Roiling football blather

[baboon2004]

In other debates: will Chelsea EVER win the CL? They seem unlucky to be around at a time when there are two teams with reasonably legitimate claims to (semi) greatness. The gods of football also seem to be against them. But then Ranieri (much as I like the man) should never have thrown away that chance vs Monaco. if he hadn't, i get the feeling things would've been very different.

 

[IdleRich]

"Since economics play a far more dominant role than in the past, with most top domestic leagues effectively reduced to 3 or 4 contenders and the CL itself to maybe 8 at a push, how much of an achievement is it if one of those 8 notches up consecutive wins?"

Well, the argument sounds right but the fact that no-one has managed it suggests to me that it isn't.

 

[baboon2004]

Well, the argument sounds right but the fact that no-one has managed it suggests to me that it isn't.

Also, teams like Roma, Valencia, Lyon etc may not WIN the CL (too many games), but in a one-off knockout can take anyone out. So there are only 8 contenders to win it, but there are a hell of a lot more potential banana skins to negotiate.

 

[crackerjack]

BUT when you won it once, you were automatically in the next year but many of the big clubs in Europe weren't (ie were this to be the case next season, United, should they win tonight, would not have to negotiate Liverpool, Chelsea, Real, Bayern, Milan or Juve), setting the scene up for teams winning it multiple times in a row (best example being Notts Forest, who won more times than they won the First Division). For example, neither Ajax nor Bayern were champions every year before they won the EC in the '70s.

Sure, but to qualify as holders you have to win the damn thing, and to do that you have to win your league in the first place. It's now entirely possible to appear in the CL every single year just by being one of the best 2, 3, or 4 teams in your own league, but never actually winning it. The cumulative economic advantage over your domestic opponents is enormous.

united 68:
1st round - paola hibernians (malta)
2nd round - fk sarajevo (yugoslavia)
3rd round - gornik zabrze (poland)
semi final - real madrid (spain)
final - benfica (portugal)

united 08:
group stage - roma (italy), sporting lisbon (portugal), dinamo kiev (ukraine)
1/8 finals - lyon (france)
quarter finals - roma (italy)
semi finals - barcelona (spain)
final - chelsea (england)

Point taken, but how good are, say, Lyon in the scheme of things, by which I mean the last 16 of the CL, not the French league or CL qualifying groups? It's entirely possible that you think these teams are better than they are simply because they appear in the CL every year.

And yeah, those old Eastern bloc clubs might not look much, but I'll bet your average Polish title winner was a lot better in 1968 than in 2009, when any Polish national who can cut it at the top level has emigrated to the rich leagues.

 

[crackerjack]

So there are only 8 contenders to win it, but there are a hell of a lot more potential banana skins to negotiate.

See my point above - almost anyone from a decent footballing country was a potential banana skin in the 60s and 70s.

 

[don_quixote]

And yeah, those old Eastern bloc clubs might not look much, but I'll bet your average Polish title winner was a lot better in 1968 than in 2009, when any Polish national who can cut it at the top level has emigrated to the rich leagues.

completely agree, but in 1968 these clubs were dominated by home country players like you say. we've got no fair comparison, but i'd say manchester uniteds superstars now could walk over the polish national team. although is that the point we're making?

 

[crackerjack]

completely agree, but in 1968 these clubs were dominated by home country players like you say. we've got no fair comparison, but i'd say manchester uniteds superstars now could walk over the polish national team. although is that the point we're making?

I agree they could, but no, it's not.

 

[IdleRich]

"See my point above - almost anyone from a decent footballing country was a potential banana skin in the 60s and 70s."

But if it's not harder to retain then why has no team retained it?
Perhaps it's just coincidence. I mean, I guess we were seconds away from having the same final as last time.

 

[don_quixote]

if uefa had any guts they'd let national leagues merge. a collective scandinavian league would be stronger than their individual parts, just as a former yugoslavian league would be.

a slovak/czech/austrian/hungary/swiss league could be something.

the scrap the uefa cup/europa league and let all of them into the bigger champions league. there's space for an extra round so have 16 groups WITHOUT SEEDING beyond seperating those from the same country...

ok, moving towards anarchy, but pandering towards the "traditions" is damaging the sport. in reality what possibly should happen is a fully audited european super league with investment ceilings, wage caps and universal taxation systems - all players contracted to uefa?? that would preserve the national game as well.

(i realise this is a nightmarish vision of the future of european football, but classic sides like red star belgrade, legia warsaw, dinamo kiev, croatia zagreb, olympiakos, rapid vienna, ferencvaros, cska sofia... you can't let these teams die on a european stage!! they have history)

 

[scottdisco]

obvious observations re top teams - toward a general conclusion

(1) the best players (indeed, players in general, but especially at the biggest clubs) these days are fitter and better looked after by their employers than decades ago

(2) the best teams these days have many, many times greater an economic advantage over lesser rivals than was the case decades ago, enabling them to continue entrenching this inequality and enhancing it in the foreseeable

(3) the very best players are concentrated more and more in a smaller grouping of teams because as soon as someone becomes a hot topic, they are snapped up by a big boy

(4) Peter Kenyon is a cock

(i realise we are all agreed on these points and i am not saying anything fresh or insightful.)

the CL these days has some crazy super-muscular playground bullies compared to a load of buff but realistically toned geezers of yesteryear

 

[don_quixote]

yeah completely agree on all those points.

but

what is the point of the sport?

big parties here are:
the clubs - who either want to preserve the norm or make more money for themselves
the national associations - who make money from the strength of their national competitions and their national teams. they want their national teams to be strong, but realise the strength is in the clubs.
the international associations...
uefa - who sit upon the biggest sporting cash cow in europe but are desperately trying the rein in the ex-g12 or whatever they call themselves to protect the breadth of competition for all their members.
fifa - who want a slice of the club pie and want to preserve international sport as that's their cash cow, and if they lose ground they're gonna look like fools. also they need the little nations to back them up.

so we're in a position of the 'least bad' between the associations and the clubs and it's damaging the competitivity for the fans, although not entirely lessening the spectacle.

