How strong is this seasons Champions League?

Agree... 2002-03 was the strongest QF by miles.

That said, the CL remains a very imteresting competition. If only UEFA could decide a winner by having a minor 6-8 team league, that would be so cool!

Rez wrote:2002-2003 was by far the strongest.



Real Madrid had the best team of the last 10 years, Milan, United and Valencia were better then they are now, Juve were one of the best teams in europe and Barcelona/Inter/AJax were also very strong.



I think that season was the last great CL season, the united v Real and Juve v Real matches were phenomenal (arguably two of the best ties in CL I have seen), although the all Italian final, unsurprisingly tainted the tournament.

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:
your point about strikers is that they dont score on too many chances. well the way i see team are making it very hard to a striker these days. you have to work your self to death and get no back up and then strike on the few chances you get. the fact that teams today are very relient on their strikers hitting their few chances they get is proof that teams dont go out to try and create chances but to defend and rely on the few chances that teams will get in a match.and a game without any goals can be great. its about chances that is what makes games fun. not scoring on one of two goals you get and then play even more defensive.

It's about not trusting your defender in the end. If you expect your opponents can create something out of nothing you wouldn't play defensively. The point about strikers stems from the fact you do not expect your opponents to punish you, if you did you'd change your style. If teams aren't being beaten easily you'll never get those close affairs when those two teams collide.

Controversy wrote:

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:
your point about strikers is that they dont score on too many chances. well the way i see team are making it very hard to a striker these days. you have to work your self to death and get no back up and then strike on the few chances you get. the fact that teams today are very relient on their strikers hitting their few chances they get is proof that teams dont go out to try and create chances but to defend and rely on the few chances that teams will get in a match.and a game without any goals can be great. its about chances that is what makes games fun. not scoring on one of two goals you get and then play even more defensive.

It's about not trusting your defender in the end. If you expect your opponents can create something out of nothing you wouldn't play defensively. The point about strikers stems from the fact you do not expect your opponents to punish you, if you did you'd change your style. If teams aren't being beaten easily you'll never get those close affairs when those two teams collide.

Basically it just comes down to the fact that most managers would rather not conceed a goal than score one..

Controversy wrote:

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:
your point about strikers is that they dont score on too many chances. well the way i see team are making it very hard to a striker these days. you have to work your self to death and get no back up and then strike on the few chances you get. the fact that teams today are very relient on their strikers hitting their few chances they get is proof that teams dont go out to try and create chances but to defend and rely on the few chances that teams will get in a match.and a game without any goals can be great. its about chances that is what makes games fun. not scoring on one of two goals you get and then play even more defensive.

It's about not trusting your defender in the end. If you expect your opponents can create something out of nothing you wouldn't play defensively. The point about strikers stems from the fact you do not expect your opponents to punish you, if you did you'd change your style. If teams aren't being beaten easily you'll never get those close affairs when those two teams collide.

i dont think we will agree because we will always have counter arguement that can be used by both. i will say that the mindset about playing defensive is that you are afraid of how the other team will play. and if teams werent afriad of other teams then they would all out attack. but i cant see any point debating because we have very different view and anything i say you will counter with opposite. but my hole point is not about goals but chances.teams that attack wants to create chances. teams that defend wants to limit chances by others and try to get a goal then play counterattack. if you dont dare to take risk then games will be decidede by small margins and that is what football has become today. if teams wanted to attack few team would play a 4-5-1.

I like to see the "poor" teams do well. Pisses the rich ones off just that much more, knowing they've spent all that cash and still aren't good enough.

How people can complain about loosing to poor clubs is beyond me.

Luso wrote:I like to see the "poor" teams do well. Pisses the rich ones off just that much more, knowing they've spent all that cash and still aren't good enough.

How people can complain about loosing to poor clubs is beyond me.

so do i but not on behalf of good play. psv showed in 2004 that it is very much possible to outplay big teams if you actually try and werder bremen has done well too with offensive football. sure smaller teams now have a bigger chance but not because of their quality but for playing tactics and hoping for cheap goals and luck. football is not better off if good teams are beaten because if defensive football because that means they will resort to more defensive attitude which is already the case with most teams.´

remember the sporting-cska game. that pretty much summed up how i feel. sporting played incredible and deserved to win but cska just took the few chances they got. now such games as these are good for football when they happen sometimes but when its all the time big teams will change their tactic too.

Most people here think 2002-2003 was the strongest.

So where does this seasons quarter-finalists rank compared to the other 3 seasons?

