Greatest club team of the 21st century

[bismp]

Disagree.

I mean Barca 2008-2011 was a much superior team than any Madrid team, including 2016-2018 one.

Still, by some factors like refereeing. bad luck, individual errors or opponents making the match of their live Barca didn't manage to win 3 CL 2009-2011 as it should while Madrid 2016-2018 even if they where vastly inferior to that Barca team still mananged to hold grab of 3 CLs consecutively with the exact factors that prevented Barca do it, like refereeings, luck and some invididual brilliance/opponents collapsing.

In football just like in life, it's not guaranteed the winner is the best, it's usually just the winner not also the best who wins in life nor in football.

Moreover, Madrid won but lacked true consistency, style and greatness, they just won. For instance, to me, Madrid 2013-2014 looks stronger than Madrid 2016-2018.

I agree Pep's Barca were a much better team than the Real three in a row team. They played far better football and to me that is the greatest team I have ever seen (club or international).

However, what I will say is that bismp seems to be leaning quite strongly on achievements and accolades in his ranking. If we start talking about which teams played the more dominant, impressive football, Madrid would fall down the list in my opinion. But it's difficult to ignore three CLs in a row regardless of how they won it with officials or hanging on in games.

Thoughts @bismp ?

Yeah @Maradona37 put it nicely, the list is focusing on achievements, rather than style of play. Of course Pep's Barca was the more dominant team and played the better and more influential football.

And I agree, 2013/14 Real Madrid probably was scarier than any of the threepeat versions, hell even 2011/12 Mou's Real felt scarier at the time. But winning relies on several factors, as you said: luck, refs, injuries etc.

For example, if Real won the penalties vs. Bayern in 2011/12, they probably win the final vs.Chelsea. Then suddenly we are talking about one of the best teams in history (btw the best version of CR IMO).

 

[bismp]

Yeah true, I don't think they are.

The team that stood out to me as one they could leapfrog is the 2022-2024 Real team. I know they won more titles and two CLs, but at the same time Barca in general weren't as strong as before in those years. Even the season Xavi won the league was a bit of a defensive thing and holding on at times, or so I am led to believe.

But then, they beat teams like Man City on the way to them (admittedly in incredible fashion) so that could then be an argument against the City team I am talking up.

Like you say, you can make arguments in all sorts of directions for and against teams. The list is subjective, which is what makes it a great discussion.

I would say though that I feel everyone should find Pep's Barca the best team in their lifetime. I have watched football since the 80s and NEVER seen such domination of football matches.

Yeah I hate that 2020s Real and I think is one of the weakest teams in the list, but the motherf*ckers won 2 CLs in 3 years, beating some good teams in the process. Strictly based on achievements they should have been actually placed much higher, but their style of play puts them lower in my list.

 

[Maradona37]

Yeah @Maradona37 put it nicely, the list is focusing on achievements, rather than style of play. Of course Pep's Barca was the more dominant team and played the better and more influential football.

And I agree, 2013/14 Real Madrid probably was scarier than any of the threepeat versions, hell even 2011/12 Mou's Real felt scarier at the time. But winning relies on several factors, as you said: luck, refs, injuries etc.

For example, if Real won the penalties vs. Bayern in 2011/12, they probably win the final vs.Chelsea. Then suddenly we are talking about one of the best teams in history (btw the best version of CR IMO).

Agree with all.

I can see @FC B point a lot. But I feel he's putting more weight on style of play and football dominance, the presence of luck in knockout competitions. Whereas you are going quite strongly on what teams won, regardless of how they did it - while acknowledging the margins are fine and a team like Real could easily have won 0 CLs in those three seasons, rather than all three.

 

[Maradona37]

Yeah I hate that 2020s Real and I think is one of the weakest teams in the list, but the motherf*ckers won 2 CLs in 3 years, beating some good teams in the process. Strictly based on achievements they should have been actually placed much higher, but their style of play puts them lower in my list.

Yeah, like you say, on all-round ability they'd be lower, but they have a great CV/list of trophies. I feel it was a weaker era for Barca and RM, but again that would make it look negative of all teams of the post COVID era, including Man City.

They did win a lot of matches in miraculous fashion though (Benzema, Rodrygo etc) which gives weight to @FC B saying a lot of football and knockout competitions is luck and just mad moments.

