Champions League vs European Cup

[Maltin]

what the fuck are you on about you fucking muppet? Man Utd played the best football and got the most points from the top four, they were by far the best team in the league across the season, if chelsea had won the league it would have been a fuckin sin!

I agree that Man U probably were the best team this season and I am not upset that they won the league, but I think to suggest that teams don't need luck to win the league is bizzare.

But it is a fact that Man U lost more league games than 2 of the teams that finished below them and it can't be put down to the fact that they were coasting at the end and had given up.

Under the old system (that was in place for most of the period of the old European Cup) of 2 points for a win, Man U would have finished third.

What was this about luck?

 

[Maltin]

Stuff this 3rd best in Germany v 4th best in England, I want to see the league champions of Malta, Moldova and Estonia play.

And then i'd like to see the Irish FA Cup winners take on the Greek FA Cup Winners in a totally separate competition.




Its quite simple, really

 

[Deareg]

Under the old system (that was in place for most of the period of the old European Cup) of 2 points for a win, Man U would have finished third.

are you sure? i thought we would have finished level under the old system with both on 60 points, and we would have won it on goal difference anyway

 

[Maltin]

This was a cup final. The league is nearly always far less dependent on luck than one game. Are you on some kind of windup?

I agree it is far less dependent. but not totally independent. Not on a windup, just bemused for all the love for the old European Cup format, which seems to be viewed through rose-tinted glasses rather than how the competitions actually worked.

If there was only one competition, I would be happy for a return to the old format, but the UEFA Cup format made the European Cup nonsensical.

Under the current format, the UEFA Cup is irrelevant and should probably be scrapped.

 

[Maltin]

are you sure? i thought we would have finished level under the old system with both on 60 points, and we would have won it on goal difference anyway

No, I am not sure!

I was multiplying by the wrong amount of points

It is 60 points each for Chelsea and Man U and Man U would win on goal diffference and average.

Despite my drunken error, I think it still shows that the winner of the league can be down to luck.

 

[legz]

If there was only one competition, I would be happy for a return to the old format, but the UEFA Cup format made the European Cup nonsensical.

It was only nonsensical to the men in suits, who couldn't understand the business sense of their big clubs being made to play Skonto Riga or Legia Warsaw, over 2 legs, with the risk of dropping out of the competition and losing a big chunk of their incomes.

To the rest of us, it was fucking ace watching a few of the big guys falling flat on their faces early on

 

[revol68]

No, I am not sure!

I was multiplying by the wrong amount of points

It is 60 points each for Chelsea and Man U and Man U would win on goal diffference and average.

Despite my drunken error, I think it still shows that the winner of the league can be down to luck.

i think it shows that the 3 points for a win system encourages attacking football. Seriously Chelsea's style of play deserves to win nothing, ever.

 

[legz]

Despite my drunken error, I think it still shows that the winner of the league can be down to luck.

OK, name us a club that won their league by being spawny?

 

[Deareg]

No, I am not sure!

I was multiplying by the wrong amount of points

It is 60 points each for Chelsea and Man U and Man U would win on goal diffference and average.

Despite my drunken error, I think it still shows that the winner of the league can be down to luck.

every team needs a bit of luck to win major honours, under the old system it would have meant arsenal were still in the running right up until the final day (i think )

 

[agricola]

I agree it is far less dependent. but not totally independent. Not on a windup, just bemused for all the love for the old European Cup format, which seems to be viewed through rose-tinted glasses rather than how the competitions actually worked.

If there was only one competition, I would be happy for a return to the old format, but the UEFA Cup format made the European Cup nonsensical.

Under the current format, the UEFA Cup is irrelevant and should probably be scrapped.

Reading that, it seems very evident that you are on a windup.

"Big clubs" only deserved to be in the European Cup if they won the league the year before (or if they won the European Cup the year before). Before "Champions" league money, and Sky, this is how clubs were seen to be "big clubs" - by actually winning things, as opposed to finishing fourth and yet somehow ending up with a huge wad of cash.

