RAWK goes into Meltdown 2010/2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sam.G said:
Bizarre logic, MG and - by it - you are claiming most FA/League/European Cup wins to be 'flukes'.

Nice.

I don't have a problem with anyone on here calling Liverpool's win a fluke of course - it's to be expected. Just odd logic behind it.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming most FA/League/CL wins are 'flukes'. Far from it. I don't know where you got that from.

Usually, the side that wins the CL are there or thereabouts in their league the year they win it, especially the most recent winners.

Liverpool were 30-odd points behind Chelsea in 2005, yet they beat them over the course of 2 games (with hugely questionable refereeing decisions going in their favour) and got further in the CL. Does that mean Liverpool were better than Chelsea in 2004-05? Does it feck. Chelsea were a vastly superior side. Liverpool just beat them over the course of 2 games. Over 38 games, however, they were far, far worse.

Is a team that finishes 5th in their domestic league, well over 30 points behind the leaders, and not even first out of teams from their own city, let alone country, the best side in Europe? No way. Not even close. Yet they were the champions of Europe that year. Does that make them a good team? No. They were average, and good in a few games.

Brilliant achievement to be so good in a few games, but that still doesn't change how they still were an average team, nowhere near the best team in Europe, and their win was something of a fluke.
 
alastair said:
Out of interest, what's the view point on the 08 success of United?

Personally I deemed them the best side in the competition, but second best in Moscow and a tad fortunate to get to penalties, albeit the game was closely fought. United weren't massively outplayed or anything.

Luck is part and parcel of any final - Birmingham got it this year, Liverpool got it in '05 in the sense that Milan crumbled - it just happens. You can't really use it against a side.
Click to expand...

We dominated the first half, absolutely dominated it. They had the better of the second and extra-time was fairly even.

Wouldn't say we were second best at all.
 
esmufc11 said:
We dominated the first half, absolutely dominated it. They had the better of the second and extra-time was fairly even.

Wouldn't say we were second best at all.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Interesting to see what you all think of it. As has been said, there's no way anyone could begrudge you winning it.
 
M'n'M said:
I have my own views and opinions. RAWK aren't the official spokesperson of the entire fanbase and you'll find that most sensible fans don't go there for the very reason why you're laughing at them.
Click to expand...

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that sadly, Liverpool fans exist outside of RAWK/Internet and almost all I know have spent most of the season stating how bad this Utd team is and how lucky we are.
 
Sam.G said:
Stupid argument for me.

Another equally mental view is one that says, "surely proper 'champions' of the Champion's League actually qualify as champions of their own country?"

Both ridiculous in my view. Whoever wins the CL can clearly claim themselves to be champions of Europe no matter how fans from other clubs may attempt to diminish their achievements with petty tribal bollocks.
Click to expand...

It's not a stupid argument.

The league is, and always has been, a far better indicator of who the best team is than the CL is, purely because the CL is a cup competition, and anything can happen over the course of a few games. A team can have been poor for months on end, but produce a couple of good games and so get far in the CL. The league is a much better indicator of continued, sustained success and consistency. It's 38 games over 9 months. The best team always wins and the table never lies.

All cup competitions aren't as good an indicator as the league. Schalke are pretty poor really, but they played really well in 2 games against Inter Milan, and so got further than Chelsea, a side much better than them. Stoke might win the FA Cup.

A side that aren't champions of their own country have been beaten by a side that have just simply been better than them for 9 months, they haven't won the league fair and square. But they can win the CL. Does winning the CL make them better than the side that beat them to the league? No. They're still a worse side.

Therefore, to be the true champions of Europe, you should be champions of your own country first. Otherwise, there is quite obviously a side that is better than you somewhere (namely, in your own country). If you want to loosen that rule a bit though, you could say that you perhaps don't have to be the champions of your country, you just have to be close. Like runner up by not many points. Liverpool were over 30 points behind in 2005, and there were 4 teams better than them, including another one from Liverpool. Nowhere near the best team in Europe. When we've won the CL, you could easily make a claim that we were the best team in Europe.
 
MG said:
Liverpool were 30-odd points behind Chelsea in 2005, yet they beat them over the course of 2 games (with hugely questionable refereeing decisions going in their favour) and got further in the CL
Click to expand...
I can't remember the games to well (if at all). Besides the goal-line call (which was fairly irrelevant), what other decisions were there? I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, I genuinely can't remember.

