The CL is 100 times more meaningful - at least that’s what every Liverpool fan on earth is currently telling themselves
IDK it probably depends on circumstances and the tempo of your team’s success - if your team is going through a very dominant spell then another league title is not as big a deal as if it’s the first one after a drought. I remember MAnU winning the first of their prem league titles in 92 (25 year drought) and it was absolutely huge for them, fans crying in the street with the release of tension. But then after that they solidified into a great side and the CL became a massive target, far more than just another league title, and their win in 99 has a similar sort of impact, 30 years after they first won the European cup.
Their subsequent failure to grow that into a powerful European legacy over the next decade [just one more scrappy win, never the consensus best team in Europe at any stage] was likewise significant, ie the CL performance was valued more than the domestic league.
So right now the league title carries far, far more weight than the CL to the Koppites, it’s a 30 year monkey on their back that they cannot shift, and they just bottled it big time.
As a Liverpool fan, I’ll be incredibly happy if they win the Champion’s League, but if I were given the choice, I’d take the Premier League title every time.
I agree that many Liverpool fans are frustrated at the club’s long top-flight drought, but to say they “bottled it” is, quite frankly, idiotic.
They lost one game in the Premier League all season, and tallied 97 points. Their points tally is the third-highest in the history of the competition, beaten only by Manchester City’s total this year, and Manchester City’s total last year. The average winning points tally since the Premier League started is 87, ten points lower than what Liverpool achieved this season.
As I said, I’m disappointed that they didn’t win, and I look back with some regret on a few draws that could have been wins, but in absolutely no sense did the team “bottle it.”
Since Christmas, Liverpool have played 20 Premier League games, with 15 wins, 1 loss, and 4 draws. In that same time period, Man City played 20 with 19 wins and 1 loss.
I was hopeful, and even confident, at Christmas that Liverpool could win the title, but only an idiot would have ruled City out. In fact, if you had told me at Christmas that Liverpool were going to win 15 games and have just 1 loss in the final 20 games, and would end up on 97 points, I would have been perfectly happy with that outcome. I would basically have said, “Well, if City is good enough to win 19 of their last 20 games, they deserve to win the title.” Which is precisely what happened.
Your argument about City being “demoralised” is completely ridiculous, as evidenced by their subsequent run. This is basically the same City team that tallied 100 points in the previous season. Their 19-1 run to end this season was one of the most impressive feats in Premier League history, and is no indication that Liverpool bottled it.
The Liverpool - Man City game itself is indicative of what I’m talking about. If Liverpool managed to draw that game instead of losing 2-1, they win the title by two points. And they could easily have drawn or even won that game. They played as well as City, and were on the wrong end of a few close officiating decisions. I said as much at the time, noting that I was “disappointed in the result but not in the performance.”
It’s difficult to say. Since the 1992-93 season, when the European Cup became the Champions League, EPL teams have won the competition only four times out of twenty-six seasons. I think it could be worth maybe three EPL titles. While the Champions League trophy is harder to win, and so arguably worth more, fans do like to be kings of their own backyard.
Liverpool, in particular, are a team that are desperate to win the EPL since they haven’t won the league since 1989-90, which is actually three years before the top English league was rebranded as the Premier League. Until being overtaken by Manchester United in the last decade, Liverpool were English football’s most successful club domestically - and they are still the most successful English club in Europe - but they have never won the Premier League (1992-) trophy. They won the Champions League in 2005, while finishing fifth in the EPL, so Liverpool probably currently covet the EPL more than the Champions League.
I’d agree that saying that Liverpool “bottled it” is completely wrong. “Bottling it” would mean they cracked under the pressure and threw their chance away. However:
They lost only once, away at champions Man City (who lost four times)
They drew away games with Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham, Man Utd, local derby rivals Everton. All perfectly respectable results. West Ham is the worst result, but a point away at a mid-table side is a little disappointing, but not a bad result.
They drew home games against Man City and Leicester. Leicester, while mid-table, are capable of causing trouble to big sides on their day. This would have been a disappointing result, but a bad result would have been losing.
They won all of their other 30 games.
They won all of their last nine matches at the business end of the season, when the pressure of the title race was at its most acute.
So Liverpool had two disappointing, but not bad, games out of thirty-eight games. Man City, while winning the league, did have some bad results - they lost away to Chelsea, Leicester and Newcastle Utd, as well as at home to Crystal Palace.
Liverpool had an incredible season, but Man City had a slightly more incredible one.
Yeah, it’s utter nonsense to say that Liverpool bottled it. It was just a few days ago that they pulled one of the greatest miracles of all time with that Barca comeback. Liverpool were incredible this season, City was even more so. Even the most ardent City supporter knows it easily could have gone the other way.
Actually, I think one can say that Liverpool have had a more incredible season than Man City, in that Man City were fractionally worse than last season (when they were incredible). I think what Liverpool have achieved undoubtedly makes them the EPL team of the season, even if they aren’t its winners.
The only reason it’s even close for Liverpool is that they’ve won the CL somewhat recently (2005) and haven’t won the league in like 30 years. Almost any other team would vastly prefer the Champions League.
Barcelona’s coach won the league both years he’s been in charge and he very well might get fired over the summer.
I’m personally somewhat torn. The CL, like any tournament, is subject to a lot of luck while the league usually picks the best team in the end. But the current prestige level is far in support of the CL. I would guess most supporters would probably trade 3-5 league titles for a CL title. I’d like to hear other opinions on this though.
That caught my attention too. It seemed odd to me how Liverpool had won quite a few CL titles in past decades while never once winning the PL in three decades. That would be kind of like the New England Patriots somehow winning multiple Super Bowls while never winning the AFC East in the process.
Liverpool have only won one Champions League, the other trophies being from the time when it was called the European Cup. Except for the 2005 Champions League win - the “Miracle of Istanbul” - Liverpool’s other four European Cups came in an eight-year period (1977-84) when they where the dominant team domestically (11 league titles in 17 years).
Disagree. Man City played virtually the entire season with an injured and/or diminished Kevin DeBruyne, one of the worlds 5 best players. Lets see how well Liverpool would have done without Salah.
And without him, City’s team payroll was still about 10 million quid higher than Liverpool’s, and they still got through the season leaving players like Riyad Mahrez on the bench most of the time.
Ridiculous, as mhendo already pointed out. Having De Bruyne for only 19 appearances just meant that Bernardo Silva played instead, and was on the Player of the Year shortlist instead. You only get to play 11 at a time. At full health Man City was looking at playing 6 of Aguero, Sterling, Sane, Silva, Silva, De Bruyne, Gundogan, Jesus, Mahrez and Fernandinho. It’s arguable whether De Bruyne would even be in the first team at this point; at one point Sane was a no-brainer but the margins are pretty thin when this is your competition. The major sacrifice they had to make because of injury was playing Phil Foden, who is going to be a star but isn’t yet, when the squad was rotating. It’s a joke.
Not at all what I said. DeBruyne did start this year. But he was healthy and didn’t start the FA Cup final. Probably any other squad in the world, he just walks back into the team and works his way back to fitness. At Man City, if he’s at 90% he isn’t necessarily the best man for the job, because at all times City is buying basically two world class players for every spot.
That’s why, just hypothetically, comparing losing him to Liverpool losing Salah would be super stupid.
Apologies if this has already been covered. Under the old 2 points for a win system, Liverpool would have won. How many times previously would there have been different winners under the old system?
I’m a Liverpool fan, but I think that trotting out the “We would have won under the old system” argument is a bit silly, given that the “old system” hasn’t been used in English football for almost 40 years.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, in the years since 3-points-per-win was introduced in 1981, there was only one other season where there would have been a different winner under the old system.
In 1994-95, when Blackpool won the Premier League, they beat Manchester United by a single point. Under the old system, they would have been equal on points, and Man U would have won the League on goal difference.
In 2007-08, Man U beat Chelsea by two points. Under the old system, they would have had equal points, but Man U still would have won the title on goal difference.
RIP former Arsenal player Jose Antonio Reyes, who died today in a car crash along with two of his cousins. There will be a minute’s silence for Reyes, who played for both Madrid clubs, before the Champions League final that kicks off there in an hour.
