Does everyone agree with my top 10 then?
On 2025-04-08 10:29, Mark wrote:
Does everyone agree with my top 10 then?
no of course not.
Just haven't got the time and energy to devote
to yet another thread like this.
How much time shall I allow before assuming there's no strong
disagreement then? It certainly looks as if there's less strong
disagreement than I thought there would be.
Mark wrote:
How much time shall I allow before assuming there's no strong
disagreement then? It certainly looks as if there's less strong
disagreement than I thought there would be.
Chelsea FC are the best club side of all time and if there is no
strong disagreement made here by midday on Sunday 13th April
then it's 100% official... this RSS Community Achievement should
then be recognised by FIFA. If they ask how much, I'm sure our
owners will forward the necessary funds required to er...
register this very important accolade.
Strong disagreement means over twenty people obviously...
anything less is not an accurate representative sample of the
world.
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark wrote:
How much time shall I allow before assuming there's no
strong disagreement then? It certainly looks as if there's
less strong disagreement than I thought there would be.
Chelsea FC are the best club side of all time and if there
is no strong disagreement made here by midday on Sunday 13th
April then it's 100% official... this RSS Community
Achievement should then be recognised by FIFA. If they ask
how much, I'm sure our owners will forward the necessary
funds required to er... register this very important
accolade.
Strong disagreement means over twenty people obviously...
anything less is not an accurate representative sample of the
world.
Arsenal has been top flight since 1919 !
Top that!
The Doctor wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Blueshirt <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark wrote:
How much time shall I allow before assuming there's no
strong disagreement then? It certainly looks as if there's
less strong disagreement than I thought there would be.
Chelsea FC are the best club side of all time and if there
is no strong disagreement made here by midday on Sunday 13th
April then it's 100% official... this RSS Community
Achievement should then be recognised by FIFA. If they ask
how much, I'm sure our owners will forward the necessary
funds required to er... register this very important
accolade.
Strong disagreement means over twenty people obviously...
anything less is not an accurate representative sample of the
world.
Arsenal has been top flight since 1919 !
Top that!
Too late Dave... there was not enough strong disagreement in the
time required.
In fact, there was a lot less strong disagreement than I thought
there would be.
;-)
We tried to agree on a top 10 before and couldn't agree. We managed a
top 10 national teams that no one strongly disagreed with and a top 5
women's national teams and a top 1 women's club side though. And we
haven't really had any very interesting discussions like this since the google groups era. So I thought we might as well try this again and see
if we can come up with at least a top 2 or 3 or 4 that nobody strongly disagrees with.
So to start the discussion off, here's who I think the top 10 are:
1 Real Madrid 1956-60
2 AC Milan 1988-96
3 Independiente 1972-75
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Bayern Munchen 1974-76
7 Ajax 1971-73
8 Sao Paulo 1992-94
9 Penarol 1960-66
10 Internazionale 1963-66
Santos 1961-65 are the other team I'd say are worth considering.
What do yous think?
We tried to agree on a top 10 before and couldn't agree. We managed a
top 10 national teams that no one strongly disagreed with and a top 5
women's national teams and a top 1 women's club side though. And we
haven't really had any very interesting discussions like this since
the google groups era. So I thought we might as well try this again
and see if we can come up with at least a top 2 or 3 or 4 that nobody strongly disagrees with.
So to start the discussion off, here's who I think the top 10 are:
1 Real Madrid 1956-60
2 AC Milan 1988-96
3 Independiente 1972-75
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Bayern Munchen 1974-76
7 Ajax 1971-73
8 Sao Paulo 1992-94
9 Penarol 1960-66
10 Internazionale 1963-66
Santos 1961-65 are the other team I'd say are worth considering.
What do yous think?
I'll give you all until the end of next week to disagree. Or to agree
if you want. If there's been no disagreement by then, I'll declare the
above the unofficial rss-sanctioned top 10.
We tried to agree on a top 10 before and couldn't agree. We managed a
top 10 national teams that no one strongly disagreed with and a top 5
women's national teams and a top 1 women's club side though. And we
haven't really had any very interesting discussions like this since the google groups era. So I thought we might as well try this again and see
if we can come up with at least a top 2 or 3 or 4 that nobody strongly disagrees with.
So to start the discussion off, here's who I think the top 10 are:
1 Real Madrid 1956-60
2 AC Milan 1988-96
3 Independiente 1972-75
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Bayern Munchen 1974-76
7 Ajax 1971-73
8 Sao Paulo 1992-94
9 Penarol 1960-66
10 Internazionale 1963-66
Santos 1961-65 are the other team I'd say are worth considering.
What do yous think?
On 2025-04-04 09:12, Mark wrote:
We tried to agree on a top 10 before and couldn't agree. We managed
a top 10 national teams that no one strongly disagreed with and a
top 5 women's national teams and a top 1 women's club side though.
And we haven't really had any very interesting discussions like
this since the google groups era. So I thought we might as well try
this again and see if we can come up with at least a top 2 or 3 or
4 that nobody strongly disagrees with.
So to start the discussion off, here's who I think the top 10 are:
Before you start "discussions" like this you have to set parameters.
Over what period do you consider it to be pretty much the same team ?
3 years ? 5 years ? Or a certain % of players who remain the same ?
Or the same coach ?
Some of your teams are listed over only 3 years, where Milan gets 8.
Milan 1995-96 can hardly be said to be the same as Milan of 1987-88.
Also, you don't seem to include the year the team won their
championship that triggered multiple consecutive years of
international achievement. In many cases the team might actually have
been better in that year (eg. Milan in 1986--1987, Ajax in 1969-70,
Bayern in 1972-73. Or Liverpool (studiously ignored by you every
time and don't give me that crap about intercontinental cups) in
1975-1976.
Consistent criteria are of the essence. Heavily weighting one-off
cups like the intercontinental cup is a mistake. Domestic leagues
should count for a lot if there is evidence that the league was
particularly good and competitive in that era.
1 Real Madrid 1956-60
2 AC Milan 1988-96
3 Independiente 1972-75
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Bayern Munchen 1974-76
7 Ajax 1971-73
8 Sao Paulo 1992-94
9 Penarol 1960-66
10 Internazionale 1963-66
Santos 1961-65 are the other team I'd say are worth considering.
What do yous think?
Possibly useful for this debate: what is the statistical answer?
Well, *one* statistical answer is the clubs that got the highest Elo
score (counting both domestic and international matches).
From http://worldclubratings.com/stats_centre/content/ranking.html : 1 Real Madrid (Spain) 2017-08-22 2165
2 Manchester City (England) 2024-09-17 2139
3 Bayern Muenchen (Germany) 2021-12-21 2130
4 FC Barcelona (Spain) 2016-04-05 2117
5 Liverpool FC (England) 2020-02-04 2088
6 Juventus (Italy) 2018-11-06 2064
7 Inter (Italy) 2025-04-15 2010
8 Arsenal FC (England) 2025-04-22 2000
9 Atletico Madrid (Spain) 2016-10-18 1996
10 Paris Saint Germain (France) 2017-11-28 1980
All recent sides, even though they compute Elo scores for all years
since before 1965 (see e.g. http://worldclubratings.com/rankings/ club_history/real-madrid-club-de-futbol-spain.html ). It may an artifact
of the Elo method.
Possibly useful for this debate: what is the statistical answer?
Well, *one* statistical answer is the clubs that got the highest Elo
score (counting both domestic and international matches).
From http://worldclubratings.com/stats_centre/content/ranking.html :
1 Real Madrid (Spain) 2017-08-22 2165
2 Manchester City (England) 2024-09-17 2139
3 Bayern Muenchen (Germany) 2021-12-21 2130
4 FC Barcelona (Spain) 2016-04-05 2117
5 Liverpool FC (England) 2020-02-04 2088
6 Juventus (Italy) 2018-11-06 2064
7 Inter (Italy) 2025-04-15 2010
8 Arsenal FC (England) 2025-04-22 2000
9 Atletico Madrid (Spain) 2016-10-18 1996
10 Paris Saint Germain (France) 2017-11-28 1980
All recent sides, even though they compute Elo scores for all years
since before 1965 (see e.g. http://worldclubratings.com/rankings/club_history/real-madrid-club-de-futbol-spain.html
). It may an artifact of the Elo method.