No way. Not even close. Yet they were the champions of Europe that year. Does that make them a good team? No. They were average, and good in a few games.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that the winners of the CL are titled "Champions of Europe," which I believe is a bit silly for a cup competition. It's not quite the same as calling the winners of the FA Cup "Champions of England" but has a similar feel to it. The problem is it's the only competition for European teams to compete against each other... What do you think?
 
Ye I can only think of the Ghost goal that Liverpool got in their favour over the course of the two legs. Chelsea just could not finish. I still remember screaming like a mad-man in about the 90th minute when Gudjohnsen had that chance.

Liverpool weren't the best team in Europe in 2005, I don't think any of their fans actually believe that.
 
RK said:
I can't remember the games to well (if at all). Besides the goal-line call (which was fairly irrelevant), what other decisions were there? I'm not trying to catch you out or anything, I genuinely can't remember.


I think the problem is that the winners of the CL are titled "Champions of Europe," which I believe is a bit silly for a cup competition. It's not quite the same as calling the winners of the FA Cup "Champions of England" but has a similar feel to it. The problem is it's the only competition for European teams to compete against each other... What do you think?
Click to expand...

I was talking about the 'ghost goal' thing. I went too far saying they got a lot of decisions in their favour, it was only really that one. My point still stands about them only being (slightly) better in 2 games, when the other team were (vastly) better for 9 months.

I agree. I don't think you can take it away though, the winners of the CL are always going to be called the Champions of Europe, just because we can assume they've had to beat some of the best European teams along the way to win it. Still, like I said earlier, it's not as good an indicator of the best team as the league is. Sometimes it is, and a final of Barcelona-Manchester United is a pretty fair final really in terms of the best teams going, but also sometimes it isn't.

I think we can just say that although 'champions' sometimes means 'best', also sometimes it quite obviously doesn't. Because the league is a fairer judgement of who the best is, we can say that everytime the winner of the CL isn't the winner of their own domestic league - or, to be less harsh, is a long way off the winner of their own league - 'champions' doesn't mean 'best' and the achievement is not as good.
 
MG said:
I'm not claiming most FA/League/CL wins are 'flukes'. Far from it. I don't know where you got that from.
Click to expand...

The logical conclusion to this argument:

MG said:
A side that weren't even the best side in Liverpool, let alone their own country, can hardly claim to be the best side in Europe. That hints to it, perhaps, being a bit of a fluke.
Click to expand...
 
MG said:
Therefore, to be the true champions of Europe, you should be champions of your own country first.
Click to expand...

What title do you think each year's European Champions should be given if not 'Champions of Europe'?
 
Sam.G said:
The logical conclusion to this argument:
Click to expand...

No it isn't, because most teams that win the CL win their league or are at least very close to winning it, not over 30 points behind not even in the qualifying positions for the tournament the next year.

Isn't it ironic that Liverpool won the CL in 2005, but technically shouldn't have even qualified for it in 2006. How strange. The defending champions aren't even good enough to qualify for the tournament they're trying to defend. Don't think that happens very often.

By all means though, go on ignoring my reasoning behind my argument because it suits your belief that 'Liverpool were totally, completely, easily the best that year and fully deserved to be champions of everything even though we were poor for 9 months'.
 
Sam.G said:
What title do you think each year's European Champions should be given if not 'Champions of Europe'?
Click to expand...

Champions of Europe.

But in Liverpool's case:

Champions of Europe(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)

(i) Finished 5th in their league
(ii) Focused all their effort on the CL
(iii) Shit on a stick football
(iv) Ghost goals
(v) Gerrard's dive
(vi) Dudek's penalty line cheating
(vii) Djimi Traore

I think that's fair.
 
Sam.G said:
What title do you think each year's European Champions should be given if not 'Champions of Europe'?
Click to expand...

Again, ignoring my reasoning. I said in another post that they should be given that title, obviously, because the assumption is that they've beaten some of the best teams in Europe to get there. However, I also said, in some cases, 'champions' does not mean 'best', because the league is a better indicator of who is the best than the CL. If a side aren't the best in their league, someone has been - completely fairly - better than them in their own country. Therefore, they're obviously not the best in Europe.

I said all that before.
 
Kraftwerker said:
Champions of Europe.

