European Cup

[elroy]

Is it easier to win the CL now or was the old format European Cup easier to win?
In my opinion the CL is harder, yes you can afford to slip up once or twice but then you could do that in the knockout format too once you won the second leg. But now you have more teams coming from the strong leagues where in the past it was just one from each league and although seeded at early stages, it was more likely that 2 large teams could meet at an early stage.
Generally, though not always the case, it is likely that you will get the best four teams in European in the semi finals than with old format.

[gustavo]

i agree because if you think about it when you only had one team per country it was less likely that the team you were facing were top of their league and in that way on top of their game now with as many as four from each country its more likely

[thejollyrodger]

judging by the muck being played by Chelsea tonight it looks like any kind of football will get you a good chance in getting to the champions league final and maybe win it.

I think the golden era of soccer has gone. The great teams are almost average now, more work on tatics and less outstanding individuals.

Its just the computer generation. kids arent going to play football.

So I think the European Cup was harder to win.

[pete]

European Cup was definitely harder to win. Could only be 1 team per country so didn't get a chance every year & an unlucky draw could mean not get chance for few more years.

If just look at engerland. Manchester & Arsenal have had a chance every year for probably last 10 years. In the old days but probably have had 3-4 chances. Also group stages mean can have a couple of bad games before being found out. Knock out from old days meant even small teams could fluke it with 1-0 & 0-0, now small teams can't past group stages.

[gustavo]

yeah pete fair enough but i meant harder from the point of view of winning it once you get it in and surely if the lesser teams cant fluke their way through now then it means it is harder ?

[4tothefloor]

The league format in the group stages makes it easier for the bigger clubs to get through. I don't think the group stages tell you much to be honest, as all the big clubs win through anyway. It's more for tv revenue and gates as far as I can see. As soon as the knock-out stages start it really begins, which is essentially just the old European cup format.

Arsenal are a good example of an also-ran who play in the CL every year. They get out of the group stages every time, yet as soon as the two legged knock out ties start, they fall flat on their face. They were on top of their game last season yet they didn't perform in the CL, in fact they never perform in the CL. Liverpool don't get in every year, yet they always give it a good go when they do, as they did last night. Ditto for Chelsea. As for Man U, one european cup final appearance (which they completely poxed) after all their years of dominance is laughable. Alex Ferguson being touted as the best British manager of all time is even funnier.

I think the old European cup was harder to win.

[Aberdonian Stu]

I think the old format made it easier for weaker teams to come through because of the knock-out format. The group stage gets rid of a lot of the chaff and generally increases the quality of opponent in the later stages. In the old days it wasn't unthinkable to reach the last eight or potentially the semis wthout facing a quality opponent.

[noby]

The European Cup, by a country mile.

The fact that only the champions qualified may have meant some handier ties against weaker league champions was cancelled out by the fact that teams had a lot less european experience.
You can finish fourth in your league these days, get through a handy qualifier, then you're guaranteed six european games; that's four european away games in one season! It took teams years to gain the experience of four away games. Going away from home, and getting a result ain't half what it used to be.

In theory the champions league format could be tougher, but the seeding puts pay to any of that. Imagine putting all the names into a hat and picking the groups from that. Now that would be interesting. The closest thing you get to a group of death in this competition is if the third seed team are good enough to maybe cause an upset.
Granted, at this stage all the 'big guns' are left, so it does become interesting, but that's still out-weighed by the group stage.


So for me, defenitley the European Cup.


p.s. I wouldn't even call it 'the old european cup'. For me the CL is an entirely new competition that happens to use the same trophy, that replaced the European Cup, and in doing so destroyed the UEFA cup too.

[pineapple stu]

Definitely the European Cup. Apart from the fact that only one team from each country qualified (which can't be overlooked here, 'cos if you're not in the competition, you can't really hope to win!), I think pre-Bosman, the top leagues in Europe were a lot more evenly matched - think of the likes of the Eastern European leagues for a start. Domestic leagues had the best national players pre-92, whereas now the best national players can play abroad, so the top leagues pool all the best talent. The Bosman ruling has done a lot - possibly more than the money in the CL factor - to bring about the disparity in the various domestic leagues. Also, the old European Cup was an open draw, I think - remember Nottingham Forest as holders drawing Liverpool in the first round in '78!

[ColinR]

there are two ways of looking at this:

on a two year scale, it is much easier too win. for an english team you have only to come in the top 4 and your in, get through your group as expected and suddenly your three rounds from being champions. in the past you had to come tops in both over two years to succeed, which naturally would mean a consistent success over two years.

however in any given season it is a much much harder trophy to win. take chelsea next season for example. as champions they would be in anyway, but now they have the three other english teams, 4 italians , 4 spanish etc. which is a hell of a lot harder than just the champions of each country. if you look at the 80s when the english sides were winning in europe, they would have at most two really difficult matches along the way to win it. in 99 united came through barcelona, inter, juve & bayern (4 very though teams). this years winners (milan-hopefully) have already come by barcelona (group), united, looks like inter & thats all before what will be a though semi final and final

[pineapple stu]

In the old days it wasn't unthinkable to reach the last eight or potentially the semis wthout facing a quality opponent.

