The CL vs. The Old European Cup. Which is harder to win and why?

[Dark Savante]

Looking at the draw for the 2nd round and the remaining 16teams left this season I'm not sure if there has ever been a stronger set of teams go through to the knockouts in this competitions entire history.

All the best players from each league are there and there are at leasst 10 teams that could win the whole tournament.

Back in the European Cup days when only champions of each league were involved there was often fodder from smaller nations who were just there to make up the numbers but, because the competition was a knockout format from the get go it was called harder. I don't believe this to be true, at all.

Which of the European Cup winners ever went through a path of games like this years winners will have faced?

Which format do you believe was tougher to win and more importantly, why?

[lanman]

It's harder now - no room for debate.

Previously you could get away playing one or two good teams - now the group stages largely eliminate freak results and the lesser teams progressing. You can also afford to slip up once or twice and still progress. The only way in which it was harder in it's previous format was that there was no room for error.

Just look at Man Utd's path in 1999 - Group with Bayern, Barcelona & Brondby. Quarter final vs Inter. Semi vs Juventus. Final vs Bayern.

Compare with the 1979 winners (Notts Forest) who had to play Liverpool, AEK, Grasshoppers, Koln & Malmo.

Another 20 years back and Real Madrid had to play Besiktas, Wien, Atletico Madrid & Reims.

[VicVR6]

Yup, it's much harder to win now a days than it was back in the day. Too many teams from the top 5 league which are traditionally very strong. The only team outside the top 5 leagues that made the 2nd round is FC Porto. That shows you just how strong this years CL is. I'm thinking that either Juve or Barca will take it. I can't see Porto pulling it off again unless they get very lucky and play Lyon, then Monaco, then Man U. ;) THen they would be in the finals for sure ;)

[Matt Clark]

You can make a strong argument either way. Today's bloated format means that, quite frankly, there is a lot of pish in the latter stages that just happens to have a big brand name. And that has been the case ever since the "CHampions" League was inaugurated. People who scoff at, for instance, FC Malmo or Koln from the 1979 competition clearly never had the privilege of watching them play. That's the thing you see - back then, teams could be amongst the best in Europe without having to have a chequebook to match. Where were, for instance, Real Madrid and Barcelona in the late 70's and early 80's? They were not there because they were getting knocked out by the "minnows" and the "lesser" sides.

The argument about "harder" is dull and also quite pointless. People equate the big names they've heard of with "quality". Which is a naff way of looking at it, not to mention a fundamentally illogical one. This last 16 being a good example. There's lots of names there, but there's also some pretty average teams, including two of the three Italian teams, three of the four English one, the French and the German one.

[IASocFan]

It's about the same. You have to beat the rest of the competition to win. The format changes, and the group stages mean you have to win more over more games - weeding out weaker. But in the end, you have to qualify for the championship, then knock out at least five teams to be champions.

[rangers00]

You can make a strong argument either way. Today's bloated format means that, quite frankly, there is a lot of pish in the latter stages that just happens to have a big brand name. And that has been the case ever since the "CHampions" League was inaugurated. People who scoff at, for instance, FC Malmo or Koln from the 1979 competition clearly never had the privilege of watching them play. That's the thing you see - back then, teams could be amongst the best in Europe without having to have a chequebook to match. Where were, for instance, Real Madrid and Barcelona in the late 70's and early 80's? They were not there because they were getting knocked out by the "minnows" and the "lesser" sides.

The argument about "harder" is dull and also quite pointless. People equate the big names they've heard of with "quality". Which is a naff way of looking at it, not to mention a fundamentally illogical one.

The last thing you are qualified to talk about is logic.

Yes, your warped defense of the old European Cup is ignorant, not to mention blindly biased. Look at some of the LEAGUE CHAMPIONS Liverpool eliminated along the way:

1977
round of 32: Crusaders (N. Ire)
round of 16: Trapzonspor (Turkey)
round of 4: Zurich (Switzerland)

1978
round of 32: bye
round of 16: Dynamo Dresden (E. Germany)
final: Brugge (Belgium)

1981
round of 32: Oulu (Finland)
round of 8: CSKA Sofia (Bulgaria)

1984:
round of 32: Odense (Denmark)

"among the best in Europe"? Yes, certainly best in Europe among the non-qualifiers or marginal qualifiers of the CL group stage, had there been a group stage back then.

"had the privilege to watch them play"? you clearly have the privilege to be uninformative...