 

[crackerjack]

But if it's not harder to retain then why has no team retained it?

Well it's still fairly early days, and I don' think that stat is going to hold much longer. The gene pool of tob clubs is dwindling all the time - see here -
number of different finalists in the last 5 years (incl this year) - 6
number of different finalists in the previous 5 years - 8
number of different finalists in the 5 years before that - 8

I can't be arsed working out the semi-finalists, but I'll bet money blind it reveals much the same pattern.

Let's look at it a slightly different way - really exceptional teams go in waves, often quite brief (Forest in the late 70s, Ajax early 70s), say 2-3 years. There may be more competition among the very top places now than there was in the past, making it harder for a Man U or Barca to dominate Europe the way Liverpool or Ajax or Bayern or Milan did once they'd built their great sides.

But the top teams are now so embedded, and the self-perpetuating nature of success in the modern age is so pronounced, that to my mind it's a lesser achievement now than it was 30 years ago.

 

[scottdisco]

so we're in a position of the 'least bad' between the associations and the clubs and it's damaging the competitivity for the fans, although not entirely lessening the spectacle.

agreed.

But the top teams are now so embedded, and the self-perpetuating nature of success in the modern age is so pronounced, that to my mind it's a lesser achievement now than it was 30 years ago.

agreed.

 

[crackerjack]

if uefa had any guts they'd let national leagues merge. a collective scandinavian league would be stronger than their individual parts, just as a former yugoslavian league would be.

a slovak/czech/austrian/hungary/swiss league could be something.

the scrap the uefa cup/europa league and let all of them into the bigger champions league. there's space for an extra round so have 16 groups WITHOUT SEEDING beyond seperating those from the same country...

Agree with the first two paras, not sure about the 3rd. Meaningful competition, with added fiancial power for 'lesser' leagues, is essential if we're going to redress this problem.

But I think you could stop there for the mo, see if these new merged leagues throw up any fresh top talent. The CL is already pretty fecking huge - wouldn't want it eating into domestic leagues anymore than it already has.

Hmm, in the time it took to type that para i think I've changed my mind - the Prem could certainly lose a couple more teams.

 

[don_quixote]

but cracker - this is what they want.

and to some extent, it's not entirely a bad thing. man utd vs barcelona is the type of match i want to see!

but the overemphasis on europe means that these desires become realities, but the side effect of this is the dearth of competition in national leagues. lyon, for example, were perpetual winners in france until this year. inter have dominated the italian league for a few years now. barca and real madrid ran away again at the top in spain.

germany was interesting though.

the reducing pool of teams making the later stages was the motivating factor of the champions league for the big teams.

i'm gonna do those semi finalists anyway
05-09 - man utd, arsenal, chelsea, liverpool, barcelona, ac milan, villareal, psv (8)
00-04 - porto, monaco, chelsea, deportivo, juventus, real madrid, inter, ac milan, barcelona, man utd, bayer leverkusen, leeds, valencia, bayern (15)

that's more than fluke. in fact the list of clubs speaks volumes.

i would suggest that the combination of premiership riches, extra champions league bonuses and a flukey first couple of seasons where all four teams finished in the top 4 has combined to make the top 4 in england mutant superclubs who perpetually qualify for the champions league and exceed themselves in the competition. they have gone beyond domination of simply england to domination of europe as well.

 

[don_quixote]

and not enough people in the media (david conn being an exception perhaps) are saying "is this right?". a lot of the time we are being spoonfed a myth that "this has always happened"

 

[scottdisco]

and not enough people in the media (david conn being an exception perhaps) are saying "is this right?". a lot of the time we are being spoonfed a myth that "this has always happened"

me banging my one-track drum again (apologies) but Conn got an awful lot of stick round here from readers of the Guardian's sis paper, the Evening News, about his beloved City during the first of their recent international takeovers..

 

[crackerjack]

but cracker - this is what they want..

It's an exciting prospect tonight, but I wonder if this is what they really want long term, and what the repercussions are.

CL attendances are, I believe, down almost everywhere except England. Dunno what TV figures are like across Europe and the world, but what will be the consequences of Man U v Chelsea followed by Man U v Barca followed by, say, Barca v Liverpool then Chelsea v Man U again?

This reminds me of that cunt Alex flynn, who wanted to reduce the top league to about 5 teams, making every match an 'event match'. Everyone else would just play local derbies half the time - not sure he understood that half the thrill of a derby is that it comes round twice a year.

 

[crackerjack]

I'm just waffling now. I' want to be the one who takes this thread onto page 100.

 

[crackerjack]

Damn