What is that system?
Liverpool
- Thread starter Sally Cinnamon
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
They'll get past anyone....Famous CL nights at Anfield etc etc
UEFA's coefficient system scores teams based on results across all European competition, and uses the rankings from the 5 previous seasons to determine seedings and the amount of European places a nation gets. I did this but on a more basic level because I couldn't be arsed copying their system exactly.
For pre-CL competitions, the final 8 were ranked in order of performance, i.e. winner to worst performing quarter-final loser, with the winner scoring 8 points, the runner-up 7, and so on. Performance for semi-final and quarter final losers was determined, in order, by extra-time, away goals, goal difference, and goals scored.
For CL competition, this extended to 16 teams (and so began with the winners getting 16 points), with the same criteria being used to order teams in knockout stages, and points, goal difference and goals scored being used if the 16 included teams from one of the second group stages.
Notably, the top 6 ranked teams using my system from the CL era were identical to the UEFA coefficient rankings, with Greece dropping out of the top 8, due to what I suspect was a lack of representation from UEFA Cup performances, and the Netherlands and Czech Republic rising one place each to make up the final two top 8 positions.
comprehensive that alex 99. I would probably rate a cl semi final appearance higher than old cup wins. Aston Villa, Nottingham Forest stuff.
Is there a citation for that? Specifically referring to the 1970s, because as far as I know, that was not how nations were ranked on a year-by-year basis.
Winner scoring 8 points? How do you verify the accuracy of that? For example, in 1976-77, Liverpool won the European Cup with 7 wins and 2 losses. As a club they won 17 points. Are you quoting a verified source or is this based on your basic calculations?
And that's the problem. Your basic level is inaccurate.
Eh? This isn't an official UEFA thing, I made it up.
Winner scores 8 points, runner-up 7, best performing semi-final loser 6, worst performing semi-final loser 5, best performing quarter-final loser 4, second best 3, third best 2, worst 1. It's not based on how many 'points' they won, just on the 'position' they finished in. Sort of like an F1 race.
As Europe's elite competition, it was just a very simple way of showing what countries were most represented in the latter stages, and as such indicated which countries were producing the best football teams.
I didn't just rely on UEFA's scoring system when doing the CL one because their coefficient ranking didn't come into effect until the early 00s. As I noted though, the top 6 using my system and their system were identical prior to 04-05.
Why would you do that when there is already a calculation in place? You write nicely but there is little meaningful content, just some ridiculous ranking that you based from another sport.
Just looking at the first EC campaign that you "analysed", there's already errors in there. You talk about 'top 8 nations', but you just pick the nations that come at the quarterfinals. It's absurd logic; for example, Spain weren't a 'top 8 nation' in 1976-77, even though they had the highest average team coefficient, and the second highest overall coefficient. Why? Because Club Brugge upset Real Madrid in the second round of the 1976-77 European Cup. Switzerland were amongst the real top 8 nations in 1976-77, but they aren't part of your fantasy 'top 8 nations' because ... I have no idea.
One of the worst points you make is this: "it was just a very simple way of showing what countries were most represented in the latter stages, and as such indicated which countries were producing the best football teams" -- as if upsets never existed pre-Champions League.
Your argument is not comprehensive at all, just structured in a way to suit the point you want to put across. There is no serious analysis, just you referring to those made-up rankings based on matches you've obviously never seen or heard of. I'm sure if there was a Liverpool fan here who would actually want to go through all of the data, they'd have a field day.
20 years on top- 2 cups. 1 more than lfc. Not very impressive.
At least we'll be seeing SOME side of the champions league.
Yeah, must be a welcome relief after half a decade. Don't get used to it though. January onwards you will be seeing some side of another European cup. You woule do well to start loving Thursdays again
Like I said, Liverpool are totally buggered before they start. Out of their depth, no squad, rubbish manager, no money to spend on building the squad, no reason to sign for them anyway... Will. Be. Eaten. Alive.
Alex's post might not be comprehensive but his general point is correct. The significant increase of stronger sides in the current format makes it harder to win. Even though back then the likes of the Dutch sides or Belgium sides etc were stronger because they could keep hold of their better players who weren't fleeing to the 3 big money leagues we see today.
redman5 and friends, a question. If you are Brazil/Argentina, which competition is harder to win, the Copa America or the World Cup?
redman5 and friends, a question. If you are Brazil/Argentina, which competition is harder to win, the Copa America or the World Cup?
My only question about relative ease of winning it: why was it only Liverpool who dominated between 1977-84? The same opportunity was there for all other big clubs to win it as many times as Liverpool? If it was easy (with a squad of 16 players) how come other clubs failed to capitalise in that specific era?
