Champions League 24/25, Round of 16

[JohnHarts]

Why "overrewarding"?

The current KO structure emphasizes OPPONENTS (lower = weaker), which breaks down when PSG, Real Madrid, etc. neglect the league phase and only show up in KO.

Therefore, the KO structure should emphasize THE NUMBER OF GAMES AND LOGISTICS. Higher finish in league phase = fewer games (potentially by 4); lower finish = more games + potentially only playing away games.

If we got a good direct correlation between league phase position and final KO position (lets say that in most of the seasons the top 4 of league phase would be the winners, runner-up and semi-finalists) we would get a lower importance (and value) of KO. KO would be less unpredictable and so half of the competition. That would increase the pressure to extend the league phase and reduce or terminate the KO phase.

Really if they wanted to make it consequential they'd have only 20 going through and stagger it.

Top 2 qualify for QF.
3-8 qualify for PO2.
9-20 qualify for PO1.

Have PO1 and PO2 as a single leg, home advantage for the higher team, and you'll have a strong incentive for everyone to finish as high as possible.

[rpo.castro]

Why "overrewarding"?

The current KO structure emphasizes OPPONENTS (lower = weaker), which breaks down when PSG, Real Madrid, etc. neglect the league phase and only show up in KO.

Therefore, the KO structure should emphasize THE NUMBER OF GAMES AND LOGISTICS. Higher finish in league phase = fewer games (potentially by 4); lower finish = more games + potentially only playing away games.

If we got a good direct correlation between league phase position and final KO position (lets say that in most of the seasons the top 4 of league phase would be the winners, runner-up and semi-finalists) we would get a lower importance (and value) of KO. KO would be less unpredictable and so half of the competition. That would increase the pressure to extend the league phase and reduce or terminate the KO phase.

For me and I think for most people and also for UEFA, KO is very important and the reason is the unpredictability. The possibility of having early big matches or having big teams getting knock-out by smaller teams can't not be seen as a failure but as a signal of success of the competition model.

Of course if we would get the extreme point: all big teams getting eliminated soon and having frequently lots of smaller teams on top final KO positions, big clubs and UEFA wouldn't be happy because income wouldn't recude, but the other extreme isn't good either.

We don't want an Italian Cup style do we?

The events of the KO stage have only reinforced my belief in the group stage games not really mattering for my teams. They do matter of course, but they just don't matter enough to get me invested in them. The reward of top 8 simply isn't enough to get me invested, it was in the previous format as winning your group was huge then, even though you didn't get to skip a KO round. The lion's share of the quarter final places were claimed by group winners. Didn't happen that way this time, it's 4 each.

I am puzzled by the schedule. PSG are playing away to Villa in the second leg. So that would suggest that the tie got reseeded, rather than PSG taking Liverpool's number one seed, they still have their group stage seed so Villa is regarded as the seed. But Real Madrid are getting the second leg at home and Arsenal finished 3rd, so why aren't Arsenal the seed? Barcelona are away to Dortmund in the second leg, why? They finished 2nd, they should have the second leg at home all the way. Does this mean it's randomised? That makes it even less consequential where you finish in the table, I thought it would at least make going for the top of some value so that you'd have the second leg at home all the way to the final.

There is no seeds for QF and SF. The order was decided by draw according to information presented by UEFA.

[rpo.castro]

Why "overrewarding"?

The current KO structure emphasizes OPPONENTS (lower = weaker), which breaks down when PSG, Real Madrid, etc. neglect the league phase and only show up in KO.

Therefore, the KO structure should emphasize THE NUMBER OF GAMES AND LOGISTICS. Higher finish in league phase = fewer games (potentially by 4); lower finish = more games + potentially only playing away games.

If we got a good direct correlation between league phase position and final KO position (lets say that in most of the seasons the top 4 of league phase would be the winners, runner-up and semi-finalists) we would get a lower importance (and value) of KO. KO would be less unpredictable and so half of the competition. That would increase the pressure to extend the league phase and reduce or terminate the KO phase.

Really if they wanted to make it consequential they'd have only 20 going through and stagger it.

Top 2 qualify for QF.
3-8 qualify for PO2.
9-20 qualify for PO1.

Have PO1 and PO2 as a single leg, home advantage for the higher team, and you'll have a strong incentive for everyone to finish as high as possible.

Thanks but no thanks.
Every change of format proposed is worse than the previous.

[mspm89]

The irony - an argentines pen is disallowed for double touch i wonder where was that in the WC when it was a lot more clearer that a double touch happened for a certain argentine.

indeed ...

Which one are you talking about? Messi/Argentina haters froth at the mouth so much about the amount of penalties awarded that I don't remember any claim about double touches.

[JohnHarts]

If we got a good direct correlation between league phase position and final KO position (lets say that in most of the seasons the top 4 of league phase would be the winners, runner-up and semi-finalists) we would get a lower importance (and value) of KO. KO would be less unpredictable and so half of the competition. That would increase the pressure to extend the league phase and reduce or terminate the KO phase.

Really if they wanted to make it consequential they'd have only 20 going through and stagger it.

Top 2 qualify for QF.
3-8 qualify for PO2.
9-20 qualify for PO1.

Have PO1 and PO2 as a single leg, home advantage for the higher team, and you'll have a strong incentive for everyone to finish as high as possible.

Thanks but no thanks.
Every change of format proposed is worse than the previous.

How would you do it?

I think the change is worse than the previous situation, ignores the elephant in the room that favouring a few clubs in a few leaguesleads to a lack of competition and achieves nothing except an extra safety net for clubs who need it least. If they had to have the "all in league" it should have stayed at top 16.

[rrey1]

Why such animosity to single-leg KO ties ?

In 2020 in Portugal they were played from QF on and worked reasonably well.

Also, JohnHarts model does not even require single-leg KOs; the current calendar will allow double-leg PO1 and PO2 (as right now).

Something needs to be done to REBALANCE league phase and KO. Yes, KO is very important, but league phase is LARGER than KO for most teams. Given the disparity among teams, big clubs can absolutely afford just coasting through league phase, without putting much effort. This waters down the product and decreases fans' interest.

[Renard207]

Why "overrewarding"?

The current KO structure emphasizes OPPONENTS (lower = weaker), which breaks down when PSG, Real Madrid, etc. neglect the league phase and only show up in KO.

Therefore, the KO structure should emphasize THE NUMBER OF GAMES AND LOGISTICS. Higher finish in league phase = fewer games (potentially by 4); lower finish = more games + potentially only playing away games.

If we got a good direct correlation between league phase position and final KO position (lets say that in most of the seasons the top 4 of league phase would be the winners, runner-up and semi-finalists) we would get a lower importance (and value) of KO. KO would be less unpredictable and so half of the competition. That would increase the pressure to extend the league phase and reduce or terminate the KO phase.

For me and I think for most people and also for UEFA, KO is very important and the reason is the unpredictability. The possibility of having early big matches or having big teams getting knock-out by smaller teams can't not be seen as a failure but as a signal of success of the competition model.

Of course if we would get the extreme point: all big teams getting eliminated soon and having frequently lots of smaller teams on top final KO positions, big clubs and UEFA wouldn't be happy because income wouldn't recude, but the other extreme isn't good either.

We don't want an Italian Cup style do we?

The events of the KO stage have only reinforced my belief in the group stage games not really mattering for my teams. They do matter of course, but they just don't matter enough to get me invested in them. The reward of top 8 simply isn't enough to get me invested, it was in the previous format as winning your group was huge then, even though you didn't get to skip a KO round. The lion's share of the quarter final places were claimed by group winners. Didn't happen that way this time, it's 4 each.

I am puzzled by the schedule. PSG are playing away to Villa in the second leg. So that would suggest that the tie got reseeded, rather than PSG taking Liverpool's number one seed, they still have their group stage seed so Villa is regarded as the seed. But Real Madrid are getting the second leg at home and Arsenal finished 3rd, so why aren't Arsenal the seed? Barcelona are away to Dortmund in the second leg, why? They finished 2nd, they should have the second leg at home all the way. Does this mean it's randomised? That makes it even less consequential where you finish in the table, I thought it would at least make going for the top of some value so that you'd have the second leg at home all the way to the final.

The order of leg determine at random after 1/8 finale draw.

[rpo.castro]

Really if they wanted to make it consequential they'd have only 20 going through and stagger it.

Top 2 qualify for QF.
3-8 qualify for PO2.
9-20 qualify for PO1.

Have PO1 and PO2 as a single leg, home advantage for the higher team, and you'll have a strong incentive for everyone to finish as high as possible.

Thanks but no thanks.
Every change of format proposed is worse than the previous.

How would you do it?

