Terrible?
I wouldn't say we have a terrible record at all.
4 wins in 24 years, so we win about every 6 years on average.
That's about right for one of the top 4 or 5 leagues in Europe.
We could be slightly better, maybe every 4 years, but any more than that would be an anomaly.
It's certainly not a terrible record.
When you consider how little we have done internationally in that time, compared to Italy, Spain, France and Germany, who have all won major tournaments (3 of them more than 1), then I would even say our record of winning a CL every 6 years is a good one, as English players have largely been inferior to their counterparts over that time and all our winning teams have contained English players.
Not read all comments. IMO it's down to the experience of the managers. Some are still learning e.g. Rodgers, Poch, and others are just egomaniacs Mourinho.
comment by righteous1 (U7048)
posted 29 minutes ago
Terrible?
I wouldn't say we have a terrible record at all.
4 wins in 24 years, so we win about every 6 years on average.
That's about right for one of the top 4 or 5 leagues in Europe.
We could be slightly better, maybe every 4 years, but any more than that would be an anomaly.
It's certainly not a terrible record.
When you consider how little we have done internationally in that time, compared to Italy, Spain, France and Germany, who have all won major tournaments (3 of them more than 1), then I would even say our record of winning a CL every 6 years is a good one, as English players have largely been inferior to their counterparts over that time and all our winning teams have contained English players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contained.....
But how many were key players?
The biggest sign of how overrated the prem is came from hull city this term.
Spent 39 million and were dumped out over 2 feckin legs to mighty Lokeren
The likes of Beckham, Scholes, Gerrard, Carragher, Terry were certainly key players in the way to there teams winning the CL. Ferdinand another, Gary Neville.
The real anomaly is the late 70’s early 80’s, when English teams were European Champions for 6 consecutive years (then again in 84).
For the first 10 years of the EC’s history, nobody from northern Europe won it, let alone England. Then from 1970 to 1984, nobody from southern Europe won it, even though (maybe even because?) Spanish and Italian teams tended to have foreign imports, and the northern European teams tended not to.
Northern European teams (including English teams) were also pretty dominant in the UEFA Cup during that 70’s/80’s period. Spurs, Ipswich and Liverpool all won it, and in 1980, all 4 semi-finalists were German.
It’s cyclical, and by 1985, there were already signs that southern European teams were starting to make a comeback. Juve won the EC, Real Madrid the UEFA, and the English teams were knocked out of the UEFA fairly early (Spurs and United in the quarters, against Real and Videoton, Southampton and QPR in the early rounds).
It has, in fact, been a bit of a mixture since then, but over the last 10/11 years, English clubs have won 3 CL’s (and had 4 other finalists) and a Europa League, which is a better record than at any time before, except uring the late 70’s/early 80’s...the anomalous period.
That’s not evidence of anything, is it? There could be any number of reasons for that, and the same thing is happening now, without a ban....hence this thread.
...................................................
No, it was a hell of a lot worse than it is now.
..................................................
It’s more than possible that it did affect English clubs in general, but your argument was that it went some way to explaining Fergie's record in Europe, when in fact, United in particular won a European trophy, and beat the European Champions, along with the following year’s European Champions, in the first season back.
...............................................................
Rangers almost won the UEFA cup several years back, probably as tough a competition if not tougher.
Does that mean the Scottish league was really strong?
No, Rangers had far far exceeded all expectations by winning that trophy.
Saying that I have just looked into the details of the run...
_________________________________
Sir Alex Ferguson was in charge when United played their first European match after the ban was lifted, in 1990. The Reds beat Pecsi Munkas 2-0 in Manchester and 1-0 in Hungary, to set-up an all-British tie against Welsh Cup winners Wrexham. Again the Reds kept two clean sheets, beating the Robins 3-0 at home and 2-0 away. United conceded their first goal of the competition against Montpellier, but still won 3-1 on aggregate before beating Legia Warsaw 4-2 over both legs of the semi-finals
________________________________________
Well obviously the English league was stronger than it had ever been at this point.
As not only did we beat Barca in the final, but we took on legendary teams such as Pecsi Munkas, Wrexham and Montpellier on the way...
Any team that can do that must come from the strongest league around!
.......................................................
It isn’t a theory.
Yours is the theory, mine was a series of facts tending to suggest that your theory isn’t supported by them.
......................................................
Facts?! theory?!
