–4
Haka
1–12
Anderlecht
1–10
0–2
Internazionale
1–0
Torpedo Moscow
1–0
0–0
Vasas
7–0
Sporting CP
5–0
2–0
1860 Munich
10–1
Omonia
8–0
2–1
Vålerenga
(w/o)
17 Nëntori Tirana
-
-
Aris
4–9
Linfield
3–3
1–6
CSKA Red Flag
3–2
Olympiacos
3–1
0–1
Górnik Zabrze
Vorwärts Berlin
list of clubs in knockout stage 2017/18
Juventus
4–3
Tottenham Hotspur
2–2
2–1
Basel
2–5
Manchester City
0–4
2–1
Porto
0–5
Liverpool
0–5
0–0
Sevilla
2–1
Manchester United
0–0
2–1
Real Madrid
5–2
Paris Saint-Germain
3–1
2–1
Shakhtar Donetsk
2–2 (a)
Roma
2–1
0–1
Chelsea
1–4
Barcelona
1–1
0–3
Bayern Munich
8–1
Beşiktaş
Thats not even including teams that couldnt get out of the group stages which includes Atletico Madrid, Dortmund, Monaco, Napoli, Sporting Lisbon, Benfice etc . Of course the modern format is tougher to win , qualifying is tougher but in the mickey mouse scottish league you only need to be the best team in one city anyway
Malmö FF
1–5
Atlético Madrid
0–2
1–3
Admira Energie Vienna
0–1
Vojvodina
0–1
0–0
KR
4–8
Nantes
2–3
2–5
Celtic
5–0
Zürich
2–0
3–0
Ajax
4–1
Beşiktaş
2–0
2–1
Liverpool
3–31
Petrolul Ploiești
2–0
1–3
Esbjerg
0–6
Dukla Prague
0–2
0–4
Haka
1–12
Anderlecht
1–10
0–2
Internazionale
1–0
Torpedo Moscow
1–0
0–0
Vasas
7–0
Sporting CP
5–0
2–0
1860 Munich
10–1
Omonia
8–0
2–1
Vålerenga
(w/o)
17 Nëntori Tirana
-
-
Aris
4–9
Linfield
3–3
1–6
CSKA Red Flag
3–2
Olympiacos
3–1
0–1
Górnik Zabrze
Vorwärts Berlin
list of clubs in knockout stage 2017/18
Juventus
4–3
Tottenham Hotspur
2–2
2–1
Basel
2–5
Manchester City
0–4
2–1
Porto
0–5
Liverpool
0–5
0–0
Sevilla
2–1
Manchester United
0–0
2–1
Real Madrid
5–2
Paris Saint-Germain
3–1
2–1
Shakhtar Donetsk
2–2 (a)
Roma
2–1
0–1
Chelsea
1–4
Barcelona
1–1
0–3
Bayern Munich
8–1
Beşiktaş
Thats not even including teams that couldnt get out of the group stages which includes Atletico Madrid, Dortmund, Monaco, Napoli, Sporting Lisbon, Benfice etc . Of course the modern format is tougher to win , qualifying is tougher but in the mickey mouse scottish league you only need to be the best team in one city anyway
Seeing as their can only ever be one champion in Europe the nonsense peddled about 'being easier to win' back in in the day is absolute nonsense. Celtic won it when Celtic were the best team in Europe. Same as Milan, Liverpool, Ajax etc.
- To qualify you had to be champions of your league.
- Wealth and player quality was more evenly distributed meaning more competitive teams. Teams that are not big names now were very decent outfits; such as B Monchengladbach, Steau Bucharest, Red Star Belgrade etc.
- The modern CL is bloated and the group stages are largely an irrelevance and is just a money spinner. If you consider in the 1980's 8 different sides won it yet now the money clubs of Madrid (won 3 out of last 4), Barca, Munich etc dominate.
It's more uncompetitve than ever. Modern day marketing and gullible fans do not change the facts or records.
- To qualify you had to be champions of your league.
- Wealth and player quality was more evenly distributed meaning more competitive teams. Teams that are not big names now were very decent outfits; such as B Monchengladbach, Steau Bucharest, Red Star Belgrade etc.
