If you ever manage to get to OT ask one of the regular matchgoers why there are statues standing at the ground of people who only won an easy trophy, don't think you'll like their response but it might educate you a bit.
Do me a favour, you really do love to twist things. It was an EASIER tournament in those days, I'm not saying it was easy though, just EASIER than the modern CL. I fully respect and admire our side that won it in 1968, and I'm convinced they would have won it still even if it was the modern CL format, we had an outstanding side back then, Charlton and Law were great players, whilst Georgie Best is recognised as the greatest player the British Isles has ever produced. I myself though would rate him even higher than just best in the British Isles, he was just held back by the fact his national team was Northern Ireland, he was as good as Pele and Eusebio if you ask me
Bottom line is that both competitions were/are hard to win for differing reasons, but to dis the old format you dis your own clubs legends. Just remember football wasn't invented in the 90's and you won't go far wrong Shergar.
European Cup was so easy to win in the late 70s/early 80s. ordinary sides won it, Forest 80 (5th), Liverpool 81 (5th in league), Villa 82 (11th). And the finalists were a joke some years: Bruges, an awful Madrid side, Malmo etc. You would play a Irish club in front of 12k at Anfield in the first knock out phase and then need to beat may one good German or French side to win it. Italian (betting scandal) and Spanish club football was their lowest ebb in the late 70s and early 80s (the Spanish national side, Barca and Real were ordinary). As soon as Liverpool played a very high quality outfit in Juve, 85, they lost. That was probably the only outstanding side they had to play in a decade of European football. Gladbach, Forest, PSG and Roma were good not outstanding teams. Arsenal have had to play outstanding Bayern and Barca sides four years in a row. Sides that would wipe the floor with Sounness and co. Liverpool were obviously the best team in Europe from 76-84, say, but I cannot recall any legendary displays when they destroyed Real 5-0 etc (such as Milan 89 did) or Barca 4-0 such as Bayern last year. They did not need to be outstanding to win the comp. Even though Liverpool were a dreadful side in 2005 and Chelsea ordinary in 2012, they both still had to beat very good sides in Liverpool's case to win it (Chelsea Milan) and outstanding sides in Chelsea's case (Barca Bayern). And both these teams were incredibly lucky. I doubt we will see a side as bad as Liverpool in 2005 win the CL again or as lucky, who were embarrassing in Istanbul bar eight minutes. Chelsea were incredibly lucky too, not just v Barca and Bayern, but against Benfica and Napoli plus even to get out of our group. Valencia outplayed us but we won 3-0
I know this is more recent but - please log in to view this image P.S. The majority of the rest of your post is a load of bollox Morning
morning This match was from Champions League 2009 and kind of proves my point. You beat Real and then lost to Chelsea next round.You would have to beat Barca then United to win it. In European Cup days, you would have played one decent side like Real then got Anderlecht or Dynamo in the next round. Much easier to win
But we would have won it in 2009 (no Barca, Arsenal or Chelsea), and wouldn't have been knocked out when we were in 2000 (no Real), 2002 (no Leverkusen), 2010 (no Bayern), and 2012 (no Benfica). I agree that the old EC was harder to qualify for, but then qualifying as winners of the league wasn't a big problem for over the past two decades. The biggest problem was the fact that most big teams substantially improved their side after missing out on the title, and a large proportion of the teams that won it did so after not being champions the previous season.
To win it you have to quality as you pointed out, anyway both formats ended with the big trophy and as both of our clubs won both its over to London's Finest to tell us how LFC didn't deserve to win etc etc.
That's the biggest piece of drivel I've read for a while now, some really flawed logic from someone who didn't watch any of those tournaments. Really? I am wondering though, where were Chelsea while Liverpool were taking advantage of this easy European ride? Didn't you have to win your domestic league first? So back then Malmo>Chelsea Liverpool were so dreadful in 2005 we knocked out Juve who had knocked out Real, we then knocked out you chavs after you beat Barca and Bayern not conceding a goal to you over two legs then we beat drew 3-3 with Milan who had dumped out United. We could obviously play a game of football. We could score at every stage of the comp but you chavs failed to do just that, not our fault you bottled it. See this, this belongs to Liverpool, maybe when Roman spends a trillion you might own one. please log in to view this image
Once again you've missed the point. He actually said you did well to win in 05. His point is that once qualified, the old EC was a much easier comp to win than the current format, which is pretty much a given isn't it? Just look how many teams defended the E.C compared to the C.L. You just can't say anything without some plastic scouser getting upset nowadays!!
NO don't sacrifice the league, you're not out of it yet , you still have a real shot at getting the Europa League!!
That was the hard part, finishing top of the domestic league then finishing top of the European league, it was a genuine champions league
Why? you need to look at it to remind yourself that "elite teams" win it 5 times. SAFs words, not mine.
