By voting Guardiola's team the best of all time, surely, paradoxically that makes Zidane the better manager. He won the CL 3 times and more than that in consecutive years, a feat Guardiola couldn't achieve with the greatest club team of all time.
Pep's Barcelona vs Zidane's Real Madrid
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
The United team you faced in 2011 was pretty poor - we had no business being in the final. We only got there due to an easy run to the finals - Marseille, Chelsea (hard) and Schalke. Our team had the likes of Fabio, Park, Valencia and J. Hernandez starting..
The reality is as good as that Barca team were, the standard of teams during that period was substantially worse than it is now. See your own route to the final - the only hard game you had was Real - who themselves aren't close to the team they were over the last few years. Other then that, you faced Arsenal and Shaktar in the knockouts.
Compare that to Real's CL run last year - they faced a strong PSG, Bayern, Juventus and Liverpool - all top tier teams. The only teams that were comparable in 2011 were Real and Bayern, maybe Chelsea & Inter at a stretch.
The 08/09 final was more impressive as United were more full-strength, but even then we weren't as strong as the team in 07/08 that beat you, and as well all know you shouldn't have even made that final.
The reality is as good as Barca were, the quality of opposition Real faced during their 4 wins out of 5 years were a lot higher. Nowadays you have City, PSG, Liverpool, Tottenham, Atletico, Bayern, Juventus, Real and Barca all whom can compete in a head to head match
2011 Barca would've comfortably beaten all the teams Madrid faced including Madrid themselves. Madrid could barely handle current era Barca, they would get slaughtered by Pep's Barca. Outside of 2017, Madrid rarely looked like the best team in the world, but they did enough to win the CL's to their credit.
I truly think if you asked any team who would they rather face, Pep's Barca or Zidane's Madrid almost all of them would say Zidane's Madrid. They looked FAR more vulnerable than Pep's Barca.
And yet Zidane fared quite poorly in La Liga by those standards. CL requires a TON of luck as well, league is a much better sample size.
As a team at first it would be an easier time to face Zidane's team - that 2011 Pep team was relentless with the ball and how they pressed it and killed off teams with possession.... But just look at the stats, they never managed to win a back to back CL - Inter and Chelsea both managed to stop them. Zidane's CL team was just too good at what they did, managing to somehow find a way to win one off games
No. Thankfully the conversation is more nuanced and not as dumbed down as that. These things happen in cup competitions. Pep's Barcelona were both a better managed team and a better overall team. Watching them was horrible as someone who disliked them. Playing them was a nightmare. Zidane has accomplished something unique with Madrid but they never reached those ridiculous heights on the football pitch. Anybody who doesn't base their view purely off Inter managing to keep Barcelona out in a cup tie, and more on the actual football played, not to mention the level displayed week in week out in the league, can see that..
What was Zidane's record against a Barcelona which was worse compared to Pep's side?
Salah gets injured in a final, Neymar injured for the second leg with PSG, offside goals (not that Barca didn't have their own controversy in 2009 vs Chelsea), dubious penalties, Zidane was extremely fortunate in nearly every instance.
I think modern Barca would've beaten Madrid in CL, let alone Pep's Barca.
There is a reason why Barca are mentioned alongside Ajax 71-73 and Milan 88-90. They were tactically unique and were winning everything.
Real 14-18 were a fantastic CL side but won only one league title and there was nothing special about their style. To give up on the league in order to concentrate on the CL isn't a sign of greatness.
Real 14-18 were a fantastic CL side but won only one league title and there was nothing special about their style. To give up on the league in order to concentrate on the CL isn't a sign of greatness.
Pep's Barcelona were in a category of their own during that handful of years. Quite likely the best team ever assembled. Zidane's Madrid had three great cup competitions in a row, which is a great feat but doesn't really reflect the fabric of the team itself. They weren't unopposable conquerors, they just had three well-executed CL finals. And they got to play against Atletico, Juventus and Liverpool in those three finals, which is something of a luxury. They didn't look completely unstoppable the way Barcelona did, and it all vanished in an instant when Zidane and Ronaldo left.
