comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 8 minutes ago
Toor I understand your words perfectly. It’s just they are idiotic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your night mate.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. One Dutch Cap. (U1270)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
Just looking at the first competition, a quick google gives you this:
"The 1955–56 European Cup was the first season of the European Cup, UEFA's premier club football tournament. The tournament was won by Real Madrid, who defeated Stade de Reims 4–3 in the final at Parc des Princes, Paris, on 13 June 1956.
The participating clubs in the first five seasons of the European Cup were selected by French football magazine L'Equipe on the basis that they were representative and prestigious clubs in Europe. When the tournament started, Real Madrid, Anderlecht, Milan, Rot-Weiss Essen, Stade de Reims, Djurgården and AGF Aarhus were the reigning champions of their respective national leagues."
If you're going to discount wins under previous formats you'll be discounting European Cup Wins as well and just counting Champions Leagues?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks more like a pre season tournament….
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawmanning definitely is the buzzword of JA606 isn't it. If you're playing JA606 bingo you definitely want it on your bingo card.
You can't just cast off a different opinion as strawmanning.
I am just disagreeing with your logic that those trophy wins don't count because the tournaments were invitational at the time.
I also feel it does a disservice to that 1950s Real Madrid which was one of the best teams of all time with the likes of Di Stefano and Ferenc Puskas.
If the invitations were given out in such a way that Madrid had no real competitors then I'd agree with you a lot more but they were playing most of the teams they'd have been playing had it been the winners of the European leagues qualifying.
You were also wrong about English clubs not competing in the first five years by the way. In 1955/56 Chelsea would have been there as English champions but the FA refused, and then United entered as English champions in 1956/7.
There has to be a counterargument that says the European Cup was a fundamentally different competition to the Champions League as the quality went up a few notches as the Champions League has had more teams from stronger footballing nations than the European Cup had. Very different proposition as a tournament - not just a rename, so why count European Cups and Champions League trophies together?
There's also the 1930 World Cup which was basically just any team that could make it to South America, with no qualification of any sort. That's counted and rightly so.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and why you'd think that way (same way that wartime league titles aren't included in England), but I just disagree with it.
The fact is Real Madrid have been champions of Europe 13 times.
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawmanning definitely is the buzzword of JA606 isn't it. If you're playing JA606 bingo you definitely want it on your bingo card.
You can't just cast off a different opinion as strawmanning.
I am just disagreeing with your logic that those trophy wins don't count because the tournaments were invitational at the time.
I also feel it does a disservice to that 1950s Real Madrid which was one of the best teams of all time with the likes of Di Stefano and Ferenc Puskas.
If the invitations were given out in such a way that Madrid had no real competitors then I'd agree with you a lot more but they were playing most of the teams they'd have been playing had it been the winners of the European leagues qualifying.
You were also wrong about English clubs not competing in the first five years by the way. In 1955/56 Chelsea would have been there as English champions but the FA refused, and then United entered as English champions in 1956/7.
There has to be a counterargument that says the European Cup was a fundamentally different competition to the Champions League as the quality went up a few notches as the Champions League has had more teams from stronger footballing nations than the European Cup had. Very different proposition as a tournament - not just a rename, so why count European Cups and Champions League trophies together?
There's also the 1930 World Cup which was basically just any team that could make it to South America, with no qualification of any sort. That's counted and rightly so.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and why you'd think that way (same way that wartime league titles aren't included in England), but I just disagree with it.
The fact is Real Madrid have been champions of Europe 13 times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cast off a different opinion as strawmanning? You didn't have a different opinion, as I never stated the opinion you created for me. I never said they were a bunch of farmers or most weren't league winners. That is a classic strawman argument. There's no getting away from that Fred. Own it. It's there in black and white.
As for the rest of your argument - excellent, a proper argument against the actual points I made. Just on that, I have to reiterate again that the Madrid side who won those five trophies were evidently an excellent side by all accounts with real superstars in the team but at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year. I compared it to Joe Davis earlier, which whilst an extreme example, whereby it was also by invite rather than actual performance, he chose most of his competitors himself!
I would not write off those wins by Madrid in the, in my view, exhibition tournament, completely, by any means as this would be discrediting their achievement, I would not group it with European Cup/CL wins.
This is simply not the same as a change of format in regards to the restructure of the European Cup to become the CL, allowing more quality teams into the competition as well as creating more games, in fact it's the complete opposite of having less quality teams, who were invited and did not earn their place through their performance! This created more competition, which Madrid simply did not have, in the first five years.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cast off a different opinion as strawmanning? You didn't have a different opinion, as I never stated the opinion you created for me. I never said they were a bunch of farmers or most weren't league winners. That is a classic strawman argument. There's no getting away from that Fred. Own it. It's there in black and white.
