Oh thanks But i really would love the Champions League to be a league format would be fucking awesome. Imagine Barca vs Madrid Bayern Juventus Chelsea Man City Man Utd twice a season and all the rest playing eachother in a 32 person league or maybe less, could do 16 man league and do the bottom 8 every year in the league go into play off matches against 8 teams who qualify from the qualifying rounds. Would be way more fun and better for the competition. Then truly the champions of the Champions League would be the best team in the world (well in Europe but Europe > the world right :3 )
some of düsseldorfs fans are the biggest assholes though booing your own player in your own fuckin stadium everytime he touches the ball, because he made a mistake. how retarded can u be
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
It was 1999 we won against bayern, and we've got to the final twice and not won it, we got beat by barca 3-1 and 2-0, only 2 years apart . To be fair we won it in 2008, reached final 2009, quarters 2010, finals again in 2011 being knocked out by the greatest team of all time at their peak twice would imply we were actually pretty dominant in europe if it wasn't for those pesky Spaniards! Granted they did dominate us in both finals.
On the the league vs europe thing as a Man U fan, i would rather win the champions league but maybe that's for a number of reasons. 1) We are spoilt with domestic success, the league is an expectation every other under under fergie, if not every year until this year. 2) recent success was built on the treble, that was the golden moment for us, i can still remember ollies late winner, the cartwheel from schemicheal and Clive Tyldesley's immortal words "Manchester united have reached the promised land!" still gives me chills up my spine. 3) With the recent almost great success in Europe, loosing 2 finals to an on form barca has been heartbreaking, making it that much more coveted.
As for England vs Club, i still love watching England play. Call me a fool, but i don't care about England's success or the over-hyping the media does. I still watch every game, even the friendlies, with my heart in my hand. There's just something about watching England play, i grew up with the golden generation and the disappointment and heartbreak, (mainly from penalties), and the pathetic yet still romantic reminiscing about our only world cup win. If there is a day, in the rest of my lifetime, that England win the world cup, it would out-do anything that Manchester could make me feel, probably for the reason of the complete failure of recent times, the rise from the ashes (if it ever happens in my lifetime, which is porbally won't) will only be the sweeter for it.
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
I know that you are way more knowledgeable in football than I ever will be but I have been arguing about this with my friend for so long.
Suppose you Manchester United win the league with an one point advantage of Chelsea. What difference does it make? I mean, do you really get to call Manchester United the better team because of that one point which could have been simply due to a lucky deflection into a goal? If you win the Champions League (with some of the best teams across Europe), I would say that is a way better testament to your skill rather than winning the Premier League which is against teams only in England. Sure you may not play the BEST team on your way to the final of Champions League, but you will play very good teams.
In the end, stripped down to its purest form, Premier League is basically a qualification for the Champions League. If Manchester United win the league with Chelsea in second, its good for Manchester. However, if Chelsea win the Champions League, it will be better for them.
I have always compared it to the conferences in the NBA. You have 2 conferences which select the 16 teams that go into the playoffs. Winning the conference is a big deal, no doubt, but if a fourth-place team gets into the finals and wins, that is even a bigger deal.
EDIT: Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have always wondered why Premier League > Champions League to some.
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
I know that you are way more knowledgeable in football than I ever will be but I have been arguing about this with my friend for so long.
Suppose you Manchester United win the league with an one point advantage of Chelsea. What difference does it make? I mean, do you really get to call Manchester United the better team because of that one point which could have been simply due to a lucky deflection into a goal? If you win the Champions League (with some of the best teams across Europe), I would say that is a way better testament to your skill rather than winning the Premier League which is against teams only in England. Sure you may not play the BEST team on your way to the final of Champions League, but you will play very good teams.
In the end, stripped down to its purest form, Premier League is basically a qualification for the Champions League. If Manchester United win the league with Chelsea in second, its good for Manchester. However, if Chelsea win the Champions League, it will be better for them.
I have always compared it to the conferences in the NBA. You have 2 conferences which select the 16 teams that go into the playoffs. Winning the conference is a big deal, no doubt, but if a fourth-place team gets into the finals and wins, that is even a bigger deal.
EDIT: Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have always wondered why Premier League > Champions League to some.
Its because often in football the worst team wins. Football is a numbers game, a better team wins more an average. So you can take a team like barca or bayern and pit them against teams from all leagues and levels, and if they play enough games they will easily loose to some terrible teams on occasion. So what this means is that cup competition is a luck game, sure the better team has a much better chance but ultimately the performance on the day rather than the quality of the team and professionalism over a long period, wins. But to win the league, your team has to be consistently the best team, yes you could argue that the top 3 is down to luck, 3rd could be 1st, but eventually you will win the league if you keep the standard up. A cup competition though can come down to one bad event. One bad ref decision with a red card, one injury of your best striker for a game, one upset stomach of a defender on the pitch at the wrong time distracting him at the crucial moment, one rare fumble of a world class goalkeeper, a player that falls over on the slippery grass just before scoring. These things can make the difference, despite a team being better. So the point is cup competitions have a large element of luck, you have to be vastly better than all of your opponents to get consistent success, and even barca haven't managed back to back European success at their prime says how much pot luck there is.
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
I know that you are way more knowledgeable in football than I ever will be but I have been arguing about this with my friend for so long.
Suppose you Manchester United win the league with an one point advantage of Chelsea. What difference does it make? I mean, do you really get to call Manchester United the better team because of that one point which could have been simply due to a lucky deflection into a goal? If you win the Champions League (with some of the best teams across Europe), I would say that is a way better testament to your skill rather than winning the Premier League which is against teams only in England. Sure you may not play the BEST team on your way to the final of Champions League, but you will play very good teams.
In the end, stripped down to its purest form, Premier League is basically a qualification for the Champions League. If Manchester United win the league with Chelsea in second, its good for Manchester. However, if Chelsea win the Champions League, it will be better for them.
I have always compared it to the conferences in the NBA. You have 2 conferences which select the 16 teams that go into the playoffs. Winning the conference is a big deal, no doubt, but if a fourth-place team gets into the finals and wins, that is even a bigger deal.
EDIT: Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have always wondered why Premier League > Champions League to some.
I'll try and answer point by point, but this is only my opinion, others will no doubt give their input.
If United win the league by 1 point then you can look back over the other 37 league games and think to yourself damn if we didn't draw here and won we would of been champions. Thats why winning a league over 38 games proves who was better for the whole season, even if it was a lucky deflection goal, you were still 1 point behind after 38 games. If you win the champions league you might of done it without playing Real Madrid or Barcelona. The year Liverpool won it they beat a good Juventus team in the quarter final thats to 2 goals at home and a 0-0 in Turin, they didn't have to play Barcelona Real Madrid Bayern Munchen or the PSV team who were good back then. They played Chelsea and beat them thanks to a "ghost goal" and then one the final (1 off game anything can happen, and it did). They were far from the best team that year, but they won and it got to call themselves the champions of Europe which i think is a bit harsh. They finished that year 5th in the league as well....You can go back through a few wins Chelsea etc and see a few champions that avoided the big clubs.
Winning the league though is being the best of 38 games, not just 4 two legged ties and a 1 off final. Anything can happen in finals, from turning around a 3-0 half time defecit, to scoring in the 1st minute and /defending for the rest.
Your points are valid of course, but in terms of being the best, you have to beat the best. Week in week out as well, the reason why winning any league across Europe is a very good feat, even if the league isn't that competitive, the lesser European leagues. But still being the best over 30 odd games and 8months shows true champion spirit, winning the Champions league ALWAYS has luck involved, winning a League does not.
But back in the past, the Champions League was exactly what it said "Champions of the Leagues" where only the winner of each league would go into the competition. Wasn't until 1992? I think it was where it changed and it opened up into allowing 2nd 3rd placed teams, then it expanded a bit more and more leagues were allowed more entrants due to how good there teams performed in the competition. So i think it is worst and degrades to competition more when a team who hasn't even done well in their domestic league wins the Champions League. Finihing 2nd and winning it is ok, but finishing 3rd or 4th shouldn't win it, meant that they couldn't beat their rivals.
Just the reason why i think League > Champions League in current format. In the old Format of it being just Champions of each leave vs eachother in 2 legged knock out games, then i would say Champs League > Domestic. Or until they bring out the proper Champions League, where it becomes a League system where everyone plays eachother and whoever has the most points at the end of it wins it, will it be better than the Domestic League.