I agree with those who said that since 2004 football has changed. In a small way, but it has changed. Suddenly the key to winning cup competitions is being defensive. Like supermadrid pointed out, even we were more cautious last season than we usually are.

But IMO club bias ruins the ongoing argument...oleguer and I will obviously prefer to watch attacking football, because that is the team we support. And the reason we support this team is (partly) due to their style of football. Whereas those like Obispo or Luis are more inclined to be "enthralled" by defensive football, because that is what their team plays and gets success with, and so that is what they associate enjoyment of football with. Just like it's impossible for me to imagine football fans that *like* defensive football, it may be impossible for others to imagine fans that only want attack-attack-attack and flair.


And Luis, oleguer's right about Messi's comments. He hasn't said anything about the tie. Probably just old recycled comments, further twisted by "convenient" translation.

kas wrote:I agree with those who said that since 2004 football has changed. In a small way, but it has changed. Suddenly the key to winning cup competitions is being defensive. Like supermadrid pointed out, even we were more cautious last season than we usually are.

But IMO club bias ruins the ongoing argument...oleguer and I will obviously prefer to watch attacking football, because that is the team we support. And the reason we support this team is (partly) due to their style of football. Whereas those like Obispo or Luis are more inclined to be "enthralled" by defensive football, because that is what their team plays and gets success with, and so that is what they associate enjoyment of football with. Just like it's impossible for me to imagine football fans that *like* defensive football, it may be impossible for others to imagine fans that only want attack-attack-attack and flair.


And Luis, oleguer's right about Messi's comments. He hasn't said anything about the tie. Probably just old recycled comments, further twisted by "convenient" translation.

so we go round in circles, liverpool attacked the shit out of you, but you are calling them defensive again.

People are complaining about football becoming defensive, and using liverpool as a an example after they got through a tie by attacking better than the supposedly best attacking side in the world, whose best player ended up being their goal keeper. See where your logic fails?

Barca fans: if you want to be annoyed, be annoyed by your own team not being good enough on the night. Don't look for an excuse that football is becoming defensive. In the first match your team, who you say is going more defensiuve as well was a mess in defense. You being at home couldn't really expect Liverpool to do much else than they did. In the second match where there is this claim of leaving space at the back and going more attacking, you didn't hardly attack liverpool at all in the first half. They attacked you. In the second half as would be expected they decided to protect their lead instead and then you attacked them a bit.

Additionally Bayern, Valencia, Roma, Chelsea etc were not exactly defensive in getting through (all scored plenty of goals). I think there was only PSV who played defensively and made it.

110% wrote:is there less goals scored this year compared to other years?

maybe it is just that the strikers are not performing to their usual standards this year, think eto'o, sheva, henry, ronaldo etc

same goes for liverpool, poor finishing meant that instead of comfortably winning that game they lost, so the number of goals did not in any way reflect the attacking nature of the game.

same with arsenal-PSV etc

Well said. And that is often confused and/or forgotten. As a recent example, same situation counts for the Milan-Celtic game: how many times did the ball hit the woodwork!? And it wasn't as if Milan were just passing the ball around.

Rez wrote:

DD wrote:

Rez wrote:The 2002-2003 QF had the best teams (3 Italian, 3 Spanish, 1 English, 1 dutch) they were all exciting to watch. It could be argued that the 2 group stages made the competition much stronger, also getting rid of the poorer teams, that have since contested the QF.

Lame and poor. And by your own standards, Man U would also be culled from this campaign.

Not merely the second round, but any team that reaches the quarter finals deserves to be there.

I wrote a long response and the server crashed and it didnt go through, cant be bothered to write it again.

No problem. Happens way too often to me as well.

Obispo wrote:

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:
If Liverpool is such a wonderful attacking side then why haven't they (or other teams for that matter) scored tonnes of goals in this year's tournament?

It's too cagey.

yep

I actually like the defensive, tactical nature of the CL. It blows the whole competition open.

If the best attacking players in the world can't cope in a pressure enviroment against teams that are there to stiffle them, they're clearly not the best in the world.

zactly. If now is not the time to step up and prove yourself, when is. For all the over-adulation and negative critique, the CL games really are the toughest games to shine at (pressure; nervousness; physical, tactical or technical toughness of your opponents, meeting the best of all other leagues).

I think all the extremely negative teams went out in the group stages.

true again

The pragmatic teams are the ones who are left. Pragmatism shouldn't be confused with negativity.

BIG ONE.

And frankly, I find quality defending as good to watch as goals against shit defences.