As for the rest of your argument - excellent, a proper argument against the actual points I made. Just on that, I have to reiterate again that the Madrid side who won those five trophies were evidently an excellent side by all accounts with real superstars in the team but at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year. I compared it to Joe Davis earlier, which whilst an extreme example, whereby it was also by invite rather than actual performance, he chose most of his competitors himself!
I would not write off those wins by Madrid in the, in my view, exhibition tournament, completely, by any means as this would be discrediting their achievement, I would not group it with European Cup/CL wins.
This is simply not the same as a change of format in regards to the restructure of the European Cup to become the CL, allowing more quality teams into the competition as well as creating more games, in fact it's the complete opposite of having less quality teams, who were invited and did not earn their place through their performance! This created more competition, which Madrid simply did not have, in the first five years.
_________________________________
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
=====
Did they win their league in every one of those years?
Because without invitation they wouldn't have won it all those times.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that's very much oversimplifying a multi-variate issue. Players get older, other teams might have got better etc etc.
You may well be right of course.
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 10 minutes ago
Cast off a different opinion as strawmanning? You didn't have a different opinion, as I never stated the opinion you created for me. I never said they were a bunch of farmers or most weren't league winners. That is a classic strawman argument. There's no getting away from that Fred. Own it. It's there in black and white.
As for the rest of your argument - excellent, a proper argument against the actual points I made. Just on that, I have to reiterate again that the Madrid side who won those five trophies were evidently an excellent side by all accounts with real superstars in the team but at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year. I compared it to Joe Davis earlier, which whilst an extreme example, whereby it was also by invite rather than actual performance, he chose most of his competitors himself!
I would not write off those wins by Madrid in the, in my view, exhibition tournament, completely, by any means as this would be discrediting their achievement, I would not group it with European Cup/CL wins.
This is simply not the same as a change of format in regards to the restructure of the European Cup to become the CL, allowing more quality teams into the competition as well as creating more games, in fact it's the complete opposite of having less quality teams, who were invited and did not earn their place through their performance! This created more competition, which Madrid simply did not have, in the first five years.
_________________________________
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were playing some of the league winners from some of the leagues. Many were not invited. Some even complained to UEFA about it which I suspect is why they took it over and created entry requirements making it a proper European Cup. This is when it got serious and competitive, hence 20 different winners in the next 40 years, rather than the same one in the first 5 years, when it was an invitational tournament.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that incredible team of Puskas, Di Stefano and Hidekguti were past their peak?
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
=====
Did they win their league in every one of those years?
Because without invitation they wouldn't have won it all those times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the five seasons they won the league the proceeding year of entry into the cup. They finished second or third the other three years.
comment by The Post Nearly Man. One Dutch Cap. (U1270)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that incredible team of Puskas, Di Stefano and Hidekguti were past their peak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes entirely plausible. Is it not also plausible if they had been in a proper competition with proper entry requirements, they wouldn't have won five, also considering they only won their league twice out of five attempts? It has never been done since and never will be as there is more competition due to proper entry requirements.
Puscas only moved to Madrid in '58 at 31 years old and Di Steffano was already 30 when they won the first invitational event. They only actually won three or four leagues whilst those two played, if I'm reading correctly.
Hidekguti never played for Madrid.
"were the reigning champions of their respective national leagues."
Gotdammit TOOR
Lay of that fumigated mean green Stig.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
=====
Did they win their league in every one of those years?
Because without invitation they wouldn't have won it all those times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the five seasons they won the league the proceeding year of entry into the cup. They finished second or third the other three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And therefore wouldn't have even qualified, leave alone winning it for 3 out of 5 seasons?
Hidekguti never played for Madrid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right, of course, TOOR, I had my Hungary head on after typing Puskas. I should have said Gento.
Well Gento was still in his prime well after those five wins. In fact he was in his early 30s when they won it next ten years later.
Interesting. They werent even domestic champions in 3 of those. Wow.