[Matt Clark]

Oh dear ... there goes the neighbourhood.

Look, I'm not going to become the focus of your obsessive behaviour, you dreary saddo. I've got a life to live and have neither the means nor the inclination to match your apparently gleeful willingness to devote your entire existence to "winning" arguments on a website.

Suffice it to say that in your habitual eagerness to be an utter spod you missed the point of my post by a distance only slightly less than the circumference of your fifth chin.

I'm flattered that you immediately went off and googled Liverpool's early round opponents in competitions that took place nearly 30 years ago, but you still know ******** all about the game so I really can't do you the considerable honour of endulging you. I'm right, you're wrong.

Toodle-ooh.

[rangers00]

Oh dear ... there goes the neighbourhood.

What's wrong? you mean you haven't polluted the neighborhood bad enough?


Look, I'm not going to become the focus of your obsessive behaviour, you dreary saddo.

Look, I know you dare not talk about real football topics. But I certainly understand...


I've got a life to live and have neither the means nor the inclination to match your apparently gleeful willingness to devote your entire existence to "winning" arguments on a website.

You've got a life to live? what a laugh.


I'm flattered that you immediately went off and googled Liverpool's early round opponents in competitions that took place nearly 30 years ago, but you still know ******** all about the game so I really can't do you the considerable honour of endulging you. I'm right, you're wrong.

Toodle-ooh.
You are right? Still live under an illusion, don't you?

The fact is that you dare not address Liverpool's path to the EC trophy EVERYTIME via some minnows!!! So apparently you don't know jack about football back then. Can't blame you for that. How can someone defending the "toughness" of the old EC defend the strengths of teams like Crusaders, Oulu, Zurich, and worse yet, a BYE in the round of 32?

Better think that you "have a life", that's more comforting for you instead of talking about football...

[rangers00]

Where were, for instance, Real Madrid and Barcelona in the late 70's and early 80's? They were not there because they were getting knocked out by the "minnows" and the "lesser" sides.


Don't forget, lies like these, especially from you, is going to show your ignorance again and again.

So, where were Barcelona in the late 70's and early 80's in the European Cup? in which year they got knocked out by the "minnows" and the "lesser" sides?

Please enlighten us. Can't wait.

[RichardL]

Don't forget, lies like these, especially from you, is going to show your ignorance again and again.

So, where were Barcelona in the late 70's and early 80's in the European Cup? in which year they got knocked out by the "minnows" and the "lesser" sides?

Please enlighten us. Can't wait.

go to www.rsssf.com

there you'll find all the stats you can flick your snot at.

I'm sure Barcelona & Real Madrid's records will be in there (not in your snot, before you start looking)

[tpmazembe]

Previously you could get away playing one or two good teams - now the group stages largely eliminate freak results and the lesser teams progressing. You can also afford to slip up once or twice and still progress. The only way in which it was harder in it's previous format was that there was no room for error.I think this paragraph sums it up quite nicely.

Today you play more quality teams.

Yesteryear you had much less margin for error.

To Matt Clark's point, either case can be viewed as "harder" to win.

Quite a few CL first round games are a bore to me, while the previous pure knock-out format always garnered my attention no matter who was involved.

I understand all the economic reasons for the CL, and am not one to fight against such "progress", but I will admit that I preferred the days when the newly crowned European Champion had also been crowned Champion of its own league. There was a logical continuity to it all.....

[With every passing day I realize how old I am :(]

[RichardL]

I think you have to clarify the question. If you are asking which format makes it harder to win, then you'd have to agree that the champions league format, with more 'quality' teams in it, makes it much harder for an outsider, as does the league stage.

On the other hand, in the old european cup it was...
a) harder to qualify
b) had a much smaller margin for error
c) played in an era when most players still played in their own country, meaning a much smaller gap in class between the top clubs and the middle order. A team from France would be much more likely to contain half a dozen players from the French national squad than now.

[621380]

in the past it was harder for the fact it was a must to be leaque champion..a team where was hypotetical 10 years in row second ranked in a country ,say germany, never was allowed and never had a chance to play and to win the eurochampionscup in this 10years..the teams was forced to win the national championship..... the only exception was the team from a country where was eurocup titleholder...today up to 4 teams from a country have the chance to win this cup....and teams like bayern where lost twice against juve still has a chance to win the cup..same real madrid where lost 1 game against leverkusen and had a draw against leverkusen... not to forget the fact that real madrid current has played against a eliminated b-team from roma to make the next round..in only ko round games (home-away games per round),in the past, nearly unthinkable that a team could have played with a b-team....


pitt

[rangers00]

there you'll find all the stats you can flick your snot at.

