ACL - Which is harder: West Asia (Saudi, Iran, UAE) or East Asia (Japan, Korea, China)?

Need i not remind you that an Australian club made it all the way to the final last season, beating a very rich Uzbek club along the way. This crappy Australian team also managed to beat Al-Ahly (Egypt), and we know how well our Arab Asian clubs go up against Arab African club teams in the Arab Champions League.

Australia sent it's last placed team this season (Newcastle) and a team that has not won a single game in 2009 (Central Coast). Australian clubs also have the smallest budgets in Asian professional football, spending less money than some Vietnamese and Thai clubs. I would like to see how the two worst Qatari, Saudi and Uzbek clubs would perform in the Champions League.

 

Saudi Arabia sends teams ranked 7th and 8th in the league, while most africans send their best teams.

 

Wow someone's being a bit defensive.

So? A Thai club reached the final in recent years and lost to a UAE club. Does that mean the Thai league is like the Serie A of Asia now?

We already know the general level of the A-league is not quite at the level of the OZ national team at its full strength. An A-league-based team lost at home to Kuwait recently (it's irrelevant, but since you brought it up, that Kuwaiti team was entirely amateur and the Kuwaiti league has no where near the support and infrastructure that the A-league has). They also failed to beat Indonesia, who are not exactly an Asian powerhouse.

The OZ NT is dominating Asia at the moment, but that doesn't mean it's the same with club football.

Now, your point that OZ sent two unrepresentative clubs this year is well-taken, but the question posed here is which side of the ACL is more difficult to qualify from. This year, it's obviously the West (and the fact that the OZ's sent two of their weaker sides probably played a role). However, I think it's always been more competitive in the West. OZ clubs did ok in prior seasons, but not much better than UAE, and definitely not as well as Uzbek clubs (Adelaide beat Bunyodkor, but which country's clubs had a better overall record in qualifying for the knock-out stages? Though I suppose it's a bit early to assess the A-league clubs' ACL performances since they only joined recently). I think the West is still less predictable and harder to qualify from than the East (regardless of how the two sides match up team-for-team).

Jeez man, I didn't say that Adelaide or any OZ club was "crappy." Please focus on the question of the thread.

By the way, just to set the record straight, Asian Arab clubs are historically dominant in the Arab CL (out of the first 18 editions, Asian Arab clubs won 12). The team with the best record is still Al-Rasheed of Iraq. The country with the most Arab trophies is still Saudi Arabia. However, for the last few years, countries like KSA and UAE no longer send their top teams.

This season, KSA sent Al-Hazm and Al-Wehda. Al-Hazm is a small provincial team who until last season were mostly part-timers. Their homeground is so crappy that they had to play their Arab CL match 100 km's away in another city. It was their first time ever in a foreign competition. The other club (Wehda) is a mid-table team that hasn't won any domestic silverware since the 1960's. Same goes for UAE who sent the minnows Al-Sha'b, and Qatar who did not even take part this year.

Beating Egypt's Al-Ahly is not some other-worldly achievement either. Ittihad beat them in the CWC soundly, and Hilal's B team beat them a few years ago.

Not really relevant to the issue.

Not very well, I imagine. I'll gladly take one country out of the equation above and my main point will still stand.

 

To be fair, neither do the Africans send their best teams. But the general point remains. Crowing that an Australian team beat Ahly of Egypt is silly. Ittihad did the same in the CWC, and furthermore beat them in front of their fans in Cairo for the Saudi-Egyptian super cup a few years earlier.

 

We're drifting off-topic here, but anyway, it's true they don't always send their very top teams, but you still see teams like Zamalek, Raja, Wydad, Sfaxien, etc. Wifak Steif is one of Algeria's top teams (they were domestic champions in '07), so it's natural that they would do well. Can't compare them to Al-Sha'b or Al-Wehda, let alone Al-Hazm.

 

ittihad was the team who broke there unbeaten record of 86 games ...

 

however our saudi fa got some brain this year and send hazm and wehda for arab cl and ahli and nasr for gulf clubs champions cup..i still remember ittihad played two international competitions at a time and wonoth of them...
regarding the topic for this thread i think prior to this years acl last edition was more tough for west teams..teams from kuwait and syria were realy amazing...though syria too dont have proper league but karameh made to the finals...similarly qadsiya kuwaiti too made it...
and now still west asia is 5 % more tougher than east ones..coz in east u have at least 1 team to beat like teams from thailand and indonesia ,singapore..but in west its not like that ....................

 

But in CWC, Al-Ahly was very much motivated and send their best available teams. Beating African champion Al-Ahly in CWC deseves very much praise. Ittihad did the same in the 2005 CWC, but I think that Ittihad was clearly the one of strongest Asian Champion in ACL history. I remember Japanese football media and fans were very shocked by the strength of that Ittihad in CWC. If one of this year's Saudi teams is as strong as that Ittihad, then that team is clear favorite to win ACL this year.

I think Aussie League = Uzbekistan League, which means both leagues have not much depth but their top teams are enough to strong to compete for Asian champion. Also Aussie temas are getting stronger as their ACL experience enlarges. Gamba beat Adelaide strongly in ACL, but in CWC, it was very close match.
Chinese teams are very strong in China(No J-League teams beat them in China, most lost so far in ACL history) and they are also getting stronger , contrary to Chinese NT. I think currently they are better than UAE League and Qatar League.
Iranian teams are not doing good so far in this year but I think it is just temporary, and still they are asian top leagues(along with Japan,Korea,Saudi).