The two most recent sides in your list are featured here, in high
positions (actually, you had Barcelona up to 2015, but of course the
score reached in 2016 is also due to the results in previous years). I
guess this agreement bodes well?
So what if we assume that good sides are roughly equally distributed
across time? We could use the same data and check which sides were
dominant in their time (but this would penalize sides that had worthy adversaries!). The site doesn't provide such data, but in the mentioned
page we have a proxy of sort (which could even be more interesting for
the present discussion, since it involves not single dates, but
intervals of time): "Consecutive number of weeks in first position"
I'll mark with an asterisk the sides that are featured in your list:
Team weeks from to
1* AFC Ajax (Netherlands) 174 1971-11-09 1975-03-04
2* FC Barcelona (Spain) 161 2010-03-30 2013-04-23
3* AC Milan (Italy) 147 1991-12-03 1994-09-20
4 Bayern Muenchen (Germany) 102 1986-04-15 1988-03-22
5 Bayern Muenchen (Germany) 102 2020-06-02 2022-05-10
6 Juventus (Italy) 99 1997-02-25 1999-01-12
7* Real Madrid (Spain) 86 1961-09-19 1963-05-07
8 Celtic FC (Scotland) 83 1970-04-07 1971-11-02
9* Real Madrid (Spain) 80 2016-04-26 2017-10-31
10 AFC Ajax (Netherlands) 78 1995-05-30 1996-11-19
(I know you have Real 1955-60. I am counting 1961-63 as a match because
I suspect that they compute the Elo score starting on 1961.)
Five teams in common, including their top three teams and four of your
five top teams. Not bad.
Of course I expect you to be startled by the absence of South American
sides from both the lists I mentioned... :)
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella:
Possibly useful for this debate: what is the statistical answer?
Well, *one* statistical answer is the clubs that got the highest Elo
score (counting both domestic and international matches).
From http://worldclubratings.com/stats_centre/content/ranking.html :
1 Real Madrid (Spain) 2017-08-22 2165
2 Manchester City (England) 2024-09-17 2139
3 Bayern Muenchen (Germany) 2021-12-21 2130
4 FC Barcelona (Spain) 2016-04-05 2117
5 Liverpool FC (England) 2020-02-04 2088
6 Juventus (Italy) 2018-11-06 2064
7 Inter (Italy) 2025-04-15 2010
8 Arsenal FC (England) 2025-04-22 2000
9 Atletico Madrid (Spain) 2016-10-18 1996
10 Paris Saint Germain (France) 2017-11-28 1980
All recent sides, even though they compute Elo scores for all years
since before 1965 (see e.g. http://worldclubratings.com/rankings/
club_history/real-madrid-club-de-futbol-spain.html ). It may an
artifact of the Elo method.
Yep (assuming they use the same procedure as FIFA for knock-out matches): "FIFA’s Elo procedure, however, is not a zero-sum game. Teams that would lose points in knock-out games do not lose any points. The motivation to
do so is to protect the rating of teams advancing to knock-out stages.
This will lead to an inflation of points in the long run, increasing the overall mean of points slowly." http://worldclubratings.com/rankings/methods/elo_men.html#caveats-and- potential-weaknesses
I think that clubelo's rating doesn't have this feature, or it
is less prominent. The best teams in (European) history
according to clubelo are (http://clubelo.com/Stats)
1 ESP Barcelona '12 2012-04-15 2110 Pep Guardiola
2 GER Bayern '14 2014-03-26 2106 Pep Guardiola
3 ESP Real Madrid '14 2014-05-01 2099 Carlo Ancelotti
4 ENG Man City '23 2023-09-21 2093 Pep Guardiola
5 ENG Liverpool '20 2020-02-16 2091 Jürgen Klopp
6 ESP Real Madrid '61 1961-03-19 2069 Miguel Muñoz
7 GER Bayern '20 2020-11-08 2066 Hansi Flick
8 ITA Milan '93 1993-03-18 2052 Fabio Capello
9 HUN MTK '55 1955-10-20 2037 Tibor Kemény
10 ENG Chelsea '08 2008-10-23 2029 Luiz Felipe Scolari
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 2:02:36 +0000, milivella wrote:
Possibly useful for this debate: what is the statistical
answer?
Well, one statistical answer is the clubs that got the
highest Elo score (counting both domestic and international
matches).
From
http://worldclubratings.com/stats_centre/content/ranking.html
1 Real Madrid (Spain) 2017-08-22 2165
2 Manchester City (England) 2024-09-17 2139
3 Bayern Muenchen (Germany) 2021-12-21 2130
4 FC Barcelona (Spain) 2016-04-05 2117
5 Liverpool FC (England) 2020-02-04 2088
6 Juventus (Italy) 2018-11-06 2064
7 Inter (Italy) 2025-04-15 2010
8 Arsenal FC (England) 2025-04-22 2000
9 Atletico Madrid (Spain) 2016-10-18 1996
10 Paris Saint Germain (France) 2017-11-28 1980
Yes this list is guilty of recentism, so in all honesty I
think we can discount this.
[Snip]
I've been thinking about what MH said about including the year
teams won their domestic Championships to start off a run of
international dominance, and wondering why I include 1988 for
Milan but not 1971 for Independiente for instance. I checked
and found out that in 1987-88 Milan failed to reach the
quarter-final of the Italian Cup and got knocked out in the
2nd round of the UEFA Cup. I also checked Ajax 1970 and
Penarol 1959 and Independiente 1971, and the only ones that
won their League Championships anything like unusually
impressively was Ajax.
I officially propose the following as the unofficial
rss-sanctioned Top 10:
1 Real Madrid 1956-60
2 AC Milan 1989-96
3 Independiente 1972-75
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Bayern Munchen 1974-76
7 Ajax 1971-73
8 Sao Paulo 1992-94
9 Penarol 1960-66
10 Internazionale 1963-66
Note the slight alteration of Milan 1988-96 to Milan 1989-96.
Actually I'm not even 100% sure whether we should change it.
If anyone wants to change it back, or chop off 1996 and maybe
even 1995 from the other end, I won't strongly disagree.
I'm unsure which way round Bayern Munchen and Ajax should be
too. I can't remember what made me give the edge to Bayern
Munchen when I compiled my own list. So I certainly won't
strongly disagree if anyone wants to swap them around either.
Anyway I just wanted to remind yous of the deadline of the end
of the month. If there is a decent amount of further
discussion before then I'll extend the deadline.
Does everyone agree, or not-strongly-disagree, with my
proposed top 10?
Mark:
Does everyone agree, or not-strongly-disagree, with my
proposed top 10?
I propose to have a poll:
Mark:
Does everyone agree, or not-strongly-disagree, with my proposed top 10?
I propose to have a poll:
1. Either you provide a shortlist of sides or you ask people to nominate
them (I prefer the latter, but it probably requires a formal criterion
for the identity of sides, and you would have to disentangle overlaps
[e.g. A nominates Real Madrid 2015-18, B nominates Real Madrid
2011-16]).
2. You ask people to pick X sides from the shortlist.
As for your list, it looks fine to me. I know too little of South
American football to rate SA sides. And I remember Jonathan Wilson
saying in 2018 something like "people will see the three UCLs in a row
and forget that this was not a great side".
--
Cheers
milivella
Mark wrote:
I officially propose the following as the unofficial
rss-sanctioned Top 10:
1 Real Madrid 1956-60
2 AC Milan 1989-96
3 Independiente 1972-75
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Bayern Munchen 1974-76
7 Ajax 1971-73
8 Sao Paulo 1992-94
9 Penarol 1960-66
10 Internazionale 1963-66
Note the slight alteration of Milan 1988-96 to Milan 1989-96.
Actually I'm not even 100% sure whether we should change it.
If anyone wants to change it back, or chop off 1996 and maybe
even 1995 from the other end, I won't strongly disagree.
