Real Madrid (old thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beast

The Observer
ehm since you say you watched that period you should remember they reached it twice the one you refer to they also beat Liverpool and Roma to qualify and beat Pana before they met us and lost and the first one was our 8th CL when they lost to Valencia in the semi-final ;) and they met Chelsea before that..
 

Beast

The Observer
also take into consideration back than it was a two group stage so it was a lot harder than now where luck can play it's part for you to qualify over one game

you had first group stage , second group stage than the quarter final - semi final than final
 

dalitis8

Banned
I agree with that completely.. they still reached two semi-finals

As for Arsenal again , it's the same team that was the "INVINCIBLE " later on.. basically when you look @ Arsenal and how they crashed you would say they were crap but they were not simply the competition was so good
I mean any one would say oh they were so crap they crashed to D Kiev but that was one hell of a Kiev team
same for Fiorentina , Ajax team in 2003 had so much talents that graced the scenes later on

Those Arsenal players did become invincibles later on, but their European record (from the late 90s till their great 2006 run, when Cesc also came to the fore) cannot be described as impressive by any stretch of the imagination.
 

Beast

The Observer
Yes but i cannot say it was because of them but due to the awesome competition , than most of them left and Arsenal continue to be a joke
I mean they were the same core of the invincible , same coach , same method.. nothing changed (sorry forgot to add Kanu to the list of names too ) the change was European teams were very strong for them
 

Chainsaw

Killahead
ehm since you say you watched that period you should remember they reached it twice the one you refer to they also beat Liverpool and Roma to qualify and beat Pana before they met us and lost and the first one was our 8th CL when they lost to Valencia in the semi-final ;) and they met Chelsea before that..

The season that Barca beat Chelsea 5-1 in the second leg right? Well that was honestly the only match I liked from Barca. Even that match didn't go as easy as the result suggest. Ruud Hesp almost screwed up Barca when he gifted Chelsea a goal. Barca managed to turn things around in the extra time. You know, it was never that easy, unlike what the result suggest. If you check out the first leg against Chelsea and and the semi-final tie against Valencia you could see it wasn't a very 'strong' Barca playing there. The first leg matches against Chelsea and Valencia were actually nightmares to watch.

Panthinaikos was beating Arsenal and Juve regularly back then.

lol. What did I just say about English and Italian teams in that period?
 

Beast

The Observer
The season that Barca beat Chelsea 5-1 in the second leg right? Well that was honestly the only match I liked from Barca. Even that match didn't go as easy as the result suggest. Ruud Hesp almost screwed up Barca when he gifted Chelsea a goal. Barca managed to turn things around in the extra time. You know, it was never that easy, unlike what the result suggest. If you check out the first leg against Chelsea and and the semi-final tie against Valencia you could see it wasn't a very 'strong' Barca playing there. The first leg matches against Chelsea and Valencia were actually nightmares to watch.

Nightmare because that Chelsea was something to watch with Zola , Valencia was extremely strong team .. really strong
see your problem you still judge by today standard
(P.S as for Greece , please remember that they did win the Europa league 2 years later and they were not beating shit , they came second in our group that year with Porto and some other team i don't remember .. kudos for making it )
 

IrvDizzle

Charlie Sheen's Protégé
I would love to transport any one of the the 1998, 2000, or 2002 CL winning Real Madrid sides in to the present day to play today's Barça team ... and then watch Barça wipe the floor with them. teehee.

but in all seriousness, those Madrid teams were exactly like Meta described ... just pure, jealousy-inducing awesomeness. they were sexy and they knew it. the loss to Kyiv aside (who caught lightning in a bottle), they lost to a Bayern Munich team who made back-to-back CL finals, and they lost to a great Juventus team. I'm not sure if the level of competition was greater for Real Madrid then than it is for Barça now. Certainly there were more "all-time greats" that Real had to go through, but Barça have had more organised and defensively-disciplined teams to face. It's a different sort of challenge, but it's a challenge none-the-less.

I will say this, guys like Zizou and Raul and Roberto Carlos would not be putting up with the BS that Mourinho has done to Madrid today. Figo would have because he has a seat reserved for him next to Judas and Ephialtes, but not the real classy players.
 

Beast

The Observer
I think you would wipe the floor with the 98..draw with the 2000 but will find it really hard with the 2002 and you could easily lose .. take into consideration it's Del Bosque not Jose
 

Chainsaw

Killahead
Nightmare because that Chelsea was something to watch with Zola , Valencia was extremely strong team .. really strong
see your problem you still judge by today standard
(P.S as for Greece , please remember that they did win the Europa league 2 years later and they were not beating shit , they came second in our group that year with Porto and some other team i don't remember .. kudos for making it )

That Chelsea was a tough challenge ofc but it was not the Chelski yet. They had a good team, but not with an Abramovich as the owner. Pre-Abramovich Chelsea had a good team for some years, but yet again they were no fav for the CL or even should I say the PL title before Abramovich arrives.

About Valencia, as you see I always mentioned them among the top teams in Europe back then. But still, they were not that Almighty King-of-Europe that they could walk all over Barca like they did in the semi. That's what I'm saying about that Barca. They were ok, but with the 100s of millions spent it still was not good enough. The Gaspart era as the president of Barca was disastrous. See how it ended as well. I remember it enough as I hated it enough tbh.

And I'm not sure if Panthinaikos results in that sequence had much to do with what Greece has achieved in Euro2004. Seriously who could have thought Greece even go past the group stage, let alone winning the Euro?! That came out as a big surprise. Credit to them for what they've achieved, but the Greece example was a special case. They worked freaking well as an unit, their tactics responded perfectly, and they had pretty much the luck card on their side against Czech Republic in the semi to make the final.
 

IrvDizzle

Charlie Sheen's Protégé
I think you would wipe the floor with the 98..draw with the 2000 but will find it really hard with the 2002 and you could easily lose .. take into consideration it's Del Bosque not Jose

:p ... well I was being facetious, but the 2002 team is the team that would cause havoc on the counter, espcially with Zizou directing traffic. would that Madrid team be able to press/track back though? because Barça would play keep-away and dare Makelele to hold the midfield down by himself.
 

Metaphysical

Bomb Dropper
the 2000 Madrid team would cause us way more problems. before Perez, Del Bosque had freedom to express himself tactically rather than just pack his megastars into the team. the 352 switch he pulled in 2000 to buttfuck United at OT remains one of the great tactical masterstrokes. Fergie's never really recovered - he's been cagey against big teams ever since. the 2002 vintage would be suffocated by our pressing game and then no one would press us in turn.

anydangway, this whole "that era was stronger coz it had more great teams" is misleading. the first half of the decade looks more competitive because there were more teams at a top level. but were any of those teams absolutely top-level dominant? the closest would probably be Hitzfeld's Bayern, in terms of consistency. we know the players from that era are boss because we've seen their whole careers, whereas guys like, say, Cavani, are still in the middle of theirs.

anyway, it can be best summed by thusly:

when you have multiple A teams, everyone looks great.

that's what we had then.

but when you have one A+ team, all the A teams start to look like B teams.

and that's what we have now.
 

Raed

Dr. Raed St. Claire
It is not about tracking back as much as it is about control. This team cannot control a game for long, they get anxious. 1. They don't have the patience, 2. They don't have the necessary skills in midfield or offense.

Our first team's first touch is that of a boss, not a king. Also, technically speaking, our players don't have the dribbling skills to beat defenders and leave them in their wake, besides Di Maria and Marcelo (who still has to improve a lot) we don't have a player who beats a man for man. Ozil, Benzema and Higuain are on a lower level than Di Maria, and Ronaldo is even lower without his pace and Coentrao and Lass are in their next tier.

Not to mention my observation about the player's first touch, which is below Barcelona's. We wouldn't have to track back as much if we controlled the ball, or pressure as much if we had to control the ball better. There is always a trade off and a risk in approach.

Not to mention under constant pressure your current defense is worse than our current one, and our current one isn't as good as the 2002's because while they may have conceded more overall, they had better leadership.

You would find massive difficulties against the 2002 team.

But as far as squads go, its hard to argue against this Barcelona. Built for constant winning, with the mentality to conquer all, equipped with the necessary tools to destroy and unlock. It had been a while since coach's built teams to win everything all at once, Frank Rijkaard brought that to the club, Pep succeeded with it. The 2002 team were happy to win one thing, and at the time that was a major success, but not by today's standards.
 

Beast

The Observer
That Chelsea was a tough challenge ofc but it was not the Chelski yet. They had a good team, but not with an Abramovich as the owner. Pre-Abramovich Chelsea had a good team for some years, but yet again they were no fav for the CL or even should I say the PL title before Abramovich arrives.