Because you were undoubtedly the best team at that time, with one of the best manager's ever. The timing was perfect. As Alex mentioned, you played between 7 and 9 games to win the whole thing back then. In a cup that contained 5 possibly 6 tough sides. When Utd's 1999 side went into the next couple of years we would have had to play 17 games to win it. (With the possibility of maybe 10 or more tough sides in the way.) That's almost another half a league campaign on top of everything else. Yes I know there are bigger squads now but the main point is the increase of strong opponents in a cup format.
It's not just Liverpool of course. Why did the Real Madrid side win it 5 times in a row? Because there was a distinct lack of competition back then compared to now. Doesn't mean they weren't a great side, just that 5 in a row is near impossible these days so modern manager's and clubs achievements shouldn't be downplayed because they didn't dominate Europe or win as many European titles as previous sides from the old era.
When I see articles like the one posted from Talksport about how Ferguson couldn't match Paisley's 3 EC wins, it just annoys me because it's lazy journalism and doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.
Good reply. However, even in the context of the modern format do you not think that given his predominance and his team's strength Ferguson underachieved in Europe. Two wins in 20 odd years.
Have to be careful here because you might have a point
as for having a rubbish manager then I don't think anyone who watched last season believes that. He may have made mistakes that ended up costly at the end but he can certainly set up an attacking unit successfully, of course the defence is questionable but until he's got some real quality in there we won't know if Rodgers has it in him to set up a successful defensive unit too, which will be pivotal to getting out of what should be a tough CL group alive.Have to be careful here because you might have a point
Given the choice in terms of currency and a sustainable long-term plan I would have Rodgers over LVG any day of the week and I suspect many United fans would also. I may be wrong, but there's something of the Capello about him - taken the more relaxed international route, glorious past but that remians in the past and the whiff of complacency eminating from him. Like I said, could be very wrong and time will tell.
It's probably the only real disappointment with his time, which is hard to say because it just sounds ridiculous to feel any disappointment with a man who won as much as he did. If there was a missed opportunity it was probably between 99 and 02. The reasons for why that side didn't win another CL have already been mentioned, (the crazy introduction of 2 group stages still pisses me off) but Leverkusen in 2002 felt like a massive defeat. ...actually thinking about it, 2004 was a big miss with Porto and Monaco getting to the final. Even though it was a Utd side in transition, a Paul Scholes goal wrongly ruled off-side could have seen us go onto win the whole thing. But that's cup competitions for you. So many if's and but's.
So in short, 2 in 20 years sounds very poor and you have to look into it to see it's not poor but then, not exceptional either. No manager has won more CL's than Ferguson. Ancelotti might do it this Saturday and if he does, it will be an amazing achievement. But it doesn't mean he's a better manager than Ferguson either
Edit: So I guess what the last couple of pages have really been about is the context of achievements. And my annoyance at the general observation that 3 EC's has never been matched by Ferguson, therefore Fergie is a poorer manager. It's more to do with that, than trying to prove black and white that he's better than Paisley. Liverpool fans are always going to say Paisley or Shankley. Utd fans Ferguson (or even Busby)
anyway, I'm waffling now so will leave it there!
Last edited:
So that they feel like they're back in the 80s?
We had some harsh luck and some missed opportunities.
97 Dortmund - Unlucky first leg/wasteful
98 Monaco - Atrocious all round
2002 - Leverkusen, should have made the final really.. but up against a very rich in talent Real side.
2004 - Porto .. This was the real chance, with all the other big teams shooting themselves in the foot.
2007 - Milan.. Missing our whole defence for that second leg.. Never gave ourselves a chance.
2009 - Barca .. Well
2010 - Bayern.. Another missed chance in my opinion. If we got through this, we had Lyon in the semis and Inter in the finals (assuming results stayed the same). I would have fancied us.
2011 - Barca
We can look at it this way.. At the same time, we were very lucky to win the two that we won.. It's the nature of this competition. Look at the past winners and you will find that (for the most part) they were very close to elimination at least once.
I certainly wouldn't take Rodgers over LVG in our current circumstances, we need a proven top manager to repair a seasons worth of mismanagement. Rodgers may prove to be worth the wait but as it stands we need to get back into CL as soon as possible. Long term wise I think we have other plans and Van Gaal is there to implement a clear strategy going forward, one that we can build on for years to come.
Just at this point I have seen nothing to suggest Rodgers can be trusted to build a solid defensive unit capable of repelling your Europes finest attacks, and of course the CL is such a difficult competition these days, one that requires superb discipline, something that SAF sides often fell short with.
Ace
Rodgers when he arrived:
- Not 1 but 3 years of mismanagement so the situation was actually a lot worse.
- Got into CL ahead of schedule.
