Liverpool

[Randall Flagg]

Like I say I agree with some points you are making but its not totally clear cut

I do disagree on the gap, I think its widened massively over the years. Even when Utd started to qualify for Europe on a regular basis in the early 90's the gap between big and little was far smaller than it is now. I remember that myself

I do not remember european football in the 80's so I would be be interested in hearing from some of our older posters and see what their opinion is on this.

 

[TheMuffer]

Like I say I agree with some points you are making but its not totally clear cut

I do disagree on the gap, I think its widened massively over the years. Even when Utd started to qualify for Europe on a regular basis in the early 90's the gap between big and little was far smaller than it is now. I remember that myself

I do not remember european football in the 80's so I would be be interested in hearing from some of our older posters and see what their opinion is on this.

Going back quite a long time...the gap between major clubs/countries and so called 'minnows' was huge.
This has becime less and less over the decades and nowadays you rarely get a minnow in the same manner as fron the 60's 70"s and 80's.
Worldwide money, access to players from all over the world, tv and media coverage worldwide etc etc has seen to this.
It seemed easier fo beat smaller clubs in those decades than it does now but that shouldnt take away any achuevements that clubs made back then

 

[Deleted member 78215]

20 years on top- 2 cups. 1 more than lfc. Not very impressive.

Teams that have won it more than twice in that same 20 year period:

Real
Barca
AC Milan

And they've only won it 3.

This isn't the 70s or 80s, where FC Amateur could win it 3 times at a canter.

 

[Randall Flagg]

Going back quite a long time...the gap between major clubs/countries and so called 'minnows' was huge.
This has becime less and less over the decades and nowadays you rarely get a minnow in the same manner as fron the 60's 70"s and 80's.
Worldwide money, access to players from all over the world, tv and media coverage worldwide etc etc has seen to this.
It seemed easier fo beat smaller clubs in those decades than it does now but that shouldnt take away any achuevements that clubs made back then

I was more thinking of the Sparta Pragues or Red Star Belgrades of this world rather than minnows we have barely heard of.

These mid range sides were far closer to the top sides way back when than they are now.

 

[Pippa]

As it is though, I've found a website that appears to have implemented the UEFA coefficient system as far back as that

Were UEFA using that specific coefficient system at that point?

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Isn't it common consensus that the old European Cup was harder to qualify for but easier to win where as it's vice versa with the current UCL.

 

[SolidState]

So let me get this straight.....some people would choose a manager who has won precisely nothing and got close with Liverpool to his first trophy over a man who has 20 years experience of winning titles at europes elite clubs....I dont know what to say to that.

 

[Alex99]

I was more thinking of the Sparta Pragues or Red Star Belgrades of this world rather than minnows we have barely heard of.

These mid range sides were far closer to the top sides way back when than they are now.

They weren't considered minnows then though. Yugoslavian and Czechoslovakian teams regularly made the latter stages of the competitions. For whatever reason, the football there has declined in quality relative to the other top sides, and they've been replaced somewhat by the likes of the sides from Greece, Turkey, etc.

Were UEFA using that specific coefficient system at that point?

No. As I said, they didn't appear to use any sort of system because the champions of all UEFA nations just got thrown it at the first round no matter where they were from, hence there being games against teams from the likes of Malta, Northern Ireland, Iceland and Luxembourg. There were only 32/33 UEFA nations back then, compared to 53/54 now. The rankings on that site utilise today's scoring system, scoring teams (and nations) across all European competition, to produce a coefficient ranking based on their results.

I really don't get your problem with this. It's evident that the competition used to be saturated with poorer teams, which is one of the reasons why they changed the format.

 

[Pippa]

No.

So why are you using it?

 

[Alex99]

So why are you using it?

Because there's nothing else to use?

How exactly do you expect someone to represent the quality of the leagues back then without utilising some sort of ranking system?

Initially I used my own simplified version, and you said that this wasn't good enough because apparently the Swiss were one of the top 8 footballing nations, despite them not even being in the top 20. I told you I'd used my own because the UEFA version doesn't stretch back that far, and you asked why I didn't use their calculations. I found a site that has implemented their calculations to all of the previous seasons, yet this still isn't good enough because...?

 

[Tim Henman]

Teams that have won it more than twice in that same 20 year period:

Real
Barca
AC Milan

And they've only won it 3.

This isn't the 70s or 80s, where FC Amateur could win it 3 times at a canter.

