Finally the travesty represented by Liverpool gaining and then being permitted to defend the Champions' League trophy has ended. This formerly prestigious trophy, once eagerly prized and won by teams such as Real Madrid, AC Milan, Bayern Munich and Manchester United has been degraded in recent years culminating in the nauseating spectacle in Istanbul last year:
Liverpool have just completed the worst ever defense of the Champions' League trophy and have hardly vindicated the throng which succeeded in shoehorning such unworthy champions into this years competition. By the rules which hitherto obtained, Liverpool, who finished in fifth place behind Everton, oughtn't have been allowed to compete and it's now clear that the rules were right and the populist bandwagon was wrong.
If this tawdry bagatelle is to acquire any of the lustre it used to enjoy it must be headed to Catalonia come May. Juventus have hardly impressed, progressing at the expense of Werder Bremen thanks to a gaffe from the German side's keeper and while AC Milan fairly convincingly beat Bayern, I still haven't forgiven them for their craven part in that charade last May.
Out of interest, which team do you support?
Posted by: Colm | March 09, 2006 at 12:09 PM
If this tawdry bagatelle is to acquire any of the lustre it used to enjoy it must be headed to Catalonia come May.
Hear hear.
Posted by: Hugh Green | March 09, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Out of interest, which team do you support?
Oh, I don't think my biases are all that well camouflaged, just scroll down one or two more football posts to find out...
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 09, 2006 at 12:21 PM
This formerly prestigious trophy, once eagerly prized and won by teams such as Real Madrid, AC Milan, Bayern Munich and Manchester United...
...and Liverpool, who won it four times prior to last year's win.
Sometimes it happens that an "unworthy" team wins a big competition. Greece won the European Championship in 2004. Big deal!
I for one am happier to see Chelsea's exit from the competition. Whatever about winning it with a large dollop of luck, as the 'Pool did last year, at least it won't be won this time by the club that just happens to have the richest sugardaddy.
...the nauseating spectacle in Istanbul last year...
As you are a Man Utd fan, I can see why you should have such a view. For most neutrals, me included, it was enthralling.
Posted by: Gerry O'Sullivan | March 09, 2006 at 02:01 PM
..and Liverpool, who won it four times prior to last year's win.
Actually no. Liverpool never won the champions league prior to last year. The Liverpool team of twenty years ago won the old European cup a few times and then went into a long decline along with many teams with similarly famous names - Steau Bucharest, Marseilles, Ajax, (the latter two did actually win the champions league). 2004 champions Porto won the cup more recently (1987) than the last time Liverpool did and most people would leave both Porto and Liverpool out of a list of the top European sides.
Sometimes it happens that an "unworthy" team wins a big competition. Greece won the European Championship in 2004. Big deal!
Oh it happens all the time and the competition is all the poorer for it. It was bad enough to see Porto and Monaco compete for the 2004 trophy and the very ordinary Portuguese champions prevail but last year's was a worthless charade. Liverpool shouldn't even have been in the final courtesy of that "goal" against Chelsea and they were soundly beaten by Milan by half time. How the Italians crumbled to let the scousers get back in I just don't know. But then to win the bloomin' thing on penalties. It made a mockery of the whole competition. Champions indeed - a team which wasn't even the best in Liverpool never mind Lancashire, never mind England being hailed as the best [sic] in Europe.
I for one am happier to see Chelsea's exit from the competition. Whatever about winning it with a large dollop of luck, as the 'Pool did last year, at least it won't be won this time by the club that just happens to have the richest sugardaddy.
I can't disagree with you there.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 09, 2006 at 02:38 PM
Wow! Didn't think you could get grapes that taste that sour.
Posted by: John McG | March 09, 2006 at 03:31 PM
No sour grapes, just a bit of satisfaction/schadenfreude that the scousers are deservedly knocked out.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 09, 2006 at 03:50 PM
No sour grapes?! Yeah, right.
If you win the Champion's League, you win the Champion's League, that's it, you deserve it.
You forget that Utd won the Big Cup in equally dramatic and "lucky" fashion in 1999.
Maybe Milan didn't deserve it last year for bottling when the chips were down, something Liverpool didn't do.
Annoying? Yes. Undeserved? No.
Posted by: John McG | March 09, 2006 at 04:56 PM
I can see the hidden agenda here - preparing the ground in the unlikely event of Arsenal prevailing this year!
