whos bigger: AC milan vs. real madrid

after my vote, milan 26 and madrid 25... mine is decisive as of now..

Madrid. Milan aren't even the biggest team in Italy FFS!

26 - 26...

5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

The-Frank-Tavern wrote:

shazlx wrote:Recently in Europe (20 years or even ten) then I say Milan but Madrid have much more domestic titles which shows how much more they have dominated throughout their history.

quite easy when the dictator of your country makes sure you win reasonable often

Woah, for a second I thought we were talking about Benfica

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

when did football stop becoming Cr@p. because does italys world cup wins count or brazils in 58 and 62? how about englands WC win in 66?

Milan (even though I hate them)

Madriz without Franco (who gave them Di Stefano) would be as big as Espanyol

supermadrid wrote:doesnt domestic cups count. i mean i think milan have 18 and we have 29 and more importantly juve has been the dominat team in italy and you need both international and national succes to be nr1.
if we are going to assume that Real got most of their cups by cheating then why are we saying the same about milan. did people forget that they were in a little scandal last summer and have already been caught cheating before(82).but i gues no point in debating since different rules count.

Yea that’s it .. Madrid won most if its trophies in the 50's and has done just bits and pieces ever since. Milan has been the best team in the world for the past 25-30 years.

And national cups don’t count ... One can say that if Milan participated in la Liga, it would have won more national cups that Madrid, its pointless really.

supermadrid wrote:

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

when did football stop becoming Cr@p. because does italys world cup wins count or brazils in 58 and 62? how about englands WC win in 66?

Madrid have more European titles, hence will be regarded as the greater team until another team surpasses this

that being said i think Madrid was more dominant back in the day, and like i said, Milan have been the best team in the world for the past 25 years.

110% wrote:

Axeslammer wrote:

Target Man SSK wrote: I was expecting this from Puro, Axe you've sunk low, very low.

I'm getting fed up with all the glory hunters and their big clubs.

The big clubs and big bucks are destroying football, but just like the emperor without clothes, the masses just say : "hey it's the CL, the best of the best so it *must* be good matches".

I'm telling you : "$h!t on a stick" is an international brand nowadays

why are you pro milan then? do you know who berlusconi is?

for the CL final milan have had and spent far more money than liverpool, so shouldn't you stick with your principles and have been supporting liverpool

ummmm Milan had something like 8 Italians in the starting line up for that final

Liverpool had something like 3

so what you just said was stupid ... Milan set an example, that you can win with your own men

Do I even need to post? Milan

tonigol wrote:

supermadrid wrote:doesnt domestic cups count. i mean i think milan have 18 and we have 29 and more importantly juve has been the dominat team in italy and you need both international and national succes to be nr1.
if we are going to assume that Real got most of their cups by cheating then why are we saying the same about milan. did people forget that they were in a little scandal last summer and have already been caught cheating before(82).but i gues no point in debating since different rules count.

Yea that’s it .. Madrid won most if its trophies in the 50's and has done just bits and pieces ever since. Milan has been the best team in the world for the past 25-30 years.

And national cups don’t count ... One can say that if Milan participated in la Liga, it would have won more national cups that Madrid, its pointless really.

Milan and their grandads would get exposed, in the much faster paced games in Spain.

Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

This thread must really hurt bluenine.

I agree with your point, however, and Real have to be considered the most successful team. Although the poll says otherwise.

Milan have been the best in the Champions League in the last 20 years or so. They have certainly eclipsed Real's achievements in that time period.

Owen wrote:
Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

So does this mean you take Porto's victories (UC,CL) seriously, or do these have a cloud over them as well...considering they pulled "a Porto"?

Seems to be the vibe I get from Britain.
Not to take away from the original debate here...

btw, Madrid's been the bigger club, but Milan is f@cking huge.

Depends what the arguement is about...

If you are talking about form, then the later the better.

If you are talking about tradition/achievement, then all CL wins count the same...

Every generation will always think that football much before their time was not as competitive... and to some extent it will always be true I guess... but that does NOT belittle past trophies. Coz at their time, they were achievements.

The Real team of early 60s was great, some of the biggest names in football used to play for them. I am sure if you discuss this with someone who used to watch football at that time, he will probably think that that team was better than any nowadays...

The best way to check how successful a team has been historically if to total the trophies they have won.

Yeah, in the last 20 years, Milan have been by far the best team in europe.

Owen wrote:

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

Owen wrote:

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

what will say if your kids(if you get) 40 years from now laugh at you when you mention that man utds team in 99 was the best you have ever seen. they could use the same arguement couldnt they.anyway my rule of thumb is not to debate too much about football i havent seen especially if its more then 50 years old. and this is not just international cups but also how they have dominated at home and here milan are right about equal with inter now and a fair bit after juve.

bluenine wrote:Depends what the arguement is about...

If you are talking about form, then the later the better.

If you are talking about tradition/achievement, then all CL wins count the same...

Every generation will always think that football much before their time was not as competitive... and to some extent it will always be true I guess... but that does NOT belittle past trophies. Coz at their time, they were achievements.

The Real team of early 60s was great, some of the biggest names in football used to play for them. I am sure if you discuss this with someone who used to watch football at that time, he will probably think that that team was better than any nowadays...

The best way to check how successful a team has been historically if to total the trophies they have won.

Yeah, in the last 20 years, Milan have been by far the best team in europe.

Owen wrote:

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

You can stretch my opinions further into the past. Would a Madrid win of an European trophy of equal international standing as a CL at the time count as much as a CL nowadays if it was won in the 1910's? At sometime there was a "tipping" point. I think it was in the late 70/80's but as you say I didn't watch any football at all in the 60's so it's purely a guess. I definitely agree with you that the success is equal at the time.

It's like the Premiership. A league success is slightly greater then one in the early 90's because competition is much more fierce now.

*puts flameproofing on*

Players like Alfredo Di Stéfano would probably not be all that great nowadays.

supermadrid wrote:

Owen wrote:

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

what will say if your kids(if you get) 40 years from now laugh at you when you mention that man utds team in 99 was the best you have ever seen. they could use the same arguement couldnt they.anyway my rule of thumb is not to debate too much about football i havent seen especially if its more then 50 years old. and this is not just international cups but also how they have dominated at home and here milan are right about equal with inter now and a fair bit after juve.

Yeah, they could and probably will, but I don't think my not liking it invalidates it. Progress in football isn't linear in my opinion, as time goes on there will be diminishing improvements.

if we can rag on former achivements just because they happened in a different time then surely pele shouldnt be considered among the best in the world. and world cups or any cups before 1975 shouldnt count right?

maradona >>pele

no one rate football from the 60`s

You cannot compare the past and the present using the same criteria. Coz there are so many environmental factors, it makes the comparison ridiculous. The best way IMO to compare past with the present is see how good they were/are relative to the peers of their generation who were faced with the same constraints and rules. The Real team of the early 60s was awesome compared to their peers.... I was reading an interview by the late Facchetti, and he mentioned that when his Inter played Real in 1964, it felt like playing against a World XI, he had goosebumps just standing on the same ground. Thats how good they were. And it sounds very similar to the Milan team of early 90s.

As for the linearity of the curve, dude, every generation feels exactly like you do... that the "diminishing improvement" have recently started.

Owen wrote:

supermadrid wrote:

Owen wrote:

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

what will say if your kids(if you get) 40 years from now laugh at you when you mention that man utds team in 99 was the best you have ever seen. they could use the same arguement couldnt they.anyway my rule of thumb is not to debate too much about football i havent seen especially if its more then 50 years old. and this is not just international cups but also how they have dominated at home and here milan are right about equal with inter now and a fair bit after juve.

Yeah, they could and probably will, but I don't think my not liking it invalidates it. Progress in football isn't linear in my opinion, as time goes on there will be diminishing improvements.

