Manchester United’s testy Scottish tactician Sir Alex Ferguson has joined habitual nemesis Mourinho in pointing the finger of blame right at the Premier League for The Blues and United's poor showing in Europe…
It is too blame, but not as much as these two would like to believe. Certainly EPL clubs have a much tougher season than the majority of their counter-parts. Their league season is longer than Holland, France, Italy and Germany. We also have two domestic cups to contest as well as pre-season trophies and tours which can be draining, even if they're not crucial. It's an easy thing to moan about. Certainly Milan and Liverpool have benefitted from not being competitive in their leagues this year. Both rested large amounts of players at the weekend prior to their CL games mid-week.Chelsea and Man Utd were not afforded this as neither could afford to drop points (although Chelsea did anyway) as well as suffering fitness issues. It doesn't help when you have a game on a Saturday late, then you have a game on the Wednesday, away in Europe, and then a local derby on Saturday morning. The decision to put the City game where it is borders on insane. City refused to move it back, which is fair game to be honest, but I don't believe the FA or the EPL should have scheduled it for then anyway. It makes things very difficult for Man Utd especially. Chelsea play on Tuesday and then on Sunday whilest Man Utd get Wednesday and Saturday morning. That's a two day deficit? But it's tough at the top I guess...
Sevilla and Espanyol were able to get away with resting their teams before each UEFA game. That's a big advantage. It is rather telling that Liverpool are again the team which has gone furthest in the Champions League when they've played understrength teams in the league and gone out early in the cups. Not saying that's the only reason of course, but it is without doubt an advantage.
Liverpool knows how to play away in Europe and ManU dont. That is the biggest reason. Chelsea did rest many of their players the weekend before the liverpool match. The problem for ManU is that they have a strong starting eleven when everyone are fit but they dont have the players to replace them when someone gets injured or players need rest.
Liverpool didn't "beat" Chelsea on the field. The two-legs were tied and the deadlock broken by an artificial but necessary device that has nothing to do with football. They were also playing an injury ravaged and battle weary Chelsea side. Liverpool has been playing in one competition for months while every game for United and Chelsea is a cup final. Both United and Chelsea have been running on fumes for a month. It is a huge advantage to be able to rest stars at this point in the season. Liverpool is a Champion's League side that did not even attempt to compete for the league this season. Gerrard's Liverpool has finished within 10 points of the league champion only twice in his career (2001/2002 - 7 points; 2005-2006 - 9 points). Make no mistake, their away-goal Barca scalp was an impressive tie but their path to the final demonstrates how overrated the CL is: Chelsea (1-1) Barca (2-2) PSV (4-0) Bordeaux (4-0) Galatasaray (5-5) PSV (2-0) Maccabi Haifa (3-2) 9 wins - 3 losses - 3 draws From a points perspective, their performance in the CL (67%) has been roughly comparable to their performance in the league (62%).
CL is not overrated. You have all the best teams in Europe in it and every team would love to win it. Some players are just better motivated for the big games in Europe like all the world cup winners of Milan.
It's clearly the premier cup competition in the world but it is a joke compared to league football. Liverpool can get to the final when their best "win" over two legs is against a PSV side missing its best player. Milan overcame United, the worst Munich side in a decade, Celtic (1-0 over 2 legs), Lille, AEK, Anderlecht, and Red Star Belgrade to reach the final. Yes, the best sides in Europe are in the competition but you only need to beat one of them (Milan beating United) or tie 2 of them (Liverpool vs. Barca and Chelsea) to reach the final. Overhyped and watered down competition that figures to get worse if Platini gets his way.
Why is it overhyped and watered down when all the best players in the world and the best teams in europe is in it. And the quality of the football is much better than what we get from the world cup. And if it is so "easy" to get to the final why have united only been there once in 17 years.
Agreed. Too many teams able to qualify. It's all about money. It should only be top two teams from top leagues and top finisher from all the others. That would also help with the amount of matches these players have to play each year which is too many for any club in European competition. As long as the almighty dollar is at stake, don't expect any changes in the near future.
Why should it only be the top two teams when number four one season could easly be number one in the league the next season when the CL is played. It would not surprise me if ManU becomes number 3 or 4 next year. It should not be easy to win both the CL and the league in the same season but it is possible, Barca did it last year.
It wouldn't surprise me either but that's why they should do it, to get the best of the best. Because you finish first one year but then say fourth the next, well that's why you play your top players in every league match, because it means something. I think the leagues would actually benefit to a certain extent due to fewer European obligations. I think the quality of play would benefit too. Listen, I'm a huge Everton supporter and we're trying our best to break in to the top six much less the top four with some consistency. We're getting better but still lack that killer instinct that the big three have (that and the money they have as well.) If they were to go to the top two teams only with the next two going to the UEFA cup, that would seriously dent Everton's chances of European football which I hate to say. But I'd still like to see it done that way. I think you're safe though as the money involved with European football pretty much has and will take precedence over everything else.
