Platini : If I Were UEFA President... (2 Viewers)

[mikhail]

That is the case only because Chelsea are playing with just 1 true central defender and have lost their main keeper and backup for most part of the season. Liverpool and Arsenal are still more than 10 points behind Man united so how is that competitive? Arsenal celebrated last season for not winning any single trophy but coming 4th.

2006/6:
1. Chelsea 91
2. Manchester United 83
3. Liverpool 82
4. Arsenal 67
5. Tottenham Hotspur 65
6. Blackburn Rovers 63

2004/5:
1 Chelsea 95
2 Arsenal 83
3 Manchester United 77
4 Everton 61

2003/4:
1 Arsenal 90
2 Chelsea 79
3 Manchester United 75
4 Liverpool 60

...

1997/8:
1 Arsenal 78 [C]
2 Manchester United 77
3 Liverpool 65
4 Chelsea 63
5 Leeds United 59
6 Blackburn Rovers 58

1996/7:
1 Manchester United 75
2 Newcastle United 68
3 Arsenal 68
4 Liverpool 68
5 Aston Villa 61
6 Chelsea 59


When 75 points is maybe enough for third, you have a competitive league. I'll take no conclusions from a half finished season thank you - Kevin Keegan will explain why.

Arsenal celebrated last season for rescuing some little thing from a disaster of a season. If there was only one CL place, they would have had nothing to play for. Instead, a top notch team fought desperately to catch their local rivals. There's more entertainment in a league than just watching the winners, you know.

Now people have poured scorn on letting teams from so called lesser countries compete but the likes of man united and cheslea have gone to denmark and lost to fc copenhagen, chelsea have lost to real betis. Arsenal have lost to spartak moscow. Cup competitions is all about shock results but you will hardly find that in cl format.

You just named three of them. Shock results are fine, but I like to see good players occasionally. Frankly, if we had a three legged race between the goalkeepers of each team, there would be random results. That has little merit on its own. The system as it stands is quite able to generate shocks. Just look at 2003/4 in the CL.

Real Betis, Osasuna, Chiveo have gotten into Cl and suffered the consequences later but I cannot see how it would have harmed a team from say russia to be in cl and let their domestic form suffer

We had two Russian teams in the CL this year.

One was called Spartak Moscow, and after drawing 1-1 in a 'thrilling' [/sarcasm] encounter with the champions of Moldova iin the 2nd qualifying round, they scraped past Slovan Liberec. In the groups, they picked up 4 points off Sporting Lisbon and got a draw at home to Bayern Munich.

The other was CSKA Moscow, and in their group stage they managed to get 8 points, scoring a magnificent 4 goals in six games. Just the sort of thrilling football I admire.

What then of third place in Russia last year? Lokomotiv Moscow got knocked out of the UEFA Cup, Round 1, beaten by a Belgian team. Fine additions to the CL they'd have been.

Hands up those who enjoyed the real madrid vs valencia final or the juve vs milan, milan vs inter encounters.

I will say only this: Red Star Belgrade v Monaco, 1990.

In this format you will keep getting situations whereby werder bremen falling by the wayside cos the seedings deemed them not good enough to be seeded 1 or 2

If they're good enough, they'll overcome their seeding. Not every time, but often enough.

The alternative is the kind of system that saw Liverpool win the Worthington Cup under Houllier without ever playing a Premiership side. Yes, the unseeded draw actually saw them cruise to a cup they didn't have to earn. Fascinating viewing it was, watching them almost botch beating Millwall or whoever it was they met in the final... on penalties. After a match that would encourage the mutiny of drying paint itself - causing it to creep away from the patch on the wall opposite the TV.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Slagathor]

When 75 points is maybe enough for third, you have a competitive league.

In comparison:

2005-2006:
1. PSV 84
2. AZ Alkmaar 74
3. Feyenoord 71
4. Ajax 60
5. FC Groningen 56

2002-2003:
1. PSV 84
2. Ajax 83
3. Feyenoord 80
4. NAC Breda 52
5. NEC Nijmegen 51

2001-2002:
1. Ajax 73
2. PSV 68
3. Feyenoord 64
4. SC Heerenveen 60
5. Vitesse 60

1998-1999:
1. Feyenoord 80
2. Willem II Tilburg 65
3. PSV 61
4. Vitesse 61
5. Roda JC 60

1994-1995:
1. Ajax 61 (CL winners)
2. Roda JC 54
3. PSV 47
4. Feyenoord 43
5. FC Twente 42

For the latest season I listed (the top one), there were 2 CL spots instead of 3 during all the other seasons. It tells me that the number of champions league places has relatively little influence on the competitiveness of the league.