I think the change is worse than the previous situation, ignores the elephant in the room that favouring a few clubs in a few leaguesleads to a lack of competition and achieves nothing except an extra safety net for clubs who need it least. If they had to have the "all in league" it should have stayed at top 16.

1) previous format with 8 groups of 4 with KO
2) UEFA wants more matches? 8 groups of 4 than 4 groups of 4 like in early 2000's
3) current format.

Clubs not being competitive has nothing to due with the format but with how much income each club/league generates and how its distributed. Champions league is more competitive than 90% of the leagues where only 2 or 3 teams have real chances of winning it.

Even in the past Europeans Cup hadn't so much diversity like in last years. Besides Netherlands, a giant a that time only a few far from top leagues won it. When football grew, money got concentrated like in other industries.

English people were the only ones to understand how to generate value and now they have a league that others can't compete just by themselves. Without UEFA prize money, competitiveness would be much lower.

Single legs ties aren't part of European Cups "DNA". Are not a good way to define merit. 2020 produce results that wouldn't in other way. I like unpredictability but with merit not by artifical gambling. I want to see teams like Villarreal, Ajax, Atalanta beating rivals with same conditions not with artifical rules.
This isn't Kings League

[seso]

I read that Anton Philips was born on this day in 1874. Then, that he and his brother, Gerard Philips, founded The Philips Company (the lighting company) in 1891 in Eindhoven. Then, that PSV stands for Philips Sport Vereniging (Philips Sports Association), since the company formed it to serve the need for activities with Philips employees. I guess that explains why they have been having Philips on their kit as sponsor!

[JohnHarts]

Thanks but no thanks.
Every change of format proposed is worse than the previous.

How would you do it?

I think the change is worse than the previous situation, ignores the elephant in the room that favouring a few clubs in a few leaguesleads to a lack of competition and achieves nothing except an extra safety net for clubs who need it least. If they had to have the "all in league" it should have stayed at top 16.

1) previous format with 8 groups of 4 with KO
2) UEFA wants more matches? 8 groups of 4 than 4 groups of 4 like in early 2000's
3) current format.

Clubs not being competitive has nothing to due with the format but with how much income each club/league generates and how its distributed. Champions league is more competitive than 90% of the leagues where only 2 or 3 teams have real chances of winning it.

Even in the past Europeans Cup hadn't so much diversity like in last years. Besides Netherlands, a giant a that time only a few far from top leagues won it. When football grew, money got concentrated like in other industries.

English people were the only ones to understand how to generate value and now they have a league that others can't compete just by themselves. Without UEFA prize money, competitiveness would be much lower.

Single legs ties aren't part of European Cups "DNA". Are not a good way to define merit. 2020 produce results that wouldn't in other way. I like unpredictability but with merit not by artifical gambling. I want to see teams like Villarreal, Ajax, Atalanta beating rivals with same conditions not with artifical rules.
This isn't Kings League

Single legged ties now are part of the DNA, in the same way that group stages have become part of the DNA.

Returning to 2 group stages is never happening.

Clubs not being competitive does have a large amount to do with the format and their habit of favouring a tiny % of clubs in a tiny % of leagues. For the vast majority of leagues, doing badly in Europe has consequences: a loss of places or clubs starting earlier. In the last decade UEFA has made it clear that, a for a few favoured leagues, it has no consequences and they will move the goalposts when it happens to protect those favoured leagues.

When the English league had a few shaky seasons and was in danger of falling out of the top 4 and losing its 4th Champions League place, they changed the rules so that the top 4 would have 4 places.

When Serie A had 2 direct qualifiers and the third competing in qualifying rounds, the 3rd Serie A team lost in qualifying half the time. UEFA responded by giving not only the 3rd Serie A team a direct group stage spot, but the fourth as well.

The 3rd French team lost in qualifying most of the time and when they did qualify, lost 5 of their 6 group games. "So sorry about that" said UEFA, "we'll give the 3rd French team direct entry to the group stage and change the rules so the 4th Ligue 1 team now enters the Champions League and late in qualifying as well."

Complete bias and the antithesis of footballing competition since results on the pitch no longer matter.

[diyx]

Why such animosity to single-leg KO ties ?

In 2020 in Portugal they were played from QF on and worked reasonably well.

Also, JohnHarts model does not even require single-leg KOs; the current calendar will allow double-leg PO1 and PO2 (as right now).

Something needs to be done to REBALANCE league phase and KO. Yes, KO is very important, but league phase is LARGER than KO for most teams. Given the disparity among teams, big clubs can absolutely afford just coasting through league phase, without putting much effort. This waters down the product and decreases fans' interest.

