|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
@Retric,
Ok so you mention Euro 2008 where u finished runners, yes you did finish runners up, but losing to Croatia in the group stages was not a very good result as they were the team that beat England to the Euro qualification through lucky bobbles on pitch goals(another story). Then you just about beat Portugal 3-2 and Turkey 3-2 to make it to the final where you get comfertably beating 1-0 by Spain (not a bad feat i know) but to say you did really well getting to the final etc is not that strong a feat when you look at the teams you played against and how close the results where?
Fast forwarded 2 years to the world cup.You had a very easy group Australlia Serbia Ghana, and managed to struggle your way through it after losing 1-0 to Serbia all be it the weakest team in the group in my eyes and thus finished bottom. Then you got through to the last 16 and played a really poor low confident England team, the game was going strongly in your favor 2-0 up after 30 minutes then England hit back get some confidence in 35minute and make it 2-1 then Lampard scores a goal that wasn't given and go in half time 2-1, then England come out and dominate the first 15minutes of the 2nd half and get countered twice in the last 15 minutes and lose the game 4-1 a score which all be it dressed up the fact of how "good" Germany were then. Then you play a very fragile Argentinan team bunch of stars and the biggest star there manager who has no tactical awareness ever, they beat a very very old Mexican team 3-1 in the previous round then get faced up against a well drilled German team bouncing after beating rivals England in previous round. Go 1-0 up with an early goal well worked, then the rest of the game is two and through with both teams looking good with the ball and Argentina passing it round as they do, for then the last 20 minutes of the game like vs England you score 3 counter attacking goals and make the score line 4-0, not takng anything away from that, but its the same as when Man Utd lost 6-1 to Man City it was a flattering scoreline a very very flattering scoreline because a team wants to hunt for a goal at 3-1 down and end up getting counter attacked 3 times and lost 6-1 in last 10 minutes. Not taking anything away from the feat of what Germany achieved in the tournaments they were no means easy victories coming with dominant performances, you lost in group stages twice in both competitions which always is a bad feat unlike Holland who never lost a game (until Holland went out) and playing great football too. Thus i think Holland are a better footballing nation AT THE MOMENT than Germany and deserve there 2nd ranking spot. HOWEVER i will of course change my opinion if Germany again prove good in the Euros and beat Holland in the group games i will be proven wrong, the group Germany and Holland have will determine who is the better nation you must agree with that?
On February 24 2012 20:36 Pandemona wrote:
Croatia are not good, since there famous beating of England during the Euro 2008 qualification groups they have been going down hill ever since, didn't qualify for the WC in Germany and nor have they Qualified for Euro 2012 they look a shadow of there former self. England comfertably beat them in Euro 2012 qualification games having tougher games vs Montengero than Croatia, they do not deserve top 10 ranking in WORLD FOOTBALL.
Pointlessly unnecessary rant in the rest of your post aside, you are just pointing out intangibles that I mentioned which are just an opinion. Has nothing to do with how ranks are taken into account sadly. Only stuff like College Football (American) has that kind of convoluted hard to figure out system.
Im just going to point out where you are flat out wrong.
Croatia is playing Euro 2012 albiet they slipped the group to a pretty solid Greece and then beat a not so strong turkey in the playoffs. Additionally they are a pot 1 team like England so why would you ever think they were in the same qualifying group ? England did not play them for Euro qualifying. So your opinion is worthless if thats what you are basing it of off.
I dont know how you magically managed to have England beat Croatia in a qualifier that has never been played but the word "butthurt" comes to mind. I dont see why though its not thatttt famous. Maybe for England supporters but the rest of the world doesnt really care as much. The dutch failed to get to WC 2002 that was a bigger deal to me.
Ok i got my dates mixed up i meant the World Cup 2010 group where we beat them home and away comfertably with a 4-0 and a 2-0. Croatia dont deserve there top 10 ranking, They went of the boil after there 2008 Euro showing, they failed to Qualify for world cup 2010 and JUST scrapped through Euro 2012 qualifying all be it they are there. What deserves them a top 10 ranking over the likes of say Ivory Coast who qualify for every tournament they enter (in past 10years) and get to final of Africa cup of Nations last month/begingin of this month and then Qualify for the world cup 2010 whcih Croatia didnt. Sweden qualify for mostly everything aswell, Euros there always there being there strong drilled side they are and being hard to beat for the past 10years or so aswell. Croatia came good again in Euro 2008 Qualifying under there good manager (i admire Bilic) and then after that they went off the boil. After toping there group 3W 0L beating germany (Eventual finalsts) they got beaten in a boring game between Turkey which was awful to watch. Then since then they have been struggling football wise, drawing to Turkey prior to beating them 3-0 in Turkey then drawing 0-0 at home. They have a tough group in Euro 2012 which i see them finishing bottom of, but that said what warrants a top 10 ranking (on games played of course) where Ivory Coast and Sweden have been griding out good results/tournament showings for 10years and Croatia for only getting on the scene beating the big names since 2008? Thats my point
|
On February 24 2012 20:44 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2012 20:37 Jayjay54 wrote:On February 24 2012 20:25 Retric wrote:On February 24 2012 18:08 Pandemona wrote:
Right lets start a new topic of discussion after the whole "which league is the best" got a bit out of hand! lol.
So FIFA, in general pretty bad organisation? Seems really corrupt and has some weird rules and crazy ranking system. So the discussion i want to bring to the thread is.
1 Spain
2 Germany
3 Netherlands
4 Uruguay
5 England
6 Portugal
7 Brazil
8 Italy
9 Croatia
10 Denmark
Is this really the top 10 teams in the world? I mean seriosuly FIFA? Denmark and Croatia in the top 10? I for one am always baffled at the Rankings when they come out and this is the latest batch. Even Germany being the 2nd best team in the world confuses me no end, i mean Holland and Spain where fighting it out for the previous world cup in the final, and Holland hardly lose a game since, won all Euro qualifiers in group and Germany go past them? What is going on!
Discuss below and add your Top 10 to your post. Heres mine.
Spain
Holland
Germany
Uruguay
England
Italy
Brazil (Due to sheer Talent)
Argentina
Portugal (been in terrible form)
Sweeden (always perform well never an easy game)
Germany: third place 2006, second place 2008, third place 2010 and was the only team that went 10-0 in qualifiers for euro 2012 (holland 9-1, spain 8-0), and you ask yourself why germany is the 2nd best team? if you ask me i dont know why england is 5th, england didn't even qualify for euro 2008 and: forgot 4:1 against england and 4:0 against argentina at World Cup 2010? i cant think of one single game in a big tournament between two big countries that ended like that. see? that's what happens if you degrade Germany even to the third place. We love soccer and get really angry, if you take our accomplishments away. German youth player's are that good and I am pretty sure we will be number 1 within the next 5 years. Gooo germany <3 oh, and I believe uruguay will fade pretty quickly... e: to guy above. WC was pretty even, Germany and holland both only lost to Spain in the final rounds. Why give an edge to NL? Qualification doesn't really mean anything. But Germany placed better Euro 2008. And you are right, Belgium will get strong.. Because NL got to the finals and Germany didn't. I don't see how you can say getting to the semi finals and the finals is even. Germany is better now though.
oh you misunderstood me. It's not even. Netherlands got more points for it, too. But to say Netherlands is the better team because of it, seems wrong, because both lost to the same opponent.
We're second in in the ranking, because we did well in the Euros 2008, too.
also, we're not that much better, this particular friendly means nothing....we will get better though...
|
On February 24 2012 21:04 Pandemona wrote:
@Retric,
Ok so you mention Euro 2008 where u finished runners, yes you did finish runners up, but losing to Croatia in the group stages was not a very good result as they were the team that beat England to the Euro qualification through lucky bobbles on pitch goals(another story). Then you just about beat Portugal 3-2 and Turkey 3-2 to make it to the final where you get comfertably beating 1-0 by Spain (not a bad feat i know) but to say you did really well getting to the final etc is not that strong a feat when you look at the teams you played against and how close the results where?
Fast forwarded 2 years to the world cup.You had a very easy group Australlia Serbia Ghana, and managed to struggle your way through it after losing 1-0 to Serbia all be it the weakest team in the group in my eyes and thus finished bottom. Then you got through to the last 16 and played a really poor low confident England team, the game was going strongly in your favor 2-0 up after 30 minutes then England hit back get some confidence in 35minute and make it 2-1 then Lampard scores a goal that wasn't given and go in half time 2-1, then England come out and dominate the first 15minutes of the 2nd half and get countered twice in the last 15 minutes and lose the game 4-1 a score which all be it dressed up the fact of how "good" Germany were then. Then you play a very fragile Argentinan team bunch of stars and the biggest star there manager who has no tactical awareness ever, they beat a very very old Mexican team 3-1 in the previous round then get faced up against a well drilled German team bouncing after beating rivals England in previous round. Go 1-0 up with an early goal well worked, then the rest of the game is two and through with both teams looking good with the ball and Argentina passing it round as they do, for then the last 20 minutes of the game like vs England you score 3 counter attacking goals and make the score line 4-0, not takng anything away from that, but its the same as when Man Utd lost 6-1 to Man City it was a flattering scoreline a very very flattering scoreline because a team wants to hunt for a goal at 3-1 down and end up getting counter attacked 3 times and lost 6-1 in last 10 minutes. Not taking anything away from the feat of what Germany achieved in the tournaments they were no means easy victories coming with dominant performances, you lost in group stages twice in both competitions which always is a bad feat unlike Holland who never lost a game (until Holland went out) and playing great football too. Thus i think Holland are a better footballing nation AT THE MOMENT than Germany and deserve there 2nd ranking spot. HOWEVER i will of course change my opinion if Germany again prove good in the Euros and beat Holland in the group games i will be proven wrong, the group Germany and Holland have will determine who is the better nation you must agree with that?
Come on dude, read your post again and then deliver the same line with a straight face again. You just disregarded every single win germany had during two tournament runs with luck or easy opponents. For what it is worth, Netherlands beat Brazil in 2010, but besides that, they didn't deliver anything impressive either, minus playing Kung Fu in the finals (which they should have won... Robben alone against Casillas..., I am still sad that Netherlands lost -.-)
edit: And you have to get over the fact that Germany lost in groupstages sometimes. Spain lost to Switzerland in 2010 for christs sake. As long as you make it through, none of it matters in the end.
As to whether Germany or Netherlands is better at the moment... as 98% of Football fans, I have no fucking clue, and I don't pretend to have one.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Yes i understand your point Malinor, but come on seriously? Holland won all games in the World Cup convincingly, Germany did not, not even Spain did, as you said Holland should of won the game vs Spain but did not. On paper Holland are better than Germany at the moment. And my biast cant be as bad as a Germans can it? Think of that aswell. I am no way either saying Germany shouldnt be top 3 they should they are good, i wish Ozil came to chelsea instead of Real he is fantastic but you aren't as strong as Holland simple.
|
There is really not much I can say here, I just have a German flag beneath me and of course I cannot strip myself from any possible bias. I just know that Germany is really strong at the moment. Top2 and Top3 finishes back to back, plus going 10-0 in qualification is just strong. As to Netherlands, I cannot say much. They clearly have results on the same level as Germany, and I also don't give much value to friendly results, so the trashing we delivered Netherlands last year doesn't count for much in my book. Yet, I don't care much that Netherlands went unbeaten in group stages both times. Germany didn't luck their way through either. Sometimes teams just get lucky in groupstages, and this will be exposed later on in the playoffs. As for Germany, that was clearly not the case. In 2008 and 2010, they won 4 play-off games without having to play overtime once, before meeting spain. Germany just got unlucky against Serbia 2010. I don't remember much of the 2008 game against croatia, though I blieve that game wasn't even close. But this cannot be indicative for Netherlands being just plain better right now.
