Santa, look at my pert arse!

I quite lked the second group stage. Every match in it was between top quality sides.

However, I prefer it this way. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah didn't mean I preferred the first group stage to the second. More that I prefer it the way it is now, with a group stage followed by knockout. I feel it just dragged on a bit too much before.

Meitheisman

It's not perfect I agree but I find it less annoying than having a crappy team score an ugly fast break goal and go through because they play 11 man in the box for 2*90min </BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called football. If the "good" team can't score for 180 minutes why do they deserve to go through? </BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not saying they should based on 180 min but I'm saying that if you play 6 games the good team is more likely to go through and I like that better. If the team that plays 11 man in the box can do it consistently and win it shouldn't be a problem for them either to have to go through 2 group stages, should it?

Meitheisman

And we only know the result because some crappy teams are in the CL. Could you predict accurately the results of the second group stage in the CL?

Nikos

No, the problem is that about 90% of the group games are incredibly boring.

By doubling the number of group games you double the number of boring matches.

Nikos

And we only know the result because some crappy teams are in the CL. Could you predict accurately the results of the second group stage in the CL? </BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we know the result because you want to handpick the best 8 teams and put them in the quarter final.

Then you want to pick the best 4 from those and put them in a semi etc.

Meitheisman

Unless you change the teams in the groups

Meitheisman

And we only know the result because some crappy teams are in the CL. Could you predict accurately the results of the second group stage in the CL? </BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we know the result because you want to handpick the best 8 teams and put them in the quarter final.

Then you want to pick the best 4 from those and put them in a semi etc. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said I wanted that. (or that was an ironic post like when I was saying we should pick the winner of each game out of a hat)

What I want is the best 32 teams in the CL and a competition that has enough games for a team to recover from 1 (or even 2) bad matches hence the 2 group stages. This would as a result have more chance of having the best 8 teams in the QT but they obviously won't all be there every year.

Emperor J

And we only know the result because some crappy teams are in the CL. Could you predict accurately the results of the second group stage in the CL? </BLOCKQUOTE>

No, we know the result because you want to handpick the best 8 teams and put them in the quarter final.

Then you want to pick the best 4 from those and put them in a semi etc. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said I wanted that. (or that was an ironic post like when I was saying we should pick the winner of each game out of a hat)

What I want is the best 32 teams in the CL and a competition that has enough games for a team to recover from 1 (or even 2) bad matches hence the 2 group stages. This would as a result have more chance of having the best 8 teams in the QT but they obviously won't all be there every year. </BLOCKQUOTE>

So if the best 32 teams included half of La Liga, Serie A, the Premiership while throwing in Lyon and Bayern for the hell of it, you would watch that?

Meitheisman

Yes, just like you would still watch the EPL if half of the teams were in London
I don't care where the teams are from in the CL like I don't care where the teams are from in a League.
And I would still watch the WC if it had 25 European Nations in it too.

Nikos

Why should they be allowed to recover from 1 or 2 bad games?

The whole reason the group stage is boring is because teams know this.