On stats, the top 20 20th century clubs

Mr. Presentable · 10-09-2009 08:34PM #1

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/index.php/2009/09/10/revealed-the-top-200-european-teams-of-the-twentieth-century

Here’s the top twenty, according to the IFFHS:

1. Real Madrid
2. Juventus
3. FC Barcelona
4. AC Milan
5. Bayern Munich
6. Inter Milan
7. Ajax
8. Liverpool
9. Benfica
10. Anderlecht
11. Manchester United
12. Atlético Madrid
13. Ferencvárosi TC
14. Leeds United
15. Sparta Praha
16. Dinamo Kyiv
17. AS Roma
18. Hamburger SV
19. VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach
20. Tottenham Hotspur

redzerdrog · 10-09-2009 08:43PM

never mind was seeing thing that wasnt there!!!

SlickRic · 10-09-2009 08:48PM

horsesh*t.

juve and barca above milan?

ajax and bayern above liverpool?

real and milan, 1 & 2, everyday of the week.

i don't care what stats they came up with.

Bounty Hunter · 10-09-2009 08:52PM

well this IFFHS has just proven itself to be a complete joke in my eyes... Villa in 70th while Birmingham come in at 43rd

21. Glasgow Celtic FC
22. SK Rapid Wien
23. BV Borussia Dortmund
24. Glasgow Rangers FC
25. Újpest FC
26. 1. FC Köln
27. Feyenoord Rotterdam
28. FK Crvena zvezda
29. FC do Porto
30. Valencia CF
31. Arsenal FC
32. IFK Göteborg
33. AC Fiorentina
34. Olympique de Marseille
35. Chelsea FC
36. FK Austria Wien
37. Real Zaragoza CD
38. AC Parma
39. Nottingham Forest FC
40. Club Brugge KV
41. PSV Eindhoven
42. SK Slavia Praha Česká
43. Birmingham City FC
44. Eintracht Frankfurt
45. FC Steaua Bucureşti
46. AS de Monaco
47. Sporting Clube de Portugal Lisboa
48. SV Werder Bremen
49. FC Spartak Moscow
50. Paris Saint-Germain FC
51. Sampdoria UC Genova
52. FC Girondins de Bordeaux
53. Bologna Calcio
54. SS Lazio
55. NK Dinamo Zagreb
56.Stade de Reims
57. Panathinaikos AO
58. First Vienna FC

59. MTK Hungária FC
60. CSKA Sofia
61.Galatasaray SK
62. R Standard Club de Liége
63. Dundee United FC
64. AC Torino
65. FC Schalke 04
66. VfB Stuttgart
67. NK Hajduk Split
68. KV Mechelen
69. West Ham United FC
70. Aston Villa

SlickRic · 10-09-2009 08:56PM

this list would be hilarious to pick apart in detail...

Forest 39th and Chelsea 35th?

Did I miss the time when Chelsea...

1) won the European Cup twice?

2) did anything of note in Europe in the 20th Century?

dor83 · 10-09-2009 09:06PM

Those rankings are a complete joke imo, why Inter are ahead of Liverpool is beyond me, Inter have 2 European Cups to Liverpool's 5 and 17 league title's to liverpool's 18.

Guy:Incognito · 10-09-2009 09:11PM

Real are always going to win these things on account of winning 6 Euopean cups on the trot when it was just them and whoever they chose to play in the final.

dor83 wrote: »

Those rankings are a complete joke imo, why Inter are ahead of Liverpool is beyond me, Inter have 2 European Cups to Liverpool's 5 and 17 league title's to liverpool's 18.

Only 4 of Liverpools were in the 20th century.

I'm going to guess Inter got further in europe on more occasions, without necessarily winning the competitions (Ihavnt checked on that though)

Mr. Presentable · 10-09-2009 09:20PM

SlickRic wrote: »

this list would be hilarious to pick apart in detail...

Forest 39th and Chelsea 35th?

Did I miss the time when Chelsea...

1) won the European Cup twice?

2) did anything of note in Europe in the 20th Century?

So, pick it apart in detail. Or did you read the detail.

I am no apologist for the IFFHS, but if you are going to challenge it/them then bring something more than indignation.

SlickRic · 10-09-2009 09:32PM

nipplenuts wrote: »

So, pick it apart in detail. Or did you read the detail.