I'm unsure which way round Bayern Munchen and Ajax should be
too. I can't remember what made me give the edge to Bayern
Munchen when I compiled my own list. So I certainly won't
strongly disagree if anyone wants to swap them around either.
Anyway I just wanted to remind yous of the deadline of the end
of the month. If there is a decent amount of further
discussion before then I'll extend the deadline.
Does everyone agree, or not-strongly-disagree, with my
proposed top 10?
People have disagreed, but you still carry on. Just as you did
two years ago.
Of course that list is not correct, it's just your opinion. You
didn't even see most of those teams play, so how can you compare
them? Different countries, different eras of time... it's not
possible to really compare them. So you are just posting what
YOU think is the best 20 club sides cobbled together from the
Internet... with your usual anti-English bias thrown in.
It's your list and you are free to make - and post - as many
lists as you want... but your list does not represent the view
of RSS.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:40:13 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
It's your list and you are free to make - and post - as many
lists as you want... but your list does not represent the
view of RSS.
I have seen most of them play at least once actually. But
anyway I can compare them by reading about them and looking at
what they won etc.
If you strongly disagree that the list is correct, you're free
to say so, and free to say which teams should be in there
instead.
Mark wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:40:13 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
It's your list and you are free to make - and post - as many
lists as you want... but your list does not represent the
view of RSS.
I have seen most of them play at least once actually. But
anyway I can compare them by reading about them and looking at
what they won etc.
If you strongly disagree that the list is correct, you're free
to say so, and free to say which teams should be in there
instead.
You're missing the point. You can make lists as much as you want
and they are your lists and we can look at them and
agree/disagree. But why are you so obsessed with RSS approval?
You are entitled to favour the teams you like and/or make lists
about absolutely anything you want to. Your opinion is your own.
Nobody needs to sanction it.
I have already stated [as I did a few years ago] that I think
the Liverpool team that won English League titles and European
Cups in the late 1970's/early 1980's should be in a list of top
club teams somewhere... and I am no fan of Liverpool in any way
shape or form!
If you don't judge teams on proper trophies won, then how can
you judge them? And no, a one-off inter-continental trophy does
not trump domestic league titles/continental trophies.
But ultimately, your list is your list and it's fine if you
prefer to favour South American teams over English ones.
I have one more question (sorry if you have already answered it): which criterion are we using to determine which sides are "the best"?
absolute, or relative to their time? results, or influence on the
development of the sport?
--
Cheers
milivella
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
[Snip]
I have already stated [as I did a few years ago] that I think
the Liverpool team that won English League titles and
European Cups in the late 1970's/early 1980's should be in a
list of top club teams somewhere... and I am no fan of
Liverpool in any way shape or form!
Are you saying you do strongly disagree with the top 10 I've
proposed then? Who should be excluded? Should I just exclude
Inter as they're no.10 then?
If you don't judge teams on proper trophies won, then how can
you judge them? And no, a one-off inter-continental trophy
does not trump domestic league titles/continental trophies.
The Intercontinental Cup trumps domestic League titles.
And I think winning a World Championship trumps winning a
continental trophy too.
And Liverpool's record in the Intercontinental Cup
was about as hopeless as you can get.
But ultimately, your list is your list and it's fine if you
prefer to favour South American teams over English ones.
It's not my list, it's RSS's list.
Mark:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 2:17:57 +0000, milivella wrote:
Mark:
Does everyone agree, or not-strongly-disagree, with my proposed top 10? >>>I propose to have a poll:
1. Either you provide a shortlist of sides or you ask people to nominate >>> them (I prefer the latter, but it probably requires a formal criterion
for the identity of sides, and you would have to disentangle overlaps
[e.g. A nominates Real Madrid 2015-18, B nominates Real Madrid
2011-16]).
2. You ask people to pick X sides from the shortlist.
It's worth considering.
Thanks for replying.
"Voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd...).
Points are awarded based on rank (e.g., N points for 1st, N-1 for
2nd,... 1 point for Nth, where N is the number of items ranked). Items
are then ranked by total points."
Also, assuming a shortlist of 100 to select the top 10 sides, Gemini
suggests asking voters to rank their top 20 or 25 sides.
Was that Real Madrid 2014-18 he was referring to?
Yes, it was.
I think he wrote about it in several contexts, but see e.g. https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/05/23/real-madrid-champions-league-final-liverpool-zidane
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/may/27/real-madrid-truly-great-champions-league-liverpool
both framing the assessment of Real 2013-18 in the context of the
discussion of the great club sides of all time (!).
--
Cheers
milivella
On Thu, 1 May 2025 1:52:30 +0000, milivella wrote:
I have one more question (sorry if you have already answered it): which
criterion are we using to determine which sides are "the best"?
absolute, or relative to their time? results, or influence on the
development of the sport?
--
Absolute and results.
I also disagree that the criterion should be results only. I
agree with Jonathan Wilson that the degree to which a team
influenced the game is also a key ingredient of greatness.
That's why Guardiola's Barcelona is the number 1 team in my
eyes. As for the others in the pantheon, I can't really say
(or I don't want to...)
Quoting Gemini:
"""That makes sense. So if I do a vote, maybe the best thing would be to
2. **Rank Only the Top 10:**
* **Theory:** Voters only provide their top preferences, directly related to the desired output list size. Points could be awarded like 10
for 1st, 9 for 2nd,... 1 for 10th, with unranked items getting 0. Or,
using the full Borda scale, 99 for 1st, ..., 90 for 10th, and 0 for
others (or some average score for unranked - gets complex).
* **Pros:** Very easy for voters. Low burden, likely high
completion rate. Focuses attention on the target.
* **Cons:**
* **Severe Information Loss:** This fundamentally undermines
the Borda Count's strength, which is to reward broadly
acceptable/consensus candidates. An item consistently ranked 11th or
12th by *many* voters (a strong consensus candidate just outside the top
10) would receive *zero* points (using the simple 10-to-1 method or the 0-for-unranked method). It might score lower than an item ranked 10th by
a few voters but unranked by most.
* **Doesn't Differentiate Well:** It doesn't capture the difference between a voter's 11th choice and their 100th choice.
* **Weakens Borda:** Doesn't leverage the comparative nature
of the ranking effectively beyond the very top.
* **Verdict:** Simple but loses too much information and
compromises the integrity of the Borda method. **Not recommended.**
"""
Champions of the world and their continent in 3 consecutive years and
not a great side? Wow. I can see his point to some extent though.
This is, I guess, one of the most interesting debates related to ranking
the top sides of all time: one one hand, cup competitions are more
random (so they should count less than leagues); on the other hand, in
order to win an international cup (not to mention three!), you have to
win live-or-die legs/matches against top sides (so these legs/matches
should count more than league matches).
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:34:16 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 1:52:30 +0000, milivella wrote:
I have one more question (sorry if you have already answered it): which
criterion are we using to determine which sides are "the best"?
absolute, or relative to their time? results, or influence on the
development of the sport?
--
Absolute and results.
Of course it's relative to their time. A team from the 1960s or 1980s
would be completely obliterated (as in 20-0, or something like that) by
any professional team today.
I also disagree that the criterion should be results only. I agree with Jonathan Wilson that the degree to which a team influenced the game is
also a key ingredient of greatness. That's why Guardiola's Barcelona is
the number 1 team in my eyes. As for the others in the pantheon, I can't really say (or I don't want to...)
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
[Snip]
I have already stated [as I did a few years ago] that I think
the Liverpool team that won English League titles and
European Cups in the late 1970's/early 1980's should be in a
list of top club teams somewhere... and I am no fan of
Liverpool in any way shape or form!
Are you saying you do strongly disagree with the top 10 I've
proposed then? Who should be excluded? Should I just exclude
Inter as they're no.10 then?
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR LIST is a
PILE OF SHIT.
If you don't judge teams on proper trophies won, then how can
you judge them? And no, a one-off inter-continental trophy
does not trump domestic league titles/continental trophies.
The Intercontinental Cup trumps domestic League titles.
And this is why you lose the argument. As that is nonsense!
And I think winning a World Championship trumps winning a
continental trophy too.
No serious football fan believes that either!
And Liverpool's record in the Intercontinental Cup
was about as hopeless as you can get.
That is not a reason to say they were not a top club team.
They are an English team, so it's quite clear to everyone here
that in your opinion THAT is good enough.
On Sat, 3 May 2025 17:07:21 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:34:16 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 1:52:30 +0000, milivella wrote:
I have one more question (sorry if you have already answered it): which >>>> criterion are we using to determine which sides are "the best"?
absolute, or relative to their time? results, or influence on the
development of the sport?
--
Absolute and results.
Of course it's relative to their time. A team from the 1960s or 1980s
would be completely obliterated (as in 20-0, or something like that) by
any professional team today.
What makes you think that? I think it's extremely unlikely that
Palmeiras's current team would win by that kind of score against Real
Madrid 1956-60.
What does relative to their time mean anyway? Relative to other teams of their era?
I also disagree that the criterion should be results only. I agree with
Jonathan Wilson that the degree to which a team influenced the game is
also a key ingredient of greatness. That's why Guardiola's Barcelona is
the number 1 team in my eyes. As for the others in the pantheon, I can't
really say (or I don't want to...)
Best team means best at playing football. That's measured by results
surely?
What do you mean by influenced the game anyway? Tactical revolutions or something?
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR LIST is a
PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's reasonably
representative of the whole of RSS.
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR LIST
is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's reasonably
representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR LIST
is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's reasonably
representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, as I actually like a lot of
Mark's posts... I just didn't really know how to "disagree
strongly" enough to make a point that I was strongly disagreeing!
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
The difference in speed, athleticism, physical fitness, stamina, and
tactical organization between today's game and that of the 1960s is
night and day. And I will go one step further and say that even in terms
of ball control in close spaces, today's players are significantly
better than those of the past. I think I was being generous to 1950s
Real Madrid when I stopped at 20-0.
On 2025-05-05 14:36, Blueshirt wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR
LIST is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's
reasonably representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, as I actually like a lot of
Mark's posts... I just didn't really know how to "disagree
strongly" enough to make a point that I was strongly
disagreeing!
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
They are certainly not representative of my views at all.'
Far too much weight on single game, single tie, or very short
tournaments over winning the strongest domestic leagues.
And neglecting Liverpool 1976-1984 (or whatever you consider
to be their best period of 3, 5 or whatever years withing that
period) is inexcusable.
Mark:
On Sat, 3 May 2025 18:29:28 +0000, milivella wrote:
Quoting Gemini:That makes sense. So if I do a vote, maybe the best thing would be to
"""
2. **Rank Only the Top 10:**
* **Theory:** Voters only provide their top preferences, directly
related to the desired output list size. Points could be awarded like 10 >>> for 1st, 9 for 2nd,... 1 for 10th, with unranked items getting 0. Or,
using the full Borda scale, 99 for 1st, ..., 90 for 10th, and 0 for
others (or some average score for unranked - gets complex).
* **Pros:** Very easy for voters. Low burden, likely high
completion rate. Focuses attention on the target.
* **Cons:**
* **Severe Information Loss:** This fundamentally undermines
the Borda Count's strength, which is to reward broadly
acceptable/consensus candidates. An item consistently ranked 11th or
12th by *many* voters (a strong consensus candidate just outside the top >>> 10) would receive *zero* points (using the simple 10-to-1 method or the
0-for-unranked method). It might score lower than an item ranked 10th by >>> a few voters but unranked by most.
* **Doesn't Differentiate Well:** It doesn't capture the
difference between a voter's 11th choice and their 100th choice.
* **Weakens Borda:** Doesn't leverage the comparative nature
of the ranking effectively beyond the very top.
* **Verdict:** Simple but loses too much information and
compromises the integrity of the Borda method. **Not recommended.**
"""
ask everybody to make their nominations, then if we get,say, 33
nominations, ask people to rank them, voting for however many they want,
any number from 1 to 33, but encourage them to vote for more than 10
(assuming we're going for a top 10); and then give 33 points to
everyone's 1st choice, 32 to everyone's 2nd choice etc. Does that sound
like the best way of doing it?
I asked Gemini, and this is its reply:
Okay, let's break down this proposed method. It has several good
elements but also one key aspect that needs careful consideration
regarding how Borda Count typically works best.
Here's an evaluation:
1. **Nomination Phase:**
* **Pros:** Open nominations are democratic and help ensure
candidates aren't missed. Getting 33 candidates is a reasonable number – not too small, not overwhelmingly large for ranking.
* **Cons:** Might require light curation for duplicates or
clearly ineligible entries.
* **Verdict:** Good starting point.
2. **Ranking Phase (Voters rank 1 to 33):**
* **Pros:** Gives voters maximum flexibility. Someone who only
feels strongly about their Top 5 isn't forced to rank others they don't
know well. Someone knowledgeable can rank all 33.
* **Cons (Important):** This is where it deviates significantly
from the *spirit* of Borda Count and introduces potential distortions. Borda's strength is rewarding broad consensus by considering the
*entire* ranked list.
* **The Problem:** If Voter A ranks only their Top 5, and
Voter B ranks their Top 30:
* Voter A gives 33 pts to #1, 32 to #2, ..., 29 to #5.
All other 28 candidates get **0 points** from Voter A.
* Voter B gives 33 pts to #1, ..., 5 pts to #29, 4 pts to
#30. Only 3 candidates get **0 points** from Voter B.
* **The Distortion:** A candidate ranked 6th by Voter B gets
28 points. A candidate ranked 6th by Voter A gets 0 points (because they stopped ranking at 5). This means voters who submit shorter rankings effectively give *zero* support to candidates outside their top few,
even if they might prefer them over others ranked much lower by Voter B.
It disproportionately benefits candidates who make it into the top few
ranks of *any* ballot, compared to candidates consistently ranked in the middle (e.g., 10th-20th) by many voters. It slightly undermines the "consensus candidate" discovery aspect of Borda.
* **Verdict:** While flexible, this approach can skew results
compared to a standard Borda application where relative rankings across
the *whole* (or a fixed large portion) of the list are considered more equally.
3. **Encouraging Ranking > 10:**
* **Pros:** Mitigates the distortion somewhat by encouraging
voters to provide more ranking data. Acknowledges the goal is a Top 10.
* **Cons:** "Encouragement" is not enforcement. Many voters may
still choose to rank only a few.
* **Verdict:** Good intention, but may not overcome the inherent
issue of variable ranking lengths.
4. **Scoring (33 for 1st, 32 for 2nd, ... 1 for 33rd, 0 for
unranked):**
* **Pros:** This is the standard way to assign points in Borda
*if* everyone ranked all 33. Applying it here with 0 for unranked is the *simplest* way to handle partial ballots.
* **Cons:** As noted above, the "0 for unranked" combined with variable ranking length is the source of the potential distortion.
* **Verdict:** Correct point values for ranked items, but the
handling of unranked items in this flexible system has consequences.
**Is it the "Best" Way?**
It's a *reasonable* and *practical* way, especially if voter flexibility
is paramount. However, it's arguably **not the *methodologically purest*
or potentially *fairest* way** to implement Borda Count for finding a consensus Top 10.
**Alternative/Refined Approach (Closer to Borda Ideal):**
The method discussed previously is often preferred for rigour:
1. **Nomination Phase:** Keep as is (results in 33 candidates).
2. **Ranking Phase:** Ask voters to rank a **fixed number** of
candidates, larger than 10 but manageable. Given N=33, asking for **Top
15 or Top 20** seems appropriate.
* *Why?* This ensures every ballot contributes information about
the relative preference across the same range of ranks. A candidate
ranked 15th gets points consistently. It forces voters to differentiate within that Top 15/20 block.
3. **Scoring:** Use the Borda points (N=33 for 1st...).
* If ranking Top 20: 1st gets 33 pts, ..., 20th gets 14 pts. The
13 unranked get 0 pts *from that ballot*.
* This is still a partial ranking, but it's standardized. Every
ballot gives points down to the 20th rank (if provided).
