Barca bought all their CL trophies under Pep. Only 2015. was the real deal.
Even his doping past was erased. Zidane has no problem admiting he did it.
Even his doping past was erased. Zidane has no problem admiting he did it.
Pep's Barcelona vs Zidane's Real Madrid
- Thread starter sullydnl
- Start date
Even then that's still wrong.
Madrid were better than PSG home and away (who were a far better opponent than the Napoli of 2012 that Chelsea were outplayed by). They then outplayed Juve and beat them comprehensively in the QFs 1st leg (Chelsea laughably struggled against Benfica of all teams at this stage in 2012 and won the tie by sheer luck once again). Madrid only faltered in the 2nd leg against Juve and went through by a penalty (deserved).
In the semis, they were just ruthlessly efficient in the 1st game against Bayern; capitalising on the two glaring errors the Barvarians made and admittedly they were lucky to get past them in the 2nd leg. It wasn't anywhere near as lucky as Chelsea were against Barcelona in 2012 though. Let's not even mention the final. Yeah Karius, messed up but Madrid were hardly getting outplayed like Chelsea were in the 2012 final. They likely would have still won that match if the game was replayed and Karius didn't commit his blunders. The same can't be said for Chelsea. If that 2012 final was replayed; they'd likely get hammered. I really can't see how you could even put both teams on the same table let alone rank Chelsea higher
In 2016; Madrid were eliminated from the Copa Del Rey because they fielded an ineligible player (not Zidane's fault). In the same year when Zidane took over - Barca had like a 12 point advantage and Zidane reduced it to a measly 1 point with the title being decided on the final MatchDay meaning he actually amassed more points with Madrid than Barca did for the time he was in charge that season. He then won the other competition he was still in (Champions League).
in 2017, he did the double (including being the first manager to win back-to-back European trophies) and made it to the semis of the Copa.
Only in 2018 did Zidane have a bad league campaign.
What about Bayern 12/13 though...they fecking murdered teams left and right.
Very poor in the league against his direct rivals. 2 wins in 10 against Atletico and Barca. Should have done better
Imo the strongest single season team I've seen in my lifetime. Shame they didn't last very long and Heynckes went into retirement.
It’s only to bias to suggest the Henry claim was any less of a penalty than Chelsea’s four. Personally I thought the Pique handball was the clearest of Chelsea’s shouts. It wasn’t deliberate, but he gained a massive advantage and he had his arm extended out. The Drogba one wasn’t a penalty for me - Abidal dangles his leg in front of Drogba but never follows through into a proper obstruction. The other two were a bit desperate, possibly could have got one of them.
If you want to make the argument about context of the game, then Barca taking a 2-0 lead to Stamford Bridge makes the tie entirely different. Ultimately Chelsea benefited from 3 major decisions going their way, while Barcelona benefited from 4. The way it’s been painted since as a robbery is nonsense.
I rate them like this:
2011 Barcelona
2013 Bayern Munich
2015 Barcelona
2017 Real Madrid
2014 Real Madrid
2010 Internazionale
2016 Real Madrid
2018 Real Madrid
2012 Chelsea
2011 Barcelona
2013 Bayern Munich
2015 Barcelona
2017 Real Madrid
2014 Real Madrid
2010 Internazionale
2016 Real Madrid
2018 Real Madrid
2012 Chelsea
Possibly the most dominant CL winners of the decade.
Faced barcelona with an injured Messi and their coach going through chemo. Then BvB in the final without Goetze
My own personal top 5* of teams in the decade:
10/11 Barcelona
14/15 Barcelona
12/13 Bayern
16/17 Real Madrid
13/14 Real Madrid
*teams that realized their potential and weren't sidetracked by injuries or poor form or motivations
Heh. Record against barcelona in the league is 1-2-2. Total clasicos is 3-2-2
Against Atletico 1-3-1 in the league, 2-4*-2 in total
*counting '16 CL final as a draw
Not a dominant record for sure, but i wouldn't call it poor
Yeh I'm done. The Drogba one isn't a penalty where his shirt is getting tugged and a leg block before falling down, but the one where Henry is on his way to the ground before getting his shoulder grabbed is the same as the two handballs in the 2nd leg.
