Barcelona: Charged with corruption .... again!

That was a "Barça a la Madrileña" for once.

Another very poor performance. Slightly worrying when your best player (by far) is your goalkeeper. Other than the 3 points, the team could hardly have asked for a worse performance ahead of the Inter game on Wednesday. To put it mildly. Koundé, Araújo and Christensen are sorely missed and it shows.

That defensive formation with Baldé on the right back, Alonso as a CB with Piqué and Alba on the LB, is a recipe for disaster against a team like Celta in a already very busy schedule. I hope that we will never see that formation in action again.
 
CruyffMaradonaMessi said:
That was a "Barça a la Madrileña" for once.

Another very poor performance. Slightly worrying when your best player (by far) is your goalkeeper. Other than the 3 points, the team could hardly have asked for a worse performance ahead of the Inter game on Wednesday. To put it mildly. Koundé, Araújo and Christensen are sorely missed and it shows.

That defensive formation with Baldé on the right back, Alonso as a CB with Piqué and Alba on the LB, is a recipe for disaster against a team like Celta in a already very busy schedule. I hope that we will never see that formation in action again.
Click to expand...
It was injury enforced so you can't really blame Xavi but I'd have definitely started Roberto at RB instead of Balde. More worrying though looks the drop off in quality when Dembele isn't playing/firing and Ferran plays on that left wing - he's awful.
 
wr8_utd said:
It was injury enforced so you can't really blame Xavi but I'd have definitely started Roberto at RB instead of Balde. More worrying though looks the drop off in quality when Dembele isn't playing/firing and Ferran plays on that left wing - he's awful.
Click to expand...

To me it also looked like the team was "dead" physically which is another worrying sign.

I also struggle to see what the tactics (or lack thereof) of Xavi are. Ferran Torres is beyond bad as well.

All in all it shows that the "project" is a new one and far from the finished product. It is comical to witness that some RM fans consider this Barça as the league favourites.
 
CruyffMaradonaMessi said:
To me it also looked like the team was "dead" physically which is another worrying sign.

I also struggle to see what the tactics (or lack thereof) of Xavi are. Ferran Torres is beyond bad as well.

All in all it shows that the "project" is a new one and far from the finished product. It is comical to witness that some RM fans consider this Barça as the league favourites.
Click to expand...
I think people got carried away with the early season form. I do agree that the players are already looking a bit spent physically even though Xavi does like to rotate most of them (apart from Lewa who could really do with a game off). I think it's also a matter of time before Pedri picks up an injury and then Barca will really be in trouble.
 
Interesting words yesterday from Mateu Alemany at the assembly.

"Mateu Alemany, warned that Barça will have as a priority the players who finish their contract, taking into account the economic situation of the Barça club."

There is talk of a meeting with Jorginho, it would be a good signing without paying a transfer. Another could be Iñigo Martínez.
 
Niemans said:
Interesting words yesterday from Mateu Alemany at the assembly.

"Mateu Alemany, warned that Barça will have as a priority the players who finish their contract, taking into account the economic situation of the Barça club."

There is talk of a meeting with Jorginho, it would be a good signing without paying a transfer. Another could be Iñigo Martínez.
Click to expand...

There are many good options out there for "free" next summer. Kanté, Jorginho, Tielemans, Gundogan, Keita etc. just for the midfield positions.

However most interestingly Skriniar's contract expires next summer. I think that he would be a better option than Iñigo Martínez as a replacement for Piqué. Balde-Skriniar-Araújo-Koundé would be a very strong defensive formation.

However the most important area, if you ask me, is a replacement for Busquets. The club has had a long time to find the right replacement. I am not sure who that should be, but I am not convinced by Jorginho at all. I would love a more dynamic midfielder. Someone with the same profile like Yaya Touré during his time at Barça between 2007-2010 would be perfect. We need more muscles and athleticism in the midfield. A Jorginho-Gavi-Pedri midfield would have the same problems and challenges like the current one with Busquets.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
That's kind of the issue. I don't think anyone is denying that the PL has more top teams. But having more of them doesn't mean they are better.

