It's not an excuse it's a fact you plank! Before the ban Liverpool were dominant in Europe, United, Villa and Forest were all going strong too and others were improving all of the time, after the ban it took the best part of a decade before any English team made a mark on European football.
Cloughie did remarkably well and I rate him very highly. However with regards to your point about the Spanish and the Italians, there is such a thing as cycles. At that time, the Germans and the Dutch were all powerful. So that in someway counteracts that arguement. Physco2k, Manchester United weren't strong before or during the ban. You couldn't get into europe whilst finishing in 12th in the league.
United were a top four team for five seasons up to, and including, the year of the ban, they also won two FA Cups in that time, they may not of been a dominant force in Europe at that time but they were still consistently strong.
You could say the same about Shankly, with one European trophy to show from 14 or 15 years at Liverpool, but I doubt anyone would seriously claim he let himself down?! And the Germans and Dutch were far from all powerful when Paisley was in charge. The great Ajax and Bayern sides had gone, and there was no real competition to English clubs in the European Cup. Notts Forest and Aston Villa gave you more competition than any German or Dutch side in Europe at the time. The situation then was similar to what it is now, if Barcelona didn't exist. Unfortunately for Utd they do, else we'd have hit five already!
Swarbs. Didn't the Borrusia Moenchengladbach team Liverpool beat in 1977 have half the German 1974 world cup winning team in it,plus the 1977 European footballer of the year.? German football was strong from the early 70s up until the early 80s. Hamburg got to the final(1979), as did Bayern Munich in 1982, and the Cup winners cup final in 1985. Didn't Ajax win 3 on the trot in the 70s? Surely the Dutch were strong?
I'm not denying they were strong, relatively speaking, but to call them all powerful is a bit much imo. Borussia M did have a strong team, but only made a single final, and appeared in the UEFA cup as often as the European Cup. So nowhere near as strong as other great European sides like Inter, Ajax, Bayern, Liverpool and Milan at their dominant peaks. Ajax had a great side, but only until 73 when Cruyff left - after that they struggled to win the Erdedivisie let alone the EC. Ultimately I think you have to judge a manager based on the level of competition they face. In exactly the same way you couldn't criticise Shankly for being unable to compete with the great Ajax and Bayern sides in the early 70s, I think it's unfair to criticise SAF when he's had to compete with great Juventus, Real, Milan and now Barcelona sides, and imo in a tougher competition format. Don't get me wrong, Paisley's achievements in Europe still stand apart, and you can only beat the teams you are up against. It's just very difficult to try and make objective comparisons of the achievements of managers from such different eras.
Heysel was a tragedy but the europowers were only too glad to ban dominating english teams from Europe. Germany and Holland and Italy had many deaths a year from this sh!t in their own leagues. Eurotrash are not fond of you you know
I agree with that. Liverpool were the most hit from the ban, as every year of the ban they would have qualified for Europe.
"Hardly a collapse of the like that saw Milan ship three goals in five minutes, including the keeper letting in perhaps the tamest long shot of all time and Steven "I hate diving" Gerrard getting the sniper treatment after Gattuso brushed his knuckles...." More contact than there was on Young against QPR, and you conveniently forgot Nesta rolling on the floor and scooping the ball up with his arm as garcia was running past him in the penalty box.... "Btw, if we're mentioning luck then I can't believe no one has mentioned the 'ghost goal' in that semi fina" Absolutely. Would much rather have had the pen, Cech sent off and us play against 10 men for 89 minutes, as the ref said he would have done had the linesman not signalled a goal...
1973 when they sold Cruyff in fact. Took them four years to recover from that, and they reached one EC QF and one SF in the 12 year period between Cruyff leaving and the Heysel ban. But yeah, they were clearly dominant competitors on a par with Barcelona and Milan. Like he said, why let the truth get in the way?
Anyone who thinks that Chelsea beating Napoli, Barcelona and B. Munich purely due to luck and defending is deluded and/or bitter.
No. There were two Gladbach players in the 74 World Cup winning side/77 EC final. And Hamburg did not reach the EC final in 79. But why let truth get in the way of a good story.
What else did you do? Not being funny just wondering because everyone with eyes saw you defending for your lives and I cant think of a single none chelsea fan who would suggest you didnt have loads of luck ( as all CL winners have ). So considering you were not an attacking team and your strength was defending as a team I am pretty sure to say luck and defending is what won you the CL
Never said they were, just that the poster mae out that you didnt defend nor were you lucky. You did and you were, its was the biggest aspect to your success. No bad thing, Italian football is built around defending and its done pretty well.