 

[TheMuffer]

I was more thinking of the Sparta Pragues or Red Star Belgrades of this world rather than minnows we have barely heard of.

These mid range sides were far closer to the top sides way back when than they are now.

I have to disagree.
Back in those days there might have been a rare draw or even rarer defeat to those mid range type teams. Nowadays even a 4th tier team from the CL or quite a few of the funny sounding ones in the Europa can give any of the top sides a game on their day...much harder nowadays to beat these teams than it was 15 - 20 plus years ago.

 

[gasmanc]

Could you explain this, please?

The decision to attack Chelsea was a poor one, even as Gerrard slipped Ba had a long way to travel to the penalty area due to Liverpool setup high up the pitch going for the win, I saw that as a managerial mistake and it played right into Mourinho's hands. Tactically undone there when a draw would have sufficed, this then led to the decision to press for goals against Palace and ultimately handing the title to City. I do think that, that mistake coupled with the slip has allowed for the mindset that Rodgers might struggle next year in Europe, it could however work in Liverpool's favor as they will be in a tough group against teams that will set up to attack, perfect scenario perhaps for the way Rodgers sets up his team.

 

[Pippa]

Because there's nothing else to use?

The modern coefficient system was never intended to be used with the European Cup system. It's not my fault you can't conjure something that helps prove your point.

Initially I used my own simplified version, and you said that this wasn't good enough because apparently the Swiss were one of the top 8 footballing nations, despite them not even being in the top 20.

It was not good enough. Using your description:

"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."​

(Link to post)

1976-77:

8 points - Winner: England (Liverpool)
7 points - Runner-up: West Germany (Borussia Mönchengladbach)
6 points - Best performing semi-final loser: USSR (Dynamo Kyiv)
5 points - Worst performing semi-final loser: Switzerland (FC Zürich)
4 points - Best performing quarter-final loser: East Germany (Dynamo Dresden) -- using aggregate, away goals, goals scored as the deciding factors
3 points - Second best performing quarter-final loser: Belgium (Club Brugge)
2 points - Third best performing quarter-final loser: France (Saint-Étienne)
1 point - Worst performing quarter-final loser: West Germany (Bayern München)

Switzerland have a club in the semi-finals of the 1976-77 European Cup. Using your fantasy description of 'top 8 nations', why would they be excluded, and why would France be included? As a reference point, in 1976-77:

Switzerland: (1) club eliminated at European Cup semi-finals - (2) clubs eliminated at UEFA Cup second round - (1) club eliminated at UEFA Cup Winners' Cup qualifying stage

France: (1) club eliminated at European Cup quarter-finals - (2) clubs eliminated at UEFA Cup first round - (1) club eliminated at UEFA Cup Winners' Cup first round

God knows the mental gymnastics you used in order to reach your conclusion there.

I told you I'd used my own because the UEFA version doesn't stretch back that far, and you asked why I didn't use their calculations. I found a site that has implemented their calculations to all of the previous seasons, yet this still isn't good enough because...?

I'm trying to understand the thought process of someone so invested in making Liverpool's run of dominance in the European Cup look weak that they have to manipulate information and mislead other posters to believe what they are saying.

 

[elmo]

So let me get this straight.....some people would choose a manager who has won precisely nothing and got close with Liverpool to his first trophy over a man who has 20 years experience of winning titles at europes elite clubs....I dont know what to say to that.

Nothing new there, they're being blinded by their support for their club.

 

[Gio]

They weren't considered minnows then though. Yugoslavian and Czechoslovakian teams regularly made the latter stages of the competitions. For whatever reason, the football there has declined in quality relative to the other top sides, and they've been replaced somewhat by the likes of the sides from Greece, Turkey, etc.



No. As I said, they didn't appear to use any sort of system because the champions of all UEFA nations just got thrown it at the first round no matter where they were from, hence there being games against teams from the likes of Malta, Northern Ireland, Iceland and Luxembourg. There were only 32/33 UEFA nations back then, compared to 53/54 now. The rankings on that site utilise today's scoring system, scoring teams (and nations) across all European competition, to produce a coefficient ranking based on their results.

I really don't get your problem with this. It's evident that the competition used to be saturated with poorer teams, which is one of the reasons why they changed the format.

