Italian football--the best

Tweedle wrote:I don't have a problem with lower teams winning it.

All I'm saying is, if Arsenal had won the final last year, I certainly wouldn't have gone around proclaiming us the best team in Europe - simply because we weren't.

The team that wins the FA cup in the UK doesn't proclaim itself the best team in the UK either.

Feasibly you could win the CL having not won a single game!!!

OwenThomas4 wrote:Money.

gone wrote:

Tweedle wrote:I don't have a problem with lower teams winning it.

All I'm saying is, if Arsenal had won the final last year, I certainly wouldn't have gone around proclaiming us the best team in Europe - simply because we weren't.

The team that wins the FA cup in the UK doesn't proclaim itself the best team in the UK either.

Feasibly you could win the CL having not won a single game!!!

Then what's the point of the CL if the team that wins it may, or may not be the best team in Europe.

Mihawkavelli wrote:

gone wrote:

Tweedle wrote:I don't have a problem with lower teams winning it.

All I'm saying is, if Arsenal had won the final last year, I certainly wouldn't have gone around proclaiming us the best team in Europe - simply because we weren't.

The team that wins the FA cup in the UK doesn't proclaim itself the best team in the UK either.

Feasibly you could win the CL having not won a single game!!!

Then what's the point of the CL if the team that wins it may, or may not be the best team in Europe.

Create a Super League , all the BIG teams play each other home + away .. then we see who is the BEST..

Cup Competitions .. you need luck , if you play sexy football and have not much luck .. everyone will know.

gone wrote:

Mihawkavelli wrote:

gone wrote:

Tweedle wrote:I don't have a problem with lower teams winning it.

All I'm saying is, if Arsenal had won the final last year, I certainly wouldn't have gone around proclaiming us the best team in Europe - simply because we weren't.

The team that wins the FA cup in the UK doesn't proclaim itself the best team in the UK either.

Feasibly you could win the CL having not won a single game!!!

Then what's the point of the CL if the team that wins it may, or may not be the best team in Europe.

Create a Super League , all the BIG teams play each other home + away .. then we see who is the BEST..

Cup Competitions .. you need luck , if you play sexy football and have not much luck .. everyone will know.

So only a few teams will actually get to win it. Who would you see in this league? Will there be qualifications? Will the teams have enough time to play in the Championship, Cup and the Super league?

Mihawkavelli wrote:

gone wrote:

Mihawkavelli wrote:

gone wrote:

Tweedle wrote:I don't have a problem with lower teams winning it.

All I'm saying is, if Arsenal had won the final last year, I certainly wouldn't have gone around proclaiming us the best team in Europe - simply because we weren't.

The team that wins the FA cup in the UK doesn't proclaim itself the best team in the UK either.

Feasibly you could win the CL having not won a single game!!!

Then what's the point of the CL if the team that wins it may, or may not be the best team in Europe.

Create a Super League , all the BIG teams play each other home + away .. then we see who is the BEST..

Cup Competitions .. you need luck , if you play sexy football and have not much luck .. everyone will know.

So only a few teams will actually get to win it. Who would you see in this league? Will there be qualifications? Will the teams have enough time to play in the Championship, Cup and the Super league?

For this to happen (a Super League which the G14 wants ..), teams need to leave their leagues .. will never happen.
Still having the European Cup turned into a league format in the Last 8 , with the two highest ranked teams play the final .. seems a better solution to see who is the best ..

Mihawkavelli wrote:What about the team that wins the Super Cup , technically they will be the best team in Europe ?

That is why the Super Cup was created

The European Super Cup was created in 1972 by Anton Witkamp, a reporter and later sports editor of Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf. The idea came to him in a time where Dutch total football was Europe's finest and Dutch football clubs were living their golden era (especially Ajax). Witkamp was looking for something new to definitely decide which was the best team in Europe and also to further test Ajax's legendary team, led by their star player Johan Cruyff. It was then proposed that the winner of the European Cup would face the winner of the Cup Winners' Cup.

Mihawkavelli wrote:@ gone

When was the last team to win the European Cup that did not belong to a G14 team , i think it was Red Star Belgrade in 1991 ...

