No, there are many others who think they are overrated apart from Chelsea and ManUtd fans.
Yet it's always the ManU and Chelsea fans that keep bringing this up. I don't really see how overrated they are, they're an historic team and people hype them up a bit because they're fun to watch but I don't really hear any out of control praise for them. Not nearly as out of control as the Mourinho lovefest gets. Look at how outraged people got that I dare suggest he wasn't as good as the media claims he is.
Its funny how everytime you make baseless assumptions. Most Neutrals like them watching? Please go and have a check in Milan, Inter forums and what they think of Barca's football. Many think it is boring. So you are just assuming that everyone likes Barca as you do which is clearly wrong.
Than why do peopel constantly talk about how attractive their football is? I do agree with you that it is fairly subjective to a certain degree. I'm not trying to claim that Barca's football is absolutely objectively attractive, because that's impossible to prove. But you're delusional and jealous if you think that most neutrals don't think they are a great team to watch. There's a reason everyone is ranting and raving about them. I'm not going to get in a discussion over how over/under rated Barca is, that would be for a different thread, but if they are overrated, it's simply media hype as a result of the fact that most people love watching them play.
Still you responded. And you think there are serious people who agrees with you when you say Jose is overrated? And how you got your knickers in twist when few on internet said he is the best ever..
Several people have agreed with me in this thread. Others claim he is the best manager in the game, which I don't believe. I think SAF is better (if you agree, than you too think Mourinho is overrated) I don't think Mourinho is in the top 3. I stated clearly my criteria for how I rate a manager, and according to that criteria, Mourinho is not in the top 3. Yet no one has really tried and offered their own, they just say I'm wrong. Who you think is the best is subjective to a certain degree, because it's based on how you define best. I gave my definition of how we measure the best, and according to my definition, he isn't. Don't see what's so wrong with that.
That was not the best ManUtd team ever. 07-08 was close, and our 1999 was class full of World class players. Second best team in the world where other than 2 teams no team had a sniff at title.
Yet you're ignoring the point. First of all, the '99 team was great, but the 07-09 team was close. Some people think they were better, some people think they were worse. I personally think the 07-09 team was much better. The Prem has gotten much better in the past 10 years. The 07-09 team went to consecutive Champions League finals. Even if you think the 99 team was better, you're ignoring the fact that the 07-09 team was great. Barca won the treble and beat an historically great team very soundly in the final. What else do you expect them to do? How else could they establish historic status? Two seasons later, the team is even better than that one and sets a record point total. That makes them historic.
Contradiction. I remember you saying Historic match up means nothing as only present counts. Madrid won 5 trophies when no team bothered to enter the competition. Milan are the best in Europe when it comes to Champions league.
Such a poor argument it's not even funny. I don't see how you can completely miss the point of that statement and try and twist it around. La Liga has had some all-time great teams, yet none of them have reached as many points as Barca. So if Barca has reached a higher point total than those teams, that makes them an historic team. That was a very simple point that you should have been able to understand, and it was very obvious from my statement, and I have no idea how you could actually bring in the "historic match-up" thing, which has nothing to do at all with that argument. It doesn't even come close to fitting because historic matchups are a statistic measuring the all-time record one-team has against another, which, depending on the circumstances, is usually a stupid stat (they do it all the time in American sports, like they'll always show it before/during the Super Bowl, and it's stupid, it doesn't matter what the Packers and Steelers did against each other in the 1960's).
Shows how **** 18 other teams in the league and how they play to Barca's strengths without any tactics and variations.
So they're trying to lose? Barca and Real Madrid are two of the most talented teams in history, and they beat the other teams in the league. Don't see what your point is. Even if you want to look at UEFA coefficients, the Prem passed La Liga in 2008. Do you seriously think the entire league fell apart in two seasons? No one takes your SPL trolls seriously, it's just annoying. The past two seasons, the second-tier La Liga teams have struggled a bit, but that doesn't mean that all 18 teams all of the sudden suck. In 2008-2009, La Liga had 6 Champions League caliber teams. The team that finished in 6th place that season equalled ManU in the Champions League and there was nothing separating the sides. If the 6th placed La Liga team was as good as the 1st placed English team, I don't see how you can seriously claim there are only two teams in Spain. Look at how talented Atletico and Sevilla are. Look at Deportivo. Those teams are having horrible seasons, because every week in La Liga is tough. Anyone that thinks there is that big of a difference between any of the top 4 leagues is biased and delusional. So if you get a record point total in one of the top leagues, it makes you an historic team. Simple as that.
Trolling? I'm not. La Liga is just Sunny SPL is how many think (At least Mancs, yes little biased). Or in other words Rich man's SPL.
Just because lots of (English/American/Prem fan) idiots say that on the internet doesn't make it true. Just as people on the internet claiming Jose is the best in the world doesn't make it true. The comparison is so poor it's not even funny. The SPL is not a top 15 league in the world and any team that does well now isn't necessarily good because its best days are far behind it (back in the day, you stayed in your own league since foreign money didn't dominate the game, so you had Celtic and Rangers winning European trophies). La Liga is the second best league in the world (some think it's the best), and although it was the best in the early 00's, it's not like it's gotten worse since then. The top leagues have more and more money and buy more and more foreign players, so the quality of play in La Liga is as high as ever (though in 08-09 they had more good teams). If you finish with a record point total in one of the top 2 leagues in the world, in one of the top 4 for that matter, that makes you an historic team. Also, no one has won outside of the Old Firm since the 1980's (the last manager to do that was SAF, and that achievement alone to me proves that he is better than Mourinho), while since the Prem's inception, La Liga has had more winners than the Prem. SPL comparison is soooo stupid. But we're way off-topic here, as you've turned yet another thread into La Liga=SPL trolls.
I haven't seen anyone calling Chelsea as historic team when they had record point tally in Jose's era..
But they were. They were an insanely talented team and they finished with 95 points. That de facto makes them an historic team. Where they as good as their record? I think not, they were great at grinding out results against all of those teams that were much less wealthy and talented than them (that's what Mourinho's the best at). But they were still an historic team.
Even before the start of La Liga only 2 teams have chance of winning La Liga.
At the beginning of this season, it was very obvious ManU would win the title. Some people thought Chelsea may have been able to do it (I didn't, I didn't think they'd finish in the top 2), especially when they started out so strong. But by November, only one team was in the title race. How does that support your argument?
Team that just can't win European away game wins left right center in the league. That says a lot..
And so they're not in the semi-finals? They won the Champions League one season. The next, they have to drive across Europe for the first leg and lose to an insanely talented team that stacks up very well against them. This season they're in the semi-finals and have a good chance at winning. They won a treble recently and beat an historically great team in the CL final by a mile. Two seasons later they're looking even better and set a record-point total in a huge league. Again an annoying troll. Barca has already proven they're historic even if they don't make the final.
You have no idea then. We were talking about few matches from 90s for which he said those are not relevant. And what Athe posted was from 90s.
Funny how you accuse me of twisting words when you're even worse...the historical stuff I mentioned had absolutely nothing to do with that discussion. You're literally quoting me from a completely different tract and trying to apply it here, and I don't even know if it was in this thread or nor. Mike mentioned ManU's historical record against Barcelona (which was a moot point, I wasn't trying to compare the two or anything), and I simply said that historical records between two teams don't mean much since they generally record the statistics between two entirely sets of teams. This goes for any sport, it's not even about football. Anyway, that obviously doesn't mean "all historical stats are irrelevant." As far as the stats comparing the two leagues go, it is relevant for people making the idiotic SPL claims, because La Liga has had more winners in the past two decades since the Premiership. The Premiership is also a two-horse race (though this season it was a one-horse race), the only difference is the past two season, the top two in La Liga are much better than the top two anywhere.
Madrid have scored 6 against Valenica at Mestalla. So much for criticizing Jose for his tactics and philosophy.
He knows when to play attacking and when to play on counter..
That's cool that he plays attacking against other teams, good for him, and it's expected since he has one of the most talented teams of all time. If he played conservative against teams that are worse than him that it would be quite an issue. My criticism though is that he plays too conservative against their hated arch-rivals. Real Madrid fans nor the general public want to see him completely park the bus against Barcelona in one of the most defensive Real Madrid games of all time.
Valencia 1-6 Madrid.
What boring, unattractive & defensive football he plays :S
Oh, this is a Madrid without Ronaldo, Pepe, Alonso, Marcelo & Ozil.
True, it was an amazing performance. But I was talking about Barca. He parked the bus against their hated rivals. He basically made the statement that Barca is the better team and that Real Madrid will simply rely on good tactics, defending, and counter-attacking to beat them. That's not how Real Madrid plays and the last two games between Barca and Real have been incredibly boring and disappointing (intense, that's for sure, but the on-the-field product is dull). But my criticisms of him playing conservative against Barca are totally separate from my criticisms of him being overrated. It doesn't mean you can throw out all of my arguments just because you don't like one of them.
I see where you're coming from, but Mourinho has consistently won things, without spending tons, at Inter he had a net spend of under £30m (I think). Raul and Guti were on high wages and I don't think they would of settled of being a bench warmer all season instead of playing for Schalke 04 and Besiktas in their first team. Some of your points are hypocritical, as you say don't judge him on just one success (Porto) but you have judged Grant on his Champions League 'success'. Also, you need to acknowledge a win is a win, a loss is a loss, not matter how close you come or how you get it. A Mourinho 1-0 win is better than a Wenger 4-4 draw.[
Thanks for replying, though I will disagree. It is true that at Inter he didn't have that much to spend. He bought Quaresma for about 20 million his first season, who was a flop. His second season, he got extremely lucky that Barca had to get rid of Eto'o and needed to get Ibrahimovic. Moratti was able to charge them through the nose since they had to make a deal. It was great for Inter, since they basically got an upgrade and a ton of money. That was used in one of the juciest transfer markets in recent history. Real stupidly got rid of three amazing Dutch players, so Inter was able to get Sneijder. Maxwell came in too, a good player, and of course they were able to get Lucio, proven as one of the top CB's in the world. My only point is that in his second season, Inter was an amazing team. They were very disappointing domestically, but they were perfectly built for Champions League success and did it (getting some help along the way from an Icelandic volcano). Other than that he has spent tons of money and he has always managed at a top class team. In my opinion, he has only won one trophy in his life where his team wasn't the most talented in the competition.