- The modern CL is bloated and the group stages are largely an irrelevance and is just a money spinner. If you consider in the 1980's 8 different sides won it yet now the money clubs of Madrid (won 3 out of last 4), Barca, Munich etc dominate.
It's more uncompetitve than ever. Modern day marketing and gullible fans do not change the facts or records.
The question is would Celtic, Ajax or Milan have won if it was in today's format. We'll never know because there is no way of comparing. Would they compete with today's elite? I honestly couldn't tell you again because again there is no way of comparing. Why is there no way of comparing? Because they are two entirely different tournaments!!!
Apr 11, 2018 -- 3:59PM, charwell. wrote:
Seeing as their can only ever be one champion in Europe the nonsense peddled about 'being easier to win' back in in the day is absolute nonsense. Celtic won it when Celtic were the best team in Europe. Same as Milan, Liverpool, Ajax etc.- To qualify you had to be champions of your league. - Wealth and player quality was more evenly distributed meaning more competitive teams. Teams that are not big names now were very decent outfits; such as B Monchengladbach, Steau Bucharest, Red Star Belgrade etc.- The modern CL is bloated and the group stages are largely an irrelevance and is just a money spinner. If you consider in the 1980's 8 different sides won it yet now the money clubs of Madrid (won 3 out of last 4), Barca, Munich etc dominate. It's more uncompetitve than ever. Modern day marketing and gullible fans do not change the facts or records.
What evidence have you of Celtic being better than the likes of Real Madrid when the won the European cup in the 60s.. because they beat duck prague to reach the final?
People using cups as evidence of being the best team is absurd, by that logic Arsenal are the best team in England in recent seasons as they have won the FA cup several times, so wenger should be kept on indefinitely and applauded.
Don't see any point trying to compare competitions and trams from different eras
Today's comp is a mixture of league and cup which was invented to benefit the bigger teams and drive revenue
Records reflect how many times you have won the competition in any of its formats
Today's comp is a mixture of league and cup which was invented to benefit the bigger teams and drive revenue
Records reflect how many times you have won the competition in any of its formats
mesmerised 11 Apr 18 13:25 Joined: 10 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 23,313 | Blogger: mesmerised's blog
I have nothing against Liverpool, but you have to say it the way that it is
I haven't said they were not European Champions 5 times, I said they were European Champions 4 times when it was a piss poor version of today's Champions League.
It may have been harder to qualify for the European Cup as there were only 1 team per country allowed, however this is negated by the fact that a) Liverpool practically had carte blanche on the market for the best players in Britain once they were in, and b) you qualified for the following season's comp if you won the competition. As Nottingham Forest also did, they finished runners up in 1979 but were re-entered into the European Cup as European winners, they won it again in 1980.
Not old enough to have lived through that era, but having looked up the teams Liverpool played during those 4 wins, they even had a first round bye in 78 to win a European Cup having played 7 matches, other knock out ties were won against the likes of Crusaders, OPS (me neither) who they beat 10-1, Bulgarian champions, Zurich, Trabzonspor, Odense ?
The European Cup back then is probably on a par with the Europa League of today, but even less?
Point being, fans of teams that were dominant in Europe pre 92 should be more humble about achieving success in a much inferior era.
If there were 4 teams per country from the main leagues back then, things would look very different.
The last time Liverpool won the CL they not only played junk teams like Monaco, Olympiakos and AK Graz, they actually lost to all 3 of those yet still were able to win the tournament.
I have nothing against Liverpool, but you have to say it the way that it is
I haven't said they were not European Champions 5 times, I said they were European Champions 4 times when it was a piss poor version of today's Champions League.
It may have been harder to qualify for the European Cup as there were only 1 team per country allowed, however this is negated by the fact that a) Liverpool practically had carte blanche on the market for the best players in Britain once they were in, and b) you qualified for the following season's comp if you won the competition. As Nottingham Forest also did, they finished runners up in 1979 but were re-entered into the European Cup as European winners, they won it again in 1980.