Also like the playoffs your American leagues use, don't you think it's a bit unfair a team who dominates the season, finishes top of the whole league system, with the most wins and fewest losses, could end up losing to a ranked 8th team in the playoffs because they had a few injuries or justs didn't have a very good game? Would you call those the winners even though they only just about scrapped into the playoffs on a wildcard? (this might be very innacurate wording, but the point still stands xD)
The format doesn't matter. Consistent teams will prevail in a league format, "clutch" teams showing up for the big games will enjoy cup success.
What matters is the actual level of teams competing. Teams competing for the UCL title are obviously stronger, it is more difficult for any team to win the title than to win the PL. Throw Bayern, Real and Barcelona in the PL I doubt MU would have had as much success.
The fans can value the league title more because of domestic rivalries, history, etc. There is nothing wrong with that. But it is more difficult to win the UCL than the PL.
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
I know that you are way more knowledgeable in football than I ever will be but I have been arguing about this with my friend for so long.
Suppose you Manchester United win the league with an one point advantage of Chelsea. What difference does it make? I mean, do you really get to call Manchester United the better team because of that one point which could have been simply due to a lucky deflection into a goal? If you win the Champions League (with some of the best teams across Europe), I would say that is a way better testament to your skill rather than winning the Premier League which is against teams only in England. Sure you may not play the BEST team on your way to the final of Champions League, but you will play very good teams.
In the end, stripped down to its purest form, Premier League is basically a qualification for the Champions League. If Manchester United win the league with Chelsea in second, its good for Manchester. However, if Chelsea win the Champions League, it will be better for them.
I have always compared it to the conferences in the NBA. You have 2 conferences which select the 16 teams that go into the playoffs. Winning the conference is a big deal, no doubt, but if a fourth-place team gets into the finals and wins, that is even a bigger deal.
EDIT: Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have always wondered why Premier League > Champions League to some.
Its because often in football the worst team wins. Football is a numbers game, a better team wins more an average. So you can take a team like barca or bayern and pit them against teams from all leagues and levels, and if they play enough games they will easily loose to some terrible teams on occasion. So what this means is that cup competition is a luck game, sure the better team has a much better chance but ultimately the performance on the day rather than the quality of the team and professionalism over a long period, wins. But to win the league, your team has to be consistently the best team, yes you could argue that the top 3 is down to luck, 3rd could be 1st, but eventually you will win the league if you keep the standard up. A cup competition though can come down to one bad event. One bad ref decision with a red card, one injury of your best striker for a game, one upset stomach of a defender on the pitch at the wrong time distracting him at the crucial moment, one rare fumble of a world class goalkeeper, a player that falls over on the slippery grass just before scoring. These things can make the difference, despite a team being better. So the point is cup competitions have a large element of luck, you have to be vastly better than all of your opponents to get consistent success, and even barca haven't managed back to back European success at their prime says how much pot luck there is.
I love the European League Football system but I would say that the "playoff" type atmosphere of the CL post group stage tests a team in ways that individual games do not. There is an added pressure in playoff/elimination situations that one doesn't experience in league competition. Every minute of every game is vital, and the ability to perform under that pressure is, I think, one of the single greatest traits of champions.
Slips, fumbles, distractions. Those are mistakes that deserve to be punished, the CL just means they are higher stakes.
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
I know that you are way more knowledgeable in football than I ever will be but I have been arguing about this with my friend for so long.
Suppose you Manchester United win the league with an one point advantage of Chelsea. What difference does it make? I mean, do you really get to call Manchester United the better team because of that one point which could have been simply due to a lucky deflection into a goal? If you win the Champions League (with some of the best teams across Europe), I would say that is a way better testament to your skill rather than winning the Premier League which is against teams only in England. Sure you may not play the BEST team on your way to the final of Champions League, but you will play very good teams.
In the end, stripped down to its purest form, Premier League is basically a qualification for the Champions League. If Manchester United win the league with Chelsea in second, its good for Manchester. However, if Chelsea win the Champions League, it will be better for them.
I have always compared it to the conferences in the NBA. You have 2 conferences which select the 16 teams that go into the playoffs. Winning the conference is a big deal, no doubt, but if a fourth-place team gets into the finals and wins, that is even a bigger deal.
EDIT: Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have always wondered why Premier League > Champions League to some.
I'll try and answer point by point, but this is only my opinion, others will no doubt give their input.
