For me its Immobile. Horrendous player. Worst player ive seen play for the Italian National team, fucking useless every game I see him which is usually an important game, literally has no other skills other than finishing and that also goes to shit vs good teams.

The biggest problem with him is his distinct lack of movement. He’s Immobile.

Yes he is already a PL legend

In my opinion, you put him in the same tier you put Zidane

I think both can be true. He’s in a better team in a relatively weaker league than he was playing in before.and is now showing the world how a truly world class striker should dominate that league.

Bayern, Real and Barsa also appear among anyone’s list on the UCL contenders for the next 15 years. Heck I’d even pick them in my top 5 along with probably City and maybe Liverpool. That shows not only domestic consistency but European’s, which means clubs’ consistency as a whole. It’s not the league’s fault at all.

My argument is that their domestic consistency assists their European consistency. If Man City and Liverpool dominate the EPL for the next 20 years, they will be able to have consistency in Europe too. At the moment English teams do well in the ECL by virtue of being in the most competitive league. There have been four different English teams that have won the ECL in approx the last 20 years.

I just wanted to put some perspective there. La Liga is not a walk in the park, nor a walk in the park as you stated helps you precisely. See PSG, Benfica, Ajax nowadays

I did understate the quality of the Spanish league in relation to Europe and I shouldn’t have done that, although I still stand by my general points.

I still stand by my comments regarding clubs that have monopolies over their leagues, but I do accept that without big money being a monopoly doesn’t help a club in Europe (as per Ajax and Benfica), but also that big money alone doesn’t guarantee success (as per PSG. Although it would be a surprise if don’t they eventually win a UCL).

I may be biased as a Cádiz fan but you’re just unfair here. Relatively to who? La Liga has been the best league from 2009 to 2018 probably. 2nd since then according to UEFA. So it’s a “relatively weak league” only compared to EPL.

That’s true, I was being unfair. The Spanish league is the second most competitive league amongst the top leagues.

This topic is about Real Madrid’s European rivals chances to catch them at UCL tally. Among their biggest traditional rivals figure AC Milan, Liverpool, Bayern or Ajax. Recent rivals including Juventus, Chelsea, City or PSG too.

Agreed, although Ajax is no longer part of the conversation and you left Man United and possibly Inter from the list.

I’d say good management comes first. Some of these clubs have spent nearly as much, yet have not succeeded even a fraction. When Real spends, despite some notable exceptions to the rule (Hazard), they do it RIGHT.

I’d say the way the league is set up allows for Real Madrid to have success even with bad management. It’s easy to do it right when they buy the best players as per the galactic policy, however the status of Real Madrid is what makes that kind of policy sustainable in the first place.

We’re talking about current state of things though.

We don’t know who will be top of the EPL, or the Italian League in 15 years time. We do know that Barcelona or Real Madrid will be top of the Spanish league and that Bayern will be top of the German league. Some other leagues have cycles and that is very relevant when discussing UCL wins.

I don’t see how is that the case when you were attacking La Liga’s “duopoly” because of lack of competition even though, by definition, it’s a more contested scenario.

It’s about having the right amount of competition. Athletes in most sports can only maintain their peak for a short time. The Spanish League has the perfect amount of competition (one, sometimes two teams) to remain sharp enough to play at the highest standard but to enable their players to peak for the important matches.

Teams in monolopy leagues can also enable their players to peak for the important matches, but the overall lack of competition in their league affects their sharpness (the pressure to win each match is lower).

But here again, works when compared to EPL.

Yes I was comparing to the EPL and not taking into account leagues in other teams. Although in fairness, part of the reason for that is because I believe that the EPL teams currently have the best chance of winning the UCL outside of the Spanish teams.

Lack of competition is relative, dude. They certainly have had more competition in the recent years than the likes of Bayern or PSG.

Bayern and PSG have a monopoly over their respective leagues. I feel this actually hinders them rather than helps them as, although they can prioritise the UCL, they don’t have a club in their league to give them a serious challenge season after season.

A duopoly already makes you focus in the domestic goal too the way these monopolistic clubs don’t have to face. There’s a minimum point threshold Barca forces you to make to win La Liga.

I am talking about winning the UCL though as opposed to winning the domestic league. You don’t need to win the league to get into the UCL, but I do agree that having a rival in that league keeps the team sharper as a whole.

There’s an argument to include City among the easiest league winners too, as results show

Man City have done very well recently due to their massive financial power. Chelsea did the same at one point too. The difference is that clubs in the English league ebb and flow, just look at Man Utd now. Real Madrid have been in a similar position since the 1950’s. Real Madrid are closer to being a Bayern Munich than Man City is.

The clásico race is more demanding because Barca is just a larger threat for Madrid’s interests domestically.

That’s a pretty weak argument when you look at it subjectively. Spain two (or three) top teams are amazing, but they can afford to rest players to ensure their best players are in top form for their biggest games. A lot of teams in England don’t have that luxury. We could argue that Man City have now reached a point where their squad is large enough to do that, but that squad depth is also what enabled them to win the UCL in the first place.

Overall Premier League teams are better than the Spanish league when taken as an average and that is why the league is harder.

RM would be massive at any other league too.

What’s your point? So would Man United, Liverpool, Bayern Munich and PSG. I didn’t even mention Man City and Chelsea.

I don’t know why you’re trying to defend the Spanish league so much. Real Madrid is a great team with a great rival in a relatively weak league. This enables the two great teams in that league access to UCL football every season and ensures that they are likely to stay near the top of the food chain in world football forevermore.

I’d say that’s a pretty sweet position to be in as a Real Madrid fan.

It’s highly unlikely.

Madrid and Barcelona benefit from having a duopoly over the league. While occasionally a third or a fourth team will compete, Real Madrid knows they will usually finish first or second. This guarantees them Champions League football every season.

This guarantee, combined with their status in Spain and in world football allows them to attract some of the world’s best players. All it takes is some shrewd transfer dealings and some astute management and they will have a team capable of winning the champions league.

The lack of competition in their league also allows them to prioritise the Champions League should they wish, meaning they can rest their best players before each champions league match without affecting their final league position too much.

Even if Real Madrid fell on serious financial hard times, there’d be no shortage of middle eastern money interested in purchasing them.

If you look at goals to games ratio, you might find a better distribution of eras.

This is why people who claim the Spanish league was the best league in the world during the 2010s are mad.

There is definitely recency bias and it happens across all sports. I would say it should be expected because, even if those sports remained the same (which they don’t), the people who were alive to see those sportspeople die off. As they die. Less people get to hear how great those sports people were.

Also, people have different definitions of what an all-time great is. I define it as how great they were in relation to their peers (as I think it’s fairer), however some people define it transporting people from older eras into the current era.

I always had a problem with the latter definition as it biases towards contemporary players by failing to give older generation players the benefit of modern medicine and coaching techniques and also fails to take into account what would happen if current players were transported back in time.

My favourite example is Messi. He is arguably the greatest footballer of all time, but transport him back to the 1960’s as a 12 year old and it’s possible he doesn’t even make it as a professional footballer, yet alone one of the best ever.

Also regarding older era players smoking and drinking. It obviously wasn’t everyone and many current players also drink (Buffon and Veratti smoke too) so I don’t think that alone is a reason to dismiss older era players.

Sol Campbell to Arsenal