Are you drunk, the facts show that English clubs were much more successful before the ban and much less successful after it, it took sometime to recover and even then I don't think we have ever matched the pre ban level, they are the facts.
You theory that it didn't affect anything based on United beating Wrexham, Pecsi Munkas, Montpellier and then Barcelona in a one off game is absolutely ludicrous!
Hi SAF, you’re ranting and repeating yourself a bit now, like Father Jack Hackett, so let’s see if we can find some common ground.
You’ve shifted the goalposts a bit, talking about the relative weakness or strength of the leagues, when in fact the point I questioned was how you had arrived at the conclusion that Fergie’s record was affected by the ban, so specifically about United.
So I agree with you about Rangers: it’s possible for a team to be strong in Europe without coming from a strong league, but I don’t know how this supports your argument. Between 92 and 95, United were dumped out of Europe by Torpedo Moscow, Galatasary and Gothenburg, and I suspect none of those leagues were stronger than the English league, so I think we can agree on that.
I’ll take your word for it, too, that United in the 90’s were nothing more than the best of a bad bunch, and relatively sheite by European standards, though I think you’re being a bit harsh on that team.
They won two European trophies in the 90s’, and if United had kept up a ratio of 2 a decade for all of the 6 decades of European competition, they would by now have 12 European trophies (take 1 off for the ban, so that’s 11). That would be even more than we’ve won, and our record is one of the best in Europe, so in fact is was one of your better decades in Europe.
It is possible that Liverpool (and possibly Everton too) would have continued to dominate Europe after 85, and that United would have picked up the baton in the early 90’s, but for a country to dominate for that long is not really the norm.
The two periods when English teams have been strong in Europe’s senior competition are 1977-1985 and 2005-2012, which only represents 14 years out of 60, and is much closer to the norm. The idea that it would have continued into the next decade, and then kept going throughout the 90’s, is a bit unlikely: there are periods of domination, but the other countries always find a way to catch up, generally within a decade.
I don’t know why you keep making the point that if Event2 follows Event1, it must have been caused by Event1, that’s just a circular argument. But let’s end on another note of agreement: I’ll concede your argument that the CWC was a Mickey Mouse trophy.
The only bit I still don’t understand how you can beat two of the strongest teams in Europe in 1991, yet the ban somehow affected your ability to beat Torpedo Moscow in 1992, or Gothenburg in 1995 (you say it’s because English players had gone abroad, but by then the ban was lifted, and you don’t say who the likes of Waddle, Hoddle and Platt might have replaced in your team to make you a European power.
Giggs? Beckham? Scholes?).
The Europa league and its earlier forms give the best idea of a leagues strength in depth.
English clubs have generally performed badly in it.
Outside the top 4 or 5 clubs the prem is average at best.
The EL must be poor this season. Everton have only lost once in a dead rubber group game
With a scratch side BTW
Well that's it then, Everton are doing OK and have got as far as four soviets teams and five Italian ones, prem must be outstanding after all!?!
Remind me again, how are Liverpool, spurs and hull getting on?
Soviet sides?
Italian sides have always done well
Russian and Ukrainian.
I figured it wouldn't need explaining.
Italian league is considered far inferior to the prem these days according to most people on here.
Well the facts are they seem to be doing much better than our expensive sides
Yeah, and as I said early in this thread, people confuse spending big money on players as meaning those players are good quality.
They are not necessarily and the fact is some clubs are getting mugged on prices for players, WBAs Brown ideye a great example, ten million quid for that!!!
Hi SAF, you’re ranting and repeating yourself a bit now, like Father Jack Hackett, so let’s see if we can find some common ground.
.........................................
*Your
.........................................
You’ve shifted the goalposts a bit, talking about the relative weakness or strength of the leagues, when in fact the point I questioned was how you had arrived at the conclusion that Fergie’s record was affected by the ban, so specifically about United.
................................................
Well theres a fairly obvious connection between them.... weaker league = less success in Europe, pretty much.
Do we get more winners from the Portguese league or the Spanish?
The English league or the Scottish?
A stronger league will result in more European trophies.
..........................................................
So I agree with you about Rangers: it’s possible for a team to be strong in Europe without coming from a strong league, but I don’t know how this supports your argument. Between 92 and 95, United were dumped out of Europe by Torpedo Moscow, Galatasary and Gothenburg, and I suspect none of those leagues were stronger than the English league, so I think we can agree on that.
