kaka or zidane, figo or rohaldinhoo, adriano or owen. emerson or beckham. which ones would you choose? i wonder.
Chile 3-0 Brazil, China 0-0 Brazil, enough said. The same earth that make you think Brazil would score 100 goals. Yes, I do. Now what? You don't have a legit point, I do.
metrazzi may be a punk, but hes still better then the guys i mentioned. cisse would never start for france if henry and Trezeguet are healthy. besides, france can always call up someone else. liverpool would have to sell cisse and buy someone better. so now this huge club has signed 53 year old fowler. waw these big clubs really do buy all the best players. pretty much like man utd no? or did they go out and buy the worlds best defensive midfielder like you claim they can do whenever its needed? alright then. oh they can? its funky then that your chelsea doesnt have adriano playing for them right now. oh wait, chelsea doesnt want the big time players. right. and what makes you think a country like argentina wont have a decent defender? not someone better then cygan? great. tell you what. the top 10 countries have probably 85% of the worlds 100 best players. the top 10 clubs have no more then maybe 50%. tops! the internation teams can pick anyone they may need. the clubs cant. end of story.
1. Materazzi is crap. Utter crap. He has proven this in every tournament for Italy when he has played. That Italy continues to play him demonstrates that Italy has no depth at CB. 2. Cygan doesn't start for Arsenal. So you harping on him is incorrect. All national teams have poor subs. 3. Do you remember whom Nelson Vivas played for? I'll give you a hint - the club name starts with ARSE. And he played in the world cup for Argentina! But clubs buy players with the intention of putting together a cohesive unit. Having the 7 best RBs in the world but no decent forward isn't worth jack, since you can't start with seven RBs. Look at England - loads of talent at good attacking midfielders. Absolutely no defensive midfield. Yes, their squad is very, very talented. But, all those CMs can't play together. So who cares that they have more talent? They are constrained by physical borders. Clubs aren't.
the only place italy has debth in the back is goalie and left back. other then that we are super thin. but materazzi doesnt start if we are healthy. hes still better then cygan though. but you 'harping' metrazzi who is clearly not first choice is okay? cmon. be fair point being? if arsenal can buy whoever they want and have such a huge advantage over argentina, then this doesnt prove your point i think. kinda just even things out no? international coaches dont pick players with the same intentions? clubs are constrained by competition. which is my whole damn point. clubs cant buy whoever they want like you seem to think. theres more then one big club out there looking for players. no one can compete with brazil over ronaldinho or italy over nesta or germany over ballack. if chelsea were allowed to do what they want to do, which is buy everyone, then youd be right. that team would destroy anyone, club or nt. but there are too many clubs with ambition so it wont happen.
If that were 100% true, we wouldn't still be relying on Ruben Baraja and David Albelda at defensive midfield.
that doesnt make sense. valencia is a big club. according to you guys they have a huge advantage over the spanish nt and still they play for both. it just proves my point that not every club team can buy whoever they want. actually no club that i can think of can.
1. You're harping on Cygan, I'm giving you an example of Materazzi. And Cygan is Arsenal's fourth choice CB. Materazzi is Italy's 3rd. 2. Materazzi's no better than Cygan. They both suck. 3. Vivas STARTED for Argentina, he spent two seasons on the bench for Arsenal. 4. Brazil has more offensive players than they can play at the same time. But they may not have enough other talented players at other positions (they dont'). So clubs don't need to compete for Ronaldinho - they can buy the next best thing, or the next best after that. 5. Clubs can buy players who fit better rather than being the most talented. Four Ronaldinhos on the pitch would be disastrous, even if they have all that skill. Nations don't have that choice. Clubs are, by definition, more solid and more effective sides. If they can get the right talent, they'd even be more talented. I'd take the 94 Milan side over the 94 Brazil side, for example, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
actually i dont think he is any more. but whatever. materazzi sucks less then cygan. okay then. how many starters for the top four teams in the pream league are first choice for their national teams, and how many internationals dont play for club teams. when healthy. we both know whod win that battle. just because vivas started for argentina and sat on the bench at arsenal doesnt make arsenal a better team. chelsea doesnt have more talented offensive players then they can play at the same time? besides, if you buy the next next next next--- best thing youll probably end up with someone who plays for one of the top international teams. by definition? you seem to totally forget that theres more then one club out there. how are man utd or arsenal more solid and effective then england? that dm that you say england lack, they lack it too. england still has gerrard and lampard. which is about 10 times better then what those teams have. so, have they decided to not strenghten their teams? because like you said they can buy whoever they want. maybe not the best, but the 3rd or 4th best. (which in itself is rediculous unless you actually think there are only a couple "big teams" in europe) no chance in hell. that milan side was lucky to win lo scudetto. i think youre letting their champions league final preformance influence your judgment. they werent that great. great defense but that was it. that being said, i dont think the 1994 brazil team was that great either. but they were certainly better then ac milan.
The Top 10 clubs teams have probably 85% of the worlds best 100 players. In addition to that they can pick and choose a lot more than a NT.
who are the top 10 clubs? top 3 in england and italy + top 2 in spain + lyon and bayern? fair enough? yes or no.
Sure. And the Top 10 NT teams would be Brazil, Holland, England, Argentina, Czech, Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden. You think all those teams would roll through the Top club teams?
id include france. not sure who to take off your list though. spain or sweden probably. no of course not. i dont think ive said that either. i think brazil would beat any club team though. brazil, holland, england, argentina and italy i think would be too good for the top five club teams, which are... chelsea, Juventus, lyon, barca and bayern? damn how fun would that tournament be. someone should make this happen.
Actually, FIFA has with their video games. I'm thinking this thread has run it's course. Put a fork in it yay or nay?
hmm i should have thought of that hehe.. im too old for video games yah. i have to agree. no ones gonna agree with my views anyway.
OK. Leaving aside the teamwork issue, which IS a major issue, I fail to see how you think that those NT teams are so clearly better. Let's look at England's XI(If I'm off on who will actually start it is purely because I'm too lazy to put much time to it). Robinson Ferdinand/Terry/Cole/Carragher Cole/Lampard/Gerrard/Beckham Rooney/Crouch You think that is clear better than Cech Essien/Terry/Carvallho/Ferreira Makelele/Lampard/Cole/Duff Robben/Crespo? I sure don't see it. Good games certainly. But if anything the Chelsea squad is better.
i said brazil, not england. england would however in my opinion easily beat liverpool, man utd and arsenal.