The "Top" 4.

[Tristan]

You mean was the most successful english club? Because you can't use the term 'are' as if you're still winning trophies because you aren't winning anything nowadays.

No, 'are' doesn't imply that.
'are' means, currently are the most successful english club because of their past amount of trophies. They are, because they currently have the most to date.

[:G.M.T:]

Ok, ok fair enough I interpret that differently to most people. But from a person who is from lets say germany they look at our top 4 and see that the most successful club hasn't won a trophy for years.

[Tristan]

Still the most successful, because they've won the most out of all the clubs in the league over so many years.

[:G.M.T:]

Fighting a losing battle here so going to stop :p It will all change in time

[Tristan]

Lol.
If a German looked, they'd say "best" rather than most successful.
And it sure will, Man Utd ftw.

[CJW93]

Or just keep the same system?
The fans decide. I mean any team can have a bad day on any given day.

[Xeck]

It's probably been said already but the they're called the 'Big Four' because in the last 5 seasons the four teams currently placed 1st-4th have finished 1st-4th, with the exception being the 04-05 seasons where Liverpool finished 5th and still qualified for the Champions League because they won it.

To your second point, the Champions League would lower significantly in importance if it only featured the winners of leagues around Europe. The competition would be severely lacking not only in length but in quality, because some world-class teams would miss out. The Champions League has been won by teams that didn't win their domestic league the season beforehand which clearly shows that you don't have to win your league to be a quality team in Europe. Without the top 3 or 4 teams around Europe's leagues featuring in the Champions League would lose it's tradition and would be far from one of the best tournaments in the world. Cardiff.City made a good point above that champions of leagues lacking in quality would be in the Champions League whereas far superior teams in the bigger leagues would miss out.

[lPinoy]

Liverpools last five premiership years:
2007/2008 - Currently 4th

2006/2007 - 3rd
2005/2006 - 3rd
2004/2005 - 5th (Qualified with exception)
2003/2004 - 4th
2002/2003 - 5th (Did not qualify for Champions League)

Liverpool have not been the most successful (in the league) in recent years but have over achieved, having won the league more than 15 times in earlier seasons.

Arsenal havent won the league in the past few years but they are a quality side and should be able to play, if they end the season as one of the 'big four'
Same goes with Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and the rest of the clubs in Europe.

[Hoodstar]

Well, I've had this argument with my friends for a while now, and I want some other opinions on it.
The top 4 is generally classed as Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United & Liverpool. But, in the past 5 years, how many times have Liverpool contested for the title? Ok sure, Liverpool have won the Champions league, but how many Premier league titles? I mean look at them this season, what have they done? Alright, through to the semi finals of the Champions league, but where do they lie in the league?

This also brings me onto another argument, this one about the Champions league. I personally believe that the only teams that should play in the Champions League should be the CHAMPIONS ONLY. Not the top 4, because that just ruins the name of 'Champions'. I mean ok sure, this year it's given us the chance to see how well English teams spar up against European opposition, but it still defies the name.

Your views on these two points?

On your first point.. I don't think the term "top 4" has any relation to contesting the title, or how well they compete on the european stage.. it just generalises the 4 teams who consistently finish in the top 4 every year, which is Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool. Can't proclaim someone to be a "top 4" team if they don't finish in the top 4.. :S.

Secondly, I think people in England and Europe would much prefer to have 4 of englands best teams to compete in the CL instead of having the champions of unknown countries getting automatic access to the group stages.. I mean, teams who NEVER win any matches, or barely compete against bigger teams. What is the point in them being there? It'll just mean they'll automatically finish bottom and results in a garunteed 6 points home and away for the bigger teams, I'm sure they'd prefer better competition.

[Nereo]

If you just have the champions of each european league in champions league it just makes it a joke, with teams like AC milan, arsenal, Barcelona and others missing from the tournament becuase of there lack of Titles would make it rubbish. Afterall, the Norwegian champions arent going to be much of a challeng for Real Madrid, plus there would only be like 16 teams in the whole thing. So that wouldnt work

Also the big argument about Liverpool and there successes, most came in the 70s and 80s, today they arent any where near the force they were, it wont tak long for Man Utd to overtake them in terms of league titles won and soon they will lose the status of "most succesful english club" simply because they arent winning enough. Afterall you look at this season and you see them having to battle with everton and other teams to secure fourth spot, if they were really one of the giants of the game they would have secured that long ago and have been looking to challenge for the title.