.................................................................
The Turkish league was probably pretty close to the English one at the time, neither great. The other leagues were much much closer to the English league than they would have been without the ban.
.......................................................
I’ll take your word for it, too, that United in the 90’s were nothing more than the best of a bad bunch, and relatively sheite by European standards, though I think you’re being a bit harsh on that team.
..................................................
I don't see why you need to take my word for it, the results speak for themselves....
..................................................
They won two European trophies in the 90s’, and if United had kept up a ratio of 2 a decade for all of the 6 decades of European competition, they would by now have 12 European trophies (take 1 off for the ban, so that’s 11). That would be even more than we’ve won, and our record is one of the best in Europe, so in fact is was one of your better decades in Europe.
.....................................................
As the 90's went on the league recovered, notice that we only won a cup winners cup just after the ban, but right at the end of the 90's we actually won the big one, years after the ban finished.
If United had been dominating one of the best leagues in the world they certainly would have won more than a cup winners cup and a CL, we weren't though, we were dominating a fairly weak league that was still recovering from the ban.
..................................................
It is possible that Liverpool (and possibly Everton too) would have continued to dominate Europe after 85, and that United would have picked up the baton in the early 90’s, but for a country to dominate for that long is not really the norm.
.....................................................
You don't even have to assume the domination would continue, just that England would have remained one the top leagues in Europe rather than regressing severely.
...........................................................
The two periods when English teams have been strong in Europe’s senior competition are 1977-1985 and 2005-2012, which only represents 14 years out of 60, and is much closer to the norm. The idea that it would have continued into the next decade, and then kept going throughout the 90’s, is a bit unlikely: there are periods of domination, but the other countries always find a way to catch up, generally within a decade.
........................................................
As I said there isn't only the best league in the world and the rest are average, theres a sliding scale and thanks to the ban we slid much further down the scale than we otherwise would have.
.........................................................
I don’t know why you keep making the point that if Event2 follows Event1, it must have been caused by Event1, that’s just a circular argument. But let’s end on another note of agreement: I’ll concede your argument that the CWC was a Mickey Mouse trophy.
..................................................
Well the ban obviously led to a weakening of the league, unless we ignore all common sense its hard to see another way around it.
.................................................
The only bit I still don’t understand how you can beat two of the strongest teams in Europe in 1991, yet the ban somehow affected your ability to beat Torpedo Moscow in 1992, or Gothenburg in 1995 (you say it’s because English players had gone abroad, but by then the ban was lifted, and you don’t say who the likes of Waddle, Hoddle and Platt might have replaced in your team to make you a European power.
Giggs? Beckham? Scholes?).
........................................................
Well if you don't understand then maybe you should watch a bit more football...
For examples, see Porto CL win, Fulham ropey league run, Rangers ropey league run, Chelsea CL win..... hell even Wigan's FA cup win..
We certainly wouldn't be the first team to win a trophy when we were not the best team in the competition.
Its not a case of there being a particular English player we should have had, its a case of a league not being attractive because it is weaker resulting in players going elsewhere instead.
Even now with the PL being (probably around) the 2nd best league we struggle to get the best players here because of the weather (and sometimes the non London location)
If the league is much weaker as well then its going to be harder to attract players, not just for United but for the other teams in the league as well, which is going to mean a league filled with less talented players, which makes the individual teams weaker, which all results in....
A weaker league...
Hi SAF, you’re ranting and repeating yourself a bit now, like Father Jack Hackett, so let’s see if we can find some common ground.
.........................................
*Your
...........................
Fwiw, I certainly do think the ban had an impact, but there were also important rule changes around those times whose impact is hard to assess.
I'd also note that in the years just before the ban, it's fair to argue that English teams enjoyed an unfair advantage, in that they were allowed to field any British players, not just English - to the point that just 2 English players started the '85 final for Liverpool, and only 4 a year earlier.
Ironically though, in the UK it's always been painted the other way round, i.e. that not being able to do so after the ban was an unfair to English sides.
If you are going to act like a expect to be treated like one
IOAG, depends who you compare against I guess, a rule which limits you to people from your own country only will favour those countries with bigger populations and harm those with smaller populations...
How good the football players you produce are also being an important factor.
........................................................
I certainly do think the ban had an impact
........................................................
TBH almost everybody would agree, I would have thought everybody but apparently because Man United won the CWC just after the ban we were stronger than ever....
