Pep's Barcelona was really a dope team.
Pep's Barcelona vs Zidane's Real Madrid
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
You said: It's less prestigious but when it comes to difficulty then no.
That's clearly not true, only ONE club in the world has more EC/CL than league title(s) and it's clear why.
The EC/CL is harder to win. Simple logic.
Pep's Barca is defo a better team due to their sheer dominance in Spain + Europe and played a fantastic football. Don't think it's fair to use UCL-titles as an argument why Zidane's Madrid is better than them. But if that's the case.....
Zinedine Zidane: 3 UCL-titles within 2.5 years in charge as a RM manager
Sir Alex Ferguson: 2 UCL-titles within 30 years as a Man United manager
Conclusion: Zidane's Madrid side is a better manager than Man United ever were under SAF...
Zinedine Zidane: 3 UCL-titles within 2.5 years in charge as a RM manager
Sir Alex Ferguson: 2 UCL-titles within 30 years as a Man United manager
Conclusion: Zidane's Madrid side is a better manager than Man United ever were under SAF...
That's because it's a cup competition between many evenly matched teams. As in every cup competition, a significant element of randomness is present, so that even a genuinely dominant team of a period is unlikely to win it repeatedly. That's also the main reason why some bizarre streaks emerge from time to time: Madrid being stuck in early stages for almost a decade, English clubs underachieving, and now Madrid winning it repeatedly without being really that good. People will invent a narrative to explain and rationalize, but sometimes sheer randomness plays a huge role.
It's not that random though. Madrid didn't go past the early stages for so long because they weren't that good, the english teams stopped reaching the latter stages because they got worse, etc. this isn't rationalizing of what happened, it is what actaully happened. Two leg ties aren't that random and down to luck. Usually the best team wins, even if ref mistakes or injuries play a part.
League titles have big amounts of luck too, in 38 games ending up being decided by 3 or 4 points is pretty much nothing. Injuries, refs, red cards, suspensions, a team showing up better in one game than the other... luck plays a part in every single game of football, doesn't mean we should start discrediting titles because of it.
Both are superior. Hope some day we can be like that . Conquer domestically and internationally. Just a dream.
Modric sets the tempo of the game for Madrid, similar to what Xavi used to do for Barca, he's their most key player in the buildup, the way they play, and their balance, while when say Bayern or Madrid miss a CB, they can replace him with a direct or indirect replacement (Bayern doing without Hummel's, Madrid doing without Carvajal and his replacement in Nacho v Bayern which is worse, or Ramos and his replacement in Nacho v Juventus which again was a worse situation), or in case of Robben (who has declined massively) the replacement (one more mid in Thiago) gave them a much better shape and balance. They missed Neuer though he has usually conceded many goals v Madrid... But anyway the point is some replacements might be inferior (like Bayern's GK situation) or better (Thiago for Robben, indirectly), but there are cases when someone is irreplaceable and it affects all manners of play (Modric/Xavi).
Having said that, it's funny that you mention injuries of Bayern while they missed a couple and had to field many injured player v Barca in 2015 out of necessity, Lewa playing with a Darth Vader mask anyone?
The topic is about Zizou's Madrid though, and since he came he has the better h2h.
Last edited:
Real lost head to head against Barca in both 2016/17 and 2017/18
Zizou's h2h looks good because of the supercup, when Neymar was just sold, it was Valverde's first game and Barca were in a bad place.
Would be really interesting to see what happens if Real win again next year, if that pushes the opinion in favour of Zidane or if some keep this mindset that Pep‘s Barca was the greatest thing, regardless of what happens in the future.
For me, Real are favourites for next years CL, although there hasn‘t been any signings yet. Manager is the most important factor anyway and I don‘t see Valverde or Kovac having it in them to win it. Tuchel at PSG maybe, although he has next to no knockout credentials yet. Pep is odds on to get to the semis and lose there and Klopp will actually have a very decent chance to repeat Pool‘s run to the final. Atleti will go far again possibly if Griezmann stays and they finally get some new creative players. I don‘t believe in Juventus because Darmian or Benatia will find a way to feck it up
My prediction:
Last 4: Real, City, Liverpool, PSG
Last 8: Barca, Bayern, Atletico, Spurs
For me, Real are favourites for next years CL, although there hasn‘t been any signings yet. Manager is the most important factor anyway and I don‘t see Valverde or Kovac having it in them to win it. Tuchel at PSG maybe, although he has next to no knockout credentials yet. Pep is odds on to get to the semis and lose there and Klopp will actually have a very decent chance to repeat Pool‘s run to the final. Atleti will go far again possibly if Griezmann stays and they finally get some new creative players. I don‘t believe in Juventus because Darmian or Benatia will find a way to feck it up
My prediction:
Last 4: Real, City, Liverpool, PSG
Last 8: Barca, Bayern, Atletico, Spurs
Pep's Barca team.
It always felt like Utd were playing against a team of robots. They were experts in keeping the ball and hounding you when you had it. I can still remember watching the 08/09 final against Barca in Rome. We started on top for the first 10mins or so. Ronaldo and Park I believe both had chances. Once they clicked into gear we never got a sniff and I believe that was when Ferguson made the carousel comment.
With this Real Madrid side I feel they are defensively weaker and when you play them you always know you're going to get a good amount of chances.
It always felt like Utd were playing against a team of robots. They were experts in keeping the ball and hounding you when you had it. I can still remember watching the 08/09 final against Barca in Rome. We started on top for the first 10mins or so. Ronaldo and Park I believe both had chances. Once they clicked into gear we never got a sniff and I believe that was when Ferguson made the carousel comment.
With this Real Madrid side I feel they are defensively weaker and when you play them you always know you're going to get a good amount of chances.
That's just excuses though, similarly if it wasn't for the ref the last Clasico would've been a sure win for Madrid, but we're speaking about results here not what ifs, and it's as follows:
Zizou had one Clasico in 2015-16 which he won.
Had 2 in 2016-17, one draw & one loss.
Had 4 in 2017-18, two wins, one draw & one loss.
The only seasons that he has the worse h2h is the previous season, and that was when playing with 10 men he changed a loss into a draw and went for the win... which ended 2-3, still admirable.
Really? Do you genuinely believe that United 2007-2009 was better man for man all over the park than this current Madrid side? Maybe you can have Van Der Sar in goal but I wouldn't call it a non-contest like you're saying. Navas is actually severely underrated and one of the best keepers around. There's a reason Madrid's search for a goalkeeper cooled once the De Gea deal fell through almost 3 years ago...and since then they've won 3 CLs in a row. In defense, you could give it to Rio and Vidic but Ramos - Pepe/Varane aren't that far behind, especially with Ramos being the match winner and all round leader that he is. At the full-backs spot; as good as Evra was - he isn't as good as Marcelo neither is Brown or Neville as good as Carvajal. Neville's game time had reduced significantly during these years anyway due to injury...there was no way he was better than Carvajal. In midfield; you'd have to have some serious bias to say that a Fletcher - Carrick combo could outplay a midfield of Modric - Kroos. That's just ridiculous. The latter duo are considerably better. I'd also take Isco/Bale over a 34-35 year old Giggs easily. Attack is the only place that United team would have a case with Ronaldo - Tevez - Rooney but even then that attack was 70% Ronaldo when it came to actual impact in the CL in the year United won it and he wasn't a serial big game player like the current iteration of himself. For as much as he's lost in terms of speed and explosiveness - he's replaced it with intelligence and decisiveness. This Madrid team would trump that United team IMO. Not to mention bench options where in the last 2 years Madrid have had the likes of James, Kovacic, Bale, Morata & Asensio on the bench in big games. United had decent bench with Anderson, Nani, Hargreaves, Saha, etc but I would give the edge to Madrid.
Last edited:
Actually, i think this is the other way round. In 2008, when United won it: most of the great European teams were in transition. Milan were barely the team they were they year before. 07/08 Barca had just lost Ronaldinho (edit: he was actually still there but barely played) and were in transition with Messi only being 20-21 and Xavi/Iniesta still coming into their own.
United's KO run that year was:
RO16 - Lyon (who's best player by miles was a barely 20 year old Benzema)
Quarters - Roma (decent team but nothing great)
Semis - Barca (in transition. Probably one of their weakest sides in the last 15 years).
Final - Chelsea (Strongest team in the competition apart from United and could have won it if not for a john terry slip).
Compare that to RM's run from this year:
RO16 - PSG (Led by Neymar, Cavani, Mbappe, Di Maria etc...much better than that Lyon team)
Quarters - Juventus (Comfortably better team than Roma '08)
Semis - Bayern (Would probably wipe the floor with that '08 Barca side)
Final - Liverpool (Only team I would say were weaker in this comparison to United's '08 final opponent).
Last year was also a similar case where RM once again had a tough route to the final.
Last edited:
If that was the case with cup competitions, there wouldn’t be so many clubs with more domestic cups than domestic titles.
It really is simple logic, better competitors = harder to win, how can anyone disagree with that?
PSG - Neymar missed all of the second leg
Juventus - Missing 3-4 key players and still nearly made a miraculous comeback
Bayern - Missing several starters including one of the best GK's of the decade
Liverpool - Ramos injures their best player 25 minutes where up until that point Liverpool were outclassing Real for a majority of the match up until that point.
PSG was very good but missing Neymar for the second leg. Madrid were in control after the first but PSG just needed to win 2-0 in the second to advance and without Neymar they looked lost.
I do agree that Madrid have been getting the tougher routes this season and last as oppose to their joke of a path in 2016.
But having said that, this was one of the worst Bayern sides due to injuries and age, one of the weakest Juventus sides in recent years, and a very good Liverpool side but of course they lose their best player 25 minutes in.
I do think this has been a weak era for CL teams that are true contenders overall. But Madrid winning 3 straight is impressive nonetheless.
I'm a Barca fan but you are seriously underselling this Real Madrid side.
I'm not convinced that Ferdinand and Vidic are better than Varane/Pepe and Ramos.
Marcelo is miles ahead of Evra. Evra was very good but Marcelo is on another level. Carvajal is better than Brown ever was.
Modric, Kroos, Isco and Casemiro are miles ahead of United's midfield from 2007-2009.
I agree that United had a better attack though.
I think that it would be a very close match, but only because SAF was a genius.
Easily.
You haven't quite grasped his point though. Luck plays a bigger role in cup competitions than in the league because (1) you win cup competitions with 7-8 games while you need consistency over 38 games to win a league and (2) one bad day at the office (with referee decisions or injuries going against you) in cup games means you are out whereas you can compensate unfortunate circumstances in the league with consistency over 38 games.
Real and Liverpool have won more CL titles than domestic titles in the last 20 years. Why? How your simple logic does explain it?
Generally, it's more difficult to win the CL than a domestic league partly because luck plays a bigger role in the CL than in the league. 'Bigger role' doesn't mean that it's only about luck or more about lack than class. 'Bigger role' means just that: you need more luck to win a competition between 7-8 very strong teams over just 7-8 games than a competition with 2-3 strong teams over 38 games.
If a given team is much much better than the other CL contenders, then it can possibly compensate the vagaries of luck with sheer class. However, this Real team is not much much better than the other teams. Why? First, it struggles in the domestic league. It has won a 38 games competition only once in the last 5 years. This sucks. Second, it has won only one of the last 3 CL campaigns in a convincing manner - namely the 16/17 CL season (and even then struggled vs Bayern in the last 8).
This Madrid team is a great team with one of the greatest forwards ever. But it has won more CL titles than Barca because it has been more lucky and because it didn't care much about La Liga (or wasn't good enough to win it) and put all its eggs in the CL basket.
Madrid 55-60 won 5 consecutive European cups. Is it considered a greater team than Ajax 70-73 who won 'only' 3 European cups in a row. Clearly not. Why? Because you can't judge teams ony by the number of the won cups. If there is a poll about the greatest European team prior to the CL era, Ajax 70-74 are far more likely to win it than Madrid 55-60. Similarly, Milan 88-90 would get more votes than Bayern 74-76 despite winning 'only' 2 European cups.
1. You talk about teams going out having one bad day in cups. Real Madrid lost La Liga by 3, 2, 1 pts in 3 out of the last 5 seasons (and won 1), that can easily be explained by having 1 bad day.
2. Real having won only 1 CL convincingly? What are you on about. This very season they beat the French, Italian and German champions en route, possibly he hardest run ever.
3. If you’re going to compare across different eras, an argument can be made that there were fewer teams entered into the competition in the 50s than the 70s
They should have never even been in the finals in 09. Not only that, but had the penalties been given for Chelsea, they would've been trashed. People always conveniently forgett this. And then next year they went out to Inter.
Last edited:
I know people joke about this, but it should never be ruled out.
1. You talk about teams going out having one bad day in cups. Real Madrid lost La Liga by 3, 2, 1 pts in 3 out of the last 5 seasons (and won 1), that can easily be explained by having 1 bad day.
2. Real having won only 1 CL convincingly? What are you on about. This very season they beat the French, Italian and German champions en route, possibly he hardest run ever.
3. If you’re going to compare across different eras, an argument can be made that there were fewer teams entered into the competition in the 50s than the 70s
1. When you lose a competition over 38 games with 1-3 pts, it's not about 1 bad day. It's about having more bad days than the champions. Any of the teams that beat Madrid to the La Liga title in recent years had fewer bad days at the office than Madrid. It could happen that the number of bad days is due to referee mistakes. Then we are talking. But I don't think this was the case with Madrid losing the title in recent years.
2. Real have been extremely lucky 17/18 with referee decisions and injuries to key players (Neymar, Robben and Boateng, Salah). You must be seriously deluded to think that Real won the 17/18 CL season convincingly.
3. More or less teams is an irrelevant point as the question is about whether more cups equates to being greater. The examples with Madrid 55-60 and Ajax 70-74 and with Milan 88-90 and Bayern 74-76 clearly show that the number of big trophies is only one of the factors and not the factor when people estimate greatness.
Last edited:
Maybe it's wrong to focus so much on the 17/18 team as it's clearly not their peak year - what would you guys say is their best 13/14 or 16/17?
1. We are just going round in circles, one could easily argue going out of the CL was Barca having one too many bad days in the competition, especially since you can’t go out of the CL on 1 bad day unless it’s the final. You always have another leg to make it up
2. How exactly are the opposition getting injured down to them? If you’re going to analyze every little factor, how about Ovebro? How about Fletcher getting suspended for the 09 final? Barca 09 was as farcical a win as any in recent history with the scandal of Stamford Bridge.
3. I was making the point that ‘better oppositions = harder to win’
Milan didn't win the league in neither 88-89 nor 89-90, they're considered among the best only for their achievements in Europe, and being the last side to defend a European Cup, which Zizou's Madrid has surpassed and more.
This Madrid side are up there in terms of achievement, but not really in the conversation on any other measure. Sacchi's Milan and Michels' Ajax surely will be remembered has having far bigger impact on the game as a whole. I also think Guardiola's Barca would absolutely trounce this Madrid team. Not one of the truly great sides in my view.
so @Cal? logic is Wigan are one of the greatest sides in English history cos they have won the cup more than the domestic title? Ultimately the Champions League is luck and Real Madrid have had there fair share of luck and when doing badly in the league they can focus on the CL. A team that has only won the league once in 5 years is not a great team IMHO.
Do you struggle to understand simple English?
Where did I ever say winning more cups than league titles make a greater side?
I said a competition is harder to win when there are better teams involved, regardless of its format. Therefore the CL is harder to win than any domestic league.
For the millionth time, I never said it's all down to luck. Only that there's comparatively so much more luck involved than in the league competition. And in the knockout tie it's not given that the best team wins. Much of it is down to moments, nuances, decisions and sheer luck. It's not a rare occurrence that an inferior side goes through. And when equal sides are matched, it's pretty much a coin toss.
Not nearly to an extent such as in cup competitions. For example, judging by this season, Madrid and Liverpool were apparently the very best, while Barcelona and City were not even that close. But anyone who actually watched a bit of football this season will know that it was very much the opposite, and the league table shows exactly that. There is no way any other team could have won EPL and La Liga other than the latter two, as they were head and shoulders above anyone else. While in Europe it could have all easily played out differently, as it all comes down to a couple of matches and a few moments, and football is a notoriously volatile game.
Honestly, how is this even a debate? I thought it was common wisdom that knockout competition results are quite unreliable compared to league. It is so obvious.
I think there are different kinds of "harder". The CL obviously is more dependent on luck than the league just because the sample set is smaller and if you go out, you are out and there is no opportunity for your bad luck to be compensated. This means, even if you have the best team and are rightfully the favourite of the competition, you cannot be sure to win it because of the randomness which makes it incredibly hard and leads to great teams and players never getting their hands on a CL trophy. Thus it is a really, really special title.
The league on the other side involves less luck but you have to be consistent throughout a whole season. But you can compensate bad calls, injuries etc. better. This means if you have the best team you are very likely to win it, too. A single day off cannot cost you much.
Or in other words: If you have the best team, you can probably get a probability of around 99% to win the league with 1% remaining randomness, in the CL it is maybe 80% skill and 20% luck which makes it incredibly hard to defend it (numbers simply plucked out of thin air in order to visualize what I mean).
The league on the other side involves less luck but you have to be consistent throughout a whole season. But you can compensate bad calls, injuries etc. better. This means if you have the best team you are very likely to win it, too. A single day off cannot cost you much.
Or in other words: If you have the best team, you can probably get a probability of around 99% to win the league with 1% remaining randomness, in the CL it is maybe 80% skill and 20% luck which makes it incredibly hard to defend it (numbers simply plucked out of thin air in order to visualize what I mean).
My point is a league being decided by 5 or 6 points is as much of a coin toss as a close knockout tie. People just think that because the league has more games luck will even out and so it has less influence but there's obviously no guarantee of that.
Zidane's Real Madrid team for me because it's less dependent on a single player.
Barcelona without Messi is a massive drop. Zidane's Real Madrid can cope with a very poor Ronaldo as shown in the final.
Also winning 3 in a row will go down in history and very unlikely to be bettered anytime soon. So in the history books it'll point to Real Madrid as the greatest side ever.
Barcelona without Messi is a massive drop. Zidane's Real Madrid can cope with a very poor Ronaldo as shown in the final.
Also winning 3 in a row will go down in history and very unlikely to be bettered anytime soon. So in the history books it'll point to Real Madrid as the greatest side ever.
Yes, luck will even out in the league to a much larger extent in comparison to cup competition. When two teams finish close to one another in the league for consecutive years, it's safe to say they are about equal. Cup competitions are in comparison much more erratic and down to happenstance.
This is just my opinion but if this Real side played Pep's Barca ten times in a row, they'd be lucky to win maybe two.
If the game takes place in the CL and not La Liga, Real will win more often than not
Some people here are making a case of Real getting lucky in CL to prove Pep's Barca's greatness? Have they forgotten the scandal of Stamford bridge which actually kick-started the entire saint Pep movement? It was a fecking disgrace.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are going round in circles, not we. The difference between having a bad day in a cup game and having a bad day in a league is pretty obvious. Unsurprisingly, you are unwilling to acknowledge it.
Real had plenty of bad days in the CL this seaosn, eg Juve at home, losing to Spuds.
If anything, the league requires much less consistency as you can afford to put in many bad performances.
Ok, keep up repeating the same rubbish point.
Unbelievable
