In football history, it is very interesting to discover that some clubs were in difficulty winning domestic league titles but on the contrary won the tournaments titles a lot. For example, Liverpool won the Champions League in 2005, but did not finish in a Champions League qualification place in the Premier League that season. In 2012, Chelsea won Champions league with a poor run of form in the domestic season, finished 6th. How to explain this phenomenon?
Why some clubs succeed in major tournaments but fail at domestic leagues?
EXCITING NEWS for AF EXPERTS: From today on, we will select some of your most convincing comments and post them here, sharing with all AFers! So speak out what's in your mind, show us your football-related knowledge and be as convincing as possible! You are to be the next AF EXPERT now!
Reminder: If your comment doesn't have any convincing reason, it will be removed.
Experts of last DAILY TOPIC: What's the least important position in football?
As a football fan I will say there isn’t such a position but if I am just a person who wants results, then the least important position is the striker/center forward position or fullbacks in any formation. I remember I watched a video on Youtube where it states that most footballers who play as a Goalkeeper in their career will want to be a striker instead if they can pick a new position for their career. The reason for that is if you play as a striker, you can disappear 89 minutes of the game but if you score in the 90th minute, you are the hero. This is partly the reason why I think striker are one of the least important position.
well, as a football fan I will say there isn’t such a position but if I am just a person who wants results, then the least important position is the striker/center forward position or fullbacks in any formation. I remember watching a video on Youtube where it was made clear that most footballers who play as a Goalkeeper in their current career will want to be a striker instead, if they can pick a new position for their career. The reason for that is quite obvious, because if you play as a striker, you can disappear 89 minutes of the game but funny enough, if you score in the 90th minute, you are the hero. This is partly, to an extent, the reason why I think strikers are one of the least important individuals on the field of play.
In the game nowadays, there are mainly 2 types of matches, knockout games which goes all the way until a winner is found and another is a solid 90 minutes game, in which its result determine the amount of points a club ends up gathering in their respective tier/group/league table. In a more logical perspective, scoring goals does not guarantee victory and in fact, we always see teams got outscored by opposition due to their lack of defense. Liverpool is a good example, if we define the role of a striker as primarily scoring goals, even if he does a really good job, it is not as useful as keeping a clean sheet because a clean sheet guarantees a point or not conceding any goals in the game until penalty (where either side have an equal chance to win) whereas scoring more goals is still dependent on the midfield and defense to help a club hold onto the lead.
In a tactical point of view, we see tactics such as false 9 employed in teams like Germany and Barcelona. What happens in these formation is that the head coach/manager uses a midfielder to fill the role of the striker meaning they don’t actually play strikers. If you look at the development of different tactics that are coming into the limelight currently,and compare the roles of different position, one can find proofs that the amount of strikers being used, are dropping to some extent,which in a way show that strikers are relatively not as important when compared to other positions.
now, one could speak in favour of a striker, A little defending on the role of the striker. If we use Liverpool for example, their top scorer at the moment is Mohamed Salah who is a winger and this kind of show that the role of scoring goals can be given to wingers which, in my opinion, makes seems like making striker less important. The three forwards Liverpool use are Mane, Firmino and Salah where Firmino plays as the central striker. Firmino was a Center Attacking Midfielder when he played in Hoffenheim and Jurgen Klopp still plays him as a striker. In my perspective, this means that the striker position itself is still significant but it is the role itself that is being redefined. The striker position seems to be the least important,but only if the player who plays it, plays it in a one dimensional manner,that is,in a straight forward line,but if he contributes to different phases of the game,then, the striker position can be seen as the most important, especially if they are scoring goals at an exponential ratio,if they are goal machines.
Another answer for this question could be wing-backs. We can see that there are formations developed like 3–4–3 (GK CB CB CB LM CM CM RM LW ST RW) which does not really play wing-backs, which can be very lethal if used properly by football clubs, like Juventus, who triumphed in Serie A last season.Unless you have players like Alex Sandro, Dani Alves, Carvajal or Marcelo, fullbacks are usually there to counter the attacking threat of wingers but the thing is that these threats can be dealt with by various tactical approach. These formations exist really because it depends on what players you have at your disposal, and how good they are, that will decide what formation is suitable for a team to play with.
