First of all, as far as I'm aware there is now a 50% chance the either Chelsea or Arsenal will draw Barcelona in the next round. Since Barcelona can't face either of the Madrid's, Villarreal, or Sporting Lisbon, that only leaves four teams for them to be pitted against, two of which are English. This represents bad news for these three giants, but great news for rivals and neutrals. For Man Utd, there is a 50% chance that one of their biggest rivals will be eliminated from the competition. Maybe finishing first was actually the best thing after all. Stupid maths.
Anyway, the main reason I write is that there has been a lot of talk about the group stages this time around, with people pining for the days of old when it was either a competition strictly for champions, or a straight knock-out competition, or both. I have to say that I completely disagree with each and every one of these sentiments. Do people really want to see the Bulgarian champions play European football instead of Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Villarreal? I hope not. We want to see the best teams play, and so if the fourth best English or Spanish team is better than the champion of an Eastern European league then so be it. (Of course there has to be limits, and I think top 4 is a suitable limit.)
It seems like people long for the days of cup upsets, where bin men and lorry drivers play in big matches and have a "great day out" etc etc. Well if I wanted to see useless players play with big hearts, I'd go to Eircom League games every Friday night. But no. I want to see the best teams play against each other. I don't want to see a final between Porto and Panathenaikos. I don't want to see Barcelona eliminated in the first round of a competition thanks to some heroic defending by the opposition or a bad refereeing decision or whatever. I don't care what anyone says - these one-off upsets are not what football is all about. Ask yourself this - did you prefer Euro 2004 or Euro 2008? Did you enjoy seeing the minnows of Greece triumph by defending very, very well, or did you enjoy seeing Spain pass their way to the winners podium?
Yes the group stages of the Champions League this year weren't very exciting, and virtually every team in the knock-out stages could have been predicted to be there from the get go. But that didn't mean that the lesser teams didn't have a chance. There was still room for excitement. Zenit St Petersburg could have ousted Real Madrid. Bordeaux could have beaten Chelsea. Arsenal could have lost to Dinamo Kiev. They didn't, but they could have.
The problem therefore is not in the format. The "problem" is that the good teams are better than the bad teams. Does that mean we should even out the playing field by trying to get more bad teams advancing further? No, of course not. They all had their chance in the group stages, but they weren't good enough to cause any upsets. And so what we have left is arguably the best selection of teams that the knock-out stage has seen. I mean do the people who yearn for the good ol' days want to maybe take Barcelona and Chelsea out of there and replace them with Basel and Steau Bucharest? Would that spice things up a bit? Me thinks not.
As far as I'm concerned, the current Champions League format is as good as can be, and the reforms being introduced next year to improve it will actually only serve to weaken it (more bad teams = worse quality, right?). I was thinking about ways to improve it last night, and all I could think of was the following, which has some fundamental flaws:
Instead of playing everybody twice in the group stages, you play them once, with the top two advancing. The remaining 16 teams are then put into four groups, and from there it basically becomes a prolonged (former) European Championships - 4 groups, play each other once, top 2 go through to the quarter finals etc. The problem of course arises with home and away games. There wouldn't be an even number in the group stages. That (substantial problem) aside however, I think such a format would be incredibly exciting, while at the same time allowing the cream to rise to the top. Agree?
But apart from that slightly whacky idea, I think there can be no improving on the present format. Yes there wasn't much to cheer about this time around, but remember when Utd finished last in their group? Or when Liverpool had to win their three remaining games to qualify? Or when Chelsea were in the same group as Barcelona? I just think people are humming this "the Champions League is a sham" tune for the sake of it, without actually taking into account the bigger picture. With the prospect of a sensational knock-out stage to come, it's all a bit premature really. One wonders what these same people will be saying if next February we get to see Chelsea v Barcelona on Tuesday night and Man Utd v Real Madrid on Wednesday, with highlights of Arsenal v Bayern Munich and Liverpool v Inter.
Anyway, the main reason I write is that there has been a lot of talk about the group stages this time around, with people pining for the days of old when it was either a competition strictly for champions, or a straight knock-out competition, or both. I have to say that I completely disagree with each and every one of these sentiments. Do people really want to see the Bulgarian champions play European football instead of Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea, Real Madrid, Villarreal? I hope not. We want to see the best teams play, and so if the fourth best English or Spanish team is better than the champion of an Eastern European league then so be it. (Of course there has to be limits, and I think top 4 is a suitable limit.)
It seems like people long for the days of cup upsets, where bin men and lorry drivers play in big matches and have a "great day out" etc etc. Well if I wanted to see useless players play with big hearts, I'd go to Eircom League games every Friday night. But no. I want to see the best teams play against each other. I don't want to see a final between Porto and Panathenaikos. I don't want to see Barcelona eliminated in the first round of a competition thanks to some heroic defending by the opposition or a bad refereeing decision or whatever. I don't care what anyone says - these one-off upsets are not what football is all about. Ask yourself this - did you prefer Euro 2004 or Euro 2008? Did you enjoy seeing the minnows of Greece triumph by defending very, very well, or did you enjoy seeing Spain pass their way to the winners podium?
Yes the group stages of the Champions League this year weren't very exciting, and virtually every team in the knock-out stages could have been predicted to be there from the get go. But that didn't mean that the lesser teams didn't have a chance. There was still room for excitement. Zenit St Petersburg could have ousted Real Madrid. Bordeaux could have beaten Chelsea. Arsenal could have lost to Dinamo Kiev. They didn't, but they could have.
The problem therefore is not in the format. The "problem" is that the good teams are better than the bad teams. Does that mean we should even out the playing field by trying to get more bad teams advancing further? No, of course not. They all had their chance in the group stages, but they weren't good enough to cause any upsets. And so what we have left is arguably the best selection of teams that the knock-out stage has seen. I mean do the people who yearn for the good ol' days want to maybe take Barcelona and Chelsea out of there and replace them with Basel and Steau Bucharest? Would that spice things up a bit? Me thinks not.
As far as I'm concerned, the current Champions League format is as good as can be, and the reforms being introduced next year to improve it will actually only serve to weaken it (more bad teams = worse quality, right?). I was thinking about ways to improve it last night, and all I could think of was the following, which has some fundamental flaws:
Instead of playing everybody twice in the group stages, you play them once, with the top two advancing. The remaining 16 teams are then put into four groups, and from there it basically becomes a prolonged (former) European Championships - 4 groups, play each other once, top 2 go through to the quarter finals etc. The problem of course arises with home and away games. There wouldn't be an even number in the group stages. That (substantial problem) aside however, I think such a format would be incredibly exciting, while at the same time allowing the cream to rise to the top. Agree?
But apart from that slightly whacky idea, I think there can be no improving on the present format. Yes there wasn't much to cheer about this time around, but remember when Utd finished last in their group? Or when Liverpool had to win their three remaining games to qualify? Or when Chelsea were in the same group as Barcelona? I just think people are humming this "the Champions League is a sham" tune for the sake of it, without actually taking into account the bigger picture. With the prospect of a sensational knock-out stage to come, it's all a bit premature really. One wonders what these same people will be saying if next February we get to see Chelsea v Barcelona on Tuesday night and Man Utd v Real Madrid on Wednesday, with highlights of Arsenal v Bayern Munich and Liverpool v Inter.
No comments:
Post a Comment