Had this debate with some members of thefreekick.com astro team in the pub the other night.
My contention was that winning the CL is a far more impressive achievement and the ultimate test of a team.
I think outside the top 4 the standard in England is pretty brutal. Bolton coming fifth for the last few years and Everton getting into the CL reflects this imo.
In effect my point was that the English League is like a mini-league between the top 4 whereas the CL contains the same top 4 English teams but also the best teams from Spain, Italy, France, Germany and other giants like Celtic. Therefore it’s a better standard and a better achievement to win it.
The counter argument was that how can you say that a team who comes 4th in England after 38 games but who then wins a tournament that has an element of cup/knock-out football over a lesser number of games is stronger than the consistent side who went and won their domestic league over the longer distance.
My response used a Eurovision Song Contest analogy.
Say they changed the format and there was a phone vote in Ireland and the top 4 songs got into the main continent wide competition. If the song that came 4th in the national competition then went on and won the whole thing outright by accumulating the most votes and beating the best songs from countries with a proud Eurovision tradition like Sweden, Norway, Russia, Turkey, The United Kingdom et al then it’s pretty clear in my mind which song is better. Yes, the one that wins the Eurovision and not the one that wins the piddly little national competition hosted by Mary Kennedy or someone.
The team that wins the Champions League. The measure of a team is how you do against quality opposition like you get in the Champions League. Because outside the top four in England the quality is poor it is far harder to win the Champions League. All this nonsense from some EPL fans about how Chelsea, Manchester could win the Champions League if only they didn’t concentrate on the EPL is based on no logic or foundation. Over last fifteen seasons Manchester’s primary aim most years was to win the Champions League yet have only been able to do so only on one occassion. Yet they have won the EPL at a canter a few times during this period.
I’d agree with you Bandage and say the CL is the tougher and better test of a team.
There’s too much made of the Premiership in England where they consider it a truer test of a squad over a season. In reality 80% of the games should be bankers for the top 4 so while consistency is required to win the league it shouldn’t be as hard for e.g. Liverpool to make the step-up as they’re making out.
I’d look back at the season Celtic got to Seville and lost the league on goal difference on the last day of the season. There’s no doubt in my mind that Celtic had the better season because on the tougher stage we were the better team.
I cite Liverpool’s victory in 2005 as an example. That season Liverpool lost 14 league matches. Chelsea lost 2. Chelsea won the league that year. Liverpool won the European Cup. Who had the better season? Chelsea for me
However if you look at the likes of Ferguson at United who has just won his 9th Premiership title. H ehas only won one European Cup and cannot consider himself as great until he wins at least another one
All in all I think the best team in a league ends up winning it but not the best team in Europe ends up winning the European Cup due to the cup nature of the competition. That said for teams having won the league - European success is undoubtedly the biggest test
Farmer I think what you are trying to say is that Arsenal’s unbeaten season is the greatest achievement of the modern age. You admitted as much in Kehoe’s on Thursday night anyway.
But you rate that as a secondary competition. Personally I think success in Europe and success domestically go hand in hand. Win either and you’re a good team, win both and you’re a great team. As much as it pains me to say it the Man Ure team of 1998/99 have set the bar for everyone.
Winning the CL is obviuosly a great achievement but it is diniminshed when the victors effectively don’t / are unable to compete in their domestic league as well. The true sign of a great European team is one who can win their domestic title and CL in the same year - Barca last year, Milan, Madrid, Man U in '99. Were Liverpool to win again this year it would be a fantastic achievement for them but they still wouldn’t be considered a great team due to their domestic failings - they haven’t improved in any way since '05. Surely the next step for Benitez was to build a squad capable of challenging domestically also. If every team in the CL said fook it we’ll just concentrate on Europe then it would signal the death of domestic football as the likes of Bolton, Everton etc could be winning the premiership and the creation of a European super league type competition would be a matter of course.
I don’t think the question can be answered in one word, it depends on the priorities of the manager & the board of directors.
Personally I think this season Ferguson, more than anything, wanted to regain the premiership. His team is still developing and with another couple of quality signings his priority will shift to the CL. Whether beating Milan and subsequently Liverpool only to finish 15 points behind Chelsea in the league would have been a greater achievement in his mind than what he has achieved already is highly dubious.