**Conclusion:**
Your proposed method (flexible ranking length 1-33, Borda points 33-1, 0
for unranked) **is a workable system**. Its main advantage is voter flexibility. Its main disadvantage is that it can distort the Borda
results by allowing voters providing short rankings to implicitly give
zero points to many candidates, potentially harming consensus candidates ranked consistently in the middle pack.
The alternative (fixed ranking length, e.g., Top 20) is
**methodologically stronger** for Borda Count, as it gathers more standardized preference data across voters, giving a potentially fairer reflection of overall consensus.
**Recommendation:**
* If **simplicity and voter flexibility** are your absolute top
priorities, your proposed method is acceptable, but be aware of the
potential distortion. Clearly explain how points are awarded (especially
the 0 for unranked).
* If **methodological rigor and obtaining the best possible
"consensus" ranking** according to Borda principles are more important, asking everyone to rank a fixed number (like their Top 20 out of the 33)
is likely the better approach.
Yes, other rssers seem to over-emphasizing the 1st point. A round robinChampions of the world and their continent in 3 consecutive years and
not a great side? Wow. I can see his point to some extent though.
This is, I guess, one of the most interesting debates related to ranking >>> the top sides of all time: one one hand, cup competitions are more
random (so they should count less than leagues); on the other hand, in
order to win an international cup (not to mention three!), you have to
win live-or-die legs/matches against top sides (so these legs/matches
should count more than league matches).
format where everybody plays everybody else probably is a better way of
determining the best team though, so while I've got little doubt that a
World Championship > the championship of a continent > a domestic
Championship, from these discussions I am seeing that there's a smaller
difference than I might have previously thought and I may have been
over-emphasizing the 2nd point.
You have an open mind. I appreciate that (and hope to emulate you and
all the other open minds).
On 2025-05-05 14:36, Blueshirt wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR LIST
is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's reasonably
representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, as I actually like a lot of
Mark's posts... I just didn't really know how to "disagree
strongly" enough to make a point that I was strongly disagreeing!
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
They are certainly not representative of my views at all.'
Far too much weight on single game, single tie, or very short
tournaments over winning the strongest domestic leagues. And neglecting Liverpool 1976-1984 (or whatever you consider to be their best period of
3, 5 or whatever years withing that period) is inexcusable.
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR LIST
is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's reasonably
representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, as I actually like a lot of
Mark's posts... I just didn't really know how to "disagree
strongly" enough to make a point that I was strongly disagreeing!
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 0:23:37 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-05-05 14:36, Blueshirt wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR LIST
is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's reasonably
representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, as I actually like a lot of
Mark's posts... I just didn't really know how to "disagree
strongly" enough to make a point that I was strongly disagreeing!
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
They are certainly not representative of my views at all.'
Far too much weight on single game, single tie, or very short
tournaments over winning the strongest domestic leagues. And neglecting
Liverpool 1976-1984 (or whatever you consider to be their best period of
3, 5 or whatever years withing that period) is inexcusable.
You don't strongly disagree with the top 9 though do you?
Assuming you don't (and nobody else does) it's reasonably representative
of the whole of RSS isn't it?
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:36:00 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR
LIST is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's
reasonably representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, as I actually like a lot of
Mark's posts... I just didn't really know how to "disagree
strongly" enough to make a point that I was strongly
disagreeing!
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
But if nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it IS reasonably representative of RSS as a whole. My list isn't the same as
the (yet to be announced) RSS sanctioned list.
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:36:00 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:19:40 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:21:28 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Yes I very strongly disagree... in fact, I think YOUR
LIST is a PILE OF SHIT.
If nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it's
reasonably representative of the whole of RSS.
I’m not particularly interested in doing lists, which
I find a mostly pointless exercise, but the above
sounds like pretty strong disagreement to me.
I didn't mean it in a bad way, as I actually like a lot of
Mark's posts... I just didn't really know how to "disagree
strongly" enough to make a point that I was strongly
disagreeing!
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
But if nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it IS reasonably
representative of RSS as a whole. My list isn't the same as
the (yet to be announced) RSS sanctioned list.
But I have strongly disagreed with it, so does my opinion not
count then?!
It's your list. What you consider the best club teams of all
time, based on your criteria. Nobody has a problem with that at
all.
It's you trying to push your list as an RSS list that is the
issue, as a few people here have stated that they don't agree
with your list. But you are free to make lists all day long on
many subjects if that's what floats your boat.
But if nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it IS reasonably representative of RSS as a whole. My list isn't the same as the (yet to
be announced) RSS sanctioned list.
You don't strongly disagree with the top 9 though do you?
Assuming you don't (and nobody else does) it's reasonably representative
of the whole of RSS isn't it?
On Tue, 6 May 2025 19:16:19 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:36:00 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
But if nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it IS
reasonably representative of RSS as a whole. My list isn't
the same as the (yet to be announced) RSS sanctioned list.
But I have strongly disagreed with it, so does my opinion not
count then?!
It's your list. What you consider the best club teams of all
time, based on your criteria. Nobody has a problem with that
at all.
It's you trying to push your list as an RSS list that is the
issue, as a few people here have stated that they don't agree
with your list. But you are free to make lists all day long
on many subjects if that's what floats your boat.
What do you mean by it? I'm talking about the rss-sanctioned
list. There's 2 very big differences between the
rss-sanctioned list and my list.
My list was compiled about 2 years ago, and it contains 10
teams. The rss-sanctioned list doesn't even exist yet
(BECAUSE you strongly disagreed with my proposal for it), and
(again, because of the strong disagreement) is pretty much
guaranteed to contain less than 10 teams.
Clearly (at least, I can't think of a way of making it any
clearer) my list and the rss-sanctioned list are not the same
list.
So unless you think I've got 2 lists, the rss-sanctioned list
is not my list.
On 2025-05-06 08:27, Mark wrote:
You don't strongly disagree with the top 9 though do you?
Yes I do. Bayern should not be in there, for instance, due to poor
league performances during 2 of the 3 years they won the CL. For the
period you describe they were not demonstrably better than Borussia Moenchengladback in their (admittedly strong at that time and perhaps
the top league in the world) own league.
I could go on about some of the others. Not even convinced about Real
Madrid in the early years, since they were not winning their own league,
or even finishing second, during that period. Also the tournament was
new, some leagues did not enter or were still amateur. Bundesliga did
not even exist yet, some leagues did not send their actual champions
for obscure reasons (floodlights was one), and we will never know what
would have happened without the Munich disaster. I would still include
this legendary team in a top 10, but not really convinced they are top
2.
Assuming you don't (and nobody else does) it's reasonably representative
of the whole of RSS isn't it?
I very much doubt it. Others have suggested a far more democratic
process, other than having you make your own list (which as Blueshirt
states, you are perfectly entitled to do), and then dismissing other
peoples arguments while making one or two small concessions.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 14:27:27 +0000, Mark wrote:
You don't strongly disagree with the top 9 though do you?
Assuming you don't (and nobody else does) it's reasonably representative
of the whole of RSS isn't it?
I strongly disagree with the top 9.
Mark wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 19:16:19 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 20:36:00 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
My point is, and always will be, Mark's lists are Mark's
lists... they are not representative of RSS as a whole.
But if nobody strongly disagrees with it, then it IS
reasonably representative of RSS as a whole. My list isn't
the same as the (yet to be announced) RSS sanctioned list.
But I have strongly disagreed with it, so does my opinion not
count then?!
It's your list. What you consider the best club teams of all
time, based on your criteria. Nobody has a problem with that
at all.
It's you trying to push your list as an RSS list that is the
issue, as a few people here have stated that they don't agree
with your list. But you are free to make lists all day long
on many subjects if that's what floats your boat.
What do you mean by it? I'm talking about the rss-sanctioned
list. There's 2 very big differences between the
rss-sanctioned list and my list.
My list was compiled about 2 years ago, and it contains 10
teams. The rss-sanctioned list doesn't even exist yet
(BECAUSE you strongly disagreed with my proposal for it), and
(again, because of the strong disagreement) is pretty much
guaranteed to contain less than 10 teams.
Clearly (at least, I can't think of a way of making it any
clearer) my list and the rss-sanctioned list are not the same
list.