Look, the point of a competition is to select the best team. It is possible for a competition format to fail to do this. I would submit that the abolition of the second group stage has made it a lot easier for weaker/flukier teams to progress and that has led to the situation where Porto and Liverpool in quick succession have won the cup. Neither side could be considered genuinely great european sides (today) because a) the Portuguese league isn't as good as the Spanish, English or Italian leagues and b) Liverpool haven't looked anywhere near genuine championship contenders in England for a long time.
As for United, well they did win it the final in regulation time without the benefit of extra time or penalties and they had dispatched Juve and Inter Milan on the way. They did also manage to do the domestic double that year so they were at least champions that particular year.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 09, 2006 at 05:19 PM
I suppose the point is that a league format is a better determinant of quality than a knockout cup. Nobody would seriously claim that United were the best team in England in 2004 because they won the FA Cup. I can't remember who won the league that year but whichever team it was, it must have been the best!
If it were possible to play the CL's last 16 in a league, you know that Barcelona are more likely to come out on top. Do the same exercise for last years competition and there's no way Liverpool would have come out on top.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 09, 2006 at 05:24 PM
Christ, i thought it was only rivalries between teams in the same city that produced such bitterness and rambling 'logic'.
yet here we have an Irishman arguing against his adopted British teams' 'local' rivals, denying the fabulous reality that is Cup football.
Manchester United's victory in the 1999 Final was no more deserved than Liverpool's last season. Though both victories were dramatic, one would have to conclude that Liverpool deserved the Cup even more, given that they came from 3 goals behind.
Manchester were clearly the lesser side in the Nou Camp final.
as for your issues with 'weaker' sides winning Cups, it should be noted that arguments comparing league consistencies to Cup 'flukes' shall never carry much weight because everyone already knows the 'luck' that a Cup winner can carry. it is not a revelation. It is well established.
But anyhow, if you can take some solace that a poor team have been knocked out of the CL later than your own, then enjoy the moment...
Posted by: ciaran | March 09, 2006 at 06:14 PM
I have no particular rooting interest for Liverpool one way or the other. But a champion ought to be allowed to defend its trophy.
And you also blithely ignore the fact that in winning the 2005 European Cup, Liverpool defeated Juventus, Chelsea and Milan in consecutive rounds. So it's not like they lucked into Shaktar Donetsk, FC Tampere and Sligo Rovers in the final rounds.
I would agree that the competition has been devalued in recent years. But oh how short one's partisan memory is. The first non-champion to win the "Champions League" was not Liverpool last year. It was a little outfit that you might've heard of called Manchester United (who beat another non-champion in the final, incidentally).
Posted by: Brian | March 10, 2006 at 02:42 AM
The first non-champion to win the "Champions League" was not Liverpool last year. It was a little outfit that you might've heard of called Manchester United (who beat another non-champion in the final, incidentally)
I did make reference to this above and I think it's clear that Liverpool's unworthiness of the title "European Champions" is due to a lot more (or should I say a lot less!) than the fact that they weren't the current champions. At least United had the decency that year to win their own domestic league, a feat which Liverpool haven't been remotely capable of achieving in a long time and their domestic performance last year was particularly bad.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 10, 2006 at 09:38 AM
Oh, and by the way:
Liverpool defeated Juventus, Chelsea and Milan in consecutive round
I'll give you the Juventus one - that's at least the sort of thing which can happen in a cup: sometimes the plucky underdog wins. But Chelsea, weren't/aren't a top *European* side and in any case Liverpool only progressed courtesy of a "goal" which shouldn't have stood. And they didn't defeat Milan in either regulation time or after extra time, they won a penalty shootout. I can't argue with the fact that Liverpool deserved to win the competition as it was constituted, Milan certainly didn't after their ignoble capitulation. But I am arguing that the competition format did an execrable job of selecting a European Champion. And I'm also arguing that if the likes of Benfica or Arsenal win this year instead of Barcelona, the competition will continue to decline in prestige.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 10, 2006 at 09:43 AM
Incidentally, what would your view be in the event that Utd had managed to stumble past that so called inferior Portugeuse team and went on to win the competition this year?
I'll tell you. You'd be shouting from the frickin' rooftops!
Posted by: John McG | March 10, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Of course I would, but it wouldn't alter the fact that a relatively poor team (which is what United is this season compared to the team of 98-99) had won and I think the prestige of the competition probably would suffer.
I thought the idea of scrapping the second groups stage was a good idea at the time - because of all those meaningless matches towards the end. But I now see that the second stage was a pretty good way of filtering out the plucky/lucky sides.