So, since 92 only 4 EC wins.
PL has made the english game weak in comparison to other leagues, but it makes a great global product
*Your
==========================================================
I assume that’s a punctuation correction? If you’re going to bother with that, don’t get it wrong, you plum.
==========================================================
Well theres a fairly obvious connection between them.... weaker league = less success in Europe, pretty much.
==========================================================
Well maybe, over all, but that’s a different discussion. We were talking about Fergie’s record in Europe and the effect of the ban on it, so comparisons of the strengths of different leagues is irrelevant to a discussion about a single club, unless you think that a strong team can never emerge from a weaker league at any time (which, looking further down your comments, it looks like you might).
You’ve already given the example of Rangers, who are a big-city club in a small league: they didn’t have to be in a strong league to have a strong team in Europe. Are you now arguing the opposite? Or are you arguing that any success gained by a club from a smaller league must by definition be a fluke? Celtic’s win in 1968? Bruges getting to 2 finals in 3 years? Ajax winning 4 European titles? They’re all flukes?
==========================================================
The Turkish league was probably pretty close to the English one at the time, neither great. The other leagues were much much closer to the English league than they would have been without the ban.
==========================================================
So how many European trophies were won by Turkish, Swedish and Russian clubs in the 90’s?
You’re seriously arguing that the English league wasn’t much stronger than the Swedish league in the 90’s?
==========================================================
You don't even have to assume the domination would continue, just that England would have remained one the top leagues in Europe rather than regressing severely.
==========================================================
Why would it?
When, exactly (by your own criteria), has it been one of the top leagues in Europe?
If the criterion for measuring it is success in Europe, then it has only managed it during two relatively brief periods over the 60 years of European competition. Why, then, would there be any expectation that it could be one of the top leagues in Europe in the 90’s? It wasn’t in the 50’s, 60’s or early 70’s, or early 00’s, and the whole premise of this article is that it isn’t now..... so why in the 90’s?
==========================================================
Well the ban obviously led to a weakening of the league, unless we ignore all common sense its hard to see another way around it.
==========================================================
Well, forget common sense: everybody thinks they have it, but one man’s common sense is another man’s ‘talking sheite’. What I’m interested in is HOW it was weaker.
I haven't come across too many United fans who think that United were sheite in the 90's, tbh.
==========================================================
Even now with the PL being (probably around) the 2nd best league
==========================================================
How do you work out that it’s the 2nd best league now when it can’t get anbody past the CL QFs, and has only one team left in the Europa? And didn’t get much further last season? The whole premise of this article was that it self-evidently isn’t...it's regressed, from a few years ago.
==========================================================
If the league is much weaker as well then its going to be harder to attract players
==========================================================
Where were these players it couldn’t attract?
The league didn’t become particularly international until after the Premiership was formed. There were relatively few foreigners in it BEFORE the ban, and the ban wouldn’t have altered anybody’s ability to attract British players.
A very few British players went and played abroad (really not many), but if they did that because of the ban, then the need to do it stopped as soon as the ban finished. So how was it still affecting United’s ability to attract players in 1993 or 1995?
And in the late 70’s/early 80’s, English clubs dominated Europe with mostly British players, while foreign players were being attracted to Italy and Spain. So why didn’t it weaken the English league then, when most of the foreign players were going to southern Europe?
English teams enjoyed an unfair advantage, in that they were allowed to field any British players, not just English
==========================================================
If you treat Britain as one country, for the purposes of football transfers, it still only would have had a comparable population with West Germany, Italy, France, so it's not that much of an advantage over the other big countries.
For the purpose of football transfers it's not, though. They are separate countries with separate leagues.
The UK obviously complicates things but it is clearly an advantage to the English teams who could cherry pick the best players from the UK.
It's why once that advantage was taken away it affected the teams, particularly us.
it is clearly an advantage to the English teams who could cherry pick the best players from the UK.
==========================================================
But how is that different from West German clubs cherry-picking the best players from West Germany, with a similar population size to the UK?
Sign in if you want to comment
Premier league in Europe.
Page 3 of 4
posted on 12/3/15
Terrible?
I wouldn't say we have a terrible record at all.
4 wins in 24 years, so we win about every 6 years on average.
That's about right for one of the top 4 or 5 leagues in Europe.
We could be slightly better, maybe every 4 years, but any more than that would be an anomaly.
