UEFA Champions League 2014/2015

cfdh_edmundo said:
Great drama in the Ludogorets vs Steaua match. It's 1-0 so 1-1 on aggregate, goes to extra time in the last seconds the Ludogorets keeper rushes out to tackle and gets a red card, they made all 3 subs and so Moti a Romanian center back (who played for Steaua's big rivals Dinamo Bucharest) has to go in goal, he saves a free kick and then in the shoot out takes the first pen scores it and then saves 2 Steaua pens to win it for Ludogortes
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Lodogorets miss to win Steaua 3or4-0 Steaua was so terribly weak or Ludogorets was great this night.
 
MadoxX said:
But on the other hand, UEFA follows rules when it's about relatively important matches. When Vojvodina played against Trencin in this year EL qualifications, in an away game they lost 4:0, but Trencin used a player that they couldn't, yet UEFA did not give a single f*** about it (it would matter since Vojvodina won home game 3:0). I guess they were like, who does give a f*** about those teams, whoever passes this round will lose to Hull City in the next anyway. :THINK:
Click to expand...

I remember in one case, I thing 3-4 years ago play Litex Lovech against Debrecen. One player of hungary team which can't play on this match, but he play without problem after that. And Uefa do nothing about this case. But course uefa can penalty only poor team. so f**k u uefamafia.
 
wow ludogorets, that is crazy. fair play to them. hope they win the champions league.
also delighted malmo qualified and not that fake/illegitimate salzburg team. scheiss RB!
 
z206JCD.png
 
Those draws are just ridiculous, way too many restriction. Again Bayern with Man City and CSKA, again Dortmund against Arsenal, again Schalke against Chelsea.

I could cry. Those matches with Arsenal against Dortmund are fucking bad for me, can't enjoy the group stage again with my teams playing each other :(
 
Yep,

Tough draw again. Happy with Liverpool's though as 3rd seed, no pressure against Real and you would expect decent results against Basel and Lobowhatstheirname.
 
There is something seriously wrong with the format of the CL.
Seeding teams is not the right solution.

Manchester City should never be in pot 3...

Look at the uneven way the groups are divided...

I don't like those group stages, no more round robins but 32 teams who play each other twice and the winner progresses.

Perhaps even start with 64 clubs, but no round robins...
 
Last edited:
We were in pot 2 (tho it doesn't feel like it)

Won the league twice in 3 years and yet to be in pot 1. Ah the 'Champions' League...
 
Godotelli said:
We were in pot 2 (tho it doesn't feel like it)

Won the league twice in 3 years and yet to be in pot 1. Ah the 'Champions' League...
Click to expand...

ManCity are noobs though...winning the league 2x :LOL: how cute.ManCity don`t even get a check for being in the comp.
 
Ludogorets won the league 3 times in the last 3 years, they should be in Pot 1 then, woohooo! :YAWN:

Your argument is shallow.

With that said, I agree that the format is wrong, especially after they included these red/blue groups - it just guarantees less variety in the groups as we can see now.
 
Apparently Zenit can avoid the Portuguese and the Spanish team from the first basket if he will be there

I am sure that in this ball FC Porto :)

tumblr_nb13t67KPF1rdg4zpo1_400.gif


6f5a9cd0bbf38a8f1587036edd76dfbb.png


In my opinion I know on what bases its Zenit transfers. This photo :)
 
spektarm said:
Ludogorets won the league 3 times in the last 3 years, they should be in Pot 1 then, woohooo! :YAWN:

Your argument is shallow.

With that said, I agree that the format is wrong, especially after they included these red/blue groups - it just guarantees less variety in the groups as we can see now.
Click to expand...

Not when leagues are seeded as well.

Pot 1 should be the champions of the top 7 leagues and the CL winner.
ATM it's just blatant protectionism.
 
Godotelli said:
Not when leagues are seeded as well.

Pot 1 should be the champions of the top 7 leagues and the CL winner.
ATM it's just blatant protectionism.
Click to expand...

That should be logical if you are seeding.
I also wonder ho far they go back in time, because if you want to make sure that the best teams stay till the end (that is what the seeding is all about), you should only take into account the two or three last seasons and this with deteriorating importance (i'm sure this is bad English, but you will get my drift).

That is if you are seeding at all.

I feel for a format like the old ECI. Without any protectionism at all. It should be possible that Atletico Madrid and Real Madridplay each other in the first round. That is the only way more litle teamscan progress...

Will we ever see a teams like Porto or Ajax win the CL. The way things are now, if a team like Man Utd misses out on the CL for 3 or 4 seasons, they will never be able to win it again...that is not a good thing.
 
The seeding is the last 5 years:

http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/

City are barely above Spurs! LMAO.

Utd will likely drop out of the 1st pot after this season and possibly into the 3rd if a couple of other teams do well (city). Liverpool will need to have 3 good seasons to get back up there. But the EL generates nearly as much points as the CL these days. Both Benfica and Atletico have benefited hugely in seedings from their wins.
 
Last edited:
Godotelli said:
Not when leagues are seeded as well.

Pot 1 should be the champions of the top 7 leagues and the CL winner.
ATM it's just blatant protectionism.
Click to expand...

as for this year, there could still be a chance of you getting barcelona, bvb from pot 2 then. not that it's a pointless suggestion but that system change wouldn't really change things dramatically.

current format

bayern - city
barça - paris
atletico - juventus
arsenal - dortmund

pot 1 allocated for champions

city - barça
bayern - arsenal
paris - dortmund
atletico - chelsea

of course this is a worst case scenario but you shouldn't expect that such a rule change would work wonders.

clearly the key for the pot 1 is consistency. and city haven't been consistent(neither that successful) enough in CL yet to warrant a place in pot 1. I don't see anything wrong with that.

the thing I don't support with the old format(pre-98) is "only champions allowed" rule. since 98, out of 17 CL champions, only 8 teams entered as league champion to that year's competition. many teams change blatantly over the transfer windows, some of them strengthen, some weaken. that old rule was mostly bringing down the quality of the competition.

the only rule I'd change on the current format would be allowing teams from the same country draw at any stage starting with groups. the only thing that matters to be champions or not imo.
 
Godotelli said:
Not when leagues are seeded as well.

Pot 1 should be the champions of the top 7 leagues and the CL winner.
ATM it's just blatant protectionism.
Click to expand...
The Champions League is all about protectionism. It was conceived to satisfy the "elite" clubs by maximising generated revenue and chances of progression using a league format.

Otherwise we would still have the European Cup with knockout football, which I much prefer, but the big clubs and TV networks don't for obvious reasons.
 
I think the current model is better than the old model. More teams, more competition, better teams (2nd for the EPL is better than the Latvia winner for sure). Better all around.

Think the seedings are correct too. It rewards teams that have been performing well regulary. Not only the big dogs. Benfica and Porto were on Pot 1, and you cannot say that we are big spenders, but rather consistent perfomers in UEFA competitions.

The only thing I would change is the rule that no teams from the same country can be placed in the same group. That tends to favour the big leagues. There's no good reason for that rule, IMHO.
 
This competition should be between the champions and to me it doesn't matter if a team is champion of Latvia or Spain.

One could agree with your point that the CL should be about the best teams in Europe and that third in England is much better than champion in Latvia. That is undenaibly true. But you take very radical opposites.

The point is that the way the jackpot (television rights) is divided, makes the difference between teams bigger. If the champion of Latvia couldplay the CL, then they would havemore money and could become a better team. They would never be an Arsenal, but they could become a Porto.

Another example of the way money rules: both Juventus and AS Roma are very Lucky that Athletic cub de Bilbao eliminated Napoli because the television money for Italy will now be divided between two teams instead of three. That is very bad for competition, because with the money they earned more than the other Italian teams they can buy more players,have a better chance to play in the CL next season and this will attract more better players,which they can afford with the television money.

And then i'm not even speaking about the uneven division of the television money between the different countries. I will not repeat myself because i've mentioned this over and over again.

The fact is that if you want to see the best teams play against each other, then you should start an European super league.

The CL (and the Euro League) is a violation of what a cup should be. In a league, 99 times out of 100, the best team wins. The attractive aspect of cups is that surprises are possible and even likely. By changing the format of both European cups, UEFA has taken away this attractive point.

It is very obvious club that your Latvian champions will not win the CL and that is perhaps logical. But teams like Ajax, Feyenoord Benfica, Hamburg, Club Brugge, Malmö and Panathinaikos will never win it either. I mention those clubs because they each played at least a final in the old ECI.
 
I didn't mention the tv money at all. Just the format in itself. I prefer it like that do be quite honest. This is a format that allows for all kind of teams to be competitive. Ajax, Porto and Borussia won it with the format and Monaco and Atlético reach the final. And the teams that you mention could reach it too. The problem is not the format. The problem is the TV deals, which do not make sense from a competition POV and favour the bigger leagues. With a more just TV deals, for example, a team like Benfica wouldn't have to sell the best players every year and maybe could challenge for the title like in good old days. Instead you have a player like Bebé, a reserve/loanee player from Man U, that took a pay cut to join Benfica. The market is all fuck up. And CL TV money plays a big part in this.
 
andy, ajax and dortmund won it when it was still "champions-only" league.
porto is the only outsider won CL under the current format (which also makes mourinho the special one indeed .p).
valencia(twice), leverkusen, monaco, dortmund, atletico are the other "minnow"s to play in final since 98. 7 out of 34 finalists. not too bad, imo.

I think the little teams that won the EC back then was mostly thanks to the format, some of them were really good but I don't think majority of them could even reach semis if current format was applied then. I know it's much harder to collect a team to challenge for the title than the glass ceiling clubs, but when they manage to do that, the current format doesn't really block them to reach the final, at least, as seen above.

imo, the teams eliminated in the last 16 round also should join europa league besides the group thirds and uefa should give bigger money prizes to uel teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom