What's harder to win - champions league or European cup

[ws6blue]

CL no doubt

When mancu won in in 1968, they played 4 less matches and some very small teams - champions of their own countries yes but they played champions from Scotland, Poland, Yugoslavia before the quarterfinal. Check villa, forest & scouse on Wikipedia and its the same story - the best leagues only had one team each so if you count France, Italy, holland, Germany and Spain that's it really

Hate to say it but scouse played top teams in 2005 including one Chelsea fc....so have to admit that was worthy

Our win by comparison with all the european cup winners from England was way way ahead

Yes the so called big teams get seeded, get rid of that and make it a level competition

So remember when scouse sing at us, that their 4 European cup wins was against mostly average teams

Beating Valencia, Napoli, benfica, Barcelona, bayern is up there with the very best winners

Legends

 

[erskblue]

In one of the seasons they won it.1977/78 Liverpool got a bye in the first round.

To be fair they then played Dynamo Dresen, Benfica and Borrusia Munchengladbach before beating Brugge in the Final.

Just 7 games...

 

[Englishman]

I was thinking about this earlier too. The toughest aspect of the old European Cup was you had to be domestic champions (or holders) to get in it. However, once you were in it there were a lot more minnows in the draw, the champions of Northern Ireland, Malta, Norway etc, the sort of teams the strong ones would beat 10-1 on aggregate.

The Champions League has more depth because generally, the 2nd/3rd/4th best team from England, Spain or Italy is better than the champions of Poland or Latvia, so more tough matches. In 76/77 Liverpool played five teams, three of whom were Crusaders, FC Zurich and Trabzonspor. We played Bayern away, Barcelona, Benfica, Napoli, Valencia, Leverkusen. The only real 'minnow' we had to face was Genk. Don't think many have won it with a tougher run than that.

 

[Snedger]

There are two ways of looking at it. It is harder now because nearly all the teams competing are strong, ie no easy games against champions of Finland. However, back then you had to be champions at home first and thus had a lot less cracks at winning it.

(Just seen that I said the same thing as the Englishman while I was faffing around posting on my mobile) Anyway it is harder now cos that's when we've won it!

 

[erskblue]

There are two ways of looking at it. It is harder now because nearly all the teams competing are strong, ie no easy games against champions of Finland. However, back then you had to be champions at home first and thus had a lot less cracks at winning it.

(Just seen that I said the same thing as the Englishman while I was faffing around posting on my mobile) Anyway it is harder now cos that's when we've won it!

Good points. When Forest won it in 1978/79 they had to play Liverpool in Round 1. Hard enough to be fair as Liverpool had won it the previous 2 seasons. Their next difficult big manes were Cologne in Semi Finals.

Rangers in 1978/79 got Juventus, then PSV Eindhoven, then Cologne. Had they beaten the Germans they'd have faced Forest.

To be fair Juventus and then PSV respectively probably though Rangers ? Easy game ...

 

[maytow123]

yes,but i think Chelsea is more better.

 

[Snedger]

Good points. When Forest won it in 1978/79 they had to play Liverpool in Round 1. Hard enough to be fair as Liverpool had won it the previous 2 seasons. Their next difficult big manes were Cologne in Semi Finals.

Rangers in 1978/79 got Juventus, then PSV Eindhoven, then Cologne. Had they beaten the Germans they'd have faced Forest.

To be fair Juventus and then PSV respectively probably though Rangers ? Easy game ...

So pressumably it wasn't seeded back then. I also think that some of the smaller clubs might have been a bit stronger back then as it was more likely that a club like Anderlecht or Malmo could produce a good team. I figure that those types of clubs could put a good side together without losing their best players to big Spanish and Italian clubs before they'd even reached the first team. I think of A**x in the mid nineties as a fairly late example of that. That team that won a European Cup and reached the final the following year would probably not have won even the Dutch Cup today. It's amazing how A**x managed to keep that team together long enough to achieve success before Barca and Milan etc came calling.