Liverpool amount to half of those appearances, three and one win. The rest are individual appearances by City, Chelsea, and Spurs. Chelsea are saved by their win, their record outside of it is quite mediocre. City have also objectively underperformed in this competition.
Click to expand...

What is this argument, about which league is better atm or whether City or RM is the best team? Or is it to do with Barca and Arsenal?

I remember having to work long and hard to argue back in the nineties that La Liga was overtaking Serie A as the strongest league, with not only RM and Barca being strong, but also Valencia, Deportivo La Coruña and Atletico shaking top Italian teams. United was more or less the only English side being at all competitive in Europe at the time. The telling thing was how many teams were competitive in Europe from each league.

The fact that English teams take the wolfs share of SF places in European competitions these last five years, shows that the PL is the stronger league, as it should be expected, given the economical situation. That City have won the PL with a 100 pts, while not winning the CL once (going out against Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea incidentally), shows that they are clearly the world’s beat team at winning leagues, while they are not the absolute best cup side, even if still good. This, as everyone knows, has to do with Pep, who is the best in the world at winning against far inferioe teams, but have a consistently soft underbelly against just slightly inferior teams who play cynically well. Solskjær had his number, ffs.

Real Madrid have for a generation had some of the best players imaginable for winning CL titles in Modric, Kroos, Casemiro, Benzema, Ramos, Curtois, Bale, Di Maria, Ronaldo. I doubt a midfield of Modric, Kroos and Casemiro would win the PL for Ancelotti, but for the CL, it’s some of the best you can imagine.
 
Grande said:
I doubt a midfield of Modric, Kroos and Casemiro would win the PL for Ancelotti, but for the CL, it’s some of the best you can imagine.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't think your hypothesis is falsifiable.

I was able to carry on several empirical tests with a time machine and force all of Modric, Kroos and Casemiro to sign for relatively strong English clubs 10 years ago. Unfortunately I was unable to convince any of them to choose Ancelotti as the man to lead the project.
 
You asked earlier,
Grande said:
What is this argument, about which league is better atm or whether City or RM is the best team? Or is it to do with Barca and Arsenal?
Click to expand...
I'll elaborate by going back to the earlier post that made me go aggro:
Son said:
[Real Madrid] are basically at best a top 4 Premier League team these days.
Click to expand...

A key point here is that a "top 4 Premier League team" is not a meaningful distinction. There may be a top 4 that determines CL qualification, but the top 4 category does not actually make sense. The PL has had, for the last 5 years, 1-2 teams at the very top, followed by a massive gap, and then a group of teams fighting for the rest of the European spots. The gap between 3rd and 7th has been equal or smaller than the gap between 1st/2nd and 3rd. There is no top 4, there is a top 2 and the 3-8 crew.

The 3-8 crew haven't been great. I don't think it should be controversial to say this. United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Spurs have generally not played great football in the last 5 seasons. They've had multiple managers and a lot of failed transfers. Their point tallies in the league have been low. None of these clubs' fans have been happy with the way the last 5 seasons have panned out except maybe Chelsea (due to the CL win). When they lose in the league people don't think it's because the league is so amazing now; they think the clubs are just a bit shit.

Are Manchester City better than Real Madrid and Barcelona? Absolutely. Over the last five years, they are better on most metrics. Liverpool? Less so; depends on how you weight different things. Still better than Barcelona over the last five years but maybe not Real Madrid.

But the rest? I don't think there is any way to look at metrics (league points, goals, defensive record, European performance, matchups) and come to the conclusion that Real Madrid aren't better than all these teams. The differences are enormous.

If they were smaller you could say, well, the PL is harder, you get a few less points. But let's be real. Real Madrid average 86 points per season in the last three, won the league with 86 (with 4 matches to spare, after which they dropped a ton of points), and won the CL. These PL teams that aren't in the top 2 are lucky to average 70. I'm sorry but the league isn't so good that the curve is 16 points.
 