But in Liverpool's case:

Champions of Europe(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)

(i) Finished 5th in their league
(ii) Focused all their effort on the CL
(iii) Shit on a stick football
(iv) Ghost goals
(v) Gerrard's dive
(vi) Dudek's penalty line cheating
(vii) Djimi Traore

I think that's fair.
Click to expand...

Add:

(viii) weren't good enough to qualify for the tournament to defend their trophy
(ix) not even the best team in Liverpool, let alone England, let alone Europe.
 
Norway was once ranked 2nd on the FIFA rankings listing thingy! Only beaten by Brazil, I think. Early 90's..
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
You do realize that when we won it in 1999 we qualified without being champions right?
Click to expand...

Well, duh. Of course I do. My point is when we went into the final against Bayern in 1999, we went into the final as Champions. We competed as Champions, we didn't compete in the final after finishing 4th or 5th down the league table.

Our 1999 final - Champions of England v Champions of Germany.
Our 2008 final - Champions of England v Runners up of England
Our 2009 final - Champions of England v Champions of Spain.

Our last 3 finals, we've competed in them as the reigning Champions.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Ok, but not necessarily starting the said campaigns as Champions.
Click to expand...

Well, that's not really the point. I don't think only the Champions of each country should qualify for the CL, I don't have a problem with the 2nd team in the league - and in some cases 3rd and 4th - qualifying for the CL.

The only thing some of us are saying is that if you're not Champions of your country the year you win the CL, you're not the best side in Europe, because you're not even the best side in your own country. Simples. Thus, you can't properly claim to be champions of Europe.
 
MG said:
Well, that's not really the point. I don't think only the Champions of each country should qualify for the CL, I don't have a problem with the 2nd team in the league - and in some cases 3rd and 4th - qualifying for the CL.

The only thing some of us are saying is that if you're not Champions of your country the year you win the CL, you're not the best side in Europe, because you're not even the best side in your own country. Simples. Thus, you can't properly claim to be champions of Europe.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's all semantics and each set of fans will have thier own POV depending on their club's circumstances. For example, you wouldn't find so many United fans quick to dilute the achievement of winning the CL without winning the league by not referring to us as champions of Europe if that ever happens(and it could this season to be fair). We'd bask in the glory and refer to ourselves as champions of Europe which is what we'd be.

Let's assume Spain win the Euro's again in 2012 but another European team like Germany, Holland, or even England(ain't happening I know)win the WC in 2014, does that then mean they shouldn't call themselves the champions of the world?

I hate Liverpool, but just like us in 68(when we didn't win the league either), 99, and 08, they were the reigning champions of Europe in 2005, even though it was a fluke and they probably had a better team contesting the final two years later which didn't win.
 
Lads and lasses, Liverpool won the 2005 Champions League; end of story. It's RAWKish (i.e. stooping to their level) by trying to make that defeat seem "lucky" or "shit on a stick". Our very own Sir Alex Ferguson has been quoted to saying that "You don't win the European Cup without luck along the way" many a time. Take Terry's slip in Moscow for example...

Now, I am not defending Liverpool FC or their supporters but lets rise above, yes? Would you take winning against Barca in a few weeks time even if meant playing 10 men behind the ball and hoofing it long for 90+ minutes? I would!

Now, lets get back to laughing at the bitters over there please...
 
Because it's not the United way. I'd rather we went out all guns blazing than hide behind cover.

SAF will do the right thing, he'll keep it tight, and we'll go at them on the counter. Don't want any hoofing though!
 
I'm with Weaste on this one, we've got a long and proud tradition of doing things, which doesn't include playing like Stoke.
 
The Caf has become weird.

The other week people were complaining about Arsenal's invincibles tag. Now about Liverpool's UCL win. Have I woken up in 2005?
 
WireRed said:
To be fair, it's all semantics and each set of fans will have thier own POV depending on their club's circumstances. For example, you wouldn't find so many United fans quick to dilute the achievement of winning the CL without winning the league by not referring to us as champions of Europe if that ever happens(and it could this season to be fair). We'd bask in the glory and refer to ourselves as champions of Europe which is what we'd be.

Let's assume Spain win the Euro's again in 2012 but another European team like Germany, Holland, or even England(ain't happening I know)win the WC in 2014, does that then mean they shouldn't call themselves the champions of the world?

