BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

Sepi wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:This guy makes general assumptions that you can't argue given their generality. If Serie A is so far behind the EPL then why did he go there, and why didn't he win the league.

Riding on a 2005 CL win that is due to 6 minutes of madness and a Dudek that played the game of his life.

*bleep* Bollocks. Just feck off with discrediting that amazing achievement.

We beat a very strong Leverkusen team...Juve under Capello, Chelsea under Mou, and AC Milan with load of star players under Carlo...and the only thing people remember is 6 minutes of madness.

In this world when coaches need perfect players...we won a CL with Djimi Traore at left back, went back to a final 2 years after, would have been 3 final in 4 years, had it not been for freakiest own goal of all time

Won at Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Meazza, etc.....yet all people remember is those 6 minutes.

Because if it was not for those minutes and Dudek you would not have won that CL. Seriously, the end products is what gives value to the equation. And I did not undermine the achievement of Liverpool, but the involvement of him on that Achievement. It was his first season, and it was the players that carried the games.

It was a semi-mythical tale. Which is why I believe Benitez was as much a spectator as the fans.

If Benitez hadnt changed the system and introduced smicer and plugged the hole in midfield we would never have won.

Ofcourse its a mythical tale suddenly Kaka who was so effective in first half suddenly became invisible in second.Nothing to do with tactical changes of Benitez.

Lord Spencer wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

Sepi wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:This guy makes general assumptions that you can't argue given their generality. If Serie A is so far behind the EPL then why did he go there, and why didn't he win the league.

Riding on a 2005 CL win that is due to 6 minutes of madness and a Dudek that played the game of his life.

*bleep* Bollocks. Just feck off with discrediting that amazing achievement.

We beat a very strong Leverkusen team...Juve under Capello, Chelsea under Mou, and AC Milan with load of star players under Carlo...and the only thing people remember is 6 minutes of madness.

In this world when coaches need perfect players...we won a CL with Djimi Traore at left back, went back to a final 2 years after, would have been 3 final in 4 years, had it not been for freakiest own goal of all time

Won at Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Meazza, etc.....yet all people remember is those 6 minutes.

Because if it was not for those minutes and Dudek you would not have won that CL. Seriously, the end products is what gives value to the equation. And I did not undermine the achievement of Liverpool, but the involvement of him on that Achievement. It was his first season, and it was the players that carried the games.

It was a semi-mythical tale. Which is why I believe Benitez was as much a spectator as the fans.

If Benitez hadnt changed the system and introduced smicer and plugged the hole in midfield we would never have won.

Ofcourse its a mythical tale suddenly Kaka who was so effective in first half suddenly became invisible in second.Nothing to do with tactical changes of Benitez.

Why wasn't Kaka invisible in the two extra half's.

If it were not for a Gerrad dive and a Dida flop, you would have never won. If it were not for a Dudek magiacal double save, you wouldn't have won.

There are bigger If's in the equation than Benitez's repairing his mistake. If Benitez did not start with a fraking hole in the middle Milan would not have been up by 3 before half time.

Yeah, if Benitez is so fraking spectacular, why didn't he notice the gaping hole in the middle before he started the game? seriously, you are underrating your players by overrating the manager. Just like the Inter fans who worship Mourinho as if their players were crap.

Lord Spencer wrote:For the Valencia titles, Valencia broke the bank and went into debt because of that. While Barca-Madrid did not have a Monopoly yet. Espicially with the a weak pre-Rijkard Barca, and a Madrid struggling with inside Galacticos problems. So that much is as challenging as for Mancini to get into the top four.



As for the CL performance, I only stated 2005 as not entirely to his credit. The system was the same as Houllier system. Remember that pool finished fifth that season, and they didn't even have a top four contender other than Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man. U.

System was different...
Didn't have the greatest of squads, and didn't have any depth. Our arguably best player left that year on a Bosman to Madrid. He is now a M*nc.

And for the 2005 pool campaign:
Pool where second in their group with 6 goals, and 3 goal against them.
Their only hugely impressive result was against Levurkusen.

Does that not mean Rafa played a role? Considering we didn't have a great team and won the CL?

Their victory against Juve was against the run of play. With Juve failing to convert any of their chances despite having an average of 56% over the two games.

Possession doesn't win you games.

The Chelsea victory was a matter of a 4th minute goal and then valiant defense.

That Chelsea team also won the PL that year. Their team was double the worth of ours. And it still won us the game.
The reason Milan was 3 up by half time was a horrible tactical flaw in Benitez's plan. That Liverpool won any of those game was due to the skill and determination of their football, rather than any tactical masterstrokes by Rafa.

We hardly had no skill and the only determination came at HT when the players heard the fans sing "YNWA".
Notice that I am not dissing pool here, whom I respect for their valiant performance.

Lord Spencer wrote:For the Valencia titles, Valencia broke the bank and went into debt because of that. While Barca-Madrid did not have a Monopoly yet. Espicially with the a weak pre-Rijkard Barca, and a Madrid struggling with inside Galacticos problems. So that much is as challenging as for Mancini to get into the top four.

As for the CL performance, I only stated 2005 as not entirely to his credit. The system was the same as Houllier system. Remember that pool finished fifth that season, and they didn't even have a top four contender other than Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man. U.

And for the 2005 pool campaign:
Pool where second in their group with 6 goals, and 3 goal against them.
Their only hugely impressive result was against Levurkusen.

Their victory against Juve was against the run of play. With Juve failing to convert any of their chances despite having an average of 56% over the two games.

The Chelsea victory was a matter of a 4th minute goal and then valiant defense.

The reason Milan was 3 up by half time was a horrible tactical flaw in Benitez's plan. That Liverpool won any of those game was due to the skill and determination of their football, rather than any tactical masterstrokes by Rafa.

Notice that I am not dissing pool here, whom I respect for their valiant performance.

Lord Spencer wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

Sepi wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:This guy makes general assumptions that you can't argue given their generality. If Serie A is so far behind the EPL then why did he go there, and why didn't he win the league.

Riding on a 2005 CL win that is due to 6 minutes of madness and a Dudek that played the game of his life.

*bleep* Bollocks. Just feck off with discrediting that amazing achievement.

We beat a very strong Leverkusen team...Juve under Capello, Chelsea under Mou, and AC Milan with load of star players under Carlo...and the only thing people remember is 6 minutes of madness.

In this world when coaches need perfect players...we won a CL with Djimi Traore at left back, went back to a final 2 years after, would have been 3 final in 4 years, had it not been for freakiest own goal of all time

Won at Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Meazza, etc.....yet all people remember is those 6 minutes.

Because if it was not for those minutes and Dudek you would not have won that CL. Seriously, the end products is what gives value to the equation. And I did not undermine the achievement of Liverpool, but the involvement of him on that Achievement. It was his first season, and it was the players that carried the games.

It was a semi-mythical tale. Which is why I believe Benitez was as much a spectator as the fans.

If Benitez hadnt changed the system and introduced smicer and plugged the hole in midfield we would never have won.

Ofcourse its a mythical tale suddenly Kaka who was so effective in first half suddenly became invisible in second.Nothing to do with tactical changes of Benitez.

Why wasn't Kaka invisible in the two extra half's.

If it were not for a Gerrad dive and a Dida flop, you would have never won. If it were not for a Dudek magiacal double save, you wouldn't have won.

There are bigger If's in the equation than Benitez's repairing his mistake. If Benitez did not start with a fraking hole in the middle Milan would not have been up by 3 before half time.

Yeah, if Benitez is so fraking spectacular, why didn't he notice the gaping hole in the middle before he started the game? seriously, you are underrating your players by overrating the manager. Just like the Inter fans who worship Mourinho as if their players were crap.

Lord Spencer wrote:As for the CL performance, I only stated 2005 as not entirely to his credit.

Lord Spencer wrote:The system was the same as Houllier system. Remember that pool finished fifth that season, and they didn't even have a top four contender other than Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man. U.

Lord Spencer wrote:Their victory against Juve was against the run of play. With Juve failing to convert any of their chances

Lord Spencer wrote:The Chelsea victory was a matter of a 4th minute goal and then valiant defense.

Lord Spencer wrote:The reason Milan was 3 up by half time was a horrible tactical flaw in Benitez's plan. That Liverpool won any of those game was due to the skill and determination of their football, rather than any tactical masterstrokes by Rafa.

Lord Spencer wrote:
Why wasn't Kaka invisible in the two extra half's.

Didi came on and Kaka had no freedom.