What part of that wouldn't suit United?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...tm_hp_ref=uk-politics&ir=UK+Politics#comments
(first couple of mins appropriate to this thread, the rest, you can just enjoy)
(first couple of mins appropriate to this thread, the rest, you can just enjoy)
You're wrong.
I would also take Rodgers who has been magnificent at Liverpool and implemented a style of play I'd love to see at United. All Liverpool have done is improved under him. I hope LvG can do a similar job with us, ship out the crap and build a team capable of playing exciting and winning football.
The moment you question yourself, you're wrong
So was Moyes an exception to this rule? He was chosen after all.
Maybe
I wouldn't take Rodgers. I wouldn't take Owen Coyle or Alan Pardew either.
Say what?
Why would you do that when there is already a calculation in place? You write nicely but there is little meaningful content, just some ridiculous ranking that you based from another sport.
Just looking at the first EC campaign that you "analysed", there's already errors in there. You talk about 'top 8 nations', but you just pick the nations that come at the quarterfinals. It's absurd logic; for example, Spain weren't a 'top 8 nation' in 1976-77, even though they had the highest average team coefficient, and the second highest overall coefficient. Why? Because Club Brugge upset Real Madrid in the second round of the 1976-77 European Cup. Switzerland were amongst the real top 8 nations in 1976-77, but they aren't part of your fantasy 'top 8 nations' because ... I have no idea.
One of the worst points you make is this: "it was just a very simple way of showing what countries were most represented in the latter stages, and as such indicated which countries were producing the best football teams" -- as if upsets never existed pre-Champions League.
Your argument is not comprehensive at all, just structured in a way to suit the point you want to put across. There is no serious analysis, just you referring to those made-up rankings based on matches you've obviously never seen or heard of. I'm sure if there was a Liverpool fan here who would actually want to go through all of the data, they'd have a field day.
What are you on about? For 76-77, the 76-77 EC wasn't taken into account for the rankings, the 5 years prior were. UEFA's site doesn't go back as far as that so I made up a simpler system because I have neither the time or inclination to go through every match, for every team, from every country, in every UEFA competition. Spain's ranking was also irrelevant because Liverpool didn't come across a Spanish team in an EC winning campaign until their 3rd one in 80-81.
I still stand by the point that you find so laughable though. Upsets don't really throw it off too much providing the team got to a respectable stage in the other 4 years of the 5 taken into account, and then, if they aren't making the latter stages regularly, they can hardly be called a top team. It shows clearly which sides are winning it, and making finals/semis/quarters with regularity, and anyone who only makes one as a fluke only gets a handful of points over the course of the 5 years.
As it is though, I've found a website that appears to have implemented the UEFA coefficient system as far back as that, and they don't have Switzerland anywhere near the top 8. In fact, they're 21st. So much for them absolutely being a top 8 nation.
Using the UEFA Coefficient ranking, Liverpool played only a single game against a top 8 team in 76-77, and that was the final. This is one less than I had them playing.
In 77-78, they played 3, which is two more than I said.
In 80-81, they played 2, which is the same as I said.
In 83-84, they played 1, which is one less than I said.
So, I had them playing 7 games against top 8 sides in that time, and UEFA had them playing 7 games against top 8 sides in that time. Using UEFA rankings, they played 10 against top 8 sides in 04-05. So my point was very accurately put across using my rankings.
Additionally, Liverpool played an Austrian team to qualify for the 04-05 CL, with Austria ranked 18th by UEFA. This was the only tie they played against a team from outside of the top 8 nations.
In 76-77, they played teams from the nation ranked 27th, the 23rd, the 15th, and the 21st. With the remaining tie being against a team from one of the top 8.
In 77-78, they had a bye in the first round, and played a team from the nation ranked 11th. This was probably the tournament with the hardest fixtures, but that was balanced out by the fact that they only played 7 bloody games to win the thing. They'd played more than that before even finishing the group stage in 04-05.
In 80-81, they played a team from the nation ranked 28th, 13th, and 20th.
In 83-84, they played a team from the nation ranked 21st, 16th 9th, and 11th.
To win the CL, Liverpool had to qualify by playing a team from a nation in the top 20, with all of their ties in the actual competition being against teams from the top 8 nations, half of which were against teams from the top 3, with only 2 being against teams from outside the top 5. To win their first EC, they played 3 teams from outside the top 20, one of which was outside the top 25, and another outside of the top 10. To win their second, they didn't even have to play the first round, played a team outside of the top 10, and 2 of the top 8 teams they played were ranked 7th and 8th. To win their third, they played a team ranked outside of the top 25, a team ranked 20th, and another outside of the top 10. To win their 4th, they played team ranked outside of the top 20, another outside of the top 15, one outside of the top 10, and one outside of the top 8.
A Liverpool fan is welcome to go through all of the data, but all that it proves is the point made in the first place. The EC was far easier to win than the CL is.