"The first round pairings were fixed by the organisers and not drawn as would be the case for all future European Cup matches"
comment by Rouge (U19907)
posted 15 hours, 21 minutes ago
Interesting. They werent even domestic champions in 3 of those. Wow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow? Are you stupid, or what? (Rhetorical)
Madrid earned the right to participate as reigning European champions. I’d be surprised if that hadn’t been the case too for some of Liverpool’s participations. I’m dead certain that’s how Forest got to retain the title, because they only won the old First Division once. It might also have been the case for some of the other teams who retained the trophy, I can’t say for sure.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 hours, 22 minutes ago
Two of the five seasons they won the league the proceeding year of entry into the cup. They finished second or third the other three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong
comment by Rouge (U19907)
posted 16 hours, 41 minutes ago
"The first round pairings were fixed by the organisers and not drawn as would be the case for all future European Cup matches"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"the only time in the competition’s history that lots were not drawn to determine the ties"
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/General/02/22/46/45/2224645_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Sign in if you want to comment
14
Page 3 of 5
posted on 5/5/22
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 8 minutes ago
Toor I understand your words perfectly. It’s just they are idiotic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your night mate.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by The Post Nearly Man. One Dutch Cap. (U1270)
posted 3 hours, 22 minutes ago
Just looking at the first competition, a quick google gives you this:
"The 1955–56 European Cup was the first season of the European Cup, UEFA's premier club football tournament. The tournament was won by Real Madrid, who defeated Stade de Reims 4–3 in the final at Parc des Princes, Paris, on 13 June 1956.
The participating clubs in the first five seasons of the European Cup were selected by French football magazine L'Equipe on the basis that they were representative and prestigious clubs in Europe. When the tournament started, Real Madrid, Anderlecht, Milan, Rot-Weiss Essen, Stade de Reims, Djurgården and AGF Aarhus were the reigning champions of their respective national leagues."
If you're going to discount wins under previous formats you'll be discounting European Cup Wins as well and just counting Champions Leagues?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looks more like a pre season tournament….
posted on 5/5/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawmanning definitely is the buzzword of JA606 isn't it. If you're playing JA606 bingo you definitely want it on your bingo card.
You can't just cast off a different opinion as strawmanning.
I am just disagreeing with your logic that those trophy wins don't count because the tournaments were invitational at the time.
I also feel it does a disservice to that 1950s Real Madrid which was one of the best teams of all time with the likes of Di Stefano and Ferenc Puskas.
If the invitations were given out in such a way that Madrid had no real competitors then I'd agree with you a lot more but they were playing most of the teams they'd have been playing had it been the winners of the European leagues qualifying.
You were also wrong about English clubs not competing in the first five years by the way. In 1955/56 Chelsea would have been there as English champions but the FA refused, and then United entered as English champions in 1956/7.
There has to be a counterargument that says the European Cup was a fundamentally different competition to the Champions League as the quality went up a few notches as the Champions League has had more teams from stronger footballing nations than the European Cup had. Very different proposition as a tournament - not just a rename, so why count European Cups and Champions League trophies together?
There's also the 1930 World Cup which was basically just any team that could make it to South America, with no qualification of any sort. That's counted and rightly so.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and why you'd think that way (same way that wartime league titles aren't included in England), but I just disagree with it.
The fact is Real Madrid have been champions of Europe 13 times.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 seconds ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strawmanning definitely is the buzzword of JA606 isn't it. If you're playing JA606 bingo you definitely want it on your bingo card.
You can't just cast off a different opinion as strawmanning.
I am just disagreeing with your logic that those trophy wins don't count because the tournaments were invitational at the time.
I also feel it does a disservice to that 1950s Real Madrid which was one of the best teams of all time with the likes of Di Stefano and Ferenc Puskas.
If the invitations were given out in such a way that Madrid had no real competitors then I'd agree with you a lot more but they were playing most of the teams they'd have been playing had it been the winners of the European leagues qualifying.
You were also wrong about English clubs not competing in the first five years by the way. In 1955/56 Chelsea would have been there as English champions but the FA refused, and then United entered as English champions in 1956/7.
There has to be a counterargument that says the European Cup was a fundamentally different competition to the Champions League as the quality went up a few notches as the Champions League has had more teams from stronger footballing nations than the European Cup had. Very different proposition as a tournament - not just a rename, so why count European Cups and Champions League trophies together?
There's also the 1930 World Cup which was basically just any team that could make it to South America, with no qualification of any sort. That's counted and rightly so.
Don't get me wrong, I understand your point and why you'd think that way (same way that wartime league titles aren't included in England), but I just disagree with it.
The fact is Real Madrid have been champions of Europe 13 times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cast off a different opinion as strawmanning? You didn't have a different opinion, as I never stated the opinion you created for me. I never said they were a bunch of farmers or most weren't league winners. That is a classic strawman argument. There's no getting away from that Fred. Own it. It's there in black and white.
