which one is more challenging to achieve , Champions league tittle 1956 Vs CL title 2012

was it easier then or now ? and why?

I think it would be easier to win the CL title in 2012 since time travel is very difficult nowadays

European Cup at the start was a much, much easier to win. Less teams, basically only one team per country and no group phase, which then ment less collective quality and less teams in form. This is the reason also why nobody hasn't been able to defend UCL succesfully.

The difference of challenge in the first cup and the last is huge actually.

I didint watch CL in 50s so its a bit hard to answer the question.

Apparently, European competitions were way harder to win back then.

I was actually listening to a podcast about it the other day.

I'll have to find it and post the reasoning behind this assertion.

I didn't live in the 50's so I can't comment personally.

Obviously I didn't watch it back in the 50s, but going by the records, it was easier to win back-to-back then.

R. Madrid won the first 5 between 1955-60, Benfica won the next 2, then Milan wins 1 and Inter wins 2 in a row after that

Then there is a period where 5 different teams win in 5 seasons.

Then it goes triple Ajax, triple Bayern, double Liverpool, double Nottingham Forest. This takes us up to the 1980s.

After that, 7 different teams win in 8 seasons (Liverpool won 2, but not consecutively).

The most recent double is Milan in 88-89 + 89-90.

Since then, no team has won back to back CLs although Milan and Juve could've had 3 in a row in the 90s if they had won all their finals. Madrid and Barca have won a CL, not made the final of the next one and then won the one after that (Madrid actually did this twice in a row, i.e. win-no final-win-no final-win-no final).

So whilst it is clearly more challenging now, it's not impossible.

more chalenging now.
2-4 best teams in Spain, Itally etc > Swiss champions or whatever

billy_gr wrote:more chalenging now.
2-4 best teams in Spain, Itally etc > Swiss champions or whatever

Swiss Champions > English Champions, though

I know Barca fans love to say its harder now. But it isnt. Back then all the good players weren't centered around just three leagues. You had great teams from all over europe, teams like Benfica and Ajax in their prime were the best of the best despite not coming from the so called big leagues.

Today by a mile.. In those times it was harder to enter the CL, though..

If you weren't RM then I'd say 1950's. It was a one team decade until Benfica.

Today is more competitive.

It was harder before, immediate knock out, no recovery after a bad game, etc.

stunt wrote:I know Barca fans love to say its harder now. But it isnt. Back then all the good players weren't centered around just three leagues. You had great teams from all over europe, teams like Benfica and Ajax in their prime were the best of the best despite not coming from the so called big leagues.

While that is true, it is also true that today with 4 teams from each of the top leagues that factor still exists. In fact, it is even more today.

But i don't know which era would be more competitive.

leemhuis wrote:It was harder before, immediate knock out, no recovery after a bad game, etc.

The knockout phase lasts as long now than in then. But now you have to pass the group phase before, which not only means harder to get into, but also harder opponents for the knockouts.

if it was that easy, teams other than madrid would have won more then

rwo power wrote:

billy_gr wrote:more chalenging now.
2-4 best teams in Spain, Itally etc > Swiss champions or whatever

Swiss Champions > English Champions, though

Fc bASEL?

Sorano Totti wrote:

rwo power wrote:

billy_gr wrote:more chalenging now.
2-4 best teams in Spain, Itally etc > Swiss champions or whatever

Swiss Champions > English Champions, though

Fc bASEL?

Yup

Alot of teams did win the CL in a raw in those times, like benfica and inter for example. None won it 5 because none was as good as that real madrid team in tose times...

Best leagues in the world were in South America until the mid 1980s. Only in the last 25-30 have you seen all the best talent pooled in Europe.

For example, Pele's Santos teams were the best club in the world back in the 60s until mid 70s for me and it wasn't even that close. They had incredible talent.

You only had some Argentinian players come to Europe before the mid 80s. Before that, all the best south americans, including the Brazilans, stayed at home. And why would they come to Europe? Their leagues were better.

"Easier" is not the right term, because i don't think it was easier then. I just don't think Europe was as good as it is today. The quality is better nowadays. As far as difficulty, i think it's always been the same.

apparently i have to post this again...

man utd
barcelona
dortmund
milan
porto
lille
zenit
ajax
shakhtar
olympiacos
fenerbahce
genk
copenhagen
basel
sturm graz
apoel

this is the "european cup 2011/12" round of 16

if you think that's tougher to beat than the current pattern, seek help

even back then, i'm reasonably sure that whoever finished second in spain and england was a much better team than champions of austria and switzerland...

This cant be a serious question, use common sense.

common sense tells me that in terms of difficulty, it's about even. I actually think it's easier nowadays because you have pool play. Before sometime in the 90s, CL was only for the league champions from the prior year and every round was a home-away tie.

You also had most of the domestic talent play in the home leagues... so the talent wasn't as concentrated in a few elite clubs as it is now. Every game was competitive. Remember watching it in the 80s and there was no such thing as an easy round in CL.

Just stop.

The best year from last year isnt always the best team the next year, thats obvious.

Look at Che's list, I dont think there is any arguement to be made here at all...other than nostalgia.

Neither of this years finalists would be there, 3 of the 4 semi finalists wouldnt be there..unless I have read wrong, only 3 of those teams made it to the KO rounds.

do you know how good the USSR teams were in the 50s, 60s and up to the 70s.

do you realize Austria made it to the 1954 WC semis? Switzerland made it to the quarters of that same WC.

Sweden was a finalist at the 1958 WC.

And most of these players stayed with the top clubs in their home countries. And there wasn't 10 top clubs. There was 1-2 great clubs in each country.

So please, you stop.

turkey made it to the semis in 2002, senegal to the quarters in 2002, ukraine to the quarters in 2006

and?

i'd also like to point out that the world cup was played by 16 teams back then, not 32, so throwing out random finishes by crappy countries to prove how amazing football was isn't exactly what you could call an argument