Not old enough to have lived through that era, but having looked up the teams Liverpool played during those 4 wins, they even had a first round bye in 78 to win a European Cup having played 7 matches, other knock out ties were won against the likes of Crusaders, OPS (me neither) who they beat 10-1, Bulgarian champions, Zurich, Trabzonspor, Odense ?
The European Cup back then is probably on a par with the Europa League of today, but even less?
Point being, fans of teams that were dominant in Europe pre 92 should be more humble about achieving success in a much inferior era.
If there were 4 teams per country from the main leagues back then, things would look very different.
The last time Liverpool won the CL they not only played junk teams like Monaco, Olympiakos and AK Graz, they actually lost to all 3 of those yet still were able to win the tournament.
The question is would Celtic, Ajax or Milan have won if it was in today's format. We'll never know because there is no way of comparing. Would they compete with today's elite? I honestly couldn't tell you again because again there is no way of comparing. Why is there no way of comparing? Because they are two entirely different tournaments!!!
But you said earlier, "I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments."
So therefore in your mind, past teams aren't equal to current teams irrespective of format. You're contradicting yourself, you say there's no way of comparing, but you compare Celtic with today's CL winners and say they're not equal. You can't have it both ways.
But you said earlier, "I'm not sure how some can justify teams like Celtic as an equal to the CL winners by any stretch of the imagination. Two completely different tournaments."
So therefore in your mind, past teams aren't equal to current teams irrespective of format. You're contradicting yourself, you say there's no way of comparing, but you compare Celtic with today's CL winners and say they're not equal. You can't have it both ways.
Liverpool practically had carte blanche on the market for the best players in Britain once they were in
No they didn't, all the top clubs were signing players for big fees around that time. And if that were the case, how would that be different from the carte blanche of PSG, Bayern, Real, Chelsea, City, Man Utd etc?
No they didn't, all the top clubs were signing players for big fees around that time. And if that were the case, how would that be different from the carte blanche of PSG, Bayern, Real, Chelsea, City, Man Utd etc?
If it was so easy to win back in the day why weren't Madrid, Barca, Bayern ripping it up in the 70's, 80's and 90's? Yet they are now?
Money has made it easier for the bigger clubs to dominate in Europe and the playing field is much more skewed; therefore the amount of possible winners is smaller.
If you are a bankrolled club you have a much better chance of winning the CL than the European Cup. You can finish 4th in your league' lose games in the group stages and have another chance to qualify etc.......
Supporters of Arsenal and Spurs etc who have never won the competition in whatever format are simply trying to undermine past achievements; re-branding and marketing doesn't do that. The champions of Europe are the champions of Europe.
So lets just end this nonsense here and now.
Money has made it easier for the bigger clubs to dominate in Europe and the playing field is much more skewed; therefore the amount of possible winners is smaller.
If you are a bankrolled club you have a much better chance of winning the CL than the European Cup. You can finish 4th in your league' lose games in the group stages and have another chance to qualify etc.......
Supporters of Arsenal and Spurs etc who have never won the competition in whatever format are simply trying to undermine past achievements; re-branding and marketing doesn't do that. The champions of Europe are the champions of Europe.
So lets just end this nonsense here and now.
Of course the modern day CL is better as instead of one decent team from Spain you have 4 , 3/4 from other top leagues. Google liverpools opponents when they won the European cup in the 80s, most of them wouldnt have even made the knockout stages now.
The point you are missing is that the champions of 'joke leagues' in the mid 60s to mid 80s were often stronger than the champions of Italy and Spain.
Real Madrid or Juventus would win their league and then be knocked out by champions from Poland or Belgium or wherever, and it was not a shock if that happened.
If the champions of Spain did nothing in the tournament for 15-20 years why do you suppose that their 3rd/4th place teams would have made it more of a challenge?
There has never been any Belgian or Polish winner so they werent that strong, and the second placed teams in other leagues could have challenged more, maybe from England or Germany or Holland.
Lol at Liverpool fans scampering to defend their past glories when it's patently obvious it was far easier to win back then and now trying to shush fans who actually know what they're talking about.
