Champions League: Manchester United - AS Roma Leg 2 4/10/07

No doubt Italy has better national level football history than England, however at CLUB level which is what we are talking about here, the leagues of England, Italy and Spain are about the same. Here are the figures to prove it...

Overall winners in UEFA major trophies down the years are as follows...

Champions League / European Cup
Country / Number of Wins
Spain 11
England 10
Italy 10
Germany 6
Netherlands 6
Portugal 4
Scotland 1
Romania 1
Yugoslavia (now Serbia) 1
France 1

UEFA Cup
Country / Number of Wins
England 10
Italy 10
Spain 10
Germany 6
Netherlands 4
Sweden 2
Portugal 1
Hungary 1
Croatia (then Yugoslavia) 1
Belgium 1
Turkey 1
Russia 1

Cup Winners Cup (discontinued)
Country / Number of Wins
England 8
Spain 7
Italy 7
Germany 5
Belgium 3
Scotland 2
Ukraine 2
Portugal 1
Slovakia 1
Georgia 1
Netherlands 1
France 1

If we are to talk strength in depth top to bottom, again a look at the history books, how many different spanish, italian and english clubs have won major trophies in europe throughout uefa history? again the figures...

England = 13 DIFFERENT CLUB WINNERS
Man U, Liverpool, Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, Tottenham, Ipswich Town, Arsenal, Everton, Chelsea, Newcastle, Man City, Leeds, West Ham.

Italy = 9 DIFFERENT CLUB WINNERS
AC Milan, Inter Milan, Juventus, Roma, Naploli, Parma, Fiorentina, Sampdoria, Lazio

Spain = 6 DIFFERENT CLUB WINNERS
Real Madrid, Barcalona, Valencia, Real Zaragosa, Seville, Athletico Madrid

lets hope this never changes.

FYI, new match-fixing allegations reported by the Gazzetta dello Sport today; to avoid straying off topic here, I posted a summary in English for you in the Juve forum.

What surprised me about the above statistics is the absence of France winning the club events. It's amazing how even Italy, Spain and England are in terms of winning.

Not amazing at all....it's where the money is, and it ain't in France.

That statement applies to about the last ten-to-fifteen years of European club soccer. But the statistics above cover the entire history of UEFA cup competitions. During most of that history, money was not as important and foreigners played a far less prominent role than they do today. For example, do you really think Steaua Bucharest had a big budget or a lot of foreign players when they won the European Cup in 85/86? Obviously not.

More to the point, it's only been since the late 90s that French soccer has been successful either internationally (aside from winning Euro 84) or at club level (aside from OM winning the European Cup in 92/93). Check the stats if you don't believe me. I don't know why it is, but I'd suspect that French soccer success coincided with increased numbers of French soccer players from former colonies.

Saying that France ain't where the money is is a simplistic and uninformed answer. When did you "discover" soccer?

about 18 months after I was born.....in 1948....how about you???

Long enough ago not to make silly arguments like "France hasn't won many UEFA trophies in the last 50 years because France ain't where the money is."

But I am impressed that you have lived through all forty years since England's most recent (and only) World Cup.

1) The French league is NOT where the serious money is and thats a fact.

2) I watched the game.

It's a fact NOW, but it doesn't explain statistics beginning in 1955. Please take your expertise back to the England/FC Dallas forums.

We are talking about NOW you silly man.....

Check the statistics in post #451, dummy. Are the references to "history" and "down the years" too much for you to grasp?

A.Cole, J.Cole, Terry, Lampard, Bridge and SWP all play regular first team football. AND they all play in the National Team.

Arsenal have one if I recall, but Walcott isn't even a first team regular.

Man Utd probably have the most, but not many are in the national team.

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say that SWP is a first team regular? With Joe Cole back, it's not really fair to count them both....

Oh, geez, not this argument again. English clubs have more foreigners and therefore more success...it's the nature of modern football, and in some ways, Italy is just slow to catch up, that's all.

You just cannot win anything with homegrown players today. Someone mentioned how when Italian teams were dominating European competitions, they did it with Italian players. I guess names like Gullit, Van Basten, and Savicevic are all common names in Puglia. Whatever. It's not as if when English teams won then-Champions Cup for 8 out of 9 years in the late 70s and early 80s, they were loaded with Frenchmen and Brazilians.

Last Italian team that won the CL did it with 14 players in the final, and 7 of them were foreign. In the 2005 Final, Milan and Liverpool each fielded only 4 domestic players. Man U won the CL with 6 foreigners in '99. What's the point here then?

Bridge and Ashley Cole both play the same position yet somehow you came to the conclusion that they are both first team regulars?

To be fair Juventus dominated Europe in the late 90's with players like Ravanelli, Vialli, Del Piero, Di Livio, Peruzzi, Iuliano, Pessotto, Birindelli, Torircelli, Vieri, Inzaghi, Ferrara etc. Its quite clear they had a strong Italian contingent in their team.

Well, in Puglia? Savicevic? Maybe not the best example to pull out of your hat....

Liverpool are no longer British. They are selling out. They're becoming Spanish.

I'm surprised that you've heard of Puglia. I thought that the only region you knew of was Sicily.

You appear to have cognition issues. You've already been relieved of your misconceptions about Liverpool - they have two just two Spanish players in their usual starting eleven.

[sarcasm]I guess the "Costa del Anfield" nickname was invented in this thread, then.[/sarcasm]

They're English through and through....

L'pool has a Spanish coach, a Spanish player (Arbeloa) who's bound to see more playing time soon, and will definitely be spending Messrs. Gillette and Hicks' money on Spanish players (such as David Villa) this summer.

I've never ever heard the Costa del Anfield used anywhere other than this thread, so ...

If top talent such as Villa can be acquired by Liverpool then sure, they'll go for it. As will other clubs as soon as his availability is confirmed.

To argue that this validates the idea that Liverpool, of all English clubs, is therefore somehow less English than it was is both unrealistic and, let's face it, deeply, deeply ignorant. I mean ... Liverpool.

One expects it from hapless blabbermouths like dor02, but even in a traincrash of a thread like this, it's disappointing to see it from others. Guess there is no escaping the fact that Bigsoccer is heading ever deeper down the toilet.

Well, I've heard it from Liverpool supporters on 606.

Liverpool has at most three Englishmen in its ideal starting lineup: Gerrard, Crouch (maybe), and Carragher.

Liverpool is also coached by a Spaniard and owned by North Americans.

Please enlighten me on how this club continues to be as English as it ever was, other than continuing to play its home matches in Liverpool. How am I deeply, deeply ignorant?