 

[WHFBlue]

CL no doubt

When mancu won in in 1968, they played 4 less matches and some very small teams - champions of their own countries yes but they played champions from Scotland, Poland, Yugoslavia before the quarterfinal. Check villa, forest & scouse on Wikipedia and its the same story - the best leagues only had one team each so if you count France, Italy, holland, Germany and Spain that's it really

Hate to say it but scouse played top teams in 2005 including one Chelsea fc....so have to admit that was worthy

Our win by comparison with all the european cup winners from England was way way ahead

Yes the so called big teams get seeded, get rid of that and make it a level competition

So remember when scouse sing at us, that their 4 European cup wins was against mostly average teams

Beating Valencia, Napoli, benfica, Barcelona, bayern is up there with the very best winners

Legends

Think you'll find out that one of the small teams and were only champions of Scotland ... was the great Celtic side ... who just happened to be European cup winners the year before in 1967 Cant believe im defending the tims here

1966–67 was arguably Scottish football's best ever season in European football, with Rangers reaching the final of the Cup Winners cup and Kilmarnock reaching the Fairs Cup semi-finals. In addition, Dundee United marked their European debut by eliminating Fairs Cup holders Barcelona.

And correct me if im wrong im sure that small team Scotland also took the piss out of the World cup holders at wembley in 67 as well with the late great "Slim Jim" Baxters keepy uppy and sitting on the ball if im not mistaken

 

[Gem]

Obviously the Champions League because we've won it and we are awesome.

I mean which one did Aston Villa win? If it was the former that just confirms it.....!

 

[loz]

For me the old format was harder and probably more exciting for fans (except when you win!) There was far less room for error due to the knock out format right from the start. The CL did improve when they did away with the second group stage as that was too ridiculously designed to ensure the biggest clubs made it to the knock out phases.

There is less excitement about the early group stage until it gets down to the last couple of games whereas in the old format every game was massive as there was always a risk of the journey being over before it had got off the ground.

 

[chan]

of course, champion league!!!!!

 

[erskblue]

So pressumably it wasn't seeded back then. I also think that some of the smaller clubs might have been a bit stronger back then as it was more likely that a club like Anderlecht or Malmo could produce a good team. I figure that those types of clubs could put a good side together without losing their best players to big Spanish and Italian clubs before they'd even reached the first team. I think of A**x in the mid nineties as a fairly late example of that. That team that won a European Cup and reached the final the following year would probably not have won even the Dutch Cup today. It's amazing how A**x managed to keep that team together long enough to achieve success before Barca and Milan etc came calling.

No I think seeding came in in mid - late 1980s.

Pretty sure after Real Madrid in European Cup 1987-88 were drawn with Napoli, Porto (who were defending Champions) and Bayern Munich, before going out to eventual winners PSV Eindhoven in the Semi Finals

 

[KrazyTea]

Obviously the Champions League because we've won it and we are awesome.

I mean which one did Aston Villa win? If it was the former that just confirms it.....!

Yup Aston Villa did not win the Champions League

 

[Banjo33]

The old concept was exactly like the fa cup format now. Beautiful that Harri/Pompey can buy/win it, but showing the best team in the tournament?!

There is a reason the world cup, euros and other major tournaments work with group stages (and not tv before you cry, money wasnt as big back then). To win the champions league, yes you need luck, like winning anything, but the cream will always come to the top. You have to play each side away from home...(and most at home) and go through 13 games against top sides.

Yes, UEFA have brought in so called weakened nations, but if teams like APOEL win their group over 6 games, who is to say which nation is weak?!

Well done Chels, I love you, I was lucky to be there and will never forget! One step beyond!!!

 

[dutchbloke]

I think of A**x in the mid nineties as a fairly late example of that. That team that won a European Cup and reached the final the following year would probably not have won even the Dutch Cup today. It's amazing how A**x managed to keep that team together long enough to achieve success before Barca and Milan etc came calling.

Even though I hate A**x as ever Chelsea fan has a similar feeling bout Liverpool or Spurs. I have to admit that was a brilliant team. Kluivert, Seedorf, Davids all went to big clubs while Rijkaard came back from Milan. With a coach ( van Gaal) who made a team of these players.

 

[Teritus]

champions of their own countries yes but they played champions from Scotland, Poland, Yugoslavia before the quarterfinal.

Ahem! Yugoslavia had some decent teams in the past when Partizan reached the final in the 60s (I think) losing out to Madrid, and when Red Star won it against Bayern in 1991.