Real Madrid
- Thread starter PearLBLacK
- Start date
Horatio
You're welcome
What even is this comparison?
Projecting a whole-scale corruption scandal suggesting some teams undeservedly won the CL via corruption... please demonstrate which ones and what do you have to support the implication you make.
Penalties are not 'deserved' for many reasons and it is not binary either.
CL winners without fail have done something to deserve winning the trophy. Every tournament winner did.
You appended ur post with text beyond the first sentence.
Calciopoli is just an example.
My point is just that it has been proven already that football hasnt gone without corruption. If you would find out in retrospect a CL winner was made to win the tournament through bribery would you still go on to say that team won it deservedly?
If you can concede a game can be won undeservedly by a team(I am sure there are cases out there where a game was completely destroyed by arbitral decisions in favour of one team. Heck there are cases where the winning team in their post-match comments indirectly reveal a sense of guilt for coming off the pitch as winners.) it?s not impossible to claim a team can win CL undeservedly.
You also conflate two things: On one hand you say a team always wins the CL deservedly, on the other hand you say a team always does something to deserve it. It?s very hard to argue the second because someone could argue something very basic as saying the team showed ?fighting spirit? or they didnt show up late to the game or they qualified for the tournament through playoffs or domestic league.
Last edited:
El Gato
Villarato!
I am yet to see a modern day tournament that was unilaterally decided by corruption. The closest it got is with Korea NT 2002 and even there it's not clear. So we're dealing with tinfoil theories that serve no purpose to the discussion TBH. Theoretically, naturally a CL winner can be 'handed' a title by the governing body. Except it hasn't happened as far as current tournament records in the CL era are concerned. Mentioning Calciopoli therefore seems kinda pointless mate.
I don't see where conflating is supposed to be in the latter. Both statements are compatible with one another. Maybe that very last statement is broad. But hey, I don't think we need to categorically state an absolute minimum criterion required to "deserve" the title, do we?
Again, why would this broadly defined fighting spirit not apply? The first thing we notice about teams as neutral fans is that they 'try'. Without going into too many ifs and buts - if Spurs won the CL last year after being battered by Liverpool in that horrific final, would that make them any less of a champion? It's therefore good enough that a team shows up and doesn't 0-0 + pens their way to the title (and even there you could argue they were at least solid defensively).
I don't see where conflating is supposed to be in the latter. Both statements are compatible with one another. Maybe that very last statement is broad. But hey, I don't think we need to categorically state an absolute minimum criterion required to "deserve" the title, do we?
Again, why would this broadly defined fighting spirit not apply? The first thing we notice about teams as neutral fans is that they 'try'. Without going into too many ifs and buts - if Spurs won the CL last year after being battered by Liverpool in that horrific final, would that make them any less of a champion? It's therefore good enough that a team shows up and doesn't 0-0 + pens their way to the title (and even there you could argue they were at least solid defensively).
Why? It was simply divine intervention that caused Chelsea to win.
Horatio
You're welcome
My mistake. I meant Barcas victory in 2008-2009. I confused the two because in both we faced Man U in the final afterwards.
Birdy
Senior Member
First of all, I never talked about corruption or any factor outside of the 'pitch'.
Plus, I agree it's a spectrum and not a binary situation. Therefore, the 2nd best deserves a lot, but because there is a best, he deserves less than the best even by a small margin.
The problem is this:
Yes, there are base qualities like fighting spirit, which a winner usually has (and i say usually because we have seen many winners who do not need to demonstrate even that. The sheer difference in quality is enough for them to win).
But that's precisely a base, and most of the times that base is not enough to give you a trophy.
In the hypothetical situation where the overall quality of the contesting teams is very low, and there are no visible, measurable differences in football quality between them, then you can say that we should attend to these basic traits like fighting spirit.
But that's not the case with Chelsea 2012 and countless other examples. Yes, they had that base. There were so many other teams that year that had that base plus a ton other qualities in terms of football that made them a million times better than Chelsea.
Hence, given that spectrum we are talking about and their position in the spectrum, they deserved to win it a million times more than Chelsea
Plus, I agree it's a spectrum and not a binary situation. Therefore, the 2nd best deserves a lot, but because there is a best, he deserves less than the best even by a small margin.
The problem is this:
Yes, there are base qualities like fighting spirit, which a winner usually has (and i say usually because we have seen many winners who do not need to demonstrate even that. The sheer difference in quality is enough for them to win).
But that's precisely a base, and most of the times that base is not enough to give you a trophy.
In the hypothetical situation where the overall quality of the contesting teams is very low, and there are no visible, measurable differences in football quality between them, then you can say that we should attend to these basic traits like fighting spirit.
But that's not the case with Chelsea 2012 and countless other examples. Yes, they had that base. There were so many other teams that year that had that base plus a ton other qualities in terms of football that made them a million times better than Chelsea.