If the second group stage was reinstated, you would definitely see better quality European champions.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 10, 2006 at 11:25 AM
You can't have a system that favours the big boys, just because they're more prestigious clubs and more "worthy" Champions. That goes against the whole essence of a Cup competition where, to excuse the pun, all teams should compete on a level playing field. The existing seeding system is advantage enough and if a "lesser" team can beat that and get through to the knockout stages, good luck to them.
For as long as the competition allows non-champions to qualify, the format is probably about right, I think.
Posted by: John McG | March 10, 2006 at 11:35 AM
That goes against the whole essence of a Cup competition where, to excuse the pun, all teams should compete on a level playing field.
Except for the fact that the Champions League purports to select the European champions - the best team in Europe. If it were restricted to actual champions, the knockout format wouldn't be so bad but a wider entry-pool means that you have to curtail a knockout format in some way because you just end up with a much more flukey "romance of the cup" competition which can't deliver the best team in Europe any more than the FA cup selects the best team in England. The advantage of a league format is that cream will rise to the top. It's not just about the richer, bigger clubs but those which are better at football.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 10, 2006 at 11:46 AM
I don't know how UEFA can decide which teams are 'worthy' enough winners in Frank McGahon's eyes other than simply letting you pick the teams yourself.
The whole reason they started expanding competition in the first place is fans were more interested in seeing non-champions like Inter Milan and Manchester United than champions like Shaktar Donestk and Rosenborg.
"And I'm also arguing that if the likes of Benfica or Arsenal win this year instead of Barcelona, the competition will continue to decline in prestige."
Again, I don't know how the teams are supposed to be chosen that in a way that would satisfy you. Arsenal were clearly the second best team in the Premiership last year. AND they're undefeated in this year's Champions League competition.
It seems the only thing that might satisfy your hypercriticism is to hold the Champions League in the summer where teams (except for Scandinavian ones) wouldn't have the opportunity to do simultaneously well in Europe and poor domestically. But since that's not going to happen and because UEFA is not going to make you unilateral team selector, how is this situation going to be rectified?
Posted by: Brian | March 10, 2006 at 12:45 PM
Incidentally, I know you're anti-Arsenal, but as a neutral myself, I'd much rather watch them in the late stages of European competition than have to suffer watching Chelsea.
Posted by: Brian | March 10, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Arsenal were clearly the second best team in the Premiership last year. AND they're undefeated in this year's Champions League competition.
AND they're struggling along in fifth place at home having been beaten ten times already, which suggests that the fact that they happen to be unbeaten in this year's champions league doesn't mean all that much.
The point is only that a format which is a bit more league-like (such as the one with two group stages) will tend to weed out more of the plucky flukers and reward teams which are better. I mean, surely we can all agree that league positions (unlike cup runs) don't lie and the best team tends to win the league.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 10, 2006 at 12:52 PM
Incidentally, I know you're anti-Arsenal, but as a neutral myself, I'd much rather watch them in the late stages of European competition than have to suffer watching Chelsea.
Agreed
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 10, 2006 at 12:53 PM
Re: Arsenal were clearly the second best team in the Premiership last year. AND they're undefeated in this year's Champions League competition.
RE:AND they're struggling along in fifth place at home having been beaten ten times already, which suggests that the fact that they happen to be unbeaten in this year's champions league doesn't mean all that much.
so what? do you want teams to win leagues then travel back in time and compete in the CL only when they are winning domestically?
i really cant see the argument youre making apart from the simple one that 'Cup football is not as talent-reflective as League' - which is fairly obvious to anyone!
c'mon you're just annoyed Liverpool won last year and are trying to explain it all away:)
Posted by: ciaran o raghallaigh | March 11, 2006 at 12:02 AM
You still haven't proposed a solution to this alleged problem.
Or maybe the Champions League should be replaced by a pan-European Super League where top teams play there INSTEAD of domestic leagues.
That's the only objective solution I can see that might satisfy your complaints.
Other than getting rid of European soccer altgother.
Posted by: Brian | March 11, 2006 at 03:10 AM
I would have thought my point was blindingly obvious - the Champions league is supposed to be more than just a cup competition and purports to select the best team in Europe to be crowned european champions. And there's no mystery about how they can do this - as I've said a number of times: just reinstate the second group stage and you'll tend to see better winners than have been the case in the last two seasons.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | March 11, 2006 at 10:47 AM