Real Madrid (galacticos era) vs. Barca 2008/09 - who wins!!

So the strength of the English big 4 sides is to be dismissed?

In 96-03 they were the ones who were not so good...so there's always a group of 5 or 6 teams that are the top ones in Europe. Doesn't make one group stronger or weaker than the other.

Unflinching Frenchman wrote:Any coincidence with worst Milan team (they didn't even make it to CL), worst Real Madrid team, worst Bayern munich sides in recent past? Most of the big clubs are rebuilding. Not like the 96-03 when many great footballers (golden generation of France, golden generation of Portugal, great players of Italy, Brazil, etc) were playing. Just give it time, we will see a more competent CL.

I think there are as many top sides now that in early 2000s. Sure, the names have changed. But IMO Chelsea, Liverpool, Man Utd, Barca and Inter are all strong teams. Unlike in early 2000s when all these were poor except ManUtd (who are much stronger now than at that time). These teams have replaced the Real, Milan or Bayern of that time.

Juve, Inter, Man Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, Ajax, Milan, Valencia, etc..

Now it's just PL-4 + Barca. Not many technically great players spread evenly, and they are far less in number. Fingers crossed for diluting the talents to many teams.

Unflinching Frenchman wrote:Juve, Inter, Man Utd, Bayern, Real, Barca, Ajax, Milan, Valencia, etc..

Now it's just PL-4 + Barca. Not many technically great players spread evenly, and they are far less in number. Fingers crossed for diluting the talents to many teams.

Inter, Man Utd, & Barca in your list are much stronger now than they were 6 years ago. Plus you have Liverpool and Chelsea, who are as good as any of those teams 6 years ago.

And the likes of Porto or Villarreal showed that they can give the "big" teams as much of a game as Ajax and Valencia used to. Lyon as well, though they get stuck in the Round of 16/QFs all the time.

kas wrote:Modern teams will always need to be given the benefit of any doubt due to their superior athleticism.

Yes because 2003 was such ancient history.

Jaime wrote:

kas wrote:Modern teams will always need to be given the benefit of any doubt due to their superior athleticism.

Yes because 2003 was such ancient history.

It football terms.. yup.

Six wrote:

Jaime wrote:

kas wrote:Modern teams will always need to be given the benefit of any doubt due to their superior athleticism.

Yes because 2003 was such ancient history.

It football terms.. yup.

I disagree. But anyhow, last night the team with superior athleticism lost.

Jaime wrote:

Six wrote:

Jaime wrote:

kas wrote:Modern teams will always need to be given the benefit of any doubt due to their superior athleticism.

Yes because 2003 was such ancient history.

It football terms.. yup.

I disagree. But anyhow, last night the team with superior athleticism lost.

Hmm? Carrick, Anderson and Giggs are hardly superior athletes. If Toure had been playing in midfield, he would have done more running than the 3 of them put together.

Jaime wrote:

kas wrote:Modern teams will always need to be given the benefit of any doubt due to their superior athleticism.

Yes because 2003 was such ancient history.

Ok, maybe my use of "modern" was wrong, but what I mean is today's team will always beat yesterday's team if the talent level and other such factors are more or less equal. For example, I think this Barça team would beat the 2006 one.

Last night the talent levels were too different for athleticism to overcome

Six wrote:

Jaime wrote:

Six wrote:

Jaime wrote:

kas wrote:Modern teams will always need to be given the benefit of any doubt due to their superior athleticism.

Yes because 2003 was such ancient history.

It football terms.. yup.

I disagree. But anyhow, last night the team with superior athleticism lost.

Hmm? Carrick, Anderson and Giggs are hardly superior athletes. If Toure had been playing in midfield, he would have done more running than the 3 of them put together.

But Toure is the only player who is really superior in terms of athleticism. Generally speaking, Barcelona won with a bunch of midgets that play excellent football.

Man U have more great athletes...although in truth neither Man U nor Barcelona have as many as a team like Chelsea.

I don't think that specific United team was much more athletic than Barca. Iniesta and Xavi may be midgets, but they moved with far more speed and purpose than Carrick and Anderson did last night. The back four's are comparable in athleticism and so were the front three. United didn't have a '9' to hold the ball up or a ball winner (or two) in midfield. Can't even be considered an athletic English team if you ask me.

Six wrote:I don't think that specific United team was much more athletic than Barca. Iniesta and Xavi may be midgets, but they moved with far more speed and purpose than Carrick and Anderson did last night. The back four's are comparable in athleticism and so were the front three. United didn't have a '9' to hold the ball up or a ball winner (or two) in midfield. Can't even be considered an athletic English team if you ask me.

Like I said, I'm not saying they were vastly superior and they definitely are not like Chelsea or Liverpool. Anderson is more athletic than Xavi or Iniesta. He played poorly last night but he is more athletic. Rooney, Ronaldo, even Evra are more athletic than most Barcelona players. But then I suppose there is O'Shea that brings the balance down.

this team is better, we won the treble, i don't think they even won the double, they had better playesr, but this is a better team.

don't tell me anything about the league being weaker, we still won the CL against the might of the epl big four.

lol@gutiandfigo>iniesta and messi

Guti was tongue in cheek, although he is much better at making the through pass.

Messi has more pace but Figo was equally good dribbling, especially in his younger days, better long distance shooting, better free kicks, better crossings, and more of a leader on the pitch. Therefore Figo > Messi. QED.