The most comprehensive test of a club side?

--amadeus-- · 10-04-2008 02:50PM #1

I'll admit right off that I am a Liverpool fan but that's not really the point... A lot of people slag off the Champions League, they claim it's been devalued by some of the recent winners (Porto, Liverpool, to an extent Milan) and that fluke results allow bad teams to do well.

Which I think is bull!

The name "Champions League" is daft, it hasn't been that in years. What it does do though is concentrate the best teams from European club football in one place, domestic champions or not. And is that such a bad thing? Are FK Ventspils (Latvian champions) really more valuable to a competition than Barcalona? Because restricting it to the domestic champions would have Ventspils in and Barca out. I can't see how that would improve the quality of the winners?

Even so you still have to finish well in a domestic league to qualify, meaning every team in there has at least a year of consistently good results behind it. And once into the Champions League proper poor teams are found out. With a league system you can't defend and hope for draws, or be brilliant but patchy. Over 6 games quality comes out, consistency is rewarded and - without exception - the best teams based on results go through. When a "top" team fails to progress it has nothing to do with luck, they just didn't perform because over a league campaign (even one only 6 matches long) luck levels out.

Then, having proved the consistancy, the 16 remaining teams have to prove that they have the talent to win in knockout football, which is a different skill. They need mental toughness and the ability to do the unexpected, to rise to the occasion. A team might be tough but limited and so get through the league section but the knockout phase is where they get found out. Only a team able to produce moments of magic will get through subsequent rounds of a knockout tournament.

The idea of the restructure of teh Champions League was to minimise the chance of a top club getting knocked out early. An unintended consequence of this is that luck and fluke has been legislated out of the competition, luck might turn an individual match but not 6 league games plus 8 knock outs.

So there you are - the UEFA Champions League, by accident the toughest and most comprehensive test of a football team!

Helix · 10-04-2008 02:51PM

dunno, id still rate the top domestic leagues as far far far harder to win than the champions league where a bit of luck in the draw and a few decisions going your way can see you into the later rounds

Melion · 10-04-2008 02:51PM

People are just going to come in here and ramble on about how Liverpool have been lucky to reach 2 finals and a semi-final in 4 years.

Xavi6 · 10-04-2008 02:53PM

I disagree completely with the title 'Champions League'. It's not. It's the 'Top four from the big leagues plus the winners of the shit leagues who never get anywhere anyway' League.

Rename please.

L'prof · 10-04-2008 02:57PM

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Having said that, it would not surprise me if they reached the final again! I don't think they'll need any luck against Chelsea!

Whether or not they could beat Barcelona/United in the final, who knows?

Yes, I am an Arsenal fan btw, so I still have a bitter taste in my mouth after the last round!

--amadeus-- · 10-04-2008 02:58PM

But that's my point - you might get lucky in a game or two but not over 14! Especially not with 7 away from home.

Yes seedings for teh group stage make it easier for some teams to get through and then a "soft" draw might get you into teh quarters but you can't tell me that there are easy games once you get down to the last 8? Fenerbache were as soft as any left and they scared Chelsea.

And I know that a domestic league means performing over 3osomething games but the CL includes a league element and the standard of opposition is stratospherically higher - Galatasery were awful but you can't tell me that Derby are significantly better!

Melion · 10-04-2008 02:59PM

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Why dont they deserve to be in the semi's?

--amadeus-- · 10-04-2008 03:01PM

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

I didn't want to get into this team versus that team but LFC do deserve to be through because over the two legs they scored 5 goals against Arsenals 3, nothing else actually matters.

And the eventual winner of this contest will be either a team who have won teh CL within the last three years as well as reaching last years final, the champions elect of England, the recent champions of England or the recent champions of Spain and Europe! Much as I may hate the team that wins it you will not be able to argue they don't deserve it.

gucci · 10-04-2008 03:02PM

Xavi6 wrote: »

I disagree completely with the title 'Champions League'. It's not. It's the 'Top four from the big leagues plus the winners of the shit leagues who never get anywhere anyway' League.

Rename please.

Which category to FC Porto fit into??

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Yes, I am an Arsenal fan btw, so I still have a bitter taste in my mouth after the last round!

Ya dont say, i never would have guessed it after your first statement

Xavi6 · 10-04-2008 03:04PM

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

Oh good God what have you done? There's worms everywhere.

Malice · 10-04-2008 03:08PM

Melion wrote: »

People are just going to come in here and ramble on about how Liverpool have been lucky

jasonorr wrote: »

While Liverpool are a very good side in Europe, I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

:rolleyes: Wow, that didn't take long did it? Seven minutes only!