If United win the league by 1 point then you can look back over the other 37 league games and think to yourself damn if we didn't draw here and won we would of been champions. Thats why winning a league over 38 games proves who was better for the whole season, even if it was a lucky deflection goal, you were still 1 point behind after 38 games. If you win the champions league you might of done it without playing Real Madrid or Barcelona. The year Liverpool won it they beat a good Juventus team in the quarter final thats to 2 goals at home and a 0-0 in Turin, they didn't have to play Barcelona Real Madrid Bayern Munchen or the PSV team who were good back then. They played Chelsea and beat them thanks to a "ghost goal" and then one the final (1 off game anything can happen, and it did). They were far from the best team that year, but they won and it got to call themselves the champions of Europe which i think is a bit harsh. They finished that year 5th in the league as well....You can go back through a few wins Chelsea etc and see a few champions that avoided the big clubs.
Winning the league though is being the best of 38 games, not just 4 two legged ties and a 1 off final. Anything can happen in finals, from turning around a 3-0 half time defecit, to scoring in the 1st minute and /defending for the rest.
Your points are valid of course, but in terms of being the best, you have to beat the best. Week in week out as well, the reason why winning any league across Europe is a very good feat, even if the league isn't that competitive, the lesser European leagues. But still being the best over 30 odd games and 8months shows true champion spirit, winning the Champions league ALWAYS has luck involved, winning a League does not.
But back in the past, the Champions League was exactly what it said "Champions of the Leagues" where only the winner of each league would go into the competition. Wasn't until 1992? I think it was where it changed and it opened up into allowing 2nd 3rd placed teams, then it expanded a bit more and more leagues were allowed more entrants due to how good there teams performed in the competition. So i think it is worst and degrades to competition more when a team who hasn't even done well in their domestic league wins the Champions League. Finihing 2nd and winning it is ok, but finishing 3rd or 4th shouldn't win it, meant that they couldn't beat their rivals.
Just the reason why i think League > Champions League in current format. In the old Format of it being just Champions of each leave vs eachother in 2 legged knock out games, then i would say Champs League > Domestic. Or until they bring out the proper Champions League, where it becomes a League system where everyone plays eachother and whoever has the most points at the end of it wins it, will it be better than the Domestic League.
Also like the playoffs your American leagues use, don't you think it's a bit unfair a team who dominates the season, finishes top of the whole league system, with the most wins and fewest losses, could end up losing to a ranked 8th team in the playoffs because they had a few injuries or justs didn't have a very good game? Would you call those the winners even though they only just about scrapped into the playoffs on a wildcard? (this might be very innacurate wording, but the point still stands xD)
I'll try to answer your points as best I can while also trying to answer UdderChaos's as well.
Throughout Premier League games, there will be a whole lot of luck involved as well. I mean, if a team has a off day in a quarterfinal, then they it can certainly have plenty of off days in Premier League games as well. I mean, there are plenty of goals that are scored simply by lucky deflection, stupid roll of the ball, etc, etc. Sure, you can say it happens in Champions League during the course of the games, but it will happen in Premier League games as well at about the same frequency.
As for your point of not playing the best teams. I have to give that to you. That is simply the luck of the draw and it has very little to do with skill or something.
Finally, your point of American playoffs. In the NBA, we have BO7 series, so it is clear that usually the better team will move on. This year, we can see the best example of that. The Bulls, a fifth ranked team beat the Heat in the first game of their series but then the Heat demolished them the rest of the way. So that is why I support a BO7 or any BoX situation simply because the better team will win. That is also why NFL playoffs suck because you play one game to decide a winner and plenty of times the worst team wins.
EDIT: I think we can all say one thing though: For a competitive TEAM, winning the Champions League is the ultimate goal. There is no other way to put it. For the fans and for the purpose of comparing, the situation does get stickier.
It's definately more diffcult to win the the Champions league. Every club is great and one loss knocks you out. However the very nature of knock out torunments means that the best team doesn't always win.
edit:I'll add that Wigan won the FA Cup last year they where definately not the best team in England last year.
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
I know that you are way more knowledgeable in football than I ever will be but I have been arguing about this with my friend for so long.
Suppose you Manchester United win the league with an one point advantage of Chelsea. What difference does it make? I mean, do you really get to call Manchester United the better team because of that one point which could have been simply due to a lucky deflection into a goal? If you win the Champions League (with some of the best teams across Europe), I would say that is a way better testament to your skill rather than winning the Premier League which is against teams only in England. Sure you may not play the BEST team on your way to the final of Champions League, but you will play very good teams.
In the end, stripped down to its purest form, Premier League is basically a qualification for the Champions League. If Manchester United win the league with Chelsea in second, its good for Manchester. However, if Chelsea win the Champions League, it will be better for them.
I have always compared it to the conferences in the NBA. You have 2 conferences which select the 16 teams that go into the playoffs. Winning the conference is a big deal, no doubt, but if a fourth-place team gets into the finals and wins, that is even a bigger deal.
EDIT: Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have always wondered why Premier League > Champions League to some.
I'll try and answer point by point, but this is only my opinion, others will no doubt give their input.
If United win the league by 1 point then you can look back over the other 37 league games and think to yourself damn if we didn't draw here and won we would of been champions. Thats why winning a league over 38 games proves who was better for the whole season, even if it was a lucky deflection goal, you were still 1 point behind after 38 games. If you win the champions league you might of done it without playing Real Madrid or Barcelona. The year Liverpool won it they beat a good Juventus team in the quarter final thats to 2 goals at home and a 0-0 in Turin, they didn't have to play Barcelona Real Madrid Bayern Munchen or the PSV team who were good back then. They played Chelsea and beat them thanks to a "ghost goal" and then one the final (1 off game anything can happen, and it did). They were far from the best team that year, but they won and it got to call themselves the champions of Europe which i think is a bit harsh. They finished that year 5th in the league as well....You can go back through a few wins Chelsea etc and see a few champions that avoided the big clubs.
Winning the league though is being the best of 38 games, not just 4 two legged ties and a 1 off final. Anything can happen in finals, from turning around a 3-0 half time defecit, to scoring in the 1st minute and /defending for the rest.
Your points are valid of course, but in terms of being the best, you have to beat the best. Week in week out as well, the reason why winning any league across Europe is a very good feat, even if the league isn't that competitive, the lesser European leagues. But still being the best over 30 odd games and 8months shows true champion spirit, winning the Champions league ALWAYS has luck involved, winning a League does not.
But back in the past, the Champions League was exactly what it said "Champions of the Leagues" where only the winner of each league would go into the competition. Wasn't until 1992? I think it was where it changed and it opened up into allowing 2nd 3rd placed teams, then it expanded a bit more and more leagues were allowed more entrants due to how good there teams performed in the competition. So i think it is worst and degrades to competition more when a team who hasn't even done well in their domestic league wins the Champions League. Finihing 2nd and winning it is ok, but finishing 3rd or 4th shouldn't win it, meant that they couldn't beat their rivals.
Just the reason why i think League > Champions League in current format. In the old Format of it being just Champions of each leave vs eachother in 2 legged knock out games, then i would say Champs League > Domestic. Or until they bring out the proper Champions League, where it becomes a League system where everyone plays eachother and whoever has the most points at the end of it wins it, will it be better than the Domestic League.
Also like the playoffs your American leagues use, don't you think it's a bit unfair a team who dominates the season, finishes top of the whole league system, with the most wins and fewest losses, could end up losing to a ranked 8th team in the playoffs because they had a few injuries or justs didn't have a very good game? Would you call those the winners even though they only just about scrapped into the playoffs on a wildcard? (this might be very innacurate wording, but the point still stands xD)
I'll try to answer your points as best I can while also trying to answer UdderChaos's as well.
Throughout Premier League games, there will be a whole lot of luck involved as well. I mean, if a team has a off day in a quarterfinal, then they it can certainly have plenty of off days in Premier League games as well. I mean, there are plenty of goals that are scored simply by lucky deflection, stupid roll of the ball, etc, etc. Sure, you can say it happens in Champions League during the course of the games, but it will happen in Premier League games as well at about the same frequency.
As for your point of not playing the best teams. I have to give that to you. That is simply the luck of the draw and it has very little to do with skill or something.
Finally, your point of American playoffs. In the NBA, we have BO7 series, so it is clear that usually the better team will move on. This year, we can see the best example of that. The Bulls, a fifth ranked team beat the Heat in the first game of their series but then the Heat demolished them the rest of the way. So that is why I support a BO7 or any BoX situation simply because the better team will win. That is also why NFL playoffs suck because you play one game to decide a winner and plenty of times the worst team wins.
EDIT: I think we can all say one thing though: For a competitive TEAM, winning the Champions League is the ultimate goal. There is no other way to put it. For the fans and for the purpose of comparing, the situation does get stickier.