What i love about the European Cup is .. especially from 1955-95

is that teams .. wherever they came from can win on merit , you had the Latin domination in the 50/60's , Dutch and German success in the 70's , English rise in the late 70's and early 80's .. in between teams were on a level playing field, Eastern European teams were top of their game Kiev , Red Star , Steaua Bucureşti etc

problem is the rise of money in the game has undermined the Cup , a monopoly is being created , I'm not sure a team from the not Big 3 nations will ever has the same success as Milan in the last 5 years in the Cup , a shame ...

gone wrote:

Mihawkavelli wrote:@ gone

When was the last team to win the European Cup that did not belong to a G14 team , i think it was Red Star Belgrade in 1991 ...

What i love about the European Cup is .. especially from 1955-95

is that teams .. wherever they came from can win on merit , you had the Latin domination in the 50/60's , Dutch and German success in the 70's , English rise in the late 70's and early 80's .. in between teams were on a level playing field, Eastern European teams were top of their game Kiev , Red Star , Steaua Bucureşti etc

problem is the rise of money in the game has undermined the Cup , a monopoly is being created , I'm not sure a team from the not Big 3 nations will ever has the same success as Milan in the last 5 years in the Cup , a shame ...

First, the G14 (in should be G18 because there are 18 members) memebers: Internazionale (Italy), Juventus (Italy), A.C. Milan (Italy), Liverpool F.C. (England), Manchester United (England), Olympique de Marseille (France), Paris Saint-Germain (France), Bayern Munich (Germany), Borussia Dortmund (Germany), Ajax (Netherlands), PSV (Netherlands), Porto (Portugal), Barcelona (Spain), Real Madrid (Spain), Arsenal (England), Olympique Lyonnais (France), Bayer Leverkusen (Germany), Valencia (Spain)

Are those the BEST teams in Europe, now? Where are Chelsea, Seville, Roma? Or even Lens or Celtic, teams that made it out of the CL GS. Who's to say that CSKA Moscow can't became a team that would challenge the CL (they have the money)?

That's what i used to love about the EC too. And the team that won the Cup was allways considered the best in Europe.

Red n' Black wrote:

Rez wrote:
Milan and Italy got outplayed in the finals. Italy won on penalties and Milan won via a deflected goal. Italy just proved that they are the luckiest nation at the moment.

Rez, i think you're a fair dude but i must say I quite disagree with the above comment of yours and I'm not even Italian. Italy won on penalties yes, but they also lost a final on penalties in 1994. Yes France played better, but in the EURO 2000 final Italy played France off the park and yet ended up losing.I also believe that Italy had a better overall tournament than France. And i do think that Italy are definately one of the top 3-4 national teams in the world, they have tons of great players and also tons of trophies to show for it.

As far as Milan is concerned, we played Cr@p yesterday (definately one of our worst games in years and i watch EVERY domestic and European game) so you could claim that we were fortunate. But were we any more fortunate than Liverpool in '05? I don't think so. Plus Liverpool won on penalties, whereas Milan won the game in normal time.

I agree with your post about Milan's bad domestic season though; we didn't do well enough in the league to justify the 'Best in Europe' tag. However, i do disagree with what you said in another thread about the way we played in the final being our 'normal game' and 45 mins against Man U being the 'anomaly' To me that is funny because i cannot understand how you reached that conclusion, but i guess if you had followed Serie A or even our European games for the past few years you would have known that our brand of football is anything BUT the one that was on display yesterday.
Anyway, i do think that Milan can claim that they have been the #1 team in Europe over the past 2 decades and i don't think i'm biased in saying that.

Mihawkavelli wrote:Platini wants to bring back the lost 'merit' from the Glorious Competition , teams back on a level playing field ..

gone wrote:

Mihawkavelli wrote:Platini wants to bring back the lost 'merit' from the Glorious Competition , teams back on a level playing field ..

I'm not sure he can. Consider the amount of money to be lost. Not only for the top teams but for the rest as well. The last team in EPL gets 30 mil from TV rights. But most of the money comes from other countrys. Will people from around the world still pay the some money if England has only one team in the CL? I think not. The same goes for Spain or Italy.

gone wrote:

Rez wrote:Milan arent even the best side in Milan or Italy, never mind Europe. When was the last time Milan won the domestic league. The CL should be renamed, especially when the final consists of two 3rd place teams that havent won there domestic league for a while.