 

[Maradona37]

@bismp

Funny you mention Ronaldo. He's a bit of a microcosm of those Real teams in general i.e. they were better in 2010-2014 than 2016-2018, as he was as an individual player, but they won more in that latter era.

Highlighting that many factors/variables go into winning football matches and trophies, rather than just individual or collective ability.

 

[bismp]

Yeah winning in style is always the preferable option, but to be honest, I would have loved if we could have won an UCL between 2015/16 and 2018/19, even if we did not play the best football ever. Actually, if we had won in 2018/19 it would be a fitting example.

@bismp

Funny you mention Ronaldo. He's a bit of a microcosm of those Real teams in general i.e. they were better in 2010-2014 than 2016-2018, as he was as an individual player, but they won more in that latter era.

Highlighting that many factors/variables go into winning football matches and trophies, rather than just individual or collective ability.

Well, to be honest those teams became stacked as seasons went on, so they could compensate for CR's decline.

While our core stayed the same until the end of the decade, with the known results...

 

[Maradona37]

Yeah winning in style is always the preferable option, but to be honest, I would have loved if we could have won an UCL between 2015/16 and 2018/19, even if we did not play the best football ever. Actually, if we had won in 2018/19 it would be a fitting example.


Well, to be honest those teams became stacked as seasons went on, so they could compensate for CR's decline.

While our core stayed the same until the end of the decade, with the known results...

Yeah true, sometimes history only remembers the victors unfortunately. Hopefully though people will always remember Pep's (as the best ever) and Enrique's Barca, even though they didn't win as many CL as they should have.

That's true, and I didn't mention that - they became a better all-round team to compensate for his weaknesses. Having guys like Modric and Kroos in the team is obviously better than Ozil, Khedira and (dare I say it?) even Xabi Alonso.

Good point there.

 

[bismp]

@Maradona37

what's your opinion on AC Milan? Outstanding squad full of talent, some great UCL runs (filled with disappointments though). Domestically only one title too, which is kinda understandable vs. some strong Juventus teams, but if you look at the tables, Milan more often than not came quite short of the league title: those were not some tight races like Barca-Real at the early to mid 2010s or like Pep's City vs. Klopp's Liverpool...

 

[Maradona37]

@Maradona37

what's your opinion on AC Milan? Outstanding squad full of talent, some great UCL runs (filled with disappointments though). Domestically only one title too, which is kinda understandable vs. some strong Juventus teams, but if you look at the tables, Milan more often than not came quite short of the league title: those were not some tight races like Barca-Real at the early to mid 2010s or like Pep's City vs. Klopp's Liverpool...

It's 20 or so years ago now so memory is hazy.

A squad full of absolute superstars at the time, absolutely stacked.

But one point I would make and haven't seen stated is clearly making a cut off between football pre Pep's Barca and post: pre Pep's Barca was much more about counter attack, less pressing, teams trading blows with one another. It was much harder for teams to fully dominate. Even Ferguson's United teams played counter mostly and didn't get high points totals in the same vein as Man City and Liverpool did.

Pep, plus the advent of super teams in the Messi and Ronaldo era, led to a lot more domination of leagues for me (even Bayern started doing it post Pep's Barca). Now obviously it is not only Pep's Barca influence and other factors like money, more influence of Bosman ruling, the growth of football as a sport in general, Middle Eastern states buying clubs all played a part. But all of these factors combined mean that I personally think teams now have more tools and advantages to be dominant in a way teams in the 2000s and before did not. I might be wrong but it is how I see it.

Hence, if you magically dropped Milan of 2005 into THIS era, and all their players were at their peak and trained to play in this era, would they play extremely dominant, pressing football and be able to win Serie A (or even really challenge well for PL and La Liga) with record points totals, given the ability of their players? It's an interesting discussion.

 

[bismp]

It's 20 or so years ago now so memory is hazy.

A squad full of absolute superstars at the time, absolutely stacked.

But one point I would make and haven't seen stated is clearly making a cut off between football pre Pep's Barca and post: pre Pep's Barca was much more about counter attack, less pressing, teams trading blows with one another. It was much harder for teams to fully dominate. Even Ferguson's United teams played counter mostly and didn't get high points totals in the same vein as Man City and Liverpool did.

