Congratulations Liverpool - Premier League Winners 2019/20

CognitiveNeuro

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
393
You are on 2 CL titles same as us. You won 4 European Cups previous to the CL incarnation but this was a different era. It was easier to win in those days as there were less teams in the competition.

:lol: Football didn't start in 1992 dude.

Even the official UEFA site states Liverpool won 6 Champions League titles.



It's hard to proclaim yourselves as the best team in Europe when you are not even the best team in your domestic league. It's an anomaly we have with the new CL format
If that's so, should we also remove Man Utd's CL in 1998/1999? After all they weren't champions the year before so they shouldn't even have been allowed in the CL, right?
It's an anomaly right?
 

njred

HALA MADRID!
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
5,308
Supports
Liverpool
You are on 2 CL titles same as us. You won 4 European Cups previous to the CL incarnation but this was a different era. It was easier to win in those days as there were less teams in the competition.
.
Really stretching it here. That’s like saying Brazil’s Or Argentina’s or England’s World Cups don’t count because of less teams in the competition.
Silly argument. How about you have 20 leagues and we have 18. We’ve won 6 in Europe and you’ve won 3.
Again back to my question don’t you think it’s a big regret your team not winning it more than two times with all the success you had in your successful period from 93-11?
 

Sayros

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
3,634
Maybe if we make this thread in October, it might jinx them from winning! Brilliant! :lol:
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
285
Really stretching it here. That’s like saying Brazil’s Or Argentina’s or England’s World Cups don’t count because of less teams in the competition.
Silly argument. How about you have 20 leagues and we have 18. We’ve won 6 in Europe and you’ve won 3.
Again back to my question don’t you think it’s a big regret your team not winning it more than two times with all the success you had in your successful period from 93-11?
You are missing the point. You reasoned that by drawing level with us on League Titles you would knock us off our perch due to having the superior European record. You are saying that you will take our position due to winning a competition that Utd didn't even compete in for multiple decades. I have no doubt if the European Cup format had not changed we would have won it more than twice during our dominant era.


Should we also remove Man Utd's CL in 1998/1999? After all they weren't champions the year before so they shouldn't even have been allowed in the CL, right?
It's an anomaly right?
We had won the League multiple times leading up to 98/99.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
24,392
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
The straw clutching in the last page and a half is making my toes curl.
 

Armchair Manager

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Messages
71
Supports
Northampton
You are missing the point. You reasoned that by drawing level with us on League Titles you would knock us off our perch due to having the superior European record. You are saying that you will take our position due to winning a competition that Utd didn't even compete in for multiple decades. I have no doubt if the European Cup format had not changed we would have won it more than twice during our dominant era.




We had won the League multiple times leading up to 98/99.
You do understand what you doing here is coming up with excuses for not winning or failing to qualify for a competition?

Its not liverpool, history or UEFA's fault that you couldnt qualify for european competition when Liverpool was dominant. You couldnt qualify because Man Utd wasnt good enough to beat Liverpool to league title bit like Man Utd was too good during 90s and 2000s for Liverpool to win the league title. Failure to win european cups is your own shortcoming like not winning PL is Liverpool's.

Now stop making excuses and accept this very basic fact that trophies means trophy doesnt matter how and when and under which circumstances it was won.
 

SaintMuppet

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 7, 2016
Messages
859
Location
Thailand
There are no circumstances I can envisage where I will ever congratulate Liverpool fc on anything, ever.

My childhood was tainted with them winning everything and everybody and there wife supporting them. I live only that the club and all it’s fans get taken up in the rapture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: golden_blunder

CognitiveNeuro

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Messages
393
We had won the League multiple times leading up to 98/99.
and? Your original point was that it was an anomaly for a non-champion to enter the CL. In this case, you wouldn't have been allowed to enter the CL that season. Stop contradicting yourself.
 

redman5

New Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
5,241
Location
In a world of my own. People know me here.
You are missing the point. You reasoned that by drawing level with us on League Titles you would knock us off our perch due to having the superior European record. You are saying that you will take our position due to winning a competition that Utd didn't even compete in for multiple decades. I have no doubt if the European Cup format had not changed we would have won it more than twice during our dominant era.




We had won the League multiple times leading up to 98/99.
How would you have won more under the old format ? You'd have been one down for starters, & the 99 treble would never have happened. The group stages are set up so more often than not the 2 best sides get through to the knock-out stages. It's then that the CL becomes just like the old European Cup. So seeing as United got through to the 2 legged ties quite often under Ferguson, what difference did playing in the group stages make ?

Between 1973 & 1984 we won 2 UEFA Cups & 4 European Cups. That's 6 finals in 12 years & 6 victories. So not only did we show that we could beat the champions of other countries via the European Cup, we also showed that we could see off the 2nd, 3rd, 4th placed sides too by winning the UEFA Cup twice. We won all those trophies because we were the best side in Europe for most of that period. It had nothing to do with competition format, it's just that we were pretty f**king awesome at home & in Europe.
 

Number4.

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
107
The only thing that'd make it relatively close would be if City were winning their fourth in a row, after having won everything meaning they'll win the quadruple.
It might be clutching at straws here, but there is hope that anything man city achieve will ultimately be airbrushed from history, or at least remembered in the archives with an asterix beside any trophies.

With that in mind, I think the majority are still leaning towards be a City win
 

Raj70

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 13, 2018
Messages
47
Supports
Liverpool
How would you have won more under the old format ? You'd have been one down for starters, & the 99 treble would never have happened. The group stages are set up so more often than not the 2 best sides get through to the knock-out stages. It's then that the CL becomes just like the old European Cup. So seeing as United got through to the 2 legged ties quite often under Ferguson, what difference did playing in the group stages make ?

Between 1973 & 1984 we won 2 UEFA Cups & 4 European Cups. That's 6 finals in 12 years & 6 victories. So not only did we show that we could beat the champions of other countries via the European Cup, we also showed that we could see off the 2nd, 3rd, 4th placed sides too by winning the UEFA Cup twice. We won all those trophies because we were the best side in Europe for most of that period. It had nothing to do with competition format, it's just that we were pretty f**king awesome at home & in Europe.
This is what Utd fans always use as an argument re the old European cup, that it was easier to win. Well you had to win your league to even get in it, so the reason United were not in the competition for decades is they were not good enough. Also re the less good teams, as the poster said we won the UEFA cup twice during this dominant period (1973-1984), which included all the 2nd and 3rd place teams in the major leagues. Fact is Liverpool's domination over United in terms of European trophies easily trumps the small lead you have in League titles.
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
285
You do understand what you doing here is coming up with excuses for not winning or failing to qualify for a competition?

Its not liverpool, history or UEFA's fault that you couldnt qualify for european competition when Liverpool was dominant. You couldnt qualify because Man Utd wasnt good enough to beat Liverpool to league title bit like Man Utd was too good during 90s and 2000s for Liverpool to win the league title. Failure to win european cups is your own shortcoming like not winning PL is Liverpool's.
Man Utd were widely regarded as a cup team in the 70's & 80's. We were blocked out of the European Cup due to not being good enough to win the league. Liverpool have had no such restrictions on entering the competition. When they were good they qualified automatically. When they were bad they still mostly qualified as they only had to finish in the top 4.

There has never been a change in the format of the league. It's always been 1st place wins it. Liverpool were never blocked out of the league the way we were in the European Cup.

How would you have won more under the old format ? You'd have been one down for starters, & the 99 treble would never have happened.
What about all the times we were champions. It's obvious maths. The less opposition you have the better your chances of winning. We were never given this luxury during our dominant era as we were always competing in the CL era of big fields.
 

Pughnichi

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
627
It would be a bitter pill to swallow. That said it’s hard to not appreciate and acknowledge a good footballing side. Liverpool have been brilliantly managed over the last few years with a likeable manager in charge.

Made all the more painful because we’re an utter mess.
 

Jonno

Full Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
7,393
Location
Preston, Lancashire
The only saving grace for me personally is that it's practically won really early when there's not much of a care. If they dramatically snatched it on the last day the scousers would be umbearable, like a volcano erruption of spam. This way, we can slowly come to terms with it between now and May, and there's always the off-chance they feck up and city go on a run.

They're about 2 years due a bad run, you just hope City are in a position to capitalise.
 

Jonno

Full Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
7,393
Location
Preston, Lancashire
You are on 2 CL titles same as us. You won 4 European Cups previous to the CL incarnation but this was a different era. It was easier to win in those days as there were less teams in the competition.



It's hard to proclaim yourselves as the best team in Europe when you are not even the best team in your domestic league. It's an anomaly we have with the new CL format.
Come on, don't give all United fans a bad name here. They've won 6 European Cups. Irrelevant that it changed to the Champions League.
 

stepic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,146
Location
London
if Liverpool were to reach 20 titles to equal us, of course their 6 CLs would trump our 3. they would be back on top. stop being stupid trying to claim otherwise. get over it, this is futile dick waving at its finest.
 

miked99

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
37
Come on, don't give all United fans a bad name here. They've won 6 European Cups. Irrelevant that it changed to the Champions League.
He's got a point. Liverpool were fortunate to have their period of dominance in an era where English clubs won the European Cup almost every season. Nottingham Forest won it, and then retained it. Aston Villa won it. Whoever won the English title won the European Cup too. English clubs won it six seasons in a row between 1977 and 1982, and a seventh time in eight seasons in 1984. Then in 1985 Liverpool got us all banned from Europe and that was the end of that. When English clubs were allowed back into Europe it took a long time to even be able to compete again as football had left us behind.

We didn't have the same luxury during our period of dominance. It took a long time to even be able to compete at European level, and then we had the misfortune to keep running into arguably the best club side of the modern generation. I think we could have done better overall but it was much easier for Liverpool to capitalise on their era of dominance than it was ours. Even last season, they came up against Spurs. No disrespect to them, because they did brilliantly to get there, but I think most fans would be happy if they got to a CL final against Spurs rather than Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich or whoever.
 

Halds

New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
737
Location
Denmark
Supports
Liverpool FC
Man United could have won more CL trophies, during their dominant period, if the competition was like in the old format because there were lesser of the good teams involved. But.. Liverpool could also have won more, if the competition back then was in the new format. We didn't participate every year, because only champions were included, like Man United did even though you weren't champions, like in '99.

Fact of the matter is, that Man United is the english club with the best domestic record, and Liverpool is the english club with the best european record.

All else is just if's and but's, bias, and personal preferences.
 

Raj70

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 13, 2018
Messages
47
Supports
Liverpool
He's got a point. Liverpool were fortunate to have their period of dominance in an era where English clubs won the European Cup almost every season. Nottingham Forest won it, and then retained it. Aston Villa won it. Whoever won the English title won the European Cup too. English clubs won it six seasons in a row between 1977 and 1982, and a seventh time in eight seasons in 1984. Then in 1985 Liverpool got us all banned from Europe and that was the end of that. When English clubs were allowed back into Europe it took a long time to even be able to compete again as football had left us behind.

We didn't have the same luxury during our period of dominance. It took a long time to even be able to compete at European level, and then we had the misfortune to keep running into arguably the best club side of the modern generation. I think we could have done better overall but it was much easier for Liverpool to capitalise on their era of dominance than it was ours. Even last season, they came up against Spurs. No disrespect to them, because they did brilliantly to get there, but I think most fans would be happy if they got to a CL final against Spurs rather than Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich or whoever.

We beat Bayern and Barcelona to get to the final
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
285
Man United could have won more CL trophies, during their dominant period, if the competition was like in the old format because there were lesser of the good teams involved. But.. Liverpool could also have won more, if the competition back then was in the new format.
The odds don't bear this out though which is exactly my point. In the old European cup you had a 1/16 chance. In the new CL you have a 1/79 chance. It's unlikely you would have won 4 European cups competing in 79 team fields.
 

stepic

Full Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,146
Location
London
The odds don't bear this out though which is exactly my point. In the old European cup you had a 1/16 chance. In the new CL you have a 1/79 chance. It's unlikely you would have won 4 European cups competing in 79 team fields.
it doesn't matter. those were the rules. if we wanted to take advantage of 1/16 chance then we should have won the league more.

besides, the vast majority of those 79 teams in the current format have no chance of winning anything.
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
285
it doesn't matter. those were the rules. if we wanted to take advantage of 1/16 chance then we should have won the league more.

The vast majority of those 79 teams in the current format have no chance of winning anything.
They don't have to win the trophy. The fact is there will be more variables in a 79 team competition than a 16 team competition.
 

vkd

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
61
Supports
liverpool
They don't have to win the trophy. The fact is there will be more variables in a 79 team competition than a 16 team competition.
Yes, but in the new scheme with the 79 team competition, you don't have to win the league in order to participate.

For English teams, it's now easier to have a chance in the CL compared to back then when they had to be champions.
 

redman5

New Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
5,241
Location
In a world of my own. People know me here.
Man Utd were widely regarded as a cup team in the 70's & 80's. We were blocked out of the European Cup due to not being good enough to win the league. Liverpool have had no such restrictions on entering the competition. When they were good they qualified automatically. When they were bad they still mostly qualified as they only had to finish in the top 4.

There has never been a change in the format of the league. It's always been 1st place wins it. Liverpool were never blocked out of the league the way we were in the European Cup.



What about all the times we were champions. It's obvious maths. The less opposition you have the better your chances of winning. We were never given this luxury during our dominant era as we were always competing in the CL era of big fields.
1994 knocked out by Galatasaray in the 2nd round
1995 Failed to get out of group consisting of United, IFK Gothenburg, Barcelona, & Galatasaray
1997 lost to Dortmund in the semi-final
1998 lost to Monaco in the quarter-final
2000 lost to Real Madrid in the quarter-final
2001 lost to Bayern Munich in the quarter-final
2002 lost to Bayer Leverkusen in the semi-final
2004 lost to Porto in the last 16.

That's 8 attempts at winning it as English champions & you didn't even reach one final. & with the exception of 1995, the 7 other occasions you were eliminated in the knock-out stages. Which was the point I made in my earlier post about the CL becoming no different to the old European Cup at this stage. Doesn't matter how many teams are in it because you only have to play so many games to get to the final.

In reference to your first point. Whilst you may not have been eligible to compete in the old European Cup, you did spend a few seasons in the lesser European competitions.

1976/77 - UEFA Cup knocked out in the 2nd round
1977/78 - Cup Winners Cup knocked out in the 2nd round
1980/81 - UEFA Cup knocked out in the semi-finals
1982/83 - UEFA Cup knocked out in the first round
1983/84 - Cup winners Cup knocked out in the semi-finals
1984/85 - UEFA Cup knocked out in the quarter finals

So based on the above, how can you say that you'd have won a competition that only included the champions of each country, when you failed miserably 6 times against the 2nd, 3rd best teams of those countries ?

Alex Ferguson is the most successful manager in the history of the game. That's an undeniable fact. It's also an undeniable fact that with the financial resources he had, along with the added luxury of being able to field a side that consisted of 4 or 5 players that had come through the ranks, he should have done much, much better in Europe. Thankfully he had the good grace not to look elsewhere to excuse his failings. Can't say the same about a few people on this thread.
 

INeedAbsynthe

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
37
Supports
Liverpool
I thought we were dead in the water the second Allison got injured, he is the most important player for us even above VVD imo. The fact we somehow have this lead despite that is amazing.
 

always_hoping

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,531
Success in cup competitions isn't the best to judge any manager on, anything can and does happen on the night and you usually need a lot more luck to win a cup than a league title. Many teams who aren't the best in Europe have won the champions league over the years.

The best teams always wins the league and it takes a good manager to win a league title and great one to retain it. Fergie won 3 league titles in a row twice so can see why he's regarded as one of the greatest ever managers.
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
285
1994 knocked out by Galatasaray in the 2nd round
1995 Failed to get out of group consisting of United, IFK Gothenburg, Barcelona, & Galatasaray
1997 lost to Dortmund in the semi-final
1998 lost to Monaco in the quarter-final
2000 lost to Real Madrid in the quarter-final
2001 lost to Bayern Munich in the quarter-final
2002 lost to Bayer Leverkusen in the semi-final
2004 lost to Porto in the last 16.

That's 8 attempts at winning it as English champions & you didn't even reach one final. & with the exception of 1995, the 7 other occasions you were eliminated in the knock-out stages. Which was the point I made in my earlier post about the CL becoming no different to the old European Cup at this stage. Doesn't matter how many teams are in it because you only have to play so many games to get to the final.
You have to play 8 games in the CL before you get to the last 16. In the old European Cup you are straight through to the last 16. You are making my point for me. It's obviously harder having to play an extra 8 games to win a tournament.
 

Halds

New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
737
Location
Denmark
Supports
Liverpool FC
You have to play 8 games in the CL before you get to the last 16. In the old European Cup you are straight through to the last 16. You are making my point for me. It's obviously harder having to play an extra 8 games to win a tournament.
As it is now, teams enter the round of 16 after the group games, and back then, the first round was the round of 32. So 13 vs. 9 games, if you reach the final.

Are you suggesting that it is much harder to win these days, because teams has to play four more games?

Anyway.. It doesn't matter if it's 8 or 4. You are completely missing the point. It is harder to win these days because there are more good teams in it, not because of the amount of games, or the amount of teams participating from the start.
 
Last edited:

njred

HALA MADRID!
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
5,308
Supports
Liverpool
As it is now, teams enter the round of 16 after the group games, and back then, the first round was the round of 32. So 13 vs. 9 games, if you reach the final.

Are you suggesting that it is much harder to win these days, because teams has to play four more games?

Anyway.. It doesn't matter if it's 8 or 4. You are completely missing the point. It is harder to win these days because there are more good teams in it, not because of the amount of games, or the amount of teams participating from the start.
Best leaving him be. It just prolongs things. He’s having a tough time of it and starting to crack even though its only 8 games in and nobody has won anything.
 

B20

HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME
Joined
Aug 23, 2003
Messages
24,392
Location
Disney Land
Supports
Liverpool
Anyway.. It doesn't matter if it's 8 or 4. You are completely missing the point. It is harder to win these days because there are more good teams in it, not because of the amount of games, or the amount of teams participating from the start.
Then you have to offset that difficulty against the difficulty of winning the league vs getting top four to even qualify. Competing on a more regular basis without having to be the best in the country the year before significantly improves the odds of winning. As evidenced by how many teams have won the CL without having won the league the year before.

It's a different kind of excellence required. Might have been an easier cup run, but is "winning the league+easier cup run" harder or easier than "top four+harder cup run"? And how do you even approach measuring the differences in difficulty?

The bottomline for me is that either way, it was and is the hardest cup competition to win around.
 

Halds

New Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2016
Messages
737
Location
Denmark
Supports
Liverpool FC
Then you have to offset that difficulty against the difficulty of winning the league vs getting top four to even qualify. Competing on a more regular basis without having to be the best in the country the year before significantly improves the odds of winning. As evidenced by how many teams have won the CL without having won the league the year before.

It's a different kind of excellence required. Might have been an easier cup run, but is "winning the league+easier cup run" harder or easier than "top four+harder cup run"? And how do you even approach measuring the differences in difficulty?

The bottomline for me is that either way, it was and is the hardest cup competition to win around.
I agree completely.
 

CoffeeFootball

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 5, 2019
Messages
18
Supports
Milan
You are on 2 CL titles same as us. You won 4 European Cups previous to the CL incarnation but this was a different era. It was easier to win in those days as there were less teams in the competition.
If it was easier, you would have had more, which you don't.
 

ExecutionerWasp001

Full Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2019
Messages
285
As it is now, teams enter the round of 16 after the group games, and back then, the first round was the round of 32. So 13 vs. 9 games, if you reach the final.

Are you suggesting that it is much harder to win these days, because teams has to play four more games?

Anyway.. It doesn't matter if it's 8 or 4. You are completely missing the point. It is harder to win these days because there are more good teams in it, not because of the amount of games, or the amount of teams participating from the start.
I have already made this point above in post 144. The fact that there are more teams & more games presents many more variables than you had in the old European Cup.
 

redman5

New Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
5,241
Location
In a world of my own. People know me here.
[QUOTE="ExecutionerWasp001, post: 24815572, member: 116458"
You have to play 8 games in the CL before you get to the last 16. In the old European Cup you are straight through to the last 16. You are making my point for me. It's obviously harder having to play an extra 8 games to win a tournament.
[/QUOTE]

But you play 4 less league games now, so does that mean I can say that it was harder to win the league back then ? Besides, how do you explain the fact that Real Madrid have won 7 Champions League titles since the change of format ? Manchester United are the biggest club in the world, who had a world class manager for a long time, & had a steady supply of world class players right throughout his reign. & that's not even taking into account United's significant financial advantage over most clubs. The fact is, United's record in the CL is pretty similar to that of Liverpool. 4 finals - 2 victories - 2 defeats. Difference being of course, United held all the advantages I've just listed, whilst Liverpool have gone 3 decades without winning their own domestic title. Your failure not to add more CL trophies during your dominant 20 years is just as damming as our failure in not winning the league for 30 years. However, I can point to the fact that during our dominant period we also dominated European football too. You on the other hand have nothing to offer other than excuses & attempts to minimize our great European record.
 

njred

HALA MADRID!
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
5,308
Supports
Liverpool
I have already made this point above in post 144. The fact that there are more teams & more games presents many more variables than you had in the old European Cup.
It was knockout from game one. Every night was a big one. You couldn’t skate through group stages with draws ect....
Its crazy and reeks of bitterness to downplay club achievements in the past because it suits you.
 

Random Task

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
21,445
Location
Chester
Liverpool fans living on past achievements again.

You last won the CL 2005, a decade and a half ago, it's time to get past that and start celebrating your most recent success, such as finally winning the league after a 30-year drought.