When Porto or Liverpool won the CL, no one thought they were the best side in Europe and its the same with Milan now.Maybe when Milan win there own league people may take there claim as the best side in Europe seriously.



Milan and Italy got outplayed in the finals. Italy won on penalties and Milan won via a deflected goal. Italy just proved that they are the luckiest nation at the moment.

I think its just a case of sour grapes for you rez. Not the first time either. Milan won Serie A in 2004. As you see it was not so long ago. Why should the CL be renamed? Just allow only the champions + title holder to play. That was the whole idea behind the competition, when it first got started. Would you go for that? By this standards United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Roma, Milan, Real, Valencia shouldn’t started in this year’s competition.

BTW, the team that wins the CL SHOULD be the best team in Europe. For it was Porto in 2004, Liverpool in 2005 or Barca last year. But I agree that you SHOULD win you league first, then get to play in this competition.

Rez wrote:Gone, I am not complaining about non champions entering the competition. But when a team comes into the CL, not as champions and finishes 3rd maybe 4th in the league and goes on to win the CL, there is no way you can claim that the team is the best in Europe.



You have to conquer your own country before you can make such claims. If we won the CL this season and finished 3/4th I wouldnt be proclaiming in the smuggest way possible that we were the best side in Europe.



Uefa do have a problem that if the champions or soon to be champions of domestic leagues, arent contesting the final or winning the competition.



Ps The name champions league, wouldnt hold up in court if someone challenged them for false advertising, as the final isnt contested by champions and its not actually a league.

Mihawkavelli wrote:Teams to compete must adjust with the Bosman ruling ..

Rez wrote:

Red n' Black wrote:

Rez wrote:
Milan and Italy got outplayed in the finals. Italy won on penalties and Milan won via a deflected goal. Italy just proved that they are the luckiest nation at the moment.

Rez, i think you're a fair dude but i must say I quite disagree with the above comment of yours and I'm not even Italian. Italy won on penalties yes, but they also lost a final on penalties in 1994. Yes France played better, but in the EURO 2000 final Italy played France off the park and yet ended up losing.I also believe that Italy had a better overall tournament than France. And i do think that Italy are definately one of the top 3-4 national teams in the world, they have tons of great players and also tons of trophies to show for it.

As far as Milan is concerned, we played Cr@p yesterday (definately one of our worst games in years and i watch EVERY domestic and European game) so you could claim that we were fortunate. But were we any more fortunate than Liverpool in '05? I don't think so. Plus Liverpool won on penalties, whereas Milan won the game in normal time.

I agree with your post about Milan's bad domestic season though; we didn't do well enough in the league to justify the 'Best in Europe' tag. However, i do disagree with what you said in another thread about the way we played in the final being our 'normal game' and 45 mins against Man U being the 'anomaly' To me that is funny because i cannot understand how you reached that conclusion, but i guess if you had followed Serie A or even our European games for the past few years you would have known that our brand of football is anything BUT the one that was on display yesterday.
Anyway, i do think that Milan can claim that they have been the #1 team in Europe over the past 2 decades and i don't think i'm biased in saying that.

Red and black, my post was very over the top to compensate, the original post, which is one of the most effusive and pompus posts I have read on here. At least when Otto writes posts like that, it is laced with irony and humour.



Anyway I said 'lucky at the moment'



Italy were the better side in 2000 (if only it was the Del Piero pre injury, taking those chances) and Milan 2005 were brilliant and gave a footballing masterclass. In the 2006 WC final and 2007 CL final, the Italians were not the better sides. If they thumped the opposition in both finals I could understand, this post, but they didnt.



Congratulations to Milan for winning it, but they arent the best team in Europe. Next season (assuming all teams started the tournament with current teams) the CL favourites will be Chelsea, Barca, Inter and united and rightly so. If Milan came into the tournament as champions of there league, or won there own league, you could say they are the best team in Europe.