Fairly similar now though - if you're seeded 1 or 2 in your group, you can reach the last 16 without facing a decent team, barring the other seed in the group, who can beat you home and away and yet you'll still progress.

I think it's very easy to be dismissive of the quality of the lesser teams back in the 70s and 80s. In the '84/'85 Cup Winners' Cup (the only competition I really know because I wrote an article for the programme on it!), you had results like Wrexham knocking out Porto, the previous year's European Cup runners-up (Steaua) being knocked out in the first round (by Malmo I think), Lyon losing 4-2 at home to Barcelona and going 1-0 down in the away leg and yet still going through and other such results (not to forget our performance against Everton! ) I don't think there's that strength in depth in European football now. After beating us, Everton drew Inter Bratislava (Eastern European team - good side and a whore of a place to travel to - the difficulties of travelling to a communist country for a tie just doesn't come up any more and is often forgotten about - Feyernoord (decent Dutch side), Bayer Munchen and Austria Vienna. Decent teams the whole way through, though bar Bayern and maybe Feyernoord, they'd all be considered handy draws nowadays. And that was just in the Cup Winners' Cup, where any crappy fly-by-night team can fluke a Cup win and qualify (just like we did!).

[Macy]

Champions League is harder imo, just. There is no way of avoiding the big teams like there was in the straight knock out days. Have a look at the quality teams that made it into the last 4 or even the final back in the 70's and 80's.

Also the arguement about losing games - well you've more games to play than with the old knock out, so you have to factor that in to some extent, and you could still lose one game in every round and qualify in theory.

I think you can discount the qualifying aspect to some extent - harder to get into, but less games and less quality to play against once you were in, so imo that evens out.

Don't see how it can be argued it was more evenly matched - look at the english clubs record from the late seventies until Heysel.

Basically I think the Champions League just shades it, however I really don't think there's much in it at all. Seems to be an arguement borne out of fans of teams that haven't won it under both formats. Still the one to win.

Biggest effect has been to make the UEFA Cup worthless compared to the pre champions league days, as you're getting too far down the league for qualifiers.

[Karlos]

I really think the names should be reversed on the two competions - Champions league, ur having a laff, indeed.

The last time some of the teams competing this season have actually won a domestic championship, I was watching He-man and Button Moon on a regular basis. Or in the case of the history-less ones from South West London, I wasn't even a twinkle in the old man's eye when they last could use the phrase 'champions'! Arsenal, european failures yes without question - would I swap getting to a semi or quarter final for 50 or 15 years (for that matter) without actually winning a league championship, i think not

I'm starting the campaign to rename it the averagely placed domestic season european trophy which I hope one day we scrape into 4th place in the league and win!

[stojkovic]

Don't forget in pre-Bosman and before the Iron Curtain fell there were some quality teams around who are sadly not up there anymore.

Dynamo Kiev - won two trophies and had great players Blokhin, Belanov, Zavarov etc.

Dinamo Tblisi - knocked LIverpool out one year and they too won a trophy

Steaua Bucharest - Hagi, Lacatus et al - won it in 86 and final in 89.

Red Star Belgrade - The great side of 91 - Prosinecki, Mijailovic, Pancev, Savecevic, Jarni

I could go on.

Then you had the teams like Ajax, Feyenoord, PSV, Anderlecht, Benfica and the like. They all lose there good players very early nowadays (Robben).

These clubs cannot compete with the big clubs from Spain, Italy, Germany and England.

Porto was not an exception - they had good players - Deco, Carvalho, Ferreira, Guily.

It was hard to win the old European Cup because you got ONE shot at it, lose and you are out.

Nowadays we piddle around the group stages for four months and who cares what happens in the groups apart from ther smaller teams.

It starts now at the Last 16 stage and is knockout and should stay that way. The fact that ManUre have only won ONE match (twolegged tie) in six years since 1999 is their own fault. WHy change the rules because Ferguson is tactically niaive in Europe just so they can make more money. Fcuk off.

Liverpool beat Olimpiakos and Leverkusen - they are no way as good as some of those East European sides I mentioned from years ago.

Ok Juventus, Chelsea and Milan are top sides but if you want to win it you have to beat two top sides.

Back in the eighties you had top sides - Real, Juve, Ajax, Bayern and you had to beat at least two of them to win it - so nothing has changed.

Its about the same, without the variety of teams from different countries.