It's hard for me to see how anyone could say Zidane's Madrid were better. Pep also won the league three out of four seasons, and two CLs. Granted, I don't attribute that quite so much to Pep himself as to Messi, Iniesta and Xavi peaking simultaneously. That's what made that team, whereas I had the impression that Zidane's Madrid side was mostly down to the manager and Ronaldo. As great as Barcelona were, it didn't seem to me that it was all that much about Pep.
I don't find Pep to be more than ordinarily good, he just had the best squad in football history at his disposal. It's not even like he can be said to have made brilliant signings--half that team was from their academy. One might even say they should have done better in Europe, but then that appears to be his weakness, and many of his players at Barcelona were simultaneously busy winning international tournaments for Spain, so it's not like they're the ones who didn't know how to play in a knockout tournament.
I suspect Zidane is the better manager, though we'll have to see in a few more years; but that Barcelona side was definitely superior. They just had the strongest squad ever put together, all at their peak.
It's hard for me to see how anyone could say Zidane's Madrid were better. Pep also won the league three out of four seasons, and two CLs. Granted, I don't attribute that quite so much to Pep himself as to Messi, Iniesta and Xavi peaking simultaneously. That's what made that team, whereas I had the impression that Zidane's Madrid side was mostly down to the manager and Ronaldo. As great as Barcelona were, it didn't seem to me that it was all that much about Pep.
I don't find Pep to be more than ordinarily good, he just had the best squad in football history at his disposal. It's not even like he can be said to have made brilliant signings--half that team was from their academy. One might even say they should have done better in Europe, but then that appears to be his weakness, and many of his players at Barcelona were simultaneously busy winning international tournaments for Spain, so it's not like they're the ones who didn't know how to play in a knockout tournament.
I suspect Zidane is the better manager, though we'll have to see in a few more years; but that Barcelona side was definitely superior. They just had the strongest squad ever put together, all at their peak.
Last edited:
i think i need to repeat myself but none of those teams can qualify as the best of all times.. Wich one of them is better than the other is another discussion..
You overrate one-off games in cup competitions.
Not saying zidane's side is better, but let's not bring luck in the picture. You lot are called uefalona for nothing.
Mediocre
For 2009, yes, which I mentioned in my post before if you scroll up.
But Madrid got away with far more.
Both great teams.
Cant argue against 3 cl in a row though so id go with zidanes madrid.
Cant argue against 3 cl in a row though so id go with zidanes madrid.
Shouldn't even be a comparison, but I guess this is what you get when people who don't really understand the game base their opinions on results of cup competitions. Champions league is basically a lottery between half a dozen of best sides, and Madrid simply happened to hit the jackpot. Even the genuinely dominant team has no more than 50% chance winning it, such is the nature of this game. Anyway, when someone remarks how that Barcelona side weren't especially well coached, there's not even point in having any sort of discussion.
For getting the wins in big games I say Zidanes Real Madrid. For league domination over weaker teams then Peps Barcelona.
Different skills needed. Zidane was more flexible and able to lift the confidence of his players for the big games. Barcelona had a better structure in the play and developed better methods of how to dominate sides. Although there were also easier to read and potentially hurt for big teams. Although with the quality they had made that very hard even for the best sides.
Different skills needed. Zidane was more flexible and able to lift the confidence of his players for the big games. Barcelona had a better structure in the play and developed better methods of how to dominate sides. Although there were also easier to read and potentially hurt for big teams. Although with the quality they had made that very hard even for the best sides.
lolz
I would have fancied our 2011 side against that Real side, never had a hope of beating the Barca one.
They bored me senseless though. 70-80mins of nothing for the most part, great for highlights, so I ended up only watching those. There's plenty of sides I'd rather watch.
They bored me senseless though. 70-80mins of nothing for the most part, great for highlights, so I ended up only watching those. There's plenty of sides I'd rather watch.
Sure, in a one off game that Madrid side could take on anyone. They were more adaptable and unpredictable than best version of Barcelona. But also more inconsistent, less structured and prone to conceding chances. The whole "big match experts" theory is a lazy narrative. If they really were that, they would fare better in league matches with Barca or other top teams in Spain at the time. In a supposed European super league, Barcelona from turn of the decade would win out easily almost every time. Because in a league competition sheer individual quality and momentum aren't enough, and that Barca side was better coached and more consistent.
I can remember zero brilliant games from Zidane's Real. For Peps Barca I atleast remember thinking; hmz these diving cnuts are also pretty good.