With the Fortnite flop now gotten rid of permanently, most of the deadwood has been disposed of by the new board. All within a very short time. The few remaining deadwood are bound to leave in the upcoming summer.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
You asked earlier,

I'll elaborate by going back to the earlier post that made me go aggro:


A key point here is that a "top 4 Premier League team" is not a meaningful distinction. There may be a top 4 that determines CL qualification, but the top 4 category does not actually make sense. The PL has had, for the last 5 years, 1-2 teams at the very top, followed by a massive gap, and then a group of teams fighting for the rest of the European spots. The gap between 3rd and 7th has been equal or smaller than the gap between 1st/2nd and 3rd. There is no top 4, there is a top 2 and the 3-8 crew.

The 3-8 crew haven't been great. I don't think it should be controversial to say this. United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Spurs have generally not played great football in the last 5 seasons. They've had multiple managers and a lot of failed transfers. Their point tallies in the league have been low. None of these clubs' fans have been happy with the way the last 5 seasons have panned out except maybe Chelsea (due to the CL win). When they lose in the league people don't think it's because the league is so amazing now; they think the clubs are just a bit shit.

Are Manchester City better than Real Madrid and Barcelona? Absolutely. Over the last five years, they are better on most metrics. Liverpool? Less so; depends on how you weight different things. Still better than Barcelona over the last five years but maybe not Real Madrid.

But the rest? I don't think there is any way to look at metrics (league points, goals, defensive record, European performance, matchups) and come to the conclusion that Real Madrid aren't better than all these teams. The differences are enormous.

If they were smaller you could say, well, the PL is harder, you get a few less points. But let's be real. Real Madrid average 86 points per season in the last three, won the league with 86 (with 4 matches to spare, after which they dropped a ton of points), and won the CL. These PL teams that aren't in the top 2 are lucky to average 70. I'm sorry but the league isn't so good that the curve is 16 points.
Click to expand...

Well, I can see that that post has sparked some annoyance. It’s derogatory tone doesn’t help, and it’s a an ill defined measure. As you imply - what does it mean to be ‘a top 4 club at best’. The winner is a part of top 4, right? Or is it ‘the fourth placed team’?

Real Madrid in the PL would be a fun experiment, to be sure. I would place my bets on 2nd or 3rd, depending on werher Liverpool are due a 90 pts a game year or not. It would be a tainted experiment, though, because referees judge differently, so RM would have to adjust to a less protected way of playing - not for a game, but for a whole year. That might ad some extra slip ups.

I think you’re exaggerating the weaknesses of the 3-8 teams, and listening to fan banter is a way to go to exaggerate that. Looking at European competitions is more realistic way. Last five years, 7 times have PL sides have reached the CL semi’s (4 different teams), 5 times La Liga has been represented (3 teams). In the Europa league semis, 7 times PL has been there, 4 times La Liga. (It pains me to exclude the year United won). 14-9 in total. Other leagues are way behind. M City and L’pool explains 5 of these, RM and Barca 4. 9-5 in SF placings for the 3rd and down teams for this general period. This points towards PL 3-8 aren’t so dire as 3-8 placed teams regarded.
 
I would love a crack at them in the Europa and the guaranteed banter from our fans if we were to get a result (which we never seem to do against the Spanish teams). Forza Inter in any case.
 
Grande said:
I think you’re exaggerating the weaknesses of the 3-8 teams, and listening to fan banter is a way to go to exaggerate that. Looking at European competitions is more realistic way. Last five years, 7 times have PL sides have reached the CL semi’s (4 different teams), 5 times La Liga has been represented (3 teams). M City and L’pool explains 5 of these, RM and Barca 4.
Click to expand...
Right. So PL teams that aren't Liverpool or City have played 2 CL semifinals in 5 years. That is better than La Liga but not a huge difference.

Is it great? I don't think 2 is a high number. United should have done better. Chelsea, as I have said before, is saved by a somewhat freakish win. Their other seasons haven't been very good. Same with Spurs except they didn't win. But La Liga hasn't done great either. If you look at it by individual teams, it is Villareal, a team that only qualified via the EL, that is making the rest look good. Atletico and Sevilla haven't been great in the CL.

And that raises a question, what do we mean by a 'league' when we judge via European competition. Do we mean "the common traits of all clubs from a country" or just "the sum total of the clubs"? Because the former is hard to quantify. The latter is inevitably distorted by things like "external ownership."
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Right. So PL teams that aren't Liverpool or City have played 2 CL semifinals in 5 years. That is better than La Liga but not a huge difference.

