The Soccer Thread (IV)

And they're not going to give a very good representation of the league, because the title they won was nearly a year-and-a-half ago.

And the Europa League may be more competitive, but that's because the clubs from the bigger nations don't really take it seriously. That's why English sides haven't done well recently. And, frankly, the last thing a club like Fulham needs is another half-dozen games between September and December. Ask Ipswich about that.

But yes, at least half of the clubs in the Europa League have to be in with a shout of winning it, if not more. And there are probably only 7 or 8 clubs in the CL that have a shot.

 

Rongen names the roster for the U.S. U-20 World Cup team:

http://www.ussoccer.com/News/U-20-MNT/2009/08/Rongen-Announces-21-Players-to-Represent-the-US-at-the-FIFA-U-20-World-Cup-in-Egypt.aspx

Who'd he chase to Serbia this time?

 

I saw this name and wondered right away if Rongen poached him from Norway:
Mikkel Diskerud (Stabak; Oslo, Norway)

The kid might be playing there now, but his name implies a longer history than that.

 

Nevermind that they lead this year's Russian league, too.

http://guardian.touch-line.com/StatsCentre.asp?Lang=0&CTID=28

By all means, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

 

Touche, good sir.

 

Don't call this a league of champions-when was the last time Arsenal won the Prem? Or Sevilla the La Liga title? Or Marseille in France? Should I keep going?
And as for calling the group stage a necessary exercise pardon me but do you remember when the Champions League was known as the European Champions Cup and exclusive to CHAMPIONS ONLY? And every round was knockout, no group stage? Don't come at me with that argument; talk about making something suit your position, sheesh.
Bring back the knockout-only competition and the Fulhams of the world won't have to worry about anothe lucrative 6 games between Sept and Feb in the Europa League.
Puh-leeze.

 

I'll be in London in a few weeks. Chelsea will be at home when I'm there. But a buddy says tickets are $130 U.S. For experts here who might have a better idea, doesn't that sound a bit much?

 

I was about to say yes, but I just had a look at the Chelsea Web site and it appears that regular tickets for Champions League group games are £24.50.

CL group games tend not to be that popular.

 

It's a UEFA playoff game apparently.

 

Eh? They're home to Porto in the CL group stages on 15 Sept.

 

Yeah, I looked, too, and saw that, so I'm not sure where my buddy is getting his info.

Ajax is at home the the day I leave Amsterdam (Sept. 20), so I might try to squeeze that in before the flight out.

 

First off, sheesh yourself, cowboy.

Second, what exactly was your complaint when you said, "OK, so Ajax, Valencia, Hamburg, Sporting, Celtic, Roma, Pana, Villareal, Fenerbaeche, Benfica, Shaktar, PSV and Bremen don't belong in the Champions League, but Apoel, Debrecini, Kazan and Urinea do??"

Are you suggesting the aforementioned 'big' clubs deserve to be in? If not, we don't actually have an argument here.

I'm not advocating for the Champions League in its current form -- if anything, I'd be in favor of a champions-only, European Cup-style tournament again. That won't happen, though, because there's too much money to be made in the current incarnation. That's why I called the group stage a necessary evil. More games = more TV revenue.