If it were not for a Gerrad dive and a Dida flop, you would have never won. If it were not for a Dudek magiacal double save, you wouldn't have won.

Go look at how Milan scored their first goal. The "foul" they recieved was from a dive. Kaka I think it was?
Also, Gattuso had Gerrard. There's no denying that. It was a foul. Gerrard just over exagerated (sp?) and got the PK.

There are bigger If's in the equation than Benitez's repairing his mistake. If Benitez did not start with a fraking hole in the middle Milan would not have been up by 3 before half time.

Wait. What?

Yeah, if Benitez is so fraking spectacular, why didn't he notice the gaping hole in the middle before he started the game? seriously, you are underrating your players by overrating the manager. Just like the Inter fans who worship Mourinho as if their players were crap.

How could you notice something before the game? Also, we had no defensive mid. Bar Hammann, who... played his first game in months coming back from injury, Gerrard was the only one for selection for DM. He still has no discipline 7 years AFTER. You had Alonso too, but he wasn't a defensive mid - he still isnt - and was too inexperienced.

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

Sepi wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:This guy makes general assumptions that you can't argue given their generality. If Serie A is so far behind the EPL then why did he go there, and why didn't he win the league.

Riding on a 2005 CL win that is due to 6 minutes of madness and a Dudek that played the game of his life.

*bleep* Bollocks. Just feck off with discrediting that amazing achievement.

We beat a very strong Leverkusen team...Juve under Capello, Chelsea under Mou, and AC Milan with load of star players under Carlo...and the only thing people remember is 6 minutes of madness.

In this world when coaches need perfect players...we won a CL with Djimi Traore at left back, went back to a final 2 years after, would have been 3 final in 4 years, had it not been for freakiest own goal of all time

Won at Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Meazza, etc.....yet all people remember is those 6 minutes.

Because if it was not for those minutes and Dudek you would not have won that CL. Seriously, the end products is what gives value to the equation. And I did not undermine the achievement of Liverpool, but the involvement of him on that Achievement. It was his first season, and it was the players that carried the games.

It was a semi-mythical tale. Which is why I believe Benitez was as much a spectator as the fans.

If Benitez hadnt changed the system and introduced smicer and plugged the hole in midfield we would never have won.

Ofcourse its a mythical tale suddenly Kaka who was so effective in first half suddenly became invisible in second.Nothing to do with tactical changes of Benitez.

Why wasn't Kaka invisible in the two extra half's.

If it were not for a Gerrad dive and a Dida flop, you would have never won. If it were not for a Dudek magiacal double save, you wouldn't have won.

There are bigger If's in the equation than Benitez's repairing his mistake. If Benitez did not start with a fraking hole in the middle Milan would not have been up by 3 before half time.

Yeah, if Benitez is so fraking spectacular, why didn't he notice the gaping hole in the middle before he started the game? seriously, you are underrating your players by overrating the manager. Just like the Inter fans who worship Mourinho as if their players were crap.

If not for a flucky Inzhagi goal Milan wouldnt have won the CL in 2007.

Conclusion.Milan and Ancelloti are crap.

RedOranje wrote:
Next you'll be telling us that zonal marking was Liverpool's downfall under Rafa.

Sepi wrote:IF PSV put away their chances you would have never gotten to the final

If your parents engaged in sexual intercourse a year sooner, you would have been a year older

If you didn't have a penis, you'd be I-no

If My dad was blonde, I would have been blonde too

If Megan Fox was in my bed, I'd be doing her now instead of this argument

IF IF IF

RedOranje wrote:If the answer/message is so obvious, then why do so few clubs tend to follow it in the modern era? As you've mentioned, Madrid are quite fond of a managerial change, as are Chelsea and a number of the Italian clubs. Bayern, as well, have gone through a few recently. Surely the club owners/presidents aren't so prone to the "video game mentality" as some fans are, are they?

As an example that I am familiar with, Liverpool under Rafa moved toward the Barca system and, with the Woy intermission aside, have continued to develop their youth and reserve systems in that fashion, with all sides training in and generally favouring a 4-2-3-1 with pass-and-move as the key focus. In the past, as well, the club followed the "Boot Room philosophy" where managers and coaches were traditionally promoted from within the club. It served the club well up until Kenny's departure and a couple of unfortunately choices. With so many success stories in the consistency department why does it seem to be going the way of the dinosaurs?

ynwa wrote:

Sepi wrote:IF PSV put away their chances you would have never gotten to the final

If your parents engaged in sexual intercourse a year sooner, you would have been a year older

If you didn't have a penis, you'd be I-no

If My dad was blonde, I would have been blonde too

If Megan Fox was in my bed, I'd be doing her now instead of this argument

IF IF IF

Not entirely true.

St_Nick09_of_Goal wrote:

RedOranje wrote:If the answer/message is so obvious, then why do so few clubs tend to follow it in the modern era? As you've mentioned, Madrid are quite fond of a managerial change, as are Chelsea and a number of the Italian clubs. Bayern, as well, have gone through a few recently. Surely the club owners/presidents aren't so prone to the "video game mentality" as some fans are, are they?

As an example that I am familiar with, Liverpool under Rafa moved toward the Barca system and, with the Woy intermission aside, have continued to develop their youth and reserve systems in that fashion, with all sides training in and generally favouring a 4-2-3-1 with pass-and-move as the key focus. In the past, as well, the club followed the "Boot Room philosophy" where managers and coaches were traditionally promoted from within the club. It served the club well up until Kenny's departure and a couple of unfortunately choices. With so many success stories in the consistency department why does it seem to be going the way of the dinosaurs?

I think from a managerial standpoint, it's obvious. However, it's not that apparent for big execs looking to turn a profit, get the return on those multi millions they have invested in silverware etc...

Comes down to the urgency to win things, and that belief that as you pump money into the club, buy flashy new players, success will automatically follow. It's no surprise that so many talents come from smaller sides that let the players develop and allow room for mistake, or keep the managers long enough to have a product.

I'm hoping Perez is understanding this much, because he is going to be around a long time i feel, and the after mou will be crucial.

I think the belief that the neighbor's lawn is always greener couldnt be truer. Thing is, no matter how much good trying to keep a consistent system can bring to your club, you will always go through slump periods, during which you dont experience success. And the idea that there is a brand new and fresh manager that can move things around a little and juice up the club, will pop up. It's a delicate choice to make when you think about bringing someone from the outside, he must carry the right baggage to fit in your tradition, otherwise there will be long terms issues. And very often, that choice isnt properly made, you believe that the best you can get is going to fit regardless, he flops, you bring in someone else again, and slowly but surely you move away from something so simple you used to do. And after a while, the thought of having people from the club running the team sounds so foreign that you dont even consider it, and execs forget about it themselves. New ownership, they bring a know it all attitude with the idea that the new sexy manager in france is the answer to everything....

Lord Spencer wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:

Sepi wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:This guy makes general assumptions that you can't argue given their generality. If Serie A is so far behind the EPL then why did he go there, and why didn't he win the league.

Riding on a 2005 CL win that is due to 6 minutes of madness and a Dudek that played the game of his life.

*bleep* Bollocks. Just feck off with discrediting that amazing achievement.

We beat a very strong Leverkusen team...Juve under Capello, Chelsea under Mou, and AC Milan with load of star players under Carlo...and the only thing people remember is 6 minutes of madness.

In this world when coaches need perfect players...we won a CL with Djimi Traore at left back, went back to a final 2 years after, would have been 3 final in 4 years, had it not been for freakiest own goal of all time

Won at Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Meazza, etc.....yet all people remember is those 6 minutes.

Because if it was not for those minutes and Dudek you would not have won that CL. Seriously, the end products is what gives value to the equation. And I did not undermine the achievement of Liverpool, but the involvement of him on that Achievement. It was his first season, and it was the players that carried the games.

It was a semi-mythical tale. Which is why I believe Benitez was as much a spectator as the fans.

If Benitez hadnt changed the system and introduced smicer and plugged the hole in midfield we would never have won.

Ofcourse its a mythical tale suddenly Kaka who was so effective in first half suddenly became invisible in second.Nothing to do with tactical changes of Benitez.

Why wasn't Kaka invisible in the two extra half's.

If it were not for a Gerrad dive and a Dida flop, you would have never won. If it were not for a Dudek magiacal double save, you wouldn't have won.

There are bigger If's in the equation than Benitez's repairing his mistake. If Benitez did not start with a fraking hole in the middle Milan would not have been up by 3 before half time.

Yeah, if Benitez is so fraking spectacular, why didn't he notice the gaping hole in the middle before he started the game? seriously, you are underrating your players by overrating the manager. Just like the Inter fans who worship Mourinho as if their players were crap.

If not for a flucky Inzhagi goal Milan wouldnt have won the CL in 2007.

Conclusion.Milan and Ancelloti are crap.

Ancelloti is crap, with the players he had, he only managed to win the league once and tactically failed in the 2005 Cl final by not sitting on the lead.

Notice how you attacked Milan although I only attacked Rafa. I am not an ignorant fan who forgive the coach his tactical faults because he won a CL. Does not matter the Inzaghi goal was a fluke, at least it was legal on comparison to a dive. And Pool only got one goal. IF it was 2-2 and then you argument will stand correct, but if we remove the Inzaghi goal it is a 1-1 and we go to penalties.

Anyway, I did not say pool did not deserve the 2005 CL. I say that they deserve it more than Milan. The deserving team wins. A dive is a dive, but a winning team can transcend these unfortunate facts of football. I am simply stating that Benitez gets too much credit for a CL he botched tactically times and times again, and only was saved by the absolute determination of pool's players.

you are obviously biased on your love to Rafa, which is admirable, but does not make any sense.

RedOranje wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:As for the CL performance, I only stated 2005 as not entirely to his credit.

No, you said he was riding on that one "fluke" result which implies none of his other successes mattered or factored enough to be counted.

Lord Spencer wrote:The system was the same as Houllier system. Remember that pool finished fifth that season, and they didn't even have a top four contender other than Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man. U.

The system in the CL was not the same as Houllier's. It was not even close. Certain players were given different roles and focuses and the shape was itself different throughout. Further, given that the formation changed several times throughout the CL campaign based on opponents and injuries, the above statement falls somewhere between overly-general/ignorant (and wrong) and an outright fabrication. Whether you intentionally said this or did so because of fault information I do not know and do not care to speculate.

Lord Spencer wrote:Their victory against Juve was against the run of play. With Juve failing to convert any of their chances

As was Inter's at Camp Nou but I see noone discrediting Mourinho for that.

Lord Spencer wrote:The Chelsea victory was a matter of a 4th minute goal and then valiant defense.

Which, I'm sure, had nothing to do with the tactical set up of the side.

Lord Spencer wrote:The reason Milan was 3 up by half time was a horrible tactical flaw in Benitez's plan. That Liverpool won any of those game was due to the skill and determination of their football, rather than any tactical masterstrokes by Rafa.

And seeing and correcting that flaw at halftime had nothing to do with it? Utter nonsense. The players were able to play, and Liverpool were able to come back because Rafa not only saw his and corrected it but also went further in helping to negate Milan's better players. Flaw or not Milan were clearly the better side and for Liverpool to compete with them for the half as they did required more than just determination. Again, I neither know nor will I attempt to guess whether all of this is based on faulty information or a deliberate attempt to discredit the manager but you have made some frankly glaring oversights in your arguments here. You recognize certain points but ignore their origins and at other times give outright faulty suggestions.




Next you'll be telling us that zonal marking was Liverpool's downfall under Rafa.

RedOranje wrote:Very good points, I must say.

I suppose the next question is whether Barcelona's recent success can alter the landscape, so to speak and bring the more traditional practices (not necessarily traditional, but you get the idea) back to the foreground of football, or if the current trend of managers and players moving often will continue.

That is another part of Rafa's answer that I've so far avoided... what of consistency from players? For sides like Aston Villa for example, it is very hard to build a side to compete because "bigger" clubs will come in and turn the heads of your best players. In the current climate, players hold so much power clubs can do very little once they have set their minds to a move (Modric being a notable exception) and this can leave the clubs and their managers in a very frustrating state. It must be said that this can apply to managers as well in some cases. What can, and should be done about this? Anything? Or should it be left to the players (and managers) to decide if loyalty is worthwhile?

Lord Spencer wrote:
According to you guys, it is then the player's fault that pool have not won anything of note since that CL. Rafa had nothing to do with it.

Lord Spencer wrote:
For the Houllier point, I admit I got that impression from reading a Goal.com article, which counts as an auto fail from my part. (apparently, you guys are fond of accusing people of lying, like I benefit at any level from winning an internet debate).