|
On February 24 2012 21:20 Pandemona wrote:
Yes i understand your point Malinor, but come on seriously? Holland won all games in the World Cup convincingly, Germany did not, not even Spain did, as you said Holland should of won the game vs Spain but did not. On paper Holland are better than Germany at the moment. And my biast cant be as bad as a Germans can it? Think of that aswell. I am no way either saying Germany shouldnt be top 3 they should they are good, i wish Ozil came to chelsea instead of Real he is fantastic but you aren't as strong as Holland simple.
wait what? I don't agree at all.
Holland WC 2010: 2-0 1-0 2-1 / 2-1 / 2-1 / 3-2 / 0-1
one match with more than one goal difference...cameroon and japan was close as hell iirc.
Meanwhile Germany:
4-0 0-1 (ok, we lost a game more) 1-0 / 4-1 / 4-0 / 0-1 / 3-2 . The games versus australia, england and argentina were much more convincing than netherland games.
Also, Germany's team is really young and will be awesome in the next years, but with Götze, Özil, Kroos, Müller, Schweinsteiger etc. our midfield is among the probably the best in the world...
|
How Germany is not as strong if not better than the Dutch is beyond me but, I dont see the point in arguing this.
Yes Croatio is not a top 10 team but managed to hang around based on accumulated points. I was just pointing out that your facts were wrong, I dont neccessarily disagree with the idea.
|
In order to end this seemingly pointless Germany vs Holland discussion, I am throwing again my bold thesis into the room:
I think Italy will win Euro 2012, their defense is just incredible.
Also I am looking forward to Germany - France on wednesday. It is going to be tough since Schweinsteiger is out, but France is also missing Benzema.
And another interesting thing: Probably there won't be any english or german teams making it into the Quarter Final of the Champions leage. Chelsea needs at least a 2-0 win or a victory by a 3 goal margin if they concede a goal at home, as well for Bayern, who need a 2-0 or 3-1 win.
|
On February 24 2012 21:40 Retric wrote:
In order to end this seemingly pointless Germany vs Holland discussion, I am throwing again my bold thesis into the room:
I think Italy will win Euro 2012, their defense is just incredible.
Also I am looking forward to Germany - France on wednesday. It is going to be tough since Schweinsteiger is out, but France is also missing Benzema.
And another interesting thing: Probably there won't be any english or german teams making it into the Quarter Final of the Champions leage. Chelsea needs at least a 2-0 win or a victory by a 3 goal margin if they concede a goal at home, as well for Bayern, who need a 2-0 or 3-1 win.
italy taking the whole thing? bold indeed. not impossible, but bold.
the friendly will be interesting, france has a good chance, all the munich players are kind of in a slumb right now...
I'll be in the Allianz Arena myself and cheer Bayern to that victory. I believe it can be done! So never fear.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On February 24 2012 21:40 Retric wrote:
In order to end this seemingly pointless Germany vs Holland discussion, I am throwing again my bold thesis into the room:
I think Italy will win Euro 2012, their defense is just incredible.
Also I am looking forward to Germany - France on wednesday. It is going to be tough since Schweinsteiger is out, but France is also missing Benzema.
And another interesting thing: Probably there won't be any english or german teams making it into the Quarter Final of the Champions leage. Chelsea needs at least a 2-0 win or a victory by a 3 goal margin if they concede a goal at home, as well for Bayern, who need a 2-0 or 3-1 win.
Hmm ok best way to decide this like i said, wait for EURO2012 Germany vs Holland same group, see who finishes 1st and gets furthest in Euro 2012.
