League harder to win than the cl?
- Thread starter mom
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
If we didn't have as our primary opponent a state sponsored, financially doped winning machine, the Ivan Drago of football, then the PL would be easier. We'd have sauntered to 3 or 4 titles with Klopp already. Fact is though, we do have them as opponents, and the league is tougher for sure.
The league requires consistency, the Champions League requires mentality.
City can win the league because they have an incredible squad of players that play very good football, and the format allows the occasional slip-up such as Palace.
Champions League format means that one slip-up and you're out.
It's hard to say which is 'harder'; our 2005 squad were a million miles away from winning the league, it would never have happened in a month of Sundays, but they - against all the odds - won the Champions League.
Was that an 'easier' prospect than City winning the league these past few years? If it's 'easier' to win the Champions League then how comes City haven't done it, despite dominating domestically?
I think it might be an apples v oranges type thing?
City can win the league because they have an incredible squad of players that play very good football, and the format allows the occasional slip-up such as Palace.
Champions League format means that one slip-up and you're out.
It's hard to say which is 'harder'; our 2005 squad were a million miles away from winning the league, it would never have happened in a month of Sundays, but they - against all the odds - won the Champions League.
Was that an 'easier' prospect than City winning the league these past few years? If it's 'easier' to win the Champions League then how comes City haven't done it, despite dominating domestically?
I think it might be an apples v oranges type thing?
With Man City around the League is definitely more difficult than the Champions League. The pressure on a team having to keep winning again and again over 9 months is brutal.
The CL is tough, but if you're tactically astute enough and can hold your nerve against big teams, is winnable. Di Matteo's Chelsea and Benitez's Liverpool are prime examples
The CL is tough, but if you're tactically astute enough and can hold your nerve against big teams, is winnable. Di Matteo's Chelsea and Benitez's Liverpool are prime examples
The two sets of demands are comparable up to a point, but not totally. The week in/week out pressure is one thing, the big occasion knockout tie another. When I was still at school this other kid and I were the best at French in our year, and he usually got somewhat better marks than I did in classwork over the whole year, but when it came to exams (and we always took the same ones) I invariably got the better of him. Apples and oranges, as singlerider says.
Well this depends on whether you mean the PL historically or the PL today.
Today we are up against a billion pound team, that spend can not be dismissed as THE factor making it difficult over 9 months to overcome. Bottom of the table could conceivably beat City but over the course of a season we have seen that a billion pound squad is going to win the vast majority of games.
In the CL there are 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 clubs that could win it every season and there are always surprise packages that knock out top teams. It's a fact that a knock-out tournament makes it harder to win. Take the FA Cup for example. In 150 FA Cups we have won just eight. 8 out of 150 pretty much tells you how difficult even a domestic cup is to win, even more so when you consider the amount of times we have been one of the top teams in the league.
So bar this aberration, called Man City, clearly the CL is more difficult to win.
Today we are up against a billion pound team, that spend can not be dismissed as THE factor making it difficult over 9 months to overcome. Bottom of the table could conceivably beat City but over the course of a season we have seen that a billion pound squad is going to win the vast majority of games.
In the CL there are 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 clubs that could win it every season and there are always surprise packages that knock out top teams. It's a fact that a knock-out tournament makes it harder to win. Take the FA Cup for example. In 150 FA Cups we have won just eight. 8 out of 150 pretty much tells you how difficult even a domestic cup is to win, even more so when you consider the amount of times we have been one of the top teams in the league.
So bar this aberration, called Man City, clearly the CL is more difficult to win.
Judge Jules, the Liverpool FC of French classes in the Stone Age.
Let’s file this under shite fumers say.
Was this because he was better at writing with chalk on his piece of slate in class than you were?
I believe it was called Gaulish back then.
With the CL you are up against THE best teams from across Europe, while in the league you get to play shite teams like Everton... Also to win the CL you'll still be playing league games at the weekend then potentially travelling away to the opposite ends of Europe (perhaps not so true in the latter stages but even still), whereas with the league you can be out of all cup competitions early enough and only have one or two matches a week. It's still a long slog to come out on top after 38 matches.
So, it's a bit like asking in which Olympic event is it easier to win gold, the marathon or the 100m?
[article]
Winning the Premier League is more difficult than winning the Champions League, says Southampton boss Ralph Hasenhuttl.
The Saints welcome league title chasers Liverpool on Tuesday - a must-win match for the Reds if they are to maintain the pressure on Manchester City.
Liverpool are four points behind City with a game in hand.
"This is still the title that's the most countable for everybody because it's the hardest to get," he said.
"For me it's even harder to be over 38 games in the Premier League consistently on the top, than to win the Champions League sometimes."
[/article]
Here’s most of the article. How would he know?
Winning the Premier League is more difficult than winning the Champions League, says Southampton boss Ralph Hasenhuttl.
The Saints welcome league title chasers Liverpool on Tuesday - a must-win match for the Reds if they are to maintain the pressure on Manchester City.
Liverpool are four points behind City with a game in hand.
"This is still the title that's the most countable for everybody because it's the hardest to get," he said.
"For me it's even harder to be over 38 games in the Premier League consistently on the top, than to win the Champions League sometimes."
[/article]
Here’s most of the article. How would he know?
The CL is harder if you're the best team in it, whereas the league is harder if you're not the best team.
Which is to say, you can get lucky to some extent and win the CL, but you also HAVE to get lucky to win it, no matter how good you are.
Which is to say, you can get lucky to some extent and win the CL, but you also HAVE to get lucky to win it, no matter how good you are.
Chris Sutton wound up a fumer on 606 about this. As much of a tool he is, he’s an excellent WUM.
You have to be at your best for every game (with the exception of dead rubber group matches) in the CL. Seldom/never do we see teams resting players in the CL, whereas besides the already mentioned factors like money, squad depth and consistency, there are so many factors influencing domestic league title challenge - e.g. facing things with nothing to play for, facing teams who rotate players for various reasons. I think the level of tactical duel in CL is higher too (both due to managers' and players' calibre) - for example, Rodgers record in Europe (esp. CL) for makes grim reading.
I think there's an element of luck in both, we'd have won a few more leagues if we weren't up against City, out points tallies when we've finished second is good enough to win the league a lot of the time in 2019 and this year. There's definitely luck in the CL too, but three finals in 5 years goes beyond luck. Ourselves and City are both phenomenal teams the last 4/5 years, and luck has just been the difference between which trophies we've won, and not won.
I also think that if the league is won by a point or 2, or god forbid, goal difference, it's not really credible to just pronounce that 'the best team always wins'.
Over that many games, there's definitely scope for luck to be the deciding factor.
You might get bad decisions affecting a couple of games. Fixtures might just fall more kindly for one of the teams - you don't want to play relegation strugglers in the last few games, for example.
If the gap's more than 3 points then yeah the winner is almost certainly the best team, but otherwise it's just too marginal.
It'll probably happen this season, because I think we're a better team than City, but they'll likely end up pipping us to it.
Yep, I think it's impossible to say who's been better in the league between us. If City slip up, or don't, it doesn't make one the clear better team at all. City clearly were the best team last year and us the year before. The year before is coin flip, as is this year
Well, we have only won the Prem once.
More shitty supporting bending of statistics.
19 time the big dog in this country.
19 time the big dog in this country.
- Status