It's certainly not a terrible record.
When you consider how little we have done internationally in that time, compared to Italy, Spain, France and Germany, who have all won major tournaments (3 of them more than 1), then I would even say our record of winning a CL every 6 years is a good one, as English players have largely been inferior to their counterparts over that time and all our winning teams have contained English players.
posted on 12/3/15
Not read all comments. IMO it's down to the experience of the managers. Some are still learning e.g. Rodgers, Poch, and others are just egomaniacs Mourinho.
posted on 12/3/15
comment by righteous1 (U7048)
posted 29 minutes ago
Terrible?
I wouldn't say we have a terrible record at all.
4 wins in 24 years, so we win about every 6 years on average.
That's about right for one of the top 4 or 5 leagues in Europe.
We could be slightly better, maybe every 4 years, but any more than that would be an anomaly.
It's certainly not a terrible record.
When you consider how little we have done internationally in that time, compared to Italy, Spain, France and Germany, who have all won major tournaments (3 of them more than 1), then I would even say our record of winning a CL every 6 years is a good one, as English players have largely been inferior to their counterparts over that time and all our winning teams have contained English players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Contained.....
But how many were key players?
posted on 12/3/15
The biggest sign of how overrated the prem is came from hull city this term.
Spent 39 million and were dumped out over 2 feckin legs to mighty Lokeren
posted on 12/3/15
The likes of Beckham, Scholes, Gerrard, Carragher, Terry were certainly key players in the way to there teams winning the CL. Ferdinand another, Gary Neville.
posted on 12/3/15
The real anomaly is the late 70’s early 80’s, when English teams were European Champions for 6 consecutive years (then again in 84).
For the first 10 years of the EC’s history, nobody from northern Europe won it, let alone England. Then from 1970 to 1984, nobody from southern Europe won it, even though (maybe even because?) Spanish and Italian teams tended to have foreign imports, and the northern European teams tended not to.
Northern European teams (including English teams) were also pretty dominant in the UEFA Cup during that 70’s/80’s period. Spurs, Ipswich and Liverpool all won it, and in 1980, all 4 semi-finalists were German.
It’s cyclical, and by 1985, there were already signs that southern European teams were starting to make a comeback. Juve won the EC, Real Madrid the UEFA, and the English teams were knocked out of the UEFA fairly early (Spurs and United in the quarters, against Real and Videoton, Southampton and QPR in the early rounds).
It has, in fact, been a bit of a mixture since then, but over the last 10/11 years, English clubs have won 3 CL’s (and had 4 other finalists) and a Europa League, which is a better record than at any time before, except uring the late 70’s/early 80’s...the anomalous period.
posted on 12/3/15
That’s not evidence of anything, is it? There could be any number of reasons for that, and the same thing is happening now, without a ban....hence this thread.
...................................................
No, it was a hell of a lot worse than it is now.
..................................................
It’s more than possible that it did affect English clubs in general, but your argument was that it went some way to explaining Fergie's record in Europe, when in fact, United in particular won a European trophy, and beat the European Champions, along with the following year’s European Champions, in the first season back.
...............................................................
Rangers almost won the UEFA cup several years back, probably as tough a competition if not tougher.
Does that mean the Scottish league was really strong?
No, Rangers had far far exceeded all expectations by winning that trophy.
Saying that I have just looked into the details of the run...
_________________________________
Sir Alex Ferguson was in charge when United played their first European match after the ban was lifted, in 1990. The Reds beat Pecsi Munkas 2-0 in Manchester and 1-0 in Hungary, to set-up an all-British tie against Welsh Cup winners Wrexham. Again the Reds kept two clean sheets, beating the Robins 3-0 at home and 2-0 away. United conceded their first goal of the competition against Montpellier, but still won 3-1 on aggregate before beating Legia Warsaw 4-2 over both legs of the semi-finals
________________________________________
Well obviously the English league was stronger than it had ever been at this point.
As not only did we beat Barca in the final, but we took on legendary teams such as Pecsi Munkas, Wrexham and Montpellier on the way...
Any team that can do that must come from the strongest league around!
.......................................................
It isn’t a theory.
Yours is the theory, mine was a series of facts tending to suggest that your theory isn’t supported by them.
......................................................
Facts?! theory?!
Are you drunk, the facts show that English clubs were much more successful before the ban and much less successful after it, it took sometime to recover and even then I don't think we have ever matched the pre ban level, they are the facts.
