I’m not a Barca fan and I never said it wasn’t a great achievement. I was pushing back against this guy saying that no one in the history of humankind had done it (or whatever nonsense he said). That is false
Zidane sack watch - 19/20
- Thread starter JoaquinJoaquin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
I mean yes, you should probably have had a penalty in the first leg. Doesn't change the fact that Chelsea had 3 absolutely stonewall penalties not given in the second. Genuinely can't believe that any Barca fans can be precious about this; obviously it wasn't down to UEFA or anything but trying to deflect from an all-time refereeing catastrophe is pathetically small time and surely beneath a club of that stature.
once again, if you read my post you’ll see that I said chelsea got screwed more than we did. I don’t even try to argue against that. But I don’t buy into any uefalona conspiracies as that first leg really proved otherwise.
I mean yes, you should probably have had a penalty in the first leg. Doesn't change the fact that Chelsea had 3 absolutely stonewall penalties not given in the second. Genuinely can't believe that any Barca fans can be precious about this; obviously it wasn't down to UEFA or anything but trying to deflect from an all-time refereeing catastrophe is pathetically small time and surely beneath a club of that stature.
Ahh, fair enough
I don't even know why you're bringing up the first leg, except to deflect from an all-time atrocious refereeing performance in the second. You're just being precious - no one was bringing up conspiracy theories in this thread until you did.
"Hey look, Barcelona really got lucky in getting past Chelsea thanks in large part due to a historically bad referee."
"WELL HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT IT WAS A CONSPIRACY, LOOK WE COULD HAVE HAD A PENALTY IN THE FIRST LEG! THIS PROVES THERE'S NO CONSPIRACY!!!!"
Please rename the thread to "Zidane Sack Watch and The Off-Topics".
Everyone knows the old EC was harder to qualify for but much easier to win, due to having much fewer good teams in it.
In the entire history of the competition, it's been won three times in a row just four times: Real Madrid (2x), Ajax, and Bayern. That's four times in 60+ years. By comparison, there's been five treble winners since 2009. Barcelona (2x), Bayern (2x), Inter. Additionally, there have been multiple finalists who would have won a treble had they won their final they played (Juventus 2x, PSG). Meanwhile, there hasn't been a single club except Real Madrid to even play 3 finals in a row (recently), let alone win them.
It's hard to sell the argument "the thing that happens more often is actually the rarest one."
Last edited:
No one knows that at all. It was harder to qualify for, yes, because you had the actually be a ‘champion’. Under the old rules, Real Madrid would not even have been able to enter the competition in 2016, the year they won the first of their 3 in a row.
But easier to win? Not necessarily. It was straight knockout, so you could go out after 2 games, like defending champions Liverpool did in 1978-9. There was no ‘finding your form’ in a group stage as Madrid did this season after some terrible performances.
Also, there weren’t fewer good teams. You see, in the era before Bosman and roided up superclubs, teams played with 9, 10 or 11 players from their own country. The quality was thus much more evenly spread out across Europe, and there were many more leagues that had teams capable of competing than there are today. In the 30-40 years of history that you tried to erase, there were finalists from Romania, Yugoslavia, Scotland, Portugal, Holland, Greece, Belgium and Sweden. These countries had teams capable of competing because their best players didn’t all go and play in England (or Spain or Germany) like they would today.
We weren’t comparing how rare trebles and threepeats are. We were talking about Madrid’s 3peat being unprecedented. Which it clearly is not.
But contrary to your claim, continental trebles don’t happen all the time, far from it. There have only been 9 in the entire history of European football, achieved by 7 teams.
Moreover, Barcelona actually won a sextuple the first time round, not a treble, so they won every single trophy that they competed for that year. That was literally unprecedented at the time and has now only been done by 2 teams in history (honourable mention for the great great Celtic team of 66-67, who won everything they competed in as well, but it was 5 trophies)
@NasirTimothy
It's harder to win your league and European Cup at the same time when you face extremely strong sides in domestic competitions, as Bayern could experience with Borussia Moenchengladbach in the 70s. Or Milan in the late 80s and early 90s.
From 2014 until 2018 Barcelona and Atletico reached the CL final three times, so it could even be argued that a double in 2017 shouldn't necessarily deserve less credit than a treble at many other points in history.
It's harder to win your league and European Cup at the same time when you face extremely strong sides in domestic competitions, as Bayern could experience with Borussia Moenchengladbach in the 70s. Or Milan in the late 80s and early 90s.
From 2014 until 2018 Barcelona and Atletico reached the CL final three times, so it could even be argued that a double in 2017 shouldn't necessarily deserve less credit than a treble at many other points in history.
Last edited:
Maybe. There’s so many variables though, it’s hard to compare exactly.
As I pointed out, 5 of the 9 teams that have completed a treble in European football have done so since 2009. As I have also pointed out, there have been at least 3 finals since 2009 in which any of the winners would have completed a treble. The data is telling us quite clearly that winning a treble today is not that unusual. It was more unusual in the past, but it is not unusual now. That's important when we want to judge a manager of today.
On the other hand, no one had won 3 CLs in a row since the 1970s. The length of time from the beginning of the competition to the penultimate triple winner (21 years) was half than the length of time from that triple win to Real Madrid's (42 years). The data is telling us quite clearly that winning three European cups today is unusual.
Of course, this can change. If other clubs start winning multiple CLs in a row, I can say "Zidane's achievement is less impressive in hindsight." But that hasn't happened yet.
Every single one of the last five clubs to win a treble went on to win at least a quintuple. The difference between Pep's Barcelona (and Flick's Bayern) and other treble winners was literally just one game. It's precisely because the difference was so small that the record was matched fairly quickly: 12 years.
Compare that to Real Madrid's achievement. It had been 27 years since anyone had won 2 CLs in a row. 42 years since anyone had won 3 CLs in a row. 20 years since anyone had played 3 finals in a row. It's very clear which of these two is the harder challenge.
I have to say it's a bit silly that you are complaining about people buying into "marketing" of the CL and then boasting about sextuples. Please. Nobody gives a shit about three of the titles that comprise a sextuple. Half this forum thinks the Charity Shield isn't even real.
Yes it is. The CL was created in 1993
Everything before that was just the European Cup and can't be compared to the actual CL and its unique format
No, it is still unusual now, just not as much as in the past, because it is more of a squad game now.
Don’t hide behind ‘data’, stick your chest out. I’ve already said that Pep’s Barca is the best (club) side I’ve ever seen.
Do you think the information you’ve presented means that Real Madrid 2016-2018 are the greatest team of all time? If not, why not? If they’ve accomplished the ‘hardest challenge’ then why are they not rated the best?
I challenge you to go online and find at least 3 ranking lists where they are rated above the Barca teams in question. I’ll be waiting.
It’s going to happen, of that I have no doubt. Law of averages.
False
The last 5 clubs to win a treble were
Bayern
Barca
Inter
Manchester United
PSV
Of those, only Bayern, Barca and Inter won quintuples. So the difference is not ‘one Charity Shield type game’ as you claim. Maybe it’s the difference between what Inter did and what Barca/Bayern did but so what? Inter’s achievement was also fantastic.
If you mean the last 5 ‘teams’ to win trebles, then Barca did the sextuple thing twice (almost 3 times) with the same core of key players (Messi, Pique, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, Pedro etc.) which further speaks to the greatness of that team. 3 sextuples (almost) with the same basic team is more impressive to me than 3 CLs in a row, but that’s just me, you can see it how you want to.
I refer you to my question above. According to you it’s ‘the harder challenge’, but no one outside of Madrid thinks they’re the best team of the last 30 years. Why?
I’m not ‘boasting’ about anything and I have no dog in the fight. You do, so you can’t see clearly, unfortunately.
Sorry, I’m afraid it can. It’s the same trophy that is used, it’s officially the same competition and Real Madrid claim to have won it 13 times, not 7.
Just because the format of the World Cup was different in 1950, it doesn’t mean it’s a different competition from 2018.
(For the unaware, there was no World Cup ‘final’ in 1950)
Last edited:
Nonsense, no one had ever done a CL back to back prior to Madrid doing it in the same way that Liverpool had never won the Premier League until last year despite being English champions plenty of times in the past.
Having continuity as far as trophies are concerned doesn't change that this is a different competition from the ones before.
CL back to back is far harder than the treble, CL threepeat can't even be compared with a treble, it belongs in another dimension entirely.
Well done for pointing out something that completely destroys your argument. The Premier League and the old first division are exactly the same thing under a different name. Calling it the ‘Premier League’ does not make it a different competition, except for people who are easily conned. That’s why Liverpool have 19 league titles and not one.
Ok, so 3CLs in a row is better than a treble. How about a 3peat vs 2 trebles? Or 3 trebles? At what point does repeated European and domestic dominance outstrip success in one knockout cup competition (albeit the premier one)?
The Champions League and former C1 are different competitions though, they concern two different sets of teams. One was literally a competition between league champions while the other is a continental competition that is currently at the highest tier and includes more than league champions.
It doesn't destroy my argument at all. Liverpool had never won the Premier League before 2020, these teams that won three European cups in a row did not win 3 consecutive CLs.
And the difference is even bigger with the CL/European cup because the format was totally revamped when the competition was created.
3 CLs is far better than a treble yes, I'm not sure why you're bringing 2 or 3 trebles into play, no team has ever achieved consecutive trebles, you can't compare 2009 Barcelona to 2015 Barcelona and call it the same team, neither can you call 2013 and 2020 Bayern the same teams. The threepeat is the achievement of one group and one coach.
Also calling a treble "european dominance" while qualifying the threepeat of "success in one knockout competition" is just delusional.
If you want to be more correct with your analysis, Zidane won the most points in La Liga in two of these three CL winning seasons.
This is ridiculous
Allow me to end this discussion: Zidane is the best manager of all time, bar none, period. If you think otherwise you are dead wrong and stoopid and football is not for you
There
Allow me to end this discussion: Zidane is the best manager of all time, bar none, period. If you think otherwise you are dead wrong and stoopid and football is not for you
There
You have to look at the actual history of the competition to understand the changes properly. They are not two different competitions, they are the same competition rejigged to favour the big clubs and the big leagues (where all the best players now play in the aftermath of the Bosman ruling).
First of all, the group stage was introduced in 1991, prior to the rebranding of the competition as the ‘Champions League’ in 1992.
Secondly, the ‘Champions league’ moniker came about in ‘92, but the tournament still only featured league winners until 1997, when it was changed to feature runners up as well.
Also, ever since the addition of a group phase to the European Cup in the 1991-92 season, the earlier stages of the competition were classified as ‘qualifying rounds’ and from 95, all rounds before he group stage were definitively branded as qualification rounds.
This served to further separate the big clubs and national leagues from the less storied ones (as the financial gap grew in tandem) whereas before they were all together in the same competition, with the footballing talent spread more around Europe (and indeed around the world. Every single South American, Central American, African and Asian player that is any good today plays in one of 4 or 5 leagues in Europe).
I apologize, you are the one understanding things.
If they had VAR back then it would have been Chelsea vs us in the final.
Addressed this in my other post re the history of the CL/EC, you should read it. But trying to claim the PL and the first division are somehow different is just asinine.
Barcelona won a sextuple and a quintuple in 3 years. They also won the league in the year in between. I’m taking that over 3 straight CLs, because if you don’t win the league in your own country when you win the CL, then it’s tough to call yourself the best team in Europe that year (based on a knockout competition where luck plays a greater part) when you’re not even the best team in your own country. Win the league and the Champions league, and there’s no argument. Madrid did that once.
See above
If you want to be more correct with your analysis then Barca won three straight trebles. Since nearly winning a trophy apparently means you did win it according to you.
Unless you want to argue that the 2nd - 4th placed teams in the big leagues aren’t better than the minnow champions, there’s no argument to be had.
Better teams in the competition = harder to win
Certain competitions/trophies may belong to the same continuity without actually being the same (in terms of comparing teams/results over a long period of time).
The most obvious example of this would be the (current) Europa League, which belongs to the same continuity as the old UEFA Cup. But no sane person would consider winning the Europa League equivalent to winning the UEFA Cup back in the day. It's clearly a much weaker competition - and so direct comparisons become pretty much pointless.
It is also - clearly - possible to consider the current CL a different competition than the old EC. The formats are dissimilar enough to warrant that - obviously.
However, I personally find it impossible to conclude that it is more difficult - as a general rule - to win the CL than it was to win the old EC. For me, that will depend on particular circumstances which naturally change from season to season. Some years will be easier than others - but that goes for both the current CL and the old EC.
The most obvious example of this would be the (current) Europa League, which belongs to the same continuity as the old UEFA Cup. But no sane person would consider winning the Europa League equivalent to winning the UEFA Cup back in the day. It's clearly a much weaker competition - and so direct comparisons become pretty much pointless.
It is also - clearly - possible to consider the current CL a different competition than the old EC. The formats are dissimilar enough to warrant that - obviously.
However, I personally find it impossible to conclude that it is more difficult - as a general rule - to win the CL than it was to win the old EC. For me, that will depend on particular circumstances which naturally change from season to season. Some years will be easier than others - but that goes for both the current CL and the old EC.
Clearly!!
the scandal of Stanford bridge is the single worst refereeing performance in human history, or he was bribed
Well done for pointing out something that ruins your argument, the Treble has been done 9 times.
The CL 3-peat has been done ONCE
The EC 3-peat was done 3 times
What you call minnow champions were generally much stronger back in the day, though.
These days the domestic (league) champions in - say - Hungary, Romania or Sweden are bound to be very weak teams compared to the best in Europe.
This wasn't always the case, though.
First of all, the group stage was introduced in 1991, prior to the rebranding of the competition as the ‘Champions League’ in 1992.
Secondly, the ‘Champions league’ moniker came about in ‘92, but the tournament still only featured league winners until 1997, when it was changed to feature runners up as well.
Also, ever since the addition of a group phase to the European Cup in the 1991-92 season, the earlier stages of the competition were classified as ‘qualifying rounds’ and from 95, all rounds before he group stage were definitively branded as qualification rounds.
This served to further separate the big clubs and national leagues from the less storied ones (as the financial gap grew in tandem) whereas before they were all together in the same competition, with the footballing talent spread more around Europe (and indeed around the world. Every single South American, Central American, African and Asian player that is any good today plays in one of 4 or 5 leagues in Europe).
[/QUOTE]
The Madrid 3-peat is decades after Bosman, therefore the best players all play in the CL
QED the CL is much harder to win than the EC
A three times back to back Champions League is obviously more difficult than a treble, is anybody even arguing this?
I completely agree with this.
Stronger than now, but stronger than the 2nd-4th placed serie A, La Liga, EPL teams?
The scousers route to the 84 EC final - Hvidovre, Standard Liege, Aston Villa, Widzew Lodz
Are you seriously claiming those were better than the Platini led Juve, Real Madrid & the likes?
The Barca fans are
If VAR was used back then we would have had the tie over very early in the second leg.
Clear pen in leg 1, Ballack playing basketball at 0-0 in leg two. Abidal would not have been sent off.
But you guys continue the lies about 6 pens
Clear pen in leg 1, Ballack playing basketball at 0-0 in leg two. Abidal would not have been sent off.
But you guys continue the lies about 6 pens
Never mind the fact Chelsea should have had 3 penalties before Abidal got sent off.If VAR was used back then we would have had the tie over very early in the second leg.
Clear pen in leg 1, Ballack playing basketball at 0-0 in leg two. Abidal would not have been sent off.
But you guys continue the lies about 6 pens
Let’s just ignore video evidence and go with the Mes Que Un cnut myth
Video evidence hahaha.
Malouda one is not a penalty. The Anelka and Drogba second on the video you posted are laughable shouts for pens. Behave.
Barcelona would have been 2 up with an away goal if ref did his job in both legs.
Of course not - but that hardly settles the debate.
The format was different, the dynamic of the tournament (which was knock-out all the way) was different, the overall strength of domestic leagues across Europe was different, etc.
What you're doing - as I see it - is to simply assume that because the CL includes (per default) the top four teams from the biggest leagues every year, it has to be more difficult to win it (for any individual team, regardless of other factors).
Which is a problematic - and I might say, rather lazy at that - assumption.
Also, to add an ad hominem - we all know why you don't like/rate the old EC.
Interesting debate and some interesting points.
I also think it is harder to win now but fair point about the winners of less competitive leagues being relatively stronger in the past than they are now.
The structure of the competition now delivers more of the high quality teams into the latter stages so the possibility of “lucky” draws all the way to the final is reduced. However there is still the same lottery element to the knockout games and the best team doesn’t necessarily win. Even so, over a period of years, the teams who win it a lot must be doing something right.