Now tell us who Man United faced in 1968 and why in the 1970s and 1980s,they didn't compete in the European Cup.I'll tell you why,you didn't get in europe for finishing in the bottom half of the league.Which Man United did except for 1980,1982 and 1988.
Thanks for once again proving my point. United in 1968 faced a much easier challenge than United did in 1999 and 2008. What would you rather face en route to the semi finals - Hibernians, Sarajevo and Górnik Zabrze, or Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Internazionale? Thus proving that the Champions League is much harder to win than the European Cup was. Make sure that foot's rammed in there nice and tight
Swarbs. You are right to some degree. However you have to beat whats in front of you.Thats what Liverpool did.If they didn't they wouldn't have won those trophies. When Liverpool won the CL in 2005.They battered Bayer Leverkusen who spanked Real Madrid in Germany in the group stages,in the qtrs they knocked out Juventus the then Italian champions,the semi chelsea the newly crowned premiership champions,and came from 3-0 down at half time to defeat AC Milan. Before you belittle Liverpools achievements.Have Man United beaten anyone in europe when 3-0 down at half time never mind AC Milan,and this was the same AC Milan that murdered Man United in the quarter finals.
I am not belittling any of Liverpool's achievements - I have just listed them as one of the great European sides alongside the great Ajax, Bayern and Milan teams. I have said before that Liverpool's record of five European Cups is unmatched by any English team. I only object to BringBackfootie's claim that you can only be a great team if you dominate Europe. That was the case back in the 1970s, 80s and early 90s, when European dominance was achievable. But right now it isn't. The Champions League is too competitive, and great teams like Juventus in the mid 90s, United in the late 90s, Real Madrid in the early 2000s and Barcelona over the last couple of years have been unable to dominate, whereas if the competition was still structured as it was in previous years they would probably have won two or three Champions Leagues apiece.
Yeah you're probably right.The proof of the pudding is even Barcelona the best team on the planet at the moment haven't managed to retain it.
Nope no way, this CL is easier, especialy with the seeding rubbish finish top and you got a handy tie, how many times have United faced a french side in the second round or quaters, a fair few times, when the competition was decent ye won nothing apart from 1999 when you were not nearly the best side in the rournament, lol 2005 I know, but there it is, ye didnt seserve it but ye won it anyway. I think you apart from a far below par Barca didnt have a challenge of real note in 2008 until the final. Funny how we see completely different things from the same fiixtures and 68 was one year, how weak your argument to judge an entire format spanning years on one of Manchester Uniteds very few wins how typical and arrogant of a United fan indeed ,A team can almost make the final and avoid almost every decent team sometimes in the CL and quite often make it to the semis without facing a proper test, this happens all too often. Manchester United Villareal Aalborg Celtic FC Unbited group 2008, your having laugh Swarbs, the European cup didnt throw up a bunch of ties like this, 6 of them ffs, I think you just cant argue around this, ye faced a poor inter, a poor aesenal and a good barca and got taken to school even with skippy in the squad Lisbon Roma D Kiev in 2007 Celtic FC Copenhagen Benfica this year No way is this comp format harder, ther are just more games, and teams with better resources have the advantage
Tell me you are wumming? Please tell me you are wumming cos this is the biggest crock of **** ever. You talk about having easy groups, but let's remember who Liverpool faced on the way to the final in their European Cups: 1977: Crusaders (NI?!), Trabonspor, St Etienne, FC Zurich 1978: Dynamo Dresden, Benfica, Borussia Mönchengladbach 1981: OPS (Finland?!), Aberdeen, CSKA Sofia, Bayern Munich 1984: Odense, Athletic Bilbao, Benfica, Dinamo Bucharest 1985: Lech Poznan, Benfica, Austria Vienna, Panathaniakos With the exception of Bayern Munich, and possibly Borussia Mönchengladbach and Benfica, every single one of those teams would have been eliminated in the qualifying rounds or groups stage of the Champions League. They wouldn't even appear in the knockout rounds of the Champions League. But they were the opposition in the knockout rounds, and even the semi finals, of the European Cup!! I mean are you seriously going to claim that FC Zurich, Dinamo Bucharest and Panathaniakos represent top class European semi final opposition? Zurich was a 6-1 walkover and Panathaniakos was a 5-0 walkover. You think they are of similar quality to Juventus with Zidane at his height in 1999, Barcelona with Messi in 2008, and Arsenal with Fabregas in 2009? It just doesn't compare mate, even KPR agrees the CL is much harder to consistently succeed in. Liverpool's dominance of Europe was a great achievement, but if any club could achieve similar dominance in the Champions League they would have to be a vastly superior side. The fact that no club has ever achieved even close to that level of dominance shows how difficult it is.
