Jump to content

England's troubled Champions League record


Marka Ragnos

Recommended Posts

It's just ups and downs.

 

When England had someone in the CL final pretty much every year, with 3 different clubs winning it in a decade, nobody on here really mentioned it. It's the cool thing to do to knock English clubs and get as much enjoyment as possible when they aren't doing so well.

 

England will have a few spells here and there where it's not doing so great. But as we've seen over the past decade, 3 different clubs have won the competition. How far do you have to go back in history to find another nation having 3 different winners? I would assume a good couple of decades. Germany and Spain are often distorted by Bayern/Barca/Madrid, when in reality the rest of the clubs are embarrassingly poor in their CL history. Dortmund made a final, Atletico made a Final and a huge deal was made about it. How often do these clubs make the latter stages? Not very often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valencia reached two finals in early 2000s but yes you are right. The biggest issue if these performances continue over the next two years we are likely to loose a champions league spot. At the moment we are 2nd behind La liga in terms of performance over the last 5 years in both the champions league and eufa league but that will drop to 3rd next year behind Germany and then theres a big gap between us and Italy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it wont happen for about 5 years id imagine and thats only if both leagues keep up current form

 

though out of top 10 nations only England and Netherlands have no clubs left but ive no idea how it works but England are 4th for the season but no idea how that works

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its based over 5 seasons so I think the earliest it can happen is the 2016/17 season. 

 

Each team gets two points for a win and one point for a draw, though points are halved for matches in the qualifying and play-off rounds. 

Clubs that reach the last 16, quarter-final, semi-final or final of the Champions League, or the quarter-final, semi-final or final of the Europa League, are awarded an extra point for each round. 

In addition, four points are awarded for participation in the group stage of the Champions League and four points for qualifying for the last 16.

Edited by PaulC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to compare how lower level La Liga and Premier League teams do against the top clubs is pure idiocy.

The incentive structures between the leagues are so different that the strategies used are vastly different.

Losing by 5+ goals in England is significant: it could be what causes a club to go down or miss out on Europe. In Spain it's only realistically significant if you end up level on points with the opponent and beat them in the reverse fixture: losing 8-0 to Barcelona is only a bad thing if Barcelona are struggling for Europe or to stay up.

So a lower English club is incentivized to keep their opponent from scoring: there's a big difference for Swansea in losing 5-0 to Chelsea vs. losing 2-0. But in the Spanish system, there's no reason not to go for the win, and also no reason not to treat the rest of the game as a friendly if Real Madrid is up by 3 goals in the first hour.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

all the money in the world and Premier LEague still cant attract the stars and never been able to. Can pay as many mediocre players 80k a week you want but how many world class players in their prime has the league been able to attract

Ballack, Shevchenko maybe Veron and Crespo. The rest either turned up as youngsters, past their prime or while still in development or failed at other European clubs

Ozil and Di Maria surely fit into this category which ever way you spin it.

And this sort of argument doesn't explain well why the Premier League was absolutely dominant in that 2008-2011 period at Champions League level.

not sure them two do. good players but not world class. But back in 08-11, the English teams were mainly build on being solid defensive units especially Chelsea, Liverpool and United. Man City is the opposite of defensive organisation. Kompany for example wouldnt have got in any of the teams either would that overrated waster Toure

If Ozil and Di Maria weren't world class when they moved to the premier league, there are about 6 world class players in the world.

Both made the UEFA team of the year in the year they moved. Ozil for the 2nd year in a row. What would he have had to achieve to be world class if that isn't enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it when English teams go out early in the Champions League. I hate 'the top 4'.

 

Exactly my thoughts. Love to see them fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

all the money in the world and Premier LEague still cant attract the stars and never been able to. Can pay as many mediocre players 80k a week you want but how many world class players in their prime has the league been able to attract

Ballack, Shevchenko maybe Veron and Crespo. The rest either turned up as youngsters, past their prime or while still in development or failed at other European clubs

Ozil and Di Maria surely fit into this category which ever way you spin it.

And this sort of argument doesn't explain well why the Premier League was absolutely dominant in that 2008-2011 period at Champions League level.

not sure them two do. good players but not world class. But back in 08-11, the English teams were mainly build on being solid defensive units especially Chelsea, Liverpool and United. Man City is the opposite of defensive organisation. Kompany for example wouldnt have got in any of the teams either would that overrated waster Toure

If Ozil and Di Maria weren't world class when they moved to the premier league, there are about 6 world class players in the world.

Both made the UEFA team of the year in the year they moved. Ozil for the 2nd year in a row. What would he have had to achieve to be world class if that isn't enough?

 

 

Yes and thats the way it should be. World class is too easily banded around these days. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

all the money in the world and Premier LEague still cant attract the stars and never been able to. Can pay as many mediocre players 80k a week you want but how many world class players in their prime has the league been able to attract

Ballack, Shevchenko maybe Veron and Crespo. The rest either turned up as youngsters, past their prime or while still in development or failed at other European clubs

Ozil and Di Maria surely fit into this category which ever way you spin it.

And this sort of argument doesn't explain well why the Premier League was absolutely dominant in that 2008-2011 period at Champions League level.

not sure them two do. good players but not world class. But back in 08-11, the English teams were mainly build on being solid defensive units especially Chelsea, Liverpool and United. Man City is the opposite of defensive organisation. Kompany for example wouldnt have got in any of the teams either would that overrated waster Toure

If Ozil and Di Maria weren't world class when they moved to the premier league, there are about 6 world class players in the world.

Both made the UEFA team of the year in the year they moved. Ozil for the 2nd year in a row. What would he have had to achieve to be world class if that isn't enough?

 

 

Yes and thats the way it should be. World class is too easily banded around these days. 

 

 

I'm happy with that, but if that's the standard for world class players, then the only clubs that buy world class players are Madrid and Barcelona. The Premier League is still a destination league for very good players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â