Was the removal of the 2nd group stage a good idea?

[scorpio81]

it might have been...

yes, it increases the chances of the 'big guns' being drawn against each other, but that also means the elimination of half of the same sooner...

last year, some of the matchups were -

real-juve
arsenal-bayern
barca-chelsea
milan-manu


this increased the chances of teams like lyon, psv and liverpool, who promptly capitalised...

now im a fan of liverpool, but relatively unfancied teams like porto and liverpool winning the CL in the last two years (since the 2nd group stage was abolished) has given critics the opp to call the CL 'a lottery' and label the past two winners as 'undeserving'...

i know seeding is a means of protecting the big teams, really but is that such a bad thing, now? has the quality of the competition fallen? the 2nd group stage served as a means of seriously weeding out the 'weaker' teams...
the fact that nobody has been able to defend the CL so far still shows what a difficult competition is to win... yet, the sceptics are out en masse after the past two finals... what is the solution? what are your thoughts on the same?

the world cup has chugged along just fine despite having 4 KO rounds for a while now, with the cream rising to the top on each occasion (or did it, at the last world cup?)

any smaller team would prefer a head to head match up vs barcelona instead of a group that looked like this -

barcelona
arsenal
lyon
bremen

id love to read peoples responses to this question...

[Forza AZ]

Yes, it was a very good idea.

As you said there is a bigger chance for surprises without the 2nd groupstage, and I find that a very good thing.

Also the matches in the 2nd groupstage very boring most of the times. It's all calculating football in such a group. The knock-out matches are much more entertaining, and everybody has to play to win there.

[scorpio81]

Yes, it was a very good idea.

As you said there is a bigger chance for surprises without the 2nd groupstage, and I find that a very good thing.

Also the matches in the 2nd groupstage very boring most of the times. It's all calculating football in such a group. The knock-out matches are much more entertaining, and everybody has to play to win there.



so its okay that it has become more of a lottery and the winners are called 'undeserving and lucky' by bitter fans of clubs like arsenal and chelsea who are yet to see similar success?

(this is not a taunt - i want everybody to think about these questions before answering - especially the detractors of the CL)

[Teso Dos Bichos]

I personally liked it the way it used to be. The changes are understandable, but when it makes it easier for lesser teams to win the CL, I feel it devalues the competition a bit.

[MyTZeus]

I used to like the 2nd group stage, because (on paper, at least) there were more opportunities for great matches. However, more often than not it was a "play not to lose" strategy for both clubs, with too many boring draws.

After the first few matchdays of this season's group stage, I think perhaps the group stage ought to be done away with completely, and the number of clubs in the competition reduced accordingly. It may be a thrill for folks in Lille and Rosenborg to have the likes of Manchester Utd and Real Madrid come to town, but for the neutral TV watcher it isn't very interesting. The minnows are playing behind-the-ball tactics in the hope of possibly snagging third place and a place in the UEFA Cup. Boring.

Straight knock-out competition, please. Win, you move on. Lose, you go home. Plus, with fewer clubs in the CL, the quality of the UEFA Cup (which also needs to dump the group stage) will be better and the prestige of the trophy will be greater as a result.

[scorpio81]

im caught both ways, myself...

there is an element of romanticism involved the way it is now, but i also feel the detractors do have a case...

uefa has stated that the main reason they decided on the current format was to promote more head-to-head, do or die clashes between the european heavyweights...

well, we certainly saw that last year, but since at the end of the day, its all about viewership and money, will uefa persist with the current format if we see a (no disrespect to these teams) lyon vs villareal semifinal?

the 2nd group stage did provide some superb matchups and some strong teams thrown against each other, while rewarding brave consistency (which is essentially what domestic leagues do) instead of conservative brilliance...



for people who say that the 2nd group stage promotes conservative tactics, would you really think any team would be going into a match to avoid defeat knowing that the quality of the group was such that a result in another match would effectively put them out?

in a group like the one ive presented earlier, or like this one -

bayern
lyon
inter
psv

- youre not going to progress by drawing most of your matches, and the managers and players know that!

[unclesox]

so its okay that it has become more of a lottery and the winners are called 'undeserving and lucky' by bitter fans of clubs like arsenal and chelsea who are yet to see similar success?

But this is said by many big-club non-winners in just about every cup competition, domestic or international.

I don't think getting rid of Stage 2 was a good idea. It was a great idea! :cool:

So what if the current "1st knock-out phase" produces strong ties. To lift the cup, a team will eventually have to defeat strong sides along the way. Whether it's in the 1st KO phase, quarters or semis is irrelevent to me.
The knockout phases are two-legged affairs. IMO, the better side will go through as compared to a one-off tie. They won't always go through, but a two-leeged matchup increases their chances, I feel.

And for people like me, who very much misses the old-style European Cup tournament, this formula brings back a bit of the old competition.
At the same time, the "newer generation" still have their "best leagues are represented with four clubs" travesty. :p

Oh... and Liverpool beating Juventus, Chelsea and Milan makes them lucky?! :rolleyes:
(I realize YOU didn't say it, scorpio. Just generally speaking ;) )

[MyTZeus]

OK scorpio, let's take your second group for an example and pretend we're Bayern. We can expect to beat Lyon and PSV at home. That's 6 points of out the 10 needed to move on. Then you only need 4 points out of 4 matches to advance. I believe at least 3 out of those 4 matches are going to be defensive, grind-it-out matches to get the minimum required points in order to go through.

I think Inter would probably have the same mindset, so instead of two appealing Bayern-Inter matchups, you have the away team in each case taking the air out of the ball in order not to lose. Not good for the worldwide television audience.

Plus, by the time you get down to the final 8 teams, there really wouldn't be too much of an advantage in winning the 2nd group in order to play a 2nd place team in the qtrfinals. If you're Barcelona, is there really any advantage at all in playing Inter rather than Bayern in the quarters? I don't believe so.

Whereas with one group stage, the group winners play 2nd placed-teams in a knockout format, and some of those 2nd placed-teams may not be all that great. So there IS an advantage of winning the group in the one group stage. I'd certainly rather play PSV in the second round than AC Milan.

I don't think they'll ever go back to two group stages, but if they did they should make it financially worth everyone's while to play each match to win. I believe the bonus to each winning club is somewhere in the 300-400k euro range. Make it in the 1-2 MILLION euro range and I think you'd see 6 hard-fought matchdays per group stage.

Sorry for the long-winded post.

[scorpio81]

i disagree fundamentally with your post because i find it impossible to believe that we can 'expect to beat lyon and psv at home'...

same with inter... i highly doubt that any team can go into such a group accurately planning where the points will come from... the only strategy i can think of in such a group would be to win all your home games and avoid defeat in all your away games...

similar to KOs... i think every team in the group in question would be going in with the same approach... that would make for some very intriguing matches, imo and also would essentially be a 'survival of the fittest' among the top clubs in europe...

[BocaFan]

i disagree fundamentally with your post because i find it impossible to believe that we can 'expect to beat lyon and psv at home'...

same with inter... i highly doubt that any team can go into such a group accurately planning where the points will come from... the only strategy i can think of in such a group would be to win all your home games and avoid defeat in all your away games...

similar to KOs... i think every team in the group in question would be going in with the same approach... that would make for some very intriguing matches, imo and also would essentially be a 'survival of the fittest' among the top clubs in europe...

Well, Feyenoord finished top-2 in their group a few years ago despite drawing their first 5 matches in that group.

That being said, I don't think clubs enter the group-stage thinking they should play for a draw most games. But IF a club gets 6 points in their first two matches, or 7 points in their first three (which will happen in just about every group) THEN draws the rest-of-the-way will be good enough.

[glennaldo_sf]

First of all Scorpio... very good topic....

Personally I liked the second stage but logistically, it was just a nightmare. There were simply too many games. In the end, the final was competed between the two teams that could still walk by then. Also, I don't know if I quite subscribe to the theory that the current champions league format is a lottery. Teams like Bayer Leverkusen, and Valencia (who were not a continental powerhouse back then) almost won the entire thing - as did Leeds - remember them? :eek:

I would actually like to see the champions league become more "league" based... like say 4 groups of six teams with the top 2 going to the quarters or something like that. I liked to double group stage but it meant the finalists would have to play 17 games - that doesn't even include preliminaries - on top of their domestic league and cup competitions. It was just way too much.

Acually, I would like to see that format used in the world cup (4 groups of 4 instead of the round of sixteen) but once again, it would extend the finalists world cup by an extra two games - and people are already complaining about the WC being too long.