Holland currently has two CL berths, one direct spot going to the champions and one spot for the qualifying rounds that'll go to whomever wins the post-season play-off series. The best way to start the play-offs is by finishing as high as possible on the rankings so that you'll meet relatively weaker teams to get past if you want to earn the CL ticket.

My point is: there are always things to play for or other ways to make a national league more interesting. And it doesn't have to involve creating huge financial (and thus class) differences between various European leagues.
Holland, France and to a lesser extent Germany and Portugal have always played reasonably big roles in European football but are sliding down the rankings because they have fewer teams to compete with, earn less money and just generally find themselves in a much worse starting position. This is all based on a UEFA coefficients list that takes into account performances of all clubs from a certain country over the past five years, making fluctuations as good as impossible.

Meaning every year the Champions League is the same boring show involving the same teams. Please don't mind me as I find something else to do while the Brits get off on watching Celtic face Man U again or Barcelona have to play (No! Really? [/sarcasm]) Chelsea...

 

[denco]

2006/6:
1. Chelsea 91
2. Manchester United 83
3. Liverpool 82
4. Arsenal 67
5. Tottenham Hotspur 65
6. Blackburn Rovers 63

2004/5:
1 Chelsea 95
2 Arsenal 83
3 Manchester United 77
4 Everton 61

2003/4:
1 Arsenal 90
2 Chelsea 79
3 Manchester United 75
4 Liverpool 60

...

1997/8:
1 Arsenal 78 [C]
2 Manchester United 77
3 Liverpool 65
4 Chelsea 63
5 Leeds United 59
6 Blackburn Rovers 58

1996/7:
1 Manchester United 75
2 Newcastle United 68
3 Arsenal 68
4 Liverpool 68
5 Aston Villa 61
6 Chelsea 59


When 75 points is maybe enough for third, you have a competitive league. I'll take no conclusions from a half finished season thank you - Kevin Keegan will explain why.

Arsenal celebrated last season for rescuing some little thing from a disaster of a season. If there was only one CL place, they would have had nothing to play for. Instead, a top notch team fought desperately to catch their local rivals. There's more entertainment in a league than just watching the winners, you know.


You just named three of them. Shock results are fine, but I like to see good players occasionally. Frankly, if we had a three legged race between the goalkeepers of each team, there would be random results. That has little merit on its own. The system as it stands is quite able to generate shocks. Just look at 2003/4 in the CL.


We had two Russian teams in the CL this year.
One was called Spartak Moscow, and after drawing 1-1 in a 'thrilling' [/sarcasm] encounter with the champions of Moldova iin the 2nd qualifying round, they scraped past Slovan Liberec. In the groups, they picked up 4 points off Sporting Lisbon and got a draw at home to Bayern Munich.

The other was CSKA Moscow, and in their group stage they managed to get 8 points, scoring a magnificent 4 goals in six games. Just the sort of thrilling football I admire.

What then of third place in Russia last year? Lokomotiv Moscow got knocked out of the UEFA Cup, Round 1, beaten by a Belgian team. Fine additions to the CL they'd have been.


I will say only this: Red Star Belgrade v Monaco, 1990.


If they're good enough, they'll overcome their seeding. Not every time, but often enough.

The alternative is the kind of system that saw Liverpool win the Worthington Cup under Houllier without ever playing a Premiership side. Yes, the unseeded draw actually saw them cruise to a cup they didn't have to earn. Fascinating viewing it was, watching them almost botch beating Millwall or whoever it was they met in the final... on penalties. After a match that would encourage the mutiny of drying paint itself - causing it to creep away from the patch on the wall opposite the TV.