Last season Barca were the best team in Europe, because they were league champions coming into the tournament and they won there league title as well as the CL.



Regarding the anomoly comment, I meant just this season, if you played like you did against united (or close to that level) you would have finished closer to Inter and wouldnt have anhilated the poor opposition your team faced in the earlier rounds of the competition.



I apologise to normal Milan and Italy fans, but Forza's overweening post, deserved such a reply.

Tweedle wrote:Some of us are naturally gifted comedians both on here and in the real world.

Luis wrote:It's funny how if Liverpool had played like Milan and won everyone would be criticising them no end

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:

Rez wrote:

Red n' Black wrote:

Rez wrote:
Milan and Italy got outplayed in the finals. Italy won on penalties and Milan won via a deflected goal. Italy just proved that they are the luckiest nation at the moment.

Rez, i think you're a fair dude but i must say I quite disagree with the above comment of yours and I'm not even Italian. Italy won on penalties yes, but they also lost a final on penalties in 1994. Yes France played better, but in the EURO 2000 final Italy played France off the park and yet ended up losing.I also believe that Italy had a better overall tournament than France. And i do think that Italy are definately one of the top 3-4 national teams in the world, they have tons of great players and also tons of trophies to show for it.

As far as Milan is concerned, we played Cr@p yesterday (definately one of our worst games in years and i watch EVERY domestic and European game) so you could claim that we were fortunate. But were we any more fortunate than Liverpool in '05? I don't think so. Plus Liverpool won on penalties, whereas Milan won the game in normal time.

I agree with your post about Milan's bad domestic season though; we didn't do well enough in the league to justify the 'Best in Europe' tag. However, i do disagree with what you said in another thread about the way we played in the final being our 'normal game' and 45 mins against Man U being the 'anomaly' To me that is funny because i cannot understand how you reached that conclusion, but i guess if you had followed Serie A or even our European games for the past few years you would have known that our brand of football is anything BUT the one that was on display yesterday.
Anyway, i do think that Milan can claim that they have been the #1 team in Europe over the past 2 decades and i don't think i'm biased in saying that.

Red and black, my post was very over the top to compensate, the original post, which is one of the most effusive and pompus posts I have read on here. At least when Otto writes posts like that, it is laced with irony and humour.



Anyway I said 'lucky at the moment'



Italy were the better side in 2000 (if only it was the Del Piero pre injury, taking those chances) and Milan 2005 were brilliant and gave a footballing masterclass. In the 2006 WC final and 2007 CL final, the Italians were not the better sides. If they thumped the opposition in both finals I could understand, this post, but they didnt.



Congratulations to Milan for winning it, but they arent the best team in Europe. Next season (assuming all teams started the tournament with current teams) the CL favourites will be Chelsea, Barca, Inter and united and rightly so. If Milan came into the tournament as champions of there league, or won there own league, you could say they are the best team in Europe.



Last season Barca were the best team in Europe, because they were league champions coming into the tournament and they won there league title as well as the CL.



Regarding the anomoly comment, I meant just this season, if you played like you did against united (or close to that level) you would have finished closer to Inter and wouldnt have anhilated the poor opposition your team faced in the earlier rounds of the competition.



I apologise to normal Milan and Italy fans, but Forza's overweening post, deserved such a reply.

Fair points.

As for the comments regarding me...it's all personal preference. It was high time that I gloated. Everyone has their own style. Some people can convey good humour on a forum but are absolute bores in real life.

But as for the critique on the substance of my post (not its style), I respect your opinion but will politely disagree. Every tournament winner needs some luck Rez (you should know that after 1999). Milan were no different. But if you watch the Final again, you will realize that Milan played very tactically. They took their chances when it counted. Liverpool, for their hustle, had nothing to show at the end spare an academic goal by Kuyt. Surely you aren't churlish enough to deny Milan that?

I actually believe Milan were at their best in 2004, when they lost to Deportivo.

Rez wrote:

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:

Rez wrote:

Red n' Black wrote:

Rez wrote:
Milan and Italy got outplayed in the finals. Italy won on penalties and Milan won via a deflected goal. Italy just proved that they are the luckiest nation at the moment.