Lord Spencer wrote:
As for the Mou point. MY opinion is that the credit a manager gets for his team's success is a function of time. Which makes sense since time tests the managers different skills. The more time you spend with one team, the more credit you get. Hence, Ancellotti's first season with Chelsea was a fluke, and so was Benitez's first with pool. I never mentioned Mou, and hence an argument that involves him has no meaning to me, he is being underrated at the expense of Inter by ignorant fanboys.

Lord Spencer wrote:
For the Chelsea game, given the wealth of talent Rafa had in his disposal, I can hardly see the feat in that performance. Inter's performance in the Camp Nou have nothing to do with Mou, and everything to do with the player's discipline and determination.

Lord Spencer wrote:
As for the Milan game, Rafa simply got his starting tactics wrong. He certainly gets credit for correcting them, but he would not have gotten anything but abuse if the players did not step up and play the game of their lives. It is the players that take the credit in situations like these.

BeautifulGame wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:
According to you guys, it is then the player's fault that pool have not won anything of note since that CL. Rafa had nothing to do with it.

No its just that the ecnomic gape btw us and the likes of Chelsea and United widened.Not the fault of either players or Rafa.We often over achieved in CL often(in terms of money invested)so infact its is a credit to both players and Rafa we reached semis twice and final apart from winning once.

With respect to the league we never were close to United or Chelsea or United in terms of investment and thus quality we arent blaming either.Neither the players or Rafa is to blame.

Lord Spencer wrote:
For the Houllier point, I admit I got that impression from reading a Goal.com article, which counts as an auto fail from my part. (apparently, you guys are fond of accusing people of lying, like I benefit at any level from winning an internet debate).

Yep there is a massive difference in both the setup and playing tactics btw the team under Rafa and Houlier.Infact our team under Rafa was weaker in 2005 considering we lost Owen just that year for a pittiance of a transfer fee.Also the tactical changes like playing Carragher at CB and Gerrard further forward under Rafa are woth noting too.

Lord Spencer wrote:
As for the Mou point. MY opinion is that the credit a manager gets for his team's success is a function of time. Which makes sense since time tests the managers different skills. The more time you spend with one team, the more credit you get. Hence, Ancellotti's first season with Chelsea was a fluke, and so was Benitez's first with pool. I never mentioned Mou, and hence an argument that involves him has no meaning to me, he is being underrated at the expense of Inter by ignorant fanboys.

We won 1 CL,reached another final and reached another 2 semi final hardly fluke.

Lord Spencer wrote:
For the Chelsea game, given the wealth of talent Rafa had in his disposal, I can hardly see the feat in that performance. Inter's performance in the Camp Nou have nothing to do with Mou, and everything to do with the player's discipline and determination.

There is no comparison btw the wealth of teams under Rafa and Mourinho.Its not even comparable.Mourinho team were often worth double if not more than the Liverpool team under Rafa.

P.S

I am not saying Rafa > Mourinho just that his achievement at Liverpool were more than impressive considering the investment he had to make and state of the team he inherited from Houlier.

Lord Spencer wrote:
As for the Milan game, Rafa simply got his starting tactics wrong. He certainly gets credit for correcting them, but he would not have gotten anything but abuse if the players did not step up and play the game of their lives. It is the players that take the credit in situations like these.

Its a sign of great manager when he rectifies his error and turns a match losing 3-0 into winning.

Lord Spencer wrote:For the Valencia titles, Valencia broke the bank and went into debt because of that.

che wrote:

Lord Spencer wrote:For the Valencia titles, Valencia broke the bank and went into debt because of that.

i'm not gonna get into this argument but please stop talking about things you have no idea about

michael1 wrote:lolll seriouslyy how is la liga and bundesliga above seria a.

la liga is 2 team league like liertally a 2 team league where as serie a hast at least 5 team that could compete for the title but because the league is a little slower paced that makes them better than us?

that absolute crap

and bundesliga very good i like it very much but hardly better than serie a our teams are better and regarding of teams that could win i would say were even in that.

they do have better attendance the only reason people think that league is better is because they taken our 4th cl spot and that only because there smaller teams take europa league seriously where as italian preffered to concetrate in the league and see it as a second tier competition.

to be honest its prem league first, seria a second, bundeliga 3 and la liga 4 if were going of the leagues as a whole and not just as the 2 best teams in the league.