So unless you think I've got 2 lists, the rss-sanctioned list
is not my list.
But why do you need a RSS sanctioned list? A list is a list. If
you are happy with your list why do you need anyone/everyone to
agree with you? Personally I think Chelsea FC are the best club
team in the world and I couldn't give a toss who believed
otherwise! The historical stats might not back my opinion up but
if that's what I believe, then tough shit to all the nay-sayers.
If I was going for best club team from years gone by I would
probably go for Pep's Barcelona... but I wouldn't care if others
felt Cruyff's Ajax, Pele's Santos or Beckenbauer's Bayern were
more supreme. It's all subjective. Your opinions don't require
validation. You are free to believe what you want to believe.
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:25:43 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
But why do you need a RSS sanctioned list? A list is a list.
If you are happy with your list why do you need
anyone/everyone to agree with you? Personally I think
Chelsea FC are the best club team in the world and I
couldn't give a toss who believed otherwise! The historical
stats might not back my opinion up but if that's what I
believe, then tough shit to all the nay-sayers.
Because agreement is good. It's more fun to make it a
collaborative effort, it leads to more discussion, it's more
interesting, it's more informative, it's more likely to be an
accurate list.
Why DON'T you want to collaborate and produce a list that
(ideally) everyone agrees with, or (failing that) nobody
strongly disagrees with?
I posted my own list before. It led to more or less no
discussion. I'm not sure anyone replied at all.
If I was going for best club team from years gone by I would
probably go for Pep's Barcelona... but I wouldn't care if
others felt Cruyff's Ajax, Pele's Santos or Beckenbauer's
Bayern were more supreme. It's all subjective. Your opinions
don't require validation. You are free to believe what you
want to believe.
It's not all subjective. We all know Chelsea aren't the best
team in the world; that's an objective fact.
If you want to nominate Barcelona 2009-15 for the
number 1 spot, go for it. I probably wouldn't strongly
disagree, and I think there's a good chance nobody else
would either.
Mark wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 20:25:43 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
But why do you need a RSS sanctioned list? A list is a list.
If you are happy with your list why do you need
anyone/everyone to agree with you? Personally I think
Chelsea FC are the best club team in the world and I
couldn't give a toss who believed otherwise! The historical
stats might not back my opinion up but if that's what I
believe, then tough shit to all the nay-sayers.
Because agreement is good. It's more fun to make it a
collaborative effort, it leads to more discussion, it's more
interesting, it's more informative, it's more likely to be an
accurate list.
It's also something you will never get 100% agreement on. You
just can't compare club teams from different continents,
different strength domestic leagues and different eras of
football and say these ten clubs are the best club teams of all
time. It's still only subjective based on the criteria you
decided to use... others may prefer to use a different criteria
(etc.)
Why DON'T you want to collaborate and produce a list that
(ideally) everyone agrees with, or (failing that) nobody
strongly disagrees with?
People have disagreed with you, but it's your list so you don't
have to change it if they are the ten clubs you feel deserve to
be on your list.
I posted my own list before. It led to more or less no
discussion. I'm not sure anyone replied at all.
That should have told you all you needed to know.
If I was going for best club team from years gone by I would
probably go for Pep's Barcelona... but I wouldn't care if
others felt Cruyff's Ajax, Pele's Santos or Beckenbauer's
Bayern were more supreme. It's all subjective. Your opinions
don't require validation. You are free to believe what you
want to believe.
It's not all subjective. We all know Chelsea aren't the best
team in the world; that's an objective fact.
Wash your mouth out with soap and water, you heathen!
But what about when they were World Club Champions? Did that not
count? Surely that trophy had to mean something? They even beat
a South American team in the Final!
If you want to nominate Barcelona 2009-15 for the
number 1 spot, go for it. I probably wouldn't strongly
disagree, and I think there's a good chance nobody else
would either.
The FC Barcelona from that era are probably the best team I have
seen play (as in, in a stadium not on the TV!) so yes, I would
put them as No.1 on any list I made. I didn't see football in
the 1950's or 1960's so I cannot judge that Barcelona team in
comparison to the club teams of the past that the books or
people on the TV say were great. It's like comparing Apple and
Oranges.
On Mon, 5 May 2025 2:02:12 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:More evidence please. Chat GPT's response is some evidence, but I'm
The difference in speed, athleticism, physical fitness, stamina, and
tactical organization between today's game and that of the 1960s is
night and day. And I will go one step further and say that even in terms
of ball control in close spaces, today's players are significantly
better than those of the past. I think I was being generous to 1950s
Real Madrid when I stopped at 20-0.
Since we are into AI-generated answers (this is ChatGPT):
If FC Barcelona of the early 2010s (under Pep Guardiola, with players
like Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets, and Piqué) faced Real Madrid of the late 1950s (featuring legends like Di Stéfano, Puskás, Gento, and Kopa), the final score would likely be *very* lopsided in favor of Barcelona—something like **6–0 or 7–1**.
Here’s why:
* **Tactical evolution**: Modern tactics, pressing, and positional play
(like Barça’s tiki-taka) were decades ahead of what was practiced in the 1950s.
* **Fitness and conditioning**: The physical preparation of early-2010s players was on another level. Speed, stamina, and recovery were far
superior.
* **Pace of play**: Barcelona would likely dominate possession and
simply overwhelm Madrid with quick passing and movement.
* **Technology and training**: Advances in sports science, nutrition,
and game analysis give the modern team a massive edge.
Even though the 1950s Madrid team had incredible talent for its era,
they would struggle to even get the ball or defend effectively under
modern conditions. It would be like pitting Olympic athletes from 1956 against their 2012 counterparts.
Would you like a similar comparison involving national teams or a
different club matchup?
Shuffling the teams around a bit in response to recent feedback, how
about the following top 9?
1 AC Milan 1989-96
2 Independiente 1972-75
3 Real Madrid 1956-60
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Ajax 1971-73
7 Sao Paulo 1992-94
8 Penarol 1960-66
9 Internazionale 1963-66
How's that looking?
Should Barcelona be higher? Should Real Madrid 1956-60 be lower?
I'm feeling unsure about the change to Milan 1989-96 too. People seem to
put more weight than me on domestic Championships and, as milivella
said, 1988 was the beginning of the era with the arrival of Sacchi,
Gullit and van Basten. Should I change it back to 1988?
Oh and should Torino be in there somewhere? Milivella mentioned them.
Shuffling the teams around a bit in response to recent feedback, how
about the following top 9?
1 AC Milan 1989-96
2 Independiente 1972-75
3 Real Madrid 1956-60
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Ajax 1971-73
7 Sao Paulo 1992-94
8 Penarol 1960-66
9 Internazionale 1963-66
How's that looking?
Should Barcelona be higher? Should Real Madrid 1956-60 be lower?
I'm feeling unsure about the change to Milan 1989-96 too. People seem to
put more weight than me on domestic Championships and, as milivella
said, 1988 was the beginning of the era with the arrival of Sacchi,
Gullit and van Basten. Should I change it back to 1988?
Oh and should Torino be in there somewhere? Milivella mentioned them.
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1995
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1960-1965
6. Real Madrid 2014-2018
7. Independiente 1971-1975
8. Liverpool 1976-1985
9. Penarol 1960-1966
10. Juventus 1977-1986 (yes, I'm biased, so what?)
On Tue, 6 May 2025 1:34:05 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 2:02:12 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:More evidence please. Chat GPT's response is some evidence, but I'm
The difference in speed, athleticism, physical fitness, stamina, and
tactical organization between today's game and that of the 1960s is
night and day. And I will go one step further and say that even in terms >>> of ball control in close spaces, today's players are significantly
better than those of the past. I think I was being generous to 1950s
Real Madrid when I stopped at 20-0.
still not convinced. And chatGPT can sometimes be wrong.
OK, you've broken me down, I'll play.
1. Barcelona 2009-2015 is without a doubt above Milan 1988-1996. Three European Cups in the same time span and unquestioned domestic dominance. Also, while Sacchi's Milan (1988-1991) was indeed revolutionary in the
way they played, Capello's Milan (1992-1996) was an extremely
conservative, bordering on anti-football, side.
2. Sorry, but Independiente is way too high. 4 consecutive Libertadores
is indeed impressive, but they didn't win a single domestic title in the
time span you indicated, and went 1-2 against the Europeans in the Intercontinental Cup. That includes a 1-4 aggregate pasting By Johann Cruyff's Ajax. So, clearly, Ajax > Independiente. Also against
Independiente is the absence of any tactical novelty or bona-fide
historical superstars. They maybe make the top-10, but barely.
3. Sao Paulo 1992-1994 has no business being there. Two continental championships but zero domestic honors, best player the forgettable Rai. Might as well put Nottingham Forest in there.
4. Penarol is also likely overrated. They did have a good run in the
1960s both at the continental and domestic level, but it's difficult to assess the value of the latter in a two-team league.
4. If I had to pick another South American team, I'd go with Santos 1960-1965. Two continental championships, dominant dmestically. And
Pele, of course. That's enough to put them above Independiente in my
book.
5. As has been said by many before, Liverpool 1977-1985 should
absolutely be there. You are making a joke of this whole thing by
stubbornly refusing to acknowledge their greatness. (I don't put them
very high on the list because of no tactical novelty/no historical superstars...sorry Dalglish stans)
6. Among teams from the distant past, one could include Torino
1945-1949, Honved of the early 1950s, Juventus of the early 1930s,
Arsenal of the early 1930s, River's La Maquina of the 1940s. But what do
we really know?
So here's my list:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1995
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1960-1965
6. Real Madrid 2014-2018
7. Independiente 1971-1975
8. Liverpool 1976-1985
9. Penarol 1960-1966
10. Juventus 1977-1986 (yes, I'm biased, so what?)
If you really want to have a "consensus" list (and why "top two"
anyway?) you need to take a leaf out of milivellas' book and allow
everyone to nominate a certain number of teams, providing justification
for each choice (I would say 3 to 5 nominees per person). Then allow
people to vote by ranked ballot on the nominees.
Before that the minimum and maximum length of the period of dominance
would have to be agreed on (I would say minimum of 3, maximum of 6).
On Sat, 10 May 2025 15:24:07 +0000, MH wrote:
If you really want to have a "consensus" list (and why "top two"
anyway?) you need to take a leaf out of milivellas' book and allow
everyone to nominate a certain number of teams, providing justification
for each choice (I would say 3 to 5 nominees per person). Then allow
people to vote by ranked ballot on the nominees.
Before that the minimum and maximum length of the period of dominance
would have to be agreed on (I would say minimum of 3, maximum of 6).
Problems with a vote:
1 I think we're nearly at a universally not-strongly-disagreed-about
list (although I could be wrong), so I'm not sure it's worth bothering
now.
2 As we did seem to be nearly at a "consensus", people might have
stopped reading this thread and assumed the top 9 that was on the verge
of being declared the top 9 was the final list, and they might miss any announcement of a vote (or am I worrying too much about that
possibility?)
3 The list we get by voting might contain teams that people strongly
disagree about. I suppose we could reduce the risk of that by excluding
teams that have already been rejected from the vote though.
It's top 2 in the subject line because I anticipated us not being able
to do a top 10 that nobody strongly disagreed with. We're on course for
a top 9 that nobody strongly disagrees with though; we're not doing
badly.
On Sat, 10 May 2025 14:15:47 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1995
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1960-1965
6. Real Madrid 2014-2018
7. Independiente 1971-1975
8. Liverpool 1976-1985
9. Penarol 1960-1966
Replace Bayern 1971-1976 (three domestic titles followed by the three Continental Cups, plus Beckenbauer and Gerd Muller) instead of Penarol,
who even mark admitted shouldn't be in here.
10. Juventus 1977-1986 (yes, I'm biased, so what?)
Juventus still ahead of Penarol.
Mark:
Shuffling the teams around a bit in response to recent feedback, how
about the following top 9?
1 AC Milan 1989-96
2 Independiente 1972-75
3 Real Madrid 1956-60
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Ajax 1971-73
7 Sao Paulo 1992-94
8 Penarol 1960-66
9 Internazionale 1963-66
How's that looking?
[Not commenting on this, as I am not qualified. My feeling is just that
Milan and Barca's ranges are too broad---I don't feel Milan 1996 being
the same team as Milan 1989, and the same applies to Barca. I also feel
that Barca 09-15 was significantly better than Real 14-18; seeing them
close feels wrong.]
On 2025-05-11 08:08, Mark wrote:
Problems with a vote:
1 I think we're nearly at a universally not-strongly-disagreed-about
list (although I could be wrong), so I'm not sure it's worth bothering
now.
Rubbish. Mark, Futbolmetrix and I have all expressed disagreement.
I think it would be better if we end up with a list that nobody strongly disagrees with.2 As we did seem to be nearly at a "consensus", people might have
stopped reading this thread and assumed the top 9 that was on the verge
of being declared the top 9 was the final list, and they might miss any
announcement of a vote (or am I worrying too much about that
possibility?)
3 The list we get by voting might contain teams that people strongly
disagree about. I suppose we could reduce the risk of that by excluding
teams that have already been rejected from the vote though.
I don't necessarily agree with everyone's votes on the RSS player of the year, organized by Milivella, but I accept the methods and the voting process.
A ranked vote (say, once everyone has had a chance to nominate and make arguments in favour of their top five) where everyone ranks their top 5 again, is a democratic process.
On Sat, 10 May 2025 14:15:47 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
3. Sao Paulo 1992-1994 has no business being there. Two continental
championships but zero domestic honors, best player the forgettable Rai.
Might as well put Nottingham Forest in there.
And 2 Intercontinental Cups (and they beat Barcelona's dream team, and
Milan 1988-96 to win them). And a Copa CONMEBOL and a Recopa. And came
within a penalty shoot-out of winning the Copa Libertadores for a 3rd consecutive year.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 15:17:53 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-05-11 08:08, Mark wrote:
Problems with a vote:
1 I think we're nearly at a universally not-strongly-disagreed-about
list (although I could be wrong), so I'm not sure it's worth bothering
now.
Rubbish. Mark, Futbolmetrix and I have all expressed disagreement.
That's only 3 of us. How few does it have to be for us to be close to not-strong-disagreement?
I think it would be better if we end up with a list that nobody strongly disagrees with.
2 As we did seem to be nearly at a "consensus", people might have
stopped reading this thread and assumed the top 9 that was on the verge
of being declared the top 9 was the final list, and they might miss any
announcement of a vote (or am I worrying too much about that
possibility?)
3 The list we get by voting might contain teams that people strongly
disagree about. I suppose we could reduce the risk of that by excluding
teams that have already been rejected from the vote though.
I don't necessarily agree with everyone's votes on the RSS player of the
year, organized by Milivella, but I accept the methods and the voting
process.
A ranked vote (say, once everyone has had a chance to nominate and make
arguments in favour of their top five) where everyone ranks their top 5
again, is a democratic process.
Mark:
How many players did Barcelona have in 2009 that were still there in
2015? I think Milan had at least 5 or 6 that were in the squad for the
whole of 1988-96.
Milan 1988-89:
GK G. Galli
DF Tassotti - Baresi - Costacurta - Maldini
MF Donadoni - Colombo - Rijkaard - Ancelotti
FW Gullit - van Basten
Also: Evani
Milan 1995-96:
GK Rossi
DF Panucci - Baresi* - Costacurta* - Maldini*
MF Eranio/Donadoni* - Desailly - Albertini - Savicevic
FW Weah - Baggio
Also: Simone
3.5 players in common
---
Barca 2008-09:
GK V. Valdes
DF Dani Alves - Pique - Puyol - Abidal
MF Xavi - Yaya Toure - Iniesta
FW Messi - Eto'o - Henry
Also: Keita - Busquets - Marquez
Barca 2015-16:
GK ter Stegen
DF Dani Alves* - Pique* - Mascherano - Alba
MF Rakitic - Busquets* - Iniesta*
FW Messi* - Suarez - Neymar
Also: Sergi Roberto - Bravo
4.5 players in comoon
--
Cheers
milivella
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:35:35 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 14:15:47 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
3. Sao Paulo 1992-1994 has no business being there. Two continental
championships but zero domestic honors, best player the forgettable Rai. >>> Might as well put Nottingham Forest in there.