Nobody is ripping it up now that is the whole point, it took Real Madrid 26 years of Champions League football to become the very first team to win it back to back, yet before that, teams were doing that routinely.
1955–56 Real Madrid
1956–57 Real Madrid
1957–58 Real Madrid
1958–59 Real Madrid
1959–60 Real Madrid
__
1960–61 Benfica
1961–62 Benfica
__
1962–63 Milan
__
1963–64 Internazionale
1964–65 Internazionale
__
1965–66 Real Madrid
1966–67 Celtic
1967–68 Manchester United
1968–69 Milan
1969–70 Feyenoord
__
1970–71 Ajax
1971–72 Ajax
1972–73 Ajax
__
1973–74 Bayern Munich
1974–75 Bayern Munich
1975–76 Bayern Munich
__
1976–77 Liverpool
1977–78 Liverpool
__
1978–79 Nottingham Forest
1979–80 Nottingham Forest
__
1980–81 Liverpool
1981–82 Aston Villa
1982–83 Hamburg
1983–84 Liverpool
1984–85 Juventus
1985–86 Steaua București
1986–87 Porto
1987–88 PSV Eindhoven
__
1988–89 Milan
1989–90 Milan
__
1990–91 Red Star Belgrade
1991–92 Barcelona
then no doubles or trebles for 26 years.
You played 9 game to win then, sometimes you were given a first round bye and played 7.
Toady you have to play 13 games
You played against very poor champions from poor leagues.
Today you play much better teams from better leagues.
You were re-entered into the European Cup as winners.
Today you have qualify via the league.
You played against teams largely made up of home grown players.
Today you play against teams full of international stars.
As for it be harder to qualify back then, it wasn't for Liverpool because the best players in Britain at that time all wanted and did play for them, and they were not competing in the league against other English teams that had the same calibre of home grown player let alone any international superstars from abroad like they do today. And as said before, Forest didn't win the European Cup in 80 after being Champions of England the year before, they were runners up, but re-entered as European Champions from 79.
Today's CL has better players, better teams, and a longer format all resulting in nobody dominating the CL for 26 years, and domination is winning year after year, not sporadically.
Kind Regards.
Lol at Liverpool fans scampering to defend their past glories when it's patently obvious it was far easier to win back then and now trying to shush fans who actually know what they're talking about.
Nobody is ripping it up now that is the whole point, it took Real Madrid 26 years of Champions League football to become the very first team to win it back to back, yet before that, teams were doing that routinely.
1955–56 Real Madrid
1956–57 Real Madrid
1957–58 Real Madrid
1958–59 Real Madrid
1959–60 Real Madrid
__
1960–61 Benfica
1961–62 Benfica
__
1962–63 Milan
__
1963–64 Internazionale
1964–65 Internazionale
__
1965–66 Real Madrid
1966–67 Celtic
1967–68 Manchester United
1968–69 Milan
1969–70 Feyenoord
__
1970–71 Ajax
1971–72 Ajax
1972–73 Ajax
__
1973–74 Bayern Munich
1974–75 Bayern Munich
1975–76 Bayern Munich
__
1976–77 Liverpool
1977–78 Liverpool
__
1978–79 Nottingham Forest
1979–80 Nottingham Forest
__
1980–81 Liverpool
1981–82 Aston Villa
1982–83 Hamburg
1983–84 Liverpool
1984–85 Juventus
1985–86 Steaua București
1986–87 Porto
1987–88 PSV Eindhoven
__
1988–89 Milan
1989–90 Milan
__
1990–91 Red Star Belgrade
1991–92 Barcelona
then no doubles or trebles for 26 years.
You played 9 game to win then, sometimes you were given a first round bye and played 7.
Toady you have to play 13 games
You played against very poor champions from poor leagues.
Today you play much better teams from better leagues.
You were re-entered into the European Cup as winners.
Today you have qualify via the league.
You played against teams largely made up of home grown players.
Today you play against teams full of international stars.
As for it be harder to qualify back then, it wasn't for Liverpool because the best players in Britain at that time all wanted and did play for them, and they were not competing in the league against other English teams that had the same calibre of home grown player let alone any international superstars from abroad like they do today. And as said before, Forest didn't win the European Cup in 80 after being Champions of England the year before, they were runners up, but re-entered as European Champions from 79.
Today's CL has better players, better teams, and a longer format all resulting in nobody dominating the CL for 26 years, and domination is winning year after year, not sporadically.
Kind Regards.
Supporters of Arsenal and Spurs etc who have never won the competition in whatever format are simply trying to undermine past achievements
What a load of bollox; nobody is undermining anything and it has absolutely nothing to do with what club someone supports. Spurs have a European pedigree of old but even that competition is again nothing like the current format and again cannot be used in comparison. You guys do like talking bullsh*t and insinuating things that simply hasn't been said or implied.
What a load of bollox; nobody is undermining anything and it has absolutely nothing to do with what club someone supports. Spurs have a European pedigree of old but even that competition is again nothing like the current format and again cannot be used in comparison. You guys do like talking bullsh*t and insinuating things that simply hasn't been said or implied.
Apr 11, 2018 -- 7:22PM, charwell. wrote:
If it was so easy to win back in the day why weren't Madrid, Barca, Bayern ripping it up in the 70's, 80's and 90's? Yet they are now?Money has made it easier for the bigger clubs to dominate in Europe and the playing field is much more skewed; therefore the amount of possible winners is smaller. If you are a bankrolled club you have a much better chance of winning the CL than the European Cup. You can finish 4th in your league' lose games in the group stages and have another chance to qualify etc.......Supporters of Arsenal and Spurs etc who have never won the competition in whatever format are simply trying to undermine past achievements; re-branding and marketing doesn't do that. The champions of Europe are the champions of Europe.So lets just end this nonsense here and now.
The argument of it being easier to win " if you are bankrolled" is utter crap due to so many players being bankrolled. If it was just money , why the hell havent PSG won it?
Apr 11, 2018 -- 7:34PM, tobermory wrote:
Of course the modern day CL is better as instead of one decent team from Spain you have 4 , 3/4 from other top leagues. Google liverpools opponents when they won the European cup in the 80s, most of them wouldnt have even made the knockout stages now.The point you are missing is that the champions of 'joke leagues' in the mid 60s to mid 80s were often stronger than the champions of Italy and Spain.Real Madrid or Juventus would win their league and then be knocked out by champions from Poland or Belgium or wherever, and it was not a shock if that happened.If the champions of Spain did nothing in the tournament for 15-20 years why do you suppose that their 3rd/4th place teams would have made it more of a challenge?
You say the champions of Poland or Belgium were stronger , how many winners of the European cup were from either of these two countries.... that's right none. There is no evidence that they were stronger at all, all the evidence points to there being fewer quality teams where part time clubs from these nations would have a fighting chance of getting a result. As though a club that plays here could reach the quarter finals of the champions league with this terrifying atmosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadion_Juliska
U don't think think Liverpool fans need to scamper to defend their record in European competition be it past or present format
They have won it under both regulations and also runners up under both formats
I think everyone agrees the competition is now different but you can't compare the game as it is now to how it was then
Seems like it's going round in circles this thread
They have won it under both regulations and also runners up under both formats
I think everyone agrees the competition is now different but you can't compare the game as it is now to how it was then
Seems like it's going round in circles this thread
didnt Citeh have 90+ mins at Anfield to score an away goal? Liverpool scored their away goal and Citeh were just poor last week. Its a fair rule, both sides get the chance to score away, Citeh blew it. As did Barca.
teams can't work out that 0-0 is a decent result for the home team, imo better to lose 2-1 away than draw 0-0 and be vulnerable to the away goal rule and need 2 minimum.
I have to laugh at some of the "absolute certainty" with which some comments are made regarding this thread.
This is a beauty.
[b]Today's CL has better players, better teams, and a longer format all resulting in nobody dominating the CL for 26 years.
The above assumes with absolute certainty that Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Johann Cruyff couldn't play. That John Robertson, Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Souness couldn't play. That George Best, Bobby Charlton and Denis law couldn't play. That Alfredo di Stefano, Ferenc Puskas and John Charles couldn't play.
As for nobody dominating the competition that is the closest to the truth. Now three clubs totally dominate the competition and they of course are Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.
Why do you think it was set up in the first place? It was so that these dominant clubs could dominate! lmao.
This is a beauty.
[b]Today's CL has better players, better teams, and a longer format all resulting in nobody dominating the CL for 26 years.
The above assumes with absolute certainty that Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Johann Cruyff couldn't play. That John Robertson, Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Souness couldn't play. That George Best, Bobby Charlton and Denis law couldn't play. That Alfredo di Stefano, Ferenc Puskas and John Charles couldn't play.
As for nobody dominating the competition that is the closest to the truth. Now three clubs totally dominate the competition and they of course are Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.
Why do you think it was set up in the first place? It was so that these dominant clubs could dominate! lmao.
You say the champions of Poland or Belgium were stronger , how many winners of the European cup were from either of these two countries.... that's right none
Where did i say Polish or Belgian teams won the European Cup?
I said the champions of Poland and Belgium could beat the champions of Spain.
Just looking at the records i see 3 times the champions of Spain in the late 60s/70s were knocked out by the Belgian champions . There were also defeats against the champions of Austria and Bulgaria. In spite of this you seem to be saying the 3rd or 4th placed teams in Spain would have made the tournament stronger than having those champions in it.
People have the idea that Real and Barca have always been these super clubs full of world class players, but this is a product of modern football. Back in the day it was very difficult to get foreign players for political reasons. You had mostly had to make do with the best players from your own country. And mid 60s to mid 80s Spain simply did not produce anymore world class players than Belgium or Poland did. Real and Barca had a lot of journeyman type players known more for fouling than skill.
People laugh that Nottingham Forest 'only had to beat Grasshoppers in the quarter final' but Grasshoppers were there because they knocked out Real Madrid the round before.
Ajax,Bayern and Liverpool dominated because they were the best teams of their day. There was not some brilliant 3rd placed Spanish or Italian side that would have stopped them.
Where did i say Polish or Belgian teams won the European Cup?
I said the champions of Poland and Belgium could beat the champions of Spain.
Just looking at the records i see 3 times the champions of Spain in the late 60s/70s were knocked out by the Belgian champions . There were also defeats against the champions of Austria and Bulgaria. In spite of this you seem to be saying the 3rd or 4th placed teams in Spain would have made the tournament stronger than having those champions in it.
People have the idea that Real and Barca have always been these super clubs full of world class players, but this is a product of modern football. Back in the day it was very difficult to get foreign players for political reasons. You had mostly had to make do with the best players from your own country. And mid 60s to mid 80s Spain simply did not produce anymore world class players than Belgium or Poland did. Real and Barca had a lot of journeyman type players known more for fouling than skill.
People laugh that Nottingham Forest 'only had to beat Grasshoppers in the quarter final' but Grasshoppers were there because they knocked out Real Madrid the round before.
Ajax,Bayern and Liverpool dominated because they were the best teams of their day. There was not some brilliant 3rd placed Spanish or Italian side that would have stopped them.
Apr 12, 2018 -- 3:51AM, tobermory wrote:
You say the champions of Poland or Belgium were stronger , how many winners of the European cup were from either of these two countries.... that's right noneWhere did i say Polish or Belgian teams won the European Cup?I said the champions of Poland and Belgium could beat the champions of Spain. Just looking at the records i see 3 times the champions of Spain in the late 60s/70s were knocked out by the Belgian champions . There were also defeats against the champions of Austria and Bulgaria. In spite of this you seem to be saying the 3rd or 4th placed teams in Spain would have made the tournament stronger than having those champions in it.People have the idea that Real and Barca have always been these super clubs full of world class players, but this is a product of modern football. Back in the day it was very difficult to get foreign players for political reasons. You had mostly had to make do with the best players from your own country. And mid 60s to mid 80s Spain simply did not produce anymore world class players than Belgium or Poland did. Real and Barca had a lot of journeyman type players known more for fouling than skill.People laugh that Nottingham Forest 'only had to beat Grasshoppers in the quarter final' but Grasshoppers were there because they knocked out Real Madrid the round before.Ajax,Bayern and Liverpool dominated because they were the best teams of their day. There was not some brilliant 3rd placed Spanish or Italian side that would have stopped them.
