It's the same type of argument as "couldn't beat Stoke on a wet pitch", total nonsense and became such a joke as they humiliated teams.
How many City players get into Pep Guardiola's Best XI?
- Thread starter Martial
- Start date
One thing to note is Guardiola is a WAY, WAY better manager in 2024 than he was in 2011
Not mostly because of Messi. Xavi and Iniesta are also far ahead of any City player and that was the heart of the team. Xavi and Iniesta are both in the conversation for the greatest midfielder ever, there is no City equivalent, not even DeBruyne.
The rest of what you said here is not that relevant, different Barca sides under different coaches from what we are discussing. Also, the Bayern team you reference played nothing like Pep's City play.
Disagree with this, and honestly now that I think about it, yeah, this version of City might be a notch below regardless of Messi. The 17-19 version, that one is much closer. And Bayern, if you do this experiment, take out Messi and Robben/Lewandowski, Bayern might be even better than Barcelona individually
Last edited:
What do you disagree with? That Xavi and Iniesta are 2 of the greatest midfielders ever? That's simply an incorrect opinion, if so. Or do you disagree that DeBruyne is not on their level? I mean, that's more debatable, but I don't think that's a particularly controversial opinion either.
Re the rest of the squads, there's a reason people in this thread are picking their teams and including very few City players (if any). The City guys are top players and they have a lot of strength in depth, but their best players are not as good as Barca's best players and Bayern's best players, for the most part.
Neuer
Alves Puyol Pique Alaba
Xavi Rodri Iniesta
Robben Messi Ribery
I love Villa but Ribery the better winger.
Think Rodri compliments far more than Busquets but it'd tough. But I think overall, Rodri is far stronger.
Alves Puyol Pique Alaba
Xavi Rodri Iniesta
Robben Messi Ribery
I love Villa but Ribery the better winger.
Think Rodri compliments far more than Busquets but it'd tough. But I think overall, Rodri is far stronger.
I disagree about Iniesta being in the conversation for best midfielders ever - that's Xavi, there is no conversation to be had here - and I disagree on Iniesta being better than De Bruyne
(Also it's kinda irrelevant. De Bruyne's comparison is Messi, not Iniesta)
Honestly, defenders are a wash, Valdes is the worst gk he had out of the 3, and outside of Messi, he had Eto'o for a year and Villa for a year but in a dimished role, he's had better at Bayern and City both
Midfielders sure, at Barcelona he had the best midfielders overall
Though I like the synergy at City better. Think City players elevated each other to a greater degree thanks to a combination of Guardiola's coaching and their own complementary skillsets. City really is the place where Guardiola got to build his "ideal" team
Oh giorno…I’m sorry you hit your head today. Well wishes and a speedy recovery!
Neuer
Alves Puyol Pique Lahm
De Bruyne Rodri Xavi
Messi Lewandowski Iniesta
2 for me.
Alves Puyol Pique Lahm
De Bruyne Rodri Xavi
Messi Lewandowski Iniesta
2 for me.
After your blasphemous opinions regarding prime Barcelona, we decided that you deserved some punishment.
100%. Pep probably would too.
They were O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D. Like Sacchi's Milan, they were good because they were precursors, wouldn't fare so hot these days
[They really wouldn't. They'd probably still be great but nowhere near that level of domination. They'd be closer to City]
Rodri does so much more than Busquets. He does everything Busquets did and more, including scoring goals. Rodri probably scored more this season than Busquets did in his whole Barça career.
I lived in Barcelona during the Barça peak years and went to a lot of games. Busquets was a decent player, but very lucky to be in that team. Rodri, on the other hand, is hugely noticeable when he’s missing (if that makes sense. Well, you know what I mean).
You completely undersell busquets.
Giorno has to underplay that Barcelona team. Only explanation for some of his shockers in this thread
What they did to Real on a few occasions was colossal bullying on a football field.
What they did to Real on a few occasions was colossal bullying on a football field.
“If you watch the whole game, you won’t see Busquets, but if you watch Busquets, you will see the whole game” - del Bosque
Peak Busquets is on another level to Rodri. He would go through whole games at the highest level on the biggest stage and not lose the ball. He also had one of the greatest positional senses and awareness in the whole of the sport.
It’s ludicrous to say he was lucky to get in the team.
Why was Busquets lucky to be in that team?
Who else should Barca have picked?
Pep's Barcelona team is getting overblown to mythical proportions with every year that passes due to selective memory where people only remember their highs but forget how short it lasted and how soon they began fading away.
That Barca team's reputation as the best team ever is based on just one season (2010/11) when they indeed looked like an unstoppable force. Before that they were great but beatable and looked human. And only a season later they fell off in 2011/12 despite not only keeping all their key players and their coach but also adding Fabregas and Alexis in the summer, and Jordi Alba in the next summer, and Messi being in the best form of his life.
In 2011/12 they only won a Copa del Rey and lost to an aging Chelsea team that finished 5th in the Premier League. In 2012/13 they got demolished by Bayern. in 2013/14 they had a trophyless season. That's despite keeping all their players and reinforcing. It was only with Suarez in 2014/15 and the MSN trio that they got back on top.
If Xavi-Busquets-Iniesta was really such an unstoppable force of nature and a perfect midfield, they would have had such a fall off during 2011-14 years where they were pretty much still in their prime (maybe Xavi aged a bit but he was still only 31-34 years old during that period). And keep in mind that Messi was in his absolute best years during that period as well, scoring almost 100 goals in 2012 calendar year. If they didn't have the literal best version of the best player of all times in their team, they'd struggle to even challenge for trophies. Meanwhile City could play without a striker and still win the best league in the world.
Barcelona trio got a lot of initial advantage because they were simply pioneers of that system and were one step ahead of everybody for some time when the only plan that other managers had to beat them was to park the bus. So there was this WOW factor as we were seeing something new in football. But as other teams began figuring them out, they faded away.
Meanwhile Manchester City has been a machine for 7 years straight now with only one slightly off season, and it doesn't seem like they're going to stop anytime soon, despite losing players and key players aging. So clearly, City must have something over Barcelona and City players deserve more recognition in all-time debates.
Also pointing out that City cheated is irrelevant in this case. Yes, City cheated/doped into being an elite tier club. But Pep could have assembled the same squad in any other elite club. It's not like City has been building galactico squads adding a 200 million Neymar-type signing every year. If City never cheated/finacially doped, Pep would have just gone to some other superclub in Europe like Juventus, PSG, United or Chelsea and build a similar type of squad there. All of the players that City bought during his time were in financial reach of the clubs I mentioned at the time they bought them, and Pep could have easily built such squads in those clubs, if he was given the trust and patience.
So complaining about City cheating is only relevant when you want to point out that City should have been in place as an elite superclub, but as they are they aren't doing anything another superclub wouldn't have been able to provide Pep with. Players like Rodri, Ruben Dias, De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva etc. could have easily been purchased by other elite tier clubs in Europe if Pep had been there instead of City.
The City team is legit and is probably the most terrifying team in history of football to face as league competition.
Don't get me wrong, I still believe that Barcelona 2008-12 team was way more talented that current City team, probably twice as talented, but that doesn't mean they would win a football match against them. Recent years have shown us that is all about systems and tactics, and that's the way that football evolved. And the current City team has much better athletes than that Barcelona team too.
That Barca team's reputation as the best team ever is based on just one season (2010/11) when they indeed looked like an unstoppable force. Before that they were great but beatable and looked human. And only a season later they fell off in 2011/12 despite not only keeping all their key players and their coach but also adding Fabregas and Alexis in the summer, and Jordi Alba in the next summer, and Messi being in the best form of his life.
In 2011/12 they only won a Copa del Rey and lost to an aging Chelsea team that finished 5th in the Premier League. In 2012/13 they got demolished by Bayern. in 2013/14 they had a trophyless season. That's despite keeping all their players and reinforcing. It was only with Suarez in 2014/15 and the MSN trio that they got back on top.
If Xavi-Busquets-Iniesta was really such an unstoppable force of nature and a perfect midfield, they would have had such a fall off during 2011-14 years where they were pretty much still in their prime (maybe Xavi aged a bit but he was still only 31-34 years old during that period). And keep in mind that Messi was in his absolute best years during that period as well, scoring almost 100 goals in 2012 calendar year. If they didn't have the literal best version of the best player of all times in their team, they'd struggle to even challenge for trophies. Meanwhile City could play without a striker and still win the best league in the world.
Barcelona trio got a lot of initial advantage because they were simply pioneers of that system and were one step ahead of everybody for some time when the only plan that other managers had to beat them was to park the bus. So there was this WOW factor as we were seeing something new in football. But as other teams began figuring them out, they faded away.
Meanwhile Manchester City has been a machine for 7 years straight now with only one slightly off season, and it doesn't seem like they're going to stop anytime soon, despite losing players and key players aging. So clearly, City must have something over Barcelona and City players deserve more recognition in all-time debates.
Also pointing out that City cheated is irrelevant in this case. Yes, City cheated/doped into being an elite tier club. But Pep could have assembled the same squad in any other elite club. It's not like City has been building galactico squads adding a 200 million Neymar-type signing every year. If City never cheated/finacially doped, Pep would have just gone to some other superclub in Europe like Juventus, PSG, United or Chelsea and build a similar type of squad there. All of the players that City bought during his time were in financial reach of the clubs I mentioned at the time they bought them, and Pep could have easily built such squads in those clubs, if he was given the trust and patience.
So complaining about City cheating is only relevant when you want to point out that City should have been in place as an elite superclub, but as they are they aren't doing anything another superclub wouldn't have been able to provide Pep with. Players like Rodri, Ruben Dias, De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva etc. could have easily been purchased by other elite tier clubs in Europe if Pep had been there instead of City.
The City team is legit and is probably the most terrifying team in history of football to face as league competition.
Don't get me wrong, I still believe that Barcelona 2008-12 team was way more talented that current City team, probably twice as talented, but that doesn't mean they would win a football match against them. Recent years have shown us that is all about systems and tactics, and that's the way that football evolved. And the current City team has much better athletes than that Barcelona team too.
Last edited:
Rodri ahead of Busquets is basically blasphemy
Busquets was great for Barca alongside Xavi and Iniesta, but what did he do that Rodri doesn't for City ? That midfield was great in possession and controlling the tempo (granted Busquets is also individually better at this than Rodri who mind you, is also very good at it), but that's the only thing he was individually better than Rodri at.
Rodri is basically City's DM and the one dictating the tempo of the team, has a wider pass range than Busquets, carries the ball better than Busquets, is physically stronger, defensively better and is a way bigger offensive threat than Busquets ever was.
I don’t understand why some people are so insistent on finding a spot for KDB.
He’s not as good of a midfielder as Xavi or Iniesta.
He’s not as good of a winger as Robben or Ribery.
So why exactly should there be a space for him in the team?
He’s not as good of a midfielder as Xavi or Iniesta.
He’s not as good of a winger as Robben or Ribery.
So why exactly should there be a space for him in the team?
He was perfect for that team in its peak. It’s not that he was bad or made loads of mistakes, he allowed the others to play.
After the other players had left, he looked poor (admittedly age also played a factor).
Rodri does Busquets’ job and more. City’s with and without Rodri record speaks volumes.
Busquets has been an integral part of the most dominant club team in the world and the most successful International team. Rodri can do more things than Busquets for sure but overall, Busquets is on another level.
That's like saying Ronaldo is better than Messi because he can head the ball and is two footed.
When it's obvious, it's obvious
The comparison is more of the one with Iniesta, than of Xavi, and there's absolutely nothing outrageous about anyone saying KDB is better than Iniesta.
Iniesta was better at keeping possession (just like Busquets in comparison to Rodri) and was also a better dribbler but KDB's passing range is superior and his offensive input in general is way superior to Iniesta's.
He was also an integral part of those teams when they also got demolished (CL with Barca and 2014 WC with Spain).
And that comparison doesn't hold as Rodri can do things that Busquets did (granted Busquets was slightly better at rotating possession), but Rodri has strengths that Busquets didn't.
We're obviously talking about them at their peak
The bigger problem is that he operates in similar channels as Messi does.
It's redundant to have both and Messi is obviously miles better than KDB.
There's not a single City player who'd get a Pep best XI.
Neuer instead of Valdes/Ederson, Robben/Lewandowski depending on where you put Messi, Alaba at lb, rest is just the Barca-lineup imo.
KDB, despite how good he is, doesnt break into that midfield, and neither does Rodri imo.