Still havent voted yet...really a tough one to decide. Both are huge clubs, institutes even.

bluenine wrote:...The best way IMO to compare past with the present is see how good they were/are relative to the peers of their generation

I'm sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. It's like saying I can compare Man U 2006/7 with Sunderland 1892/3 and say they were as good as each other as they both were the best in the league at the time. As I've already said, I'm not arguing about "greatness" in the eyes of history, I'm arguing about the comparative quality of the sides and therefore the comparative difficulty in winning awards then and now (there is much more competition now, this is completely undeniable).

...who were faced with the same constraints and rules. The Real team of the early 60s was awesome compared to their peers.... I was reading an interview by the late Facchetti, and he mentioned that when his Inter played Real in 1964, it felt like playing against a World XI, he had goosebumps just standing on the same ground. Thats how good they were. And it sounds very similar to the Milan team of early 90s.

This is totally irrelevant. Your argument is basically saying the same as: because a Sunday league team feared a rival they can be compared to Milan circa 1990's.

...As for the linearity of the curve, dude, every generation feels exactly like you do... that the "diminishing improvement" have recently started.

It hasn't, it's been diminishing since the invention of the sport. It's unmeasurable though. I would honestly say 1970's teams are closer in quality to 1980's teams then 1960's teams generally. There probably are teams who are ahead of their time but we're talking 50 years here and I would automatically say that is too much of a gap.

Owen wrote:

supermadrid wrote:

Owen wrote:

bluenine wrote:Thats just a rubbish arguement... so when did the CL stop becoming Cr@p? 70s or 80s? How do you know that 50 years from now they don't look back and say that football was pretty much Cr@p in the 90s/2000s??

Fact is that Real have won 9 CLs, Milan 7. Thats how it stands.

If you want to argue that Milan have been the best team in the last 25 years, that arguement does have merit. But historically, Real have been better. So far.

Owen wrote:5 of Madrids wins were in the 50's when football was pretty much Cr@p. Milan

Well, it's definately not a popular opinion and no doubt I will be shot down but generally I'm a firm believer in the later the better when it comes to football success. The game wasn't of a high quality then and the competition was much, much less ferocious and in my opinion any win nowadays is as good as two wins in the 50's. I only start taking football success seriously beyond the 70's/80's.

I'm not dissing the relative achievement, just the comparison between teams nowadays and teams back then. Since the question is judging between the teams now, then more recent success should be more relevant, no?

what will say if your kids(if you get) 40 years from now laugh at you when you mention that man utds team in 99 was the best you have ever seen. they could use the same arguement couldnt they.anyway my rule of thumb is not to debate too much about football i havent seen especially if its more then 50 years old. and this is not just international cups but also how they have dominated at home and here milan are right about equal with inter now and a fair bit after juve.

Yeah, they could and probably will, but I don't think my not liking it invalidates it. Progress in football isn't linear in my opinion, as time goes on there will be diminishing improvements.

Both of our arguments are impossible to prove one way or the other. I never said my position would be popular

So now you are comparing Herrera's Inter with a "sunday league team"??

The reason why I mentioned Facchetti's comment, is coz that Inter team was beyond doubt our greatest ever team. Most Italians would call that team as the second greatest Italian club team of all times, only next to Milan of early 90s. It was no "sunday league team".

And if thats how their captain felt about playing Real, you can try and appreciate how good Real must have been.

If you extrapolate your seriously flawed arguements, are you saying that England's WC win in 1966 was of less significance compared to Greece winning Euro2004 coz Greece did it against supposedly better opposition? And that Frank Lampard is better than Bobby Charlton?? Thats how ridiculous you sound.

Owen wrote:

bluenine wrote:...The best way IMO to compare past with the present is see how good they were/are [b]relative to the peers of their generation, who were faced with the same constraints and rules. The Real team of the early 60s was awesome compared to their peers.... I was reading an interview by the late Facchetti, and he mentioned that when his Inter played Real in 1964, it felt like playing against a World XI, he had goosebumps just standing on the same ground. Thats how good they were. And it sounds very similar to the Milan team of early 90s.

This is totally irrelevant. Your argument is basically saying the same as: because a Sunday league team feared a rival they can be compared to Milan circa 1990's.