Anyone can beat anyone , so what ? You state that these polish teams were better than their modern day counterparts- what evidence is there? The only reason the champions of Spain lost to polish teams is because in the modern format these polish teams would have not even been good enough to qualify and had the opportunity to play the bigger hitters in knockout football where anything can happen.. simply winning the odd game doesn't prove anything. Wigan beat Man city in the FA cup , so what?
I've never said Real and Barca have always had world class players, I said the modern champions league has more quality teams in it which it has.
Apr 12, 2018 -- 12:58AM, LoyalHoncho wrote:
I have to laugh at some of the "absolute certainty" with which some comments are made regarding this thread.This is a beauty.[b]Today's CL has better players, better teams, and a longer format all resulting in nobody dominating the CL for 26 years.The above assumes with absolute certainty that Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Johann Cruyff couldn't play. That John Robertson, Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Souness couldn't play. That George Best, Bobby Charlton and Denis law couldn't play. That Alfredo di Stefano, Ferenc Puskas and John Charles couldn't play.As for nobody dominating the competition that is the closest to the truth. Now three clubs totally dominate the competition and they of course are Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.Why do you think it was set up in the first place? It was so that these dominant clubs could dominate! lmao.
Bayern munich dominating the champions league so much they have won it once in the last 16 years - quite impressive. Infact we have had 7 different winners in the last decade which makes a mockery of what you are saying.
Make that 6 , Milan , Madrid, Chelsea, Bayern, Barcelona, Inter ... further back just a few years we have had porto , United, Dortmund etc . Its hardly the domination you imply with 9 clubs winning it in the last 20 years
Anyone can beat anyone , so what ? You state that these polish teams were better than their modern day counterparts- what evidence is there? The only reason the champions of Spain lost to polish teams is because in the modern format these polish teams would have not even been good enough to qualify and had the opportunity to play the bigger hitters in knockout football where anything can happen.. simply winning the odd game doesn't prove anything. Wigan beat Man city in the FA cup , so what?
I've never said Real and Barca have always had world class players, I said the modern champions league has more quality teams in it which it has.
Wolf, Polish/Belgian etc clubs were way stronger than they are today. Because they had the best players from their countries in their teams. And in that era Poland were a better national side than Spain or Italy. The poles had players like Denya,Boniek,Lato.... I can't even remember who played for Spain back then.
It was simply harder to win the Belgian or Polish league than it was to finish 4th in Spain or England. Bruges or Widzew Lodz beating Real Madrid or Liverpool was nothing like Wigan beating Man City!
They were often simply better teams.
Under any fair qualifying system they would have been in as they were among the Top 10 sides in Europe. If it was based on results they would be in automatically.There would hardly have been any justification for giving 4 places to Spain when even their champions usually couldn't hack it for 20 years.
Of course nowadays the top 50 or so Polish players will all be playing abroad which is why their teams are no good (also Poland doesn't seem to produce top players so much) Imagine if all the top Belgian players were at Belgian clubs. Would Anderlecht or Bruges be useless with DeBruyne,Hazard and so on ?
In all honesty i do prefer the current format myself, though i could think of ways to improve it.
I've never said Real and Barca have always had world class players, I said the modern champions league has more quality teams in it which it has.
Wolf, Polish/Belgian etc clubs were way stronger than they are today. Because they had the best players from their countries in their teams. And in that era Poland were a better national side than Spain or Italy. The poles had players like Denya,Boniek,Lato.... I can't even remember who played for Spain back then.
It was simply harder to win the Belgian or Polish league than it was to finish 4th in Spain or England. Bruges or Widzew Lodz beating Real Madrid or Liverpool was nothing like Wigan beating Man City!
They were often simply better teams.
