OK, my post about Fiorentina was made in jest, to reflect upon the team the thread starter supports. The problem with this entire thread is that rating teams, especially from different eras, is entirelly subjective. I know '97 Dortmund played a great final and were a good side, but were they better than '05 Liverpool? Or '70 Feyenoord? What about the '93 O.M. side who were involved in game fixings? The way I look at it, any team who wins the Cup are deserving winners. They go through a very competetive competition and come out on top.
Liverpool beat Chelsea, Juventus, Bayern Leverkusen, and Milan in route to the championship.. winning 4 and drawing three of their last 7 games against the four aforementioned clubs. There is no way that they are the worst all time team to lift the trophy.
Is there really such a thing as a 'bad' winning side and a 'good' winning side? I know I'm going off on a tangeant here, but a lot of people appear to base their judgements on good and bad teams by the level and skill of attacking football on display. Yes, it's good to watch, but the name of the game is to win the match, or the title, or the cup, and if a team does that by grinding out a string of 1-0 wins or playing for penalties... well, it may not be pretty, but it gets the job done. Urgo, there is no 'worst winning' side, which makes the poll quite daft in my opinion. Particularly since anyone who votes Liverpool as one of the greatest triumphs also labels themselves an idiot, which shows how biased the poll really is. Liverpool's success may not have been pretty, but flair and dazzling flicks of the ball are pointless without the results to back them up. Liverpool ground out their victory, like Greece did in Euro 2004, and in the end, it's the victory, the success, the trophy that is the measure of quality, rather than the football on offer.
Obviously. I think Traore is a poor defender. Also in reply to some of the other posters in this thread ,obviously, its impossible to say who the worst team actually were, and obviously, its entirely subjective, thats what we're actually here for y'know, to give our opinions on stuff! All the truimphant whom I have watched, since 99, have been superior to Liverpool 05 imho so I would have to vote yes.
I didn't say that Hamburg were a bad team, only in comparision to other winners of the trophy, I don't rate them very highly.
might not be because he might be a shite manager, he might be a bit of a toy boy off the pitch if you know what i mean
LOL cor his nose is massive, and his mouth looks a bit strange, Sven wasn't as ugly as him, or mabey thats just a really bad photo of him.
Maybe not the worst Team to win it, but the worst Way to have won it. Not even the Italians could have made it more boring.
Yet more food for the "Newbie Probation Period" campaign. Why are new members allowed to post immediately? Why are their posts not subject to some form of qualitative control? We must continue to wonder.
The final was good, and probably the Olympiakos game, but what other game did they play that didnt make them look Italian, the Chelsa and Juve games games were boring as hell.
Leverkusen home and away, Monaco at home, Deportivo away ... plus only a complete newbie to football, let alone football message boards, would have considered the first of the two Juve games "Boring" or the second one anything other than tactically arresting. As to the two Chelsea games ... boo-fucking hoo. We'd played them off the park in our previous encounter at Anfield and lost. The Champions League is about winning games - and the teams play for their supporters, not newbie armchair fans and their peculiar concept of sport as showbusiness. So here we are - from "they are boring" to "the two Chelsea games were not massively appealing to (irrelevant) neutral fans" in just two posts. Like I said - there ought to be a filter on a large number of Bigsoccer's members.
The Chelsea game was dull for the neutral. But the first leg against Juve was excelent. The levekusen match's were also goal filled.