The main reason they changed the format was to guarantee the big teams six money-spinning games. Berlusconi says as much in a World Soccer magazine I've got from the late 1980s. I think the points are:

• it's tougher to win now, but easier to get into
• the champions of any middle-of-the-road country were a lot stronger then than they are now. Mainly because they found it a lot easier to hang on to their best players and as such were far more competitive. Now that all the quality gravitates towards a handful of countries as a result of the centralisation of wealth, they cannot compete.

 

[Alex99]

@Pippa

Liverpool's run of dominance was very impressive and I've not claimed anything to the contrary. This has nothing to do with belittling their achievements. My point is that the competition, in its old format, was much easier to win than it is in its current format. My ranking system, regardless of its simplicity, and UEFA's far more comprehensive ranking system, which can still be effectively applied to the old format because all it does is score points based on results, prove that there were not many difficult ties in the competition back in its EC days.

You don't really need any ranking system to see this. It's evident from the fact that United played a bloody Maltese team in the first round of their 68 win, and Liverpool played teams from Northern Ireland and Finland in two of theirs. About half of the games were played against shit teams because the competition was saturated with them.

As for Switzerland's ranking outside of the top 8, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the point made multiple times that the year of competition is not included, the 5 years prior are. The point still stands though that the Zurich team that Liverpool battered 6-1, that came from a nation ranked by the UEFA calculations to be outside of the top 20 in Europe, weren't from one of Europe's top 8 nations by any stretch of the imagination.

To put it this way, the old format would have seen Real Madrid play fixtures not too dissimilar to this:

First Round: Real Madrid vs Daugava Daugavpils
Second Round: Real Madrid vs Skenderbeu Korce
Third Round: Real Madrid vs Celtic
Quarter-Final: Real Madrid vs Shaktar Donetsk
Semi-Final: Real Madrid vs Juventus
Final: Real Madrid vs Bayern Munich

 

[Ramshock]

These scousers are in for a rude awakening next season. There won't be a perfect storm for Rodgers to take advantage of (all credit to him) and there will be much more to contend with for him. If Van Gaal gets us firing and Arsenal progress I can see Liverpool dropping out of the top 4 easily.

 

[Alex99]

The main reason they changed the format was to guarantee the big teams six money-spinning games. Berlusconi says as much in a World Soccer magazine I've got from the late 1980s. I think the points are:

• it's tougher to win now, but easier to get into
• the champions of any middle-of-the-road country were a lot stronger then than they are now. Mainly because they found it a lot easier to hang on to their best players and as such were far more competitive. Now that all the quality gravitates towards a handful of countries as a result of the centralisation of wealth, they cannot compete.

Possibly true, but historically the EC/CL has been dominated from its very inception by Spanish, (West) German, English, and Italian clubs. The likes of the Russians, Ukranians, Dutch, Portuguese, and French clubs have also always been somewhere near the top with relative consistency. The former Czechoslovakian countries and the Scottish have fallen by the wayside a bit, but the Greek and Turkish clubs have pretty much just taken their place. Even then, we regularly see decent showings from Czech, Scottish, Swiss, Romanian, Belarusian and Cypriot clubs in recent years.

 

[Pippa]

Just regurgitating the same points from prior posts. The Champions League is harder to win but you have tried to prove it in a hilariously bad way. Nothing else to say on that.

 

[Barney]

Just regurgitating the same points from prior posts. The Champions League is harder to win but you have tried to prove it in a hilariously bad way. Nothing else to say on that.

This is just about spot on.

 

[Alex99]

Just regurgitating the same points from prior posts. The Champions League is harder to win but you have tried to prove it in a hilariously bad way. Nothing else to say on that.

You're weird as fuck to be fair.

Your counter to my argument has consisted of telling me that my ranking system was flawed and demanding I use the UEFA calculations because you disagreed with part of it, claiming that Switzerland were a top 8 nation. I used the UEFA calculations and it proved you wrong (they were ranked 21st), so you've now told me that the UEFA rankings are flawed, but declined to explain why they're flawed. They score teams based on their performance in the UEFA competitions. Do better, score higher. It's a very simple concept and its usefulness isn't confined to the contemporary UEFA competitions.

What exactly is hilariously bad about how I've proven it? I've shown that playing sides from the poorer countries didn't exactly amount to a challenge, and that almost half of the games needed to win the EC were played against such sides.

 

[Pippa]

Don't lie now.

