Nottingham forest glory years

  • Thread starter Deleted member 45378
  • Start date
I too am too young to remember but I’ve always been fascinated by Brian Clough so have read tonnes of books about that period. Viv Anderson man, what a player.

Must have been great to be a football fan back then when you seen provincial clubs like Forest rise from the 2nd Division to European powerhouse within a few years. You could dream that one day your club would follow suit.

Alas those days are gone.
Clough and his Forest/Derby are to blame for those days being gone marra.
The big boys didn’t like the likes of Derby n Forest winning the league and EC or WBA, Ipswich, QPR, Stoke, Burnley etc finishing above them regularly through the 70s. So they threatened the FL with a breakaway super league unless home teams were allowed to keep all of their home gate money. At the time the away team received 25% iirc which helped the smaller clubs create a more competitive league.
The FL agreed in 79 iirc and there’s been a fundamental change in the distribution of trophies ever since. Of course the big boys weren’t gonna stop there and regularly threatened more breakaways culminating with the PL split putting an even bigger %s of the available cash into their pockets.
Now of course it’s the European Super League they use to threaten the PL for more money and they’re the actual owners of the PL anyway! Cloughies to blame.

The sooner they go the better.
 


Clough and his Forest/Derby are to blame for those days being gone marra.
The big boys didn’t like the likes of Derby n Forest winning the league and EC or WBA, Ipswich, QPR, Stoke, Burnley etc finishing above them regularly through the 70s. So they threatened the FL with a breakaway super league unless home teams were allowed to keep all of their home gate money. At the time the away team received 25% iirc which helped the smaller clubs create a more competitive league.
The FL agreed in 79 iirc and there’s been a fundamental change in the distribution of trophies ever since. Of course the big boys weren’t gonna stop there and regularly threatened more breakaways culminating with the PL split putting an even bigger %s of the available cash into their pockets.
Now of course it’s the European Super League they use to threaten the PL for more money and they’re the actual owners of the PL anyway! Cloughies to blame.

The sooner they go the better.
Very good post mate, tool me back to those days
 
Don't read the Clough book by the mag twat who avoids mentioning Sunderland even though it was a place and a club close to his heart.
Wee?
Which every way you look at it, it’s undoubtedly harder to win the champions league now, for example no way in a million years would a Swedish team make the final now as Malmo did in 1979 when Forest beat them.
Worraloadofshite
 
Last edited:
I can’t see your logic that the title winners in Sweden, Austria and Switzerland would be more difficult to beat than second placed teams in Spain,Italy and England.

Of course it’s much harder to win nowadays.

Whether it should be called the Champions League is a different matter.

Typical run went summat like...

1st round a team from Malta, Albania. Iceland or RoI. Agg 10-0

2nd round a team from Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Agg 5-1

Semi final a team from Italy, Spain, Netherlands possibly Portugal, Agg 3-2

Team from Germany, Italy or Spain in the final. 1-0

Of course there was always the odd exception, but if you managed to beat a team from one of the stronger leagues in the early rounds you usually got an easier game further down the line.
 
You can lose 3/4 games and win it now man.
Got teams resting players against minnows when they’ve already won a group.
Load of shite

I don't like the current format. I much preferred the old way of 1 team from each country.

There are more games now, so obviously the competitive side is lost in the group stages, hence the resting of players.

It is still far more difficult now though as there are more good sides in there that you are capable of drawing. In the old format, you'd have just as much chance of drawing a minnow as you would drawing a top European side. You could be in the semi-final before being stretched.
Typical run went summat like...

1st round a team from Malta, Albania. Iceland or RoI. Agg 10-0

2nd round a team from Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Agg 5-1

Semi final a team from Italy, Spain, Netherlands possibly Portugal, Agg 3-2

Team from Germany, Italy or Spain in the final. 1-0

Of course there was always the odd exception, but if you managed to beat a team from one of the stronger leagues in the early rounds you usually got an easier game further down the line.

1982:

Aston VillaRound Bayern Munich
OpponentAgg.1st leg2nd legOpponentAgg.1st leg2nd leg
7–05–0 (H)2–0 (A)First round6–01–0 (A)5–0 (H)
2–2 (a)2–1 (A)0–1 (H)Second round4–10–0 (A)4–1 (H)
2–00–0 (A)2–0 (H)Quarter-finals3–12–0 (A)1–1 (H)
1–01–0 (H)0–0 (A)Semi-finals

Certainly for Villa, the only difficult opponents we faced in the lead up to the final were Berlin. Note also we played the "Russian" champions Kiev who were from the Ukraine so no Moscow or other Russian tams in it.
 
Last edited:
I don't like the current format. I much preferred the old way of 1 team from each country.

There are more games now, so obviously the competitive side is lost in the group stages, hence the resting of players.

It is still far more difficult now though as there are more good sides in there that you are capable of drawing. In the old format, you'd have just as much chance of drawing a minnow as you would drawing a top European side. You could be in the semi-final before being stretched.


1982:

Aston VillaRoundBayern Munich
OpponentAgg.1st leg2nd legOpponentAgg.1st leg2nd leg
7–05–0 (H)2–0 (A)First round6–01–0 (A)5–0 (H)
2–2 (a)2–1 (A)0–1 (H)Second round4–10–0 (A)4–1 (H)
2–00–0 (A)2–0 (H)Quarter-finals3–12–0 (A)1–1 (H)
1–01–0 (H)0–0 (A)Semi-finals

Certainly for Villa, the only difficult opponents we faced in the lead up to the final were Berlin. Note also we played the "Russian" champions Kiev who were from the Ukraine so no Moscow or other Russian tams in it.

Dynamo Berlin were East German champions. Wouldn't even say that was a tough game tbh.
 
Dynamo Berlin were East German champions. Wouldn't even say that was a tough game tbh.

Berlin was by far the toughest game we played en route to the final. They were very good in both legs. We saved a penalty in the away leg then broke away and scored with 5 minutes to go. They came and beat us at home but we went through on away goals.
 
Typical run went summat like...

1st round a team from Malta, Albania. Iceland or RoI. Agg 10-0

2nd round a team from Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Agg 5-1

Semi final a team from Italy, Spain, Netherlands possibly Portugal, Agg 3-2

Team from Germany, Italy or Spain in the final. 1-0

Of course there was always the odd exception, but if you managed to beat a team from one of the stronger leagues in the early rounds you usually got an easier game further down the line.

Yeah I agree and I don’t like all this over hyped modern day football the same as many others, but that doesn’t change the fact it was easier to win it in those days, thought that was obvious
 
I always think some of Clough's greatest work was from the mid 80s onwards when forest were a very competitive side, while also winning a few cups whilst Clough was a raging alcoholic

Without doubt one of the most fascinating football characters ever
Totally agree mate that side was great to watch very underrated.
Typical run went summat like...

1st round a team from Malta, Albania. Iceland or RoI. Agg 10-0

2nd round a team from Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, Agg 5-1

Semi final a team from Italy, Spain, Netherlands possibly Portugal, Agg 3-2

Team from Germany, Italy or Spain in the final. 1-0

Of course there was always the odd exception, but if you managed to beat a team from one of the stronger leagues in the early rounds you usually got an easier game further down the line.
Forest knocked out European Champions Liverpool in the first round. The draws weren’t seeded.
 
Last edited:
I understand the argument of why people believe it was easier to win in the old format but not sure I completely buy it. If all you had to do was avoid the other teams from the other big leagues, then why haven't all these clubs got multiple european cups from this era? Only Bayern have got a decent record in the 70's. Barca, Real, Juve, AC Milan, etc have a poor record in that era, with many of their victories in the 90's or 00's. The strength was spread around europe with many nations keeping their countries best players. It was also more difficult to qualify, less players in a squad, homegrown rule, etc. In my opinion, it's never been 'easier' in a certain period and both arguments have their own merit. I just think the English teams were the strongest in europe over that period, with number of winners in the late 70's and early 80's supporting that.
 
Get the group matches out of the way and you still have the same amount of knock out rounds.
I understand the argument of why people believe it was easier to win in the old format but not sure I completely buy it. If all you had to do was avoid the other teams from the other big leagues, then why haven't all these clubs got multiple european cups from this era? Only Bayern have got a decent record in the 70's. Barca, Real, Juve, AC Milan, etc have a poor record in that era, with many of their victories in the 90's or 00's. The strength was spread around europe with many nations keeping their countries best players. It was also more difficult to qualify, less players in a squad, homegrown rule, etc. In my opinion, it's never been 'easier' in a certain period and both arguments have their own merit. I just think the English teams were the strongest in europe over that period, with number of winners in the late 70's and early 80's supporting that.

It wasn't "all you had to do". Nobody said that. However, it certainly went a long way to helping - As you found out when you failed to "avoid" Forest in 81.

It was definitely easier to win when it was a knockout competition. You only had 1 team from each country involved & at that moment in time, the team might not have been the best in its own country. However, now you have the top 4 from the top countries and out of those 4, you will certainly have the CURRENT best team. Furthermore, usually, those 4 teams from each country make the knock out stages. Some would argue that this makes it 4 times as hard to win it.
 
Get the group matches out of the way and you still have the same amount of knock out rounds.


It wasn't "all you had to do". Nobody said that. However, it certainly went a long way to helping - As you found out when you failed to "avoid" Forest in 81.

It was definitely easier to win when it was a knockout competition. You only had 1 team from each country involved & at that moment in time, the team might not have been the best in its own country. However, now you have the top 4 from the top countries and out of those 4, you will certainly have the CURRENT best team. Furthermore, usually, those 4 teams from each country make the knock out stages. Some would argue that this makes it 4 times as hard to win it.
Liverpool won it in 1981, beating Real in Paris in the final. It was 78/79 when we played Forest.
 
Last 16 in 1980

Nottingham Forest 4–1 Argeș Pitești2–02–1
BFC Dynamo 4–3 Servette2–12–2
Dukla Prague 1–2 Strasbourg1–00–2
Ajax 10–4 Omonia10–00–4
Celtic 3–2 Dundalk3–20–0
Porto 2–2 (a) Real Madrid2–10–1
Hamburg 6–3 Dinamo Tbilisi3–13–2
Vejle 2–4 Hajduk SplitSaw

Last 16 in 2020


You cannot tell me it was harder to win back then.
 
Unlike the current Champions League there was far more quality across European leagues back then.

Forest beat Swiss team Grasshoppers in their first semi-final. Grasshoppers had beaten Real Madrid in the quarter final.

Liverpool beat Brugge in the final the year before. Brugge had beaten Atletico Madrid and Juventus to reach the final.

Some of the teams that appear in the group stage of the Champions League might be considered 'pushovers'.
We have had these discussions before comparing the old Europeon Cup with the Champions League. I take on board your post and a good argument can be made either way. However once we get to the knockout stage of the champions league I would think that in most seasons only the elite would be left.
 
I understand the argument of why people believe it was easier to win in the old format but not sure I completely buy it. If all you had to do was avoid the other teams from the other big leagues, then why haven't all these clubs got multiple european cups from this era? Only Bayern have got a decent record in the 70's. Barca, Real, Juve, AC Milan, etc have a poor record in that era, with many of their victories in the 90's or 00's. The strength was spread around europe with many nations keeping their countries best players. It was also more difficult to qualify, less players in a squad, homegrown rule, etc. In my opinion, it's never been 'easier' in a certain period and both arguments have their own merit. I just think the English teams were the strongest in europe over that period, with number of winners in the late 70's and early 80's supporting that.

If you look at it from the start of each tournament I agree with the view that it was easier in those days however if you look at it from this perspective. To win it you must:

A) Win your domestic league outright

and

B) Win the knockout tournament

Then I think it was just as difficult.

Villa has to finish above all of Liverpool, Forest, Ipswich over 42 games before earning the right the kick a ball in the European Cup.
 

Back
Top