Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

2017/18 FA Cup Third Round Match Chat - 5-8th January 2018


football forum

Recommended Posts

The reason the European Cup was expanded into its present format of the Champions League wasn’t to make it more competitive or harder to win. It was created so as to bring more money into the sport and thus be able to pay the clubs a lot more in return.

How can one dispute that the only way to be able to participate was to be the champion of your respective national league?

Mediocrity wasn’t an option and to play, you had to win and not be a dessert or a pudding (choose the one that best suits)

Look at the past winners when it was called the European Cup, look at the players that made themselves club and worldwide heroes... The system may have been different but the same occured which is that the best tasted glory.

Managers like Brian Clough (because that’s where this debate has arisen from) should be revered in the game and not forgotten.  Managers like him CAN’T have someone like Arsene Wenger being seen as someone that’s given more to the game. I’m saying this without wanting to disrespect Wenger’s achievements for Arsenal or what he’s also given the English game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 449
  • Created
  • Last Reply
17 minutes ago, Lucas said:

The European Cup should never be diminished. It was much harder to win. And it was miles better. Miles.

If anything, I would question whether the quality of the Champions League has got worse by letting more and more average teams in when for example, you have someone like Bayern Munich going through 10-2 on aggregate in the last 16, when we should be entering the business end of the competition.

Not even close. I wonder if people even know what the old format even looks like. The champions of Malta, Luxembourg, Both Irelands, Cyprus, Albania, Finland, Iceland definitely make for a much more competitive competition... xD

People seem to be making the mistake that being a champion of a league puts you on equal footing with other champions of other leagues when in reality it necessarily doesn't mean that at all.

The European Cup was about being the best of the league champions (and no, not every league was strong, an obvious point but people like to pretend otherwise) whereas now it is more a case of being the best of the best.

Nottingham Forest's journey to their European Cups:

78/79:
Liverpool (Last 32) (2-0)
AEK Athens (Last 16) (7-2)
Grasshopper (QF) (5-2)
Koln (SF) (4-3)
Malmo (F) (1-0)

79/80:
Oster (Last 32) (3-1)
Arges Pitesti (Last 16) (4-1)
Dynamo Berlin (QF) (3-2)
Ajax (SF) (2-1)
Hamburg (F) (1-0)

Let's be kind and say 2 decent opponents each tournament. Wish it went back to those days... :dam:

As with most things in football in the distant past, once you take yourself out of the mythical narrative and start to actually look at things, they don't look that good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

What you were attempting to do was belittle their achievements by trying to diminish the European Cup, your comments are your opinion and it's one I totally disagree with. The Champions League is a weaker tournament, for me far less competitive with only the same few moneyed teams making the final rounds, the first half of it is a complete waste of time. 

This is true, but it's only because they let in so many shit teams because they won weak leagues. The current format may be more boring in that it's often the same teams in the later stages, but there's no doubt that it has more quality overall than the old format, even if the quality is initially diluted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 6666 said:

Not even close. I wonder if people even know what the old format even looks like. The champions of Malta, Luxembourg, Both Irelands, Cyprus, Albania, Finland, Iceland definitely make for a much more competitive competition... xD

People seem to be making the mistake that being a champion of a league puts you on equal footing with other champions of other leagues when in reality it necessarily doesn't mean that at all.

The European Cup was about being the best of the league champions (and no, not every league was strong, an obvious point but people like to pretend otherwise) whereas now it is more a case of being the best of the best.

Nottingham Forest's journey to their European Cups:

78/79:
Liverpool (Last 32) (2-0)
AEK Athens (Last 16) (7-2)
Grasshopper (QF) (5-2)
Koln (SF) (4-3)
Malmo (F) (1-0)

79/80:
Oster (Last 32) (3-1)
Arges Pitesti (Last 16) (4-1)
Dynamo Berlin (QF) (3-2)
Ajax (SF) (2-1)
Hamburg (F) (1-0)

Let's be kind and say 2 decent opponents each tournament. Wish it went back to those days... :dam:

As with most things in football in the distant past, once you take yourself out of the mythical narrative and start to actually look at things, they don't look that good.

You are so naïve.

You mentioned earlier with a sweeping generalisation that there were only 4/5 good teams in the tournament but you are silly to think that way when the likes of Hamburg, Benfica, Red Star Belgrade, Gothenburg, Marseille, Celtic, Rangers, Spartak Moscow, Porto, Ajax, Sparta Prague, Anderlecht etc (all teams that you would dismiss because they aren't 'relevant' now in the Champions League) were all forces to be reckoned with. These sides were tough sides to beat, and actually included many stars. The Hamburg side for example were brilliant, especially with the likes of Keegan spearheading the team.