Edit: Here's your link http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method1/crank1983.html
This seasons been a total freak, Rodgers has to be credited with some of that but as a United fan I'm looking for negatives (I won't hide that fact) the stars aligned perfectly for a first title in two and a half decades and from mine and many neutrals point of view Rodgers had a hand in creating it then ultimately dismantling it.
LvG just has an edge in terms of proven quality, character and his footballing philosophy is exactly in line with United as a whole, the way his teams press and deny space, the emphasis on attack and regaining lost possession. He's everything Rodgers looks like becoming but without doubts over his defensive strategies.
If Rodge proves good enough in say 3 years we will gladly take him off you.
This seasons been a total freak, Rodgers has to be credited with some of that but as a United fan I'm looking for negatives (I won't hide that fact) the stars aligned perfectly for a first title in two and a half decades and from mine and many neutrals point of view Rodgers had a hand in creating it then ultimately dismantling it.
LvG just has an edge in terms of proven quality, character and his footballing philosophy is exactly in line with United as a whole, the way his teams press and deny space, the emphasis on attack and regaining lost possession. He's everything Rodgers looks like becoming but without doubts over his defensive strategies.
If Rodge proves good enough in say 3 years we will gladly take him off you.
Could you explain this, please?
Hmmm, seems to me it proves you're trying too hard.
In the words of Piers Morgan… "BOOOOOOOMMM"
Not really. redman had some weird point about the CL being easier to win because you don't play champions, and because Liverpool won it in 05 and reached the final in 07. He completely ignored that many of the champions that they faced in the EC format were from poor footballing nations, and completely ignored that Liverpool reached 5 finals in 9 years in the EC format, winning 4 of them, 2 in consecutive years, a feat that hasn't been repeated in the CL. He made this point by saying something like "how you can possibly argue that the CL is the stronger competition..." so I showed how you can argue it, with evidence. It's clear as day that the CL is harder to win because you play more games, against better teams. Pippa was accusing me of making up a system to prove my point, when in fact I was spot on.
I agree in some respects it is a tougher competition
But back then obviously you had to win your league to enter it. SO qualification was far harder. Also back then it was knockout from the start leaving less margin for error.
But yeah there are far more bigger teams in it each year. I still wouldnt knock any achievements from pre current format
Also the gap between the big and little teams has increased massively nowadays. So just because Liverpool or whoever was playing a team from Romania are whatever. It does not automatically mean they were far worse
But back then obviously you had to win your league to enter it. SO qualification was far harder. Also back then it was knockout from the start leaving less margin for error.
But yeah there are far more bigger teams in it each year. I still wouldnt knock any achievements from pre current format
Also the gap between the big and little teams has increased massively nowadays. So just because Liverpool or whoever was playing a team from Romania are whatever. It does not automatically mean they were far worse
Surely we can be gracious enough here to acknowledge Brendo has done a great job at Klanfield, having cleaned up a god awful mess The King left him and that he would have been much better suited to the task of managing United that Moyes. I have no doubt that Louis is the right man for this job right now and Brendo is the right man for that job right now.
Harder to qualify but easier to win. There was only actually one extra round of knockout than the current CL format anyway. I also don't agree that knockouts are necessarily harder to get through than a group stage. If you cock up in a group match, that's it. You've lost points. If you cock up in the knockouts, you've got another 90 minutes of football to sort it out. There's also the fact that two draws = a win under the right circumstances (obviously two draws = a loss for the other team). The only reason the CL groups appear easier than the knockouts is because they're used to weed out the poorer sides, and even then, most of those are better than the teams appearing in the first round of the EC format.
Keeping in mind how few games were actually played, the proportion of easy ties compared to difficult ties was quite high. A list of some of Liverpool's aggregate scores from their 4 EC wins: 76-77 7-0 (2-0, 5-0), 6-1, (3-1, 3-0); 77-78 6-3 (5-1, 1-2), 6-2 (2-1, 4-1); 80-81 11-2 (1-1, 10-1), 5-0 (1-0, 4-0), 6-1 (5-1, 1-0); 83-84 6-0 (1-0, 5-0), 5-1 (1-0, 4-1).
76-77 and 83-84 had 3 close(er) ties, and 77-78 and 80-81 had 2. They only played a handful games, and half of them were against piss-poor teams. In 04-05 the only big win they had was in the last 16 against Bayer Leverkusen who they beat 6-2 (3-1, 3-1). They played 11 ties in that tournament (compared to 4 or 5 in the EC), and only one was against a side that they were able to trounce. Even in CL tournaments where there have been a few drubbings handed out, they certainly haven't accounted for half of the ties played.
I don't think the gap between the big and little teams has increased massively, because even when they were in the EC, they still got battered. The only difference now is that they don't make the main competition.