Swarbs. I did say that the CL is harder to win from the knock-out stages onwards. However.The old format was knock-out stages full stop.In the current format,you can win 2 games,draw four games and top the group.10 points is usually the point at which a team will qualify for the knock-out stages.You possibly can win your 3 home games,and lose 2 of your away games and draw the other and qualify. In the old format,you had to ensure that you scored more than the opposition over two legs or scored an away goal which counted as double.Exactly like the current knock-out format. There is however flaws in both formats.However back to the teams involved,in the old format,those teams earnt the right to be there in the first place.If Bayern Munich had won the title in 1976,they would have been in the competition in the 1976/1977 seasonIf Anderlecht,the biggest club in Belgium had won the league in 1977,they would have been in it.The thing that stops teams from dominating it is the number of teams in it.Not the standard of teams.Those that were in it were in it on merit.Its a money making racket on UEFA's behalf that caused the chances of one team dominating it to drop.I reckon its a good idea,more competition that one team isn't able to dominate it.Supposing if Barcelona won the next 4.The audience numbers would drop due to the fact that it would be as predictable as the SPL.The question would be asked ''Who's going to win it this year ah Barcelona.''So there is no point watching.Its the fact that there is a different winner every year makes it interesting.However,there is the achievement of winning it successively that makes a side a top side. Finally I'm not having a dig,but would you have a problem with the old format if Man United had to have retained the European Cup in 1969.Becoming the first English back to back winners,instead of Liverpool being the first back-to back winners.?
there's some good discussion here but i think there's some strange opinions. I don't know how anyone can fail to consider SAF a great manager for a start. Tactically i think in terms of preparation for a 2 leg tie then Mourinho and Benitez are right at the top. Say what you want about Benitez but he was excellent at setting his team up to get a result in the European format. I remember before the Champions League tie against Chelsea on the day of the game he promised that Liverpool would beat Chelsea. I remember at the time thinking that was pretty ballsy and rare of a manager and as it turned out we did. I think Ferguson has had most success against the bigger teams, especially in the premiership, when he has 5 runners in midfield and relies on their knack for grinding a goal out. It's something Wenger still hasn't figured out how to cope with. Ferguson has moulded Utd exactly how he wants them. They have a culture and a way of playing that makes all of their players winners, and that is hugely important. Utd rinsed the rise of the Premier League and big TV and sponsorship deals better than anyone and Ferguson has managed the team through it expertly but i think football has changed significantly over the last 5 years and the question is whether he will be around, or indeed have the capability, to get them through this ownership storm. As for Mourinho, i don't like his style of football so i'm not sure i'd want him here. He did a great job with Porto, a decent job with Chelsea, and a good job with Inter. He's doing fairly averagely with Real i think. I think Porto was the only club where he achieved above expectations, but then you can only win the trophies on offer. Interestingly a quote from Mourinho before his move to Chelsea: "Liverpool are a team that interests everyone and Chelsea does not interest me so much because it is a new project with lots of money invested in it. I think it is a project which, if the club fail to win everything, then [Roman] Abramovich could retire and take the money out of the club. It's an uncertain project. It is interesting for a coach to have the money to hire quality players but you never know if a project like this will bring success"
That is a very valid point. Although you could also get to the final of the European Cup by winning all your home games and losing / drawing the away games as long as you scored more at home. And the talent pool was so narrow that there were generally only three or four teams in it that could possibly knock you out. Let's be honest, of the 19 games I mentioned on the last page, it would have been a massive upset if Liverpool had lost to anyone apart from Bayern Munich, or possibly Benfica / Monchengladbach. They were in it on merit, but they were not necessarily the best teams - you often find that the champions of a league one season are not the best team in that league in the next season. Like Blackburn in 1995/96 or United in 2003/04. The thing that stops teams from dominating it is that it only takes one team to be better than them over two legs. Under the old format, one team had to be better than you, and they also had to have won their domestic league the previous season. So you didn't necessarily have to face the best performing teams in Europe under the old format, if they hadn't performed all that well the previous season. I don't have a problem with the old format, and in many ways it was better than the new one - the league system is a bit of a mickey take just designed to let the qualifying clubs and UEFA milk it for as much money as possible before some of them have to get knocked out. All I'm saying is that I think winning it under the current format is harder than under the old one, and dominating it is nearly impossible. I'd say the same thing even if United had won the old format four times. And to be honest, I don't think the United team of 68 deserved to be the first English team to retain the trophy. It was too reliant on individuals like Best, Charlton and Law to win games, rather than being a solid all round team like the Liverpool side in the 80s and United in the last couple of decades. I rate our 99 and 08 sides above the 68 side as quality teams. Even when Ronaldo was scoring for fun in 2008, we still had a solid team around him and were creating chances for him, rather than just looking for him to win matches on his own.