You theory that it didn't affect anything based on United beating Wrexham, Pecsi Munkas, Montpellier and then Barcelona in a one off game is absolutely ludicrous!
posted on 13/3/15
Hi SAF, you’re ranting and repeating yourself a bit now, like Father Jack Hackett, so let’s see if we can find some common ground.
You’ve shifted the goalposts a bit, talking about the relative weakness or strength of the leagues, when in fact the point I questioned was how you had arrived at the conclusion that Fergie’s record was affected by the ban, so specifically about United.
So I agree with you about Rangers: it’s possible for a team to be strong in Europe without coming from a strong league, but I don’t know how this supports your argument. Between 92 and 95, United were dumped out of Europe by Torpedo Moscow, Galatasary and Gothenburg, and I suspect none of those leagues were stronger than the English league, so I think we can agree on that.
I’ll take your word for it, too, that United in the 90’s were nothing more than the best of a bad bunch, and relatively sheite by European standards, though I think you’re being a bit harsh on that team.
They won two European trophies in the 90s’, and if United had kept up a ratio of 2 a decade for all of the 6 decades of European competition, they would by now have 12 European trophies (take 1 off for the ban, so that’s 11). That would be even more than we’ve won, and our record is one of the best in Europe, so in fact is was one of your better decades in Europe.
It is possible that Liverpool (and possibly Everton too) would have continued to dominate Europe after 85, and that United would have picked up the baton in the early 90’s, but for a country to dominate for that long is not really the norm.
The two periods when English teams have been strong in Europe’s senior competition are 1977-1985 and 2005-2012, which only represents 14 years out of 60, and is much closer to the norm. The idea that it would have continued into the next decade, and then kept going throughout the 90’s, is a bit unlikely: there are periods of domination, but the other countries always find a way to catch up, generally within a decade.
I don’t know why you keep making the point that if Event2 follows Event1, it must have been caused by Event1, that’s just a circular argument. But let’s end on another note of agreement: I’ll concede your argument that the CWC was a Mickey Mouse trophy.
The only bit I still don’t understand how you can beat two of the strongest teams in Europe in 1991, yet the ban somehow affected your ability to beat Torpedo Moscow in 1992, or Gothenburg in 1995 (you say it’s because English players had gone abroad, but by then the ban was lifted, and you don’t say who the likes of Waddle, Hoddle and Platt might have replaced in your team to make you a European power.
Giggs? Beckham? Scholes?).
posted on 13/3/15
The Europa league and its earlier forms give the best idea of a leagues strength in depth.
English clubs have generally performed badly in it.
Outside the top 4 or 5 clubs the prem is average at best.
posted on 13/3/15
The EL must be poor this season. Everton have only lost once in a dead rubber group game
With a scratch side BTW
posted on 13/3/15
Well that's it then, Everton are doing OK and have got as far as four soviets teams and five Italian ones, prem must be outstanding after all!?!
Remind me again, how are Liverpool, spurs and hull getting on?
posted on 13/3/15
Soviet sides?
Italian sides have always done well
posted on 13/3/15
Russian and Ukrainian.
I figured it wouldn't need explaining.
Italian league is considered far inferior to the prem these days according to most people on here.
posted on 13/3/15
Well the facts are they seem to be doing much better than our expensive sides
posted on 13/3/15
Yeah, and as I said early in this thread, people confuse spending big money on players as meaning those players are good quality.
They are not necessarily and the fact is some clubs are getting mugged on prices for players, WBAs Brown ideye a great example, ten million quid for that!!!
posted on 13/3/15
Hi SAF, you’re ranting and repeating yourself a bit now, like Father Jack Hackett, so let’s see if we can find some common ground.
.........................................
*Your
.........................................
You’ve shifted the goalposts a bit, talking about the relative weakness or strength of the leagues, when in fact the point I questioned was how you had arrived at the conclusion that Fergie’s record was affected by the ban, so specifically about United.
................................................
Well theres a fairly obvious connection between them.... weaker league = less success in Europe, pretty much.
Do we get more winners from the Portguese league or the Spanish?
The English league or the Scottish?
A stronger league will result in more European trophies.
..........................................................
So I agree with you about Rangers: it’s possible for a team to be strong in Europe without coming from a strong league, but I don’t know how this supports your argument. Between 92 and 95, United were dumped out of Europe by Torpedo Moscow, Galatasary and Gothenburg, and I suspect none of those leagues were stronger than the English league, so I think we can agree on that.