Champions league i think Bayern will win comfertably at home, and Chelsea is unpredictable (Chelsea fan :D) I wonder what will happen in our game. Interesting debate though :D
|
Thats not that interesting. EPL's been in the downslide for a while now. Germany is good overall but lacks teams with European "oomph", Bayern had that early on the season but has been really sloppy recently. I still fancy them
Lets be honest though as much as we like to think otherwise.
It really is a coinflip between Madrid and Barca barring any surprises. They are far and away the 2 best clubs in the world right now, its actually quite depressing. Say what you will about Spain but their teams do better in the lower tiers of European Competition aswell. The likes of Bilbao, Atleti and Valencia will probably give any of the top 4-6 in England a real run for their money. On current form Id even say they are better. This talk about the likes of Aston Villa being a top half team is absolute garbage. The only team gauranteed to do well outside the Manchester clubs is Spurs.
The only league with good balance across the board in the top 5-6 is Italy at the moment, and that to is finally rearing its head out of the calciopoli quicksand. And honestly beating Chelsea and Arsenal the way they did says more about how atrocious they are rather than the clubs that beat them. The italians were just that much sharper and looked like actual teams.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On February 24 2012 21:50 Rebs wrote:
Thats not that interesting. EPL's been in the downslide for a while now. Germany is good overall but lacks teams with European "oomph", Bayern had that early on the season but has been really sloppy recently. I still fancy them
Lets be honest though as much as we like to think otherwise.
It really is a coinflip between Madrid and Barca barring any surprises. They are far and away the 2 best clubs in the world right now, its actually quite depressing. Say what you will about Spain but their teams do better in the lower tiers of European Competition aswell. The likes of Bilbao, Atleti and Valencia will probably give any of the top 4-6 in England a real run for their money. On current form Id even say they are better. This talk about the likes of Aston Villa being a top half team is absolute garbage. The only team gauranteed to do well outside the Manchester clubs is Spurs.
The only league with good balance across the board in the top 5-6 is Italy at the moment, and that to is finally rearing its head out of the calciopoli quicksand. And honestly beating Chelsea and Arsenal the way they did says more about how atrocious they are rather than the clubs that beat them. The italians were just that much sharper and looked like actual teams.
Ok take the Arsenal game out of the Equation, Arsenal were raped by the league leaders of Italy, Arsenal are 5th? That on paper is right.
But Napoli are 7th Chelsea are 5th. Chelsea played Awful and Napoli played Awful. Chelsea can't defend, Napoli can't defend? Napoli have 3 world class forwards, Chelsea have 2 good forwards and 0 strikers. Yet your saying Italy > England, lol i don't understand the logic. Milan maye get to round of 4 but at a very very struggle, Napoli will go out to whoever they get in the round of 8 (all be it they beat chelsea)
I agree Barca & Madrid > every team in the world thats true. Wouldn't say Bilbao and Atheltico Madrid would beat any top teams from Prem to be honest, Valencia beat Stoke City lol...Hardly a big feat, Stoke have been poor this season unlike last season when they did really well. Man Utd vs Bilbao in the round of 16 will see who wins there then.
|
I didnt say Italy > England. I said they have a better balance across the top 6. Dont equate that to Italy > England.
Bilbao Valencia will kill Chelsea or Arsenal on current form easy. The Manchester clubs missing out on knockouts thins out this years CL setup quite a bit. They are a tier between Barca Real and everyone else for me. But suggesting that england is not a 2 horse race and hasnt been historically the past few years is just flattering.
No neutral ever took Arsenal and (Lol liverpool) as serious title contenders even when they were leading the league at certain points the past few years. Its always been realistically a 2 horse race. Just Man City usurping a sliding Cheslea. Other teams just flattered to deceive. Ofcourse supporters of those clubs will disagree and thats fine.
Also why .. why should we take Arsenal out of the equation ? And on that point why is Chelsea losing insignificant. These are the big guns after all. Give me a break. If your going to start pointing out x and y in every game people can make excuses for why Barca deserve to be 3 points above Madrid but then "this happened" or "that happened".
