Champions League

[toythatkills]

AC Milan and barcelona... That's some group so far.

Chelsea Valencia... fairly tricky but we should beat them.

Welcome back, Mata!

[abigsmurf]

ok if I peg it out of here once this pot is done, I should make it to the car during the intro of the next legend...

[abigsmurf]

Major let off for Man City. Dissapointing they were stopped from getting that group of death.

Leverkusen and Valencia for Chelsea... Not an easy group (although neither are the teams they once were).

[toythatkills]

Almost as bad a draw as Arse could have got

[On The Edge of Insanity]

Tough draws for Arsenal and City, middling for Chelsea and easy for United (Benfica excluded).

[abigsmurf]

What is it with United and easy group stages? Completely unexciting as a neutral.

Tough for Arsenal but other than that, the draw looks set to produce mostly the same old teams getting to the last 16. I know it brings big bucks for UEFA ensuring the good teams get far in the competition but the competition is becoming predictable and stale.

[toythatkills]

You kind of contradict yourself in that post. On the one hand you complain that it's unexciting that Man U aren't playing the big teams, and then complain that the later stages are all big teams playing each other.

[saturn-gamer]

Either Barca or Real takes the CL anyway, there rest is there for kicks

If they can meet in the final.. oh boy, that will be a bloodbath.

But Real's in with Ajax... nice. I hope Jose's mercs will humiliate them again.

[abigsmurf]

You kind of contradict yourself in that post. On the one hand you complain that it's unexciting that Man U aren't playing the big teams, and then complain that the later stages are all big teams playing each other.

Not really. That assumes that playing someone in a group stage is the same as playing them in the last 16.

Group stages make it very difficult for weaker teams to progress. Even if a team does get a shock result, it doesn't matter too much because they've still got to ensure they do well enough in the remaining five games. Likewise the seeded team that lost has 5 games to compensate for their shock loss.

From a pure statistical point of view, It's easier to get a win then a draw or a slight loss against Barcelona to win a tie, and go through than to Win against barcelona, draw against barcelona, beat another good side at least once then win against a side of a similar level.

Seeding is bad enough for ensuring certain teams go through but UEFA have taken it to the next level by having 4 tiers of seeding to ensure one top side, one good side, one ok side and one no-hoper in each group. It's only been slightly different this season because of a statistical blip caused by Arsenal looking dodgy and Man City being a newcomer. Sadly (unless you're a City fan) we missed out on the chance of an incredibly rare group of death scenario.

[toythatkills]

It's seeded that way precisely to give everyone an equal chance of progression. A "no-hoper" knows they're going to get a top side, a good side and an ok side to play against. Without seedings they could end up in a group with Barca, Man Utd and Inter Milan. Each "no-hoper" has the same draw.

If one of the weaker teams can't get through it's because they're not good enough. There's no point having a group of weak teams so that one of them can get through artificially only to be destroyed in the next round. Or you could just keep weak teams playing each other all the way to the final while the big boys knock each other out, and then all of a sudden you've got a final that's so one-sided that nobody cares about it.

Seedings keep the competition competitive for the longest amount of time. If the weaker teams are good enough to progress, they'll progress regardless of seedings. If they're not good enough then they don't deserve to go through.

[abigsmurf]

But then you get the last 16 and you still get years where most of the best teams are all put down one side.

Of course the difference there is a Man U vs Barcelona tie generates far more money than the same tie would in the group stages...

I don't believe it produces fewer spectacles either. Upsets at the knockout stages get remembered for years whereas upsets in the group stages rarely matter because over the 6 matches the result ultimately doesn't matter. There have been no shortages of awful games between big sides, heck the Madrid vs Barcelona tie last year was an embarassment to the sport.

As it is, the stupid levels of seeding in the Champions League is pretty much turning into a knockout competition with practice games beforehand because it's set up to minimise the chance of major drama before then.

[toythatkills]

If the weak teams aren't good enough to compete over six games, they don't deserve to be in the knockouts. Simple as.

Having a group of weak teams so that two weak teams can qualify for the knockout won't suddenly make them competitive, they'll still not be good enough and so it's pointless them being there.

[abigsmurf]

A wonder goal cost Arsenal 2 points but a point away isn't a bad result.

That stadium was certainly impressive.

[abigsmurf]

Not much chat about yesterday's or tonight's games. I know the group stages are rarely exciting except when a team underperforms but still...

What do people reckon, easy rides for the Manchester clubs? I'm expecting both to win but it'd be nice if Man U had to work really hard to get the points and maybe pick up some injuries...

[EJG1980]

Clearly the lack of Spurs has made everyone lose interest (Spurs reserves / youth vs PAOK tomorrow, don't miss it, excitement aplenty...)

I'd like Napoli to do well this season, they're a good side and play some decent stuff, they should be able to give Man City a decent game. Cavani, Hamsik, Lavezzi and Pandev can cause any team problems.

To be honest I can't remember who's in Man Utds group, need to look it up!