retired_sedimohasel

AFAIK it was both things at the same time. If a team isn't the best in its own country, how come can it be the best in its continent? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't a nation be World Champion but not European Champion?
It's like saying that only the winner of the continental cups should be allowed in the WC. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Only the winners of the continental cups should play the Confederations Cup.

The WC is organized by FIFA while Copa América, the Euro Championship, etc... are organized by regional confederations. They are not part of the "WC Pyramid" although the same teams can play both tournaments. It's similar to what happens in Brazilian club football where we have State League pyramids and a national league pyramid. A team can be relegated in the state league but it doesn't change the team's status in the national pyramid.

The WC also has its own Quals, so the regional comps are irrelevant here.

And anyway, I was referring to the original idea of the competition called "European Champions Cup". </BLOCKQUOTE>

And I was transferring that original idea to the WC.
I bet that originally the WC was created with the same intent that created the CL. In Europe who wanted to find out who the best Club in Europe was while the WC was created to find out who the best country in the world was.
You turned the reasonning against me and said something along the lines of "if you're not the best in your country how can you be the best in Europe?"
It makes perfect sense and I agree but then the same reasoning could apply to the WC which it doesn't.
The rest are technicalities. I agree that they make the whole thing different but we were talking about the original idea only, weren't we?

retired_jdupont

I don't think the WC makes a good analogy because the way the tournament is organized, the way the teams are selected, etc... have always been different from what usually to happen in the European Champions Cup (ECC).

The Club World Championship and the Confederations Cup are more similar to the ECC because only the best from each place play it. Or at least, this is how it was supposed to be, as now the hosts and the WC champions also play it...

All tournaments intend to find the best team, I agree, but the mentality behind these tournaments is different.

Of course the competition concept has changed, and the current format doesn't have much to do with the original idea.

retired_jsnap

The original tournament was far harder to win as it was the result of 2 years of superiority.

First you had to be the best in your country, then you had to be the best of those who were the best in theirs.

Now you just have to be mediocre, fanny about a bit in the first half of the season and hit form from March onwards. Essentially a 2 year competition has been reduced to a 3 month one.

retired_omiandrea

What a load of crap

Yeah, so easy to win the CL, Arsenal, Chelsea etc just cba to try. While the likes of Tottenham and Atletico Madrid dont want to qualify for it because its too easy.

Then again Liverpool only won the thing 18 times in the 70's and 80's so it must of been real hard.

retired_sedimohasel

It took Madrid 7 matches to win the first ever CL (European Cup), how exactly was that harder than today's format?

retired_omiandrea

must have been*

retired_omiandrea

Just give up Meitheisman, take it from someone who's been over this loads of times on here, you just wont win.

retired_jsnap

Going back to the old format, Arsenal and Chelsea wouldn't even be in the competition.

I'd say that makes it harder for them than their current position.

retired_omiandrea

Going back to the old format, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Roma, Milan, LAzio, Barca, Valencia, Sevilla and another 5 or 6 good quality sides (better than FC BATE anyway) would not be in the competition, I guess that would make it a tad easier.

retired_sedimohasel

Wait goon, you're telling me to give up yet you're still arguing