As far as Grant goes, I wasn't juding Grant's ability. I just pointed out that a poor manager was able to things at Chelsea that Mourinho couldn't. Grant finished with more points than any team in the league during his tenure AND was a kick away from winning the Champions League, which was much closer than Jose got with Chelsea. My point is that that Chelsea team was so talented that it didn't take a genius to manage it. Guardiola probably isn't a genius, it's just that his team is so talented. That's why he's the most successful young manager in history, not because he's a great manager. Yet why do we never say this about Jose?
As far as attractive football goes, it's a matter of opinion. Many people in many parts of the world think that it's not just the result that matters. That's how it is in Argentina, Brazil, (maybe Holland too, although I don't know for sure), and many places in Spain, especially Real Madrid. Real Madrid isn't just about winning. It's winning the Real Madrid way. That's why they sacked Capello when he won the league. That may have been a poor decision from a football standpoint, but it's a decision, but I respect them for that. Even though Real Madrid is probably the most hateable team in the world (tons of money used to buy victories, an incredible amount of arrogance, etc.) I like them. I like the fact that they care about more than simply getting the result. I think it's good that there are teams in football that hold that value, and I think it's great that a big team holds that value. The can use their vast amount of resources to make an amazing on-the-field product. That's what the first Galacticos were all about. But in getting Mourinho they've sold out on their principles, they just want a few trophies immediately and that's that. So when they go against their hated arch-rivals in what could be one of the most scintillating fixtures of all time, they simply park the bus and play as defensive as you've ever seen Real Madrid play. As a football fan, I was pretty disappointed.
Also, on the subject of Guti and Raul, I disagree. Raul certainly would have played a lot this season since Higuain was out and Benzema was underperforming. They both definitely would have been bench players since they have been at the club since they were young children and many times have been relegated to a bench role. They wouldn't have minded, and R. Madrid really could have used them.
History is not relevant, I hate it when people do on and on about stuff like 'United have won 2 of their last 4 visits to Spain, etc.' as the teams have changed and a lot is different. In Spain, only Madrid and Barca have a realistic chance of winning it. In England? In recent years, Liverpool, United, Chelsea and Arsenal have had a shot at winning the League, although I do agree, European leagues are not as competitive as we think. However, the difference between 1st and 3rd in La Liga is a lot bigger than in the Prem. Would Barca regularly have to scrape wins against lowly sides (like United and Arsenal have to do)?
But the Spanish League is not like a rich SPL, that comment is pretty irrational. Sevilla, Atletico, Valencia and Villareal regularly draw or have a close game with Barca and Madrid, but do teams like Hearts, Aberdeen and Hibernian? Not really.
Good post. Let's not forget that in 08-09, the team that finished 6th in La Liga that season (Villarreal) played ManU twice and drew them both times, and the games were very, very equal (the teams totally cancelled each other out). I do disagree with you about other teams in the Prem having a shot at the title. Liverpool never had a realistic shot at it, and neither did Arsenal. Since Arsenal's selling policy really kicked in to place, they haven't made a title challenge. In the past 6 or so years, the Prem has been a two-horse race, just like La Liga (except in the past 6 seasons, Barca and Real have both fallen out of the top two...has that happened to ManU or Chelsea during that time period). The thing is the past two seasons, Barca and Real have been historically great teams. So they've run away with the title. In the Prem, Chelsea and ManU constantly drop points to lower teams because they're not as good as they've been in recent years. Valencia has 4 less points than Arsenal with one less game played, so how does that make the number 3 team in Spain so terrible? The arguments are absolutely ridiculous.
I was watching few past videos of El Classicos. Classicos now are not even half intense as they used to be. Even few years back, like 5 years they were very intense. Back in 90s Barca won 5-0 against Madrid then next season Madrid got their revenge by beating Barca 5-0.
So much hatred between teams it was unreal. Would love to see game becoming like 90s, it was very physical and had quality players. This Madrid team has no passion when compared to teams of past and Zidane single handedly took Barca's midfield it was joy to watch. Wish we had those Madrid players against current Barca team.
During the first Galacticos Real Madrid was so awesome to watch. I really wish we could see them play this Barca team. It would be one of the best football games of all time. One thing is for certain, they wouldn't sit back with 11 men in front of the ball like this team. They would have more than 20% possession and they'd actually attack Barcelona and take the game to them. The Galacticos were very inconsistent, but if they were having a good day, they would play a great game of offensive football and beat this Barca team. The idea that there aren't quality players now for either team is horseshit, since they're two of the most talented in history, but I do agree about the passion.
