Liverpool FC Forum

by **Judge** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:21 pm

bam!

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:23 pm

Ben1988 wrote:
Bam wrote:
Don't see how someone can say its harder to win the premiership than it is to win the CL

Its harder to win the league than it is the CL.

you're not gonna make any friends on here speaking like that.... these golden oldie members don't like to be messed with and think they are superior members, no, superior LFC fans, no no, sorry, superior people. lol

Leaving aside the "superior fan" thing ben, and the "golden oldie" I don't know what you think but I'd be interested to know.

My opinion is that it is considerably easier to win the Champions League than it is the Premiership, not even close. Look at us, we're going to stroll through thre group, after which we'll play a non-English team in the last 16. Win that (which we should, we are down to the last 8). Absolute worse case scenario would be a repeat of last season where we are asked to win three ties against English clubs to win it. Best case scenario is that we are asked like Man Utd last season, to win two more p!ss easy tiesa and then we're in the final.

Whichever way you look at it though, at the very worst you will have to win four competitive matches, and three in all probability is about as bad as it gets. Luck can help you out, you can rest players for matches and the bnature of the fact it is knockout means you can be totally outclassed and win by virtue of penalties.

In the league, there is nowhere to hide. The best team generally wins it.

All IMHo of course, not superior to anybody. Now what do you think?

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:26 pm

Ben1988 wrote:
Bam wrote:
Don't see how someone can say its harder to win the premiership than it is to win the CL

Its harder to win the league than it is the CL.

you're not gonna make any friends on here speaking like that.... these golden oldie members don't like to be messed with and think they are superior members, no, superior LFC fans, no no, sorry, superior people. lol

Bam's a "golden oldie" too...he's just had some work done to spruce things up. It's taken thousands of posts off his avatar!

by **Jimmy the Weasel** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:26 pm

Sabre wrote:True. But even if you can tell that in a group with PSV you'll get through before them, the fact of playing them on wednesdays is dearly paid. The deeper squad you have, the less you pay it.

This point I try to mention, is more obvious in Spain than in England. In England, always the same teams make it to the CHampions League, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester, and Chelsea, each of which have squads that range from deep to very deep. In that sense, Liverpool has been growing these years.

In Spain, besides Real Madrid and Barcelona, Valencia can make it, Villarreal can make it, Deportivo can make it, Betis can make it, even Real Sociedad and Celtacan make it in a glorious year.

Well, the teams with deep squads face both competitions well, but the teams like Betis, or Real Sociedad, might get through the group stages, but will pay dearly the competition ending up in the league the 17th position!! In fact, Celta was relegated with the same squad that made it to the champions the previous year. Such is the impact.

No matter how comfortably you win, that extra midweek games have a price in the league if you haven't a deep quality squad.

Is it worth throwing this into the mix. This is (I think) the full list of teams that have been in the CL since it was formed, from each country.

Spain
Real Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Deportivo La Coruna
Real Mallorca
Real Sociedad
Villarreal
Celta Vigo
Real Betis
Atletico Madrid
Sevilla

(12 teams, more than half their league)

Italy
AC Milan
Inter Milan
Juventus
AS Roma
Lazio
Udinese
Fiorentina

(7 teams)

[/b]Germany[/b]
Bayern Munich
Hertha Berlin
Bayer Leverkusen
Stuttgart
Schalke
Werder Bremen
Borussia Dortmund
Hamburg

Half their league as well.

France
Lyon
Bordeaux
Auxerre
Monaco
Marseille
PSG
Lens
Nantes
Lille

Despite Lyon winning the league every year, competition for the other slots (France only has three spots) is intense.

Holland
Ajax
PSV
Feyenoord
Heerenveen
Willem II

(one less than the Premier League)

by **Bam** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:34 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
Ben1988 wrote:
Bam wrote:
Don't see how someone can say its harder to win the premiership than it is to win the CL

Its harder to win the league than it is the CL.

you're not gonna make any friends on here speaking like that.... these golden oldie members don't like to be messed with and think they are superior members, no, superior LFC fans, no no, sorry, superior people. lol

Bam's a "golden oldie" too...he's just had some work done to spruce things up. It's taken thousands of posts off his avatar!

Arh, Bob you old charmer you.

I agree with Micks post above concerning the CL thing, he's said it all really and thats pretty much my opinion. Although I wouldnt say that if we reached the last eight and got any other teams than an English one it would be a pi$$ easy tie. I know Mick doesnt mean that, hes just tired like I am and cannot be bothered to beat around the bush. Furry Muff I say.

by **JoeTerp** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 4:48 pm

Ben1988 wrote:
Bam wrote:
Don't see how someone can say its harder to win the premiership than it is to win the CL

Its harder to win the league than it is the CL.

you're not gonna make any friends on here speaking like that.... these golden oldie members don't like to be messed with and think they are superior members, no, superior LFC fans, no no, sorry, superior people. lol

At the end of the day, the prem is a competition that one out of 4 teams can win. The CL is a competition that one out of 8ish teams could win.

The league is a more challenging competition in that it takes place over more games, and it names a true champion in that you cannot get lucky and win a league competition, but avoiding being unlucky is a different challenge and makes the CL just as hard to win.

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:04 pm

JoeTerp wrote:
Ben1988 wrote:
Bam wrote:
Don't see how someone can say its harder to win the premiership than it is to win the CL

Its harder to win the league than it is the CL.

you're not gonna make any friends on here speaking like that.... these golden oldie members don't like to be messed with and think they are superior members, no, superior LFC fans, no no, sorry, superior people. lol

At the end of the day, the prem is a competition that one out of 4 teams can win. The CL is a competition that one out of 8ish teams could win.

The league is a more challenging competition in that it takes place over more games, and it names a true champion in that you cannot get lucky and win a league competition, but avoiding being unlucky is a different challenge and makes the CL just as hard to win.

Nae bother Joe, a classic agree to differ situation. Whoever's right, given the choice I hope we win the one Raf ahasn't won yet this time around. I reckon we'd agree on that without question :buttrock

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:08 pm

I agree the league's harder to win for us (and that's who we're mostly talking about at the end of the day, right?) because we have a familiarity with the CL that breeds success, whereas with the league we sometimes seem to lack that psychological edge that keeps blips from becoming bliiiiips. In short, I can understand what Joe's saying on paper but I think the mental aspect of it all is important to factor in.

by **Effes** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:10 pm

Reminds me of a twisted Evertonian in work who reckoned the FA Cup was
harder to win than the Champs League

I reckon the League is harder (FOR US), but it aint for Man U or Chelsea as they have the strength
in depth to be able to sustain top form throughout the league campaign.

by **LFC2007** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:12 pm

Effes wrote:Reminds me of a twisted Evertonian in work who reckoned the FA Cup was
harder to win than the Champs League

by **JoeTerp** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 5:29 pm

I am sure that this is more a semantic argument over the word "hard" Because if it was so easy to win the CL then everybody would be doing it every year.

by **milou** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:09 am

The mediocrity of the Champions League
By Norman Hubbard
(Archive)
October 23, 2008

The Champions League's status is secure. It is the biggest prize a club side can claim. Yet both its results and its personnel can be instructive.

Manchester United celebrate Champions League glory. But were all the games on the way to Moscow truly competitive?

Last season, Manchester United fielded arguably a weaker team against the champions of France, Lyon, than they did four days later against Portsmouth in the FA Cup.

Then Sir Alex Ferguson named a lesser line-up against Roma than Middlesbrough in April. Admittedly, both were second legs after United had prospered away from home, but it suggests that mid-table Premier League sides posed greater problems than Europe's finest.

And that leads to a question that should concern UEFA: for all the status it confers and money it generates, is the Champions League providing enough competition? The early-season exploits of the unheralded newcomers of Cluj and Anorthosis Famagusta would suggest so, but it is very possible that each group will be won by the top seed, followed by the second-ranked side.

Moreover, the results so far show a surfeit of one-sided games. Chelsea and Bordeaux are the respective runners-up of the English and French leagues, but a scoreline of 4-0 showed the Londoners' superiority. Arsenal scored four times against Porto, champions as recently as 2004, and five in Istanbul against Fenerbahce.

Liverpool's victory over PSV Eindhoven was so comprehensive that Huub Stevens admitted the gulf was too big for the Dutch club to bridge. Manchester United overwhelmed Aalborg and Celtic.

With a record-equalling 36 goals in Tuesday's eight games, the entertainment value was high and the prestige remains, but, as far as the English contingent is concerned, the fear factor is gone. The inferiority complex has been shed; indeed, it may have been transported on to the continent to the teams facing Premier League opposition.

