Thats stupid, Bayern Munich weren't the best side in the Champions League last year. Manchester United weren't the best team in the Premier League. Swansea weren't the best team in the League Cup. The winners may not have the best bunch of individuals but they are the best team as they won the thing. I am not saying Greece are better than England now there not, but in 2004 they won the European Championship, and where therefore the Champions of Europe. On topic i love the idea, i'd make the leagues a bit bigger than whats been muted, say 12 teams, means there's not tons of divisions.
Not confusing at all, they concentrated their efforts on winning that competition at the expense of the EPL. It's the same way I don't think Bradford were the 2nd best team last season, other teams had other priorities. When Greece won, every single team's priority was winning that competition.
You are confused. So, if Accrington Stanley beat Barcelona 1-0, despite Barcelona having 95% possession and 70 shots on target compared to Accrington having only 1 shot, you would say Accrington were the better side? Is it impossible to be lucky for more than one game in a row? I'm ending this argument as clearly we'll have to agree to disagree as neither of us are changing our minds.
Erm, no. That's one game. Greece didnt win 1 game to be named champions, they were the best over a whole month long tournament. If they played each other 8 times and Stanley won more than half of those, I'd say they were the better team. Do you want me to keep asking the competition question until you answer?
I honestly never noticed the competition question. We have competitions in sport to determine the best teams. But you do realise it is possible that the better teams can have an off day, don't you? And that in cup competitions you only have the one chance compared to leagues? Anyways, i've had enough. You probably have too. Let's agree to disagree.
You're seriously deluded if you think Greece were the best team in 2004. A lot of other factors should be taken into account, such as decisions in game and luck of the draw. Same way Chelsea weren't the best team in Europe a few years ago, yes they won it, but it doesn't mean they're the best.
If it doesn't make them the best, what is the point in the competition? I thought competitions decided who the best team is? According to some on this thread though, it decides who the best team is (if the team the majority has already decided is the best) but if they don't win it and someone else does, it's down to 'luck'.
The FIFA ranking has its flaws, but I'm not sure it wants to rank the best but the most succesfull teams. That's why my country, Switzerland, is currently 14th worldwide and could jump to 7th next week due to qualifying for the WC and not having lost a game for quite a while...
So you're saying Wigan were one of the best English teams last year because they won the FA cup? Yet they were relegated. But as you said, the competitions are to find the best teams.
If you watched that tournament you would know Greece where far from lucky with referee decisions, it was noted numerous times on the actual commentary that they felt the refs didn't want Greece to win. Greece system was brilliant when you look back, they where organized, dogged and disciplined. Greece won a tournament that made them the European Champions. Thats all that matters, when every team went into that competition Greece won it and where therefore the team of the tournament. Whats the point in it if we are just going to say the team with the best individuals or highest possession wins the thing.
I get both sides of this and I agree withMecca. Ferriby could win the FA cup this season, but you wouldn't say they're a better side than Man U or Chelsea (or us...). It just means they won the trophy. The only way to have a true world champion would be to have a straight knockout with every side in the world. Which would take forever, but would throw up some interesting ties. Like Brazil vs Guam.
What are competitions for then? Wigan focussed on a cup run, other teams focussed on the league/europe, therefore Wigan were the best team in the FA Cup last year imo.
I don't like the idea personally. It just sounds like they are after a bunch more money. Friendlies have a legitimate point to them as do preseason games in club competitions.
Yes and Greece were the best team in the European trophy, it doesn't make them the best team in Europe. Same way Wigan were the best team in the FA cup, but not the best team in England.
The European Championships were every nation in Europe's priority for 2 years and everything they did was geared towards winning it. For the top 8 teams in the Premier League the FA Cup is well down their list of priorities and they play a weakened team. Youre comparing apples with Zimbabwe.
Just because the nations priorities doesn't make it the players. Some would argue the players care more about the FA cup than the Euro's. It doesn't matter if the FA care to win the Euro's if the players could care less. You can't have the argument for one cup and not the other.
I don't buy any of that for one minute. Are you saying England's players would rather win an FA Cup held every year than be the first ever players to win an international tournament on foreign soil? Or indeed Portugal's 'Golden Generation" weren't desperate to win it on home soil and instead Ronaldo et al were thinking of the FA Cup?
I'm not saying that at all, but you're suggesting that they don't with complete certainty. The fact is, winning a trophy doesn't make you the best team. Were Chelsea the best team in Europe two years ago?