I never actually demanded that you use the "UEFA calculations". Why you would make that up, I have no idea. I assumed there was a system in place at the time of the European Cup, because unlike you, I'm not claiming to have a lot of knowledge of European competition in the 70s. Switzerland were a top eight nation in 1976-77. Look at their results. I've already explained why the UEFA coefficient is flawed when you try to use it for tournaments 30 years before its development. You even tried to justify using it saying there was no other viable option. Funnily enough the same excuse you used for making up a fantasy ranking.

It's a very simple concept and its usefulness isn't confined to the contemporary UEFA competitions.

Prove it. No need to use original research if it's such a simple concept, no?

 

[Alex99]

Don't lie now.

I never actually demanded that you use the "UEFA calculations". Why you would make that up, I have no idea. I assumed there was a system in place at the time of the European Cup, because unlike you, I'm not claiming to have a lot of knowledge of European competition in the 70s. Switzerland were a top eight nation in 1976-77. Look at their results. I've already explained why the UEFA coefficient is flawed when you try to use it for tournaments 30 years before its development. You even tried to justify using it saying there was no other viable option. Funnily enough the same excuse you used for making up a fantasy ranking.

Prove it. No need to use original research if it's such a simple concept, no?

Well, you did. You asked how I'd ranked them and I explained it. You said that it wasn't good enough and asked why I didn't use the official calculation, so I went out and found the data using the official calculation. You've since decided that the official calculation is useless, but have declined to explain why.

For some reason you seem to have struggled with the concept of scoring teams over the previous 5 years and keep harping on about that specific year's performance. If you were to score based on that year's performances, you'd face 3 top 8 teams every time you won it because you'd play 3 games after reaching the last 8, therefore playing 3 teams from the top 8. The reason you use the previous 5 years performance is a) because rankings are decided prior to the competition commencing, and b) because it rewards consistency over flash-in-the-pan performances. You've not proven anything other than your inability to understand a very simple concept.

UEFA's calculations are very simple to understand. You gain points for a win, fewer for a draw, and fewer again for a defeat. You also receive slightly more for participating in the more prestigious competition. This is why its usefulness isn't confined to contemporary competitions. It rewards good performances in all UEFA competitions, but rewards EC/CL performances more than the equivalent in the UC/CWC/EL.

Literally the only reason for my use of a simpler system is because the UEFA website doesn't stretch back that far so I assumed the rankings didn't exist that far back. After one of your posts, I googled for the ranking and stumbled across that link, which has ranked the teams and nations using UEFA's system for all seasons of European competition, with rankings beginning after the first five years.

As for saying there was no other viable option of ranking, you asked why I'd used my system and I said because UEFA's didn't stretch back that far. You then asked why I didn't use UEFA's calculations. I found results using UEFA's calculations, and you then asked why I'd used them if they weren't in use back then. I answered saying that there are no other systems, meaning that none exist to my knowledge, particularly not any official ones.

 

[PickledRed]

The decision to attack Chelsea was a poor one, even as Gerrard slipped Ba had a long way to travel to the penalty area due to Liverpool setup high up the pitch going for the win, I saw that as a managerial mistake and it played right into Mourinho's hands. Tactically undone there when a draw would have sufficed, this then led to the decision to press for goals against Palace and ultimately handing the title to City. I do think that, that mistake coupled with the slip has allowed for the mindset that Rodgers might struggle next year in Europe, it could however work in Liverpool's favor as they will be in a tough group against teams that will set up to attack, perfect scenario perhaps for the way Rodgers sets up his team.

The decision to attack Chelsea was a poor one? Liverpool who had broken goal scoring records, demolished top sides at home and had players all over the park that can do damage. A poor decision...what hindsight garbage. A classic example of shoe-horning a point to embolden an argument. Liverpool's climb up the table after Christmas was due to attacking brilliance. Why stop the key thing you're good at? A single player error led to the defeat, not tactics. Not attacking the opposition. Liverpool were comfortable. To argue differently is simplistic chicanery.

 

[Alex99]

The decision to attack Chelsea was a poor one? Liverpool who had broken goal scoring records, demolished top sides at home and had players all over the park that can do damage. A poor decision...what hindsight garbage. A classic example of shoe-horning a point to embolden an argument. Liverpool's climb up the table after Christmas was due to attacking brilliance. Why stop the key thing you're good at? A single player error led to the defeat, not tactics. Not attacking the opposition. Liverpool were comfortable. To argue differently is simplistic chicanery.