Much of the spirit of European competitions stems from double-leg KO games. I really love the time in between the games, there is so much tension and imagination. Often, both matches are completely different. Therefore, I really like them from a fan's perspective.

From a fairness perspective, they are also beneficial. The more you play, the higher are the chances for the better team to advance. Nowadays the home field advantage is almost negligible, so I believe playing 2 matches is bettter for the stronger team than playing a single game at home.

[rpo.castro]

How would you do it?

I think the change is worse than the previous situation, ignores the elephant in the room that favouring a few clubs in a few leaguesleads to a lack of competition and achieves nothing except an extra safety net for clubs who need it least. If they had to have the "all in league" it should have stayed at top 16.

1) previous format with 8 groups of 4 with KO
2) UEFA wants more matches? 8 groups of 4 than 4 groups of 4 like in early 2000's
3) current format.

Clubs not being competitive has nothing to due with the format but with how much income each club/league generates and how its distributed. Champions league is more competitive than 90% of the leagues where only 2 or 3 teams have real chances of winning it.

Even in the past Europeans Cup hadn't so much diversity like in last years. Besides Netherlands, a giant a that time only a few far from top leagues won it. When football grew, money got concentrated like in other industries.

English people were the only ones to understand how to generate value and now they have a league that others can't compete just by themselves. Without UEFA prize money, competitiveness would be much lower.

Single legs ties aren't part of European Cups "DNA". Are not a good way to define merit. 2020 produce results that wouldn't in other way. I like unpredictability but with merit not by artifical gambling. I want to see teams like Villarreal, Ajax, Atalanta beating rivals with same conditions not with artifical rules.
This isn't Kings League

Single legged ties now are part of the DNA, in the same way that group stages have become part of the DNA.

Returning to 2 group stages is never happening.

Clubs not being competitive does have a large amount to do with the format and their habit of favouring a tiny % of clubs in a tiny % of leagues. For the vast majority of leagues, doing badly in Europe has consequences: a loss of places or clubs starting earlier. In the last decade UEFA has made it clear that, a for a few favoured leagues, it has no consequences and they will move the goalposts when it happens to protect those favoured leagues.

When the English league had a few shaky seasons and was in danger of falling out of the top 4 and losing its 4th Champions League place, they changed the rules so that the top 4 would have 4 places.

When Serie A had 2 direct qualifiers and the third competing in qualifying rounds, the 3rd Serie A team lost in qualifying half the time. UEFA responded by giving not only the 3rd Serie A team a direct group stage spot, but the fourth as well.

The 3rd French team lost in qualifying most of the time and when they did qualify, lost 5 of their 6 group games. "So sorry about that" said UEFA, "we'll give the 3rd French team direct entry to the group stage and change the rules so the 4th Ligue 1 team now enters the Champions League and late in qualifying as well."

Complete bias and the antithesis of footballing competition since results on the pitch no longer matter.

You clearly not reading what I said.

1) UEFA since beginning uses home and away ties. From the start in the 50's where it would have been easier (logistically) and cheaper to do one leg ties. Even in secondary competitions, with the exception of matches in neutral venues, mostly the final, and more recently the preliminary round of champions league and the exceptional COVID year. A tiny amount (1% or less?) doesn't make that European DNA, no. Single leg ties is a foreign body to European cups.

2) you asked what options would I do, not UEFA would do. UEFA won't go for double group stages but won't go either for your propose. It will keep this format, as it should. You can't change format just after 8 months of it. Thats insane.

There is no problem with the format. The problem is that the results aren't the ones you would like to have, so you would like to play match maker and stir things up over and over to see if you get different results. You wouldn't because your are starting from wrong conclusions.

You draw simple conclusions and appoint simple solutions to complex situations. You treat football as just a sport in a bubble and forget all the context and all the external factors.

You based your analysis on myths and false populist claims that look as appealing as wrong as they are.

Facts: even when football was just a sport not a industry you had this European champions outside big leagues: celtic, steaua, red star, benfica and porto. France only got. So much for competitiveness and diversity.

Facts: clubs from eastern block even in non full capitalist era were only competitive with the back of the state. Only steaua and red star won. World evolved, rich countries became richer, and so the clubs, state left most east clubs. This is the root.

The creation on Premier League was a turning point. It is a league with no comparison with any national league. Last placed team gets so much more money than the champion of Italy for example, the country who got 5 spots.
Without UEFA money the gap between Premier League and the remaining would be insane.