As for the rest of your argument - excellent, a proper argument against the actual points I made. Just on that, I have to reiterate again that the Madrid side who won those five trophies were evidently an excellent side by all accounts with real superstars in the team but at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year. I compared it to Joe Davis earlier, which whilst an extreme example, whereby it was also by invite rather than actual performance, he chose most of his competitors himself!
I would not write off those wins by Madrid in the, in my view, exhibition tournament, completely, by any means as this would be discrediting their achievement, I would not group it with European Cup/CL wins.
This is simply not the same as a change of format in regards to the restructure of the European Cup to become the CL, allowing more quality teams into the competition as well as creating more games, in fact it's the complete opposite of having less quality teams, who were invited and did not earn their place through their performance! This created more competition, which Madrid simply did not have, in the first five years.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by moreinjuredthanowen (U9641)
posted 53 minutes ago
I love how people get desperate to "write" off clubs achievements when it suits.
Real madrid have 13 trophies. end of.
you might as well start talking about milk cup v Rumbelows v carabao v coca cola v capital one cups. go sort that out!
Personally I am one to give just praise to a club like preston north end for their history. just cos its all 100+ years since the won the league doesn't for me tarnish it and neither doe the fact the never played in the "prem"
chipping away at history to suit yourself is not the way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You might as well if you're as thick as two short planks as you are. I've seen your posts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s pretty uncalled for, given he’s talking sense. What’s wrong with giving kudos to a clubs past achievements?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baz has clearly had that coffee as I agree entirely with him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprising Fred.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the teams that entered in 1955/56 and the years following were still their respective national champions, not Real Madrid and a bunch of farmers ffs, the argument doesn't hold up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did I say most of the teams weren't champions or they were a bunch of farmers? Why are you and the other idiots arguing against things I haven't said?
I've repeatedly given my reasoning, for my opinion. Argue against that and not points I haven't made if you wish to put an argument forward.
The first five years were participants invited by a magazine, some won their leagues, some based on their reputation at the time and many others missed out completely. In the sixth year UEFA turned it into a proper European competition by creating entry rules based on league performance and therefore many top teams were entered from around Europe, a proper competition. If you read the history you'll notice, somewhat compellingly, that Madrid won it once in around forty years from that point, with about 20 different winners up to then. The five wins in a row has never been repeated and never will be as it became a real competition with many great sides, which is simply was not, due to the entry requirements before then.
My view is that those first five years simply should not be included since it was not a proper European Cup but more of an exhibition tournament, whereby members were invited by a magazine.
If that is not the view of others, fine but don't try to tell me I'm discounting the wins or stating Real Madrid were playing farmers as that's strawmanning at its finest. You can tell you're a Tory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 5/5/22
Cast off a different opinion as strawmanning? You didn't have a different opinion, as I never stated the opinion you created for me. I never said they were a bunch of farmers or most weren't league winners. That is a classic strawman argument. There's no getting away from that Fred. Own it. It's there in black and white.
As for the rest of your argument - excellent, a proper argument against the actual points I made. Just on that, I have to reiterate again that the Madrid side who won those five trophies were evidently an excellent side by all accounts with real superstars in the team but at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year. I compared it to Joe Davis earlier, which whilst an extreme example, whereby it was also by invite rather than actual performance, he chose most of his competitors himself!
I would not write off those wins by Madrid in the, in my view, exhibition tournament, completely, by any means as this would be discrediting their achievement, I would not group it with European Cup/CL wins.
This is simply not the same as a change of format in regards to the restructure of the European Cup to become the CL, allowing more quality teams into the competition as well as creating more games, in fact it's the complete opposite of having less quality teams, who were invited and did not earn their place through their performance! This created more competition, which Madrid simply did not have, in the first five years.
_________________________________
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
posted on 5/5/22
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
posted on 5/5/22
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
=====
Did they win their league in every one of those years?
Because without invitation they wouldn't have won it all those times.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that's very much oversimplifying a multi-variate issue. Players get older, other teams might have got better etc etc.
You may well be right of course.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by Luke Combs - FJB (U3979)
posted 10 minutes ago
Cast off a different opinion as strawmanning? You didn't have a different opinion, as I never stated the opinion you created for me. I never said they were a bunch of farmers or most weren't league winners. That is a classic strawman argument. There's no getting away from that Fred. Own it. It's there in black and white.
As for the rest of your argument - excellent, a proper argument against the actual points I made. Just on that, I have to reiterate again that the Madrid side who won those five trophies were evidently an excellent side by all accounts with real superstars in the team but at the risk of flogging a dead horse, I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year. I compared it to Joe Davis earlier, which whilst an extreme example, whereby it was also by invite rather than actual performance, he chose most of his competitors himself!
