Europa League

[Chris]

Meh and they're playing at the Ataturk!

[Chazza]

Spurs v Fiorentina.

[Chris]

Demba Ba is a cunt!

[danperkins]

Tough game, decent side.

[Lecter]

Tough game, decent side.

Any side will be tough and decent in comparison to us

[ukfootballfan101]

They are top of the league in Turkey, played 13, won 9, drawn 2, lost 3 scored 20, conceded 11.

Ba has scored 8 in 10 in the league and 5 in 4 in the europa league.

[Lecter]

Thats us out then

[ronanm]

Boring Benitez team beat Besiktas 8-0 at Anfield last time the sides met

[Daniel 7]

...in a game that was investigated for dodgy betting

[ChrisDR1968]

Liverpool vs. Borussia Monchenbladbach

Now there's a tie for nostalgia

I was at Anfield for the European Cup semi-final second leg in 1978. Amazing atmosphere and we won the game 3-0.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfdvpu4jhw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfdvpu4jhw[/ame]

[BigChief]

...in a game that was investigated for dodgy betting

[alonso14]

If we lose to arsenal on sunday this is our only hope of getting back into the champions league next season and we should do everything possible to win it.

[Phoenix07]

There has been a mix of views regarding the Europa League. Here is a piece by Grobbelrevell on RAWK about the merits on being in it, and the traditional arguments used.

It's that time of year again. Stop and listen for a moment and you'll hear it beneath the hum of life's organised chaos; The narrative. As the light is finally extinguished on the Champions League dream for the cluster of clubs who ultimately fall short, it emerges once more. The Europa League is more trouble than it's worth, we're told. There's just too many games and even more air miles. And the schedule! Dear God don't get them started on the schedule. Thursday-to-Sunday, you say? Monstrous, utterly monstrous. Who in their right mind would wish to encounter such horrors, I ask you, let alone actively and consciously court them. Well, no-one, it would seem. As the media clamour to re-hash last years annual dismemberment of Europe's secondary competition, the respective clubs supporters squable over who hates it more and the race for fourth quickly becomes a race for eighth simply to avoid it all. The narrative. It's depressingly predictable and painfully boring, but is it based on fact?

Let's take a look at some of the arguments against the Europa League.

1) There's too many games.

In interview with The Liverpool Echo last week, Glen Johnson was asked whether qualifying for next seasons competition was in Liverpool's best interests. Overlooking the fact that the loaded question was a perfect example of the narrative in itself, his initial response was both blunt and perfectly atuned to the viewpoint of the majority; "You do get a lot more games".

So, is Glen right? Are there really a lot more games?

To begin to answer this question the first thing to state is that both European competitions follow the same format. Three two legged qualifying rounds, which clubs may be required to partake in depending upon their respective route of entry, followed by a group stage made up of six fixtures, and then - and this is where it differs - either three two-legged knock-out rounds for the Champions League, or four for the Europa League, leading ultimately to the final.

So fundamentally then, there's one two-legged knock-out round between the two competitions. Two games. One at home. One away. Narrative aside, that's it. To progress from the group stage to the final of the Champions League you'll play thirteen games in total. For the Europa League it's fifteen. There's an assumption here that you qualify for the group stages automatically, of course, which as previously referenced will depend entirely on your route of entry. The fourth placed team in England will enter the Champions League at the third qualifying round and be required to play an additional two-legged knock-out prior to the groups. The fifth placed team will qualify for the Europa League group stage directly. Both teams will therefore face exactly the same number of fixtures (15), should they progress to the respective finals, yet how often do you hear the too many games argument when discussing the merits of finishing fourth?

There's negligible difference between the two competitions, and should the two north-west rivals from either end of the M62 finish fourth and fifth this season there will be no difference whatsoever in relation to their respective upcoming European schedules. There is most certainly not a lot more games, as Glen put it.

2) There's more travel.

"I have been involved in the Europa League. You never felt like there was any respite from the travelling and trips to hotels." ~ Phil Neville.

This is another of the core arguments leveled against the Europa League. That you're more likely to face long-haul trips to the furthest reaches of Europe, and therefore more time consumed by travel leads directly to less preparation time for subsequent fixtures and an increased likelihood of physical and/or mental fatigue in the players.