You can't ask for money and not giving anything else in return. People pay to watch big clubs. I m not talking about you I m talking globally. Sponsors pay to have the big clubs playing, the best players. If you say "I will cut the star clubs to half and double the minnows" you can't expect to get the same. And you can expect clubs left out and sponsors to created a side competition.

And for the format, now just 8 months after the start you say that we don't have enought top 8 teams in QF. Lets bend the rules to make that happen artifically. Lets put teams that lost their ties on the pitch, on QF, and force teams that conquered that place on the pitch, to be out. Lets just do it.

If your top teams kept being eliminated at first round, after the byes, what will you do? Give them more byes? After 10 year with no top 4 teams reaching SF, will you put top 2 direct into SF? Or top team directly to the final? Where this over awarding stops? And where is the benefit of it? Messing the KO that are absolutely fine just to try (TRY) to stir league stage? League stage wasn't that exciting (surprise, surprise) but did we seen complete B teams? Teams cleary just being there not playing? Didn't top teams go full gas? Didn't teams like PSG fight till end to survive? Whats the problem? Liverpool was eliminated?

Better end KO and just do a complete League stage.

[Renard207]

I would scrap ‘pairing pot’ and do simple unseeded v seed for the play off and 1/8 finale. From quarterfinal do random draw as before (keep #1 and #2 apart until final match), I miss the draw after second leg of 1/8 finale.

[BurningStorm]

Odds for reaching the next round:

Bayern 1.50
Inter 2.55

Arsenal 2.30
Real 1.60

Barcelona 1.22
Dortmund 4.25

PSG 1.27
Aston Villa 3.75

[Lyonnais]

WhoScored marks after the KO rounds



Top players

8.30 Raphinha (Barcelona, AML, 28, BRA)
8.03 Malik Tillman (PSV, MC, 22, USA)
7.78 Lamine Yamal (Barcelona, AMR, 17, ESP)
7.65 Vinicius Junior (Real Madrid, FW, 24, BRA)
7.63 Harry Kane (Bayern, FW, 31, ENG)
7.60 Florian Wirtz (Leverkusen, AMC, 21, GER)
7.57 Ousmane Dembélé (Paris, FWR, 27, FRA)
7.55 Karim Adeyemi (Dortmund, AMR, 23, GER)
7.54 Nuno Mendes (Paris, DL, 22, POR)
7.53 Rodrygo (Real Madrid, FWR, 24, BRA)
etc.


Best XI

..................................... Vinicius Jr (R.Madrid) .................................
...... Raphinha (Barcelona) - F.Wirtz (Leverkusen) - L.Yamal (Barcelona) .........
........................ M.Tillman (PSV) - A.MacAllister (Liverpool) ....................
N.Mendes (Paris) - N.Otamendi (Benfica) - Marquinhos (Paris) - A.Hakimi (Paris)
..................................... D.Riznyk (Shakhtar) ...................................


U21 Players

7.78 Lamine Yamal (Barcelona, AMR, 17, ESP)
7.29 Joao Neves (Paris, MC, 20, POR)
7.10 Jamie Gittens (Dortmund, AML, 20, ENG)
etc.


Best per club

8.30 Raphinha (Barcelona, AML, 28, BRA)
7.65 Vinicius Junior (Real Madrid, FW, 24, BRA)
7.63 Harry Kane (Bayern, FW, 31, ENG)
7.57 Ousmane Dembélé (Paris, FWR, 27, FRA)
7.55 Karim Adeyemi (Dortmund, AMR, 23, GER)
7.21 Kai Havertz (Arsenal, FW, 25, GER)
7.18 Yann Sommer (Inter, GK, 36, SUI)
7.18 Morgan Rodgers (Aston Villa, AMC, 22, ENG)

8.03 Malik Tillman (PSV, MC, 22, USA)
7.60 Florian Wirtz (Leverkusen, AMC, 21, GER)
7.53 Antoine Griezmann (Atletico, FW, 33, FRA)
7.39 Alexis MacAllister (Liverpool, DMC, 26, ARG)
7.24 Igor Paixao (Feyenoord, FWL, 24, BRA)
7.18 Nicolas Otamendi (Benfica, DC, 37, ARG)
6.99 Jonathan David (Lille, FW, 25, CAN)
6.75 Simon Mignolet (Club Brugge, GK, 37, BEL)