But I can't find the stats Matt Clark pouts about...


I'm sure Barcelona & Real Madrid's records will be in there (not in your snot, before you start looking)
I am sure you don't know what you are talking about. This dope didn't even know that after Barcelona lost to Leeds United in the EC semi-final in 1975, they didn't play in the EC again until 1985-86, where they lost to Steaua Bucharest in the final. In other words, Barcelona didn't appear in the European Cup from 1975-76 to 1984-85, because they didn't win the la Liga in that period. Pray tell, how could Barcelona

'got knocked out by the minnows and lesser teams'

in this context of the European Cup, in the late 70s and early 80s?

You, by your tone of being on Clark's side, are equally clueless.

[Rui Costa]

This last 16 being a good example. There's lots of names there, but there's also some pretty average teams, including two of the three Italian teams, three of the four English one, the French and the German one.

"Pretty average"? -you must have high standards.What exactly is average about teams with the likes of Viera,Henry,Nesta,Shevchenko,Drogba,Terry,Nedved,Thuram,Adriano etc

Also there are three German teams, unless youre implying that only one of them is average and the German teams are better than the Italians and the English.

[nicephoras]

You can make a strong argument either way. Today's bloated format means that, quite frankly, there is a lot of pish in the latter stages that just happens to have a big brand name.

You're playing Devil's Advocate, Matt.
Besides, no matter how "pish" some of the later stage clubs are, they're not nearly as "pish" as the champions of Poland, Northern Ireland, East Germany, Norway, etc. None of these countries every did particularly well internationally, so there's no good reason to suppose they had great players at club level before the freer movement of players.

And that has been the case ever since the "CHampions" League was inaugurated. People who scoff at, for instance, FC Malmo or Koln from the 1979 competition clearly never had the privilege of watching them play. That's the thing you see - back then, teams could be amongst the best in Europe without having to have a chequebook to match.

While that may be partially true, its not completely true. The regular appearance of DIFFERENT minnows suggest that they are simply teams that got hot on the right day. If, say, Malmo were that good, and they could aggregate the best players from their country in one club, wouldn't you expect them to be consistently reaching the finals or the semis? Because despite all the "pish" in the old Cup, the large majority of teams that actually won were from the bigger leagues.

Where were, for instance, Real Madrid and Barcelona in the late 70's and early 80's? They were not there because they were getting knocked out by the "minnows" and the "lesser" sides.

More likely they were getting knocked out by the other bigger sides, I would think.
However, the real point here is that there would only be four "giants" in the whole competition to begine with - the champions of Spain, England, Germany and Italy. So two upsets and you're looking at a field of also-rans. (Certain years obviously featured good teams from the Netherlands, Portugal and France, but not consistently.)
That can't happen today where an "upset" is the defeat of the Spanish champions by the German champions.

The argument about "harder" is dull and also quite pointless. People equate the big names they've heard of with "quality". Which is a naff way of looking at it, not to mention a fundamentally illogical one.

Actually, I disagree. There's a reason people purchase cars with brand names - the expectation that they are generally better. You're not guaranteed that the BMW will run perfectly, but the chances are pretty good that its better than an Edsel.
A European pedigree is no indication you're a good team, but the likelihood is far higher. That's why most teams that surprise in their domestic league and qualify for the CL tend to flame out the year after. If Everton were to maintain their pace, they would likely go the way of Mallorca two years ago, or even Celta last year, who managed to get relegated the same year they made it to the knockout rounds of the CL. That doesn't happen to teams with "pedigree" nearly as often. (Although, of course, it does.) That's the point of the current format - the reason to take the top 4 from, say, Spain, is because the top teams, which are usually the same year after year, will be good. Yes, Inter went out to Helsingborg 5 years ago. But who do you think would be more likely to be good in the CL next year? Inter or Helsingborg?

This last 16 being a good example. There's lots of names there, but there's also some pretty average teams, including two of the three Italian teams,

Erm, Juve and Milan ain't average.

three of the four English one,

So are we talking Arsenal or Chelsea here?

the French and the German one.