So again, is it true? Are you more likely to face longer trips in the Europa League?

In order to investigate this I have chosen to define long haul in the context of European travel as greater than or equal to three hours in flight time. So, Liverpool to Milan, at 2 hours and 2 minutes would be short haul. Liverpool to Bucharest, at 3 hours and 23 minutes, would be long haul. I'm aware that this is a rather basic definition, but it's also reasonable and simple to evaluate. So, using this definition of long haul and looking at the current seasons European competitions, which of the participants would qualify as such and what are your odds of drawing them?

Making up the group stage of the Champions League you'll find eight clubs that fit the bill:-

Olympiakos (Greece), APOEL FC (Cyprus), Galatasaray (Turkey), PFC Ludogoretz Razgrad (Bulgaria), FC BATE Borisov (Belarus), FC Shakhtar Donetsk (Ukraine), PFC CSKA Moscow (Russia) and FC Zenit (Russia).

Thirty-two teams make up the initial group stages of the competition, and eight of those would ensure a change of pants and a toothbrush were required for the away trip. Again, to keep things simple i'm going to ignore the various policies associated with the draw and focus on the overall numbers. Eight from thirty-two, which equates to a 25% overall chance of facing what could reasonably be considered to be a lengthy trip.

For the Europa League there were thirteen such clubs:-

Asteras Tripois FC (Greece), Panathinaikos FC (Greece), PAOK FC (Greece), Apollon Limassol FC (Cyprus), Beşiktaş JK (Turkey), Trabzonspor AS (Turkey), FC Astra Giurgiu (Romania), Qarabag FK (Azerbaijan), FC Metalist Kharkiv (Ukraine), FC Dynamo Kiev (Ukraine), FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine), FC Dinamo Moscow (Russia), FC Krasnodar (Russia).

Forty-eight teams enter the group stages of the competition this time, and thirteen will ensure a minimum six hour round-trip. So, thirteen from forty-eight, which equates to a 27% chance. So, at a basic level, there's an additional 2% chance of facing a lengthy trip in the Europa League in comparison to the Champions League. Minimal difference, to say the least.

To take this a step further and look at a working example we can compare the respective European campaigns of the two Merseyside clubs for this season. Liverpool were of course eliminated following the group stage so for that reason I have only compared the two for that period. For Everton, they faced trips to Lille (1 hour and 8 minutes), Wolfsburg (1 hour and 39 minutes) and Krasnodar (4 hours and 23 minutes), bringing a total of 7 hours and 30 minutes in flight time to the respective destinations, or 15 hours in total, factoring in return journeys. Liverpool on the other hand, headed to Basel (1 hour and 45 minutes), Madrid (2 hours and 17 minutes) and Razgrad (3 hours and 30 minutes), bringing a total of 7 hours and 32 minutes, or 15 hours and 4 minutes overall. Four minutes difference, and ironically, four minutes more for the Champions League participant.

So were Everton dealt a significant blow by qualifying for Europe's second competition? Did their European campaign bring with it a lot more travel in comparison to their neighbors from across Stanley Park, as Phil Neville intimated? No, it was almost identical, in fact, in line with the underlying odds of facing a long haul return journey within each competition.

3) You get a reduced turn-around.

“Playing on a Thursday and then on a Sunday is a totally different feeling to playing on a Wednesday and a Saturday. The fact you get home on a Friday in the early hours, then you’re in the hotel on the Saturday night for the Sunday games, plays a part psychologically.” ~ Phil Neville.

Also known as the Thursday-to-Sunday argument. This is a popular one, and it argues that the Europa League brings with it a schedule that reduces your turn-around pre and post fixture and in turn adversely impacts your chances in those fixtures that immediately follow a Europa League game. It's an argument that is not leveled at the Champions League, strangely, with the general perception being that the schedule there is preferable.

Lets start here by once again comparing the schedules of the two Merseyside clubs for this season. What were the schedules faced within each competition, and how many full days did they afford either side of the European fixture?