Liverpool, had they won the league, would have also broken goals conceded records. They'd also displayed somewhat of a habit of tailing off in the second half of games. They were playing a team with almost zero ambition in attack, yet they left themselves wide open at the back. Yes it was player error, but it was an error that occurred whilst Liverpool were in possession on the halfway line, not whilst defending on the edge of their box. There was no reason for the defensive line to be as high as it was.

 

[Pippa]

Well, you did. You asked how I'd ranked them and I explained it. You said that it wasn't good enough and asked why I didn't use the official calculation, so I went out and found the data using the official calculation. You've since decided that the official calculation is useless, but have declined to explain why.

Do you think the UEFA coefficient is an official calculation for the European Cup? Especially when it may not even officially trace back to the beginning of the Champions League...? According to you, a website from a 61-year old Dutch system designer (who has nothing to do with UEFA) can be deemed an official source. I'll let that sink in.

For some reason you seem to have struggled with the concept of scoring teams over the previous 5 years and keep harping on about that specific year's performance.

The reason I keep harping on that specific year's performance ... wait for it ... is because it's exactly what I said. I never once said Switzerland were a top eight nation based on the previous five years. I never once argued against it either. I stated a fact -- by results, Switzerland were a top eight nation in 1976-77. You on the other hand used a 'simplified coefficient system' (aka fantasy ranking) to judge teams, and then you used a coefficient system from a completely different tournament. That's what I am struggling to understand.

The reason you use the previous 5 years performance is a) because rankings are decided prior to the competition commencing, and b) because it rewards consistency over flash-in-the-pan performances. You've not proven anything other than your inability to understand a very simple concept.

Can you provide an official source for the claim that previous 5 years performance was used in the European Cup? Again, inability to understand a very simple concept ... that has nothing to do with the European Cup. Which is the argument on hand.

Literally the only reason for my use of a simpler system is because the UEFA website doesn't stretch back that far so I assumed the rankings didn't exist that far back. After one of your posts, I googled for the ranking and stumbled across that link, which has ranked the teams and nations using UEFA's system for all seasons of European competition, with rankings beginning after the first five years.

That is not true. Again, don't lie. It doesn't help your cause. What you said was:

"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."​

(Link to post)

You did not think it was a viable option to copy their exact system, which was irrelevant anyways. I played along with it to see how much your argument would fall apart. And look at it now, basing everything on a system that was not even officially used at the time of the tournament, relying solely on a system designer's personal website.

As for saying there was no other viable option of ranking, you asked why I'd used my system and I said because UEFA's didn't stretch back that far. You then asked why I didn't use UEFA's calculations. I found results using UEFA's calculations, and you then asked why I'd used them if they weren't in use back then. I answered saying that there are no other systems, meaning that none exist to my knowledge, particularly not any official ones.

That is the second time you have claimed that. Find where I specifically asked that question. If you can't, you're either (1) a liar or (2) completely out of your depth. And I don't appreciate you going into other threads spreading the same lies.

 

[Kraftwerker]

Do you think the UEFA coefficient is an official calculation for the European Cup? Especially when it may not even officially trace back to the beginning of the Champions League...? According to you, a website from a 61-year old Dutch system designer (who has nothing to do with UEFA) can be deemed an official source. I'll let that sink in.

The reason I keep harping on that specific year's performance ... wait for it ... is because it's exactly what I said. I never once said Switzerland were a top eight nation based on the previous five years. I never once argued against it either. I stated a fact -- by results, Switzerland were a top eight nation in 1976-77. You on the other hand used a 'simplified coefficient system' (aka fantasy ranking) to judge teams, and then you used a coefficient system from a completely different tournament. That's what I am struggling to understand.

Can you provide an official source for the claim that previous 5 years performance was used in the European Cup? Again, inability to understand a very simple concept ... that has nothing to do with the European Cup. Which is the argument on hand.

That is not true. Again, don't lie. It doesn't help your cause. What you said was:

"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."​

(Link to post)

You did not think it was a viable option to copy their exact system, which was irrelevant anyways. I played along with it to see how much your argument would fall apart. And look at it now, basing everything on a system that was not even officially used at the time of the tournament, relying solely on a system designer's personal website.

That is the second time you have claimed that. Find where I specifically asked that question. If you can't, you're either (1) a liar or (2) completely out of your depth. And I don't appreciate you going into other threads spreading the same lies.

Pippa, you're embarrassing yourself.

If not using the Uefa Coefficient system, what is the best alternative to ranking the strength of a league?