Yeah very true the NBA playoffs not the best example i could think off.
But in a league system where you play every team which in the Premier League is what, Man Utd - Man City - Chelsea - Arsenal - Tottenham - Liverpool - Everton and maybe Swansea now which will be TOUGH good quality games of football, which teams going all out with great players. In the Champions league more often that not you don't play that level of team until the Round of 16 sometimes not until the round of 8. Getting out of your group for the 8 seeded teams is quite easy, but not for the other 48. Then in the Round of 16, 90% of the time the top 8 will get into the RO8, then it starts to get really tough. With the top teams playing eachother and the true games starting. So that competition doesn't really "get interesting" until March/April time, due to the big teams finally playing the big teams. I know your point your trying to make, but the fact is that there are just as much, maybe even more if you think those 7 teams you play of good level in the league system in England twice, thats 14 hard games a season whilst in the Champions league you get 5, if you count 2legs of RO8 and 2legs of RO4 and 1Final. Premier league, 38 games show that its whoever has the best points from 38 games is the better team. Not just out of a total of 13 in the champions league. And the group stage is 4x easy games (equiv of games vs West Ham/Aston Villa in the league in England for example) and 2 tougher games (equivilant of Swansea) then the tournament starts imo.
Of course opinions and that are a big factor in this debate.
Yeah winning the Champions league is awesome, i do agree a huge feat. But winning it once in 5 years is probably fine, and the other 4 you win the domestic league you will still be as happy and pleased with yourself. You don't have to win the Champions League every year to feel your the best imo
i dont think u can say that the quality in the champions league groups is lower than the premier league,if man city and chelsea werent even able to come out of them last season.
On August 13 2013 23:25 warding wrote: The other peculiar thing about English fans is that many would rather see their club win the Premier League than winning the Champions League. Isn't that true?
Yeah i would say that. I mean winning the Premier League being the best team playing everyone 2 times, over the course of 8months is better than winning the Champions League, not due to it being a better cup, just it being a better example of who is the best. The best team in Europe doesn't always win the league. Chelsea won it the other year, we were not the best team in Europe that year, however that does balance out the times when i personally think we have been the best in Europe, twice as a matter of fact. When we lost to Yanited on penalties i thought we were better squad wise and player to player wise. Then when we lost to Barcelona in 2010 i personally think our squad was much better than any other in Europe and we deserved to get to the final. But coming back onto the point, the best team doesn't always win the competition, Chelsea Liverpool wins are all good points that they weren't the best in the competition, and being a knock out competition and not having to play every top team means that if you turn up on the day and get that luck you can win the whole thing. You can't do that in a league system where you play the best teams every week (or in the premierships case, good teams every week with some top games too). Thats why i think id rather be champions of England more times than champions of Europe. Yanited dominated English league wins under Fergie and it showed, they were up there every year challenging for that title, yet on the European level they have only won the cup twice under Fergie (vs Chelsea in 2008 and Bayern in 1998) and only reached the final on one other occasion losing to Barcelona in Wembley 2-0. Yet Fergie still is one of the best managers in the world.
I know that you are way more knowledgeable in football than I ever will be but I have been arguing about this with my friend for so long.
Suppose you Manchester United win the league with an one point advantage of Chelsea. What difference does it make? I mean, do you really get to call Manchester United the better team because of that one point which could have been simply due to a lucky deflection into a goal? If you win the Champions League (with some of the best teams across Europe), I would say that is a way better testament to your skill rather than winning the Premier League which is against teams only in England. Sure you may not play the BEST team on your way to the final of Champions League, but you will play very good teams.
In the end, stripped down to its purest form, Premier League is basically a qualification for the Champions League. If Manchester United win the league with Chelsea in second, its good for Manchester. However, if Chelsea win the Champions League, it will be better for them.
I have always compared it to the conferences in the NBA. You have 2 conferences which select the 16 teams that go into the playoffs. Winning the conference is a big deal, no doubt, but if a fourth-place team gets into the finals and wins, that is even a bigger deal.
EDIT: Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have always wondered why Premier League > Champions League to some.
I'll try and answer point by point, but this is only my opinion, others will no doubt give their input.