Starting with Everton, they faced the often quoted and apparently dreaded Thursday-to-Sunday schedule on five occasions during the group phase, with the other being Thursday-to-Monday. For all six European fixtures the league game that preceded it was played on the previous Saturday. That in turn ensured 4 full recovery days prior to every European group stage fixture, and 2 full days following on five occasions, with the sixth offering 3 full days post European match. That's a total of 24 days prior (an average of 4 per game) and 13 days post (an average of 2.16). Factoring in days on both sides of the fixture, Everton enjoyed an average of 6.16 full recovery days for each game played.

For Liverpool it wasn't quite so consistent, with The Reds schedule including Sunday-Wednesday-Saturday and Saturday-Tuesday-Saturday both on two occasions, and Saturday-Wednesday-Saturday and Saturday-Tuesday-Sunday both the once. What this meant overall then, was that Liverpool enjoyed a total of 13 full recovery days prior to European group stage fixtures (an average of 2.16 per game) and 16 days following a European fixture (an average of 2.66). Factoring in all of the full days either side of the European fixture, The Reds enjoyed an average of 4.83 full recovery days for each game played.

So, what we're seeing here - in spite of the narrative - is the Champions League affording less in the way of overall, cumulative recovery time in comparison to its second tier counterpart. The bulk of that additional time offered by the Europa League is however found in the build up to the fixture, with marginally (0.5 days) less recovery time post-match overall, on average. So the turnaround post-match, slight or not, is potentially less. Would that additional half day make a significant difference though? Well, lets next take a look at how the two clubs fared in the immediate aftermath of European commitments.

Looking at their respective results what we find is in fact an identical record that reads:-

P6 | W2 | D1 | L3

Not great for either club at first glance, but to add a little context here; two of the defeats suffered by Everton were away to Manchester United and Spurs, whilst two of Liverpool's defeats were at home to Chelsea and away to Manchester United. All of them, arguably, fixtures in which the respective teams could reasonably be expected to drop points regardless of European commitments. Once again though, we find absolutely no difference between the Europa League and the Champions League in terms of knock-on effect. Totally different, as Phil Neville claims, is a stretch at best.

I think we need to acknowledge here that much of this is fluid depending on the particular scenario (how you qualified, who you draw etc), but overall, there really is negligible difference between the two competitions in any of the arguments put forward against the Europa League, despite what the narrative regurgitated by the majority would lead you to believe. If anything, traditionally smaller and weaker squads, coupled with a lack of consistent experience on the European stage for the majority of Europa League participants would offer a more legitimate explanation for a team struggling with the increased schedule, rather than placing blame at the door of the competition itself. That's the real difference, not the competition. And in reality, the potential benefits on offer within the Europa League outweigh the negatives.

Positives, you say? What are they?

1) Champions League qualification.

This is the big one, really. Ultimately, the aim of every club is to be involved in The Champions League. In the modern footballing landscape it's no exaggeration to describe it as a necessity for any club with genuine ambition due to the revenue and prestige that it offers. The Europa League provides a legitimate, realistic avenue directly into the group phase of the coming seasons Champions League for the winner. No qualification rounds. No stalling your summer transfer activity whilst you wait for the outcome. Guaranteed entry to the competition proper and the revenue that comes with it - unlike the club qualifying via fourth place in the league. For any of the English clubs outside of the Premier League's current top four, the Europa League arguably offers the most realistic route into the Champions League. All of Chelsea, Manchester City, Arsenal and Manchester United harbour greater resources than The Reds, making a top four finish, statistically, an outside bet. The Europa League offers a opportunity to circumnavigate that uncomfortable financial reality.

So, not only is there a major European trophy on offer in the short term (along with the roughly £17 million in prize money), but it brings with it the prospect of longer term progression.

2) UEFA co-efficient.

For a club looking to make an impact in European competition moving forward, this is an important consideration that cannot be overlooked. A good co-efficient rating ensures a higher seeding ahead of the draw and therefore an ability to avoid the strongest teams in the early stages. In short, a better co-efficient rating exponentially increases a clubs chances of success in European competition overall and the Europa League offers exactly that. Last season Benfica lost in the final of the Europa League. They achieved 30.983 co-efficient points, which was more than any club involved in European competition that season, with the exception of the two Champions League finalists, Atletico Madrid (37.600) and Real Madrid (39.600).