Rez, i think you're a fair dude but i must say I quite disagree with the above comment of yours and I'm not even Italian. Italy won on penalties yes, but they also lost a final on penalties in 1994. Yes France played better, but in the EURO 2000 final Italy played France off the park and yet ended up losing.I also believe that Italy had a better overall tournament than France. And i do think that Italy are definately one of the top 3-4 national teams in the world, they have tons of great players and also tons of trophies to show for it.

As far as Milan is concerned, we played Cr@p yesterday (definately one of our worst games in years and i watch EVERY domestic and European game) so you could claim that we were fortunate. But were we any more fortunate than Liverpool in '05? I don't think so. Plus Liverpool won on penalties, whereas Milan won the game in normal time.

I agree with your post about Milan's bad domestic season though; we didn't do well enough in the league to justify the 'Best in Europe' tag. However, i do disagree with what you said in another thread about the way we played in the final being our 'normal game' and 45 mins against Man U being the 'anomaly' To me that is funny because i cannot understand how you reached that conclusion, but i guess if you had followed Serie A or even our European games for the past few years you would have known that our brand of football is anything BUT the one that was on display yesterday.
Anyway, i do think that Milan can claim that they have been the #1 team in Europe over the past 2 decades and i don't think i'm biased in saying that.

Red and black, my post was very over the top to compensate, the original post, which is one of the most effusive and pompus posts I have read on here. At least when Otto writes posts like that, it is laced with irony and humour.



Anyway I said 'lucky at the moment'



Italy were the better side in 2000 (if only it was the Del Piero pre injury, taking those chances) and Milan 2005 were brilliant and gave a footballing masterclass. In the 2006 WC final and 2007 CL final, the Italians were not the better sides. If they thumped the opposition in both finals I could understand, this post, but they didnt.



Congratulations to Milan for winning it, but they arent the best team in Europe. Next season (assuming all teams started the tournament with current teams) the CL favourites will be Chelsea, Barca, Inter and united and rightly so. If Milan came into the tournament as champions of there league, or won there own league, you could say they are the best team in Europe.



Last season Barca were the best team in Europe, because they were league champions coming into the tournament and they won there league title as well as the CL.



Regarding the anomoly comment, I meant just this season, if you played like you did against united (or close to that level) you would have finished closer to Inter and wouldnt have anhilated the poor opposition your team faced in the earlier rounds of the competition.



I apologise to normal Milan and Italy fans, but Forza's overweening post, deserved such a reply.

Fair points.

As for the comments regarding me...it's all personal preference. It was high time that I gloated. Everyone has their own style. Some people can convey good humour on a forum but are absolute bores in real life.

But as for the critique on the substance of my post (not its style), I respect your opinion but will politely disagree. Every tournament winner needs some luck Rez (you should know that after 1999). Milan were no different. But if you watch the Final again, you will realize that Milan played very tactically. They took their chances when it counted. Liverpool, for their hustle, had nothing to show at the end spare an academic goal by Kuyt. Surely you aren't churlish enough to deny Milan that?

I actually believe Milan were at their best in 2004, when they lost to Deportivo.

After the 2005 final, Milan deserved all the luck that went there way. In 2005 Milan were by far the better team and lost, in 2006 Liverpool were the better side and lost. So the past 2 years has written of, previous injustice that Italy has suffered.



Milan have been the most consistent team in the CL for the past 4 years, but I certainly dont think they are currently the best side in Europe (which I have explained previously).



One thing I do agree with you is that the 2004 Milan team was better, but football is strange, you win things when you dont expect to and lose when you expect to win, I guess thats why its such a great sport.



Ps 1999 wasnt luck, it was destiny



PPS Everyone has there own style and your posts are always very well structured, insightful and well written. However if your planning on doing a self congratulatory post, you should look to Otto, Merseyman or the real white Pele for inspiration.



Congratulations again on winning the CL.

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:

Rez wrote:

Forza Italia!Forza Milan! wrote:

Rez wrote:

Red n' Black wrote:

Rez wrote:
Milan and Italy got outplayed in the finals. Italy won on penalties and Milan won via a deflected goal. Italy just proved that they are the luckiest nation at the moment.