Seeing a quality striker/player crack down a quality defense is pure beauty, and the reward of a goal is even bigger. Rather than twatting a vastly inferiour team 7-0. If you prefer the latter, you're likely consider Brazil-Cyprus a quality game as wel then.

I think it's a sad state of affairs when a tournament where defenders are the stand-out players is considered poor.

Shocking really. The defenders are what seperate the men from the boys; the big name no end product/out of his league from the underrated performer at the highest standard.

If people are bored of watching defenders then perhaps they should switch to basketball.

111-109
Oh yeah, and touching you're opponent is a technical foul (You're only allowed two per game).

Oh, and for all this talk about players who aren't "special" - Kaká, the best player in the world, remains the top scorer along with Didier Drogba.

And the people living off reputation get outed once again (the likes of Roberto Carlos)

What more could you want from the highest level of football?!

For the people complaining about new revelations haven't they seen:
VDV, Diego, Podolski, Alex (for you lot then), Dica and plenty of others.

If you're not watching, you can't really complain. And besides, for real revelations UEFA cup has always been the place to be. Its the window shop for the CL teams after all.

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:

Luso wrote:I like to see the "poor" teams do well. Pisses the rich ones off just that much more, knowing they've spent all that cash and still aren't good enough.

How people can complain about loosing to poor clubs is beyond me.

so do i but not on behalf of good play. psv showed in 2004 that it is very much possible to outplay big teams if you actually try and werder bremen has done well too with offensive football. sure smaller teams now have a bigger chance but not because of their quality but for playing tactics and hoping for cheap goals and luck. football is not better off if good teams are beaten because if defensive football because that means they will resort to more defensive attitude which is already the case with most teams.´

remember the sporting-cska game. that pretty much summed up how i feel. sporting played incredible and deserved to win but cska just took the few chances they got. now such games as these are good for football when they happen sometimes but when its all the time big teams will change their tactic too.

The reason managers make their team play defensively is because they don't want to lose. On the defense (executed well that is) you can grind results and gives you a gretaer chance of not losing.
They don't want to lose because for most clubs (i.e., all outside the prem and especially the smaller leagues) the CL revenue makes up such a big part of the club's yearly income that some clubs can completely fall from grace if they miss CL or have two abysmal seasons in a row (Feyenoord, Leeds).
For a bigger part, the more money that's pumped in the CL, the more negative it will get (or stay). The money is indirectly responsible for this. We all have to live with it.

There's a difference between negative and pragmatic play. Pragmatic is playing to your abiliteis and conceiling your weaknesses. The weaknesses could be as a result of injuries (supsensions etc), or a gap in quality (the case for smaller clubs in particular).
Generally speaking, I consider negative play for teams when they have (1) the quality (2) the ability or (3) the money (to afford attacking players/system). That's why I would consider Chelsea a negative team, because they fall under all three categories - they're generally a negative team even when everyone's fit.
Negative teams use this tactic (in cups), simply because while they can 'afford' to play attacking, negative play reduces the chance of losing, so they can grind out a result - thus getting very far with neanderthal tactics. Keeping the CL results on track with the club plan is what matters. Not to mention that the reputation, livelyhood and employment of big club managers depend on how far they get in the CL.

I need to defend PSV here a bit for all the fingerpointing in this thread though. PSV are a bit more attacking than what they've shown so far, but they've had injuries to their entire attack. No wonder that, they focus a bit more on defense. Not to mention that there is a small gap in quality (you'd expect that with the money) or in their case strength in depth.
Pragmatism was the name of the game.

That's why I don't prefer watching negative play from smaller teams in the CL (Copenhagen, AEK etc), I don't feel you can be in no position to judge and tell the smaller ones to attack, stretch the play, show the expected gap in quality, so the big clubs can stroll to a big win, knocking in 4 goals, swell up like a toad whilst proclaiming that their the best in the world.

If you don't like it, remember, its the CL money that's indirectly responsible for all of this.

DD wrote:

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:

Luso wrote:I like to see the "poor" teams do well. Pisses the rich ones off just that much more, knowing they've spent all that cash and still aren't good enough.

How people can complain about loosing to poor clubs is beyond me.

so do i but not on behalf of good play. psv showed in 2004 that it is very much possible to outplay big teams if you actually try and werder bremen has done well too with offensive football. sure smaller teams now have a bigger chance but not because of their quality but for playing tactics and hoping for cheap goals and luck. football is not better off if good teams are beaten because if defensive football because that means they will resort to more defensive attitude which is already the case with most teams.´

remember the sporting-cska game. that pretty much summed up how i feel. sporting played incredible and deserved to win but cska just took the few chances they got. now such games as these are good for football when they happen sometimes but when its all the time big teams will change their tactic too.

