the CL "Lottery" 948

Lescor

because of the pattern shown by those stats. which distinctly shows the same teams performing at a higher consistent level against the best Europe has to offer. there are two elements to this. Short term, when for example Ajax where prevalent. And long term, where Madrid,Juve and Milan are prevalent. You can extrapolate that much, no?

can you explain the logic behind this? It doesn't exactly tie in with the "luck" element does it and you contradict that statement later.**

again, that is simply NOT what happens in the overwhelming majority of cases, study the form, that's why i posted it.

no i agree LFC where not he best side in europe during that season. however, the long list of league champions(or runners up) we put out of the competition coupled with the likes of chelsea who themselves put the Spanish chmapions out only reinforces the level of competition and the level at which the games were played.

well there is some truth that in order to win in football you need to be lucky, i do believe that but when you are seemingly consistently lucky, i'm sorry, other factors come into play.

that's another argument but could possibly explain why the same teams are winning or making the latter stages again and again.

IKWYM.

there's nothing wrong with the title as you say. winner of the competition are IT'S champions and little more, imo.

if you can prove it is, do so. looking at the small number of teams in the finals, obviously it is not.

we've already established via the stats exactly what the FA Cup is. the giantkilling aspect due to the format of the competition is what you refer to?

well that's inconsistency, the anathema of winning in football. of course there is some scope for redress of this under the current Uefa CL format. Again reinforcing the argument that the CL is no lottery. right?

yes, the league is THE benchmark.

on the contrary, manu had done all they needed to do in order to reach the final, the final is like a bonus, the hard graft is getting there. ask millwall.

same goes for the CL then, which is comprised of league and knockout, albeit two legged ties, stages. short of a season long european competition it's s reasonable barometer, again as the CL stats show, of the more consistent sides across europe.

** via current qualification criteria yes but see see the stats, clearly not, both have won in Europe before. porto had mourhino BTW, how could they lose? ;-) the format either produces worthy winners or not. I undersand you have a beef with the CL format, personally I don't I like the competition.

that's a surface answer, i've detailed the CL route LFC took. champions of italy and Serie A runners up (who put out the dutch champions) dispensed with. champions of greece and england(who put out the spanish champions) dispensed with. it's more than luck(in an overall sense) that wins you competition in which you've beaten the champions of 3 countries and perennial Cl achievers. but i think you'll find that this is the case for every CL winning side. not just LFC.

no, how could i? last seasons LFC were not this seasons LFC who took 26 games to reach 41 points, a tally reached after 19 games this season.

that's far from my point, a domestically inconsistent LFC side reached and won the European cup as underdogs. given the nature of the final itself you'd have to say we had all the luck in the world but were consistent enough to reach the final anyway and so deserve all credit. the point is that the CL per se is no lottery. again and i'm beginning to bore myself, consult the stats.

hmmm,maybe so but it's all we've got and i disagree. the best teams get to play each other OR those who have knocked the best teams out which invariably as the CL stats show tend to be the pick of the current crop.

--