Lyon have won their league three years running, and played pretty well in the CL last year. They lost by one goal at Old Trafford despite having a rash of injuries. That's hardly mediocre. As for the German one, I'm guessing you didn't mean to label either Bayer or Werder as better than mediocre. ;)

P.S. That the format is harder now doesn't devalue Liverpool's achievements, you know. ;)

[nicephoras]

I am sure you don't know what you are talking about. This dope didn't even know that after Barcelona lost to Leeds United in the EC semi-final in 1975, they didn't play in the EC again until 1985-86, where they lost to Steaua Bucharest in the final. In other words, Barcelona didn't appear in the European Cup from 1975-76 to 1984-85, because they didn't win the la Liga in that period. Pray tell, how could Barcelona 'got knocked out by the minnows and lesser teams'

in this context of the European Cup, in the late 70s and early 80s?


Get over yourself - you know what he meant. Using statistical pedantry to counter a legitimate generalization is the lowest form of argumentation.

[nicephoras]

On the other hand, in the old european cup it was...
a) harder to qualify

Which is a different point, although undoubtedly true.

b) had a much smaller margin for error

I'm not sure that's true. The current CL with only one group stage is like two early rounds of the CL. Given the occasional byes and then "gimme" teams in round two of the old competition, I'd argue the difference is minimal. Yes, that "gimme" team would still be a chance at elimination, but the group stage is that as well. If Roma had beaten Real, they would have been eliminated.

c) played in an era when most players still played in their own country, meaning a much smaller gap in class between the top clubs and the middle order. A team from France would be much more likely to contain half a dozen players from the French national squad than now.

This is the best argument, but if the dispersion of cash is valid, why wouldn't the dispersion occur WITHIN the country as well? If Barca can't buy FC Malmo's best players, why would Malmo be able to buy the best players from other clubs in its own country? How many of the 66' England side played together on the same club? (I honestly don't know the answer.)
Yes, Bayern and Ajax are exceptions in the 70s, but that's what makes the rule, after all - exceptions. (I'm obviously excluding eastern European artificially (in both senses of the word) superteams, such as Honved.)
After all, despite being one of the two powers of Spain, Barca didn't finally manage to win a Cup until late in the game, when these restrictions were largely gone. And Real won them on the back of foreigners.

[RandyNA74]

(Mostly) good points discussed in this thread thus far. If I were a jury presented with this evidence, I would have a difficult time coming up with a verdict, but in the end I do believe the current format is more "difficult." More specifically, the current rules of the game combined with the CL format make it far more difficult for smaller, non-G14 clubs to win.

1) More games are played today, requiring a deeper roster that can carry you through the longer, or rather more intense, season. Keep a thin roster without quality backups and you are more likely to end up like Real Madrid last season. Or worse, Celta (would they be languishing mid-table in Segunda if they had never qualified for the CL?).

2) Only a very small cadre of elite clubs can afford a roster with quality AND quantity, without which it becomes exponentially more difficult to win in this day in age. Of course, it is not impossible to win without a 25-player roster, but it is more "difficult" than it used to be.

3) The Bosman ruling changed everything. Before then, there were only but so many Belgians that could play overseas since clubs were allowed all of maybe two foreigners (and real foreigners at that, not "extra-comunitari" as they would say in Italy). Consequently, if Belgium had a particularly gifted generation of players, there was a greater chance that many of them would be at Anderlecht etc. (a phenomenom already mentioned above). Now it is easier for the bigger, richer clubs (presumibly in the bigger, richer leagues, i.e. Italy, Spain, England, Germany etc.) to assemble more and more talent from the "rest of" group, making it that much more difficult for someone from the "rest of" group, such as Anderlecht, to have any hope of getting anywhere once they stick their head out of their watered-down league and play high-level opponents from the bigger leagues.

Of course, you can still be a side from a relatively "small" league but still be considered a "big" club. Porto is an obvious example. And, simply having a name doesn't mean you necessarily have the quality to back it up (the 03-04 Real Madrid was simply ********ed by Perez's foolish "Zidanes y Pavones" policy). But the point I am trying to make is that in the end, the current CL format, combined with other outside factors such as the Bosmon ruling, mean we will probably not be seeing very many St-Etiennes, IFK Goteburgs, or even Sampdorias in the CL title match from here on out.

And Matt, I am curious to know which between Juve and Milan is average, not to mention Arsenal and Chelsea...

[rangers00]

Get over yourself - you know what he meant. Using statistical pedantry to counter a legitimate generalization is the lowest form of argumentation.

Know what he meant? no chance!

There can't be a lower form of argument than using two examples to generalize a argument, while one of the two examples isn't even true.

Legitimate argument my foot!!!