Fact of the matter is though. That the top 2 clubs in England are not in the elite levels of competition. And the shit elites are and about to leave, and quite honestly its been coming. its an aberration sure but its fact.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On February 24 2012 22:11 Rebs wrote:
I didnt say Italy > England. I said they have a better balance across the top 6. Dont equate that to Italy > England.
Bilbao Valencia will kill Chelsea or Arsenal on current form easy. The Manchester clubs missing out on knockouts thins out this years CL setup quite a bit. They are a tier between Barca Real and everyone else for me. But suggesting that england is not a 2 horse race and hasnt been historically the past few years is just flattering.
No neutral ever took Arsenal and (Lol liverpool) as serious title contenders even when they were leading the league at certain points the past few years. Its always been realistically a 2 horse race. Just Man City usurping a sliding Cheslea. Other teams just flattered to deceive. Ofcourse supporters of those clubs will disagree and thats fine.
Also why .. why should we take Arsenal out of the equation ? And on that point why is Chelsea losing insignificant. These are the big guns after all. Give me a break. If your going to start pointing out x and y in every game people can make excuses for why Barca deserve to be 3 points above Madrid but then "this happened" or "that happened".
Ok i miss understood that, as Italy > England, balance is good for domestic viewing of course, but they have to produce in the Europe competitions to make other countrys take note. England did this during the early 00's when we had 4 English times in Round of 8 for a few seasons running and an England team in the Final for 3/4 Finals and an all English final. I agree standard has dropped this season but it will be interesting next season.
|
For what it's worth. With van Marwijk you never know, he somehow gets the better of teams and lets them perform above expectations and the players certainly have a score to settle with Portugal. But looking at the squad I cannot help but feel that we lost our best chance in South Africa, at least until the next batch of talented players get older whereas Germany are looking in peak form. Besides there is no such thing as a "friendly" between Holland and Germany, at least not from the dutch side.
(I'm pretty pessimistic by nature, but it wouldn't surprise me if we were to drop out in the group stages)
|
Early 2000s? 4 english teams during in the quarters? Pray do enlighten. They maintained a healthy presence sure 1-2 minimum. Only 2007-8 were 4 teams in the quarters that is not "early 2000's" nor was it a few seasons running. It was 3 teams either side of 2007-8.
And realistically in terms of representation is just one of those usual blips in the distribution. Spain has had it and so has Italy "in the early 2000's and late 90's" respectively check it out. 3 odd teams in quarters for Italy and spain had the same run. Spain in particular with Depo, Valencia being actually superior to on par with Barca and Madrid in the early 2000's.
Im pretty sure my memory is accurate.
England owes its recent dominance more to Italy (calcio) and Spain (financial mismanagement) being a mess rather than their own improvement. They have been favoured with at times inflated and artificial cash injections and it was bound to improve them after all its the only league in English and thats why it had to be made the poster league for europe in the rest of the world with so much TV money to be made. I know Ive grown up in those markets. the commercial aspect is undeniable in its billing as the best league and the attempts made by the money to make it so.
In the 90s all east asia and the subcontinent would get was 1 spanish league and 1 Italian game a week (you know why ? Cuz england wasnt as good so if they were going to PPV something across the world it had to be the best according to sports networks).
Cable tv/ Satellite booms in these countries (and Rupert Murdoch) are the best thing that couldve happened to English football in the past decade believe it or not. These markets are absolutely massive, many times greater even in a country like India itself than all of western europe combined. And we havent even gotten to the rest of Asia. You think ol' Roman wouldve gone for Chelsea if it wasnt for the fact that england had just boomed as the most accessible league ? Its just snowballed from there.
Additionally neither one of those countries (not even maybe france) has failed to get a team in the quarters in that period of "english dominance". England just might have pulled that of. And that is what will strike people the most. It probably wont continue, it cant England is to strong a league for that.
