You lose badly in one game and you go out of the cup.Unbelievable
You lose badly in one league game and you have 37 to make it up.
Pep's Barcelona vs Zidane's Real Madrid
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
You lose badly in one league game and you have 37 to make it up.
And that's exactly what makes league a superior competition, as every team will have a couple of bad days. Football is also such a volatile game, that a one-off match or a tie is a very bad way to determine which team is better.
It's very possible to win a knockout competition even by a series of very mediocre games. Some recent examples are Portugal and Greece at Euros. Such a thing is impossible in a league competition. This is such a pointless debate, anyone with a shred of common sense is aware that cups are much more down to luck.
Leicester?
Also do you seriously think Atletico were the better side than Barca & Madrid when they won it?
Both teams won it on merit by playing some great football and winning many matches, unlike Portugal and Greece. The table after 38 games doesn't lie. The margins on their wins were fine, and maybe they had a bit more luck than teams that were close to them. But no one can say that they fluked their way to the title while playing mediocre football. Which is often the case with cup winners (to various degrees).
That season, Atletico was as good as Barca and Madrid. Less talented, but incredibly resilient and well structured. A team doesn't win that much points by accident. Table doesn't lie.
Last edited:
Greece and Portugal both remained undefeated in their entire tournaments. Both beating France who were one of the favorites on both occasions.
Whilst their football (Greece in particular) wasn’t good to watch, they were certainly efficient with what they wanted to achieve and did it very well.
Squeezing out draws through mediocre displays, while rarely ever winning, is not good enough to win the league. In a cup competition, as common wisdom goes, anything is possible.
You seem to have compeltely ignored my point that both beat France, who, if they had won, people would not be complaining.
As I said, looking at a result of a one-off game or a tie is not a good way to judge teams. Or to fabricate narratives. That's why cup competitions are overrated.
Yet when people who talk about the greatest club sides ever, the usual suspects are the ones who won multiple CL.
Teams who won multiple league titles rarely feature.
People talk stupid stuff all the time. Football mythology is often inflated and hollow.
So who would you have as the best club sides of all time? A team who didn't win the CL?
That Barca team was the greatest club side of all time. Close the thread
Vs Real who are the most successful?
Actually, the Stamford Bridge incident was heavily discussed in the 9th page of this discussion, if you bother to look.
Come on, now you are talking ridiculous stuff, acusing Guardiola's Barcelona of dopping.
Also, check the ninth page of this thread to see discussion about the Stamford Bridge scandal.
Last edited:
winning 13 trophies out of a possible 16 I think Pep's Barcelona is the most succesful
Zidane’s Real Madrid could barely handle this era of Barca let alone his team being better than Pep’s
You are forgetting some crucial details. In 2010, despite drawing 2-2, Barcelona destroyed Arsenal. They did not win only because they lost countless chances. The draw against Bayern in 2009 was after a 4-0 victory in the first leg. Even in their loss in against Arsenal in 2011, they were the better team in the first leg, had a goal wrongly ruled out as offside in the first leg and absolutely dominated Arsenal in the second leg. People talk about Van Persie's red, but Barcelona had a penalty not given and Arsenal did not have a single shot in the whole game, while Barcelona had 20 shots, 12 on target. Arsenal was schooled and outplayed in such a ridiculous way during the whole match, barely able to string four passes together, that Arsenal advancing would be one of the most freak results in all football, and Bendtner had a chance to put Arsesal through About the series of 4 clásicos, the first one was a La Liga game. The draw was already enough for Barcelona to consolidate their La Liga title. In the Copa Del Rey final, Barcelona clearly played in a level far below their usual, but it was a fair loss. In their 1-1 draw in the home leg of Champions League, they had already won the first game 2-0. They did not need to do much. Even then, if you bother to watch the full game, Barcelona dominated and played some fantastic football in that draw, they did not destroy Madrid only because they did not need to. They were by far the best team in both legs against Real Madrid. The first leg was a shameful in which neither team wanted to play football, only diving and fouls, Madrid was only sitting back and holding off Barcelona, and Madrid was lucky to only have one player sent off in that game.
In the end, just watch the 5-0 against Real in La Liga and you will see the greatest football performance ever. That Barcelona played football like Gods, no team has ever come close to their level in the 21st century so far. Real Madrid's Zidane was often outplayed by their adversaries or played really badly or decent at best, they rode their luck, specially in the 2017-2018 UCL. Their 2015-2016 UCL win was also extremely lukewarm and boring, having an easy route and not playing any good football. Any Barcelona's moments of luck or bad football were comparatively far fewer than Real's because they did not need them so much, they were almost always far supperior to the opposition.