I made that point before that when it came to tactics Benitez was in fact ahead of both Ferguson and Mourinho.But Mourinho and Ferguson were both vastly superior man managers.However tactically Benitez wasn't flawless ie not going with pace against AC Milan in 2007. For a start Ferguson hasn't mastered the art of going at teams through the middle in Europe,their strength has always been from the wide areas.When the supply from wide is cut off,Man United have no answer.The was evident perfectly by Barcelona in 2009,when Barcelona's full-backs pushed Man Uniteds wingers so far back,they were playing in defence.This is also the reason why Ferguson has not invested in quality creative central midfielders.He has the strength out wide,so he can compensate for having cloggers like Fletcher,Carrick and Anderson in the centre.Its far easier to master going at teams from wide areas than it is through the middle.All you need to attack from wide is to either invest in wingers or play a back three and push up the fullbacks.Or do a chelsea play with a midfield three,and push the fullbacks up.However this isn't flawless either as Phil Scolari used it and it was found out after 10 games. Playing a 4-3-3 against a team that plays a 4-5-1 is also flawed.All systems are flawed if you don't have the personel,However this is where tactics come in.When Liverpool played Juventus in 2005,Juventus expected Liverpool to soak up pressure and hit on the break because Juventus in their own minds thought Liverpool weren't as good as them,well naturally.This was actually true.However Rafa set Liverpool up as if it were a premiership game,ie fast paced,going for the throat from the off.Juventus couldn't live with it.The only reason Liverpool conceded a goal was because they weren't able to do it for 90 minutes,for the simple reason they hadn't the players. Liverpool did likewise against Chelsea in the home leg.Chelsea had to change tactic whilst on the pitch,because the homework they did was wrong.Liverpool flew out of the traps and then switched to counter attack mode after they scored because they only knew too well that if they went toe to toe against Chelsea,they would be hammered.
KPR, why can't you write like that more often? You are one of the most knowledgable people on this site but too often to start petty arguments.
I would start writing stuff like that if Swarbs didn't make stupid comments like ''It will take Liverpool 4 years to qualify for the champions league''.''Liverpool are light years behind Spurs,City,Arsenal,Man United,and Chelsea.''. PS,I reckon the title is Arsenals to lose.If they win their last 9 games,they are champions.
Clearly it isn't theirs to lose, as we're top by 5 points... Plus it is Swarbs' opinion that it wont be easy for Liverpool to be champions... What's the big deal? Just because you seem to think it's a matter of time doesn't mean we all should.... You also seem to think this summer Liverpool will make the biggest steps forward, forgetting the spree Chelsea are likely to go on, and City are likely to go on...Widening the gap further, again.... and that's taking Arsenal and United out of the equation...
Firstly I don't think City will go on that expected spending spree that a lot of people think they will go on.They have already got a warning from UEFA and this is a strong report that they cannot maintain their current status ie spending more on players than they actually earn in revenue.This is before you take into account wages.Man City made losses of ã148 million in the last financial year.I reckon their spending is not going to be any way as high as it has been previously. Secondly.Its not about how much you spend,and Man United fans better than anyone should understand this,its what you spend your money on.Clever managers sign players for positions that are weak.Clueless managers sign players just because other clubs want them.Mark Hughes when he was City manager was culpable of this.Mancini seems to be just as bad. I reckon Kenny is well capable of getting it right.I did say 3 season and not ''a'' season.Thats enough time I reckon due to his overall knowledge of formations and players to turn Liverpool into champions.