 

[Maltin]

if you're going to take it that far,
1) is it not luck that Cech guessed the right way for Ronaldo's penalty?
2) is it not luck that Abramovich decided Chelsea was the club he was going to buy?
3) is it not luck that the people who invented football used a round ball instead of an oval ball?
4) is it not luck that the atoms at the start of the universe collided in such a way as to create the world we live in today?
5) i dont really get what your point is

1 - 4 - yes

5 - it was you suggesting that it wasn't luck not me.

 

[Maltin]

i think it shows that the 3 points for a win system encourages attacking football. Seriously Chelsea's style of play deserves to win nothing, ever.

I'm not convinced that 3 points for a win encourages attacking football. It doesn't normally in the European Championships/World Cup. I agree about Chelsea's style of play being undeserving of praise, but it does normally work.

ETA And almost succeeded tonight

 

[Maltin]

Reading that, it seems very evident that you are on a windup.

"Big clubs" only deserved to be in the European Cup if they won the league the year before (or if they won the European Cup the year before). Before "Champions" league money, and Sky, this is how clubs were seen to be "big clubs" - by actually winning things, as opposed to finishing fourth and yet somehow ending up with a huge wad of cash.

When I were a lad, Everton and Tottenham were deemed big clubs.

I'm not that old and Tottenham hadn't won the league since 1961 and Everton had only won it twice since 1970.

 

[strung out]

1 - 4 - yes

5 - it was you suggesting that it wasn't luck not me.

you were the one who seemed to be inferring that Man Utd got lucky because Terry missed his penalty when you said "Do you think it was luck that Man U won the Champions League this evening? Was it not luck that Terry missed his penalty". I was merely demonstrating that suggesting such a thing is a pointless exercise because you can put pretty much every event that happens ever down to being either good or bad luck. There's a point at which you have to say someone either did or didnt deserve something. man utd deserved the league and the cup tonight regardless of what you believe to be either good or bad luck

 

[agricola]

When I were a lad, Everton and Tottenham were deemed big clubs.

I'm not that old and Tottenham hadn't won the league since 1961 and Everton had only won it twice since 1970.

... which is why we didnt get into the European Cup (though why we didnt get into it after 1985 is of course another debate). Both clubs did on occasion perform well in the league (and got into the UEFA Cup that way), and also managed to get into the ECWC during that time. That said, both clubs are still big clubs because of their large fanbases, and long and illustrious history, just as Villa are.

What is your point?

edit: of course, Liverpool havent actually won the League for the past seventeen years. Why are they in the Champions League every year?

 

[Maltin]

What constitutes "the best teams" though? The old European Cup had everyone who had won their league in it. The UEFA had the clubs who didnt win their league, but finished near the top.

Call me overly logical but that would tend to suggest that the sides that qualified for the European Cup had performed better during the season than the UEFA Cup entrants.

I'm sure that the runner up in the English league was generally a better team than that of the champions of the league of Luxembourg etc.

Whilst I feel sorry for the champions of Luxembourg that they may not be able to play the bigger teams in Europe any more, I am sure that they would accept that they are not in the same league as some of the runners up in other national leagues.

It is like my hometown team being able to compete with Premier league teams even though the standard of competition that they faced to win their league is inferior.

How about having a competition where the winners of the English divisions play against each other. Does everybody think that is a fair and sensible competition?

 

[strung out]

How about having a competition where the winners of the English divisions play against each other. Does everybody think that is a fair and sensible competition?

Almost like the Watney Cup

(incidentally, the first ever competitive penalty shootout in England happened in the Watney Cup and was won by... you guessed it, Manchester United )

 

[Maltin]

... which is why we didnt get into the European Cup (though why we didnt get into it after 1985 is of course another debate). Both clubs did on occasion perform well in the league (and got into the UEFA Cup that way), and also managed to get into the ECWC during that time. That said, both clubs are still big clubs because of their large fanbases, and long and illustrious history, just as Villa are.

What is your point?

edit: of course, Liverpool havent actually won the League for the past seventeen years. Why are they in the Champions League every year?

You said big clubs won things. I was just pointing out that the so called big clubs in the past (and currently) didn't win many things yet got called big clubs.

Arsenal can also be added to the list when I was younger, not having won the league since 1971 nor the FA Cup since 1979.

Man U hadn't won the league since 1980.

 

[Maltin]

Almost like the Watney Cup

Almost. Looked good didn't it!

 

[Maltin]

you were the one who seemed to be inferring that Man Utd got lucky because Terry missed his penalty when you said "Do you think it was luck that Man U won the Champions League this evening? Was it not luck that Terry missed his penalty". I was merely demonstrating that suggesting such a thing is a pointless exercise because you can put pretty much every event that happens ever down to being either good or bad luck. There's a point at which you have to say someone either did or didnt deserve something. man utd deserved the league and the cup tonight regardless of what you believe to be either good or bad luck

I wasn't singling out Man U and suggesting that they were the only team that are lucky. Just that all teams must have luck to do well. I accept that the most important factor is skill and hard work.

 

[agricola]

I'm sure that the runner up in the English league was generally a better team than that of the champions of the league of Luxembourg etc.

Whilst I feel sorry for the champions of Luxembourg that they may not be able to play the bigger teams in Europe any more, I am sure that they would accept that they are not in the same league as some of the runners up in other national leagues.

It is like my hometown team being able to compete with Premier league teams even though the standard of competition that they faced to win their league is inferior.

How about having a competition where the winners of the English divisions play against each other. Does everybody think that is a fair and sensible competition?

We already have two competitions where - to a varying degree - clubs from lower leagues play the teams from the top flight. You may have seen the final played last weekend for one of these competitions, in which two teams, neither of whom won their league, managed to serve up an entertaining game of football, played out in front of a packed out Wembley by two sets of teams whose conduct - especially when viewed against the antics of "the best teams in Europe" tonight - can only be described as exemplary.

As for the rest of your argument, the best, most economical way to describe it is bollocks. Yes, the champions of Luxembourg may not be as good as the second place English team, but they actually won their league. That should give them the right to enter a competition that includes the league winners of the whole of Europe. Otherwise what is the point of football?

 

[Maltin]

It was only nonsensical to the men in suits, who couldn't understand the business sense of their big clubs being made to play Skonto Riga or Legia Warsaw, over 2 legs, with the risk of dropping out of the competition and losing a big chunk of their incomes.

To the rest of us, it was fucking ace watching a few of the big guys falling flat on their faces early on

I don't think it made sense for the UEFA Cup to have the second to fifth best teams in England, Germany, Italy, Spain etc and the European Cup to have just one team from those countries.

Whilst the decision may have been taken for the "men in suits", it didn't really make sense from a football point of view to have more teams from the leagues where a higher standard of football is played to compete in UEFA's second tier competition and teams from leagues where the standard of play is lower to play in their premier competition.

 

[Maltin]

We already have two competitions where - to a varying degree - clubs from lower leagues play the teams from the top flight. You may have seen the final played last weekend for one of these competitions, in which two teams, neither of whom won their league, managed to serve up an entertaining game of football, played out in front of a packed out Wembley by two sets of teams whose conduct - especially when viewed against the antics of "the best teams in Europe" tonight - can only be described as exemplary.

As for the rest of your argument, the best, most economical way to describe it is bollocks. Yes, the champions of Luxembourg may not be as good as the second place English team, but they actually won their league. That should give them the right to enter a competition that includes the league winners of the whole of Europe. Otherwise what is the point of football?

When you say we, I assume you mean England. Presumably the 2 competitions are the league and the FA Cup. Both of which are pretty much looked down upon by all the teams in the Premier League. Despite this fact, I believe Premier league teams have reached and won the FA Cup (and probably the League cup) since the formation of the Premier league and the FA Cup was last won by a team outside the top division 34 years ago.

I'm not sure I would agree that last week's game was entertaining for the neutral. Refreshing perhaps, but not entertaining. I accept that the conduct of the teams may have been better.

The whole point of football is if you win a league that you have the right to play against someone else who won another league The Europeam Cup only started in 1955. Football has been around a lot longer than that.

 

[agricola]

I don't think it made sense for the UEFA Cup to have the second to fifth best teams in England, Germany, Italy, Spain etc and the European Cup to have just one team from those countries.

Whilst the decision may have been taken for the "men in suits", it didn't really make sense from a football point of view to have more teams from the leagues where a higher standard of football is played to compete in UEFA's second tier competition and teams from leagues where the standard of play is lower to play in their premier competition.

Oh do fuck off. Of course it makes footballing sense to have the champions of Luxembourg be able join a competition that is (or should be) for the champions of the various European leagues - it makes far more sense than denying them a place so a team in England that has won fuck all, and finished third or fourth, can get in. By your argument, why even have qualification for European tournaments at all?

 

[agricola]

The whole point of football is if you win a league that you have the right to play against someone else who won another league The Europeam Cup only started in 1955. Football has been around a lot longer than that.

More fuckwittery.

The point of football at that level is, to me at least, that clubs should get a fair reward for their achievements. A competition that calls itself "the Champions League" and yet which contains a majority of teams that are not Champions, but who are there because they have the biggest financial clout - ahead of teams who actually have won something - is an abherration which needs to be destroyed. Otherwise we will see, sooner or later, the idea that achievement is secondary to financial size (finances which are boosted beyond all reason by continued presence in the CL).

To use your example again, the champions of Luxembourg have far more legitimacy to be in a competition of champions, than the third or fourth placed team in England - irrespective of their relative skill gap, "level of football" or other bollocks. This is so blatantly obvious as to suggest your continual pretending otherwise is a windup.

 

[revol68]

To be honest I think making it only the league winners in the champions league is never going to happen but it should definately be just 1st and 2nd to go in, you should atleast have be seriously challenging for your domestic league. 3rd to 5th go in the UEFA and bring back the Cup Winners Cup.

 

[Artie Fufkin]

But it is a fact that Man U lost more league games than 2 of the teams that finished below them

it may have escaped you that man utd also won more games then the teams below them

 

[Dr. Furface]

To be honest I think making it only the league winners in the champions league is never going to happen but it should definately be just 1st and 2nd to go in, you should atleast have be seriously challenging for your domestic league. 3rd to 5th go in the UEFA and bring back the Cup Winners Cup.

Agreed on all points, although for the Champs Lg only the best 8 national leagues should have 2 representatives, 1 each for all the others.

 

[Bonfirelight]

i don't see why playing in europe should be seen as some sort of reward.

they should open the floodgates and let in everyone who wants to enter, like some continent wide FA cup.
Straight one legged knockout competition.

that would be

 

[Deareg]

More fuckwittery.

The point of football at that level is, to me at least, that clubs should get a fair reward for their achievements. A competition that calls itself "the Champions League" and yet which contains a majority of teams that are not Champions, but who are there because they have the biggest financial clout - ahead of teams who actually have won something - is an abherration which needs to be destroyed. Otherwise we will see, sooner or later, the idea that achievement is secondary to financial size (finances which are boosted beyond all reason by continued presence in the CL).

To use your example again, the champions of Luxembourg have far more legitimacy to be in a competition of champions, than the third or fourth placed team in England - irrespective of their relative skill gap, "level of football" or other bollocks. This is so blatantly obvious as to suggest your continual pretending otherwise is a windup.

i think we have already arrived at this stage, it is more desirable to finish fourth than to win the FA cup, some teams don't want to qualify for the uefa cup because it may jeopardise their league campaign the following season, teams that have qualified field weakened teams