Is it great? I don't think 2 is a high number. United should have done better. Chelsea, as I have said before, is saved by a somewhat freakish win. Their other seasons haven't been very good. Same with Spurs except they didn't win. But La Liga hasn't done great either. If you look at it by individual teams, it is Villareal, a team that only qualified via the EL, that is making 3-4 look good. Atletico and Sevilla haven't been great in the CL.
Click to expand...
How is it not a huge difference? Every English team (bar Utd sadly)that’s qualified for the CL over the last 3/4 years have reached a final with the only reason we don’t have all 4 winning a CL is because they played each other.
Only 4 teams can qualify for the CL, it’s not as if England can have 5/6 different finalists!
Spanish football is what happens when the league is based around 2 teams and one of those teams have fallen off a cliff. I think it’s clear now what level Barca are on with their performances so far this season
 
cyberman said:
How is it not a huge difference? Every English team (bar Utd sadly)that’s qualified for the CL over the last 3/4 years have reached a final with the only reason we don’t have all 4 winning a CL is because they played each other.
Click to expand...
Statements like these are why it's hard to take PL cheerleading seriously. There is no support or basis for this, at all.

Spurs have played a single European final in the 21st century. They have won no trophies of any kind in over a decade. And you are telling me you believe it is a certainty that they would have won the Champions League if they had played any other team than the one they faced. You can't do anything but laugh when you read stuff like this.
 
Last edited:
The actual record of Real Madrid against PL teams in the last 5 seasons is 6W3D6L. Barcelona's is 4W2D. Atletico's is 4W4D6L. Sevilla's is 3W4D2L. The only club with more losses than wins is Atletico.

This is not a small sample. It is 44 games, with the total being 17W13D14L. Even if you look only at the last three years, in which Barcelona have not played any PL teams, the record is 9W5D12L.

These are not hypothetical games. These are actual games that were played in a football pitch, and the results do not suggest that top PL teams are far ahead of top Liga teams. If people want to imagine games in their head and say that English teams would win all of those, that is their right. But everyone else is within their rights to dismiss that as imagination, not reality.
 
Last edited:
This is a bit of a silly discussion as it is a little like comparing apples and oranges unless you compare just the CL records but even that comes with a caveat.

Firstly, owing to there actually being a record it has to be said that the Spanish clubs have done better than English clubs in the CL if you look at in terms of trophies and head to heads.

However, this does take away some context. First is that Spain has a very different league to England. English teams have a lot harder job week in, week out for a variety of reasons, such as;

1) Arguments seem to be had about the quality of the top 7-8 teams and how comparable they are. This I think is looking at things the wrong way. In England the real differential is the bottom 10 vs the bottom 10 in each league. In England the quality of those teams is a lot higher. That means PL teams have a lot more difficult games during the course of a season than the top teams in Spain. This needs to be factored in when discussing head to head records as English teams have to put more effort in, week in, week out.

2) The level of difference between the Top 3 in Spain to those those that make up their Top 7 is much greater than the difference in England were it is much closer. As a result, things again are tougher for the English sides as they get punished much more for things such as poor recruitment, poor patches of form, significant injuries as those behind will apply pressure that isn't really seen to the same degree in Spain. This also impacts them as they move forward as they cannot assure CL football with the confidence Spainish teams can. City are really the only exception to this; more on this later.

3) England has a much more physical league and refs that allow stuff that wouldn't be acceptable in Spain. This means the teams generally get roughed up a lot more over the course of a season which impacts them as the season progresses.

4) The big two in Spain have a lot more pedigree in European competitions owing to their surpriority than has lasted for decades. This gives them a mental advantage. Teams like Spurs and City don't have this. Chelsea took the best part of a decade to build this. Comparing teams like Spurs and City to Real and Barca isn't really fair on the psychological front. A fairer example would be to compare them to Atleti/Sevilla/Valencia.

This is also reflected in how English teams have had 9 different finalists and 5 different winners, whereas Spain has had 4 different finalists and 2 winners.