I hate Liverpool, but just like us in 68(when we didn't win the league either), 99, and 08, they were the reigning champions of Europe in 2005, even though it was a fluke and they probably had a better team contesting the final two years later which didn't win.
Click to expand...

WC/Euro analogy is different. It's a cup competition again, and there's a gap of 2 years, it doesn't happen in the same season.

Personally, if we win the CL this season but lose the league to Chelsea it will be a bit tainted imo. We'll have won the CL but we weren't even the best team in England. The table is the best indicator.

68 was with the European cup, different time and competition.

Plan M said:
Lads and lasses, Liverpool won the 2005 Champions League; end of story. It's RAWKish (i.e. stooping to their level) by trying to make that defeat seem "lucky" or "shit on a stick". Our very own Sir Alex Ferguson has been quoted to saying that "You don't win the European Cup without luck along the way" many a time. Take Terry's slip in Moscow for example...

Now, I am not defending Liverpool FC or their supporters but lets rise above, yes? Would you take winning against Barca in a few weeks time even if meant playing 10 men behind the ball and hoofing it long for 90+ minutes? I would!

Now, lets get back to laughing at the bitters over there please...
Click to expand...

I know they won it, they did very well to beat the teams they did, but they were nowhere near the best team in Europe in 2005. They played well in a few games, but for the majority of the season they were poor to average.

The best team in Europe doesn't finish over 30 points behind another team in their own domestic league, and technically not even qualify for the tournament the next season.

They weren't even the best team in Liverpool that year. Everton finished above them in the league. The league is always a better indicator of who's the best. You have to be the best over 38 games, not 7 games.
 
MG said:
I know they won it, they did very well to beat the teams they did, but they were nowhere near the best team in Europe in 2005. They played well in a few games, but for the majority of the season they were poor to average.

The best team in Europe doesn't finish over 30 points behind another team in their own domestic league, and technically not even qualify for the tournament the next season.

They weren't even the best team in Liverpool that year. Everton finished above them in the league. The league is always a better indicator of who's the best. You have to be the best over 38 games, not 7 games.
Click to expand...

The CL is 13 games (6 Group Stages games, 6 knockout games and the Final).
 
esmufc11 said:
The CL is 13 games (6 Group Stages games, 6 knockout games and the Final).
Click to expand...

I was just talking about the knockout games seeing as they're the ones where you really can't afford to slip up. Group stages are important as well but it's the not the end of the world if you have the odd draw or even loss, so long as the rest are good.
 
MG said:
I was just talking about the knockout games seeing as they're the ones where you really can't afford to slip up. Group stages are important as well but it's the not the end of the world if you have the odd draw or even loss, so long as the rest are good.
Click to expand...

You can just as easily apply that to the PL, where you can afford to drop points in around 10-12 games over the course of the season. We've dropped points in 14 games this season for example, as have Chelsea.
 
esmufc11 said:
You can just as easily apply that to the PL, where you can afford to drop points in around 10-12 games over the course of the season. We've dropped points in 14 games this season, as have Chelsea.
Click to expand...

Yep, just means all the other teams have dropped more points in more games. We've dropped less than the ones below us, obviously.

Best team always wins.
 
MG said:
WC/Euro analogy is different. It's a cup competition again, and there's a gap of 2 years, it doesn't happen in the same season.

Personally, if we win the CL this season but lose the league to Chelsea it will be a bit tainted imo. We'll have won the CL but we weren't even the best team in England. The table is the best indicator.

68 was with the European cup, different time and competition.



I know they won it, they did very well to beat the teams they did, but they were nowhere near the best team in Europe in 2005. They played well in a few games, but for the majority of the season they were poor to average.

The best team in Europe doesn't finish over 30 points behind another team in their own domestic league, and technically not even qualify for the tournament the next season.

They weren't even the best team in Liverpool that year. Everton finished above them in the league. The league is always a better indicator of who's the best. You have to be the best over 38 games, not 7 games.
Click to expand...

So what? I'm just applying the logic you and other United fans are. If Spain were the current European champions, wouldn't by that logic make any claim from another European side to being the current World champions in your words "tainted"? I don't think so, the way I see it is this...You compete in competitions for that particular title, if that is champions of Europe and you win that competition, that's what you are regardless of how you've faired in other competitions.