In your 'objective' view the one with more contact is less of a penalty. I know where your mind is at.
On the poll, I think there's only in football history a handful of teams so good that esentially changed the way the sport was played at the time. Those were Herrera's Inter, Michels' Ajax and Sacchi's Milan.
Maybe Pep's Barcelona can be somehow comparable in that aspect (I see them below those 3 anyway), but I struggle to see Zidane's Real in the same league. They are a fantastic team with great players that specifically dominated the CL for three consecutive years, and thats about it.
Maybe Pep's Barcelona can be somehow comparable in that aspect (I see them below those 3 anyway), but I struggle to see Zidane's Real in the same league. They are a fantastic team with great players that specifically dominated the CL for three consecutive years, and thats about it.
For me, these are undeniably the 5 greatest teams in football history:
Santos 1960-1969
Ajax 1970-1973
Milan 1988-1990
Real Madrid 1955-1960
Barcelona 2009-2011
I honestly put Barcelona in the top 3, the other two teams in the top 3 being Santos and Ajax. I struggle very much to see how Herrera's Inter was superior to Guardiola's Barcelona. Benfica 1961-1963 was at least in Inter's level. Liverpool 1977-1984 too. Juventus 1996-1998. Milan 1992-1994. Ajax 1994-1996. All teams of comparable quality and dominance to the Great Inter.
The ONLY reason why there is even a contest, a discussion between Pep's Barcelona and Zidane's Madrid is because of Zidane's Madrid 3 UCLs, Guardiola's Barcelona won 2 UCLs anyway, so it is not like there is a significant gap between these two teams in this matter. Take in account the dominance and football played and the significant advantage of Guardiola's Barcelona over Zidane's Real is obvious, truly fantastic teams are not expected to barely win the games almost always, they are expected to have constantly shown their superiority. Real rarely played or felt like the best team in the world, their strenght was far more in being able to win even when outplayed and playing badly due to luck, efficience and endurance than any footballing brilliance, like their 2018 CL run specially showed. 2017 was their only title that had slight hints of brilliance, and even these hints are far inferior to Pep's Barcelona heights. Barcelona needed far less luck than Zidane's Real in their UCLs runs, even when Barcelona lost they still felt great, sometimes still the best team in the world, like the Inter or Chelsea ties. Inter was able to win in the first leg based on many counter-attacks, Barcelona did not play to their full potential and were without Iniesta, they lost 3-1. If Inter had won with only 2-1, Barcelona would have gone through, because a 2 goal advantage in the agregate allowed Mourinho to park an impenetrable bus in the Camp Nou, a game when Barcelona also did not have Iniesta, that he could not have done, at least not to the same degree of totally abdicating from any attacking ambition, if he had not such a large advantage from the first game. Even then, Barcelona did not go through to the final with very fine margins. They would extremely likely have won 3 UCLs in a row and any argument for Zidane's Real superiority would cease totally. Or if Real had lost in the penalties to Atletico in 2016 or the final against Liverpool in 2018, or if the second leg between Juventus and Real had gone to extra time. You can say that Barcelona had luck a few times, the 2009 Stamford Bridge game against Chelsea is a scandal, but incidents such as these were far fewer than in Zidane's Real because Barcelona virtually always was vastly superior to their adversaries.
Even the Van Persie's red card in 2011, as stupid as it was, masks the truth of that game. Barcelona had a penalty not given and outplayed Arsenal from start to finish. Arsenal was barely able to string 3 or 4 passes in sequence and they did not have a single shot, on goal or off goal, while Barcelona had 20 shots, 12 on goal. And, specially in the first half, Barcelona was not even playing at their absolute best! For instance, their midfield and final third playing was not being as fluid as it normally was, much of this because Busquets was playing as a central-back alongside Abidal! Mascherano was in the midfield. In the second half, with Van Persie sent off and Busquets moved back to midfield, Barcelona created many fantastic chances and recovered their dinamism. In fact, I think that, considering how Van Persie was barely able to touch the ball and Arsenal could not do a single good attacking move during the whole game, not even a remotely decent counter-attack, I am much more inclined to think that Busquets moving back to the midfield was far more responsible for Barcelona recovering their best football in the second half than VP sent off. If Koscielny was sent off, and Koscielny rode his luck in that game, it would be truly far more damaging for Arsenal. Arsenal's only chance in the whole match came out of nowhere after VP was sent off anyway. And I am not even taking in consideration the first leg, when Barcelona had a goal wrongly ruled out as offside. Pep's Barcelona did lose 2 matches in a row for the first time since Guardiola was the manager only in 2012! Guardiola's Barcelona won 14 of 18 possible titles in all their 4 seasons!