As things stand, Liverpool's co-efficient rating of 47.078 sees them directly below RSC Anderlecht and FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk, and just above AZ Alkmaar and FC Metalist Kharkiv. It's a rating that saw them placed into pot three ahead of the Champions League draw for the current season, resulting in a group containing Real Madrid and the extensively experienced Basel - and of course, an early exit. Can Liverpool afford to consciously discard The Europa League next season, should they qualify? Only if they wish to increase the likelihood of an early exit from any subsequent Champions League campaigns. On top of that there looms a scenario whereby the English Premier League could lose its fourth Champions League qualification spot should poor performance by English clubs on the continent continue. In other words, throwing the towel in now could result in the door closing considerably further in the longer term. That's a factor that every English club competing in Europe should be conscious of. I suspect the Italians very much are.

3) Experience.

For a club with genuine ambition and foresight, the Europa League should be seen as a route of progression towards future success. It offers an opportunity to gain experience of everything that European football entails, from the increased schedule, travel, atmosphere and of course, the different styles involved - but without the intense glare of Europe's main stage and the pressure that it brings. To harvest that experience can prove invaluable for a club and its playing staff and Atletico Madrid offer the perfect example of this in recent years. Having won the Europa League in both 2010 and 2012, they of course went on to reach the final of last seasons Champions League and in doing so have established themselves as one of the current powers of European football. Go a little further back and you find Porto doing the same thing under Mourinho. Winning the UEFA Cup (as it was then known) in 2003 before progressing on to lifting the Champions League the following season. Much of the core of the Liverpool squad which won the Champions League so dramatically in Istanbul in 2005 also won the UEFA Cup in 2001 as well. To consciously overlook the potential benefits of the experience on offer is to miss an opportunity.

4) Reputation.
Raheem Sterling was 10 years old and in primary school when Liverpool last won a European trophy, in 2005. Many of the emerging generation of European talent - of whom the club are actively targeting, lets not forget - will be in a similar situation. The glittering history of Liverpool Football Club will mean very little to them. It's about the here and now, and in recent years the club have failed to make an impression in European competition. In direct contrast to the opinion held within the British Isles, The Europa League retains a prestige and reputation on the continent and winning it would undoubtedly improve the reputation of the club and in turn the appeal for potential transfer targets. As previously referenced, there are various examples of clubs building towards greater success via the Europa League. It wasn't just the winning of the competition that engendered that progression, but also the reputation that it developed, which in turn allowed those clubs to retain their best talent, add to it, and to continue to build. Success breeds success, as the cliche goes.

Real Madrid, Ajax, Inter Milan, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Liverpool. Each of those clubs are engraved upon the Europa League trophy. Each of them built on that experience. Each of them enjoy an elite reputation in European competition as a result, and that reputation wasn't earned through willful elimination or even non-participation. Clubs currently assessing whether to take the Europa League seriously may wish to consider that fact. For some of them it could even prove the difference in the ultimate success or failure of their longer term targets. Liverpool included.

So with all of this in mind, should clubs take the Europa League seriously? If their ultimate aim is to gatecrash the top table, then yes, I believe so.

Should Liverpool? Absolutely.

https://grobbelramble.wordpress.com/...be-overlooked/

[Muddled]

So we ignore the opinions of the people that experience playing in the Europa League and the statistics showing a drop in league form (via the BBC) and dismiss it as the media narrative. And boy, does he like the word narrative.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

I'm not so certain it affects a squad any differently from playing in the Champions League with the only real difference being you know the results of your opponents/rival most weeks.

Pick up a team used to being mid/lower table and put them in the Champions League and they'd struggle just the same and Swansea and others have in the Europa, their squads are designed for league and domestic competitions.

We are a squad with ambitions of being in the Champions League and therefore should be much better equipped to challenge on all fronts. We've heard enough excuses this year from Rodgers about not having enough time to coach and you don't hear people bemoaning the Champions League. Its good practice for us and him, it holds some prestige, its another gateway to the CL and boosts our terrible co-efficient rating.