Also, ALL of the all-time great teams were beaten plenty of times and also needed luck, no matter how good they were. If we are really going to apply to all the great historical teams the same level of scrutiny that we can apply to Pep's Barcelona, all those other teams will crumble drastically, with the only exception of Ajax. For example, Sacchi's Milan, the team that is often also seen as the best ever and a team that won two UCLs in a row, lost far more games than Pep's Barcelona and needed far more luck. Perhaps later, I will explain all the details of luck and losses that Sacchi's Milan (whose away record is far worse than Pep's Barcelona too) had and, I guarantee, Pep's Barcelona was far more consistently brilliant and unbeatable than that Milan and virtually every other team in history with exception of Cruyff's Ajax. In fact, Pep's Barcelona only lost two games in a row in the 2011-2012 season, against Chelsea and Real Madrid. Even then, Barcelona should have destroyed Chelsea, Chelsea did not created virtually any good goal chance besides the one they scored, while Barcelona constantly dismantled Chelsea. Same thing in the second leg. Against Inter in 2010, they were extremely close to going to the final too and they were a far superior team and still clearly the best team in the world. Barcelona 2009-2011, but specially in the 2010-2011 season, was the best team to ever play the game and the highest technical level ever reached in the history of this sport. For all their titles, you must see their full games to fully understand how fantastic they were, the gods they were when playing football.
Last edited:
That Barcelona team also consistently beat Real Madrid in the 2011-2012 season. Real Madrid was even better than in the 2010-2011 season, Barcelona was struggling sometimes in the 2011-2012 season, not playing as greatly as in their peak 2010-2011 season, but Real still managed to beat Barcelona only once in the 2011-2012 season. Barcelona won 3 games (2 of them in the Bernabeu), drew 2 and lost one (In Nou Camp) against Real in the 2011-2012, a season when Real won La Liga with 100 points!
How is this an 11 page debate. That Barcelona side is in a completely different league than Zidane's Real.
Zidane's Real was very successful in the CL, not necessarily very good.
Relatively speaking obviously.
Zidane's Real was very successful in the CL, not necessarily very good.
Relatively speaking obviously.
How is Messi vs Ronaldo like a thousand pages? Some people just have... weird opinions.
There 2 or 3 different iterations of that barcelona, depending on how you judge the swap from eto'o to ibra. Then the 10/12 version with Messi in his final form as a false 9
Still, all that separated those barcelona sides from winning the CL back-to-back-to-back was a volcano going off at the wrong time in Iceland, an injury to Iniesta, and a disallowed goal
Conversely, Zidane took over after 18 league games and went 17-2-1 over the final 20, we might well have won the league if he'd got the job from the start. And i'm still convinced if Modric doesn't go down with injuries we win everything in 14/15.
With that being said, barcelona looked more dominant than we did. And their starting XI were better than ours
Still, all that separated those barcelona sides from winning the CL back-to-back-to-back was a volcano going off at the wrong time in Iceland, an injury to Iniesta, and a disallowed goal
Conversely, Zidane took over after 18 league games and went 17-2-1 over the final 20, we might well have won the league if he'd got the job from the start. And i'm still convinced if Modric doesn't go down with injuries we win everything in 14/15.
With that being said, barcelona looked more dominant than we did. And their starting XI were better than ours
I don't even understand why people say "Zidane's Madrid". There were so many people involved in building this team. Zidane pretty much took over an aging team in decline and did a fantastic job in getting the most out of it. The real rebuilding job starts now.
What kind of comparison is this?
Obvious no-brainer as Pep's Barca is the best team the world has ever seen. Zidane's RM may have been the most succesfull CL team but it's just one of many very good teams the world has seen.
Obvious no-brainer as Pep's Barca is the best team the world has ever seen. Zidane's RM may have been the most succesfull CL team but it's just one of many very good teams the world has seen.
Zidane took over halfway through a season and had the best win ratio of any team in La Liga during his period taking over in the first season, and he won the CL. The second year, he won both La Liga and the CL, the third year they were bad but still won the CL.
I agree that Pep's Barcelona team with an all-time great like Messi, an incredible Eto'o, Xavi/Iniesta was superior, but let's not act like Zidane's Madrid wasn't very good. If Rafa Benitez hadn't stunk up the joint in the first half of the season, it's not a terrible assumption to think he would have won La Liga as well as the CL in his first season. Real Madrid was effectively the better team of the two in that time and won the Clasico's IIRC (could be off on that).
It was Zidanes team because he introduced the likes of Casemiro, Vazquez, Asensio eetc and gave the team the balance they lacked before. He also didn't use the BBC front line all the time like his predecessor. It wasn't just the best names on the pitch but a cohesive unit of players.
Since Pep took over Real won 3 games out of 22 in the league(14 losses) against Barca. It's mental to suggest Real was the better side.
Because he was the coach and gave the team his imprint? I mean, by the same token, there's no such thing as "Guardiola's Barcelona"
While I believe winning 3 straight CL’s certainly provides consideration for one of the best teams ever, I don’t understand how they eclipsed Peps Barca. He had 2 CL’s to Zidane’s 3 so their comparable. Yet, Pep has more league titles and is considered by most to have had the best team ever so Barca should still be ahead.