I would not write off those wins by Madrid in the, in my view, exhibition tournament, completely, by any means as this would be discrediting their achievement, I would not group it with European Cup/CL wins.
This is simply not the same as a change of format in regards to the restructure of the European Cup to become the CL, allowing more quality teams into the competition as well as creating more games, in fact it's the complete opposite of having less quality teams, who were invited and did not earn their place through their performance! This created more competition, which Madrid simply did not have, in the first five years.
_________________________________
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were playing some of the league winners from some of the leagues. Many were not invited. Some even complained to UEFA about it which I suspect is why they took it over and created entry requirements making it a proper European Cup. This is when it got serious and competitive, hence 20 different winners in the next 40 years, rather than the same one in the first 5 years, when it was an invitational tournament.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that incredible team of Puskas, Di Stefano and Hidekguti were past their peak?
posted on 5/5/22
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
=====
Did they win their league in every one of those years?
Because without invitation they wouldn't have won it all those times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the five seasons they won the league the proceeding year of entry into the cup. They finished second or third the other three years.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by The Post Nearly Man. One Dutch Cap. (U1270)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 11 minutes ago
Well better teams were involved in the sixth year and they were knocked out, and every year after than for around a decade and then every year after that for around three decades. It's almost like when proper entry requirements were brought in and therefore more teams and better quality teams were entered, it became competitive and thusly more difficult to win.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or that incredible team of Puskas, Di Stefano and Hidekguti were past their peak?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes entirely plausible. Is it not also plausible if they had been in a proper competition with proper entry requirements, they wouldn't have won five, also considering they only won their league twice out of five attempts? It has never been done since and never will be as there is more competition due to proper entry requirements.
Puscas only moved to Madrid in '58 at 31 years old and Di Steffano was already 30 when they won the first invitational event. They only actually won three or four leagues whilst those two played, if I'm reading correctly.
Hidekguti never played for Madrid.
posted on 5/5/22
"were the reigning champions of their respective national leagues."
Gotdammit TOOR
posted on 5/5/22
posted on 5/5/22
Lay of that fumigated mean green Stig.
posted on 5/5/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by Assassin Baby - (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Can't be bothered to argue about the strawmanning point, literally arguing about an argument is incredibly tedious. If you think that's what I was doing, fair enough it certainly wasn't intended that way
As I said before, I entirely see where you're coming from with your points about those years in the European Cup. I think it's a valid argument but this is the statement I disagree with:
"I do not believe they would have won five trophies had it been a proper European Cup, that it became in the sixth year."
I'm not sure how many better teams could have been involved based on what I've been reading. Hence my comment "it's not as if they were playing a bunch of farmers" which I appreciate is a bit of an exaggeration
They were mostly playing League winners, how else do you define who the best teams in Europe were?
Sandy will remember I'm sure.
=====
Did they win their league in every one of those years?
Because without invitation they wouldn't have won it all those times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the five seasons they won the league the proceeding year of entry into the cup. They finished second or third the other three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And therefore wouldn't have even qualified, leave alone winning it for 3 out of 5 seasons?
posted on 5/5/22
Hidekguti never played for Madrid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right, of course, TOOR, I had my Hungary head on after typing Puskas. I should have said Gento.
posted on 5/5/22
Well Gento was still in his prime well after those five wins. In fact he was in his early 30s when they won it next ten years later.
posted on 5/5/22
Interesting. They werent even domestic champions in 3 of those. Wow.
posted on 5/5/22
"The first round pairings were fixed by the organisers and not drawn as would be the case for all future European Cup matches"
posted on 6/5/22
comment by Rouge (U19907)
posted 15 hours, 21 minutes ago
Interesting. They werent even domestic champions in 3 of those. Wow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow? Are you stupid, or what? (Rhetorical)
Madrid earned the right to participate as reigning European champions. I’d be surprised if that hadn’t been the case too for some of Liverpool’s participations. I’m dead certain that’s how Forest got to retain the title, because they only won the old First Division once. It might also have been the case for some of the other teams who retained the trophy, I can’t say for sure.
posted on 6/5/22
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 19 hours, 22 minutes ago
Two of the five seasons they won the league the proceeding year of entry into the cup. They finished second or third the other three years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong
posted on 6/5/22
comment by Rouge (U19907)
posted 16 hours, 41 minutes ago
"The first round pairings were fixed by the organisers and not drawn as would be the case for all future European Cup matches"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"the only time in the competition’s history that lots were not drawn to determine the ties"
https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/EuroExperience/uefaorg/General/02/22/46/45/2224645_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Page 3 of 5