Rez, i think you're a fair dude but i must say I quite disagree with the above comment of yours and I'm not even Italian. Italy won on penalties yes, but they also lost a final on penalties in 1994. Yes France played better, but in the EURO 2000 final Italy played France off the park and yet ended up losing.I also believe that Italy had a better overall tournament than France. And i do think that Italy are definately one of the top 3-4 national teams in the world, they have tons of great players and also tons of trophies to show for it.

As far as Milan is concerned, we played Cr@p yesterday (definately one of our worst games in years and i watch EVERY domestic and European game) so you could claim that we were fortunate. But were we any more fortunate than Liverpool in '05? I don't think so. Plus Liverpool won on penalties, whereas Milan won the game in normal time.

I agree with your post about Milan's bad domestic season though; we didn't do well enough in the league to justify the 'Best in Europe' tag. However, i do disagree with what you said in another thread about the way we played in the final being our 'normal game' and 45 mins against Man U being the 'anomaly' To me that is funny because i cannot understand how you reached that conclusion, but i guess if you had followed Serie A or even our European games for the past few years you would have known that our brand of football is anything BUT the one that was on display yesterday.
Anyway, i do think that Milan can claim that they have been the #1 team in Europe over the past 2 decades and i don't think i'm biased in saying that.

Red and black, my post was very over the top to compensate, the original post, which is one of the most effusive and pompus posts I have read on here. At least when Otto writes posts like that, it is laced with irony and humour.



Anyway I said 'lucky at the moment'



Italy were the better side in 2000 (if only it was the Del Piero pre injury, taking those chances) and Milan 2005 were brilliant and gave a footballing masterclass. In the 2006 WC final and 2007 CL final, the Italians were not the better sides. If they thumped the opposition in both finals I could understand, this post, but they didnt.



Congratulations to Milan for winning it, but they arent the best team in Europe. Next season (assuming all teams started the tournament with current teams) the CL favourites will be Chelsea, Barca, Inter and united and rightly so. If Milan came into the tournament as champions of there league, or won there own league, you could say they are the best team in Europe.



Last season Barca were the best team in Europe, because they were league champions coming into the tournament and they won there league title as well as the CL.



Regarding the anomoly comment, I meant just this season, if you played like you did against united (or close to that level) you would have finished closer to Inter and wouldnt have anhilated the poor opposition your team faced in the earlier rounds of the competition.



I apologise to normal Milan and Italy fans, but Forza's overweening post, deserved such a reply.

Fair points.

As for the comments regarding me...it's all personal preference. It was high time that I gloated. Everyone has their own style. Some people can convey good humour on a forum but are absolute bores in real life.

But as for the critique on the substance of my post (not its style), I respect your opinion but will politely disagree. Every tournament winner needs some luck Rez (you should know that after 1999). Milan were no different. But if you watch the Final again, you will realize that Milan played very tactically. They took their chances when it counted. Liverpool, for their hustle, had nothing to show at the end spare an academic goal by Kuyt. Surely you aren't churlish enough to deny Milan that?

I actually believe Milan were at their best in 2004, when they lost to Deportivo.

After the 2005 final, Milan deserved all the luck that went there way. In 2005 Milan were by far the better team and lost, in 2006 Liverpool were the better side and lost. So the past 2 years has written of, previous injustice that Italy has suffered.



Milan have been the most consistent team in the CL for the past 4 years, but I certainly dont think they are currently the best side in Europe (which I have explained previously).



One thing I do agree with you is that the 2004 Milan team was better, but football is strange, you win things when you dont expect to and lose when you expect to win, I guess thats why its such a great sport.



Ps 1999 wasnt luck, it was destiny



PPS Everyone has there own style and your posts are always very well structured, insightful and well written. However if your planning on doing a self congratulatory post, you should look to Otto, Merseyman or the real white Pele for inspiration.



Congratulations again on winning the CL.

I have never looked to anyone for inspiration when it comes to writing. I don't need to go through why because that would be truly pompous.

But yes merseyman is my personal favourite. His posts are awesome.

But this thread was no joke--it was serious.

If 1999 was destiny so was 2007. Can you not see that?