Hence, given that spectrum we are talking about and their position in the spectrum, they deserved to win it a million times more than Chelsea
El Gato
Villarato!
Yes Birdy, I did talk to Horatio mostly WRT the corruption, since he had brought that up.
Sure. Deserved it MORE THAN Chelsea ergo the latter also did praiseworthy things but were perhaps worse in many ways the other team(s) weren't. Meaning Chelsea didn't win it undeservedly, just because some other club played better.
There is no such thing as deserved and undeserved, which is the way you presented it originally i.e. a binary situation. You can argue teams deserved it more or less. Which certainly I can agree to.
That Di Matteo side were very lucky in several ways, but knowing their limitations, they also placed themselves in the best position to succeed throughout the knockouts of cup competitions and managing their league spot as to not fall too far back. In February 2012 they got romped by Napoli with Lavezzi and Cavani in Italy, AVB got sacked and they rallied to a 4-1 win at home under Di Matteo while also eventually winning the FA Cup. They had an incredible string of well prepared cup knockouts, despite everything. That does count for something and I cannot accept someone saying they've categorically won it 'undeservedly'.
Such as?
You'd struggle to name a team that has walked to any title without being challenged by someone somewhere along the way.
Sure. Deserved it MORE THAN Chelsea ergo the latter also did praiseworthy things but were perhaps worse in many ways the other team(s) weren't. Meaning Chelsea didn't win it undeservedly, just because some other club played better.
There is no such thing as deserved and undeserved, which is the way you presented it originally i.e. a binary situation. You can argue teams deserved it more or less. Which certainly I can agree to.
That Di Matteo side were very lucky in several ways, but knowing their limitations, they also placed themselves in the best position to succeed throughout the knockouts of cup competitions and managing their league spot as to not fall too far back. In February 2012 they got romped by Napoli with Lavezzi and Cavani in Italy, AVB got sacked and they rallied to a 4-1 win at home under Di Matteo while also eventually winning the FA Cup. They had an incredible string of well prepared cup knockouts, despite everything. That does count for something and I cannot accept someone saying they've categorically won it 'undeservedly'.
Such as?
You'd struggle to name a team that has walked to any title without being challenged by someone somewhere along the way.
Birdy
Senior Member
Juventus winning many of the scudettos of the last 9 years, or Bayern likewise many of the last years, or PSG many times in Ligue1
You may have walked into a trap, depending on what "along the way" means.
Horatio
You're welcome
I already put this discussion to rest. It?s simple, if there can be a general consensus of a team undeservedly winning a single match, by logic the same can be said about a tournament.
I think people have this bias when it comes to longer stretches of events in the past compared to single events. Even if team A was proven to be favoured in every single game and people agree about it for every single game, you ask them in time whether the tournament was won fairly and they will say yes and chalk everything up to luck, even though if asked for every game individually they still hold the opinion that team A won the match undeservedly. So the more you zoom out the more people block the idea that it was undeserved.
P.S. I am not totally convinced either way, honestly dont care enough. But it is a very interesting debate but possibly endless.
I think people have this bias when it comes to longer stretches of events in the past compared to single events. Even if team A was proven to be favoured in every single game and people agree about it for every single game, you ask them in time whether the tournament was won fairly and they will say yes and chalk everything up to luck, even though if asked for every game individually they still hold the opinion that team A won the match undeservedly. So the more you zoom out the more people block the idea that it was undeserved.
P.S. I am not totally convinced either way, honestly dont care enough. But it is a very interesting debate but possibly endless.
Last edited:
El Gato
Villarato!
Why is there a compulsion to mention league competitions in this argument when the format poses a different set of challenges? One of them being that you won't always find a match against the same/similar quality opposition with an equivalent degree of depth. In the CL you'll almost always at some point play a team that is actually as good or better at football, or will at least be good enough to make it difficult for you to win if they're inferior and make it a point to win by preventing you from winning. In leagues, not so much, because the ultimate result is less so decided in H2H. I mean I don't think that's unheard of. So how is that a valid argument?
Not at all, unless you are able to demonstrate exactly how the said team has managed to actively win one with no merit to their name.
To date there's been no tournament where a winner was devoid of any credit for the footballing strategies and execution in games leading up to the title win. You have to name one and then discuss, otherwise all the rest of that tinfoily hypothesis doesn't really stand up bro.
Birdy
Senior Member
So you have curtailed your original argument to the following form: we should give credit to those base traits (like fighting spirit, strong mentality, etc) only in cup competitions and only when all other factors (like football quality) are all equal?
El Gato
Villarato!
Did I? The whole sentence sounds a bit strawman.
Conversation was about the Chelsea UCL title win from the starters so why do you end up bringing in league into the discussion? Cups are different and it seems natural to me that there are differences in traits needed to win different competitions?
Home of Barca Fans