[Teso Dos Bichos]

Teams like Bayer Leverkusen, and Valencia (who were not a continental powerhouse back then) almost won the entire thing - as did Leeds - remember them? :eek:

They played well and deserved to progress though. Constrast how they performed with Liverpool/Porto of recent seasons. Previously teams like that pair would have been found out as the tournament progressed. Unfortunately because the big guns were knocking each other out and the amount of games was reduced, it allowed them to sneak though. No disrespect intended to fans of those teams, but you know what I mean.

[morrisonsm]

I did like the 2nd group stage, but there were just too many games, so it really had to go.

http://www.scotiafootball.com/

[|--LdC--|]

I personally liked it the way it used to be. The changes are understandable, but when it makes it easier for lesser teams to win the CL, I feel it devalues the competition a bit.

Lol don´t make me laugh...
It used to be pathetic, the only objective was to ensure the big teams would get to the last 8, at least now the medium and smaller teams can dream of having a good run, ex FC Porto, Monaco, PSV etc
Its the least Uefa can do after killing the real CL.

[TO DEVILS]

Lol don´t make me laugh...
It used to be pathetic, the only objective was to ensure the big teams would get to the last 8, at least now the medium and smaller teams can dream of having a good run, ex FC Porto, Monaco, PSV etc
Its the least Uefa can do after killing the real CL.

I liked it better when only the Champions got to play in the CL.....it's a joke now, you have a team that finished 3rd in their league and he goes the following year and wins the CL...a complete joke!!!

Only Champions should be allowed in the tourny of Champions, plus getting rid of the Cup Winners Cup it was a mistake as far as i am concerned.

Plus if you get eliminated from the CL you shouldn't get a spot in the Uefa, that is another ploy to keep the best teams in competition, generating revenue to the powers that be.

[Borruma]

I'd agree with those who said the CL should only be for Champions, not coming from a 'big five' country the chances of seeing a side from here ever playing Real Madrid, AC Milan, Pool, etc is very slim maybe one year an Irish club will get lucky like Artmedia but never on a regular basis, no chance.

Introducing the second group stage devauled the competition, Liverpool made quarters in 2002 despite only winning one group game - their last one, when Porto won it they played and beat teams at least of the level Valencia beat when they made the final in 2001 (For a reminder: Arsenal in the Quarters - not super Arsenal then and Leeds - with Danny Mills - in the semis - Is Man Utd, Lyon and Depor really much easier than that? It's damn sight better than Bayer, Juve and Chavscum that's for sure), Milan three years ago were very flukey winners yet because they were Milan they got away with it - winning only one knockout game and in the way they did that was a disgrace and for a while afterwards I completely lost interest in the tournament - It was only when Monaco owned Madrid a year later did I remember what a great tournament the CL could be.

Anyway whose to say neither Pool or Porto would won anyway without the second group stage, maybe Liverpool under Rafa would have done like under Houllier and draw there way to the quarter finals and as for Porto:

Lokomotiv Moscow, AS Monaco, Sparta Prague, Celta Vigo (Relegated that year), Real Sociedad, Deportivo La Coruna, VfB Stuttgart, Olympique Lyonnais, Bayern Munich, Manchester United, Juventus, Chelsea, Arsenal, AC Milan and Real Madrid.

Those were the teams of the final 16 that year of which how many were really better than Porto anyway in that year? Perhaps only Arsenal and Milan and they can only have themselves to blame for what happened..

[king_saladin]

it might have been...

yes, it increases the chances of the 'big guns' being drawn against each other, but that also means the elimination of half of the same sooner...

last year, some of the matchups were -

real-juve
arsenal-bayern
barca-chelsea
milan-manu


this increased the chances of teams like lyon, psv and liverpool, who promptly capitalised...

Hmm? Liverpool had to play EPL winners Chelsea, Serie A winners Juventus, and 03-04 Serie A winners AC Milan.

[musicl]

so its okay that it has become more of a lottery and the winners are called 'undeserving and lucky' by bitter fans of clubs like arsenal and chelsea who are yet to see similar success?Since when where arsenal and chelsea bitter rivals of Liverpool?

[marakana10]

I personally liked it the way it used to be. The changes are understandable, but when it makes it easier for lesser teams to win the CL, I feel it devalues the competition a bit.

Teso you couldn't have put it a better way... my thoughts are exactly the same.