Joking aside, obviously different people use different metrics. Winning the CL three times in a row is an unrivalled achievement obviously, but none of these CL wins were especially dominant. Football games are dependent on shiteload of mitigating factors. Therefore, a knockout competition with few games are more prone to these external factors then a 38 game league campaign. You really cannot argue against the sample size argument.
Barcelona on the other hand didnt win 3 CLs in a row, but made other teams look like complete amateurs. Take for instance the tie against Mou's inter. How they managed to go through there is truly crazy. 999 out of a 1000 times Barcelona decide that in the game in Camp Nou, they didnt and a vastly inferior Inter wins the CL, such is life. This season, City is obviously a far better team than Spurs. If Spurs somehow win the CL they're still a much worse team.
It's just different metrics. Zidane's Real will go down in history for their 3 CL titles, Pep's Barca will go down as one of the most dominant teams in history.
Bottom line they're both shite clubs who can kiss big white arse.
Joking aside, obviously different people use different metrics. Winning the CL three times in a row is an unrivalled achievement obviously, but none of these CL wins were especially dominant. Football games are dependent on shiteload of mitigating factors. Therefore, a knockout competition with few games are more prone to these external factors then a 38 game league campaign. You really cannot argue against the sample size argument.
Barcelona on the other hand didnt win 3 CLs in a row, but made other teams look like complete amateurs. Take for instance the tie against Mou's inter. How they managed to go through there is truly crazy. 999 out of a 1000 times Barcelona decide that in the game in Camp Nou, they didnt and a vastly inferior Inter wins the CL, such is life. This season, City is obviously a far better team than Spurs. If Spurs somehow win the CL they're still a much worse team.
It's just different metrics. Zidane's Real will go down in history for their 3 CL titles, Pep's Barca will go down as one of the most dominant teams in history.
Bottom line they're both shite clubs who can kiss big white arse.
How about league domination over the best teams of that league? If you're talking big games, why are you onlm mentioning big games in the league also? Wasn't Peps record in the big games in the league better than that of Zizou's?
Or are you now saying that Real/ Barca, Real Atletico league aren't classed as BIG?
I will say though that attempting to win by playing the way Barcelona's Pep did is insanely more difficult. It requires quasi perfection all the time. They were very stubborn, not very adaptable and wanted to win by playing only one way. It required insane chemistry between some of the best midfielders and forward of all time. When that was achieved, it's peak was a higher level than anything Zidane's Real showed. However it's much less sustainable over a long period in terms of Champions League glory because it requires too much perfection all the time. On the other hand Zidane's Madrid was able to get out played and not be perfect on multiple occasions and still squeek out results. They were much more adaptable to their opponent and could beat you multiple ways (possession, counter, play on the wings). Madrid were more concerned with winning any way possible, whichever style it required. Barca were attempting to win, but had to do it with their philosophy only.
Real were very lucky to win the 2016 final against Atletico. Ramos' goal was offside and Griezmann missed a penalty.
Real were also very lucky to win the 2018 semifinal against Bayern. A blatant handball against Marcelo was not called. Bayern clearly outplayed them over 2 legs.
Meanwhile Barcelona was very unlucky not to win the 2010 Champions League. Bojan's goal was onside.
OTOH, Barca were indeed lucky to win against Chelsea in 2009.
A lot of the Champions League is just down to luck. Real Madrid had the perfect storm of luck from 2016-2018.
In that case, Zidane's Real Madrid must just be straight up mediocre to finish 18 points behind Barcelona in 2017/2018, a Barcelona side that was nowhere near Guardiola's team.
Pep's Barcelona were the personification of a football philosophy for 12 months.
Zidane's 3x Real Madrid were a team full of big-game players at their big-game peak.
Very different but both worthy of acclaim.
Zidane's 3x Real Madrid were a team full of big-game players at their big-game peak.
Very different but both worthy of acclaim.
Different times though in the leagues. I think Zidane did well in the league against Barcelona during his first two years. Although they had a really poor game in his last season though when they did really struggle in the league before christmas. Mourinho vs Pep had some big games and Pep won most of them. Although it was not a massive difference apart from that 5-0 win I think in the first one.
I guess what is a big game depend on many factors though. A club can be big in theory, but not performing like a top team.
Pep didn't dominate as much i europe though unless they played against Arsenal. They got lucky to win it during his first season. They had a fairly easy draw the second time they won it apart from doing well to beat Real in the semi final. I guess they totally smashed us in that final, but SAF did set us up in a very open and stupid way.
I think it was easier for a tactically smart big team to hurt a Pep side. Being naive and trying to play the same way against them though didn't really work that well.
It is pretty much the same for Pep these days. Brilliant to win leagues, but not as good in europe. Although I think he has evolved and adopted his style to be more flexible these days. I think Peps football now is better than the one he had at Barcelona. Although his players are not as good in certain ways.
Do people actually believe that the best team always wins a knockout cup competition?
Barcelona aren't the only big team team in Spain. You didn't notice Atletico (2 CL finals in 4 years). That is definitely a big game. Zidane won only ONE in five against Atletico. That's very poor. Infact, you take his league record against Barca (ONE win in 5) and Atletico, that's TWO wins in 10. That is very poor, hardly indicative of a team that specializes in big matches.
Barca's domination was different level. Real Madrid, with all its history and record number of trophies, were parading around the Spanish Cup with a bus because they managed to win something over Pep's Barca, with 10 defenders on the pitch, in extra time. Let that sink in for a minute.
And 2011 Barca had some favorable of decisions on the way like RVP sending off at the camp nou in last 16 and Pepe sending off in the semi final
Also motta should not have been sent off in the inter game 2010 even before bojan offside call.
RVP's second yellow was extremely soft but, he could have gotten a straight red for his first yellow. And Pepe was 100% a red card.
Pep's Barcelona
Zidane's Real Madrid
Supercopa ~ Community Shield
Copa del Rey ~ FA Cup combined with EFL Cup, sort of.
Only counting the 3 big cups ---->
Trophy wise is clear as day.
Only difference is the consecutive 3 CL of Real's... even-though they clearly underachieved in domestic competitions.
So 2 CL in 3 years (Barca) up against 3 CL in 3 years (Real)... is that just it?
Pep: TREBLE, La Liga, big double, Copa del Rey (4 seasons).
Zidane: CL, big double, CL (3 seasons).
*big double = league + CL*
In term of teamplay-style and team strength,
+ That Barca team is strong and fully functional as a team, with a clear one dominant tactical pattern, definitely consistent in all competitions and they can tiki-taka annoy the hell out of teams almost all the time.
+ That Real team is strong and tactical (= uses a lot of tactical variations) but just so inconsistent and seriously so unreliable in league and cups, yet when it comes to Champion's League, it's a totally different game, the players turn it on, switched it up and can win games like making magic tricks -- pulling a rabbit out of the hat.
3 La Liga: 2008/9, 2009/10, 2010/11
2 Copa del Rey: 2008/9, 2011/12
3 Supercopa de España: 2009, 2010, 2011
2 UEFA Champions League: 2008/9, 2010/11
2 UEFA Super Cup: 2009, 2011
2 FIFA World Cup: 2009, 2011
2 Copa del Rey: 2008/9, 2011/12
3 Supercopa de España: 2009, 2010, 2011
2 UEFA Champions League: 2008/9, 2010/11
2 UEFA Super Cup: 2009, 2011
2 FIFA World Cup: 2009, 2011
Zidane's Real Madrid
1 La Liga: 2016/17
1 Supercopa de España: 2017
3 UEFA Champions League: 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18
2 UEFA Super Cup: 2016, 2017
2 FIFA World Cup: 2016, 2017
---1 Supercopa de España: 2017
3 UEFA Champions League: 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18
2 UEFA Super Cup: 2016, 2017
2 FIFA World Cup: 2016, 2017
Supercopa ~ Community Shield
Copa del Rey ~ FA Cup combined with EFL Cup, sort of.
Only counting the 3 big cups ---->
Pep's Barca vs Zidane's Real
(3 Liga + 2 Cups + 2 CL) vs (1 Liga + 3 CL)
(3 Liga + 2 Cups + 2 CL) vs (1 Liga + 3 CL)
Trophy wise is clear as day.Only difference is the consecutive 3 CL of Real's... even-though they clearly underachieved in domestic competitions.