Overall , two eastern groups which consist of Aussie,Chinese,Japanesea and Korean teams are as hard as western groups, especially if Aussie teams are Adelaide,Melbourne, Sydeny, then they might be harder than west. And in the future, it will be more harder.
But in this year, I think West is harder generally.

 

this is very judgmental... and of course sometimes its hard to see which side is better because east asia and west asia are so far away from each other. its like double the distance of going from west coast USA to east coast USA. theyre so far apart that its hard to know or understand what the opposite end of the continent is doing in terms of football progress.

in my opinion... i think east asia is stronger. we've seen korean and japanese teams dominate the ACL in the past 3 seasons. i think that is enough testament to prove that east asia is so far better.

i think the west is slightly overrated. in my opinion only saudi arabia has quality teams.
the UAE doesnt... Qatar doesnt... iran doesnt... none of them do.
saudi arabia is the only strong face of the west.

in east asia, its japan and south korea.

and okay, we're saying qatari teams or uae teams can beat clubs from indonesia and singapore... then again, we dont know for sure, can we? we'll just have to wait and see what the knockout rounds will show. and i think it will show a slight east asian advantage. lets face it, japan and south korea became fortresses against western teams...

um salal and al jazira arent going to do anything special. theyre struggling within their own groups, let alone pose evidence of western asia being more superior.
as for iranian teams, theyre incredibly piss-poor these days. and are these guys even professional?

i personally think the west USED to be more superior. back in the days when kuwait and syria were in the mix. we had teams like al-qadsiya (as much as i hate them) and al-karamah, etc. al ain used to be a dominant figure too. but this all changed, especially this yr after kuwaiti and syrian clubs were forced to go to AFC cup.

so now the only dominant figure in west asia is saudi teams.
qatar will improve...
emirates will come back once al-ain starts playing again, because i think theyre the only emirati team capable of doing extensive damage in asian champions league. the rest are all just happy to be participating, but they have no higher ambitions.

 

as far as I know the IPL is the only west asian league got a A Class Ranking in AFC's final assement ranking.

but I still believe the west asian league clubs are far more richer than our East asian private owned clubs.

 

I wouldn't say Umm Salal are struggling. They're pretty much thriving IMO.

 

Moqool,
The point here isn't that Qatari and UAE clubs are world beaters, and I'll gladly admit that they do not match up well against North African clubs, let alone Japanese and Korean ones. The issue here is that they are more competitive than the second or third tier clubs on the Eastern side. You look at Gharrafa, they beat the Iranian champions 5-1; Umm Slal got a credible draw at Azadi and are second in their group. UAE clubs are having a bad year, but that just goes to show how much tighter things are in the West. Al-Jazira held Ittihad to two draws and also held Esteghlal; Al-Ahli have a very dangerous team who happened to fall in a very even group. Uzbek teams are set to qualify comfortably, just like they do most seasons. Compare that to the Eastern side where the groups are not quite as close, and you'll see what we're getting at.

As for Iranian clubs, you can't just judge from one season -- a couple of years ago Sepahan was in the final, and Saudi clubs were being thrashed

 

That wasn't the FA's decision. Al-Nasr and Al-Ahli purposely chose to play in the Gulf Cup. The Arab CL doesn't hold that much prestige in KSA anymore.

 

Of course it doesn't. The tournament may as well be run by ART.

 

I used the search function but nothing came up, so I guess this thread is about right.

I am sure this has been talked to a lot, so sorry to bring it up again.

What do you guys think about splitting the AFC in two?

If we take a map and look at the middle we can divide Asia into East and West.

If all the countries that end in "stan" go to the west that I believe will give them 19 or 20 countries.

The east would have 18 or 19 countries.

This could save on travel for the Champions (I know that groups already try to do that)

I guess a big argument would be who gets the Asia 5th spot (assuming the first 4 are split 2 and 2).

What do people think would be the negatives and the positives for the split (also a negative could be FIFA taking away the 5th World cup spot).

 

AFC need get the 64 teams in AFC ChamLea and AFC Cup and move all in AFC Wester Champions League and AFC Easter Champions League, with a Great All Asia Final or 2 asian teams in Club World Cup, hope they get it soon.
and India es wester.

 

64 wow, I did not know Asia had that many countries.

 

this list shows 32

http://www.aneki.com/asia.html

+ 1 Australia

+ 15 Middle East
http://www.aneki.com/middleeast.html

- 5 UEFA countries

= 43.

who am I missing?

Macao, HK, Mariana Islands (not FIFA) and Guam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men%27s_national_association_football_teams#AFC_.28Asia.29

47 members (46 FIFA members)

 

Ok if Palau becomes a member that is 48 countries.

Merging ASEAN with East Asia gives us 22 teams (23 with Palau)

Merging West Asia and Central Asia gets us to 25 teams.

To make it even, one of the Central Asia countries would have to move to the east, or Myanmar would have to move West

East 22 teams
West 26

or East 24
West 24