With six semi-finalists in the past two seasons, their dominance is established, but there are occasions that it feels that it has come rather too easily. The early stages can be a process rather than a test and, while Liverpool almost contrived to get eliminated before the last 16 last season, they are the exception rather than the rule.

Rafa Benitez rotated unsuccessfully against Marseille then, but such a policy appears feasible for the four English teams now. All are unbeaten and the stiffest test to any was presented by Standard Liege in Liverpool's laboured qualification.

This may be nostalgia setting in, but Manchester United's 1999 victors rank above their 2008 counterparts, for this observer anyway, because they overcame greater obstacles. A place in the last four provokes little surprise now, yet when Leeds advanced that far in 2001, it felt a huge achievement.

That may have been a product of the two group stages that made it more gruelling, and indeed a feat of endurance. Yet, besides the element of surprise in Leeds' progress, it was also memorable because so many matches were genuinely competitive; Barcelona and Juventus both perished in the first phase.

When neither figured in Europe's top 16 teams, it was indicative of a greater strength in depth, helping to produce more even contests across the continent. There may be larger concentration of talent at the top now, but it is hard to argue that the 10th, 15th and 20th teams have improved. Perhaps the best have got better, but the rest haven't.

Lyon, for example, are perennial French champions, but an inferior team to the 2004 vintage. As Stevens has admitted, the Dutch challenge has disintegrated. With its more sensible funding and fairer pricing, German football is admirable, but ill-equipped to provide a winner.

Italy can still produce genuine contenders, but there are fewer of them since Serie A lost its pre-eminent position. Real Madrid possess the resources but not, in recent seasons, the cohesion. The influx of oligarchs into Russian football may prompt a challenge from the east, but it has not materialised yet.

So what can be done? Michel Platini, with his egalitarian streak, has proposed limiting the major countries to three qualifiers apiece. That has an appeal to the traditionalists - by its very name, the Champions League ought to contain more champions - but may serve up more mediocrity, even if the intention is to bolster the UEFA Cup, which was fatally weakened when many of its leading sides were incorporated into the premier competition.

For several years, especially in the 1990s, it had a higher standard of quarter-finalists, if not necessarily winners, than the Champions League. Now the UEFA Cup is a competition of quantity rather than quality, where it is harder to get knocked out of, than progress from, the group stages.

The Champions League has a different problem. The cream are rising to the top rather too easily. Admittedly, it is only five seasons since it produced the final few had forecast, between Porto and Monaco, but that already feels like a different era. The superpowers may swat the rest aside imperiously. It is a spectacle, but it lacks the drama the unexpected provides.

And that puts Platini in the same position as Richard Scudamore, though the latter relishes the repeated triumphs of the rich and famous rather more than the former. The Premier League and the Champions League are the two great marketing triumphs in sport in the last 15 years.

England's domestic league has been accused, often correctly, of being too predictable. It would be a shame if the same criticisms continue to be levelled against the Champions League.

by **Owzat** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:00 am

Interesting points about sides fielded. Don't forget we were fourth best team in England last season and beat the Champions of Italy home AND away, we were only narrowly knocked out by Chelski as Arsenal were only just knocked out by us. Had the draw fallen 'nicely' then England could have had all four semi-finalists.

Man Utd had won 2-0 in Rome, however you wouldn't expect them to be too casual against a good side

Man Utd vs Roma (2nd leg) - Van Der Sar, Pique, Ferdinand, Silvestre, Park, Carrick, Anderson, Giggs, Tevez

Rooney came on as sub, Ronaldo stayed on the bench. The mancs still won 1-0 and 3-0 on aggregate, both Rooney and Ronaldo had started against Boro inbetween as did Evra. That said I don't rate Roma that highly, no good side is stuffed 7-1 by the mancs as they were the previous season. If I recall correctly Roma have only won Serie A three times and never won the European Cup.

The problem for me is such a lot of games between the start of the competition and the point at which it becomes truly competitive

Champions League 2007/8

SFs

Man Utd beat Barcelona 1-0 on aggregate
Chelsea beat Liverpool 4-3 on aggregate AET

QFs

Barcelona beat Schalke home and away, 2-0 on aggregate
Man Utd beat Roma home and away, 3-0 on aggregate
Liverpool beat Arsenal 5-3 on aggregate, unbeaten over the two legs
Chelsea beat Fenerbahce 3-2 on aggregate, the only side to go through having lost a leg