So 2 CL in 3 years (Barca) up against 3 CL in 3 years (Real)... is that just it?
Pep: TREBLE, La Liga, big double, Copa del Rey (4 seasons).
Zidane: CL, big double, CL (3 seasons).
*big double = league + CL*
In term of teamplay-style and team strength,
+ That Barca team is strong and fully functional as a team, with a clear one dominant tactical pattern, definitely consistent in all competitions and they can tiki-taka annoy the hell out of teams almost all the time.
+ That Real team is strong and tactical (= uses a lot of tactical variations) but just so inconsistent and seriously so unreliable in league and cups, yet when it comes to Champion's League, it's a totally different game, the players turn it on, switched it up and can win games like making magic tricks -- pulling a rabbit out of the hat.
I'll repeat myself for i think is the third time in this thread: the back-to-back-to-back CL titles are legendary, but massively aided by lucky bounces. So many things that were out of our power that we needed to go right went right. Conversely, the reason that barcelona side didn't pull it off themselves is because one thing that was outside their power went catastrophically wrong, and they weren't able to overcome it. You could say our side was more resilient though
what's that?
Volcano mate
Excellent post. Really well summed up.Pep's Barcelona
3 La Liga: 2008/9, 2009/10, 2010/11
2 Copa del Rey: 2008/9, 2011/12
3 Supercopa de España: 2009, 2010, 2011
2 UEFA Champions League: 2008/9, 2010/11
2 UEFA Super Cup: 2009, 2011
2 FIFA World Cup: 2009, 2011
Zidane's Real Madrid
1 La Liga: 2016/17---
1 Supercopa de España: 2017
3 UEFA Champions League: 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18
2 UEFA Super Cup: 2016, 2017
2 FIFA World Cup: 2016, 2017
Supercopa ~ Community Shield
Copa del Rey ~ FA Cup combined with EFL Cup, sort of.
Only counting the 3 big cups ---->
Pep's Barca vs Zidane's Real
(3 Liga + 2 Cups + 2 CL) vs (1 Liga + 3 CL)
Only difference is the consecutive 3 CL of Real's... even-though they clearly underachieved in domestic competitions.
So 2 CL in 3 years (Barca) up against 3 CL in 3 years (Real)... is that just it?
Pep: TREBLE, La Liga, big double, Copa del Rey (4 seasons).
Zidane: CL, big double, CL (3 seasons).
*big double = league + CL*
In term of teamplay-style and team strength,
+ That Barca team is strong and fully functional as a team, with a clear one dominant tactical pattern, definitely consistent in all competitions and they can tiki-taka annoy the hell out of teams almost all the time.
+ That Real team is strong and tactical (= uses a lot of tactical variations) but just so inconsistent and seriously so unreliable in league and cups, yet when it comes to Champion's League, it's a totally different game, the players turn it on, switched it up and can win games like making magic tricks -- pulling a rabbit out of the hat.
It has to be stressed how incredible a feat it to produce excellence in a weekly basis taking home the domestic crown in a top league, and also bossing the cups. Hence, the PL/La Liga double is such a wonderful achievement. And hence, our treble or anybody else's is such a freakish achievement. I may be in a minority but struggling in the league while winning a cup, even if it's the CL, just isn't the same IMO. Zidane deserves so much credit. He did a wonderful job at Madrid. But had his team produced excellence in the league on a weekly basis (not just the one season) setting new standards in domestic football I'd rate them much higher than I do taking out some CLs.
And then of course there's the actual domination on the football pitch where there isn't a comparison IMO. Barcelona were frightening. Absolutely frightening. Watching them suffocate teams by hogging the ball for 70% of the game was horrible. Never seen anything like it and to that extent of dominance.
Last edited:
Neither were peps barca. Both Inter and Chelsea stopped them.
They had to travel to milan for the first leg by coach. 16 hours travel
Btw, our disastrous 17/18 league campaign seems to have skewed perceptions, but under Zidane, we won the league with 93 points in 16/17 and nearly won the league in 15/16, picking up 53 points out of a possible 60 and finishing 1 point behind Barcelona. When he took over we were a disaster(37 points in 18 games), after he took over we were the best in the league. We even started barcelona's collapse by beating them at camp nou
Last edited: