Poll: Should UEFA Drop the Cup-Tied Rule for the Champions League?
By: Daryl | May 5th, 2009No doubt about it, Man Utd have just demolished Arsenal over two Champions League semi-final legs. Manuel Almunia did some damage limitation at Old Trafford, but – even though he had a decent game – the soon to be Spanglish keeper couldn’t stop Man Utd putting several nails in Arsenal’s Champions League coffin at the Emirates.
If Arsenal fans are honest, they’ll have to admit that their team were outclassed for the majority of the 180 minutes. It’s as if the Arsenal that Man Utd rolled over in the CL were a different team to the one that’s been so impressive in the league lately. And in a way, they were. Because they were missing Andrei Arshavin.
I’m not going to argue that Arsenal would have won this tie if Arshavin had been allowed to play. But they would almost certainly have put up more of a fight. The little Russian has been pulling all the strings recently (and in the 4-4 draw vs Liverpool, scoring all the goals) so the Gunners would definitely have had something more to offer going forward with him in the team. And then maybe tonight’s big game wouldn’t have been all over after just eight minutes.
The reason he wasn’t playing: He was cup-tied.
Arshavin had already played for Zenit in the competition, and the Champions League rule is that you can’t play for two clubs in the same season.
So here’s my question: Is it time UEFA relaxed that rules? If the Champions League is all about the best teams in Europe competing on the big stage, then shouldn’t those teams be able to select their best possible players?
Bonus question: What’s with Cristiano Ronaldo’s facial celebrations?
 |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |  |
 |  |
Category: Champions League
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
yes and no. i think the rule is fine as it is. but i also agree that certain teams have had the misfortune of not having a player play because they were cup-tied.
easy solution would be to….ummmm….hmmm, give me a sec. wait i got it…..Bribe…errr i mean pay UEFA for the services of said player in the competition. UEFA get money ( which they ultimately want in the end. almost like a UEFA Competition transfer…..thingy) and the team gets to have the player play. win win.
Posted from
United States
-
No. The Champions League already has enough teams trying to buy success at any price, they don’t need any more encouragement to keep doing so.
Posted from
United States -
I think when you buy a player, you should be able to use that player.
Posted from
United States -
I would probably say yes, but then I remember when Rosenborg were performing way better than expected so the team was picked to death by vultures to prevent them from embarrassing the “better” teams.
It doesn’t fix the problem but at least prevents insult adding to the injury.
On the other hand, when you’re on the ground and being kicked, does it matter whether they squat on your face or not? I mean, the damage is already done and that aspect is already toxically part of the game. I would say the best solution might be the captain moneypants up-thread. Make the team pay through the nose for “use fees” or shift the requirements so that a player is allowed to be used against any team but their former one (which would be the original point of cup tied).
Posted from
Denmark -
No. If it had been Chelsea that had bought Arshavin, would this question even be asked? The rule is there to limit clubs from reinforcing themselves during the competition, since this affects far more under-performing “big” teams than over-performing “little” teams (as the “big” teams can splash a few millions more than the “little” teams, and honestly, even if Braga finished top of their group who would join them over Real?).
Posted from
United States -
NO, the rule should stay
its not fair, upgrading a team half way in the competition doesn’t sit well with me. the club should stick with players they have all season. then recruit in summer. if they didn’t invest well its their fault
same with january transfer policy. don’t like it either
Posted from
United States -
I think it should be like the Uefa Cup/CL rule, where maybe 1 of your signings can switch.
We should have 1-legged knockout ties.
Posted from
Spain -
Alessio: you’ve basically decided to go down the, “Are we there yet?” road with this 1-legged thing, haven’t you! Although. you do know that that would just make things FAR worse. I mean. how attacking would teams be if they knew they were 90 minutes away from being knocked out instead of 180 minutes?
Posted from
United States -
I agree with Alessio, 1 legged ties would provide far more entertaining footy.
Regarding the cup tied rule, I think that it should stay. Players should respect their teams and give them their all. Say Arsenal, Zenit, and Barca were in the same group and Barca already secured qualification with one game left. If Arshavin knew he was going to be sold to Arsenal in January, would he want Zenit to advance or would he want Arsenal to advance so he can continue with them.
Posted from
United States -
Alessio is right, One match in a neutral location, none of this park the bus stuff chelski did last week against Barca, it will enhance the competition.
could you imagine if the first league of the Porto vs Man U was the only leg, it would have been brilliant the underdog deservedly goes through, the neuteral spectator would have enjoyed it way more than the reallity of another big team prevailing. I think the two legs gives the big teams a second chance i.e. the porto Man U matchPosted from
United States -
a team can be down graded ( raped of its quality players by wealthier teams) why can it not improve itself?
Posted from
United States -
i agree with erik
Posted from
United States -
Yes, Marcus. At 2-2 Porto would have won. Because the rules clearly state that when the score is tied, it’s the non-english side that wins.
Also, how neutral grounds would be better eludes me. Celtic-Barcelona in Kyiv? Porto-Roma in Berlin? Olympiacos-Fenerbahce in Glasgow? I can see how the armchair fan can get excited about this, but for the fans who go to the stadium, how is this better than playing one leg away and one leg home?
Posted from
United States -
Ak, I’ll keep repeating it everytime I see a horribly boring semifinal!
Posted from
Spain -
Alessio: why stop there? Why not at every post? In fact, that’s it: I’m going to do it.
1-legged knockout tie (even though I don’t agree).
Posted from
United States -
Who’s with me!
1-legged knockout tie (even though I don’t agree).
Posted from
United States -
…nobody…ok then.
1-legged knockout tie (even though I don’t agree).
Posted from
United States -
if each of the knockout rounds were in neutral venues, pretty soon you would have only 3 group stage matches in neutral venues too (along the same “underdogs” line of thinking). if that were to happen a team could go all the way to the cl final while flying all across europe and not even play a single match in their own stadium.
Posted from
Poland -
Boy someone is cranky.
Posted from
Spain -
Alessio: me? No, I’m not taking the piss. It’s a good idea.
1-legged knockout tie (even though I don’t agree).
Posted from
United States -
Sorry Shazback i forgot Porto drew 2-2, i thought they won for some reason…would have been more interesting going to extra time tho
Posted from
United States
Comments are closed
Home 
