Neither have I, mate.
That is a very good point.
Barcelona can change manager because they know how to retain possession - the game is literally at their feet and can execute managers tactics as long as the manager abides by Barcelona' strengths. There success has nothing to do with firing managers and getting new ones in my opinion. You have Rijkaard, Pep, Enrique, vilanova all gathered success ever since they started appreciating possesion and yet maybe only one is a top tier manager. It would be idiotic for a manager to change such a ethos of a great club.
Barcelona have peen successful recently because of having a strong core of player (Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Puyol/Pique) to build the team around and has nothing to do with their possession approach to the game (which they have adhered to, particularly at the youth level, since Rinus Michels brought Total Football to Barcelona in the 1970s). They had both successful spells and barren ones, but like at most clubs, for all the pressure managers get, success still depend mainly on the quality of players at your disposal. The performance of said coaches outside of Barcelona is evidence of this, as none of Rijkaard, Pep and Enrique have delivered anything close to that level of success outside of Barcelona
You gave yourself an imaginary landmark of zero importance and then conclude they have matched us. Very strange.
2004-05, 2005-06, 2013-14 Premier League; 2005, 2007, 2014 EFL Cup, 2007 FA Cup: José Mourinho
Of zero importance? Abramovich buying Chelsea was one of the watershed moments in football history.
why?
Turned England into a genuine destination for world stars in their peak years; brought about the big 4 era in which the PL started its domination as the most popular league worldwide, leading to the situation now where the revenues of even mediocre English clubs outstrips those of giants like Ajax; created a path followed by City, PSG etc which have upset the old order of European football, led to the creation of FFP.
Not really at all. Rupert Murdoch wanted to BUY united back in the 90's but was blocked due to the monopoly in thr English game from United.*
While I agree this thread is pointless, in 1990 dippers would have said the same thing. They had 18 and you lot had 7.
Leicester are the most successful team since winning the title, Chelsea have just joined them
And they would have been 100% accurate.
world club championship? really? a glorified friendly
And how many Full Members Cups do you lot have! Hah!
It's not arbitrary. Abramovich taking over was the point when they became actual rivals. Makes sense to compare them to us in that time period. That's the Chelsea we have to face, not the pre-Abramovich one.
1. Stars were coming to the PL well before Abrahimovic e.g. Cantona, veron, Ginola, Zola etc
By that mentality and way its been going since Roman Abramovic and the retirement of SirAF, its our time to be knocked off the perch by Chelsea.
You're thinking of the Intercontinental Cup in 1999. The world club championship was in 2008 during the season and we had to win a mini-tournament. If Barca count it as a major trophy, so can we.
It saved 4 clubs around Europe from bankruptcy due to the knock on effect of the transfer money.
Not quite, Roman is no longer the richest (not for a few years now) and SAF was the best (some may disagree though).
Nope, 0. The prestigious Zenith Data Systems Cup will never grace the Old Trafford trophy room.Ummm....3?
If you count the WCW you might as well count the Charity Shield which is more difficult to win.
Counting them the same is fine but I'd consider the EL the bigger trophy without a doubt. Much harder to win, better teams in it, better prize.
