Of course there's luck involved, as in the World Cup, but somehow just about all the great teams and programs manage to win these things at some point. Brazil didn't "luck" into five WC titles. Real Madrid didn't "luck" into all its Euro titles. I fully expect Chelsea to win the CL at some point, but until they do, they haven't earned the designation as one of the great teams. I also object to the idea that Porto and Liverpool weren't the "best" teams in Europe those years. Transfer fees, salaries, and media hype should never trump what's accomplished on the field. Porto and Liverpool were the best because they earned it on the field of play.
i totally agree. with the right amount of luck, any of about 10 teams can win the champions league. and you could make a case for only maybe 2-3 being the best team. and some teams just dont do well in cups, while others thrive in those competitions and stink in what matters, which is the league.
No, Porto and Liverpool won. That doesn't make them the best. Mourinho actually said that Porto weren't the best club in Europe the year they won the CL. In a knock out competition, weird things happen. Milwall got to the final of the FA Cup a few years ago (and were pasted by ManUtd). Does that make them the second best team in England? Or what if they'd have won, would they have been the best? I'm not saying that Chelsea WERE the best team last year. However, over the past two seasons its hard to argue that we haven't been one of the best 3 sides in Europe. (Or 4 or 5, whatever.) So the comparison isn't outlandish, although it wasn't a Chelsea fan who made it. I don't really care if we'd beat Brasil. We're never going to play them, so what's the point? And besides, given how Brasil fared against the England team at Japorea, I'm not sure why they'd be expected to walk over a Chelsea team that's inarguably better than one with Trevor Sinclair, David Seaman, Danny Mills and Nicky Butt. And I realize the teams are different, but that Brasil team DID win the World Cup.
It is a somewhat meaningless excercise. A more interesting one would be who's the starting 11 from a Brazil/Chelsea pool of players.
Haha, I wonder if he actually said such a thing when Porto won it, rather than after the bitter loss to Liverpool. Which he can't seem to get over. Maybe he needs counseling. Just the other day he said that the LFC players "pressured" the officials into calling it a goal in the SF 2nd leg, when asked about his club's unsportsmanlike behaivor.
This could go either way...Brazil has the advantage attacking while Chelsea is much stronger in the back. Don't tell me Cicinho is a better back than Ferreira as he can't even get into the Madrid side that is terrible across the back. GK: Cech > Dida LB: Del Horno < Roberto Carlos CB: Terry > Lucio CB: Carvalho/Gallas > Roque Junior RB: Ferreira > Cicinho MF: Lampard = Kaka MF: Makalele > Emerson MF: Essien > Ze Roberto MF: Robben < Ronaldino MF/F: Duff < Adriano F: Crespo/Drogba < Ronaldo By my count Brazil is stronger in 4 positions and Chelsea 6 with me rating Kaka and Lampard as even. What I really don't understand is why Alex or Cris are not called into the side...They are clearly better than Roque Junior or Juan.
Yes, but he's absolutely correct regardless. Some of those players haven't done so well after leaving Porto and he brought them all together in the first place.
I think Brazil NT will have a hard time beating Chelsea. Chelsea is a complete team. They don't seem to have any extraordinary players like Ronaldinho, but their defense and midfield can easily disrupt the Brazilian system of play. Remember WC finals, France '98? The problem with Brazil is that when you close them from midfield, they lose their bite, and that is where Chelsea can beat them on the counter. I give the edge to Chelsea.
Brazil can play 10 games, can it play 55-60 games in a year? That's why Chelsea is about. Brazil can't win in a marathon. And if Brazil is so good, how come they only score 2 goals in 4 games? I know you deliberately avoid that, do you think I'll let you?
That's exactly the point. Since you don't feel it's fair, it means you concede that Brazil would be at a disadvantage when compared to Chelsea in a marathon.
I think Chelsea should enter this year's WC as a separate country. It will be tough on all Chelsea players as they would represent 2 countries, but what the hell, it can probably be done. how can this even really be an argument? Regardless of the talent on the Brazilian team, the fact that Chelsea play as a team 100 times more than Brazil is already enought to think that Brazil would never "destroy" Chelsea.
You are both right. Cerezo, Falcao, Socrates, Eder and Zico. Depending on how you look at things Eder could be considered either a midfield winger or attacking wing player; and Zico could be considered an AMid or second striker with that '82 side.
the fact remains that football isn't really played on paper. if you are asking who the better team are, then you perhaps can examine that academically. if you just want to know who the best on the day is, there must be a match. is blackburn a better team than manchester united? no, but we lost to them this season... Chelsea have been by far the best team in the Prem but they lost to United. Football is played on the day so its impossible to say when matching comparitive sides (not a team from nationwide conference vs Barca) who would win a match between the two. However, if you're looking at who is the better team that is possible. In my mind Brazil has better players individually. Kaka, Ronaldinho, and Ronaldo are better than any attacker Chelsea have. The gulf between Brazil's defence and Chelsea's defence is less than the gulf between Brazil's attack and Chelsea's attack in my opionion. Chelsea's midfield is marginally better and as a team they play in such a way to maximize their talent and minimize their weaknesses. Its very hard to compare both teams but my gut tells me that Brazil would win a cup competition in which Chelsea would compete, but Chelsea would do well... in a league, where its not just about talent, but also organization and depth are rewarded, Chelsea would win. Again, those are just guesses because we'll never know until they play each other in a competitive match...
Why does everyone think Cicinho is a starter? And Cris played for Brazil. He sucked. Good for him that he's doing well with Lyon now. Alex however, should've gotten more of a shot, but Parreira thinks he doesn't have enough speed.
I always thought of Falcao as more of a supporting striker - I had been considering him for that role before deciding on Hidegkuti. But I recall Eder injured himself shortly after the World Cup and never played much again.
As a team, Chelsea are far better. As individuals, Brazil are better. I think Chelsea would win a one off game but I dont know what that would prove, as I think Brazil could just as easily win a second leg.
i think chelsea would win half if not more of the games played. they have a ton of good players and they get to play and practice together a lot.
nice, are you sure you meant Falcao? Though he frequently got forward, he was a deep lying midfielder. Much more akin to a Redondo or Xavi than a forward role.