Thiago Silva: PL is a step down for Ibra

Gio said:
Why would you use that match when you can turn to a league table to compare the two Spanish teams? In the absence of PSG playing in England, I daresay we have to use matches between the sides to help form an opinion. Not just the result, because in a tight knockout match that can often swing either way, but the performance too. And it was pretty clear there was a gulf in class between the French and English champions last year. The top boys they've got are also a notch above anything in England - Thiago Silva, Ibrahimovic - even Verratti and that midfield looks much more fluid than any equivalents across the Channel.
Click to expand...

Two games whereby the teams were equally matched over 180 minutes isn't exactly the kind of overwhelming proof that would back up your argument. Just like Sociedad beating Barcelona 1-0 isn't any kind of sample size that would allow you to draw any conclusions.

In terms of the "top boys they've got are also a notch above anything in England", I'd say Aguero is a notch above any of those player's you've mentioned. He'd be making Ibra's scoring look mediocre in that "Ligue".
 
finneh said:
Two games whereby the teams were equally matched over 180 minutes isn't exactly the kind of overwhelming proof that would back up your argument. Just like Sociedad beating Barcelona 1-0 isn't any kind of sample size that would allow you to draw any conclusions.

In terms of the "top boys they've got are also a notch above anything in England", I'd say Aguero is a notch above any of those player's you've mentioned. He'd be making Ibra's scoring look mediocre in that "Ligue".
Click to expand...

Nah, I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Ibrahimovic has scored 30 in 26 league games this season. I'd have plenty of confidence in Aguero doing similar, but for him to be making Ibrahimovic's goalscoring look mediocre, he'd have to be around 40 in that number of games, and I doubt he would be. It's not a great league, but it's not that bad, either.
 
Hilarious quotes.

Any of the big four English clubs is a massive step up from PSG.

They have a good team, not a great one.

Winning Ligue 1 every single year by miles is hardly testing for a player.
 
KingMinger22 said:
Hilarious quotes.

Any of the big four English clubs is a massive step up from PSG.

They have a good team, not a great one.

Winning Ligue 1 every single year by miles is hardly testing for a player.
Click to expand...

In what sense? Because you'd struggle to argue that any of them have a better squad than PSG, certainly, and who are the big 4 English clubs anyway?
 
2 Man Midfield said:
The PL in general is a step up, it's easy to disagree with him there. But PSG are for me better than any side he'd be joining. I can see why he'd think that, despite it not being clever to come out and say it right now.
Click to expand...

Even if they have a slightly better squad than any of the big PL teams right now, the gap is small. The PL big boys are gonna spend big this summer and have way more pull in general.

He's acting like PSG have a Barca/Bayern level gap between them and, say, City who look likely to knock them out.
 
Cheesy said:
In what sense? Because you'd struggle to argue that any of them have a better squad than PSG, certainly, and who are the big 4 English clubs anyway?
Click to expand...

Size, stature, stadium, history, fan base, global recognition, competitive opportunities.
 
Cheesy said:
In what sense? Because you'd struggle to argue that any of them have a better squad than PSG, certainly, and who are the big 4 English clubs anyway?
Click to expand...

I'd say it's United, Arsenal, Chelsea and City in terms of pull. You'd be an idiot to say otherwise based on one or two poor seasons from Chelsea and United.
 
KingMinger22 said:
Size, stature, stadium, history, fan base, global recognition, competitive opportunities.
Click to expand...

Again though, how many of these are actually relevant to the quality of a team, and how good PSG are right now? PSG are better than any English side right now...and the history argument seems a little bit pointless. You referred to the big 4 PL sides, but I presume City to be one of them, then surely there's not a lot more credibility for them than PSG, considering they've only risen to prominence through having an extremely rich owner in the last few years?
 
Shark said:
I'd say it's United, Arsenal, Chelsea and City in terms of pull. You'd be an idiot to say otherwise based on one or two poor seasons from Chelsea and United.
Click to expand...

It's still an incredibly arbitrary way to define it though, considering said clubs are currently 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th. Especially considering two of them have only risen to prominence in the past decade for the exact reason PSG have.

Our fans here are usually delighted to condemn the financial behaviour of City and Chelsea whenever they can, and love to insinuate that they're incredibly inferior to the likes of us, Arsenal and Liverpool because of it. So why are they suddenly being used as examples against PSG doing, well, the exact same thing?
 
Cheesy said:
Again though, how many of these are actually relevant to the quality of a team, and how good PSG are right now? PSG are better than any English side right now...and the history argument seems a little bit pointless. You referred to the big 4 PL sides, but I presume City to be one of them, then surely there's not a lot more credibility for them than PSG, considering they've only risen to prominence through having an extremely rich owner in the last few years?
Click to expand...

They currently are now competing in one competition that has level of achievement attached to winning it for them - the CL. And they haveven never even progressed past the quarters.
 
KingMinger22 said:
They currently are now competing in one competition that has level of achievement attached to winning it for them - the CL. And they haveven never even progressed past the quarters.
Click to expand...

And the only English club to perform to a higher standard than that in the CL since 2012 (around the time PSG started to initially break onto the scene if I remember correctly), is Chelsea in 2014 when they reached the semis and were swiftly disposed of by Atletico. City may do that tonight...but again, the performance of English clubs in recent seasons has been no more impressive than that of PSG.
 
Shark said:
I'd say it's United, Arsenal, Chelsea and City in terms of pull. You'd be an idiot to say otherwise based on one or two poor seasons from Chelsea and United.
Click to expand...

By pull I presume you mean by what wages they will pay?
 
SirHenryPercy said:
By pull I presume you mean by what wages they will pay?
Click to expand...

Not just wages, as much as people say history means feck all, sometimes it really does. I mean do you really see a ambitious player choosing the likes of West Ham, Spurs or Leisester over United, Arsenal, City or Chelsea because of a temporary power shift? I really don't. What's happening in the league right now really is temporary, and it should be enjoyed while it lasts.
 
Shark said:
Not just wages, as much as people say history means feck all, sometimes it really does. I mean do you really see a ambitious player choosing the likes of West Ham, Spurs or Leisester over United, Arsenal, City or Chelsea because of a temporary power shift? I really don't. What's happening in the league right now really is temporary, and it should be enjoyed while it lasts.
Click to expand...

So why are you mentioning two clubs who have almost exclusively been successful over the past 10 years, in Chelsea and City? Beyond their recent success there's little merit in arguing them to have been more successful than Spurs, for example.
 
Cheesy said:
So why are you mentioning two clubs who have almost exclusively been successful over the past 10 years, in Chelsea and City? Beyond their recent success there's little merit in arguing them to have been more successful than Spurs, for example.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Arsenal and United when talking about history. City and Chelsea obviously have the spending power. Also, surely Chelsea are way ahead a club like Spurs in terms of success, rather its recent or not. Spurs have made the odd appearance in the CL places before, it's nothing new at all.
 
Shark said:
I was referring to Arsenal and United when talking about history. City and Chelsea obviously have the spending power. Also, surely Chelsea are way ahead a club like Spurs in terms of success, rather its recent or not. Spurs have made the odd appearance in the CL places before, it's nothing new at all.
Click to expand...

And so do PSG...
 
Cheesy said:
So why are you mentioning two clubs who have almost exclusively been successful over the past 10 years, in Chelsea and City? Beyond their recent success there's little merit in arguing them to have been more successful than Spurs, for example.
Click to expand...

The very notion that Chelsea are a bigger club than Spurs or City are bigger than Liverpool is ridiculous. Just over the last few years they have been massively bankrolled.

Even Chelsea's fanzine is called 'We ain't got no history' which is bang on.
 
PSG can disappear back to France now and link themselves with Neymar and Messi while lamenting their 'luck' that they have had to face Chelsea / Barca x2 / City because it's no shame going out to those teams.
They are the future.. Did you see them win 6-0 v Rennes?
 
SirHenryPercy said:
The very notion that Chelsea are a bigger club than Spurs or City are bigger than Liverpool is ridiculous. Just over the last few years they have been massively bankrolled.

Even Chelsea's fanzine is called 'We ain't got no history' which is bang on.
Click to expand...

You could probably have placed Chelsea in a similar position to Spurs and City before Abramovic came in, and they've moved above the two in recent years due to their success. Again though, that success has largely been down to their money...like with PSG's. Which makes the history argument a bit daft, considering the three most typically successful English clubs currently are inferior to PSG quality wise.
 
Shark said:
I was referring to Arsenal and United when talking about history. City and Chelsea obviously have the spending power. Also, surely Chelsea are way ahead a club like Spurs in terms of success, rather its recent or not. Spurs have made the odd appearance in the CL places before, it's nothing new at all.
Click to expand...

Football did exist before the CL, before Harding & Abramovich, before the Abu Dhabi group.
 
Shark said:
True. I don't even know what I'm arguing tbh. I was just replying to who I think the big four in England are in terms of attractiveness.
Click to expand...

I'd probably agree with you, to be fair. That four you mentioned have generally won the league/made the top four more than anyone else (till this year), but I still think it's fairly arbitrary and the arguments a lot of people are making often involve them moving the goalposts from quality to history whenever it's convenient.
 
"PSG, who had a Zlatan Ibrahimovic goal correctly ruled out for offside after the break, exit the competition at the quarter-final stage for the fourth time in a row."

Huge step down the PL would be eh?
 
Lost to a team with two bald Brazilian thugs in midfield.
 
Cheesy said:
You could probably have placed Chelsea in a similar position to Spurs and City before Abramovic came in, and they've moved above the two in recent years due to their success. Again though, that success has largely been down to their money...like with PSG's. Which makes the history argument a bit daft, considering the three most typically successful English clubs currently are inferior to PSG quality wise.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you're not from London and know little of London football then pre Abramovich/Harding you could place Spurs and Chelsea as similar, although I don't think Spurs were playing in front of crowds of 10-15000. Matthew Harding in circa 93/94 rescued Chelsea for the 2nd time in about 10 years, they had a smallish fan base (in London still do) and a pretty ordinary history, as a Londoner I will always see West Ham as bigger than Chelsea, but fair play to Harding he loved the club and transformed them. But Chelsea have never been a big club in London let alone anywhere else, but for the last 20 odd years they have been one of the richest clubs on the planet which makes them important and meaning their fan base has grown probably a hundred fold.

As for Liverpool City there's just no comparison, no amount of money or trophys will make city bigger than Liverpool.
 
Cheesy said:
I'd probably agree with you, to be fair. That four you mentioned have generally won the league/made the top four more than anyone else (till this year), but I still think it's fairly arbitrary and the arguments a lot of people are making often involve them moving the goalposts from quality to history whenever it's convenient.
Click to expand...

It's simple , the 4 mentioned clubs plus Liverpool pay the biggest wages, that makes them the most attractive to players.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
There is a reason why no top clubs are interested in him.
Click to expand...

Whenever I've watched them play, they never look capable of scoring off their own back until there's an individual bit of brilliance. I'm guessing they overpower their opposition in Ligue 1 due to sheer gulf in the quality of players between the teams.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Shame really - all that money spent and they still can't get past the quarter-finals - but at least have the consolation of winning the Mickey Mouse league
Click to expand...

Aye, must be shit having a top team in a crap league. The league will eventually become a foregone conclusion and lose its value to them, leaving all hopes hanging on European success.
 
Thiago Silva was the only one who was up to his standards to be fair. Such a poor performance from them.
 
SirHenryPercy said:
I suppose if you're not from London and know little of London football then pre Abramovich/Harding you could place Spurs and Chelsea as similar, although I don't think Spurs were playing in front of crowds of 10-15000. Matthew Harding in circa 93/94 rescued Chelsea for the 2nd time in about 10 years, they had a smallish fan base (in London still do) and a pretty ordinary history, as a Londoner I will always see West Ham as bigger than Chelsea, but fair play to Harding he loved the club and transformed them. But Chelsea have never been a big club in London let alone anywhere else, but for the last 20 odd years they have been one of the richest clubs on the planet which makes them important and meaning their fan base has grown probably a hundred fold.

As for Liverpool City there's just no comparison, no amount of money or trophys will make city bigger than Liverpool.
Click to expand...

Well said. It's mental that anyone would ever really try and argue that Chelsea are a 'bigger' team than Spurs in terms of anything other than recent on-field success/spending power.

Spurs have always been a fantastically supported club despite the ludicrous ticket prices.

Just to complete the Spurs love-in, thanks to your lot at the fanzines for lobbying to get our away allocation upped. Decent atmosphere on Sunday, at least for the first half anyway...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.