If you can come up with a better alternative, by all means let us know. Seems like this is comfortably the best way of judging it. Without a meaningful system in place back then, the modern equivalent is surely our best bet. It's based off the same logic - team does well and goes far, they score points for their league. Not sure why that can't be applied to other comps. It's like a basic seeding system you get in any sport.

It's only telling us what we already knew anyway. Just putting actual figures based off a system to back it up. No one's saying they should be used as official statistics!

 

[Pippa]

Pippa, you're embarrassing yourself.

If not using the Uefa Coefficient system, what is the best alternative to ranking the strength of a league?

If you can come up with a better alternative, by all means let us know. Seems like this is comfortably the best way of judging it. Without a meaningful system in place back then, the modern equivalent is surely our best bet. It's based off the same logic - team does well and goes far, they score points for their league. Not sure why that can't be applied to other comps. It's like a basic seeding system you get in any sport.

The UEFA coefficient is intended for a fundamentally different competition. According to Alex99, the coefficient ranking did not even come into effect until the early 2000s. I do not know if there was no system in place back then -- and it's not my duty to find the information on that. I'm not the one who started claiming whether 'x' nation was deemed "top". I'm not even sure whether or not leagues were officially ranked in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.

By the mid-late 1990s, the UEFA Champions League became completely different to the European Cup. The 2002-03 Champions League was the last to feature a second group stage. That was the first year the UEFA coefficient ranking became available on the UEFA website. Source

It's only telling us what we already knew anyway. Just putting actual figures based off a system to back it up.

So essentially it doesn't matter if the logic is fundamentally flawed, it tells you what you already know. Is that right?

 

[Alex99]

Do you think the UEFA coefficient is an official calculation for the European Cup? Especially when it may not even officially trace back to the beginning of the Champions League...? According to you, a website from a 61-year old Dutch system designer (who has nothing to do with UEFA) is an official source. I'll let that sink in.

I didn't say it was the official calculation for that tournament, or that the website that uses it was an official source. I said it was the official calculation that UEFA use, which it is, and that the link I provided uses it. Again, you're making up claims to suit your argument.

The reason I keep harping on that specific year's performance ... wait for it ... is because it's exactly what I said. I never once said Switzerland were a top eight nation based on the previous five years. I never once argued against it either. I stated a fact -- by results, Switzerland were a top eight nation in 1976-77. You on the other hand used a 'simplified coefficient system' (aka fantasy ranking) to judge teams, and then you used a coefficient system from a completely different tournament. That's what I am struggling to understand.

You said: "Switzerland have a club in the semi-finals of the 1976-77 European Cup. Using your fantasy description of 'top 8 nations', why would they be excluded, and why would France be included?"

Switzerland weren't included as a top 8 nation, because they weren't a top 8 nation. Not by my rankings, not by UEFA's rankings. Again, the rankings were based on performances over the 5 years prior to 76-77. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?

I've shown you why the calculation works, and that is because it's incredibly simple and merely rewards winning over drawing, drawing over losing, and playing in the EC more than in the UEFA Cup. Where is the flaw in this system? Why does it matter that it is used for the CL, but wasn't used for the EC? Nothing was used for the EC, but this calculation is easily transferable.

Can you provide an official source for the claim that previous 5 years performance was used in the European Cup? Again, inability to understand a very simple concept ... that has nothing to do with the European Cup. Which is the argument on hand.

There isn't an "official" source. I've done it because that's what they do now. It's a short enough time-frame for teams to not be drastically different, but long enough to show whether they've been consistent in their performances. The closest you're going to get to an "official" source of the EC is the fact that UEFA, who ran the EC, use it now for the CL.

That is not true. Again, don't lie. It doesn't help your cause. What you said was:

"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."

(Link to post)

You did not think it was a viable option to copy their exact system, which was irrelevant anyways. I played along with it to see how much your argument would fall apart. And look at it now, basing everything on a system that was not even officially used at the time of the tournament.

Please explain how I'm lying there. I didn't use UEFA's system because they hadn't done it themselves, so I assumed that it hadn't been done, and because I couldn't be arsed to do it myself. Of course it was a viable option to use their exact system, which is why I found a link with their exact system in use.

Again, why does it matter whether it was officially in use or not? Nothing was officially in use. Are we supposed to just claim that all of the teams in the EC were of equal footing because they weren't ranked differently? Or is it reasonable to suggest that a ranking system developed in later years can be applied to the previous competitions to produce a ranking system?