Stretch this to the EL and CWC and it reads:

Spain - 6 different Winners and 10 finalists
England - 8 different Winners 12 different finalists

The competition for places in European football has always been more in England.

5) The Heysel ban really screwed England's competitiveness up for for a while. Additionally, Everton would've had a good shout in the EC when they should've qualified to extend England's CL/EC winners/finalists record.

I think the best way of describing it is that Spain has a higher ceiling but a lower floor, whereas England has a lower ceiling but a higher floor.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Right. So PL teams that aren't Liverpool or City have played 2 CL semifinals in 5 years. That is better than La Liga but not a huge difference.

Is it great? I don't think 2 is a high number. United should have done better. Chelsea, as I have said before, is saved by a somewhat freakish win. Their other seasons haven't been very good. Same with Spurs except they didn't win. But La Liga hasn't done great either. If you look at it by individual teams, it is Villareal, a team that only qualified via the EL, that is making the rest look good. Atletico and Sevilla haven't been great in the CL.

And that raises a question, what do we mean by a 'league' when we judge via European competition. Do we mean "the common traits of all clubs from a country" or just "the sum total of the clubs"? Because the former is hard to quantify. The latter is inevitably distorted by things like "external ownership."
Click to expand...

Yes,, one league claiming 14 out of 40 SF spots is great. 9 of those coming from the second best level of teams in that league, is great. It points towards that league having both the best top teams, and the best top breadth. The second best batch of PL teams reaches much more SFs (9) than all the teams in Bundesliga (5) Serie A (4) and Ligue 1 (4) - that’s including Bayern, Dortmund, Juve, Inter and PSG, and excluding City and Liverpool. Of course they are not consistent - that’s why they are the second best batch and not the best batch, it’s like that in every league in the world.

When you add that this second best batch (Chelsea, United, Arsenal, Spurs, even West Ham) are the best group of runners up in Europe, yet still struggles to pick up 70 points consistently against lower half PL teams, it also indicates that the lower half teams have a relatively high level. When United beat Real Sociedad 4-0 and Roma 6-2, while struggling to get points off of Sheffield United and Burnley, it’s indicative of that. Two results can be a fluke, that’s why I think SF spots is more interesting, because over five years it gives a pretty clear picture, and always did.

Villarreal have done very well in Europe for a few years now, likewise Sevilla, no need to discredit them. That they are inconsistent in La Liga just shows that La Liga is still a competitive league, even if it has been better.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
The actual record of Real Madrid against PL teams in the last 5 seasons is 6W3D6L. Barcelona's is 4W2D. Atletico's is 4W4D6L. Sevilla's is 3W4D2L. The only club with more losses than wins is Atletico.

This is not a small sample. It is 44 games, with the total being 17W13D14L. Even if you look only at the last three years, in which Barcelona have not played any PL teams, the record is 9W5D12L.

These are not hypothetical games. These are actual games that were played in a football pitch, and the results do not suggest that top PL teams are far ahead of top Liga teams. If people want to imagine games in their head and say that English teams would win all of those, that is their right. But everyone else is within their rights to dismiss that as imagination, not reality.
Click to expand...

I think you must have missed Barca losing to Liverpool here?

You could see Barca’s stat here as indicative of La Liga strength vs PL, but it would also overlook the picture if you compare them with the PL second best, Liverpool in all games in Europe. Also real games which were played.

Barca went out against
QF: Roma 4-4 a.g.
SF: Liverpool 3-4
QF: Bayern 2-8
Ro16: PSG 2-5
Group stage 3rd behind Benfica, EL QF: Eintracht Frankfurt 3-4

Liverpool:
F: Real Madrid 1-3
Winners
Ro16: Atletico 2-4
QF: Real Madrid 1-3
F: Real Madrid 0-1

Unless you want to compare Barca to City.

I’m not talking about ‘that far’ difference, just that there is a clear difference, on all levels.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Statements like these are why it's hard to take PL cheerleading seriously. There is no support or basis for this, at all.

