CARRAGHER - the most useless piece of shit !!!

Give the German team a year to play and train as a club team and they could beat any club team in the world. Same thing with Spain, Holland, Argentina (but with a decent coach), Brazil, England, France, Italy, etc.

Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

Messiah wrote:liverpool,arsenal or man utd are in no way better than the germany national team

Pierre Littbarski wrote:

Messiah wrote:liverpool,arsenal or man utd are in no way better than the germany national team

as a TEAM, they are no better IMO, you can say X player is better than Y player, but as a team the function no better.

As a team Germany haven't been tested anywhere near as much as the club sides, they had a few good games against some shocking teams but lets not pretend we know they could do it for an entire season like Chelsea or Man U.

chelsea and manu far away from the teams they were in 2008, they are all in decline

Yes I was worrying myself to sleep thinking we were very much a declining team at the end of last season. Right around the time we won our first ever league & cup double in fact.

Özil wrote:

i am always talking under the point that germany would have the same time to gel as a club team

germany have the players to beat any club side, better defence and goalkeeper than bayern, the rest is nearly equal

against serbia we looked like the better team with 10 men, against ghana it was a high pressure game our young guns couldn`t handle that well

germanys midfield is WC which can competete with the best club sides in the world, there is possibly one player in the whole epl who would fit into the german midfield thats essien when hes not injured

germanys central defence is far better then the bayern centre backs, also manuel neuer is better then butt

thomas müller is brilliant as 2nd striker, thats what i call an overall game, not rooneys hahaha

so under normal circumstance then you admit that national teams (including germany) are not as good as many of the top club teams

i say the player material from germany is good enough to win against manu and chelsea and we could also win the cl when someone kick out barca before

@s4p

i am talking about quality in your league, and it peaked in 2008, now you have more teams they fight for the title, because overall the standard is lower, but that means not its a bad standard


manu had a long time huge injury problems, and in the end of the season they missed rooney, i think manu is a better league team and cheslea is hard to beat in one game, but for chelsea its harder to break smaller teams which play defensive

because tehy dont have the footballing skills for that

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Really?

I'd say that the best club sides in the World - with lots of money, who can field 11 internationals - have an advantage because they can pretty much pick who they want without the contraints of nationality, so they have both better teams (through longer playing with each other) AND better players.

Bayern Munich's first 11 is better on paper than Germany's first 11. Germany have no one on the wing, or indeed in their whole team to match a player of Arjen Robben's individual quality for example. Klose is a German regular, he can't even make it into the Bayern side. Podolski - ever present for Germany, had to go back to Cologne after being unable to prove himself at Bayern Munich, not just for the odd game or World Cup like with Germany, but over a whole gruelling season.

Germany may have played well for a month in the World Cup - even then they were poor against Spain - but Bayern had a month long spell when they won the Bundesliga, won the German Cup final 4-0 against Ozil's Bremen, and made it to the CL final, off the back of a long season, so clearly no problems playing as a team.

So, Chelsea and Man United are capable of competing and beating Bayern - which makes it abundantly clear to me that they wouldn't struggle to beat Germany either.

Logic

Noah and the Bale wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Really?

I'd say that the best club sides in the World - with lots of money, who can field 11 internationals - have an advantage because they can pretty much pick who they want without the contraints of nationality, so they have both better teams (through longer playing with each other) AND better players.

Bayern Munich's first 11 is better on paper than Germany's first 11. Germany have no one on the wing, or indeed in their whole team to match a player of Arjen Robben's individual quality for example. Klose is a German regular, he can't even make it into the Bayern side. Podolski - ever present for Germany, had to go back to Cologne after being unable to prove himself at Bayern Munich, not just for the odd game or World Cup like with Germany, but over a whole gruelling season.

Germany may have played well for a month in the World Cup - even then they were poor against Spain - but Bayern had a month long spell when they won the Bundesliga, won the German Cup final 4-0 against Ozil's Bremen, and made it to the CL final, off the back of a long season, so clearly no problems playing as a team.

So, Chelsea and Man United are capable of competing and beating Bayern - which makes it abundantly clear to me that they wouldn't struggle to beat Germany either.

Logic

Even with all the money they have, they still can't get any player they want. Look at city. National teams like Argentina, Brazil, Spain can field players better than any club team in the world. Are you telling me Man United has better players than those countries?

Bayern Munich doesn't have better players than Germany. You logic is wrong because sometime players don't work in a certain system. Think of Henry, Kluivert or Bergkamp. They didn't work in Italy but where great in England or Spain. Klose worked for Bayern before van Gaal. It's clear he doesn't work in this system. It doesn't mean he's not good anymore.

Very well put.