The reason managers make their team play defensively is because they don't want to lose. On the defense (executed well that is) you can grind results and gives you a gretaer chance of not losing.
They don't want to lose because for most clubs (i.e., all outside the prem and especially the smaller leagues) the CL revenue makes up such a big part of the club's yearly income that some clubs can completely fall from grace if they miss CL or have two abysmal seasons in a row (Feyenoord, Leeds).
For a bigger part, the more money that's pumped in the CL, the more negative it will get (or stay). The money is indirectly responsible for this. We all have to live with it.

There's a difference between negative and pragmatic play. Pragmatic is playing to your abiliteis and conceiling your weaknesses. The weaknesses could be as a result of injuries (supsensions etc), or a gap in quality (the case for smaller clubs in particular).
Generally speaking, I consider negative play for teams when they have (1) the quality (2) the ability or (3) the money (to afford attacking players/system). That's why I would consider Chelsea a negative team, because they fall under all three categories - they're generally a negative team even when everyone's fit.
Negative teams use this tactic (in cups), simply because while they can 'afford' to play attacking, negative play reduces the chance of losing, so they can grind out a result - thus getting very far with neanderthal tactics. Keeping the CL results on track with the club plan is what matters. Not to mention that the reputation, livelyhood and employment of big club managers depend on how far they get in the CL.

I need to defend PSV here a bit for all the fingerpointing in this thread though. PSV are a bit more attacking than what they've shown so far, but they've had injuries to their entire attack. No wonder that, they focus a bit more on defense. Not to mention that there is a small gap in quality (you'd expect that with the money) or in their case strength in depth.
Pragmatism was the name of the game.

That's why I don't prefer watching negative play from smaller teams in the CL (Copenhagen, AEK etc), I don't feel you can be in no position to judge and tell the smaller ones to attack, stretch the play, show the expected gap in quality, so the big clubs can stroll to a big win, knocking in 4 goals, swell up like a toad whilst proclaiming that their the best in the world.

If you don't like it, remember, its the CL money that's indirectly responsible for all of this.

I have no problem with the smaller teams playing defensive football, as if they try to attack a big team who have better players they will probably get stuffed. Thats why I think the second group stage was good, because teams get more games and guaranteed revenue, so they could afford to play more attaractive football. The group stage games are always more open than the knock out rounds. However the smaller teams probably wouldnt get as far, like 2003-2003 season, but this is the champions league, the supposed showpiece tournament for the elite clubs in Europe. Teams dont become the champions (or domestic championship contenders) by playing negative football. If I am watching a game that doesnt involve my team, I dont want to watch two teams of limited ability not commiting players forward in the hope to score from a set piece, if I did I would watch the early rounds of the FA Cup.

The CL should be the pinnacle of football, were the finest players in the world play to win. I pay my sky sports subscription to watch my team and these such players entertain me. I think its the same with many, Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea FC, after being enthralled and mesmerised by the Manchester united v Real Madrid game, I dont think if he had watched any of the recent games in the CL, he would have felt compelled to buy them.

@rez

Remember that it is the managers that chicken out of building an attacking side.


Anyway, CL is the pinnacle and the best in the leagues do attack, but when was the last time you've seen a team that was out and out attacking in both legs. Not even the so-called champs of the big leagues do that (all the time) - cancelling your point.
Very few teams get away (can't think one) with playing negative at home, so most don't if their not forced to (injuries etc).
Generally all teams play more offensive at home and more defensive away. Unless they conceded at home and need to score in the second leg, like Barcelona needed to.
Its just the way it is.

I get your point about the CL being exciting and league champs playing attacking to win their leagues. But its also very naieve, rosetinted on some occasions and one sided generally to think that its always the others that are the negative teams. *Not accusing you*

Its just the way it is. CL revenue has become too important, and managers chicken out building attacking sides because of the greater risk to lose their jobs.
At home more attacking, away more defensive - its written in stone. Unless your behind on aggregate.

DD wrote:@rez

Remember that it is the managers that chicken out of building an attacking side.


Anyway, CL is the pinnacle and the best in the leagues do attack, but when was the last time you've seen a team that was out and out attacking in both legs. Not even the so-called champs of the big leagues do that (all the time) - cancelling your point.
Very few teams get away (can't think one) with playing negative at home, so most don't if their not forced to (injuries etc).
Generally all teams play more offensive at home and more defensive away. Unless they conceded at home and need to score in the second leg, like Barcelona needed to.
Its just the way it is.

