Poll: Should We Let the Big Four Opt Out of the Carling Cup?
By: Daryl | March 2nd, 2009
There are plenty lots of problems with the Carling Cup. And there’s probably no silver bullet. Unless we decide the League Cup is an unholy werewolf and put the silver bullet between its eyes.
But for me the biggest problem isn’t that the big clubs don’t take it seriously. It’s that the big clubs don’t take it seriously… and then still win the damn thing more often than not.
Think about that for a second. Man Utd fielded fringe players like Darron Gibson and Danny Wellbeck throughout the tournament, and in Sunday’s final, and still walked off with the trophy.
In the era of Big Four dominance, the Carling Cup should be a trophy that the second tier clubs could look to win. A piece of silverware that’s attainable for clubs like Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Newcastle et al.
And that used to be the case. A quick look at a list of recent winners reveals Leicester City in 2000, Blackburn in 2002 and Middlesbrough in 2004. And all three clubs celebrated winning that trophy. And yes, Spurs won it last season.
Here’s the list of winners (borrowed from Wikipedia) from the last 20 years
1989 Nottingham Forest
1990 Nottingham Forest
1991 Sheffield Wednesday
1992 Manchester United
1993 Arsenal
1994 Aston Villa
1995 Liverpool
1996 Aston Villa
1997 Leicester City
1998 Chelsea
1999 Tottenham Hotspur
2000 Leicester City
2001 Liverpool
2002 Blackburn Rovers
2003 Liverpool
2004 Middlesbrough
2005 Chelsea
2006 Manchester United
2007 Chelsea
2008 Tottenham Hotspur
2009 Manchester United
So for the most part, it’s still the big boys – especially Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool – who win this trophy, even without putting a full team out. Only Arsenal – who field the most experiemntal and most exciting Carling Cup teams – have failed to win it in recent years.
All this proves is that the big teams have a lot of strength in depth. And yes, we knew that already. And no, there’s probably no way to legislate against that. Maybe we could make teams submit a squad of 23 at the start of the season, but that would surely end up doing more harm than good.
There are basically three solutions. Either…
1. We go with Rob’s idea and re-imagine the whole thing as the Anglo-Scottish Cup, or
2. The second tier teams have to start taking the thing a bit more seriously and put some real effort into winning it.
3. The previous season’s Champions League qualifiers have the option to opt out of the League Cup.
I know that sounds like it would devalue the trophy altogether. But I’d ask this quesion: What devalues the tournament more? Having the big teams not compete? Or having the big teams not compete and still win it?
There’s my argument. I’m not 100% convinced. But at the very least it would add some interest. Let me know what you think in our poll…
 |
Soccer Forums | Team/International Results |  |
 |  |
Category: World Football
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
Another option, I guess would be to go the other way and give it a Champions League spot, that way in seasons where the big boys fell off the pace (Arsenal this year for example) they’d take it far more seriously.
But yeah – I think an Anglo-Scottish cup would be the way forward.
Posted from
United States
-
I’m not as familiar with Scottish football as I should be, but do the teams up there also complain about fixture congestion caused by the League Cup, and/or the Old Firm not taking it seriously enough?
Posted from
United States -
Yes, cause then it will slowly die.
Posted from
United States -
Yes the big teams have a lot of strength in depth. This is so because there is no salary cap and luxury taxes in soccer.
A luxury tax in professional sports is a surcharge put on the aggregate payroll of a team to the extent to which it exceeds a predetermined guideline level set by the league. The ostensible purpose of this “tax” is to prevent teams in major markets with high incomes from signing almost all of the more talented players and hence destroying the competitive balance necessary for a sport to maintain fan interest. The money derived from the “tax” is then divided among the teams that play in the smaller markets, presumably to allow them to have more revenue to devote toward the contracts of high-quality players.
Yes to luxury tax in soccer?
Posted from
United States -
“Should we let the big four opt out of the carling cup?” silly question, because they wouldn’t. united just field a reserve team, fantastic competition to blood the youngsters in. let’s just be glad that clubs give a crap about one of our domestic cups
Posted from
United States -
I don’t see what’s surprising… “Big” clubs have been winning the Milk/Coca-Cola/Carling Cup for a much longer time…
1978 Nottingham Forest
1979 Nottingham Forest
1980 Wolverhampton Wanderers
1981 Liverpool
1982 Liverpool
1983 Liverpool
1984 Liverpool
1985 Norwich City
1986 Oxford United
1987 Arsenal
1988 Luton TownLiverpool won 4 in a row in the middle of their league domination (Division 1 champions 1976, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84 and 86), Forest were league winners and runners-up in their consecutive League Cup wins and Arsenal can at least be considered the equal of Tottenham with their “just-outside-the-top-4″ status in 1987.
So, 1989-2009 : 10 League cups won by “big 4″ clubs (48%), 4 won by “almost top 4″ clubs (Villa & Tottenham, 19%), 7 won by “small” clubs (33%).
And, 1978-1988 : 6 League cups won by “top, top” clubs (55%), 1 won by “almost top 4″ clubs (Arsenal, 9%), 4 won by “small” clubs (36%).There isn’t any pronounced difference I can see… Big clubs tend to win all competitions, even with “lesser” teams. Man U fielded Gibson and Welbeck to win this year, but they also fielded Tevez, Nani, Vidic and Giggs. Sure, they wouldn’t have fielded this team against Inter Milan, but then again, Inter Milan don’t play in the League Cup.
Posted from
United States -
That’s sort of the point Shazback. Big teams used to win it a lot. But that’s because they used to field their strongest teams and try to win it.
What worries me is that big teams are still winning it, even when they’re not really trying.
Posted from
United States -
And Scouser, what point are you trying to make with salary caps and income taxes? Unlike US sports, European leagues are not “closed”. So what is a “smaller market”? Paris is one of the biggest metropolises in Europe. Does this mean that PSG should be paying money towards Lyon because Lyon is a much smaller town? Is London going to be divided between Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham, Fulham and Charlton? Or also “lesser” teams like Milwall? Who does this “tax” go to anyway? Lower-end teams in the same division? Teams in the league below? Teams at amateur/grassroots/pub football level? Teams in foreign countries?
Anyway, who should be applying this “tax” or “cap”? The individual leagues? Why should the FA set a cap that is even similar to the Estonian FA’s cap? UEFA? On what basis would they legislate la Liga, Serie A or the Bundesliga, when they’re not running it?
Salary caps and Luxury taxes work in “closed” leagues, since bad teams aren’t relegated, so they need to be reinforced to be competitive. Hence the weakest team getting the first pick, the “poorest” team getting more money to buy better players, and other “balancing” mechanisms. In “open” leagues, teams aren’t rewarded for being bad, they’re punished by relegation. This means that “big” clubs tend to remain big (success brings more support, more support brings more money, more money and success brings better players, better players brings success), whilst “small” clubs tend to remain small (low profile, few supporters, little money, bad players). However, an open league isn’t nescessarily less competitive. Since players are trained in clubs (not in colleges), when players move to “big” clubs, the smaller clubs recieve payment that they can use to reinforce their team. If they purchase good players, they can start reversing the tendancy (ironically, Chelsea is a good example of this in the pre-Abrahmovic years, going from 6 11th-14th finishes to 6 3rd-6th finishes, another good example would be Lyon, who went from a small Ligue 2 club to a dominant force in Ligue 1 through astute management), and in turn become a “big” club. The contrary is possible too. A “big” club that fails to replace ageing players or has poor results for several seasons will fade into obscurity, and risk becoming a “small” club (Leeds United, a very big club of the late 60s, had a few revivals in the 80s and 90s, but now seems pretty safely nested in the “small” club category).
Posted from
United States -
New option: scrap it altogether.
Posted from
Spain -
Definitely agree with the Champions league spot for the winners. Should do likewise for the FA Cup and have just the top 2 from the EPL. Then at least 3 out of the 4 entering “Champions” would actually have won something
Posted from
United States -
I think we’re headed towards one competition in Europe anyway (i.e. the Champions league) cos i think they will just exapnd it in future and scrap the UEFA/Europa cup, which is also fast becoming meaningless.
I say we have this Anglo-Scottish cup thing and winners can play in Champs League.
Posted from
United States -
Contextomy (Fallacy of quoting out of context): refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning.
Shazback , I just gave a general definition of luxury tax as it relates to Professional Sports. Please note that I finished with a question mark. At 12.33pm Daryl made an interesting comment: “That’s sort of the point Shazback.” Do I need to comment any further.
Assuming you read Daryl’s entire post, somewhere he stated : “All this proves is that the big teams have a lot of strength in depth” and I followed up with: “Yes the big teams have a lot of strength in depth. This is so because there is no salary cap and luxury tax (pardon the typo, it was lapsus calami) in soccer.”
Salary Cap and Luxury tax can also work in open leagues but I guess I have to create a post for that. See you on my home turf.
Here is a “Prelude”
The structure of a promotion/relegation system means weaker teams struggle against the threat of relegation, adding importance and excitement to the matches of weaker teams? No wonder the “big four” will remain the “big four”
The poor will remain poor? :
Jobs are not readily available to people who have little to no experience in the field, yet workers cannot get experience without getting a job.
An individual with no credit history (not to be confused with poor credit history) has trouble getting credit, yet creditors are hesitant to give loans to people who have little to no credit history.
Posted from
United States
Comments are closed
Home 
