Greatest English Club Side (MNF Ranking)

Old Blue 2 · February 25, 2020

roydo said:
Yeah, I know. Hamburg with Keegan as well.

The fact remains though, it is harder to win the CL. The very best sides in Europe are in it. In the old EC, not all were.

I would say the old European Cup was harder to win, for the simple fact it contained the Champions of each country from Round 1, and there was no seeding. Hence we got drawn against Inter Milan in '63.

And in the present competition, you can lose 3 group qualifying games and STILL go on to win the trophy (I wonder who I'm thinking of, roydo? lol).

EFCPaul · February 26, 2020

Thought that list was very fair to be honest, though I disagree with giving 5 points for a European Cup and 4 for a League title. Should be 5 for a League and 4 for the European Cup in it's old format (pre CL). Back then it was only 9 games to win it, and about half the teams who qualified as champions of their respective countries were pony. Winning the league was always considered the most satisfying prize because it meant you'd proved you were top dogs over a pro-longed period, not just got lucky or scraped through some knock-out ties.

Had Heysel not happened Kendall's side would probably be above the likes of Clough's Forest and Nicholson's Spurs. It's highly likely we'd have won the '86 European Cup, also another league title or two and probably more domestic cups along the way. The break up of that side because of an incident that had absolutely nothing to do with the club is one of the biggest travesties in the history of the sport.

Jamo Martinez · February 26, 2020

Megatron said:
Putting it out there, the Paisley and Fagan RS teams in their primes beat both City and Klopp’s current side, hell Dalglish’s late 80’s side alone beats Salah and co. Actually most of those great sides of the 60s, 70s and 80s beat most of the current day teams

Defo. The top flight was much more competitive back then.

JamieH · February 26, 2020

Thomasc said:
It was far easier to win the European cup when Liverpool won it in those days. Go back and look at the teams they played on a two legged basis to get to the final. Teams like the mighty Crusaders, St Etienne and Zurich.

Over the decades, good teams have come and gone. Their standing now shouldn’t take away how good a team was 30-40 years ago. We should know that. St Etienne won 9 league titles between 1964 and 1981. And 7 in 10 seasons 67-76.
Fc Zurich won 7 Titles in 1963, 1966, 1968, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1981.
can only beat what’s in front of you.
1985, we had UCD, Bratislava, Fortunate Sittard, Bayern and Rapid Vienna. Did that take away from our achievement? Of course not. Arguably, that was even easier to win because, as you say, even the best teams don’t win the Cups and we were playing in the Cup Winners Cup. By denigrating their achievement you’re also denigrating ours. Different eras aren’t comparible.

roydo · February 26, 2020

Old Blue 2 said:
I would say the old European Cup was harder to win, for the simple fact it contained the Champions of each country from Round 1, and there was no seeding. Hence we got drawn against Inter Milan in '63.

And in the present competition, you can lose 3 group qualifying games and STILL go on to win the trophy (I wonder who I'm thinking of, roydo? lol).

Well you can win your league and lose 3 games. It is called the Champions League after all.

And without doubt, the best teams in Europe compete in it. No one will convince me that if Barcelona finish second in Spain, they are an inferior team to the winners of the Estonian league.

davek · February 26, 2020

Pass the ball back Liverpool teams - the most boring teams in my memory.

McDermott was the only one mildly entertaining out of the whole lot of them.

99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.

WA Toffee · February 27, 2020

roydo said:
It is far harder to win the CL than the EC, as was. That isnt to denigrate sides who won it back in the day, but the truth remains. Forest won one final against Malmo ffs.

That could be debated. You had to actually win the league to even qualify, so most of these "great" teams winning the champions league nowadays wouldn't even have got into the first round back in the day

hallamblue · February 27, 2020

davek said:
Pass the ball back Liverpool teams - the most boring teams in my memory.

McDermott was the only one mildly entertaining out of the whole lot of them.

99% perspiration, 1% inspiration.

They were a functional team, we had good individual players. I was never jealous of them until they had Barnes, Beardsley etc. That was the only rs team that I actually thought were better to watch than Everton in those days.

roydo · February 27, 2020

WA Toffee said:
That could be debated. You had to actually win the league to even qualify, so most of these "great" teams winning the champions league nowadays wouldn't even have got into the first round back in the day

True. But its also true that the modern format means that most of the best teams in Europe get into the tournament. My contention being that the 2nd and 3rd best teams in England Spain and Italy would easily win the Icelandic league.

Ergo, the chances of needing to beat a really good side to win the thing is more likely/nailed on.

49ers · February 27, 2020

Uncle Vitor said:
Arsenal lost matches that season. It’s a pointless stat. And they didn’t even win a European trophy.

The best league sides also win European trophies.

Man Utd 08 side for me were incredible to watch at times.

If winning a league without losing a game was a pointless stat then everyone would be doing it, every season.
Best Arsenal side to watch 01-02 side.
George Graham's 89 and 91 side were probably boring for neutrals but it was ruthless efficiency .
Only conceded 18 goals in a 38 game season(only 04-05 Chelsea beats that) in 91. Won the league at their rivals for the title on the last day of the season too.
The 100pts Man City team deserve a look in.

davek · February 27, 2020

hallamblue said:
They were a functional team, we had good individual players. I was never jealous of them until they had Barnes, Beardsley etc. That was the only rs team that I actually thought were better to watch than Everton in those days.

They were well organised, physically fit and determined. They built their success on hard work and intimidation of the opposition. They had the odd one or two flair players along the way, but by and large their typology for players was people who could run all day and get stuck in; and they relied on a defence that knew how to kill off a game by walking the ball out as far as they could before stroking the ball back to the GK.

They were dire. The media hype lauds them for a "passing game". They were, in fact, the antithesis of entertaining football.

hallamblue · February 27, 2020

davek said:
They were well organised, physically fit and determined. They built their success on hard work and intimidation of the opposition. They had the odd one or two flair players along the way, but by and large their typology for players was people who could run all day and get stuck in; and they relied on a defence that knew how to kill off a game by walking the ball out as far as they could before stroking the ball back to the GK.

They were dire. The media hype lauds them for a "passing game". They were, in fact, the antithesis of entertaining football.

To be fair to them, a lot of teams played like that. Forest were experts at 1-0 wins, and as for Arsenal (n)

. We bucked the trend by trying to play entertaining football.

davek · February 27, 2020

hallamblue said:
To be fair to them, a lot of teams played like that. Forest were experts at 1-0 wins, and as for Arsenal . We bucked the trend by trying to play entertaining football.

I'd rather have watched Forest than the Liverpool team they overhauled. They played with a greater attacking intent and wing play.

degsy · February 27, 2020

davek said:
I'd rather have watched Forest than the Liverpool team they overhauled. They played with a greater attacking intent and wing play.

I'd rather watch anybody than them

WA Toffee · February 27, 2020

roydo said:
True. But its also true that the modern format means that most of the best teams in Europe get into the tournament. My contention being that the 2nd and 3rd best teams in England Spain and Italy would easily win the Icelandic league.

Ergo, the chances of needing to beat a really good side to win the thing is more likely/nailed on.

I remember back in the day, it was said that the uefa cup was harder to win than the European cup, because you had 3 or 4 great teams from the top countries each year, so you had a greater chance of coming up against them, while you could get a comparitively easy draw to win the European cup. I suppose the current champions league is a hybrid of both - you don't have to be the best to get in it, but you have to beat the best to win it. So nowadays its easier to get in, but harder to win