If United win the league by 1 point then you can look back over the other 37 league games and think to yourself damn if we didn't draw here and won we would of been champions. Thats why winning a league over 38 games proves who was better for the whole season, even if it was a lucky deflection goal, you were still 1 point behind after 38 games. If you win the champions league you might of done it without playing Real Madrid or Barcelona. The year Liverpool won it they beat a good Juventus team in the quarter final thats to 2 goals at home and a 0-0 in Turin, they didn't have to play Barcelona Real Madrid Bayern Munchen or the PSV team who were good back then. They played Chelsea and beat them thanks to a "ghost goal" and then one the final (1 off game anything can happen, and it did). They were far from the best team that year, but they won and it got to call themselves the champions of Europe which i think is a bit harsh. They finished that year 5th in the league as well....You can go back through a few wins Chelsea etc and see a few champions that avoided the big clubs.
Winning the league though is being the best of 38 games, not just 4 two legged ties and a 1 off final. Anything can happen in finals, from turning around a 3-0 half time defecit, to scoring in the 1st minute and /defending for the rest.
Your points are valid of course, but in terms of being the best, you have to beat the best. Week in week out as well, the reason why winning any league across Europe is a very good feat, even if the league isn't that competitive, the lesser European leagues. But still being the best over 30 odd games and 8months shows true champion spirit, winning the Champions league ALWAYS has luck involved, winning a League does not.
But back in the past, the Champions League was exactly what it said "Champions of the Leagues" where only the winner of each league would go into the competition. Wasn't until 1992? I think it was where it changed and it opened up into allowing 2nd 3rd placed teams, then it expanded a bit more and more leagues were allowed more entrants due to how good there teams performed in the competition. So i think it is worst and degrades to competition more when a team who hasn't even done well in their domestic league wins the Champions League. Finihing 2nd and winning it is ok, but finishing 3rd or 4th shouldn't win it, meant that they couldn't beat their rivals.
Just the reason why i think League > Champions League in current format. In the old Format of it being just Champions of each leave vs eachother in 2 legged knock out games, then i would say Champs League > Domestic. Or until they bring out the proper Champions League, where it becomes a League system where everyone plays eachother and whoever has the most points at the end of it wins it, will it be better than the Domestic League.
Also like the playoffs your American leagues use, don't you think it's a bit unfair a team who dominates the season, finishes top of the whole league system, with the most wins and fewest losses, could end up losing to a ranked 8th team in the playoffs because they had a few injuries or justs didn't have a very good game? Would you call those the winners even though they only just about scrapped into the playoffs on a wildcard? (this might be very innacurate wording, but the point still stands xD)
I'll try to answer your points as best I can while also trying to answer UdderChaos's as well.
Throughout Premier League games, there will be a whole lot of luck involved as well. I mean, if a team has a off day in a quarterfinal, then they it can certainly have plenty of off days in Premier League games as well. I mean, there are plenty of goals that are scored simply by lucky deflection, stupid roll of the ball, etc, etc. Sure, you can say it happens in Champions League during the course of the games, but it will happen in Premier League games as well at about the same frequency.
As for your point of not playing the best teams. I have to give that to you. That is simply the luck of the draw and it has very little to do with skill or something.
Finally, your point of American playoffs. In the NBA, we have BO7 series, so it is clear that usually the better team will move on. This year, we can see the best example of that. The Bulls, a fifth ranked team beat the Heat in the first game of their series but then the Heat demolished them the rest of the way. So that is why I support a BO7 or any BoX situation simply because the better team will win. That is also why NFL playoffs suck because you play one game to decide a winner and plenty of times the worst team wins.
EDIT: I think we can all say one thing though: For a competitive TEAM, winning the Champions League is the ultimate goal. There is no other way to put it. For the fans and for the purpose of comparing, the situation does get stickier.
Yeah very true the NBA playoffs not the best example i could think off.
But in a league system where you play every team which in the Premier League is what, Man Utd - Man City - Chelsea - Arsenal - Tottenham - Liverpool - Everton and maybe Swansea now which will be TOUGH good quality games of football, which teams going all out with great players. In the Champions league more often that not you don't play that level of team until the Round of 16 sometimes not until the round of 8. Getting out of your group for the 8 seeded teams is quite easy, but not for the other 48. Then in the Round of 16, 90% of the time the top 8 will get into the RO8, then it starts to get really tough. With the top teams playing eachother and the true games starting. So that competition doesn't really "get interesting" until March/April time, due to the big teams finally playing the big teams. I know your point your trying to make, but the fact is that there are just as much, maybe even more if you think those 7 teams you play of good level in the league system in England twice, thats 14 hard games a season whilst in the Champions league you get 5, if you count 2legs of RO8 and 2legs of RO4 and 1Final. Premier league, 38 games show that its whoever has the best points from 38 games is the better team. Not just out of a total of 13 in the champions league. And the group stage is 4x easy games (equiv of games vs West Ham/Aston Villa in the league in England for example) and 2 tougher games (equivilant of Swansea) then the tournament starts imo.
