Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by AguiluchoMerengue, Jan 13, 2013.
Is it true that Europe was so poor that Madrid had "no competition?"
nah not true
just a few examples. barcelona of the late 50ies had kubala, suarez, koscis, evaristo, czibor.
stade reims who played european cup final against real madrid had kopa (who later went to madrid), fontaine, piantoni, jonquet.
ac milan of the late 50ies had the great schiaffino and liedholm.
and its not true that madrid won all their europan matches easily. for example their first final against stade reims they won 4-3 but reims controlled the game for some period of time.
I have a few American, English and even Romanian friends that claim that Europe was so poor and that Franco invested too much money on Madrid and that they had no competition.
I guess is an English excuse
It was EXACTLY the same Liga like last 5,6 years:
- Liga teams were not that "poor" (in economy nor in quality)
- But that REAL team were fully equipped with 11 worldclass players plus 5,6 best players in the world (actually legends: Di stefano, Puskas, Kopa, Gento, Didi, Santa Maria ...) back then ( just like this Barca now)
I was talking about the champions league.
Well, there was no group-stage in the 1955-56 European Cup. All of the teams started in the Round of 16 and Real Madrid only had to play 7 games to win compared to 13 these days. Since only league champions could play, there wasn't as much quality competition either. Fewer games and less competition = easier to win.
the argument of my American and some European friends was that all Europe was "poor" bc of the post-war era... they say "Madrid had no competition?" which is I guess is bs.
Winning 5 Champions League in a row does make Di Stefano a big name then.
Madrid had competition, just not a lot of it. They didn't have to play against the 2nd or 3rd best teams from the best European leagues. Winning 5-in-a-row is impressive, but it would be even more impressive (and nearly impossible) to win 5-in-a-row in the modern CL.
these type of thread kind of makes me think Maradona was the best ever.
He won everything with Napoli and Argentina, yep you never heard of great players next to him.
Pele had a dream team helping him.
I guess Di Stefano had some great players with him too.
Funny how much credit people gives to Messi when Barcelona doesn't even need him, Brazil didn't need Pele either.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard
Well if you think Barcelona need Messi to win something, that says a lot of your futbol intellect. Spain didn't need Messi, what make you think Barca would?
Because Barcelona and Spain are different teams with different systems, players, and coaches.
meh, Barca is the same without Messi.
Keep telling yourself that.
Yeah sorry ... in general it was much less games and lack of global participation of many teams from different leagues .. It was relatively a bit easier to win than in recent times . However, that team managed to win 5 consecutive ECL and that was a record up to now, along with 7,8 Liga in their best reign (that was also another record)
Easy or not, 5 ECL and 8 ligas within 1 decade (combined 2 main teams with same core players) were quite a great achievement ever seen (in TOP5leagues Euro)
Well if you think Maradona won everything with Napoli, that says a lot of your futbol intellect.
totally WRONG ...
1- Yes Pele had a great team in 58 and 70 ( but hey he got 6goals+2as/4games 58 at ONLY 17yrs old. and 4goals+6ass/6games 70 at 29,30 yrs old) now name me any player who could have got such stats (even with great team surriounding?_)
2- Santos were NO Dream team at all (only 3,4 worldclass players at each time) and Pele made them into the best team at time (won 2 libertadore and 2 intercontinental cups + 10championships)
Look even Di Stefano (plus many legends at Real) could not win that many trophies like Pele) Now let's see howmany trophies Messi + iniesta +xavi + cecs + others could come up with ???
3- Without Pele, Gaqrrincha (another TOP10 legend) did overcome the burden and won the WC62 true. What about WC66? W/o Pele the team COLLAPSED at groupstage ... so 50-50 chance eh?
Now w.o Pele Brazil would NOT win WC58 almost surely (4winning goals in last 4games) .... while WC70 was a case of debate ... (but hey his 4goals+6ass = 10goals out of 19goals = more than 50% of team goals contribution that said ALOT OK?
In most of those Santos started playing in the semifinals though. The modern Brasileirão is much harder to win than the old Taça Brasil.
the fact that you remember the great players next to Pele and Di Stefano.
Nobody remembers anybody on Napoli or Argentina...
They broke Diego's leg at Barcelona...
They did have a great squad with those players in particular (plus Del Sol, Rial etc were very highly rated too):
(oh you meant the Uruguayan defender?)
Simply looking at the tables reveals that the legendary Madrid team of the 1950s was actually less dominant results-wise as the Madrid and Barcelona teams of the past few years.
Look at wins, draws, losses and goals scored/conceded per match.
Maradona never won the European Cup (Champions League). Maradona never won the Copa America. So I assume you're just trolling.
Spain and Barca don't play in the same competitions.
speak for yourself. many people still remember lots of those players. napoli had the famous MAGICA maradona, giordano, careca
argentina from 86 also some good players. ruggeri (atg defender), pumpido, burruchaga, olarticoechea and jorge valdano
Well yes and no ... Brazil leagues were very complex in structure and quality accross teams (in 60-70's) .. so it's very hard to say ...
One thing to highlight to those who (lacks knowledge) doubts the king:
1- If Brazil competition was so easy back then, WHY ONLY PELE got 11 topscorers (most top stirkers in same era or even now got like 3,4 max)???? NOTE that Pele was NOT a striker per se but often a "deep-lying FW" (57-67) and becmae a playmaker /AM (68-74)
2- If Santos team were a "DREAM TEAM" in Pele's era. why NOT many players won 10 xPaulista + 5 Taca, + 2 libertadores + 2 Intercontinental cups like Pele? In fact you can not name 2,3
3- If Brazil NT do not need Pele, WHY ONLY PELE won 3 WC's? Not Didi, nor Garrincha, Rivelino nor Vava (same era)?????
Separate names with a comma.