AkiManang
66
For most of the club which spend a lot of money in transfer window would prefer major tournament rather than dosmetic . This might be a reason why thy brave enough to spend money to get a better player with a talented skills.. most of the people who love football will remember the moments of their club winning the major tournament rather than domestic league. This also include me as a supporter of Liverpool which is still remember the moment they beat Ac Milan in UCL rather than.. This was proved by my fren during we hang out and talk about football.. he ask me about my fvrte team. then I replied him. Then him frst expression about my fvrte team was.. ohh I see.. they just won their league.. but my fvrte team was won the UCL and will cmpete in Club World Cup next season.. So , this is enough to prove tht the team would prefer more on major cup rather domestic.. Because by winning the major tournament such as UCL , their team would be called as the most stronger team in Europe . If they also won the CWC , they will grant a tittle of most powerful football team in the world.. but for me.. both tournament are important for the club history and their supporter.. as a supporter in which tournament they enter and won its. its doesn't matter which cup they won. . its ady proved to their supporter tht they can won something even its a small competition.. its ady a give for supporter for their support entire their club matches.. tht its..
ShivSingh11
21
The main reason behind this could be the motivation to go and perform at the biggest level, for eg. Real Madrid won only 1 league title in last 4 years but won 3 champions league titles in the same time or it could be because of the knockout format of the champions league, in league format you have to be consistent in the long run to win the title but in champions league you could win it by performing at crunch time, it is not easy to do so against quality opponents but consistency is not a huge factor in champions league as compared to domestic league.
Hioloty
16
I notice most of the comments I've tead focus mainly on the valid point of the teams being more motivated to play in the big competitions like UCL. But few give credit to the teams in domestic leagues. To get straight to the point, when a team qualifies for the Champions League for instance, a certain level respect goes with the achievement. As such, opposing teams approach there games wary that every game is a tough assignment, with extensive planning going into strategies geared towards gaining the ascendency on rivals. It is this respect that drives enhanced performances by team in such leagues and sometimes, ultimately result in their winning the league. On the other hand, when playing in the domestic leagues, few teams are afforded this enhanced respect, but instead are seen Goliaths to be slain by the smaller teams. This is especially true for powerhouses like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man U, Man City, Chelsea and the like. It is this perception that drives their opponents in the domestic leagues, making each and every game a tricky exercise. If they are underestimated, these small teams make you pay dearly. Some of the big teams tend to be complacent in their approach to and planning when playing lower profile teams and pay the embarrassing price. Prime example Real Madrid, as evidenced in their recent struggles in La Liga. The bottom line is the 'Respect Thing', it can work for you or against you!
auwalrogo
15
I think the logical explanation of teams making a triumph in tournaments like UCL and failing in domestic league is that, in domestic league almost all the competing teams are very much familiar with each other and knows each other's strength and weakness, unlike in the tournaments where teams are virtually new to each other. Also the issue of local derby and other "believes", where a relatively weaker team used to have an upper hand against a stronger opponent because of some historical reasons and believes. Like we have a situation where by Barcelona find it difficult to win in Espanyol or Real Sociedad's home, real Madrid also find it hard to beat Atlentico Madrid and other teams with a historical derbies, or Liverpool find it hard to beat any smaller Merseyside team. And again, the bigger teams in London like Chelsea and Arsenla also find it difficult to beat other smaller teams in London like west ham and the rest, which will never be the case in tournament like UCL. Another explanation is that players sometimes used to get more motivated and lots more enthusiasm when it comes to tournament than in the league cups. May be as a result of higher regards attached to the tournaments like UCL The issue of 'LUCK' factor is also contributing to the situation of winning the tournament while failing in a league cups. This is because a 'luck' is more likely to make more impact in a two-leg knockout tournament than 38 league matches that lasts through months in a year. We have a situations of 'luck' making a great impact in match when for e.g. Chelsea knocked out Barcelona and bayern in 2012 UCL and lifted the trophy, also Liverpool coming from 3 - 0 behind to beat AC Milan in 2005 UCL final, even though both Liverpool and Chelsea are relatively weaker than the teams the won against. While in league cups just 3 or 4 lucky wins can never guarantee u to win the league. The number of matches also matters when it comes to winning a trophy. while a team is needed to play 38 or so matches in league cup, a team only needs to play only about 17 or so matches to reach and win the final in a UCL tournament. The time taking between the matches. While it takes only 4 to 7 days to play match and another in a league cup, it takes some weeks or even months (e.g. after group stage in CL) to play another match. So by implication, injuries are more likely to affect the performance of a team (negatively) in a league cup than in a tournament.