Penal Madrid

[khaled_a_d]

So Chelsea 2012 was the best team in Europe according to your criteria?

He said they are the team that deserves it, not the best. Those are not always the same.
And I am not sure why should one rooting for a team - or not- based on what they deserve?

 

[Birdy]

Chelsea did not deserve it in 2012, and were not the best team either.

The best team deserves it, at least if all the criteria concern what happens on the pitch, and not 'extra-' factors like money, project, history, etc

The question is how does one define best.
And in answering that question, I reject to begin with the simplistic view that the best is the one who got the best results

Rooting can be entirely subjective.
I prefer to root for the best team, when the teams i support are eliminated

 

[El Gato]

Why would it only be the best who deserve it? What about 2nd best?

Chelsea were very lucky, but there was almost an art to their escapism, and they never gave up. They deserved it on those grounds.

 

[Andrew M]

Chelsea did not deserve it in 2012, and were not the best team either.

The best team deserves it, at least if all the criteria concern what happens on the pitch, and not 'extra-' factors like money, project, history, etc

The question is how does one define best.
And in answering that question, I reject to begin with the simplistic view that the best is the one who got the best results

Rooting can be entirely subjective.
I prefer to root for the best team, when the teams i support are eliminated

In the case of 2012, I happen to think we were the best team overall, followed by Bayern and Madrid.

However, cup competitions require more than just the best team on paper to be victorious. You have to factor in mental strength, the capacity to suffer and handle pressurized situations etc. Of course luck also enters into the equation.

The 2012 CL was devastating at the time but now I have more perspective on it and realize that the Chelsea team that year wanted to win as much as anyone and found ways to do it. So I can respect that now.

I feel the concept of who deserves to win the CL is a pretty draft notion. I don't want City to win it, but I'm not going to say that they didn't deserve it if they do. I just have my personal favourites, as we all do, such as Atletico and Atalanta in my case. You have said that you prefer to root for the best team, where as I don't.

 

[Birdy]

@Andrew M

You were not even close to the best teams overall in 2012.
Best teams that year were Barca, Bayern, RM under Mou (1st tier), and then a number of other teams in the 2nd tier.
Chelsea was as good as the 3rd tier teams.

And I am not talking 'on paper'. 'On paper' means you just look at the squad and conclude what's the best team.
I am talking, on the pitch, based on performance.
'Wanted to win' is not a metric of quality. If the will to win cannot translate into performance then it does not say anything.

Chelsea were very lucky, but there was almost an art to their escapism, and they never gave up. They deserved it on those grounds.

'Art to their escapism'
I don't even know what this means.
Is it a skill? What kind of skill?

 

[El Gato]

'Art to their escapism'
I don't even know what this means.
Is it a skill? What kind of skill?

Why does it have to involve skill? Or rather, why do you narrow skills down to only those resulting in domination on the pitch as to remove any credit from the other valuable traits?

They escaped a few times, knew they were getting battered, it didn't deter them from trying and they succeeded when many would have just wiped the sweat off their foreheads and never even looked for a win, only trying to hold on for dear life. They played what cards they had pretty well despite the large ability gap and took their chances. A great run and perseverance till the finish, thus deserved.

 

[Birdy]

They escaped a few times, knew they were getting battered, it didn't deter them from trying and they succeeded when many would have just wiped the sweat off their foreheads and never even looked for a win, only trying to hold on for dear life. They played what cards they had pretty well despite the large ability gap and took their chances. A great run and perseverance till the finish, thus deserved.

Many lesser sides that face a better side do often the above. But in most of the cases it does not lead to any effect.
Would you give merit to a team that does all the above and gets thrashed 5-0?
Do we give them merit for their fighting spirit, courage, not giving up, and being mentally strong? Probably no.

Why, then, should we give merit in the same situation when luck works in their favor?

 

[Morten]

Chelsea tie was hilarous, Drogba went down as if he was shot everytime a Barca player came near him, wasting time like a champ.
Especially funny, considering he was probably the biggest guy on the pitch.

 

[El Gato]

Many lesser sides that face a better side do often the above. But in most of the cases it does not lead to any effect.
Would you give merit to a team that does all the above and gets thrashed 5-0?
Do we give them merit for their fighting spirit, courage, not giving up, and being mentally strong? Probably no.

Why, then, should we give merit in the same situation when luck works in their favor?

What do you mean you don't give merit? Of course you do. It's a base intangible minimum needed to win games. In a losing scenario, 0-5 or 2-8 like Paco Jemez's Rayo is naturally more preferable than 0-8 like Almeria. It's not as if they were utterly useless so not sure why you'd remove any credit as if they've done nothing right. They were limited in what they could do and did what was needed on the offensive in key plays.

 

[Birdy]

@Wolfe

I didn't mean we should remove 'any' credit.
But only the credit that is exemplified in the big bold statement 'they were the best team', or 'they deserve it'.
I think neither of those is true, for the reasons mentioned above.
Football is a sport where NOT the best team always wins, unlike other sports.
So the word 'undeservedly' (when referring not to referees) has a meaning, which is precisely that the team won was NOT the best team in the game.

Now, what you say about Paco Jemez is an example of some credit that should be given, but it's totally different from the credit that accompanies the best team.

The way some people here make it sound is as if every result and every trophy is indicative of the merit that the best team gets.
And I say this is a flattening logic that obliterates any nuance in football judging

 

[El Gato]

Well, by your criteria any team, even the 2nd best, doesn't deserve the title if they happen to win it. Which is absurd.

A team can't undeservedly make it to the final, much less win the CL. They always do something right, they display some characteristics needed for success, even that Chelsea did, when coming back from 3-1 down vs Napoli for example. There's no point dealing in absolutes like you do IMO.

 

[te amo barca]

Chelsea deserved that title with their tenacity and just sheer luckiness, no big deal, rooted for them in the final

 

[Horatio]

A team can't undeservedly make it to the final, much less CL.

Of course they can. The same way not every penalty is deserved.

You think Juventus deservedly won Serie A in 2006?

 

[El Gato]

Of course they can. The same way not every penalty is deserved.

You think Juventus deservedly won Serie A in 2006?

What even is this comparison?
Projecting a whole-scale corruption scandal suggesting some teams undeservedly won the CL via corruption... please demonstrate which ones and what do you have to support the implication you make.

Penalties are not 'deserved' for many reasons and it is not binary either.
CL winners without fail have done something to deserve winning the trophy. Every tournament winner did.

 

[Horatio]

What even is this comparison?

lol, admit it. You know there is a point made somewhere in there.