I wont agree with someone if I disagree with their point. I will agree with them if I do. Sorry for being awkward, I know that's unreasonable.
We're trying to distinguish between 'best' and 'winner' but the 2 are completely separate. Was Oliver McCall better than Lennox Lewis? Absolutely not, but he was the winner (on the first occasion) Being the best is a time relative factor, the winner is a one off moment in time. In my opinion, that also relates to a tournament.
It's funny how now people are saying Bayern were the best when at the time everyone was ****ing purely over Barca. I had a discussion during last season's Champions League when I was accused of being the only person in the world who didnt think Barca were the planet's best team. That was just before Bayern stuffed them twice... As for saying "its like talking to a brick wall, he (meaning me) will never agree with you" couldn't I say exactly the same about you? Why is it I'm being the obstinate one? It takes 2 people to have a disagreement.
Italy won the World Cup in 1982 thanks in no small measure to the deadly Paolo Rossi.. but of course Brazil is talked about even more.. they were the best team never to have won etc.. it does matter though, Zico & Socrates never lifted a World Cup - Baresi and co did.
Other examples: -Denmark winning Euro 92. They didn't even qualify, so how could you say they are the best team in Europe? -Porto and Monaco Champions League Final 2004. Would you really have considered those better than Man Utd, Milan, Barca, Real Madrid at the time? -Wimbledon winning 1988 FA Cup. They were not a better side than Liverpool back then. -Steaua Bucharest win 1986 European Cup. I'm sorry, but they were not a better team than Barcelona back then. -Second Division Sunderland beating First Division Leeds United in 1973 FA Cup Final. Speaks for itself. There are many other examples.
Im particularly interested in the above game. Did you watch this or are you simply going my today's relative merits? They were ****ing miles better.
This must rank as one of the more ridiculous things to say during a disagreement on opinions . Back on topic , away from the needless squabbling I kinda like the idea , though its gonna be weighted to the countries with the biggest TV audiences at the top of the table in its infancy . Would be a bit of a surprise to see Belgium in the 3rd tier - but their time will come .
If the better team in a game always won we wouldn't watch football. It's football's unpredictably that partly makes it such a great sport. One team can hit the woodwork five times, have 75% of the possession, and lose to a team awarded a very dodgy penalty. If the better team doesn't always win an individual game then why is the winner of a competition always the best team? A team couldn't hope to win a tournament if it was fixed against them with bent referees. Anyone would agree with that so why not acknowledge there's plenty of room in football for luck as well?
Lets not bother with competitions then and instead a panel choose the winners on who they think is best.
The winners of a competition are a fact. Which is the best team is an opinion. I suppose you could argue that the fact although Man Utd won all those trophies during Fergie's time didn't make the best team during those seasons. If you were a bit dim.