So, i don't think any of the City-players get into his best xi.
KDB, despite how good he is, doesnt break into that midfield, and neither does Rodri imo.
So, i don't think any of the City-players get into his best xi.
Well, you're a Madrid fan so that explains your lack of appreciation of the sublime genius that is Andres Iniesta and your general simmering hatred towards anything to do with Pep's Barca. I'm sure it annoys you that many people rate that team as the greatest ever despite Madrid winning all those CLs recently......
Nah, my issue with Iniesta is that he was never more than the 2nd best player on any of his teams. He brought a specific skillset which made him extremely valuable to those teams, and he was an all tim great player of course, but put him on a different team and he'd probably be seen as an equal if nor likely lesser player than Di Maria(who is an all time great himself, to be sure. Not saying Iniesta would have been a chump outside barcelona/spain here)
Essentially imo he was like a better/more successful version of Pogba - capable of elevating an already great team into the stratosphere, but not a team-altering player. I tend to rate the latter more. Just to make my point clearer: if you dropped Messi, Xavi or De Bruyne onto Sheffiled United, they finish midtable. If you dropped Iniesta on that team, he's invidiually amazing and they still finish dead last
No it’s not. Messi can obviously do things that Ronaldo can’t, whereas Busquets has no standout quality that Rodri doesn’t have.
Busquets was a useful - but replaceable - cog in an efficient machine. Rodri is the engine in the City machine.
These are just some awful comparisons, with respect. Pogba?!?! Di Maria?!?! Why not choose players that Iniesta actually somewhat resembles?
I reject your general point though, because it is speculative. The argument where you say 'put X on Y team and he wouldn't be as good' is always faulty because you have no way of knowing what he would or wouldn't be, you are just guessing. The only solid assessments have to be based on what he actually did, not what he might have done.
Also, I don't agree that he was always the second best player on his team. Obviously Messi is better, but you could make a strong argument that Iniesta was Spain's best player. He was the one who was man of the match in a World Cup final and a Euros final for starters.
Those comparisons are indicative, not 1:1. Though both Pogba and Di Maria had quite a bit in common with Iniesta
I mean not quite. Iniesta was still in his prime in '14 and '16, and he was the team's best player by then...
but we're trying to argue with me on a subjective topic. You are not gonna change my mind
Yep, same goes for everyone else. And on that basis, I don't think he was better than other others players who must also be assessed by what they have done
I think if you believe Iniesta was better than Xavi you don't understand this sport on a fundamental level. Individual games are just that - Di Maria was motm in the copa final and had been the best player on the pitch until Scaloni subbed him out in the WC - doesn't make him better than Messi
The bolded is complete nonsense. Who is better is obviously debatable, but what you just said is silly.
Your example also doesn't work, because you reference a World Cup final in which the man of the match was Lionel Messi FFS.
Pogba and DiMaria bear no resemblance to Iniesta, other than the fact that they're all midfielders (with ADM obviously being a wide player and AI also playing wide at times). Also, no one thinks those guys are remotely on Iniesta's level, only you do because you have some unsubstantiated belief that Iniesta would have had a career like theirs if he didn't play for the teams he played for. Again, unfounded speculation.
However, you are right that we are arguing over something that is subjective and so it's pointless to continue. I'm happy with the fact that yours is very much a minority, fringe, tinfoil-hatted view, though of course you are entitled to it, and that doesn't necessarily make it wrong
Neuer
Walker
Busquets
Puyol
Lahm
Xavi
Rodri
Iniesta
Messi
Lewandowski
Foden
I'm deploying Busquets a bit out of position but he's that good I can't leave him out and 3 city players get in!
Walker
Busquets
Puyol
Lahm
Xavi
Rodri
Iniesta
Messi
Lewandowski
Foden
I'm deploying Busquets a bit out of position but he's that good I can't leave him out and 3 city players get in!
Walker over Alves is hilarious
Neuer
Alves - Puyol - Pique - Lahm
Rodri - Busquets
De Bruyne - Xavi - Iniesta
Messi
Alves - Puyol - Pique - Lahm
Rodri - Busquets
De Bruyne - Xavi - Iniesta
Messi
According to you yes. I just may have a different opinion. So why hilarious?
Replaceable yet has never been replaced when he was at his peak. Make it make sense please.