That is the second time you have claimed that. Find where I specifically asked that question. If you can't, you're either (1) a liar or (2) completely out of your depth. And I don't appreciate you going into other threads spreading the same lies.

In response to my simplified system:

What is that system?

Upon explaining why I’d used it:

Why would you do that when there is already a calculation in place?

I took this to be you questioning why I had used my own system when UEFA already had one.

Given your repeated lack of comprehension of basic points, however, I feel I should be forgiven a misunderstanding here if that is the case.

As for the last bit, don’t make mental posts and I won’t post about you making mental posts.

 

[Kraftwerker]

The UEFA coefficient is intended for a fundamentally different competition. According to Alex99, the coefficient ranking did not even come into effect until the early 2000s. I do not know if there was no system in place back then -- and it's not my duty to find the information on that. I'm not the one who started claiming whether 'x' nation was deemed "top".

By the mid-late 1990s, the UEFA Champions League became completely different to the European Cup. The 2002-03 Champions League was the last to feature a second group stage. That was the first year the UEFA coefficient ranking became available on the UEFA website. Source

So essentially it doesn't matter if the logic is fundamentally flawed, it tells you what you want to know. Is that right?

The logic isn't fundamentally flawed though. The logic is pretty much the same as any seeding system used in multiple sports.

You do well, by beating opponents and progressing in a competition, you get awarded points.

What exactly is wrong with that logic? And what is your alternative? You could apply a tennis seeding system on the two tournaments and I'd wager the results would be pretty much identical. Pretty simple stuff really.

 

[Ramshock]

Pippa

Pippanomics

 

[Alex99]

The UEFA coefficient is intended for a fundamentally different competition. According to Alex99, the coefficient ranking did not even come into effect until the early 2000s. I do not know if there was no system in place back then -- and it's not my duty to find the information on that. I'm not the one who started claiming whether 'x' nation was deemed "top". I'm not even sure whether or not leagues were officially ranked in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s.

By the mid-late 1990s, the UEFA Champions League became completely different to the European Cup. The 2002-03 Champions League was the last to feature a second group stage. That was the first year the UEFA coefficient ranking became available on the UEFA website. Source

So essentially it doesn't matter if the logic is fundamentally flawed, it tells you what you already know. Is that right?

It doesn't mater if the calculation wasn't used until the format changed, because the calculation will do the exact same job with the old format. It doesn't matter that the leagues weren't ranked back then, because they can be ranked now using the calculation. I don't know how to make this any simpler for you.

The UEFA coefficient calculation rewards teams with more points for winning than it does for drawing, and more points for drawing than it does for losing.

It rewards more points for competing in the more prestigious competition.

Points are totaled over a 5 year period, with ranking based on who has the most points over that time.

A nation's points are the combined total of points accumulated by any competing clubs from their league system.

Nation's are also ranked based on which has the most points over the 5 year period.

Collectively, if the clubs of a nation make just one semi-final appearance over a 5 year period, being knocked out in the early rounds every other year, they are likely to earn far fewer points than clubs from a nation that reach the quarter-finals every year.

As the calculation takes into account only results and which competition you play in, it can easily be transferred to the old format of the competition.



How exactly is this flawed logically?

 

[Dan]

Imagine having a bye into the last 16 of the Champions League now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977–78_European_Cup

 

[Pippa]

I didn't say it was the official calculation for that tournament, or that the website that uses it was an official source. I said it was the official calculation that UEFA use, which it is, and that the link I provided uses it. Again, you're making up claims to suit your argument.

You said you found the data using the "official calculation". This "official calculation" came from this site. If it was the "official calculation" of the European Cup, you would have been able to find the information from a more official source, not one from a personal website.

Switzerland [...] Not by my rankings [...]

Post the raw data.

Nothing was used for the EC, but this calculation is easily transferable.

Is there proof that nothing was used for the European Cup?

There isn't an "official" source.

So it's basically using Champions League standards with the European Cup.

Please explain how I'm lying there.

"Literally the only reason". There you go. You show it in your own post.

Again, why does it matter whether it was officially in use or not? Nothing was officially in use.

Can you prove that?

I took this to be you questioning why I had used my own system when UEFA already had one.

i.e. you manipulated my post which claimed absolutely nothing about UEFA to suit what you are trying to argue.

 

[Balu]

I'm a bit lost here, but didn't UEFA introduce the 5 year ranking to compare the European leagues in 1960? Why not use that? I'm sure that's available somewhere on the Internet?

 

[Pippa]

I'm a bit lost here, but didn't UEFA introduce the 5 year ranking to compare the European leagues in 1960? Why not use that? I'm sure that's available somewhere on the Internet?

According to the site Alex99 linked, UEFA has been publishing country rankings since 1979. Yet for some reason they are only available on that one website. I've tried searching but they are the only website that I have seen publishing that information.

 

[Alex99]

You said you found the data using the "official calculation". This "official calculation" came from this site. If it was the "official calculation" of the European Cup, you would have been able to find the information from a more official source, not one from a personal website.

The calculation is official because it is the official calculation that UEFA use now. The website it is used on may not be official, but it is still the official UEFA calculation. I've explained now, multiple times, in very simple terms, why it can be used with the European Cup, but it appears that this is beyond you.

Post the raw data.

Why? I'm not inclined to upload a messy excel document with no explanation of what it's showing when there's a website showing the same thing but far more comprehensively.

Is there proof that nothing was used for the European Cup?

The only proof I have that nothing was used for the EC is that there is nothing on UEFA's website, and Wikipedia links to the website I used. How exactly am I supposed to prove that there wasn't an official system, short of failing to find one?

So it's basically using Champions League standards with the European Cup.

There is no "Champions League standard." I don't how I can put it any simpler than I already have. It transfers very easily to the European Cup.

"Literally the only reason". There you go. You show it in your own post.

So it wasn't "literally the only reason", but was one of two connected reasons. I didn't use the UEFA rankings because a) I didn't think they were available and b) because they weren't available, I had no inclination to try and recreate them myself. Congratulations, you pedant.

Can you prove that?

That nothing was in use? Again, how do you prove that something doesn't exist short of failing to prove that it does?

i.e. you manipulated my post which claimed absolutely nothing about UEFA to suit what you are trying to argue.

Or, as I said, I misunderstood you. You asked why I would use my calculation when "there is already a calculation in place." Said calculation is the UEFA calculation. Therefore, I assumed that you were asking why I hadn't used the UEFA calculation.

Pippa, you are mental. Like actually, properly, seriously mental. The only person warping stuff to suit their argument is you. You want so desperately to prove that using the very simple UEFA calculation on previous formats is illogical, despite there being no reason to think this. In doing so, you've essentially ended up claiming that we cannot possibly determine which clubs and leagues were stronger in the past because there was no official ranking system back then. I guess we should just accept that playing Crusaders from Northern Ireland was just as difficult as playing Borussia Monchengladbach from West Germany. One came from a country that barely ever made it past the first round, and one came from a country where the champions were regular winners of the EC, but as they weren't ranked, there's no way to tell which was the tougher game.

I'm a bit lost here, but didn't UEFA introduce the 5 year ranking to compare the European leagues in 1960? Why not use that? I'm sure that's available somewhere on the Internet?

The only source appears to be that site. Everywhere else that I've found using rankings prior to the early 00s just cites that website as the source, including Wikipedia.

 

[Kraftwerker]

You said you found the data using the "official calculation". This "official calculation" came from this site. If it was the "official calculation" of the European Cup, you would have been able to find the information from a more official source, not one from a personal website.

Post the raw data.

Is there proof that nothing was used for the European Cup?

So it's basically using Champions League standards with the European Cup.

"Literally the only reason". There you go. You show it in your own post.

Can you prove that?

i.e. you manipulated my post which claimed absolutely nothing about UEFA to suit what you are trying to argue.

This reminds me of arguing with a Christian fundamentalist.

"Prove god doesn't exist!"

If there's no evidence something existed, can't we assume it doesn't exist? Or does one have to prove its non-existence?

We're moving into philosophical territory here. Classic RedCafe.

 

[Pippa]

This reminds me of arguing with a Christian fundamentalist.

"Prove god doesn't exist!"

If there's no evidence something existed, can't we assume it doesn't exist? Or does one have to prove its non-existence?

We're moving into philosophical territory here. Classic RedCafe.

Alex99 just said that his proof for nothing existing was that nothing was on UEFA's website, and that Wikipedia linked to the site he used. Two websites, literally. UEFA, Wikipedia. If he spent hours searching through historical archives finding nothing, you could assume that. But he looked up two websites.

Surely you can see where you are overreacting?