Under any fair qualifying system they would have been in as they were among the Top 10 sides in Europe. If it was based on results they would be in automatically.There would hardly have been any justification for giving 4 places to Spain when even their champions usually couldn't hack it for 20 years.
Of course nowadays the top 50 or so Polish players will all be playing abroad which is why their teams are no good (also Poland doesn't seem to produce top players so much) Imagine if all the top Belgian players were at Belgian clubs. Would Anderlecht or Bruges be useless with DeBruyne,Hazard and so on ?
In all honesty i do prefer the current format myself, though i could think of ways to improve it.
[b]Today's CL has better players, better teams, and a longer format all resulting in nobody dominating the CL for 26 years.
The above assumes with absolute certainty that Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Johann Cruyff couldn't play. That John Robertson, Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Souness couldn't play. That George Best, Bobby Charlton and Denis law couldn't play. That Alfredo di Stefano, Ferenc Puskas and John Charles couldn't play.
No it doesn't assume that unless you're a bit simple.
Back then the best players in Europe were largely made up of Europeans, now they're made up of the best from around the world, for example, one of the greatest ever Pele never played club football over here, unthinkable today that as soon as top South American comes good he wouldn't come to Europe, they all do.
Also said, "The answer is that some of those players probably could have gotten into day's elite sides but as a team, it's unlikely that those European Cup winners such as Celtic, Ajax or AC Milan would be winning Champions Leagues if they were sides in the competition today." so to say that the above "assumes with absolute certainty that Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Johann Cruyff couldn't play." is obviously BOLLOX.
As for nobody dominating the competition that is the closest to the truth. Now three clubs totally dominate the competition and they of course are Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.
"totally dominate" ? my record books show Munich have won it once in the last 17 years and Barca have won it once in the last 7 years, that's not domination, it's Madrid who only recently done what nobody could do for a quarter of a century. The main point was that in it's current format it has been much harder to win as the list of previous continuous winners posted above shows.
The above assumes with absolute certainty that Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Johann Cruyff couldn't play. That John Robertson, Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Souness couldn't play. That George Best, Bobby Charlton and Denis law couldn't play. That Alfredo di Stefano, Ferenc Puskas and John Charles couldn't play.
No it doesn't assume that unless you're a bit simple.
Back then the best players in Europe were largely made up of Europeans, now they're made up of the best from around the world, for example, one of the greatest ever Pele never played club football over here, unthinkable today that as soon as top South American comes good he wouldn't come to Europe, they all do.
Also said, "The answer is that some of those players probably could have gotten into day's elite sides but as a team, it's unlikely that those European Cup winners such as Celtic, Ajax or AC Milan would be winning Champions Leagues if they were sides in the competition today." so to say that the above "assumes with absolute certainty that Franz Beckenbauer, Gerd Muller and Johann Cruyff couldn't play." is obviously BOLLOX.
As for nobody dominating the competition that is the closest to the truth. Now three clubs totally dominate the competition and they of course are Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich.
"totally dominate" ? my record books show Munich have won it once in the last 17 years and Barca have won it once in the last 7 years, that's not domination, it's Madrid who only recently done what nobody could do for a quarter of a century. The main point was that in it's current format it has been much harder to win as the list of previous continuous winners posted above shows.
The current format is crap. LEague stage total waste of time in any competitive sense, just a money making exercise.
There is little interest from neutrals until the knockout rounds, which incidentally was the format used for the European Cup in years gone by of course.
There is little interest from neutrals until the knockout rounds, which incidentally was the format used for the European Cup in years gone by of course.
Apr 12, 2018 -- 8:48AM, FredRescue wrote:
The current format is crap. LEague stage total waste of time in any competitive sense, just a money making exercise.There is little interest from neutrals until the knockout rounds, which incidentally was the format used for the European Cup in years gone by of course.
This doesnt make any sense, there are more " neutrals " watching group stage CL league football than ever watched the latter stages in the "good old days".
It's harder to win nowadays because the standard of the top teams is much better. Before, you'd have the best teams made up largely from one country and national teams on paper would still be better than the best club sides, now they are made up from the best players from largely the best countries for the likes of Bayern, Barca, Real.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539