But thats my point exactly what do we need 2 teams from russia for, why should there be more than 1 team from turkey, holland, greece, scotland, France, belgium and some of the other countries allowed more than 1 entrant. I may be wrong but i cannot recall a Greek team reaching the knock out phases of the cl but they are given more than 1 berth. If you are allocating 4 teams per country, they should justify it by continually getting at least 2 or 3 teams in the quarter finals not 1 team flying the flag by the quarter final stage, its just unfair on other countries.
By the way the final you were refering to was red star v marseilles, just to be pedantic and yes it sucked but they had to go thrui some big guns to get there.
I am not surte how cutting the teams to 3 teams per big league will result in the liverpool scenario in worthington cup
The league tables you have shown does not tell the real story now does it, it does not tell you how 7 years ago or thereabouts there were more quality teams than there are now. Imo the good teams are arsenal, man u, liverpool , chelsea and spurs, the rest are doing well but i dont prescribe to bolton's brand fo football and im not sure what porstmouth is about at all
Then we had newcastle playing very good football with decent players, Leeds were good west ham were exciting with di canio and co, aston villa were far better than the dross i am watching currently

 

[mikhail]

For the latest season I listed (the top one), there were 2 CL spots instead of 3 during all the other seasons. It tells me that the number of champions league places has relatively little influence on the competitiveness of the league.

Any change like that takes time (and quite a bit of it) to really kick in. I don't think your numbers can really tell us anything right now.

Holland, France and to a lesser extent Germany and Portugal have always played reasonably big roles in European football but are sliding down the rankings because ...

The French teams are actually very good right now. Lyon have been a proper European power for several years, and Monaco are competitive. Porto won the CL a couple of years ago (admittedly resulting in their best players getting bought up). Germany isn't as strong as it was because the German players aren't the powerhouse they were. Realistically, only Ballack is really world class of their current crop, unless you start chucking in some Poles. In spite of that, Munich are still a team to beat and Leverkusen won the competition a couple of years ago. Holland has always punched above its weight because of the youth team development, and that hasn't changed, even if the current crop aren't CL winning quality. I really don't see what you want? All of these nations on a par? Why?

Meaning every year the Champions League is the same boring show involving the same teams. Please don't mind me as I find something else to do while the Brits get off on watching Celtic face Man U again or Barcelona have to play (No! Really? [/sarcasm]) Chelsea...

You'd really rather see Cork City take on Red Star Belgrade? I've seen that sort of dreck close up, and I'd sooner see Barcelona try to play beach football versus a wall of lava on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius (actually, Jeeks might pay to watch that) than endure it again. Again, you don't have to go back very far to find a big shock set of semi-finalists (03/04 Monaco 5-3 Chelsea & FC Porto 1-0 Deportivo). Sure, it's nice to see things shaken up every now and again, but I don't understand why people seem to want the big teams to never get anywhere.

But thats my point exactly what do we need 2 teams from russia for, why should there be more than 1 team from turkey, holland, greece, scotland, France, belgium and some of the other countries allowed more than 1 entrant. I may be wrong but i cannot recall a Greek team reaching the knock out phases of the cl but they are given more than 1 berth.

Olympiacos were knocked out at quarter-final level in 1998/99 by Juve. Before that, Panathanaikos were knocked out of the semis in 96 by Ajax.

I just don't understand this fascination with crippling the competition to keep everyone out just to have a few of the best teams in Europe compete to become champion. How can you include the Greek champion but not second place in Italy? Oh, look, it's Skonto Riga. They happen to be champions of this isolated, backwards hell-hole in the Balkans. Clearly, they're more deserving of a shot at the title of European champion than Real Madrid or AC Milan or Manchester United... hell no. But they get a place, so why not give two to Greece?

Why is there the dual attitude of "second place in Russia aren't good enough so let's exclude them" but at the same time "second place in Germany is good enough, but let's not". What system do people want? Some monopoly of one? Let's go back to AC Milan beating all (two decent) teams before them?

If you are allocating 4 teams per country, they should justify it by continually getting at least 2 or 3 teams in the quarter finals not 1 team flying the flag by the quarter final stage, its just unfair on other countries.

Italy got no quarter-finalists one year. We have a system for this - the bloody UEFA rankings that Erik doesn't seem to like.

Right now, we're in the last 16, and the big three (Italy, Spain and England) have 3 (Inter, Roma and Milan), 3 (Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia) and 4 (Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelski and Liverpool) teams in that stage. The other six teams are French (2), Scottish, Dutch, German and Portugese. That seems like fair representation given their relative strengths, and there has been room for shocks. Now, it's down to pure knockout to find the best of a good lot. I'm going to look forward to it.

By the way the final you were refering to was red star v marseilles, just to be pedantic and yes it sucked but they had to go thrui some big guns to get there.

Thank you, yes. However, to compare their last 16 to this year's:
Real Madrid 11-3 Tirol-Innsbruck
AC Milan 1-0 Club Brugge
Napoli 0-0* Spartak Moscow
Lech Poznan 4-8 Marseille
Bayern Munich 7-0 CSKA (Sofia)
Dinamo Bucharest 0-4 FC Porto
Red Star 4-1 Rangers
Dresden 2-2* Malmo

The gulfs in quality there are astonishing for a last sixteen, and it's reflected in some of the scorelines. I'll bet we won't see an 11-3 in the next round of the CL.

I am not surte how cutting the teams to 3 teams per big league will result in the liverpool scenario in worthington cup

Sorry - I'm responding to suggestions you didn't make - I'm again arguing against the damnable old system where only the league champions get in.

The league tables you have shown does not tell the real story now does it, it does not tell you how 7 years ago or thereabouts there were more quality teams than there are now. Imo the good teams are arsenal, man u, liverpool , chelsea and spurs, the rest are doing well but i dont prescribe to bolton's brand fo football and im not sure what porstmouth is about at all
Then we had newcastle playing very good football with decent players, Leeds were good west ham were exciting with di canio and co, aston villa were far better than the dross i am watching currently

Bah! Villa were the dross - they played worse football than Bolton do now. Leeds were functionally bankrupt. Newcastle still play good football, they just can't defend! The gap back then between Man Utd and the rest was daft. They could win the title at a trot. The only times they were challenged, it was by a mediocre Arsenal team who were dire in Europe.

 

[Slagathor]

Any change like that takes time (and quite a bit of it) to really kick in. I don't think your numbers can really tell us anything right now.

The third CL berth was lost in 2003, since then the pattern of one team becoming champion with a considerable advantage over the others has continued.

The French teams are actually very good right now. Lyon have been a proper European power for several years, and Monaco are competitive.

Monaco were competitive, as were Ajax. Once upon a time.

Porto won the CL a couple of years ago (admittedly resulting in their best players getting bought up).

That's the point: waves of success that cannot be converted into systematic competition because the gap is too wide to bridge.

Germany isn't as strong as it was because the German players aren't the powerhouse they were. Realistically, only Ballack is really world class of their current crop, unless you start chucking in some Poles. In spite of that, Munich are still a team to beat and Leverkusen won the competition a couple of years ago. Holland has always punched above its weight because of the youth team development, and that hasn't changed, even if the current crop aren't CL winning quality. I really don't see what you want? All of these nations on a par? Why?

On par? No. I want a smaller difference in incomes. If either Germany or France had access to the same UEFA funds as do Spain, England and (laughably so) Italy, the CL would look very differently. As it is: it is as good as impossible to break through the hegemony of the top three and it has disastrous consequences.

You'd really rather see Cork City take on Red Star Belgrade? I've seen that sort of dreck close up, and I'd sooner see Barcelona try to play beach football versus a wall of lava on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius (actually, Jeeks might pay to watch that) than endure it again. Again, you don't have to go back very far to find a big shock set of semi-finalists (03/04 Monaco 5-3 Chelsea & FC Porto 1-0 Deportivo). Sure, it's nice to see things shaken up every now and again, but I don't understand why people seem to want the big teams to never get anywhere.

I want the section of big teams to be expanded. With limited funds, the reocurring theme for France and Germany is that they only possess one outift that has a shot of winning the damn thing, realistically. I want the top three broken apart, turned into a top five at the very least. France and Germany have very strong leagues but in the current feeding system they find it nearly impossible to climb up the ladder.

I guess my sentiments come down to this: either cut the crap of putting second, third and fourth placed teams in a champions league or break through the hegemony of the top three and set up a system that allows for France and Germany to move up the ladder where they belong.

 

[denco]

Oh I am not advocating for only chmaps of a country to compete, i was saying 4 from 1 country is too much and it does not help when teams who really should be winning the league should regard being in cl spot as relative success. With 3 you will have the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool trying even harder to win the league not the situation you find now where they do not start well at all , then start saying they can still win the leaguie when 2 teams ahead of em are 11 ppoints and 8 points ahead of them.
In Italy were are looking at a distinct possibility of a representation of Inter, Roma, Palermo and Catania or Empoli.
Dont the likes of Cork , deserve to play Real Madrid or Milan in a competitive match for once in their lives? I believe that they do

 

[Seven]

Someone claims to have enjoyed giving me -rep. That's kind of like a fly saying he had a lot of fun beating you.

 

[sateeh]

Germany isn't as strong as it was because the German players aren't the powerhouse they were. Realistically, only Ballack is really world class of their current crop, unless you start chucking in some Poles. In spite of that, Munich are still a team to beat and Leverkusen won the competition a couple of years ago.

first of all Leverkusen didnt win the competition a few years back they were 2nd, credit to a certain Legend we know as Zizou

abt the german problem i think its due to the lack of 2nd team after Bayern to lift up the german name in the CL. There wasnt a consistent contender in Europe after Bayern. Imo one of the causes is that the ranking system hasn't given any credit to the german teams or mybe its just sheer bad luck.
Bayern take up any half decent player in the country, but now there is different trend as Werder r becoming a power in Germany and with a bit of luck they could've been in Europe.

I dont agree with you about Ballack being the only world class german player out there as i would easily add Lahm,Frings and even Klose.

 

[peckface]

I don't know if its fair or not. Every team in every league in Europe got a chance to qualify to the CL. I don't see a reason for Sweden to have two teams if it means one less for those 3 mentioned. Champions League should just be a name in my opinion.

Anyways if they were to deduct it by one in the big three leagues, perhaps they could let the team who wins the national cup get to qualify? Would sure make those more appealing.

 

[Turk_Bianconero]

Platini a Juventino,won the race!!!

 

[Marc]

Platini a Juventino,won the race!!!

 

[Falafel]

int: @mark83(pic)

 

[Marc]

int: @mark83(pic)

 

[X Æ A-12]

i liked platini as a player but i think his idea to reduce champions league spots for bigger leagues is ridicoulus. i know that it sounds fair to give the smaller teams a chance but i hate it. the idea of the champions league is to watch the BEST teams in europe compete. i dont want to watch moskow play shaktar donetsk. i want to watch milan play barca, or chelsea play bayern giant teams in their domestic leagues having a chance to finaly face eachother. The champions league would be ruined by putting small teams in huge competition. these teams are no better than second division italian sides because all they need to win to qualify is second rate leagues and i would much rather see the big teams face eachother.

 

[JCK]

The discussion is here.

 

[Red]

Platini wants Euro place for Cup
from BBC


Platini wanted to limit qualifying places per country to three
Uefa president Michel Platini is set to propose a shake-up of Champions League qualification in England by handing a place to the FA Cup winners.
Under new proposals, the Cup winners - rather than the team that finishes fourth in the Premier League - would go into Europe's elite cup competition.

It comes after Platini's plan to reduce qualification spots for any one country from four to three was rejected.

However, this proposal could be viewed as an compromise.

The plans will be unveiled by Platini next week, before the group stage of the Champions League gets underway.

606: DEBATE
Give your reaction to this proposal

And BBC Sport understands such a proposal would receive the support of the Football Association, who would be keen to increase the value of the FA Cup.

The plans would also be backed by the Italian FA, though Uefa's new strategic forum, made up of clubs, leagues and players unions, would be less favourably inclined suggesting there would be a lot of debate to come.

Suggestions that it would help break the monopoly of Champions League qualification among England's 'top four' appear unfounded, however, with one of Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool winning all but two of the last 19 FA Cup competitions.




Interesting idea. Would certainly be a good idea to make folk care about the cups more. Might lower the standard of the Champions League though.

 

[mikhail]

Interesting idea. Would certainly be a good idea to make folk care about the cups more. Might lower the standard of the Champions League though.

It's not so bad an idea. Thing is, the cup winner is almost always a top four team in England, though there's a little more variation elsewhere. I don't think it would lower the standard much at all.

 

[Roverbhoy]

May fill the gap left behind after the demise of the Cup Winners Cup...but as you say Mikhail, since the winner in the bigger leagues is usually a top team anyway and therefore wouldn't make a great difference to who qualifies...what's the point?

 

[Red]

It's not so bad an idea. Thing is, the cup winner is almost always a top four team in England, though there's a little more variation elsewhere. I don't think it would lower the standard much at all.

There would also be less variation of winners in other leagues because the big sides would start to try harder in the cups.

 

[mikhail]

There would also be less variation of winners in other leagues because the big sides would start to try harder in the cups.

Sure, but that would tax their resources a bit harder, making it more likely that someone else will sneak a league victory. At least the cups would be important, competitive, instead of the frequently second rate reserve tournaments they are these days.