Of course opinions and that are a big factor in this debate.
Yeah winning the Champions league is awesome, i do agree a huge feat. But winning it once in 5 years is probably fine, and the other 4 you win the domestic league you will still be as happy and pleased with yourself. You don't have to win the Champions League every year to feel your the best imo
I think its a matter of opinions. When you ask a team, would they rather win a Champions League or Premier League, I bet they would say Champions League. Of course now, its nearly impossible to win Champions League in a row and therefore, smaller cups and league titles are also important as well. But if a team could decide, they would choose Champions League any day of the year.
The argument is boiling down to which takes more luck: Premier League or Champions League and that in itself, is a trivial argument which is unnecessary to have because we can pull out countless examples and stuff. I do agree with the overall conclusion that winning Premier League takes much more consistency.
Personally, I have always thought that Champions League is a competition throughout the teams of Europe, each battling to make it to #1 and therefore it is a bigger title than Premier League. It is also why I would rather that Barcelona (my favorite team) win Champions League rather than the La Liga title. Sort of like Concacaf vs World Cup. Sure if U.S win Concacaf Gold Cup, it is a big deal but winning the World Cup against teams from anywhere is a bigger deal to me. I don't know if the analogy works the best tho.
But yea, it is mostly differing opinions on an issue in which one person can take either side and not exactly be wrong.
On August 14 2013 03:40 Windwaker wrote: i dont think u can say that the quality in the champions league groups is lower than the premier league,if man city and chelsea werent even able to come out of them last season.
Don't think that was the point. You only have to play 7 good games to win the CL though, it's less of a test of consistency. Yet you could say the same thing about the World Cup...and people lose their minds over it. What could also make a difference in the domestic leagues is also that you can beat or rank higher than long-term opponents, whose teams and fans you see more often. For example, Everton finishing above Liverpool is only big because of the rivalry...
On August 14 2013 03:40 Windwaker wrote: i dont think u can say that the quality in the champions league groups is lower than the premier league,if man city and chelsea werent even able to come out of them last season.
Don't think that was the point. You only have to play 7 good games to win the CL though, it's less of a test of consistency. Yet you could say the same thing about the World Cup...and people lose their minds over it. What could also make a difference in the domestic leagues is also that you can beat or rank higher than long-term opponents, whose teams and fans you see more often. For example, Everton finishing above Liverpool is only big because of the rivalry...
On August 14 2013 03:40 Windwaker wrote: i dont think u can say that the quality in the champions league groups is lower than the premier league,if man city and chelsea werent even able to come out of them last season.
Don't think that was the point. You only have to play 7 good games to win the CL though, it's less of a test of consistency. Yet you could say the same thing about the World Cup...and people lose their minds over it. What could also make a difference in the domestic leagues is also that you can beat or rank higher than long-term opponents, whose teams and fans you see more often. For example, Everton finishing above Liverpool is only big because of the rivalry...
Woop someone got it :D LOL
that u have to be more consistent to win a league rather than a cup, no matter what cup and what league u are playing in, is obvious for me.
i just dont agree with your statement about the quality of groupstages. ofc there are easy groups with 2 top teams and two bad ones who are probably worse than a lot of premier league team, but there is also the possibilty for really tough groups like last season group d with real, city, bvb and ajax or group e with chelsea, juve and shakthar. and the chance of deathgroups is even higher this season with dortmund, galatasaray and maybe juve, napoli or city in seeding pot 3. (napoli could even go down to pot 4, juve or city up to pot 2, depending on which teams will qualify) . and even if u are in one of the easier groups u want to be first to get a supposedly easier opponent, and in the last season from the 8 teams out of pot 1 only 3 teams(bayern, barca and man utd) were able to do that. so i think its fair enough to say that u need 13 good games to win a ucl and not 7.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EJPiCic.jpg)
