I firmly believe that the old European Cup format was far easier than the current Champions League format. Taking Forest as an example, they beat Malmo and Hamburg. Yes football changes but neither are anywhere near the top table when it comes to football and would be the equivalent of a Lille or Wolfsburg in current terms. For that reason it's fair to say that the old format was far easier to win. Obviously this causes some debate - I've posted a link to my vlog below whereby an angry Liverpool fan took issue with this opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaE__J9j2fo However, it's easy to sing 5 times but what about when 4 of them are meaningless. The Champions League is a far superior trophy and uncomparable to old system. Villa won that for Gods sake!
Yes it was easier in terms of less games to play... It was also harder in a sense that it wasn't seeded. The new format is designed to suit the super teams. Footballing has also changed over the years.
I think it was far easier because only 1 team from each country entered. Some argue that that's right because it's the champion. However, the key issue is that the 4th placed team in England, Italy, Spain etc is miles ahead of the Swedish champions. For that reason the Champions League is far harder to win. Liverpool beat Club Bruge, Monchengladbach and Roma to win theirs. Forest beat Malmo and Hamburg Villa - don't know but I bet they were rubbish.
Narrow shoulders = High Testosterone levels. Have your prostate examined at your earliest convenience.
