What Is The True Status Of The Champions League?

[Metalartin]

How was it easier to pull off a shock and win the competition back then?

For a start teams had to win their respective league. Then the 'smaller' teams had to beat the bigger teams to even reach the final. Bruges beat Juventus in the semi-final before facing Liverpool in the final in 1978. Hamburg beat Real Madrid in the semi-final before facing Forest in the final in 1980.

There were no second chances either, it was knockout football. Liverpool went out in the first round to Forest when they were reigning European champions. These days they would have been kept apart until the latter stages.

Because the gulf between the top clubs(and leagues for that matter) was not insurmountable, today it is, there's no getting around this for your argument to work.

They were good teams but they weren't giants full of galacticos. There was something purer about it back then because a big club back then meant something different than it does today. It was as I said a more even playing field(which = easier by definition if you get a good team under a good manager). A one off knockout game suits the smaller team if anything.

UEFA didn't exist until the mid 50s. It didn't really get serious until the 60s, it's a much younger competition than our domestic leagues. Sorry but I stand by it, the reason we had teams like Steaua Bucharest or Red Star Belgrade picking up the trophies wasn't because they were out of this world. The competition changed so much when it became the champions league. If anything the larger teams are more protected these days than they were back then, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

 

[big gaz]

I have no problem with any club winning the European Cup, because it was between league winners. Champions league is a money spinner for ***** ( you know who I mean) and this year we have two potless non champions, amazing isn't it :-)

 

[waspish]

If wasnt for the money you get from entering it We would fcuk it off

 

[SpiritofBurnden]

Because the gulf between the top clubs(and leagues for that matter) was not insurmountable, today it is, there's no getting around this for your argument to work.

They were good teams but they weren't giants full of galacticos. There was something purer about it back then because a big club back then meant something different than it does today. It was as I said a more even playing field(which = easier by definition if you get a good team under a good manager). A one off knockout game suits the smaller team if anything.

UEFA didn't exist until the mid 50s. It didn't really get serious until the 60s, it's a much younger competition than our domestic leagues. Sorry but I stand by it, the reason we had teams like Steaua Bucharest or Red Star Belgrade picking up the trophies wasn't because they were out of this world. The competition changed so much when it became the champions league. If anything the larger teams are more protected these days than they were back then, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise.

If you're saying that teams like Forest could never win it now, then that's a different argument.

The original point was that it was easier to win the European Cup than the Champions League because the opposition wasn't as good, which is just not true.

The teams that Forest and Liverpool faced might not have been considered to be 'big' teams but they were just as good as the teams that were.

Nobody 'fluked' a European Cup.

 

[super_city_si]

Any competition where the winners can lose a third of their games and reach the final means a lot of credibility is lost. Potentially you could lose 6 of the 13 games and still win it.
The old European cup was much harder to win. No group stages and it was much harder to get in than the CL. That said it could be argued that there are more decent teams around Europe nowadays than there used to be.

On top of that, any competition where you don't even need to outscore the oppositon in a direct matchup to proceed, is a farce.

 

[cadds92]

Until the away goals rule is scrapped and the group stages becomes a random pot selection it still lacks a little credibility in my opinion.

Would love to win it one day, but it's definelty more of a money spinner and brand enhancer from the boardroom perspective.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

The Championship playoff finalists have a combined league title drought of 82 years, the Champions League finalists have a combined league title drought of 87 years

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Until it’s a league system where you have to play all teams home and away before the top two play a Grand Final at the end of the season, it means little on its own.

It’s like winning the FA Cup on its own and claiming you’re the best team in England.

Knock out cup comps mean little in isolation. Just means you had a good cup run. You didn’t play everyone so you didn’t prove anything. It’s why, after years of just having the FA Cup, the league system was invented because a league really proves who is the best and showing you can win leagues and cups together proves it further. But winning a cup on its own really just means you had a good cup run.

For me it should be the champions from the top eight ranked leagues each season.

So this season’s Champions League would have been:
Barça
City
Juve
Bayern
Paris
Lokomotiv
Porto
Donetsk

As they were the champions from Europe’s top 8 leagues last season.

This season Belgium has overtaken Ukraine as the 8th highest ranked league. So Ukraine’s champions drop out next season.

Next season’s would look like this:
Barça
City
Juve
Bayern
Paris
Zenit
Benfica
Genk

But then the season after could look like this:
Madrid
City
Napoli
Dortmund
Marseille
CSKA
Sporting
Brugge

After a few years you always get other teams winning titles.

2016, for example, would have looked like this:
Barça
Leicester
Juve
Bayern
Monaco
CSKA
Porto
Kiev

A random year, 1998:
Madrid
Arsenal
Juve
Kaiserslautern
Bordeaux
Ajax
Genk
Spartak

When it’s just champions that get in, it drives competition in domestic leagues further because there’s no settling for mediocrity. As Shankly said; “if you are first, you are first, if you are second, you are nothing”. So all big clubs would strive to win the league, not strive to finish fourth or sixth. Then you would have much more variety in my Champions League with greater variation in the leagues that get into the top 8 too.

Teams are just to happy these days to be unambitious and just do enough to finish fourth and get the CL money for it all. It’s a poor way to run football, completely lacking in ambition.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

It's a knockout where you can lose 4 times and never win your domestic league.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

If you're saying that teams like Forest could never win it now, then that's a different argument.

The original point was that it was easier to win the European Cup than the Champions League because the opposition wasn't as good, which is just not true.

The teams that Forest and Liverpool faced might not have been considered to be 'big' teams but they were just as good as the teams that were.

Nobody 'fluked' a European Cup.

Anyone can have a good cup run.

Back in the day the European Cup allowed teams to have ‘bye’s. Forest and Bayern both won the European Cup in the 70s where they had a round where they were just allowed through in one round without playing anyone.