Last 16

Liverpool beat Inter home and away, 3-0 on aggregate
Roma beat Real Madrid home and away, 4-2 on aggregate
Barcelona beat Celtic home and away, 4-2 on aggregate
Chelsea beat Olympiakos 3-0 on aggregate, unbeaten over the two legs
Man Utd beat Lyon 2-1 on aggregate, unbeaten over the two legs
Arsenal beat Milan 2-0 on aggregate, unbeaten over the two legs
Fenerbahce beat Sevilla on penalties, 5-5 on aggregate
Schalke beat Porto on penalties, 1-1 on aggregate

So last 16 three sides won home and away, three more didn't lose either leg and only two were close enough to go the distance - both won on penalties, both succeeded in only get knocked out next round. Quarter Finals two sides won home and away, only Chelsea lost a game of those that went through - hardly that close. Both semis were a lot closer with only one goal in either of them and our's going to extra time at 1-1, 2-2 on aggregate.

The point? Well you'd expect games to be close at the latter stages, you certainly wouldn't expect teams to get beaten home and away in the Quarter-Finals. The Last 16 demonstrate my point about the competition only really getting going at the QFs, it was the point at which all the remaining weak links are flushed out - Celtic and Olympiakos in particular. But perhaps the most interesting aspect of the Champions League is where the domestic Champions of the top leagues finished

EDIT : In case it isn't clear, the below refer to the 2007/8 Champions League season and the 06/07 and 07/08 Champions refer to who won the league that season and where they finished in the 07/08 Champions League - except Bayern who I believe didn't qualify for it

ENGLAND

06/07 Champions - Man Utd (Winners)
07/08 Champions - Man Utd (Winners)
*England also fielded 3/4 of the Semi-Finalists and 4/8 of the Quarter-Finalists

ITALY

06/07 Champions - Inter Milan (beaten home and away in the last sixteen)
07/08 Champions - Inter Milan (beaten home and away in the last sixteen)

SPAIN

06/07 Champions - Barcelona (narrowly lost 1-0 in the Semi-Finals)
07/08 Champions - Real Madrid (beaten home and away in the last sixteen)

FRANCE

06/07 Champions - Lyon (beaten comfortably by Man Utd in the last sixteen)
07/08 Champions - Lyon (beaten comfortably by Man Utd in the last sixteen)

GERMANY

06/07 Champions - Stuttgart (knocked out at the group stage)
07/08 Champions - Bayern Munich (Semi-Finalists in the UEFA Cup, beaten heavily by Zenit St Petersburg)

PORTUGAL

06/07 Champions - Porto (knocked out on penalties at the last sixteen stage)
07/08 Champions - Porto (knocked out on penalties at the last sixteen stage)

HOLLAND

06/07 Champions - PSV Eindhoven (knocked out at the group stage)
07/08 Champions - PSV Eindhoven (knocked out at the group stage)

*Only Barcelona of the reigning champions and champions-to-be fared particularly well last season, England aside, and they reached the semi-finals while none of the other champions from those top leagues made it past the last sixteen. England had four Quarter-Finalists, the champions of Italy, Portugal, Holland, France and Germany didn't get that far. Does that show strength or weakness? I'd say it's not the greatest sign, even when teams that finished lower in the same league go through it is worrying that champions for two seasons in a row eg Inter, can be beaten home AND away by a non-Champion from another league. Only Lyon of those champins who went out relatively early were beaten by a Champion from another top league in the knockouts - Stuttgart and PSV didn't even make it out of the group stages, it's debatable whether those two leagues really count as top European leagues.

I think it does make a mockery of the name "Champions League", best to call it the European Cup again since Champions aren't making much of a fist of it with so many non-Champions making it to the QFs, SFs and final - even those who retain their domestic league title.

by **GYBS** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:59 am

06/07 was won by AC Milan mate not the scum and it was chelsea who were champions and they got beat by us in the semi

by **Owzat** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:09 pm

GYBS wrote:06/07 was won by AC Milan mate not the scum and it was chelsea who were champions and they got beat by us in the semi

I think you're misunderstanding the stats which ALL refer to the 2007/8 Champions League. The different seasons for "champions" are who was current champions and who were champions in 2007/8 - in other words the best team in each league the season they qualified for the Champions League, and who was the best team in the league the same season.

I can't think of an easier way to explain it than that. Didn't you think it a bit odd I'd think/put that Lyon went out at EXACTLY the same stage two seasons in a row, and Porto, and PSV, AND Inter?

Liverpool FC Forum

The champions league - How hard is it?

Who is online