My complaint about the CL is the general weakness of the opening rounds. Socialist European values are a little too present in the set up. I would structure the group stage as follows: Top 4 in England Top 4 in Spain Top 4 in Italy Top 3 in Germany Top 3 in France Top 2 in Holland Champion of Portugal Champion of Scotland 2 Qualifiers = 24 Teams That way, the minnows who make it in would be deserving. 6 Groups of 4 teams. Teams from the same country cannot meet in the group stage. Top 2 from each group advance. Top 4 points get a bye into the quarters. Please spare me any sympathy for the little countries. I care nothing about them or their football. The winner of that competition would be a true Champion of Europe.
I'd go as far as to let just the champion of each of those smaller leagues (Romania, Hungary, Czechs, etc..) go through but have some sort of "play-in" round. You have to have them at least represent somewhere or it really isn't the "European" Champions league but the "G-14" Champions league. I'm with you though as far as the reduction in teams.
I have zero interest in watching a group consisting of Milan, Anderlecht, Lille and AEK. Kill the minnows.
Believe me, I understand where you're coming from. I guess you have the minnows play in and then only have two teams out of say a possible 10-16 as "at-large" bids. You still have the possibility of an upset and your quality of football wouldn't diminish too much. But Porto's win three years ago and CSKA Moscow's win in the UEFA Cup surely shows that some of these teams can compete with the G-14 teams.
Without question. However, that population is minuscule compared those who would prefer an Arsenal/Roma/Valencia/Lyon group. I personally believe that this "Supercup" structure is really the ultimate goal of the G-14 (which is actually the G-18). They will never kill off the domestic league structure. However, their members could EASILY refrain from participating in the CL in favor of the G-14 Cup. Hell, they only need SIX more members to use my 24-team structure. The CL would die w/o the G14. The G14 would be fine w/o the CL. Current G-14 Italy Inter Juventus Milan England United Liverpool Arsenal Germany Bayern Dortmund Leverkusen France Lyon PSG Marseille Netherlands Ajax PSV Spain Madrid Barcelona Valencia Portugal Porto
Ive never actually heard the word hamstring used like that before. Cheers. Fergie and Jose are wrong. They both just messed up their tactics in their matches. Spurs have to play Monday, Thursday, Sunday. Three games in seven days, thats crazy.
A champions league with the G14 plus 6 teams are a joke. Some of the teams in the G14 have been battling relegation this season. I liked your first propositon better. But instead of 24 teams in in 6 groups i would like to see 8 groups of 32 teams with that you dont get the same teams meeting so often: 5 from Italy,England and Spain, 4 from Germany 3 from France 2 from Holland, Portugal, 1 from Scotland, Greece,Turkey, Russia And the rest would have to qualify for the remaining two places. It is close to how it is today but you get more of the bigger clubs in each group.
I am not saying I agree with the G-14 structure. I am just identifying what they have in mind and what is VERY realistic. The clubs rightly view themselves as BIGGER than UEFA yet they are required to take orders from UEFA, which is an incompetent bureaucracy run by diplomatic functionaries not savvy businessmen. The move towards this structure will only increase as the big clubs are purchased by big business. They are not going to allow their bottom line to be threatened by idiotic Euro politics relating to admitting another team from Romania into what they view as their RIGHTFUL CL spot. By breaking away from the UEFA qualifying structure, they eliminate the revenue interruption risk posed by the necessity to qualify for the CL every year. It is basically an inevitability and UEFA is only hastening its onset by its ridiculous proposal to cut back on the number of teams from the big leagues in the CL. UEFA will soon become like FIFA. Their only role will be to host an international tournament every 4 years.
Sorry, G-18 (I've lost track of who's in what these days). If they want to have a G-18 competition and leave it at that (which it basically is now) then you're pretty much going to morph into a European Super League anyway. You say big deal right? Everyone wants to see the top teams. Wrong because then the already huge gap between the top teams (In EPL think Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, & Chelsea) and the second tier teams (Everton, Bolton, Spurs, etc...) gets wider and wider from a financial aspect and basically, the 2nd tier teams and below don't have much of a realistic chance of breaking into that group on a regular basis and earning the prize and television money needed to compete not just in the CL, but in the league as well. And you're dead on about the G-14 being ok without the Champions League. Unfortunately that's what everyone else is afraid of and that isn't a good thing. They may not kill off the domestic competitions intentionally, but the unintended effect could prove to be like what we see in Scotland year in and year out, Celtic & Rangers, Rangers & Celtic. No one else really has a realistic chance of winning their league much less qualifying for the Champions League. We're already seeing this in England.