.................................................................
The Turkish league was probably pretty close to the English one at the time, neither great. The other leagues were much much closer to the English league than they would have been without the ban.
.......................................................
I’ll take your word for it, too, that United in the 90’s were nothing more than the best of a bad bunch, and relatively sheite by European standards, though I think you’re being a bit harsh on that team.
..................................................
I don't see why you need to take my word for it, the results speak for themselves....
..................................................
They won two European trophies in the 90s’, and if United had kept up a ratio of 2 a decade for all of the 6 decades of European competition, they would by now have 12 European trophies (take 1 off for the ban, so that’s 11). That would be even more than we’ve won, and our record is one of the best in Europe, so in fact is was one of your better decades in Europe.
.....................................................
As the 90's went on the league recovered, notice that we only won a cup winners cup just after the ban, but right at the end of the 90's we actually won the big one, years after the ban finished.
If United had been dominating one of the best leagues in the world they certainly would have won more than a cup winners cup and a CL, we weren't though, we were dominating a fairly weak league that was still recovering from the ban.
..................................................
It is possible that Liverpool (and possibly Everton too) would have continued to dominate Europe after 85, and that United would have picked up the baton in the early 90’s, but for a country to dominate for that long is not really the norm.
.....................................................
You don't even have to assume the domination would continue, just that England would have remained one the top leagues in Europe rather than regressing severely.
...........................................................
The two periods when English teams have been strong in Europe’s senior competition are 1977-1985 and 2005-2012, which only represents 14 years out of 60, and is much closer to the norm. The idea that it would have continued into the next decade, and then kept going throughout the 90’s, is a bit unlikely: there are periods of domination, but the other countries always find a way to catch up, generally within a decade.
........................................................
As I said there isn't only the best league in the world and the rest are average, theres a sliding scale and thanks to the ban we slid much further down the scale than we otherwise would have.
.........................................................
I don’t know why you keep making the point that if Event2 follows Event1, it must have been caused by Event1, that’s just a circular argument. But let’s end on another note of agreement: I’ll concede your argument that the CWC was a Mickey Mouse trophy.
..................................................
Well the ban obviously led to a weakening of the league, unless we ignore all common sense its hard to see another way around it.
.................................................
The only bit I still don’t understand how you can beat two of the strongest teams in Europe in 1991, yet the ban somehow affected your ability to beat Torpedo Moscow in 1992, or Gothenburg in 1995 (you say it’s because English players had gone abroad, but by then the ban was lifted, and you don’t say who the likes of Waddle, Hoddle and Platt might have replaced in your team to make you a European power.
Giggs? Beckham? Scholes?).
........................................................
Well if you don't understand then maybe you should watch a bit more football...
For examples, see Porto CL win, Fulham ropey league run, Rangers ropey league run, Chelsea CL win..... hell even Wigan's FA cup win..
We certainly wouldn't be the first team to win a trophy when we were not the best team in the competition.
Its not a case of there being a particular English player we should have had, its a case of a league not being attractive because it is weaker resulting in players going elsewhere instead.
Even now with the PL being (probably around) the 2nd best league we struggle to get the best players here because of the weather (and sometimes the non London location)
If the league is much weaker as well then its going to be harder to attract players, not just for United but for the other teams in the league as well, which is going to mean a league filled with less talented players, which makes the individual teams weaker, which all results in....
A weaker league...
posted on 13/3/15
Hi SAF, you’re ranting and repeating yourself a bit now, like Father Jack Hackett, so let’s see if we can find some common ground.
.........................................
*Your
...........................
posted on 13/3/15
Fwiw, I certainly do think the ban had an impact, but there were also important rule changes around those times whose impact is hard to assess.
I'd also note that in the years just before the ban, it's fair to argue that English teams enjoyed an unfair advantage, in that they were allowed to field any British players, not just English - to the point that just 2 English players started the '85 final for Liverpool, and only 4 a year earlier.
Ironically though, in the UK it's always been painted the other way round, i.e. that not being able to do so after the ban was an unfair to English sides.
posted on 13/3/15
If you are going to act like a expect to be treated like one
posted on 13/3/15
IOAG, depends who you compare against I guess, a rule which limits you to people from your own country only will favour those countries with bigger populations and harm those with smaller populations...
How good the football players you produce are also being an important factor.
........................................................
I certainly do think the ban had an impact
........................................................
TBH almost everybody would agree, I would have thought everybody but apparently because Man United won the CWC just after the ban we were stronger than ever....
posted on 13/3/15
So, since 92 only 4 EC wins.
PL has made the english game weak in comparison to other leagues, but it makes a great global product
posted on 13/3/15
*Your
==========================================================
I assume that’s a punctuation correction? If you’re going to bother with that, don’t get it wrong, you plum.
==========================================================
Well theres a fairly obvious connection between them.... weaker league = less success in Europe, pretty much.
==========================================================
Well maybe, over all, but that’s a different discussion. We were talking about Fergie’s record in Europe and the effect of the ban on it, so comparisons of the strengths of different leagues is irrelevant to a discussion about a single club, unless you think that a strong team can never emerge from a weaker league at any time (which, looking further down your comments, it looks like you might).
You’ve already given the example of Rangers, who are a big-city club in a small league: they didn’t have to be in a strong league to have a strong team in Europe. Are you now arguing the opposite? Or are you arguing that any success gained by a club from a smaller league must by definition be a fluke? Celtic’s win in 1968? Bruges getting to 2 finals in 3 years? Ajax winning 4 European titles? They’re all flukes?
==========================================================
The Turkish league was probably pretty close to the English one at the time, neither great. The other leagues were much much closer to the English league than they would have been without the ban.
==========================================================
So how many European trophies were won by Turkish, Swedish and Russian clubs in the 90’s?
You’re seriously arguing that the English league wasn’t much stronger than the Swedish league in the 90’s?
==========================================================
You don't even have to assume the domination would continue, just that England would have remained one the top leagues in Europe rather than regressing severely.
==========================================================
Why would it?
When, exactly (by your own criteria), has it been one of the top leagues in Europe?
If the criterion for measuring it is success in Europe, then it has only managed it during two relatively brief periods over the 60 years of European competition. Why, then, would there be any expectation that it could be one of the top leagues in Europe in the 90’s? It wasn’t in the 50’s, 60’s or early 70’s, or early 00’s, and the whole premise of this article is that it isn’t now..... so why in the 90’s?
==========================================================
Well the ban obviously led to a weakening of the league, unless we ignore all common sense its hard to see another way around it.
==========================================================
Well, forget common sense: everybody thinks they have it, but one man’s common sense is another man’s ‘talking sheite’. What I’m interested in is HOW it was weaker.
I haven't come across too many United fans who think that United were sheite in the 90's, tbh.
==========================================================
Even now with the PL being (probably around) the 2nd best league
==========================================================
How do you work out that it’s the 2nd best league now when it can’t get anbody past the CL QFs, and has only one team left in the Europa? And didn’t get much further last season? The whole premise of this article was that it self-evidently isn’t...it's regressed, from a few years ago.
==========================================================
If the league is much weaker as well then its going to be harder to attract players
==========================================================
Where were these players it couldn’t attract?
The league didn’t become particularly international until after the Premiership was formed. There were relatively few foreigners in it BEFORE the ban, and the ban wouldn’t have altered anybody’s ability to attract British players.
A very few British players went and played abroad (really not many), but if they did that because of the ban, then the need to do it stopped as soon as the ban finished. So how was it still affecting United’s ability to attract players in 1993 or 1995?
And in the late 70’s/early 80’s, English clubs dominated Europe with mostly British players, while foreign players were being attracted to Italy and Spain. So why didn’t it weaken the English league then, when most of the foreign players were going to southern Europe?
posted on 13/3/15
English teams enjoyed an unfair advantage, in that they were allowed to field any British players, not just English
==========================================================
If you treat Britain as one country, for the purposes of football transfers, it still only would have had a comparable population with West Germany, Italy, France, so it's not that much of an advantage over the other big countries.
posted on 13/3/15
For the purpose of football transfers it's not, though. They are separate countries with separate leagues.
The UK obviously complicates things but it is clearly an advantage to the English teams who could cherry pick the best players from the UK.
It's why once that advantage was taken away it affected the teams, particularly us.
posted on 13/3/15
it is clearly an advantage to the English teams who could cherry pick the best players from the UK.
==========================================================
But how is that different from West German clubs cherry-picking the best players from West Germany, with a similar population size to the UK?
Page 3 of 4