Spurs have played a single European final in the 21st century. They have won no trophies of any kind in over a decade. And you are telling me you believe it is a certainty that they would have won the Champions League if they had played any other team than the one they faced. You can't do anything but laugh when you read stuff like this.
Click to expand...
They probably would though.
 
Grande said:
I think you must have missed Barca losing to Liverpool here?
I’m not talking about ‘that far’ difference, just that there is a clear difference, on all levels.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think I miswrote it as draw, should be 4W1D1L.
I know you are not talking about 'far difference,' it is other posters. I agree that the PL is better overall. I agree that the top 2 of the PL are better than the top 2 of La Liga, top 3-4 of PL are better than top 3-4 of La Liga, and so forth. I disagree that a 4th team of the PL is better than the champions of La Liga.
 
Grande said:
You could see Barca’s stat here as indicative of La Liga strength vs PL, but it would also overlook the picture if you compare them with the PL second best, Liverpool in all games in Europe.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this information is more relevant than "direct ties between Spanish teams and English teams."

Barcelona's stat there is not "indicative" of strength vs the PL. It is strength vs the PL. It is the record of playing against PL teams, directly. You are comparing them to Liverpool in all games in Europe because the number against PL teams is favorable to Barcelona. If Barcelona had simply lost every game against the PL and won every single game against everyone else we wouldn't be slicing and dicing the numbers this way.
 
Last edited:
Iker Quesadillas said:
I don't believe this information is more relevant than "direct ties between Spanish teams and English teams."

Barcelona's stat there is not "indicative" of strength vs the PL. It is strength vs the PL. It is the record of playing against PL teams, directly. You are comparing them to Liverpool in all games in Europe because the number against PL teams is favorable to Barcelona. If Barcelona had simply lost every game against the PL and won every single game against everyone else we wouldn't be slicing and dicing the numbers this way.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say it was more relevant, rather that it is also relevant. But to be honest, I think it is even more relevant, for two reasons. The first is that it is skewed. The four best Spanish teams vs ANY English team. How would the same statistic look like for City, Liverpool, Chelsea and United? The second is that head-to-head is never used to overrule the total results to decide which team is best. If Barca beats Chelsea, then goes on to lose to Frankfurt and Benfica, while Chelsea goes on to beat RM and Man City, noone will take from this that Barca must be better than Chelsea because they won the head-to-head game. (Imagined example).

On the whole, this doesn’t really matter much, as we seem to agree on the main points below.

Iker Quesadillas said:
Yeah I think I miswrote it as draw, should be 4W1D1L.
I know you are not talking about 'far difference,' it is other posters. I agree that the PL is better overall. I agree that the top 2 of the PL are better than the top 2 of La Liga, top 3-4 of PL are better than top 3-4 of La Liga, and so forth. I disagree that a 4th team of the PL is better than the champions of La Liga.
Click to expand...
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
You asked earlier,

I'll elaborate by going back to the earlier post that made me go aggro:


A key point here is that a "top 4 Premier League team" is not a meaningful distinction. There may be a top 4 that determines CL qualification, but the top 4 category does not actually make sense. The PL has had, for the last 5 years, 1-2 teams at the very top, followed by a massive gap, and then a group of teams fighting for the rest of the European spots. The gap between 3rd and 7th has been equal or smaller than the gap between 1st/2nd and 3rd. There is no top 4, there is a top 2 and the 3-8 crew.

The 3-8 crew haven't been great. I don't think it should be controversial to say this. United, Chelsea, Arsenal, and Spurs have generally not played great football in the last 5 seasons. They've had multiple managers and a lot of failed transfers. Their point tallies in the league have been low. None of these clubs' fans have been happy with the way the last 5 seasons have panned out except maybe Chelsea (due to the CL win). When they lose in the league people don't think it's because the league is so amazing now; they think the clubs are just a bit shit.

Are Manchester City better than Real Madrid and Barcelona? Absolutely. Over the last five years, they are better on most metrics. Liverpool? Less so; depends on how you weight different things. Still better than Barcelona over the last five years but maybe not Real Madrid.

But the rest? I don't think there is any way to look at metrics (league points, goals, defensive record, European performance, matchups) and come to the conclusion that Real Madrid aren't better than all these teams. The differences are enormous.