The quality between sides back then was not as vastly superior as you see now because money was not as big a factor, so teams like Gothenburg from Sweden for example, were beating the likes of Barcelona, Man Utd etc. The competition was harder because the games were not as easier. You certainly didn't get the predictability and foregone conclusions that you get today with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern.

You specifically reference Forest, but they ended up winning their first European Cup when giants like Juventus, Liverpool, Real Madrid were in the competition. This is probably the equivalent of when Porto won the Champions League against Monaco a few years back. And yet it's one of the greatest underdog stories because they managed it twice.

Problem with you is, you've made a statement, and you are trying to back it up by simply going on Wikipedia and formulating your argument that way but you have no idea about football pre Champions League era because a) you were just a tadpole in your dad's nut sack and b) you are completely uneducated because Arsenal were nowhere to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 6666 said:

Not even close. I wonder if people even know what the old format even looks like. The champions of Malta, Luxembourg, Both Irelands, Cyprus, Albania, Finland, Iceland definitely make for a much more competitive competition... xD

People seem to be making the mistake that being a champion of a league puts you on equal footing with other champions of other leagues when in reality it necessarily doesn't mean that at all.

The European Cup was about being the best of the league champions (and no, not every league was strong, an obvious point but people like to pretend otherwise) whereas now it is more a case of being the best of the best.

Nottingham Forest's journey to their European Cups:

78/79:
Liverpool (Last 32) (2-0)
AEK Athens (Last 16) (7-2)
Grasshopper (QF) (5-2)
Koln (SF) (4-3)
Malmo (F) (1-0)

79/80:
Oster (Last 32) (3-1)
Arges Pitesti (Last 16) (4-1)
Dynamo Berlin (QF) (3-2)
Ajax (SF) (2-1)
Hamburg (F) (1-0)

Let's be kind and say 2 decent opponents each tournament. Wish it went back to those days... :dam:

As with most things in football in the distant past, once you take yourself out of the mythical narrative and start to actually look at things, they don't look that good.

This post has basically just lost you the debate. The fact that you are so arrogant to dismiss clubs based on their names tells us all we need to know, football hasn't always been about advertising and 'big clubs'.

It's to the detriment of European football that we now have only 3-4 leagues that can compete, at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lucas said:

You are so naïve.

You mentioned earlier with a sweeping generalisation that there were only 4/5 good teams in the tournament but you are silly to think that way when the likes of Hamburg, Benfica, Red Star Belgrade, Gothenburg, Marseille, Celtic, Rangers, Spartak Moscow, Porto, Ajax, Sparta Prague, Anderlecht etc (all teams that you would dismiss because they aren't 'relevant' now in the Champions League) were all forces to be reckoned with. These sides were tough sides to beat, and actually included many stars. The Hamburg side for example were brilliant, especially with the likes of Keegan spearheading the team.

The quality between sides back then was not as vastly superior as you see now because money was not as big a factor, so teams like Gothenburg from Sweden for example, were beating the likes of Barcelona, Man Utd etc. The competition was harder because the games were not as easier. You certainly didn't get the predictability and foregone conclusions that you get today with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern.

You specifically reference Forest, but they ended up winning their first European Cup when giants like Juventus, Liverpool, Real Madrid were in the competition. This is probably the equivalent of when Porto won the Champions League against Monaco a few years back. And yet it's one of the greatest underdog stories because they managed it twice.

Problem with you is, you've made a statement, and you are trying to back it up by simply going on Wikipedia and formulating your argument that way but you have no idea about football pre Champions League era because a) you were just a tadpole in your dad's nut sack and b) you are completely uneducated because Arsenal were nowhere to be seen.

Kevin Keegan won the Ballon d’Or while at Hamburg. Like I said before... Clubs could nurture talent and be competitive back in the day because elite clubs weren’t raping them for their youth back then. This has always been my argument with where football has gone!

What occurs as you rightly say is that those clubs no longer register in younger football fans’ minds and believe them to be mediocrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SirBalon said:

They were top sides in the day because youth wasn’t ripped from them back then.  Clubs could nurture and hold onto a golden generation.

Yes, every league in Europe was strong and packed full of strong sides back in the day... xD

If this discussion has proved anything it's that there are a lot of ignorant fans that buy into the narrative of football being a lot better long ago which isn't surprising as "football logic" gets perpetuated by the moronic football press and moronic football pundits. It's laughable.

Football was better when players didn't wear gloves and all boots were black. #MakeFootballGreatAgain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator

Brighton nearly go ahead straight away but Baldock's shot hit the post. Then Kayal balloons a golden chance over the bar. All Palace players went back on the line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrator
1 hour ago, Toony said:

Brighton deserved that last night, better team by a distance.

Is there just one replay on TV?

nah there'll be one on BT Sport on the Tuesday probably but that's yet to be confirmed.

EDIT: Our game vs Fleetwood is on TV. Ha. Not put off by how boring the last match was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was unpinned

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...