I am no apologist for the IFFHS, but if you are going to challenge it/them then bring something more than indignation.

if you mean by detail that they compile it through victories in European Competition from 1901 - 2000...well then yes of course I did.

and the results prove very little in reality.

just because i wasn't bothered doing it in detail doesn't mean i didn't refer to some of it's flaws.

for example...

milan not high enough.

liverpool behind the likes of munich and inter.

i know whatever stats they put together was meticulously done etc, and it came out with these conclusions; but to me, and many others, it seems a pointless list.

i mean, as BH mentioned, Birmingham ahead of Villa?

dor83 · 10-09-2009 09:35PM

Stekelly wrote: »

Only 4 of Liverpools were in the 20th century.

I'm going to guess Inter got further in europe on more occasions, without necessarily winning the competitions (Ihavnt checked on that though)

I forgot about only 4 being 20th century, but they still have a much better record than Inter in the European Cup. The only time Inter had success in Europe was in the 60's, we've only gotten to the final 4 times afaik in 64, 65, 67 and 72. I'm not saying Inter are a bad club, I'm an Inter supporter myself, but I just think Liverpool have a slightly better history than us.

Pro. F · 10-09-2009 11:57PM

Ugh the IFFHS has terrible English.

My problem with these things is that they just miss the point of the competitions. It's winning the cups that matters - the glory and the medals - not the individual results. Well that's my view anyway.

..so yeah - meh

8-10 · 11-09-2009 12:15AM

SlickRic wrote: »

just because i wasn't bothered doing it in detail doesn't mean i didn't refer to some of it's flaws.

for example...

liverpool behind the likes of ... ajax

How is that a flaw? Ajax were a better European team and it's not like they're ranked way ahead, Ajax 7th Liverpool 8th.

European Cup/CL:

Ajax 4 European Cups v Liverpool 4 European Cups
Ajax 2 runners-up v Liverpool 1 runners-up

UEFA Cup:

Ajax 1 UEFA Cup v Liverpool 2 UEFA Cups

UEFA Super Cup

Ajax 2 UEFA Super Cups v Liverpool 1 UEFA Super Cup
Ajax 1 runners-up v Liverpool 0 runners-up

European Cup Winners' Cup

Ajax 1 ECWC v Liverpool 0 ECWC
Ajax 1 runners-up v Liverpool 0 runners-up

Intercontinental Cup (Not sure if this is included)

Ajax 2 Intercontinental Cups v Liverpool 0 Intercontinental Cups

.......

I make that, not including the Intercontinental Cup, 8 European trophey's for Ajax out of 12 European finals. (10 trophey's total)

This compares to Liverpool's 7 European trophey's from 8 European finals.

I know that this is only European competition but if you take Ajax's 27 domestic titles to Liverpool's 18 you'd probably have seen Ajax competing a lot more in Europe year-on-year.

Where's the flaw in Ajax being ranked a place higher than Liverpool?

(Ajax-supporter's rant over)

SlickRic · 11-09-2009 01:03AM

8-10 wrote: »

How is that a flaw? Ajax were a better European team and it's not like they're ranked way ahead, Ajax 7th Liverpool 8th.

European Cup/CL:

Ajax 4 European Cups v Liverpool 4 European Cups
Ajax 2 runners-up v Liverpool 1 runners-up

UEFA Cup:

Ajax 1 UEFA Cup v Liverpool 2 UEFA Cups

UEFA Super Cup

Ajax 2 UEFA Super Cups v Liverpool 1 UEFA Super Cup
Ajax 1 runners-up v Liverpool 0 runners-up

European Cup Winners' Cup

Ajax 1 ECWC v Liverpool 0 ECWC
Ajax 1 runners-up v Liverpool 0 runners-up

Intercontinental Cup (Not sure if this is included)

Ajax 2 Intercontinental Cups v Liverpool 0 Intercontinental Cups

.......

I make that, not including the Intercontinental Cup, 8 European trophey's for Ajax out of 12 European finals. (10 trophey's total)

This compares to Liverpool's 7 European trophey's from 8 European finals.

I know that this is only European competition but if you take Ajax's 27 domestic titles to Liverpool's 18 you'd probably have seen Ajax competing a lot more in Europe year-on-year.

Where's the flaw in Ajax being ranked a place higher than Liverpool?

(Ajax-supporter's rant over)

well played sir.

i was genuinely not familiar with just how successful Ajax were in Europe to be honest.

which is embarrassing really. i had it in my head that they had 6 European trophies at most.

retracted so :pac:

grenache · 11-09-2009 01:35AM

Spurs in the top 20? Someone taking the mickey surely. Look at the vastly more successful clubs that lie beneath them. Even Villa should be ahead of them in that list.

Nice to see my boys at No 39.

Mr. Presentable · 11-09-2009 09:19AM

Pro. F wrote: »

Ugh the IFFHS has terrible English.

