When juxtaposed, UEFA Champions League Groups C and D show us the best and worst about the competition’s group phase, with neither group having a monopoly on the good qualities.
The difference in the groups’ depth highlights the problem Champions League accepts with four-team groups. When a tournament spreads its teams into many small groups, it risks having a very weak group when one of the teams expected to be good (say, Atlético Madrid) can not replicate the previous season’s form. Contrast that with Group C, where FC Zürich’s competitiveness in their three matches highlights the problem of using UEFA coefficients to rank teams from leagues that are not well represented in European competitions. Yes, Group C is the much more interesting group, but for reasons that may not be fair to Zürich or Marseille.
Those clubs can not feel too hard done, considering both have had their chances to take control of their destiny. To open group play, Marseille lost to a then-poor Milan. Two weeks ago, Zürich was unable to take advantage of their historic San Siro victory when they hosted Marseille.
That inconsistency has been the drawback to Group C. In any competition, league, or level of play, you want to see the good teams perform well, if for no other reason than to give credence to the product you are watching. If the good teams perform well and lose, that’s one thing. If teams are just being erratic, well (to resort to a bit of a truism) those teams may not be good.
This post is continued at World Soccer Reader, where I will again be doing a week’s worth of previews and reviews on the UEFA Champions League matches.