|
|
This forum is read-only now. Please use Forum 2 for new posts
| xml |
No replies possible in the archive |
|
Author: jemo27
Date: 08-12-2007, 13:24
| would it be better for english football if england only had 3 teams qualfying for champions league, so the competions is greater especially at end of season instead of having the same 4 teams qualfying each year |
|
Author: Overgame
Date: 08-12-2007, 13:27
| With the new system, ebnding 3rd or 4th will be different : the 4th team could face a stronger opponent in the last qRound, like Bremen or Marseille for example. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 08-12-2007, 13:29
| No.
It would be better for English football to have 5 teams - so that there was at least one "free spot" for another English team to gain CL experience.
But of course that wouldn't be much fun for the other countries. And these "other countries" would also be the only beneficiaries of England dropping from four to three - one less opponent who is more than likely to beat their teams.
If you want a decent battle for 3rd spot then Platini's new format might help to achieve it since 3rd is a direct spot in the group stage & 4th means a potentially very difficult qualifier. |
|
Author: Ricardo
Date: 08-12-2007, 20:52
| Yes.
It makes a battle in England for the 3rd spot, making at least 1 of the top-4 a 'loser' Like we in Holland we have a top3 / top 4, but only 2 CL spots. Even between these top teams there is a battle. There is no certainty of playing CL every year, like the 4 English teams now have! And that is not a fair thing. If you are sure of CL, then you can count on more money to receive, etc. |
|
Author: jpcccc
Date: 08-12-2007, 21:10
| i really don't like the idea behind this topic. It seems that the main purpose of UEFA changes should be focused on how it affects Premier League and not in how it affects CL. |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 09-12-2007, 13:29
Edited by: badgerboy
at: 09-12-2007, 13:59 | Ricardo wrote:
"And that is not a fair thing. If you are sure of CL, then you can count on more money to receive, etc".
But it's not England's fault that they have exactly 4 teams that not only dominate domestically but are also "potential CL winners" at the start of the year.
If you cut the top countries back to three teams each then you can still say that - in the normal course of events (i.e. no clubs being caught with their fingers in the cookie jar) then Milan, Inter & Juve could nearly count on CL football every year. OK, Roma are having some good seasons just now - but so did Newcastle, Everton & Tottenham (just missed out on CL) not so long ago. Reduce the spots of the top three countries to three & suddenly it's Italy - rather than England - that has the right number of top clubs to generally dominate the CL spots.
And what about France? Based on recent history it's impossible for anyone other than Lyon to win the league there - so what to do about the advantage this gives them? |
|
Author: Ricardo
Date: 09-12-2007, 17:22
| badgerboy, with other words: the number of teams dominating the league should not be taken into account to consider if there should be 3, 4 (or even 5). What is good for 1 is bad for another.
It was mainly to disarm your argument to say that England should have 5. I think England is in a luxorious position that all 4 topteams have a almost certain CL spot. That luxury Holland does not have,though you could argue about the number of topteams there are, but it's more than 1 or 2 that contest the title. |
|
Author: Maluyaca
Date: 09-12-2007, 19:55
| If you want England to improve then you should get a quota on foreigners but then English club football would also encounter problems in Europe just because English football players suck.
They have determination but are not tacticle good enough like Italians, not enough technique like Southern players, not enough balls like Dutch, not lucky enough like German teams. How many % of the goals in England are scored by English players?
You can get a topcoach like José or Fabio and he will improve the national team but don't expect miracles.
Why can a team like Liverpool win the CL but are they not able to win the Championship? |
|
Author: badgerboy
Date: 10-12-2007, 15:15
| Ricardo
I wasn't really arguing for England to have 5 CL clubs myself - maybe in a 48 or 64 team group stage - but not 32.
I was myself only refuting the argument in the original post.
Maluyaca - I disagree that a quota would improve English football. I'm with Arsene Wenger in feeling that the best English players can only improve by playing with & against the best players around on a weekly basis. It's also a much quoted fact that - when English clubs were dominating the European Cup in the late 70s & early 80s - with British (not necessarily always English) players - they still missed two World Cups in a row & were nothing special in 1982 either.
Of course I'm also not sure what the quality of English players has to do with the number of CL spots for their club teams.
As for Liverpool being successful in Europe & not domestically. Well firstly the Champions League is still predominantly a cup competition - so winning it doesn't require the consistency of a league campaign. Secondly - for some reason certain teams seem to have a "strong European tradition" and are somehow able to raise their game on the European stage (certainly the highest stage) on a fairly regular basis. Marseille's CL performance this year would be another example of this. |
|
Author: rakke
Date: 10-12-2007, 17:25
Edited by: rakke
at: 10-12-2007, 17:31 | And which English player exactly is learning a lot from the foreigners in Arsene Wenger's Arsenal? This weekend they didn't field one of them.
I agree with Maluyaca, maybe because I'm from Belgium too and everybody here -especially media- is sick and tired with third class foreigners barring excellent Belgian youth from playing (until -17 they belong to Europe's finest, from then on they go downhill). The foreign players in the Premiership are of course of a very different quality, but I'm absolutely convinced quotas do make sense in competitions where teams who field more domestic players than foreigners are exceptions. I don't know if that's the case in England, but is sure is over here - remember Beveren who played in Europe with 9 guys from Ivory Coast, most of them were dropped in Belgium by Arsene Wenger to learn their trade..
Edit - in order to stay on-topic at least a little bit: I think the future CL format is just fine - for England & for everyone else. Giving the "big three" less than 4 places would be undefendable (is that a word?) in terms of both negotiations & the quality aspect. |
|
Author: MalcolmW
Date: 10-12-2007, 23:06
| If England only had 3 spots in CL there is a real possibility that one of the current big 4 would fall away. If they were to miss out in 3 successive seasons the financial impact would be enormous.
Separately, Arsenal did field Walcott, albeit only as a sub, yesterday.
On quotas there is a further problem from the artificial and unique position of the UK in football. Many people (and therefore many players) are dual qualified. Only those who reach international status have to opt for one or other team. If all players had to declare which country they wished to represent in order for clubs to meet a quota, wage levels would vary to give a quota premium and suddenly Wales and Northern Ireland would be hard hit at u21 level (Scotland rather less so).
As an example outside football, the UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, is totally Scottish - born in Scotland, educated at school and university in Scotland, a UK MP for a Scottish seat, but living and working in London for most of his adult life.
His predecessor, Tony Blair, was born in Scotland, educated at a Scottish school (although living in England), and an English University (Oxford), became an MP for an English seat. Had he been a footballer he would have been dual qualified, and being pragmatic, might well have chosen to be considered Scottish.
The last Welsh Prime Minister of the UK, David Lloyd George, is one thought of as very Welsh, and yet he was born in Manchester (a sort of reverse Ryan Giggs).
In my family I am the only male qualified only for England (my son and my father each had an Irish grandmother), so I am one generation short of duality. And yet I also have Scottish ancestry. Many people - certainly in the North - have Irish links. |
|
|