I get your point about the CL being exciting and league champs playing attacking to win their leagues. But its also very naieve, rosetinted on some occasions and one sided generally to think that its always the others that are the negative teams. *Not accusing you*

Its just the way it is. CL revenue has become too important, and managers chicken out building attacking sides because of the greater risk to lose their jobs.
At home more attacking, away more defensive - its written in stone. Unless your behind on aggregate.

I agree with what you are saying and all teams play defensive away, but that hasnt always been the case. The great Real teams played attacking football every were they went, united/Barca used to and even Valencia did when they got to the final. Granted they were the exception, however during this period the other teams werent as cautious.

I am not just campaigning for the big teams to play every QF, it was a counter argument to small teams having to play defensively due to having less ability. My argument was bring back the second group stage were teams are guaranteed so many games/money so they can play more open and expansive football. In the KO rounds the teams left, will be likely to be the best teams left, which in turn means they are likely to play there own game without worrying so much about the oppositions game. Thus more adventurous football.

Football has become more defensive and tactical, offensive players are suffering because of it. No team can take the moral high ground, by claiming they are the true bastions of attacking football. It culminated with Greece/Porto winning there respective tournaments. I personally dont like the current football climate, the last true great CL team were Real Madrid 2002-2003 and I am not sure the CL will see another attacking team like it, which saddens me.

Ps I will be the first to admit that Fergie uses negative tactics in Europe away after being burnt in the past after playing gung ho football and getting knocked out. Despit the tactics we still have players that are exciting to watch and when the opportunity arises in the game, play good attacking football. Theres a difference between being cautious and parking the bus on the hope you will score of a set piece like Greece.

barcelona of 2004/2005 played very offensive and entertaining but the way they got stuffed by chelsea even though they played great at stamford bridge. the following season rijkaard didnt want to lose so he went for a pragmatic.

btw i see pragmatic as a sort of defensive style. its about getting the most out of little. i just hope when Real get some strength they will not resort to this style and that barca will be offensive too. other then these two teams maybe man utd and arsenal can provide some balance to football.

again i dont think anyone wants to watch all out attacking teams but i think people wants different styles both overly offensive,over defensive and moderate sides aswell. whereas now we are getting pretty much the same teams just with different players.as DD says its managers that are cowards half the time.

110% wrote:

kas wrote:I agree with those who said that since 2004 football has changed. In a small way, but it has changed. Suddenly the key to winning cup competitions is being defensive. Like supermadrid pointed out, even we were more cautious last season than we usually are.

But IMO club bias ruins the ongoing argument...oleguer and I will obviously prefer to watch attacking football, because that is the team we support. And the reason we support this team is (partly) due to their style of football. Whereas those like Obispo or Luis are more inclined to be "enthralled" by defensive football, because that is what their team plays and gets success with, and so that is what they associate enjoyment of football with. Just like it's impossible for me to imagine football fans that *like* defensive football, it may be impossible for others to imagine fans that only want attack-attack-attack and flair.


And Luis, oleguer's right about Messi's comments. He hasn't said anything about the tie. Probably just old recycled comments, further twisted by "convenient" translation.

so we go round in circles, liverpool attacked the shit out of you, but you are calling them defensive again.

People are complaining about football becoming defensive, and using liverpool as a an example after they got through a tie by attacking better than the supposedly best attacking side in the world, whose best player ended up being their goal keeper. See where your logic fails?

Barca fans: if you want to be annoyed, be annoyed by your own team not being good enough on the night. Don't look for an excuse that football is becoming defensive. In the first match your team, who you say is going more defensiuve as well was a mess in defense. You being at home couldn't really expect Liverpool to do much else than they did. In the second match where there is this claim of leaving space at the back and going more attacking, you didn't hardly attack liverpool at all in the first half. They attacked you. In the second half as would be expected they decided to protect their lead instead and then you attacked them a bit.

Additionally Bayern, Valencia, Roma, Chelsea etc were not exactly defensive in getting through (all scored plenty of goals). I think there was only PSV who played defensively and made it.

I don't know why you're tying this to our defeat to Liverpool, because that has nothing to do with it. I never said Liverpool played defensive when beating us, and never complained about their style. If anything, there's not a single (normal) Barça fan who hasn't accepted that Liverpool were the better team.

My main point was that if you went on the streets around the world (and in England) and ask people what comes to mind first when they talk about Liverpool, attack or defensive, I'm 100% certain that more people would say defensive rather than attacking.