Jesus the English have some nerve. Will they ever learn? The very least you'd have thought that 4-1 would have taught them would be NEVER to spout this kind of arrogant clueless claptrap again.

Bayern streets ahead of Germany (to indulge this kind of player to player bullshit for a second) – yeah because Butt is better than Neuer, Demnichelis/Badstuber better than the German central pairing, Olic better than Klose, Müller/Robben better than Özil/Müller – I mean listen to yourself, even if that's how comparing teams worked it doesn't make sense. Think about it.

Allez les rouges wrote:Very well put.

Jesus the English have some nerve. Will they ever learn? The very least you'd have thought that 4-1 would have taught them would be NEVER to spout this kind of arrogant clueless claptrap again.

Bayern streets ahead of Germany (to indulge this kind of player to player bullshit for a second) – yeah because Butt is better than Neuer, Demnichelis/Badstuber better than the German central pairing, Olic better than Klose, Müller/Robben better than Özil/Müller – I mean listen to yourself, even if that's how comparing teams worked it doesn't make sense. Think about it.

You are completely missing the point though. As if straight player to player comparisons have ever decided who is a better team. How exactly is it arrogant to say that Man United or Liverpool are much better teams than England?

Which good TEAMS did Germany beat?

Answer - They didn't beat any.

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Club teams are better doesn't mean the quality of club football is better? I don't understand the distinction.

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Noah and the Bale wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Really?

I'd say that the best club sides in the World - with lots of money, who can field 11 internationals - have an advantage because they can pretty much pick who they want without the contraints of nationality, so they have both better teams (through longer playing with each other) AND better players.

Bayern Munich's first 11 is better on paper than Germany's first 11. Germany have no one on the wing, or indeed in their whole team to match a player of Arjen Robben's individual quality for example. Klose is a German regular, he can't even make it into the Bayern side. Podolski - ever present for Germany, had to go back to Cologne after being unable to prove himself at Bayern Munich, not just for the odd game or World Cup like with Germany, but over a whole gruelling season.

Germany may have played well for a month in the World Cup - even then they were poor against Spain - but Bayern had a month long spell when they won the Bundesliga, won the German Cup final 4-0 against Ozil's Bremen, and made it to the CL final, off the back of a long season, so clearly no problems playing as a team.

So, Chelsea and Man United are capable of competing and beating Bayern - which makes it abundantly clear to me that they wouldn't struggle to beat Germany either.

Logic

Even with all the money they have, they still can't get any player they want. Look at city. National teams like Argentina, Brazil, Spain can field players better than any club team in the world. Are you telling me Man United has better players than those countries?

Bayern Munich doesn't have better players than Germany. You logic is wrong because sometime players don't work in a certain system. Think of Henry, Kluivert or Bergkamp. They didn't work in Italy but where great in England or Spain. Klose worked for Bayern before van Gaal. It's clear he doesn't work in this system. It doesn't mean he's not good anymore.

They can field a better TEAM!

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Club teams are better doesn't mean the quality of club football is better? I don't understand the distinction.

Obviously. Was this the point Carra was trying to make? What was the point of this?

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Noah and the Bale wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Really?

I'd say that the best club sides in the World - with lots of money, who can field 11 internationals - have an advantage because they can pretty much pick who they want without the contraints of nationality, so they have both better teams (through longer playing with each other) AND better players.

Bayern Munich's first 11 is better on paper than Germany's first 11. Germany have no one on the wing, or indeed in their whole team to match a player of Arjen Robben's individual quality for example. Klose is a German regular, he can't even make it into the Bayern side. Podolski - ever present for Germany, had to go back to Cologne after being unable to prove himself at Bayern Munich, not just for the odd game or World Cup like with Germany, but over a whole gruelling season.

Germany may have played well for a month in the World Cup - even then they were poor against Spain - but Bayern had a month long spell when they won the Bundesliga, won the German Cup final 4-0 against Ozil's Bremen, and made it to the CL final, off the back of a long season, so clearly no problems playing as a team.

So, Chelsea and Man United are capable of competing and beating Bayern - which makes it abundantly clear to me that they wouldn't struggle to beat Germany either.

Logic

Even with all the money they have, they still can't get any player they want. Look at city. National teams like Argentina, Brazil, Spain can field players better than any club team in the world. Are you telling me Man United has better players than those countries?

Bayern Munich doesn't have better players than Germany. You logic is wrong because sometime players don't work in a certain system. Think of Henry, Kluivert or Bergkamp. They didn't work in Italy but where great in England or Spain. Klose worked for Bayern before van Gaal. It's clear he doesn't work in this system. It doesn't mean he's not good anymore.

They can field a better TEAM!

He was saying club teams have better players.

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Club teams are better doesn't mean the quality of club football is better? I don't understand the distinction.

Obviously. Was this the point Carra was trying to make? What was the point of this?

He was asked a question and he answered it. What did you think happened?

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Noah and the Bale wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Really?

I'd say that the best club sides in the World - with lots of money, who can field 11 internationals - have an advantage because they can pretty much pick who they want without the contraints of nationality, so they have both better teams (through longer playing with each other) AND better players.

Bayern Munich's first 11 is better on paper than Germany's first 11. Germany have no one on the wing, or indeed in their whole team to match a player of Arjen Robben's individual quality for example. Klose is a German regular, he can't even make it into the Bayern side. Podolski - ever present for Germany, had to go back to Cologne after being unable to prove himself at Bayern Munich, not just for the odd game or World Cup like with Germany, but over a whole gruelling season.

Germany may have played well for a month in the World Cup - even then they were poor against Spain - but Bayern had a month long spell when they won the Bundesliga, won the German Cup final 4-0 against Ozil's Bremen, and made it to the CL final, off the back of a long season, so clearly no problems playing as a team.

So, Chelsea and Man United are capable of competing and beating Bayern - which makes it abundantly clear to me that they wouldn't struggle to beat Germany either.

Logic

Even with all the money they have, they still can't get any player they want. Look at city. National teams like Argentina, Brazil, Spain can field players better than any club team in the world. Are you telling me Man United has better players than those countries?

Bayern Munich doesn't have better players than Germany. You logic is wrong because sometime players don't work in a certain system. Think of Henry, Kluivert or Bergkamp. They didn't work in Italy but where great in England or Spain. Klose worked for Bayern before van Gaal. It's clear he doesn't work in this system. It doesn't mean he's not good anymore.

They can field a better TEAM!

He was saying club teams have better players.

What? We are talking about Carragher right?

He clearly does not say that.

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Noah and the Bale wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:

Edin Dzeko wrote:

Six wrote:Maybe but that wasn't what Carragher was talking about.

I know but Carragher talk shit that shouldn't be mention in a normal discussion.

What is the point of comparing Germany with a club team when they are playing other national teams. The fact that a club team can beat a national team doesn't mean the players are better, it just mean they have more games together as A TEAM.

Exactly? He's saying the quality of club football is higher, because they are better TEAMS. I don't see what is controversial about that. It's just a general point about English football, why do a lot of players perform better for their clubs? Why do we have quality in some areas but not in others (as in an unbalanced squad)? That's all he is alluding to. Ferguson and Mourinho have said similar things.

That's what I said. Club teams are better because they are better team, not because they have better players.

It's not controversial, just stupid. There is no point to this.

Really?

I'd say that the best club sides in the World - with lots of money, who can field 11 internationals - have an advantage because they can pretty much pick who they want without the contraints of nationality, so they have both better teams (through longer playing with each other) AND better players.

Bayern Munich's first 11 is better on paper than Germany's first 11. Germany have no one on the wing, or indeed in their whole team to match a player of Arjen Robben's individual quality for example. Klose is a German regular, he can't even make it into the Bayern side. Podolski - ever present for Germany, had to go back to Cologne after being unable to prove himself at Bayern Munich, not just for the odd game or World Cup like with Germany, but over a whole gruelling season.

Germany may have played well for a month in the World Cup - even then they were poor against Spain - but Bayern had a month long spell when they won the Bundesliga, won the German Cup final 4-0 against Ozil's Bremen, and made it to the CL final, off the back of a long season, so clearly no problems playing as a team.

So, Chelsea and Man United are capable of competing and beating Bayern - which makes it abundantly clear to me that they wouldn't struggle to beat Germany either.

Logic

Even with all the money they have, they still can't get any player they want. Look at city. National teams like Argentina, Brazil, Spain can field players better than any club team in the world. Are you telling me Man United has better players than those countries?

Bayern Munich doesn't have better players than Germany. You logic is wrong because sometime players don't work in a certain system. Think of Henry, Kluivert or Bergkamp. They didn't work in Italy but where great in England or Spain. Klose worked for Bayern before van Gaal. It's clear he doesn't work in this system. It doesn't mean he's not good anymore.

They can field a better TEAM!

He was saying club teams have better players.

What? We are talking about Carragher right?

He clearly does not say that.

Noah and the Bale said that.

Just because England are shit and Argentina's complete lack of balance was badly shown up (for the first time in the tournament) doesn't make teams like Ghana or Uruguay average-to-shit – by that logic you'd just dismiss the quality of the opposition every time, as I realize the English are wont to do.

It just seems to me lazy and arrogant to simply repeat this tired thesis, and more than a little surreal that anyone would even want to compare the Liverpool side we saw on Sunday with the German one we saw against Argentina and claim the former comes out on top. Chins.

Ghana were pretty average actually and Uruguay was a meaningless game. The English aren't the only ones to dismiss the quality of the World Cup, just look at what Mourinho and Ferguson have had to say about it.

Liverpool were playing against Arsenal with pre-season rust and one man down for the majority. Germany were playing a team with one midfielder and no tactical plan whatsoever. Naturally Germany would look better. But it has never been easy to assemble a proper team when you get just a few weeks a year to train together. Even with a lot of money and time it doesn't necessarily work, I can't see what advantages a national team would have.

once mourinho will train a country he will talk different

and ferguson really dont care about his country




that changes not the fact that germany has better players then liverpool, arseanl and manu and chelsea, we could beat them without a problem

Which presumably makes the way Germany looked more like a club side for those few weeks all the more impressive?

Anyway if you find Ghana and Uruguay average on the strength of their World Cup efforts (and with the Premier League in mind!) then it's probably best we don't argue and agree to disagree.

Some people insist on dismissing the quality of every World Cup, as if judging each one on its failures rather than its successes. They can please themselves. The semi-finalists, like last time, were all excellent teams; it's not as if it was England as opposed to Manchester United in every country's case. We know what Ferguson and Mourinho (and, dare I say it, Wenger) keep saying about international football; well, they can fuck right off.

Yeah, the EPL big 4 would kill to get their hands on Friedrich, Podolski and Klose

Allez les rouges wrote:Which presumably makes the way Germany looked more like a club side for those few weeks all the more impressive?

Anyway if you find Ghana and Uruguay average on the strength of their World Cup efforts (and with the Premier League in mind!) then it's probably best we don't argue and agree to disagree.

Some people insist on dismissing the quality of every World Cup, as if judging each one on its failures rather than its successes. They can please themselves. The semi-finalists, like last time, were all excellent teams; it's not as if it was England as opposed to Manchester United in every country's case. We know what Ferguson and Mourinho (and, dare I say it, Wenger) keep saying about international football; well, they can fuck right off.

Talked about this before, German players are generally far more intelligent and educated in the game than many other countries, as well as seeming to deal with the pressure better. That's why every tournament people are saying they "overperform" (not that they do, they just don't underperform like so many other players). There's no doubt Podolski and Klose have exploited disorganised national teams, because their scoring records are so much better for Germany. There has to be more to it than just that they try harder for Germany don't you think? Podolski is a joke at club level especially.

Ghana were average, they only looked good because so many teams were worse than them and they were basically playing at home for the knock out stages. Uruguay were good, but Germany played them in the 3rd place game which is up there with the community shield in the "who gives a fuck" stakes. Spain weren't excellent either, tactically they got it wrong so many times, only to be saved by Villa and then just playing keep ball. Holland were pretty good, but lucky too and they got away with so much kicking. It wasn't a great year in the Champions League either though, so I guess maybe I am expecting far too much.

Allez les rouges wrote:Very well put.

Jesus the English have some nerve. Will they ever learn? The very least you'd have thought that 4-1 would have taught them would be NEVER to spout this kind of arrogant clueless claptrap again.

Bayern streets ahead of Germany (to indulge this kind of player to player bullshit for a second) – yeah because Butt is better than Neuer, Demnichelis/Badstuber better than the German central pairing, Olic better than Klose, Müller/Robben better than Özil/Müller – I mean listen to yourself, even if that's how comparing teams worked it doesn't make sense. Think about it.

Allez old pear,

by 'the English', I presume you're primarily aiming this at me in this instance. So, let me just say that a good 50% of both the content and reason for the 'Bayern are better than Germany" post was to wind up the Germans (and by 'Germans', I mean Ozil).

However, what does interest me is that your consternation appears to be levelled at that relatively mild comparison of German club team versus German national team, yet no consternation of the Germans (Ozil) statements that:

- germany have the players to beat any club side
- against serbia we (Germany) looked like the better team with 10 men
- germanys midfield is WC which can competete with the best club sides in the world
- there is possibly one player in the whole epl who would fit into the german midfield thats essien when hes not injured

So on that basis, I will assume you agree with the Germans (Ozil), despite the fact that:

- Germany didn't win the World Cup (the way he goes on about it, I'm not sure the German is aware of this)
- were beaten comfortably by a Spanish side who hadn't even made it out of 3rd gear, and whose Barcelona (club) midfield dominated the supposed WC German midfield for 90 minutes
- lost twice during the tournament

Would Barcelona - a better version of Spain - struggle to beat Germany?

And as for 4-1 teaching the English a lesson as to never spout this claptrap again - we all know it was actually 4-2, or did they edit that bit out back in Germany