I just find the eagerness to belittle the achievements of others a little smalltime, we don't need to resort to that.
 
WireRed said:
So what? I'm just applying the logic you and other United fans are. If Spain were the current European champions, wouldn't by that logic make any claim from another European side to being the current World champions in your words "tainted"? I don't think so, the way I see it is this...You compete in competitions for that particular title, if that is champions of Europe and you win that competition, that's what you are regardless of how you've faired in other competitions.

I just find the eagerness to belittle the achievements of others a little smalltime, we don't need to resort to that.
Click to expand...

A cup competition is never as good an indicator as a league competition. You can be good in 7 games in the CL, but poor for 9 months in your league. Or you can be good for 9 months in your league but make a single mistake in 1 CL game and go out. The team that gets further in the CL but does worse in the league is not better.

WC and Euro are both cup competitions, therefore they can be judged the same. The one that wins the Euro is the champion of Europe and the one that wins the WC is then champion of the world. There's a 2 year gap like I said. You can easily make arguments that you weren't the best in Europe 2 years earlier but you've improved now to be the best in the world, or you could say you made had a few off games in the Euro but now you're the best... they're both cup competitions so it doesn't matter. Any team could do better/worse than the quality of the team suggests over a few games.

The league is a totally different sort of competition to any cup competition... it truly finds the best because over 38 games any off-days, any poor refereeing decision, any unusual good performance from a usually poor team is worked out and evened out and the best team overall always wins.

I'm not belittling any achievement... I'm just saying - quite rightly - that a team over 30 points behind the leader in their own country is not the best team in Europe.
 
MG said:
A cup competition is never as good an indicator as a league competition. You can be good in 7 games in the CL, but poor for 9 months in your league. Or you can be good for 9 months in your league but make a single mistake in 1 CL game and go out. The team that gets further in the CL but does worse in the league is not better.

WC and Euro are both cup competitions, therefore they can be judged the same. The one that wins the Euro is the champion of Europe and the one that wins the WC is then champion of the world. There's a 2 year gap like I said. You can easily make arguments that you weren't the best in Europe 2 years earlier but you've improved now to be the best in the world, or you could say you made had a few off games in the Euro but now you're the best... they're both cup competitions so it doesn't matter. Any team could do better/worse than the quality of the team suggests over a few games.

The league is a totally different sort of competition to any cup competition... it truly finds the best because over 38 games any off-days, any poor refereeing decision, any unusual good performance from a usually poor team is worked out and evened out and the best team overall always wins.

I'm not belittling any achievement... I'm just saying - quite rightly - that a team over 30 points behind the leader in their own country is not the best team in Europe.
Click to expand...

In fairness you are, but the point I made was more a generalisation than anything aimed at you in particular. The attitude towards Arsenal's unbeaten league season is another example of people mocking/belittling something that they would be proud as punch of if it was us that accomplished it.

The CL, despite your claims to the contrary is a fair yardstick for deciding the champions of Europe. You play the best teams over two games up unti the final, if you are good enough to come through that and then win such a high-pressure game on neutral ground, you are worthy of the title "champions of Europe". OK, Liverpool enjoyed a lot of luck, but so have we in our CL winning campaigns. And the road to glory for them was as tough as it gets, Leverkusen(decent German team), Juventus(the best in Italy at the time and considered legitimate contenders to win it), Chelsea(the best in England at the time), and then a final against a class Milan side. Their performances and scalps in that competition merited the title that came with it, and sadly for anyone who has had to put up with their crowing ever since, that was "champions of Europe".

It doesn't matter that there is a two year gap in international tournements, why? Because the issue at hand is the claim that "you can't claim to be the European champions when you aren't even champions of your own league", so tell me, how a side(despite the two year gap)claiming to be the World champions despite not being champions of their own continent is more entitled to do so than a club side who has won the CL but not their domestic league? I know the league is a better reflection of quality and that you are making the case for it being more relevant due to similar timeframe, but it still nonetheless does not demean the title of whatever competition has been won.
 
MUFCgal said:
why call it the Champions League then?
Click to expand...

Because its a competition to become champions of europe, not because only champions of the respective countries can play in it, that a bit like presuming only employees of carling can play in the carling cup or only fa board members in the fa cup
 
Right, lets get back to laughing at the Scousers please.

I'll begin:

Europa League 2 years running

:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.