Pep's Barcelona everyday. Their level of domination on the football pitch was completely different. This comparison only exists because the CL is a cup competition in which luck does play a part (for both teams). But on the whole, I have never seen a team as absurdly dominant as Pep's Barcelona. It was painful to watch them at the time but I can't help but admire the level they reached.
There needs to be context to those away games. Also, that Barcelona is extremely loved and acclaimed everywhere, not only on this board, and deservedly so. At their best, they were super-natural, godlike.
In that case Pep's Barca was straight up mediocre in the CL.
Because these Chelsea 2009/2012 ties as well as Inter 2010 were anything but pretty to watch.
What's there to compare? Zidane is a charismatic guy who says it how it is and has no need to suck up to anyone.
Guardiola is a mentally distrubed man who likes to talk whatever suits him at the time.
As far as on field managerial success goes, Zidane is statistically the best there ever was.
League titels - 50% success (1 out of 2)
CL titels - 100% success (3 out of 3)
Guardiola is a mentally distrubed man who likes to talk whatever suits him at the time.
As far as on field managerial success goes, Zidane is statistically the best there ever was.
League titels - 50% success (1 out of 2)
CL titels - 100% success (3 out of 3)
This is the new Messi vs Ronaldo thread
Mourinho's Real was pretty close to Guardiola's Barcelona.
And Zidane's Madrid was better than Mourinho's team with Ramos, Marcelo, Modric etc in their prime + new players like Kroos, Carvajal and Casemiro !
And Zidane's Madrid was better than Mourinho's team with Ramos, Marcelo, Modric etc in their prime + new players like Kroos, Carvajal and Casemiro !
You can’t be the best team in Europe if you don’t win your national league. In a knockout competition there are huge factors to consider like the draw, timing of injuries, form, no chance to correct any of this or freak incidents how you might over the course of a league season. For example, RM’s route to the 2016 final was Roma, Wolfsburg and a Man City side that finished ahead of us only on goal difference.
People might as well try and argue that Arsenal were the best team in England 2014-17 because they won 3 FA Cups.
The whole point of the OP is which was the better team, not which list of trophies you prefer.
Since Guardiola left Real have won one league title ahead of a Barcelona team far worse than the team under Guardiola.
People might as well try and argue that Arsenal were the best team in England 2014-17 because they won 3 FA Cups.
The whole point of the OP is which was the better team, not which list of trophies you prefer.
Since Guardiola left Real have won one league title ahead of a Barcelona team far worse than the team under Guardiola.
Pep's Barcelona team are the best I've seen in my life time. We were an incredible side during that same period and they played us off the park twice in the CL finals.
Zidane's triple CL win is an insane thing to accomplish and may never be repeated, but for me you have to do more than that to be the greatest club side ever. You've definitely got to do better in your domestic league. The 38 game season is still the yardstick in terms of consistent greatness. Winning a cup can be done by turning up to a handful of games a season, luck of the draw and all sorts of factors. It's very difficult to fluke a league title by comparison.
Barca also played football that was of a far higher standard and much better to watch. Zidane never rocked up against Barcelona and smashed them 5-0.
Zidane's triple CL win is an insane thing to accomplish and may never be repeated, but for me you have to do more than that to be the greatest club side ever. You've definitely got to do better in your domestic league. The 38 game season is still the yardstick in terms of consistent greatness. Winning a cup can be done by turning up to a handful of games a season, luck of the draw and all sorts of factors. It's very difficult to fluke a league title by comparison.
Barca also played football that was of a far higher standard and much better to watch. Zidane never rocked up against Barcelona and smashed them 5-0.
Thought the Messi Vs Ronaldo thread was an abomination. But then I saw this thread. Now the other one doesn't look so bad. It's unbelievable that there are people who genuinely believe that any team in the recent past can match Pep's Barcelona at their peak. These people are to football what flat earthers are to science.
Barca's Pep by 1000 miles. Its not what they won it was how they won. They beat utd in wembley without utd getting a kick of the ball. Their skill level wàs so superior nobody could touch them.
Xavi/inesta arguably the best 2 midfielders of all time. Busquets/dani alves in his prime and if course MESSI, never mind the rest.
That team will go down as the best because of the way they played and the fact that no team ever got near them. Teams literally could not get the ball off them. They passed teams to death.
Xavi/inesta arguably the best 2 midfielders of all time. Busquets/dani alves in his prime and if course MESSI, never mind the rest.
That team will go down as the best because of the way they played and the fact that no team ever got near them. Teams literally could not get the ball off them. They passed teams to death.
Last edited by a moderator:
Haha no they haven’t. What zidane achieved is incredible, by a majority will always pick Pep’s Barca side. They will go down as the greatest side in club history.
Most teams would much rather play Zidane’s squad than 2011 Pep’s team