If they were smaller you could say, well, the PL is harder, you get a few less points. But let's be real. Real Madrid average 86 points per season in the last three, won the league with 86 (with 4 matches to spare, after which they dropped a ton of points), and won the CL. These PL teams that aren't in the top 2 are lucky to average 70. I'm sorry but the league isn't so good that the curve is 16 points.
Click to expand...
Madrid would still get nowhere close to winning a Premier League title in the past few years. They can’t compete against City we all know this.

They might finish 2nd or 3rd in a good year but then other times they might finish 4th or even 5th on a bad one. They aren’t pushing to 90 points which is pretty obvious and would be more around the 70 - 80 mark.
 
Dave Smith said:
This is a bit of a silly discussion as it is a little like comparing apples and oranges unless you compare just the CL records but even that comes with a caveat.

Firstly, owing to there actually being a record it has to be said that the Spanish clubs have done better than English clubs in the CL if you look at in terms of trophies and head to heads.

However, this does take away some context. First is that Spain has a very different league to England. English teams have a lot harder job week in, week out for a variety of reasons, such as;

1) Arguments seem to be had about the quality of the top 7-8 teams and how comparable they are. This I think is looking at things the wrong way. In England the real differential is the bottom 10 vs the bottom 10 in each league. In England the quality of those teams is a lot higher. That means PL teams have a lot more difficult games during the course of a season than the top teams in Spain. This needs to be factored in when discussing head to head records as English teams have to put more effort in, week in, week out.

2) The level of difference between the Top 3 in Spain to those those that make up their Top 7 is much greater than the difference in England were it is much closer. As a result, things again are tougher for the English sides as they get punished much more for things such as poor recruitment, poor patches of form, significant injuries as those behind will apply pressure that isn't really seen to the same degree in Spain. This also impacts them as they move forward as they cannot assure CL football with the confidence Spainish teams can. City are really the only exception to this; more on this later.

3) England has a much more physical league and refs that allow stuff that wouldn't be acceptable in Spain. This means the teams generally get roughed up a lot more over the course of a season which impacts them as the season progresses.

4) The big two in Spain have a lot more pedigree in European competitions owing to their surpriority than has lasted for decades. This gives them a mental advantage. Teams like Spurs and City don't have this. Chelsea took the best part of a decade to build this. Comparing teams like Spurs and City to Real and Barca isn't really fair on the psychological front. A fairer example would be to compare them to Atleti/Sevilla/Valencia.

This is also reflected in how English teams have had 9 different finalists and 5 different winners, whereas Spain has had 4 different finalists and 2 winners.

Stretch this to the EL and CWC and it reads:

Spain - 6 different Winners and 10 finalists
England - 8 different Winners 12 different finalists

The competition for places in European football has always been more in England.

5) The Heysel ban really screwed England's competitiveness up for for a while. Additionally, Everton would've had a good shout in the EC when they should've qualified to extend England's CL/EC winners/finalists record.

I think the best way of describing it is that Spain has a higher ceiling but a lower floor, whereas England has a lower ceiling but a higher floor.
Click to expand...
You could argue state owned clubs like City have smashed through the ceiling. They are a different monster entirely. Has there ever been a more dominant side than this City team week in week out?

They would be a match for even Pep’s great Barcelona team. I believe defensively they are better and score more goals quite possibly too on average.

I struggle to see any side in history beating them over a calendar year. They might be all things considered the best side we’ve seen in football even with no CL’s to their name so far. That competition is a lottery in the late rounds.
 
Barcelona can still qualify if they win the two remaining games.
 
Bastian said:
:wenger: aye, twas too soon. However, Inter only need to not lose against Viktoria Plzen at home and we'll get Barca in Europa.
Click to expand...

They need to win if they lose to Bayern and Barca win their last two games. Still highly unlikely that Barca goes through which is absolutely beautiful
 
GatoLoco said:
Barcelona can still qualify if they win the two remaining games.
Click to expand...
Only if Barca wins 2 games and Inter does not win Viktoria Plzen since Inter has better head to head (both will have the same points)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.