Besides, if you are willing to look and search well enough, all of the all-time great teams did need some luck to win what they won. No team is unbeatable. Sacchi's Milan, for example, was with only 10 men and was losing 1-0 to Red Star in the 1988-89 UCL when a fog stopped the match and saved Milan from elimination. They played the game again in the next day and drawed 1-1, Milan advanced on penalties. In the quarter-finals against Werder Bremen, Milan drawed 0-0 and won 1-0 at home only with a dubious penalty. After that, they destroyed Real with 5-0 and Steaua in the final with 4-0 playing brilliant football in the final games of 1989 UCL, but people forget that Milan's run to that title was not totally like that. Milan's games in the way to the 1990 UCL were extremely complicated and they were rarely brilliant in that UCL win. Sacchi's Milan was also stomped by their local rivals a few times, specially Maradona's Napoli, a few times, and they only won Serie A once. That Milan's brilliance was far more inconsistent than Guardiola's Barcelona, Guardiola's Barcelona rarely had off days and, when they played at their absolute best, they were truly unplayable. Even Cruyff's Ajax eliminated Benfica in 1972 with a 1-0 victory at home and a 0-0 away. All the arguments against Pep's Barcelona here, when we say that they were unplayable, is that they lost a few times too. But no team is truly invincible, but Guardiola's Barcelona felt as such when they played at their best like no other team in the 21st century even remotely approaches. For people here detracting Barcelona's performance against United in 2011 UCL final because United was not a great team, remember that Internazionale from 1972 and Uruguay from 1974 were also far from being great teams, they were potentially worse than that United team. Ajax's match against Internazionale in the 1972 UCL final and Holland's match against Uruguay in the 1974's World Cup are widely considered together the peak of Total Football. But both teams were also quite old and mediocre, full of players in decline. Inter in 1972 had lost to Borussia Monchengladbach with 7-1, a bottle from a Borussia suppoter thrown in an Inter player anulated the match and erased the shameful loss, with Inter eventually reaching the final. Uruguay in 1974 would lost to Sweden 3-0 in the next game and be eliminated in the group stage in the 1974 World Cup. Argentina in 1974, a team that lost 4-0 against Holland in that World Cup, was also disgraceful and payed as terribly as big team can in a World Cup, totally imature, mediocre and without any coordination. Germany was actually the only truly good/great team that Holland faced in the 1974 World Cup, the rest were quite mediocre. Even Brazil was making a sub-par and disappointing World Cup. I am not saying this to detract Holland 1974.
Also, if we are going to consider the UCL the final and single definition of greatness, then the best team ever is Real Madrid 1956-1960. They won 5 UCLs in a row. Were they really better than Cruyff's Ajax, that won "only" 3 in a row? I feel that, based on the arguments of anyone in this thread that puts Zidane's Real above Guardiola's Barcelona, that some users here would answer yes, and I can not agree with that. Same thing if people put Zidane's Madrid and 70s Bayern (they finished in 10th and 3rd places in two of the three seasons in which they won the UCL!) above Sacchi's Milan because of one more UCL title. Claiming Guardiola's Barcelona to be better than Zidane's Madrid is at least as bad as claiming that 70s Bayern was better than Sacchi's Milan or claiming that 70s Bayern was even close to the level of Cruyff's Ajax.
Even the Van Persie's red card in 2011, as stupid as it was, masks the truth of that game. Barcelona had a penalty not given and outplayed Arsenal from start to finish. Arsenal was barely able to string 3 or 4 passes in sequence and they did not have a single shot, on goal or off goal, while Barcelona had 20 shots, 12 on goal. And, specially in the first half, Barcelona was not even playing at their absolute best! For instance, their midfield and final third playing was not being as fluid as it normally was, much of this because Busquets was playing as a central-back alongside Abidal! Mascherano was in the midfield. In the second half, with Van Persie sent off and Busquets moved back to midfield, Barcelona created many fantastic chances and recovered their dinamism. In fact, I think that, considering how Van Persie was barely able to touch the ball and Arsenal could not do a single good attacking move during the whole game, not even a remotely decent counter-attack, I am much more inclined to think that Busquets moving back to the midfield was far more responsible for Barcelona recovering their best football in the second half than VP sent off. If Koscielny was sent off, and Koscielny rode his luck in that game, it would be truly far more damaging for Arsenal. Arsenal's only chance in the whole match came out of nowhere after VP was sent off anyway. And I am not even taking in consideration the first leg, when Barcelona had a goal wrongly ruled out as offside. Pep's Barcelona did lose 2 matches in a row for the first time since Guardiola was the manager only in 2012! Guardiola's Barcelona won 14 of 18 possible titles in all their 4 seasons!
Besides, if you are willing to look and search well enough, all of the all-time great teams did need some luck to win what they won. No team is unbeatable. Sacchi's Milan, for example, was with only 10 men and was losing 1-0 to Red Star in the 1988-89 UCL when a fog stopped the match and saved Milan from elimination. They played the game again in the next day and drawed 1-1, Milan advanced on penalties. In the quarter-finals against Werder Bremen, Milan drawed 0-0 and won 1-0 at home only with a dubious penalty. After that, they destroyed Real with 5-0 and Steaua in the final with 4-0 playing brilliant football in the final games of 1989 UCL, but people forget that Milan's run to that title was not totally like that. Milan's games in the way to the 1990 UCL were extremely complicated and they were rarely brilliant in that UCL win. Sacchi's Milan was also stomped by their local rivals a few times, specially Maradona's Napoli, a few times, and they only won Serie A once. That Milan's brilliance was far more inconsistent than Guardiola's Barcelona, Guardiola's Barcelona rarely had off days and, when they played at their absolute best, they were truly unplayable. Even Cruyff's Ajax eliminated Benfica in 1972 with a 1-0 victory at home and a 0-0 away. All the arguments against Pep's Barcelona here, when we say that they were unplayable, is that they lost a few times too. But no team is truly invincible, but Guardiola's Barcelona felt as such when they played at their best like no other team in the 21st century even remotely approaches. For people here detracting Barcelona's performance against United in 2011 UCL final because United was not a great team, remember that Internazionale from 1972 and Uruguay from 1974 were also far from being great teams, they were potentially worse than that United team. Ajax's match against Internazionale in the 1972 UCL final and Holland's match against Uruguay in the 1974's World Cup are widely considered together the peak of Total Football. But both teams were also quite old and mediocre, full of players in decline. Inter in 1972 had lost to Borussia Monchengladbach with 7-1, a bottle from a Borussia suppoter thrown in an Inter player anulated the match and erased the shameful loss, with Inter eventually reaching the final. Uruguay in 1974 would lost to Sweden 3-0 in the next game and be eliminated in the group stage in the 1974 World Cup. Argentina in 1974, a team that lost 4-0 against Holland in that World Cup, was also disgraceful and payed as terribly as big team can in a World Cup, totally imature, mediocre and without any coordination. Germany was actually the only truly good/great team that Holland faced in the 1974 World Cup, the rest were quite mediocre. Even Brazil was making a sub-par and disappointing World Cup. I am not saying this to detract Holland 1974.
Also, if we are going to consider the UCL the final and single definition of greatness, then the best team ever is Real Madrid 1956-1960. They won 5 UCLs in a row. Were they really better than Cruyff's Ajax, that won "only" 3 in a row? I feel that, based on the arguments of anyone in this thread that puts Zidane's Real above Guardiola's Barcelona, that some users here would answer yes, and I can not agree with that. Same thing if people put Zidane's Madrid and 70s Bayern (they finished in 10th and 3rd places in two of the three seasons in which they won the UCL!) above Sacchi's Milan because of one more UCL title. Claiming Guardiola's Barcelona to be better than Zidane's Madrid is at least as bad as claiming that 70s Bayern was better than Sacchi's Milan or claiming that 70s Bayern was even close to the level of Cruyff's Ajax.
Last edited:
You are mistaking in your head that Barcelona team, a team that was a wonderful attacking side full of flair and creativity, a team that suffocated their rivals all the time and created many goal chances, with Spain 2010-2012. That Spain team was boring and had 80 minutes of nothing like you described, but Pep's Barcelona was not like that. For example, they created a ridiculous amount of goal chances against United in the first 20 minutes of the second half of the 2011 UCL final. Against Arsenal in the first leg in 2010, Barcelona had more than 10 extremely real goal chances only in the first 20 minutes of the game.
Also, the absolute peak of that team was the 5-0 against Real, the absolute technical peak of 21st century football, the definitive benchmark of how the beautiful game should be played. That game was the best football that you will ever see, no highlights' reel comes even remotely close to show the full level of Barcelona's brilliantism in that match, they were super-natural, god-like. You MUST watch that full game, it is easily find on Youtube. At least for now, watch these 8 minutes of the 5-0 in the video below, when Barcelona was already winning 4-0 and toying with Real. If anyone is able to not think that Guardiola's Barcelona was by far the best team in 21st century's football and had the best football after seeing these 8 minutes and the full match, you should consider watching another sport.
Last edited:
Of course you can argue against it...they won one league title during that span. While the CL is a cup competition heavily dependent on luck to win.
Overall good post but awful formatting.
I agree that people stare themselves blind on the fact Real won 3x CL in a row compared to winning 2 in 3 years. Real wasn't dominant in CL either but had an uncanny ability to win regardless and were poor domestically except in 16-17.
Obviously I am biased, but I do find it hard to understand how it is even a contest for some, Pep's Barcelona was easily the better side.
Sacchi's Milan didnt win the league, only the cl, right?
I'd go with
2011 Barcelona
2014 Real Madrid
2015 Barcelona
2016 Real Madrid
2014 Bayern Munich
2017 Real Madrid
2018 Real Madrid
2012 Chelsea
2010 Inter
The 2017+ declining Real Madrid and Inter were ridiculously over-rated. The only good team that Inter team played to reach the final was Barcelona which they narrowly beat. They played Rubin Kazan, Dynamo Kyiv, CSKA Moscow to reach the final FFS.
They also comfortably beat a Chelsea side that won the Premier League that season scoring over 100 goals in the process.
one in 2 1/2 seasons aint too shabby.
And i wouldnt call the Cl a competition thats heavily dependent on luck at all.
Its funny we never talked about the Cl being about luck before Real won it x 3
You're new on here but we absolutely did
I agree, Real dominating the cl obviously is legendary but with peps barca you usually felt the game was over before it started no matter the oponent. Only thing against them is they shouldnt have progressed vs chelsea in the semi finals.
Madrid were completely outplayed last season by a washed up Bayern side with 35 year old Ribery giving them hell and if not for offside goals, a red card to Vidal and Ulreich and Rafinha (both subs to injured players) gifting Sunday League level goals, they would never go through. It's why I remain that Zidane is an Algerian Voodoo Shaman.
When you somehow got past Pep's Barca it was more like: "We survived somehow with 11 men behind the ball, thank heaven."
Now imagine against Heynckes' prime Bayern from 2013. So for me they are not only several levels below Pep's Barca but also worse than Heynckes' Bayern, easily.
They won the CL with stuff like losing 0-3 at home to Juventus before somehow getting a penalty in the 90-something minute, Ramos repeatedly scoring 90-something minute goals and Ronaldo succeeding with a bicycle kick which he tried to do for 5 or 6 years straight and always failed, except suddenly against Juventus in the CL of all teams in his 76th attempt.
They also lost the league by winter and got humiliated at home against Barca multiple times. They used up all the luck in the world, wouldn't surprise me if they go trophyless for 10 years now.
When you somehow got past Pep's Barca it was more like: "We survived somehow with 11 men behind the ball, thank heaven."
Now imagine against Heynckes' prime Bayern from 2013. So for me they are not only several levels below Pep's Barca but also worse than Heynckes' Bayern, easily.
They won the CL with stuff like losing 0-3 at home to Juventus before somehow getting a penalty in the 90-something minute, Ramos repeatedly scoring 90-something minute goals and Ronaldo succeeding with a bicycle kick which he tried to do for 5 or 6 years straight and always failed, except suddenly against Juventus in the CL of all teams in his 76th attempt.
They also lost the league by winter and got humiliated at home against Barca multiple times. They used up all the luck in the world, wouldn't surprise me if they go trophyless for 10 years now.
Won the league first season, then back to back European cups
Aye, Spain was abysmal, but the difference is in that I said 70-80 minutes of nothing while Spain was largely 85+ And the main difference between both was Messi as a catalyst.
I was largely referring to early Pep Barca. I'd agree 2011 Barca was far more exciting than that, but by then I was bored of how dominant they were regardless of whether they gave you 20 minutes or 40 minutes of exciting football. I was put off by the inevitability of it all. Games were simply not competitive and, as a neutral with no skin in it, not at all engaging.
It's funny because I used to love Pep and Barca. I was a sucker for Cruyff's Dream Team, a direct side that kept trading punches all game and running up basketball scorelines. I sort of lost that love for both when he essentially killed football (in my eyes). Mind, I don't actively watch them but, when I do, I somewhat enjoy watching City and how easy they make free-flowing football look. I guess that's a result of how difficult we make it look every week.
So, Sacchi was in Milan 4 seasons:
1st season won the league, lost the cup 1/2
2nd season won UCL lost the league & cup 1/3
3rd season won UCL lost the league & cup 1/3
4th season lost UCL, league & cup 0/3
Plus: 2/2 european supercups, 1/1 italian supercup, 2/2 world club cup.
Let's compare that with Pep's 4 seasons at Barça:
1st season won the league, UCL & cup. 3/3
2nd season won the league, lost the UCL & cup 1/3
3rd season won UCL & league, lost the cup 2/3
4th season won the cup, lost UCL & league 1/3
Plus: 2/2 european supercups, 3/3 spanish supercup, 2/2 world club cup
We have a clear winner.
Last edited:
Well, the Algerian Voodoo Shaman is back at the helm of Madrid and will probably rebuild the squad in his own image this time.. Imagine what he can achieve with his magic
...
if... if... if...
...
So many ifs. I can say that if Real has scored all the clear goal scoring chances against Juve in 14-15 they would be a 5 in a row time CL winners...
Someone said something very stupid about last year Bayern. I can easily say that Jupp made that "washed" Bayern side the best team in the world. They were brutal in both games. I remember that after the final whistle I thought we didn't deserve this, played like shit but you play as much as your opponent allows you. Last year we faced the 4 best teams in the CL and clearly outperformed 3 of them. We also played with Barcelona in the league and although they managed to beat us 3-0 I can say that they weren't that good.
I can say that Barcelona in 2015 had very rough path to the final on paper because they faced the champions of England, France and Germany. But all of the three champion teams were in crisis and with a lot of injured, key players. Real were a serious force that season but Ancelotti didn't manage the team quite well, lots of injuries and short of options in the midfield gave Barca the title in the league.
I rate the last 10 winners in the following way:
2013 Bayern
2011 Barcelona
2017 Real
2014 Real
2009 Barcelona
2010 Inter
2015 Barcelona
2018 Real
2016 Real
2012 Chelsea
My point with all these "ifs" is that we can not judge what was the better team only because one team won the UCL one more time than the other. Because winning one more UCL is really the only thing in which Zidane's Real can be considered superior, both from a perspective of titles and specially from a perspective of footballing brilliance.
Also, Barcelona 2011 must be above Bayern 2013.
You put Barcelona 2015 way too low, they were truly great, MSN was a dream. They were the last that won the UCL playing truly beautiful football across the almost the whole campaign, making spectacles. They definitely are above at least Inter 2010.