You're missing the point entirely.

If you have an off day now you can almost be out of the competition, depending on when the off day is.

Real Madrid are a great example of that. Couldn't get past the second round for six years.

Just because it was a true cup competition does make it the best format, that's a matter of opinion.

But the current format is definitely harder to win, I'd say.
--------------------------------------------------

I'd say it was harder back in the day. There were relative 'minnows' turning up, doing a job and winning the thing.
Now, the best team on the day has been replaced by (generally) who has the biggest wallet as the results have shown year upon year................and will again next season.
It's a shame imo, that's all I'm saying.

It depends on what you think should be the purpose of the European competition. If it is to keep the romanticism about a true cup competition per se, the old format is better. If it is to crown the best team is Europe, the new format is better.

Real and Barcelona are favoured by the CL seeing as it allows and welcomes Spains bankrolling of these two clubs and keeping down the rest of the Spanish league clubs.
-------------------------------

Real and Barca have their own TV rights. Approximately £100mil better than the next club and it falls dramatically for the rest.

Well that's nonsense, TUX, seeing as Dortmund and Atleti both got to the final of the CL the last two seasons.

The old format had many of the best teams in Europe missing from the tournament.

Apply the new format to the old competition and you might not have as many repeat winners of the trophy, as the CL has shown, and it would be a tougher competition for the any team to win as there are more good teams.

It was harder to qualify for, but the format in comparison to the format today made it easier to win.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by The Luke Show (U8522)
posted 6 minutes ago
It depends on what you think should be the purpose of the European competition. If it is to keep the romanticism about a true cup competition per se, the old format is better. If it is to crown the best team is Europe, the new format is better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I agree with that.

They still have the knock-out bit so it still has the excitement of the old comp.

you just have to look at the last CL to see how useless the old format really is. there were two teams better than barca in spain, as showed in League and CL. under the old format, this poor barca team will be competing in European cup while two better teams capable of winning it will be watching from the sidelines, unable to compete. now that would be a real shame, and a sham

That's what I mean.

The team that wins the title isn't always the best team the following season. As we've also shown.

It happened all the time back then as well. Where the champions of a certain country the following year weren't competing in the European Cup.

Its why the UEFA Cup was held in such high esteem because there were some great teams in it as well. The CL is effectively a combination of the old European Cup and UEFA Cup. Combine those two tournaments back then, be it straight knock out or otherwise, and you have a stronger and more competitive tournament.

Well that's nonsense, TUX, seeing as Dortmund and Atleti both got to the final of the CL the last two seasons.
--------------------------

Hardly minnows.

DTKF......As for ''Given what money has done to the game'' bud. All I see is me and my/your mates paying through the nose to watch a game, then subscribe to TV etc etc and it cost's an arm and a leg. Football is no more exciting than it was back in the day, just more expensive to watch now than those of equal talent back then. Pele, Maradona were 'old school' and still regarded as the best despite being long gone.
All money has done is allow the media to brainwash us all that we're watching something fantastic when we watching nothing better than I watched in the 70's and it didn't cost me or you a fortune..................but we now pay for apprentices to drive R8's/Bentleys. That's all the money has brought to the game bud. Nothing more.

You said it was about who had the most money. Those two prove that point to be false.

Did they win?

No. But if it's all about money they wouldn't have got that far would they?

I am not as hostile to the new format, even though my own club are clearly cheated by it, but the worst thing about the Champions League is the grossly unequal TV handouts.

Money should be awarded for progress.

Sorry TUX but you're being a romantic old fart.

Money has improved the game. Millions are pumped into youth development in Europe. There's a much bigger talent pool to pick from than in the 70s. Players are also fitter ans stronger due to research into sport fitness

I agree with you about the bad sides (prima donnas, mass media) but football is a lot 'better' than it used to be.

If they are so ' big' why do they having trouble selling tickets to a game in their owners home town?

Money may have improved the game but you have to question the fairness of how money is distributed.

That is two seasons in succession where a quarter-finalist has been given more money by UEFA than a team that reached the final. How do finalists like Dortmund or Atlético ever progress if they achieve things only for UEFA to reward those who did worse than them?

Furthermore, the UK is suffering financially because it has two different leagues with Champions League entrants all subject to the same broadcast deal; in other words the pot is split among five.

Why don't Liverpool & ManU every brag about being the only clubs to have players found guilty of match fixing?

If we look at money distancing the big teams then yeah i agree. It's damaging

But there have are more, good players in the last 20 years than ever before

Whilst that may be true, it does not legislate for UEFA's complete distortion of the integrity of European Football.

Money should be awarded fairly in terms of progress, people criticise La Liga's TV deal and rightly so- but UEFA's structure is just as damaging.

Sorry TUX but you're being a romantic old fart.

Money has improved the game. Millions are pumped into youth development in Europe. There's a much bigger talent pool to pick from than in the 70s. Players are also fitter ans stronger due to research into sport fitness

I agree with you about the bad sides (prima donnas, mass media) but football is a lot 'better' than it used to be.
------------------

Sorry 'Rusky' but you are young and have soooo much to learn.
The Brazil side of 1970 are still regarded as the finest despite Spains fantastic recent efforts. Why is that?
Think how much better they would have been if they drunk Lucozade and done a few press ups everyday!
You completely miss the point bud, money has made players richer. That is all. Everything has a natural progression hence we have BMX'ers doing backflips, people with 'batwings' flying through caves and the list goes on. Footballers and their tricks/fitness is the same. It's called progression. If we didn't progress then we still be living in caves (like DTKF ).
Don't be fooled by the hype bud.

Brazil 1970.

Fair enough. I only started watching football in 96

I also started watching football around 95/96 but there are plenty of videos of 70s football. Anyone can see that the quality of football has increased over the years, unless you are blind or holding on to some weird nostalgia. Players were fatter, slower, tactically indiscipline and unfit when compared to modern day players. Game is played in a tortoises pace and there is almost no pressing what so ever. Joe cole would look like Messi if given so much time and space on the ball. If Ronaldo was placed in a 70s team, he would run rings around those slow defenders while juggling some toys.

There is a significant improvement in quality of football when compared to 70s, whether its due to money or natural progression is another debate

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator