Roiling football blather

[baboon2004]

3rd time Fergie's United play a mediocre game and win the final? I reckon so. Can Barca's makeshift defence really keep Ronaldo and Rooney quiet for 90 minutes? And Barca do seem to come close to choking in really big games (Arsenal in 2006 - would they have won if Lehmann hadn't, well, been Lehman, and if henry hadn't been an even bigger choker? Then there's the two semis, saved from absolute misery by a phenomenal goal and some dodgy refereeing. And last year's semi.)

 

[crackerjack]

3rd time Fergie's United play a mediocre game and win the final? I reckon so. Can Barca's makeshift defence really keep Ronaldo and Rooney quiet for 90 minutes? And Barca do seem to come close to choking in really big games (Arsenal in 2006 - would they have won if Lehmann hadn't, well, been Lehman, and if henry hadn't been an even bigger choker? Then there's the two semis, saved from absolute misery by a phenomenal goal and some dodgy refereeing. And last year's semi.)

All this is true, but perhaps we can see happy portents in the fact people said much the same about Spain before last year's European ding-dong.

 

[baboon2004]

All this is true, but perhaps we can see happy portents in the fact people said much the same about Spain before last year's European ding-dong.

Let's hope - I'll be in Barcelona tonight, and I want a party!

One question - why does Fergie always go on and on about Real having nine titles (I sort of know the answer - the 1960 final at Hampden), when five of them were won "before the rest of the continent started taking it seriously" (as someone I can't recall once said)? Milan are the true masters of Europe - the only team to have won titles in three different eras (the '60s, late 80s/early 90s, and this decade).

Also - "If you look at the history, through the 1960s and 1970s, it was done regularly, teams winning it two or three times in a row and cycles of great teams like Bayern, Ajax and Real Madrid. I can't give you a reason". Think about it for a minute, Fergie.

 

[IdleRich]

"One question - why does Fergie always go on and on about Real having nine titles (I sort of know the answer - the 1960 final at Hampden), when five of them were won "before the rest of the continent started taking it seriously" (as someone I can't recall once said)? Milan are the true masters of Europe - the only team to have won titles in three different eras (the '60s, late 80s/early 90s, and this decade)".

So, if you discount half of Madrid's titles then Milan have won more than them?

 

[baboon2004]

Well, just that since the European Cup was regarded in the esteem that it is now regarded (ie taken seriously by everyone), Milan have won more. It's like saying Wanderers are a better FA Cup side than, say Everton or West Ham, as they won more titles...in 1882 when the cachet of the cup wasn't exactly what it became. Obviously an extreme example!

Moreover, Milan have won the Euro Cup with three entirely different teams in different eras. Real reached one final between 1966 and 1998.

To me, the combination of these facts makes Milan the greatest European side.

As for the CL, well, it's a way harder competition to win than the European Cup was, because you have to beat four or five of the top teams, and not just one or two of them. In that case, Real and Milan are level on 3-3, I guess, but Milan's two eras of greatness before this would shade it.

 

[crackerjack]

Also - "If you look at the history, through the 1960s and 1970s, it was done regularly, teams winning it two or three times in a row and cycles of great teams like Bayern, Ajax and Real Madrid. I can't give you a reason".

He seems to have missed a couple of English teams out....

 

[baboon2004]

He seems to have missed a couple of English teams out....

I wonder why...

But yeah, great as they were, who exactly did Ajax have to beat to win those three cups (genuine question, rather than rhetorical, but i suspect that, with Panathinaikos one of their final triumphs, they only beat a handful of the stronger teams)?

 

[IdleRich]

"Well, just that since the European Cup was regarded in the esteem that it is now regarded (ie taken seriously by everyone), Milan have won more. It's like saying Wanderers are a better FA Cup side than, say Everton or West Ham, as they won more titles...in 1882 when the cachet of the cup wasn't exactly what it became. Obviously an extreme example!
Moreover, Milan have won the Euro Cup with three entirely different teams in different eras. Real reached one final between 1966 and 1998.
To me, the combination of these facts makes Milan the greatest European side.
As for the CL, well, it's a way harder competition to win than the European Cup was, because you have to beat four or five of the top teams, and not just one or two of them. In that case, Real and Milan are level on 3-3, I guess, but Milan's two eras of greatness before this would shade it."

I think if you're gonna get into this kind of thing Milan's title in the same year they were convicted of match-fixing is kind of tainted.

 

[baboon2004]

That's a fair point. My overall point is that Real are not inarguably the greatest of European sides. There's at least a good case for Milan (which I happen to support).

 

[crackerjack]

As for the CL, well, it's a way harder competition to win than the European Cup was, because you have to beat four or five of the top teams, and not just one or two of them. In that case, Real and Milan are level on 3-3, I guess, but Milan's two eras of greatness before this would shade it.

It's also much easier to get into. Back then, it were all champions round here.

 

[scottdisco]

well as the entire thread was started to do with one example of how much footy is being shook up at top levels these days, it's hardly controversial to note that the game is more unequal these days, with top teams enjoying more of an advantage over lesser rivals than in the past - granted there are more teams to beat to get through to the final

re Milan i know i'm not the only one on-thread to mention in our recallable life-time (there's a lot of 20 and 30-somethings commenting here, right ) that their 4-0 over Barcelona in '94 remains something of a touchstone..

...i bet Ferencvaros were pretty tasty back in the Magyar era

what Crackerjack just said, also.

 

[baboon2004]

It's also much easier to get into. Back then, it were all champions round here.

BUT when you won it once, you were automatically in the next year but many of the big clubs in Europe weren't (ie were this to be the case next season, United, should they win tonight, would not have to negotiate Liverpool, Chelsea, Real, Bayern, Milan or Juve), setting the scene up for teams winning it multiple times in a row (best example being Notts Forest, who won more times than they won the First Division). For example, neither Ajax nor Bayern were champions every year before they won the EC in the '70s.

And look at the number of not-so-great clubs who made EC finals (not to say this didn't add to the romance) - Bruges, Panathinaikos, Steaua Bucharest, Malmo. One thing you can guarantee of any team reaching the CL final, is that they are both pretty good and durable.

As for 94 - the touchstone of all touchstones.

 

[crackerjack]

well as the entire thread was started to do with one example of how much footy is being shook up at top levels these days, it's hardly controversial to note that the game is more unequal these days, with top teams enjoying more of an advantage over lesser rivals than in the past - granted there are more teams to beat to get through to the final

This is a very good point. Since economics play a far more dominant role than in the past, with most top domestic leagues effectively reduced to 3 or 4 contenders and the CL itself to maybe 8 at a push, how much of an achievement is it if one of those 8 notches up consecutive wins?

 

[scottdisco]

And look at the number of not-so-great clubs who made EC finals (not to say this didn't add to the romance) - Bruges, Panathinaikos, Steaua Bucharest, Malmo. One thing you can guarantee of any team reaching the CL final, is that they are both pretty good and durable.

the gap is increasing for sure.. :slanted:

what Crackerjack just said, again

 

[don_quixote]

on a nottingham forest forum i suggested it was a lot easier to win the european cup in 1979 than in 2009 and that didn't go down too well.

forest's achievement was much greater in the 2nd division to european champs feat, rather than simply the european cup.

the fact is is that in the champions league era it's much much harder to do. there was only one more knockout round in the late 70s and you were playing at least a couple of teams from much smaller leagues. compare united 68' with united 08':

united 68:
1st round - paola hibernians (malta)
2nd round - fk sarajevo (yugoslavia)
3rd round - gornik zabrze (poland)
semi final - real madrid (spain)
final - benfica (portugal)

united 08:
group stage - roma (italy), sporting lisbon (portugal), dinamo kiev (ukraine)
1/8 finals - lyon (france)
quarter finals - roma (italy)
semi finals - barcelona (spain)
final - chelsea (england)

basically survive a few hairy eastern european trips, beat a couple of decent teams and you're the champions of europe. the hard task is winning the league to get in the cup in the first place.

if manchester united win tonight, for me, theyre one of greatest teams ever to grace the face of the planet. back to back european cups in this format is unbelievable.

 

[baboon2004]

This is a very good point. Since economics play a far more dominant role than in the past, with most top domestic leagues effectively reduced to 3 or 4 contenders and the CL itself to maybe 8 at a push, how much of an achievement is it if one of those 8 notches up consecutive wins?

But still, what i said in my previous post - it's more difficult than it was, as in each season, the reigining champion is facing 7-8 other realistic contenders, rather than 4-5 (the winners of the English/Spanish/Italian/German leagues). So, perhaps it is no more difficult to win the CL first time around, but retaining it has become more difficult.

Edit: the evidence is above!

However, the potential for a completely surprise winner once every decade has decreased to almost zero. I guess Porto, but they're still a very big club, aren't they? What the hell happened to Benfica, btw?

 

[scottdisco]

entirely relevant to the recent conversation

Tycoon secures Sunderland buyout

(a fundamental re-drawing of the northeast balance of power may be starting here..)

i'd of course endorse D_Q's conclusion re United but the economic underpinning remains key, and Baboon

However, the potential for a completely surprise winner once every decade has decreased to almost zero

trudat. this is not to downplay that the, say, eight serious contenders in the late 'noughties -> than, say, the five in the late 70s (or whatever) have to beat a higher proportion of the best teams to win it than previously. however, since i'm fairly sure we're all far from happy about the increasing economic stratification of the game, this is preaching to the converted.

were you on that Forest forum on a deliberate wind-up, D_Q? i see your location

 

[don_quixote]

no! i'm a forest fan!!

 

[scottdisco]

sorry! my apologies.

nice to see healthy self-criticism is alive and well in the e mids

i remember when a vast majority of the blue half of Mcr turned into Lord Bell when Thaksin came in

(sorry i'm a bit of an absolutist broken record on that point.)

 

[don_quixote]

well im immensely proud that i support a team who has such a pedigree (before my time), but amongst some of the hyperbole around an admittedly great team a lot of fans forget that it came in the middle of 6 years of european domination by english sides and that you didn't need to beat too many good sides to get there.

manchester united are in a similar time. their 99 achievement is arguably better than what they are doing now - but the 09 team is greater.