Xavi6 wrote: »

I disagree completely with the title 'Champions League'. It's not. It's the 'Top four from the big leagues plus the winners of the shit leagues who never get anywhere anyway' League.
Rename please.

Hmm, that's not catchy enough, it doesn't roll off the tongue right. How about this: Since it's a cup involving European teams, could it be called the "European Cup"?

Xavi6 · 10-04-2008 03:19PM

malice_ wrote: »

Hmm, that's not catchy enough, it doesn't roll off the tongue right. How about this: Since it's a cup involving European teams, could it be called the "European Cup"?

:eek: You sir are a genius!

gucci · 10-04-2008 03:19PM

malice_ wrote: »

Hmm, that's not catchy enough, it doesn't roll off the tongue right. How about this: Since it's a cup involving European teams, could it be called the "European Cup"?

What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers" cup

ShiverinEskimo · 10-04-2008 03:47PM

gucci wrote: »

What? That's an odd name. I'd have called them "chazzwazzers" cup

"Oi can see you've played knoifey schpooney befower!!"

Mad_Max · 10-04-2008 04:18PM

Im a united fan so i'm might be accused of saying the league is the greater test cause we've won it and not the champions league recently.

I do genuinely think the league is the greater test.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Over 6 games quality comes out, consistency is rewarded and - without exception - the best teams based on results go through. When a "top" team fails to progress it has nothing to do with luck, they just didn't perform because over a league campaign (even one only 6 matches long) luck levels out.

I think theres somewhat of a contradiction in this. Over 6 games quality comes through but not over 30+. Teams can go on good runs and win 6/7 in a row but then fall apart e.g. Arsenal. If the champions league was over by xmas they may well have won. But the truer test is the league where the weakness in a team will come out and luck is only a minor part.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Then, having proved the consistancy, the 16 remaining teams have to prove that they have the talent to win in knockout football, which is a different skill.

I agree that its a different skill and i think that liverpool have that skill but that doesn't mean they've passed a tougher test.

But thats just my opinion and I in no way de-value the CL, i'd love to win it again and have been gutted everytime we got knocked out since 99.

Tusky · 10-04-2008 04:22PM

jasonorr wrote: »

I feel that they don't deserve to be in the Semi-Finals this year and anyone who says that they do isn't worth responding to!

:rolleyes:

Yes, I am an Arsenal fan btw,

Thought so.

I definitely think the league is harder to win. It requires you to be good over a longer period of time. Having said that, I believe a league title and a champions league win carry a similar amount of prestige as to win the Europe, you will usually have to beat the best in the world.

On the whole 'luck' thing. I dont buy it (not directed at you Jason)

Liverpool were lucky in both legs against Inter Milan this year.

They were lucky in both legs against Arsenal too.

They were lucky in both legs against Barcelona last year.

They were lucky in both legs against Chelsea last year.

They were lucky to beat AC Milan in the final in 05.

They were lucky in both legs against Juventus that year.

They were lucky in both legs against Chelsea that year as well.

PHB · 10-04-2008 04:30PM

In England, the best team is the team who wins the league, not the FA Cup.
That's cause leagues are better than cups.

Problem is, the english league is of worse quality than the european cup.

A European league would be a true test of skill imo. A cup not so much. To win the cup you need to get through the group stages, normally relatively easy, with sides of quality like the top 5-8 in the premiership, then you need to go through knockout stages, with the first round normally being easyish, then you have to beat 3 teams over 2 legs (and a final) of the highest quality.
Considering you play 3 top teams in the league aswell, of equal quality, the PL is a better thing than the CL.

If I had to pick this year, I'd pick the League.

10-04-2008 04:36PM

Its that time of year again. "This will be our year" ramblings are replaced by "Champions League is the big one anyway". These kinds of threads and the answers are all dependant on who you support.

Frankly my best mate, a Liverpool fan, told me at the start of the year that if he could pick one trophy this year it'd be the Premiership. Now thats not going to happen he says its all about the Champions League. But Ive a feeling if Liverpool were still in the hunt then he may stil be saying the Premiership is the big one.

Theyre close in stature for sure, but a league is a true test...can u play your best football every week or are u only able to raise it for the big glamour games. Consistency is a true test of how good you are. Frankly going away from home and keeping it tight and booting long balls in the away games and then going out to win your home games is all well and good for Europe but u will not accumulate enough points doing that in a league. Hence the league is a test of whether u are able to go to the cauldrons of other teams grounds out of your comfort zone (crappy stadiums/crap weather/crap pitches etc) and win games. Henco IMO, the league is the most comprehensive test because you are examined on your ability to beat EVERYONE and not just on your ablity to keep your best in reserve, rotate players so that theyre fresh for a cup competition and then go out and keep it tight and raise your game against the big glamour teams.

Porto won a Champions League beating a United side in transition, a hot and cold Deportivo and an over achieving Monaco in the knockout rounds........U cant win the league by avoiding the tough games.

Im not trying to have a dig at Liverpool, the European strategy they employ works and credit to them, I just think its cheapened byt he fact that in the run in theyre playing reserve teams when all the other teams are battling hard on all fronts. The comprehensive test would be being able to compete on both fronts.

L'prof · 10-04-2008 05:53PM

Melion wrote: »

Why dont they deserve to be in the semi's?

Because if the big decisions were correctly made over the tie, Arsenal would be through! I don't think anybody can argue that, but at the same time...maybe it's better that Liverpool went through because I don't think Arsenal can handle many more games, their squad isn't strong enough!

Basically, I have no problem with a team not playing well and grinding out a result, but "it really grinds my gears" when there is a direct link to their place in the semi finals and bad refereeing decisions! Let's face it, if Arsenal were given the penlty they deserved in the first leg, it would have completely changed the tie and I think they would have went through and who can debate that the penalty Liverpool got was clearly much softer?

Anyway, I'm not trying to "grind anybody elses gears", but I'm sure it won't sit well with a few people, so sorry about that!

Anyway, back on topic...sorry! I personally feel, the biggest test for a club side is the league, however I still feel the Champions League is a great competition and well worth winning, I'd rate it as a close second to the league and some teams might even want it more than the league (United, Chelsea come to mind) but, this is probably due to the fact that they have won the league recently enough!

smemon · 10-04-2008 06:11PM

I agree with the idea that Porto and Liverpool have de-valued the Champions League in recent years by winning it.

Much like Greece de-valued the Euro's and this years winners of the FA Cup will de-value that.

Champions and any side which wins trophies, in my eyes, should be firm favourites to retain them the following campaign.

With all of the above, that hasn't and will not happen. Right from the moment gerrard lifted the trophy, every football fan around the globe knew it wouldn't be repeated the following year.

Should Chelsea or Utd, Barcelona or Liverpool win it this year, the first 3 have the x factor to retain it.

In fairness to Liverpool, they've earned respect from me in europe, and i no longer regard them as blow ins or flukes. That's because they've shown consistency and a work rate that's required to win trophies over a few seasons now.

Until they do something domestically though, the knives will always be out and rightfully so as you can't play to win one trophy every year.

Put it this way, i'd be willing to take a punt on Liverpool next year in the champions league as an outside bet. A few years ago after they won it, i wouldn't have touched them the following campaign.

Madrid, Barca, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan are all sides you'd put money on. Liverpool aren't on that level yet, but they're getting close as an outsider.

In the league, i'd sooner burn my money than put it on liverpool. Why? Because they've shown nothing to suggest they can win and keep winning the league.

Melion · 10-04-2008 06:24PM

Who's to say Arsenal would have even scored the fúcking penalty if they had got it?

Guy:Incognito · 10-04-2008 06:27PM

smemon wrote: »

I agree with the idea that Porto and Liverpool have de-valued the Champions League in recent years by winning it.

Much like Greece de-valued the Euro's and this years winners of the FA Cup will de-value that.

.

What an utter load of cock. Where are all the so called best teams when it comes to the final if the teams that get there are devaluing it? Surely if they were that good and Liverpool that bad, the cup would be won by Utd, Chelsea and Barce every year.

Why did Greece win it with the magical talents of the other teams around?

smemon wrote: »

With all of the above, that hasn't and will not happen. Right from the moment gerrard lifted the trophy, every football fan around the globe knew it wouldn't be repeated the following year.
.

Yet if the following 3 years we got to a semi and a final, not bad for a team with no chance. Incidentally where were the mighty Utd during all this, surely they shoudl be carvign up the competition every year?

Stop talking crap, after 4 years it's gettign really old.

L'prof · 10-04-2008 06:31PM

Melion wrote: »

Who's to say Arsenal would have even scored the fúcking penalty if they had got it?

At home, I'm pretty sure they would have!

Guy:Incognito · 10-04-2008 06:39PM

jasonorr wrote: »

At home, I'm pretty sure they would have!

Is the goal bigger when a team is playing at home?

PHB · 10-04-2008 06:40PM

Are Barnsley better than Chelsea or Liverpool?

It's a cup, will always have an element of 'luck', in that some times some teams will play above themselves, and the better teams will play below themselves.

zAbbo · 10-04-2008 06:48PM

Clearly whoever wins the world cup is jokers, and it's the team which gets the most qualifying points.

Or the real answer is, It's a more comprehensive test of a club side to have won whatever trophy the team you support has won last.

United got lucky in the CL in 99, but I wouldn't begrudge them as being worthy winners, they deserved it. It's just a little sad when people say that Liverpool got lucky (consistent luck...) in the CL in recent years.

10-04-2008 06:55PM

zAbbo wrote: »

Clearly whoever wins the world cup is jokers, and it's the team which gets the most qualifying points.

Or the real answer is, It's a more comprehensive test of a club side to have won whatever trophy the team you support has won last.

United got lucky in the CL in 99, but I wouldn't begrudge them as being worthy winners, they deserved it. It's just a little sad when people say that Liverpool got lucky (consistent luck...) in the CL in recent years.

In fairness, United didnt lose any of their games in the CL in 99, not one. Thats not lucky. There was no luck about the goals, it could be viewed as lucky because they scored so late but it wasnt due to a gift penalty, a penalty that was or wasnt given, an offside that wasnt given or anything else like that. United did well to hang in there wihtout Keane and Scholes but Schmeichel being a great keeper isnt luck.

This thread isnt about who got lucky when though. Its about whether or not winning the CL alone is the most comprehensive test and I say no. However winning the league alone is not that either. I believe you have to be competitive in both to be regarded as a great team.

Melion · 10-04-2008 06:56PM

jasonorr wrote: »

At home, I'm pretty sure they would have!

What difference would that have made to the best penalty stopper in european/world football?

L'prof · 10-04-2008 07:02PM

zAbbo wrote: »

Clearly whoever wins the world cup is jokers, and it's the team which gets the most qualifying points.

Or the real answer is, It's a more comprehensive test of a club side to have won whatever trophy the team you support has won last.

United got lucky in the CL in 99, but I wouldn't begrudge them as being worthy winners, they deserved it. It's just a little sad when people say that Liverpool got lucky (consistent luck...) in the CL in recent years.

This will be my last post in this thread otherwise, I'll just be repeating myself but, I don't mind a team being lucky at all! United were lucky I suppose in that final, but they won because they never gave up...the same with Liverpool in Istanbul, they never gave up...It actually pleases me to see teams do that!

However, it drives me wild if I feel a team has progressed through bad refereeing decisions!

Melion wrote: »

What difference would that have made to the best penalty stopper in european/world football?

Reina is a great shot stopper, but the fact that it was in the Emirates means that there is less pressure on the kick taker! When was the last time Reina saved a penalty anyway, it has to be a couple of months at least?

zAbbo · 10-04-2008 07:06PM

smemon wrote: »

I agree with the idea that Porto and Liverpool have de-valued the Champions League in recent years by winning it.

Just like United devalued it in 99 I suppose (knocked out in the quarters in 98 & 2000)

smemon wrote: »

Should Chelsea or Utd, Barcelona or Liverpool win it this year, the first 3 have the x factor to retain it.

Chelsea and Barcelona look set to go through a rebuilding stage - in fact both teams look least formidable this year than they have in the previous 3 years, talking through your hoop there.

smemon wrote: »

Until they do something domestically though, the knives will always be out and rightfully so as you can't play to win one trophy every year.

Until United do something in Europe, the knives will always be out and rightfully so as you can't play to win one trophy every year. (see what I done there

)

smemon wrote: »

Madrid, Barca, Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, Milan are all sides you'd put money on. Liverpool aren't on that level yet, but they're getting close as an outsider.

United and Chelsea have reached one CL final between them in 15 years, I'm not a betting man, but thats hardly inside bet form... (but don't like the rose tinted glasses disguise that)

smemon wrote: »

In the league, i'd sooner burn my money than put it on liverpool. Why? Because they've shown nothing to suggest they can win and keep winning the league.

Your betting nous has already been highlighted above

zAbbo · 10-04-2008 07:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, United didnt lose any of their games in the CL in 99, not one. Thats not lucky. There was no luck about the goals, it could be viewed as lucky because they scored so late but it wasnt due to a gift penalty, a penalty that was or wasnt given, an offside that wasnt given or anything else like that. United did well to hang in there wihtout Keane and Scholes but Schmeichel being a great keeper isnt luck.

See how infuriating it is when someone says you got lucky?

I agree United made their luck, they could easily have been down 2-0 in the first 20mins in the final, and were all but dead until the final few minutes.

Where they a little bit lucky? Yes, but they made their luck and were worthy winners, fully deserved it.

The most comprehensive test of a club side?

Comments