About Valencia, as you see I always mentioned them among the top teams in Europe back then. But still, they were not that Almighty King-of-Europe that they could walk all over Barca like they did in the semi. That's what I'm saying about that Barca. They were ok, but with the 100s of millions spent it still was not good enough. The Gaspart era as the president of Barca was disastrous. See how it ended as well. I remember it enough as I hated it enough tbh.

And I'm not sure if Panthinaikos results in that sequence had much to do with what Greece has achieved in Euro2004. Seriously who could have thought Greece even go past the group stage, let alone winning the Euro?! That came out as a big surprise. Credit to them for what they've achieved, but the Greece example was a special case. They worked freaking well as an unit, their tactics responded perfectly, and they had pretty much the luck card on their side against Czech Republic in the semi to make the final.

Greece win is a mix of luck and of course rise of the level of football in Greece , it still remain a fluke but u can't achieve it with 11 idiots
as for Valencia .. look mate this a team that won la liga , UEFA cup and played the final of the CL twice.. losing to us in one of them... what do they have to do to be bigger than that ? everyone feared them ..

Look i don't know how old you were back than but it was in my mid 20's so i do remember them quite well

:p ... well I was being facetious, but the 2002 team is the team that would cause havoc on the counter, espcially with Zizou directing traffic. would that Madrid team be able to press/track back though? because Barça would play keep-away and dare Makelele to hold the midfield down by himself.

It will be a fight for possession no pressure needed.. good luck with Zizou ;) Xavi would subscribe to that opinion in his own words

Figo vs Abidal ? well .. sadly we can't see those two vs each other ..

the 2000 Madrid team would cause us way more problems. before Perez, Del Bosque had freedom to express himself tactically rather than just pack his megastars into the team. the 352 switch he pulled in 2000 to buttfuck United at OT remains one of the great tactical masterstrokes. Fergie's never really recovered - he's been cagey against big teams ever since. the 2002 vintage would be suffocated by our pressing game and then no one would press us in turn.

anydangway, this whole "that era was stronger coz it had more great teams" is misleading. the first half of the decade looks more competitive because there were more teams at a top level. but were any of those teams absolutely top-level dominant? the closest would probably be Hitzfeld's Bayern, in terms of consistency. we know the players from that era are boss because we've seen their whole careers, whereas guys like, say, Cavani, are still in the middle of theirs.

anyway, it can be best summed by thusly:

when you have multiple A teams, everyone looks great.

that's what we had then.

but when you have one A+ team, all the A teams start to look like B teams.

and that's what we have now.

Well i tend to disagree i think the 2002 team was imperial maybe lacking a redondo beside Makalele only and Del Bosque still had the freedom to do what he want

I disagree about the A teams now.. show me any A team outside Real and Barca ? who is the superstar ? i mean that's the easiest thing to do to judge by that.. you know who will be the top 4 every year in the WPOY award.. the trio of Barca + CR..

We didn't know who will win it back than, yes the CL played the same role but you had Nedved,Henry,Rivaldo,Zidane,Figo,Ronaldo,Sheva?

Do you see Cavani winning it in the next 5-10 years ? or being a Ruud ? or even a Sheva ?

there is two A teams now , one B team (City due to big names staking not by their game - i don't thing Bayern is anyway as what people were saying earlier this season but we will see in the following stages ) the rest are D's at best

But i can point out to 8 A's back in the time .. you had players to fear in every team , i can't even point to a single massive star outside Real & Barca the same way i would say about Ruud about Nedved , About Sheva,Rivaldo



a
 

AnfieldEd

I am Leg End
Re: Valencia.

Had they had a world class striker they would have won the CL easily circa 2000 - 2004 era.

The competition back then was awesome. So many very good teams back them competing to win the CL. Juve and Milan were exceptionally strong at that time. Real and Valencia were Spain's strongest teams at that time, however Barca weren't as bad as people think, however they had a real soft centre which meant they weren't winning anything soon at that time. In england Man U and Arsenal were strong, PSV and Lyon were no slouches either. Bayern were awesome and Leverkusen were strong too.

So in european football it was a great time to be a neutral watching CL each season because there was no heavy favourite each season and it was unpredictable.

Real Madrid 2000 team is superior to the 2002 because of one man:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjDcPQPXN08
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Home of Barca Fans

Top