11 - Raphinha

serghei said:

It is tremendously difficult to win CL, but that Chelsea team had 5-6 incredible players tbh. It's not like he took over some bums and he won CL with them.

Click to expand...

It is indeed very challenging.

But you can actually "fluke" your way to a CL title, a few calls go your way and all of a sudden your in the CL final and at that point, anything can happen.

Just ask Madrid they've made a living out of it lol.

Can't fluke your way over a 38 game season.

Anyone who thinks winning 1 CL title shows more quality than 1 league title, doesn't know what they are talking about.

But the person who said that also said a 19 year old neymar at santos was better than a 15-16 year old yamal, because neymar was top 10 in the ballon D'or, because you know that means more than winning the euros lol.


2 CL then we are talking because that shows some level of consistency.

jamrock said:

How is he moving the goal post? Did i miss something? Lol.

Not even decent and winning a league title definitely doesn't go in the same sentence.

Click to expand...

No one even dares to argue Xavi was a good coach anymore. That’s the definition of moving the goal post.

All we’re seeing these days is “he won the league”. Indeed he did.

Joan said:

No one even dares to argue Xavi was a good coach anymore. That’s the definition of moving the goal post.

All we’re seeing these days is “he won the league”. Indeed he did.

Click to expand...

Because that's how coaches are ultimately judged no? by winning.

That and leaving the club is a better place that you found it.

Both of which he did.

Or in your opinion its by losing pretty? Genuine question.

Lol figured as much.

Figured what?

jamrock said:

Because that's how coaches are ultimately judged no? by winning.

That and leaving the club is a better place that you found it.

Both of which he did.

Or in your opinion its by losing pretty? Genuine question.

Click to expand...

Xavi won a league title but lost most other battles.

Barcelona isn’t City, where Pep takes all the credit and blame, there’s a very involved sporting department that shares responsibility for decisions. Xavi wasn’t ready mentally, tactically, or in terms of experience.

Winning one title doesn’t automatically make him a great coach or the best solution. He wasn’t a disaster, but evaluating him requires looking beyond just those two criteria. And even within those, there are levels.

Pretty has nothing to do with it. Enrique described his team well.

Joan said:

Figured what?

Xavi won a league title but lost most other battles.

Barcelona isn’t City, where Pep takes all the credit and blame, there’s a very involved sporting department that shares responsibility for decisions. Xavi wasn’t ready mentally, tactically, or in terms of experience.

Winning one title doesn’t automatically make him a great coach or the best solution. He wasn’t a disaster, but evaluating him requires looking beyond just those two criteria. And even within those, there are levels.

Pretty has nothing to do with it. Enrique described his team well.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you're saying regarding they're others involved, but as a coach he's involved in the decision making, like signings.

But the standard for Xavi isn't a great coach, i don't think even is biggest supporters would say he was/is a great coach.

If that's the standard his detractors are judging him by he will always look bad.

He was/is a young/inexperienced coach, that took over the club at a very challenging time and did a good job.

That's all I've ever heard Anyone on here say who supports Xavi TBH, unless I'm missing a few post.

Was he perfect, No.

The quality of the football could have been a better.
He could have done better in Europe in his first 1.5 years.
Was too emotionally involved.

But young coach.

Helps us to finish 2nd,
Wins the league.
Has a equal or winning record against the other top 2 teams in Spain.
I integrated a bunch of young Masia players and signing.

Anyone who says he was a god awful coach is being disingenuous.

Its like this raph situation, flick didn't take a shit bench player and turn him WC.

He took a player that has always been good for us and turn him WC, massive difference.

jamrock said:

Imagine thinking Roberto Di Matteo winning the CL is more difficult that winning a league title.

SMH.

The things you hear on your for people to push their narratives

This is akin to winning the league was a fluke.

Click to expand...

Lol......infantile.

There is a reason UCL is considered a tougher and a more prestigious competition not only in Europe but in the world too. it's less about the number of matches but qualitiy of opposition. You can play 18 other bum teams in your national league, you cant escape quality opposition along your path to the UCL year after yesr

There can only be 1 champions league winner in Europe every season(conqueror of all champions), there can be be many national league winners. You cant get through 13/14 matches on pure luck only. It is dumb to think winning 13 matches against national league champions is down to just luck alone. It is even dumber to connote that the national league is not strewn with lucky matches and more refereeing errors that decide those leagues.

Di Matteos historic champions league winner is by far regarded more highly than Xavis league winner except your are permanently deluded and myopic. And If we were to go by achievemente as a coach, Matteo is considered a decent coach. There is no way Xavi can be ranked ahead of him, no matter how you spin it( on coaching success/failure only)

Gazzznigga said:

Lol......infantile.

There is a reason UCL is considered a tougher and a more prestigious competition not only in Europe but in the world too. it's less about the number of matches but qualitiy of opposition. You can play 18 other bum teams in your national league, you cant escape quality opposition along your path to the UCL year after yesr

There can only be 1 champions league winner in Europe every season(conqueror of all champions), there can be be many national league winners.

