|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Which stats are you referring too?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
"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. |
|
By:
I'm still waiting for you to explain why the CL is a much better competition and why last night proved it.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
"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 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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!
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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!
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
I haven't answered Dirk... they are two different tournaments and bear no comparison to each other. Geez, how clear do you want it?
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Qualifying tougher back in the day *
|
|
By:
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!!!
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
Should read "And if that wasn't the case".
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |