Remember the 70s and the 80s uptil the Heysel Disaster?

Let me remind you : 4 winning countries (Netherlands 4 times 70-73; Germany 4 times 74-77 and 83; England 7 times 78-82 and 84; Italy in 85), and even with only one club per country (in fact, quite often two, since the European Champions were sometimes not domestic champions the same year) only seven of those sixteen finals did not feature ONLY those four countries (Celtic 70, Pana 71, Athletico 74, Saint-Etienne 76, Brugge 78, Malmo 79, Real 81).

Pretty much, with the old rules, a team from one of the then-top leagues could get to the final if they had a nice draw, simply avoiding other top teams until the final. Liverpool 77 won 3-1 against Monchengladbach… Having previously beaten Crusaders FC 7-0, Trabzonspor 3-1, Saint-Etienne 3-2 and in the semi-final beaten Zurich 6-1. The following year, Liverpool retained the title playing only seven games… 5-1 home win against Dresden, followed by a 2-1 defeat without many key players away, 2-1 and 4-1 wins over Benfica, a 2-1 defeat against Monchengladbach, followed by a 3-0 win at Anfield that qualified them for the final, and in the final that can only be described as boring, with Brugges lacking seven first team players due to injury, Liverpool won 1-0…

You’re complaining about what? That one league has 3 semi-finalists? How is that any different from a semi-final with Austria Wien against Malmo, and Nottingham Forest against Koln? (1978-79) Forest-Koln was billed as a “final before the final”, exactly because -nobody- believed Malmo or Koln had a chance (and they proved not to, Malmo had a long injury list and played the now-famous “eleven men behind the ball” in yet another boring 1-0 final).

The only mildly unpredictable time was during the Heysel ban with two countries winning their first European Cup (and even then, Steua Bucharest had -only- participated in nine prior editions, and Red Star Belgrade -barely- 14, hardly making them newcomers to the competition)… It could be argued that Aston Villa’s win in 82 or Nottingham’s in 78 were greater surprises, since it was the first time either club competed in the European Cup that saw them lift the trophy in the final…

In 16 seasons, the Champions League has neither seen a country nor a club remain champions. I prefer to watch a competition where my club won’t turn up against teams that are comically inferior for more than half the games (Hibernians of Malta, Sarajevo, Gornic, Real Madrid, Benfica or Lodz, Barcelona, Brondby, Inter Milan, Juventus, Bayern Munich? I’m taking the latter, because I actually prefer to watch my team struggle to a 4-3 win over Juventus rather than watch them beat Hibernians of Malta 4-0, for some strange reason). Why should teams like Liverpool not be allowed to compete in the premier european competition, and clubs like Hibernians of Malta should? If Abramovic had invested in Hibernians of Malta instead of Chelsea, would you be more in favor of it? Or would it simply be worse, since he’d not have such competition in the domestic league, allowing him to concentrate harder on the nine games he needs to win in order to bring Malta their first European Cup? (Yes, -only- nine games including home and away) Add to that the fact that he wouldn’t have non-champions to break Chelsea of Malta’s winning streaks (2004-05 Liverpool weren’t champions, 2006-07 Liverpool and eventual winners Milan weren’t champions) and I believe Abramovic would have had a much easier time winning a European Cup with the old format. Champions’ League rewards clubs for being the best in the world, not for being the best in their back yard.