My problem with these things is that they just miss the point of the competitions. It's winning the cups that matters - the glory and the medals - not the individual results. Well that's my view anyway.

..so yeah - meh

And yet if Man U were top, eh?

If I understand correctly, what they have done is award points for each game played in Europe, like a Pan European league, so the side (like Birmingham) who appeared often in Europe without winning a trophy much can appear higher than the side who was in Europe less often (Aston Villa) but won trophies.

At the end of the day, it's just a means to provoke debate.

Kingp35 · 11-09-2009 10:19AM

14th? Should be higher than that if we weren't bleedin' robbed in two finals!

mike65 · 11-09-2009 10:32AM

So long as Liverpool is ahead of Man Utd nothing else matters!

SlickRic · 11-09-2009 10:47AM

mike65 wrote: »

So long as Liverpool is ahead of Man Utd nothing else matters!

if you manage to somehow turn this thread into Liverpool v Utd with that comment, well, i wouldn't know whether to slap you or applaud you.

:pac:

Mr. Presentable · 11-09-2009 11:19AM

SlickRic wrote: »

if you manage to somehow turn this thread into Liverpool v Utd with that comment, well, i wouldn't know whether to slap you or applaud you.

:pac:

We could take turns, give him one of each

SlickRic · 11-09-2009 11:26AM

nipplenuts wrote: »

We could take turns, give him one of each

bagsies slapping him :P

Bubs101 · 11-09-2009 11:36AM

dor83 wrote: »

Those rankings are a complete joke imo, why Inter are ahead of Liverpool is beyond me, Inter have 2 European Cups to Liverpool's 5 and 17 league title's to liverpool's 18.

Probably something to do with the fact the played top flight football for the whole century. Not sure if Liverpool never got relegated either but I'd imagine that'd get ye alot of points

Pro. F · 11-09-2009 12:35PM

nipplenuts wrote: »

If I understand correctly, what they have done is award points for each game played in Europe, like a Pan European league, so the side (like Birmingham) who appeared often in Europe without winning a trophy much can appear higher than the side who was in Europe less often (Aston Villa) but won trophies.

Yep that's my understanding too. And fwiw they seem to have done a good and fair job of that. But imo turning cup competitions into leagues retrospectively is pointless.

nipplenuts wrote: »

At the end of the day, it's just a means to provoke debate.

Yeah i agree and definitely worth a thread. In fact it's inspired me to try and form a different/better ranking system.

EDIT:

nipplenuts wrote: »

And yet if Man U were top, eh?

If manchester united were top it wouldn't change my opinion - i'm objective

The Muppet · 11-09-2009 12:43PM

mike65 wrote: »

So long as Liverpool is ahead of Man Utd nothing else matters!

when's the presentation?

back

eZe^ · 11-09-2009 01:38PM

I don't really understand what the problem is to be honest. It's not like they are subjectively deciding who they thing should be first, second, etc. They have a certain method for compiling their list, and they have applied it to every club that has taken part in European competition in the past century. I'm assuming the method is that the more appearances and wins is more more important than actual trophies won.

Real Madrid have never been relegated, and have the most European Cups of any other team. Barcelona are the only team in Europe to have appeared in a UEFA competition every year since it's inception. Haven't teams like Man Utd and Liverpool been relegated, thus they have had less opportunity to take part in European competition and rack up as many points, etc...

You can argue with the criteria, but at least they have stuck rigidly to their own rules to compile the list. I'm sure there are other lists that value actual trophies higher, lists where Liverpool and A.C will be higher than Barca and Juventus.

In the past 6 years, would you rate Porto higher than Chelsea, considering they have won a trophy, whereas Chelsea have stumbled in the semi's/ final's. That's a matter of subjectivity, and will vary from person to person. So as long as people understand the IFFHS's criteria, I don't really see how you can call the list rubbish though.

The Hustler · 11-09-2009 01:53PM

14th is a disgrace for Dirty Leeds

SlickRic · 11-09-2009 02:02PM

The Hustler wrote: »

14th is a disgrace for Dirty Leeds

read up on the 60s and 70s; you'll see why they're there.

Bounty Hunter · 11-09-2009 02:04PM

The Hustler wrote: »

14th is a disgrace for Dirty Leeds

arent you a Leeds fan? i seem to remember you always talking up Delph before he moved to Villa

Kingp35 · 11-09-2009 02:40PM

I think he means we should be higher on the list

Wreck · 11-09-2009 02:46PM

nipplenuts wrote: »

At the end of the day, it's just a means to provoke debate.

The only debate this list should provoke is about how fcuking pointless this list is.

On stats, the top 20 20th century clubs

Comments