Di Matteos historic champions league winner is far regarded more highly than Xavis league winner except your are permanently deluded and myopic.

Click to expand...

It's more prestigious
Not more difficult

Two different things.

Its a K.O competition dude, the best team doesn't always win.

why am i wasting my time with this guy.

But then again, you do think finishing top 10 in the Ballon D'or matters more than winning the Euros so it follows.

What's more impressive winning the euros at 16 or finishing top 10 in the Golden Bay at 19.?

@Gazzznigga .

Joan said:

Figured what?

Xavi won a league title but lost most other battles.

Barcelona isn’t City, where Pep takes all the credit and blame, there’s a very involved sporting department that shares responsibility for decisions. Xavi wasn’t ready mentally, tactically, or in terms of experience.

Winning one title doesn’t automatically make him a great coach or the best solution. He wasn’t a disaster, but evaluating him requires looking beyond just those two criteria. And even within those, there are levels.

Pretty has nothing to do with it. Enrique described his team well.

Click to expand...

What many of you fail to realise is that the team itself was still young and unexperienced. You guys always seem to believe that it was all his fault, but what you don't realise is that the team was genuinely unexperienced in Europe and there was nothing else to do, Out of the main 11 that played in the 2022-23 Lliga winning team, only 5 of them played more than 10 UCL games coming in to that season. It's simply unrealistic to expect much in Europe with such a young and relatively unexperienced squad.

RedxMAK said:

What many of you fail to realise is that the team itself was still young and unexperienced. You guys always seem to believe that it was all his fault, but what you don't realise is that the team was genuinely unexperienced in Europe and there was nothing else to do, Out of the main 11 that played in the 2022-23 Lliga winning team, only 5 of them played more than 10 UCL games coming in to that season. It's simply unrealistic to expect much in Europe with such a young and relatively unexperienced squad.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was obvious Xavi took the team in a very bad period for anyone that really wants to see it.

jamrock said:

It's more prestigious
Not more difficult

Two different things.

Its a K.O competition dude, the best team doesn't always win.

why am i wasting my time with this guy.

But then again, you do think finishing top 10 in the Ballon D'or matters more than winning the Euros so it follows.

Click to expand...

Laughable......indeed, if it was less difficult, the likes of Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Real,Juve,Inter,Liverpool, etc, would have more CLs than the number of the national leagues they have won since 1955.

Dude, let it go, Champions league is tougher. Difficulty is not described in numbers but by quality of resistance/challenges.

You understand it's way more likely to get lucky in a cup competition than in a league?

When your opponent in the semis and final misses chances left and right, and both can't score even from penalty kicks... that helps a lot in a cup competition. Simple as that. CL is far more dependent on luck.

serghei said:

You understand it's way more likely to get lucky in a cup competition than in a league?

When your opponent in the semis and final misses chances left and right, and both can't score even from penalty kicks... that helps a lot in a cup competition. Simple as that. CL is far more dependent on luck.

Click to expand...

While that may be true, you will agree with me that there is a smaller headroom for errors in Champions league than in national competitions{e.g.Barca vs PSG 2024). In UCL you have tinier margins to absorb and correct the effects of wrong or controversial decisions (Real vs Athletico 2025) compared to the national leagues. One poor match and you are out; one wrong refereeing decision and you are out; you hit a poor run of form, you are out.....in national competitions, you have a good chance of recovering from all these in many other matches. You could even be helped by other league teams in the quest to overcome your rivals. Champions league is tougher and more prestigious. Basic and proven. There is not any reason to debate that.

....the stakes are much higher in the UCL. I believe you all know this but just trying to be argumentative.

Real Madrid are rated best football team in Europe not on the strength of their la liga triumphs but more on their continental conquests. Barca, Liverpool, Bayern are all giants in Europe simply because of the of their european history, otherwise, Zurich FC,PSG, Lokomotiv Moscow, Dunamo Kiev, etc , ...could also lay a claim to being referred to as soccer giants just on the strength of the number of national leagues they have won.

You can be a household name locally by winning your local league over and over but you can only become a recognised global power house/name by winning the UCL over and over even if you don't win your local leagues.

There is a reason the European super league was mooted to break the UCL monopoly.....many national leagues are seen to be weaker than the UCL in terms of quality. Fewer but better quality matches are considered tougher and more attractive to sponsors.....and Barca leadership agrees too. If ESL had succeeded, La liga, Premier League, Ligue 1, etc, would have been relagated to the same level as Copa Catalunya and UCL would have become like Copa Del Rey.

serghei said:

Roberto Di Matteo didn't win any league titles. You can get lucky in Champions League, especially when you have match-winners like Drogba providing clutch goals at the right moment, keepers like Petr Cech, or defenders like that Chelsea side had. But, over 38 games, you have to be the best in the competition to win it. Luck factor goes down by a lot in league format.

Click to expand...

I haven't seen you using the same argument for Madrid's constant undeserving CL wins by sheer tons of black magic and voodoo