I honestly think that every match of Barca vs a La Liga team is one sided. The second statement is very true.
Except for Real Madrid. Albeit a couple of times La Liga opposition actually showed up this season...
Not this season though. Valencia, Real Sociedad, Athletic B, Sevilla have given Barca plenty of problems so far. And what is this "more competitive league = better league"? In US, MLS is virtually winnable by most of the teams, making it extremely competitive, but that doesn't mean it is a better league than La Liga or any other "less competitive" league in the World. La Liga might be a two-horse race, but a team still needs to win the games and collect 90+ points in order to win it. The pace at which Real M and Barca chase each other is incredible. But both teams are in fact the best teams on paper when it comes to individual player talent/ability. So far Barca have been the better team (the best team compared to anyone), because of the better cohesion of their individual players, for obvious reasons. And even though in one off games or CL knock-out games, both Barca and Real M can be beaten/eliminated, they are teams with incredibly strong squads that can make any league into a two-horse race.
Agreed with your overall point, though I think Man City could challenge Barca and Real for a league title.
Well ... it's TWO WAY street: - Best leagues are "often" very competitive (i.e. SerieA late 80's t early 90's, or Liga of late 90's to early 00's, and lately EPL 2008 onward) - A "competitive" league is NOT necessary a better league (i.e. Brazil league, or Ligue1 ) ======================================= Like I mentioned many times: look at the points system and difference between top3,4 to the rest of same league, and between the top10 teams of each league with other top10 in other leagues
Based on form this season, maybe. It is hard to tell for sure. And if Man City meet either Barca or Real M in the CL, the outcome wont give a clear picture either, because elimination games are different than 30+ league games. Do you think Man City would dominate in La Liga like Barca and Real M if they were in place of the two Spanish giants? "Best league" is a very vague term though. Seria A was the closest to that term, because the competitiveness brought the best in every team in the top10 of that period. But stronger competition doesn't always bring the best in teams and it doesn't always raise the quality of players. Also, competitiveness occurs sometimes because a group of teams is equally strong and off the highest quality (compared to everyone else in the country, continent, world), but it can just as well occur because teams are equally lacking in top quality. Overall, IMO, Seria A (late 80s - early to mid 90s) was competitive and the quality was very high, the best at the time. But the EPL is competitive without having the highest/the best level of quality.
First bold, same with "best player" in people view from Messi, to Xavi = very vague as well! For example, in some year a player A would be "best player" just because there is no serious contenders! second bold agree 100%. at present, EPL is the best league (vague? well SerieA is a joke since 2006, and liga is in financial crisis since 2008 = that's HOW EPL surge up with NO COMPETITION)
It may also be somewhat vague to determine the best player, but much less so, because it is easier to compare players and their performances than it is to compare leagues.
yeah ... I hope so ... as how many threads and how long it had been a debate between Messi and CR7 upto now... any clear answer or result? NO It all comes down to "perception" and "criteria" one has and put up with - unless it was an obvious case like Pele vs Rossi - LOL (gotch ya ... )
This season I think they would be neck and neck with either Barca or Real M, they have the star players, depth and a very competent coach. They also have a few players who have competed successfully against the two Spanish giants (Aguero, Silva, Toure).
LOL on the Pele vs Rossi comment you snuck at the end. But still, it is easier to debate player vs player, because we can measure performances and abilities, especially when they play in all the same competitions. What do we use to measure leagues? I will admit that this year Man City do look like a team with cohesion, but....that is in the EPL. Villarreal gave them tougher time in the CL than they did against Barca and Real M. Napoli also played them tough in the CL.
No one expected Messi to "must" win a WC - just for the sake of collecting the trophy! (perhaps only Argentinian fans) But everyone do expect Messi to pull out his best form (like Barca) into a WC stage ... with a great performance. Say like Cruyff WC74, Muller70 or Eusebio 66 ...and indeed they did not win it
But he did not pull off such a performance. Not even close. MIA from the 1/8 final onwards and even in a group phase he was a non-factor that scored or assisted out of nowhere, while not being part of the rest of the game. It was pretty shocking he won the Golden Ball and that was the widespread belief. One of the most undeserving Golden Ball's in World Cup history. Messi didn't need to win the World Cup, but he needed a memorable performance, which he did not deliver.
that is just the world cup. a tournament played every 4 years where teams such as spain or Germany have obvious advantages. Cristiano Ronaldo is probably top 3 ever because he has been consistent for so long and proved himself at two different top leagues. I still think his dribbling sucks obamas penis though my rank: 1. Maradona 2. Pele 3. CR7