But all this considered the drastic nature of the fall is what should be disturbing, rather it should be embarrassing for the "best league in the world"
This is why teams like Arsenal and Spurs are significantly more respectable. But they certainly are not "dominant".
|
At this point, I can recommend reading "Pay As You Play", a book reveiling a lot about financial background and monetary driven competition in Premier League.
Pandemona, I'm sorry, but quite a lot of your statements throughout either discussions are lackluster and uninformed.
You should actually take a step backwards, read a book or two, and actually inform yourself (maybe even watch a game or two) about the things you are comparing with eath other.
Either argue, but stick with the fact, or admit bias and don't argue against facts. This whole "disregard Arsenal/poor Chelsea/Germany World Cup performance/Croatian football" style is not very convincing.
That being said, holy shit, Hannover played convincing last game. Granted, "only" Bruges, but still, they have certainly shown to deserve that Euro League spot, despite whole Germany (including me) thinking they would hurt german football with their appearance.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
2000 - 2001
England have Leeds Man Utd and Arsenal in round of 8 3/3 that qualified for England. Leeds went to Semi Final
2001 - 2002
2/3 English teams in round of 8 with Liverpool losing to Juve in round of 16.
2002 - 2003
Worst, season for English teams thus far, When Uefa thought it would be a good idea to put the Second group stage in, went from 3/3 teams in round of 16 to 1/3 in round of 8 then went out.
2003 - 2004
Enter Chelsea, 3/3 teams in round of 16 round of 8 english vs english team, and round of 4 chelsea lost to Monaco in a classic match was incredible!
2004 - 2005
Year England were allowed 4 participants to qualify for Champions League. 4/4 make it round of 16. 2/4 make it to round of 8, chelsea and liverpool, both make to semi final and play eachother, Liverpool win (ghost goal famous Luis Garcia moment) Liverpool win champions league on penalty great comeback (yawn) Chelsea made 2 semi finals in row.
2005 - 2006
Probably in overview a bad season for English clubs. 3/4 make it to round of 16. 1/3 make it to round of 8, Chelsea losing to Barcelona (Eventual winners) Arsenal get to final lose 2-1.
2006 - 2007
Where English start to do really well. 4/4 Round of 16, 3/4 Round of 8 3/4 Round of 4 and Finalsts lose to Milan
2007 - 2008
4/4 round of 16 4/4 round of 8 3/4 round of 4 and all English final where Chelsea were robbed  Poor JT. Another dominant English season
2008 - 2009
4/4 Round of 16 4/4 round of 8 3/4 round of 4. Iniesta robs chelsea of Rematch with Man Utd with 92nd minute equalizer and Barca win away goals.
2009 - 2010
3/4 Round of 16 1/4 round of 8.
Thus thats the end of the data i wanted to use. England had mass numbers in all rounds for a decade, winning it only 2 times i agree but the sheer % of English teams in the latter stages was Phenomonal.
5/10 years was English team in final? Liverpool beat Milan and Man utd beat Chelsea only time English team won in the 10 years, but that shows we were pretty well represented to be honest.
|
I already mentioned the 1 to 2 minimum. And the 3 either side of 2007-8 whats your point ? 2007-8 is not early 2000's
early 2000's has respectable rep sure.
Round of 16 is not round of 8. Round of 16 was a foregone conclusion for most teams in the major leagues. And please again no unquantifiable comments like boohoo "English team played English team". You said they dominated the quarter final stage in the early 2000's. I dont see that evident in what you posted. Ill give you round of 16. Im not even arguing that. Everyone made it there lol.
Did you count the other's ? Yeah. And frankly having that much representation in the early periods (which is pretty much in line with other leagues) and not actually winning is depressing, and unfortunately thats not what you call dominating. Especially considering it took an all English final to achieve it during the actual period of dominance. Post 05-06.
|
i'll never understand this european obsession of constantly talking about shit that has absolutely no relevance on current form
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