Pep, plus the advent of super teams in the Messi and Ronaldo era, led to a lot more domination of leagues for me (even Bayern started doing it post Pep's Barca). Now obviously it is not only Pep's Barca influence and other factors like money, more influence of Bosman ruling, the growth of football as a sport in general, Middle Eastern states buying clubs all played a part. But all of these factors combined mean that I personally think teams now have more tools and advantages to be dominant in a way teams in the 2000s and before did not. I might be wrong but it is how I see it.

Hence, if you magically dropped Milan of 2005 into THIS era, and all their players were at their peak and trained to play in this era, would they play extremely dominant, pressing football and be able to win Serie A (or even really challenge well for PL and La Liga) with record points totals, given the ability of their players? It's an interesting discussion.

Some great points, especially about the style of playing enabling teams to be more dominant.

That said, every team has to be judged for their achievements, in their era. And some things like consistency and winning mentality transcend eras.

The hard truth is that although exceptionally talented, that Milan team choked back to back in the UCL against far inferior opponents, despite having a strong lead, putting even Valverde's Barca to shame.

Also, domestically, that Juventus team was also playing that "blow for blow" style of football, that said, it seems that they were much more consistent against weaker teams, winning them the majority of the titles.

 

[Maradona37]

Some great points, especially about the style of playing enabling teams to be more dominant.

That said, every team has to be judged for their achievements, in their era. And some things like consistency and winning mentality transcend eras.

The hard truth is that although exceptionally talented, that Milan team choked back to back in the UCL against far inferior opponents, despite having a strong lead, putting even Valverde's Barca to shame.

Also, domestically, that Juventus team was also playing that "blow for blow" style of football, that said, it seems that they were much more consistent against weaker teams, winning them the majority of the titles.

Thanks, and true, you are right - teams (and players for that matter) can only be judged in their historical context. We can indulge in counterfactual history all we like, but ultimately we can only judge what did happen, not hypotheticals or theories.

Been a great debate. Love this thread mate.

 

[FC B]

Agree with all.

I can see @FC B point a lot. But I feel he's putting more weight on style of play and football dominance, the presence of luck in knockout competitions. Whereas you are going quite strongly on what teams won, regardless of how they did it - while acknowledging the margins are fine and a team like Real could easily have won 0 CLs in those three seasons, rather than all three.

Yeah, well said.

The OP stated "All teams on the list needed some kind of European AND domestic success to be included." Thus the greatest in his terms isn't automatically the most CL winning teams.

For me it's ofc important to win but that alone doesn't define greatness but it's as importat the manner in which they do it and how dominant they are in a particular time frame.

For instance, Madrid won CL in 2022 by being dominated by pretty much every opponent in KO stages up until the final, even more than Chelsea did it back in 2012. Ofc a win it's a win but there is absolutely no greatness in such wins.

 

[Maradona37]

Yeah, well said.

The OP stated "All teams on the list needed some kind of European AND domestic success to be included." Thus the greatest in his terms isn't automatically the most CL winning teams.

For me it's ofc important to win but that alone doesn't define greatness but it's as importat the manner in which they do it and how dominant they are in a particular time frame.

For instance, Madrid won CL in 2022 by being dominated KO stages up until the final, even more than Chelsea did it back in 2012. Ofc a win it's a win but there is absolutely no greatness in such wins.

I agree. I am very very big on style and how dominant a team is being important. That's why Pep's Barca are the best team I have ever seen - other teams won more, or lasted longer, but that four year spell was incredibly dominant and they left a lasting legacy and pioneered for this era (other things important to me, how they influence others).

But some (and I don't mean @bismp here as he has been very balanced) just count up trophies.

I will give you an example. People credit Ronaldo and Portugal for winning 2016 Euros, and mock Messi and Argentina for losing 2014 World Cup Final. But I feel that Argentina and Messi played much better than Ronaldo and Portugal across the tournaments, and Portugal got lucky in the final (when Ronaldo wasn't even on the field) and Argentina came up against a very strong Germany side, arguably stronger than France was in 2016 (acknowledging French home advantage).

What backs up my point too is that Messi - despite not winning the trophy - won the Golden Ball for the tournament, whereas Ronaldo did not for the Euros.

Hence, the overall point is that a team can be better than another team and not win, while that inferior team does win.

We can debate that. But we also have to put some degree of status on winning, even when fortunately.