And 2 Intercontinental Cups (and they beat Barcelona's dream team, and
Milan 1988-96 to win them). And a Copa CONMEBOL and a Recopa. And came
within a penalty shoot-out of winning the Copa Libertadores for a 3rd
consecutive year.
I've just checked. It was actually 2 Recopas.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:35:35 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 14:15:47 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
So here's my list:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1995
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1960-1965
6. Real Madrid 2014-2018
7. Independiente 1971-1975
8. Liverpool 1976-1985
9. Penarol 1960-1966
10. Juventus 1977-1986 (yes, I'm biased, so what?)
I fairly strongly disagree with Independiente being that low.
I strongly disagree with Independiente being anywhere near the top 5.
Now, if you strongly disagree about Independiente being outside of the
top 5, we're stuck.
On Sun, 11 May 2025 13:35:35 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 14:15:47 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
So here's my list:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1995
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1960-1965
6. Real Madrid 2014-2018
7. Independiente 1971-1975
8. Liverpool 1976-1985
9. Penarol 1960-1966
10. Juventus 1977-1986 (yes, I'm biased, so what?)
I fairly strongly disagree with Independiente being that low.
I strongly disagree with Independiente being anywhere near the top 5.
Now, if you strongly disagree about Independiente being outside of the
top 5, we're stuck.
Mark:
I suggested being lazy
and making do with a minimum of 5 in the whole squad and nobody's
disagreed with me.
I think that:
- First teams makes more sense.
- It's not something you can quantify anyway. Sometimes changing the
manager and a couple of key players is enough to change the nature of a
team. One of my first posts on RSS was a question along the lines of
"How come Barca is so much better this season (2008-09)? They sold their
best players (Ronaldinho and Deco) and bought no great names!" This
question tells you more about my ignorance than anything else, but it's
a fact that 8.5 of the ideal starting XI was the same as in the previous year:
Barca 2007-08:
GK V. Valdes*
DF Zambrotta - Puyol* - Milito - Abidal*
MF Xavi* - Yaya Toure* - Iniesta*
FW Messi* - Henry* - Ronaldinho/Eto'o*
Also: Bojan - Gudjohnsen
--
Cheers
milivella
But seriously, you should read this article on the evolution of football
over 50 years of World Cup history:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3758704/2022/11/20/world-cup-tactics-data-history/
On Sun, 11 May 2025 11:38:43 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
But seriously, you should read this article on the evolution
of football over 50 years of World Cup history:
I just tried to read that but it wouldn't let me read it
without subscribing and paying.
Is that what a paywall is?
I fairly strongly disagree with Independiente being that low.
I strongly disagree with Independiente being anywhere near the top 5.
Now, if you strongly disagree about Independiente being outside of the
top 5, we're stuck.
No. 6 is outside the top 5. Is that low enough, or do you strongly
disagree with them even being that high? They did have Miguel Ángel
Santoro, José Omar Pastoriza, and Ricardo Bochini playing for them. They could possibly be described as superstars, if the lack of superstars is bothering you.
And are you OK with Sao Paulo at no. 9?
On Tue, 13 May 2025 19:19:24 +0000, Mark wrote:
I fairly strongly disagree with Independiente being that low.
I strongly disagree with Independiente being anywhere near the top 5.
Now, if you strongly disagree about Independiente being outside of the
top 5, we're stuck.
No. 6 is outside the top 5. Is that low enough, or do you strongly
disagree with them even being that high? They did have Miguel Ángel
Santoro, José Omar Pastoriza, and Ricardo Bochini playing for them. They
could possibly be described as superstars, if the lack of superstars is
bothering you.
It was more a point about the impossibility of making a list that
"nobody strongly disagrees about." People have divergent opinions, and
if I say "I strongly disagree about Independiente being in the top 6"
while you say "I strongly disagree about Independiente being outside the
top 6", we are stuck.
You're also making things more difficult for yourself by wanting a
ranked list, not just a list of the top N teams.
And are you OK with Sao Paulo at no. 9?
No. Nottingham Forest. Bring on Bordon!
Mark:
- I am not sure what "1988" and "2009" mean in your notation: 1987-88 or 1988-89? 2008-09 or 2009-10? I suspect/hope the former in both cases,
because Milan's era started in 1987-88 (I mean on the field---Berlusconi bought the club in 1986, and that was the Big Bang of that side), and
Barca's in 2008-09. But, when I see "1988-96", I think: 1988-89 +
1989-90 + ... + 1995-96.
--
Cheers
milivella
milivella:
- If I had more time, I would find it fun to look for sides
that have five players in common in their squads but nobody
would consider "the same side". I am a contrarian like
that. :)
This one has all the criteria to be considered! :D
Manchester United from 1999-2000 to 2010-2011
Players in common:
- Gary Neville
- Ryan Giggs
- Paul Scholes
- Wes Brown
- John O'Shea
Trophies:
- Intercontinental trophies: 2
- Top continental trophies: 1
- National leagues: 7
- National cups: 1+3
- National supercups: 4
On Sat, 10 May 2025 13:44:20 +0000, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 6 May 2025 1:34:05 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 2:02:12 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:More evidence please. Chat GPT's response is some evidence, but I'm
The difference in speed, athleticism, physical fitness, stamina, and
tactical organization between today's game and that of the 1960s is
night and day. And I will go one step further and say that even in terms >>>> of ball control in close spaces, today's players are significantly
better than those of the past. I think I was being generous to 1950s
Real Madrid when I stopped at 20-0.
still not convinced. And chatGPT can sometimes be wrong.
Of course. The other piece of evidence should be our own eyes: if you
don't notice the significant difference in speed and athleticism between todays's players and those from 50 years ago, I would recommend a pair
of eyeglasses.
But seriously, you should read this article on the evolution of football
over 50 years of World Cup history:
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3758704/2022/11/20/world-cup-tactics-data-history/
One notable snippet:
"Between 1966 and 2018, the average time between receiving a pass and
playing one fell by almost 20 per cent, from 3.1 seconds to 2.6. More
time on the ball at early tournaments meant more space, and ball
carriers in the 1960s and ’70s took advantage by gobbling up free
yardage before a defender closed them down. It’s the first thing you’ll notice if you flip on an old game — ‘Why is everyone standing around off the ball like they are Paris Saint-Germain’s front three?’."
Now, the European nominees would be these:
Liverpool 1975-1984
214-102-62 (70.1 win%) in the league (7 titles), 4 Champions' Cups, 1
UEFA Cup, 4 league cups
Manchester United 1992-2003
269-101-60 (74.3 win%) in the league (8 titles), 1 Champions League, 1 Intercontinental, 3 national cups
Manchester City 2017-2024
202-32-32 (82.0 win%) in the league (6 titles), 1 Champions League, 1
FIFA CWC, 2 national cups, 4 league cups
Bayern München 2012-2023
282-54-38 (82.6 win%) in the league (11 titles), 2 Champions Leagues, 2
FIFA CWCs, 5 national cups
Internazionale 1962-1966
84-39-14 (75.5 win%) in the league (3 titles), 2 Champions' Cups, 2 Intercontinental
AC Milan 1987-1996
170-97-35 (72.4 win%) in the league (5 titles), 3 Champions' Cups/
League, 2 Intercontinental
Juventus 2011-2020
251-57-34 (81.7 win%) in the league (9 titles), 4 national cups
Real Madrid 1960-1969
181-54-35 (77.0 win%) in the league (8 titles), 2 Champions Leagues, 1 Intercontinental, 1 national cup
Barcelona 2008-2016
234-43-26 (84.3 win%) in the league (6 titles), 3 Champions Leagues, 3
FIFA CWCs, 4 national cups
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Mark wrote:
On Sun, 11 May 2025 11:38:43 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/3758704/2022/11/20/world-cup-tactics-data-history/
But seriously, you should read this article on the evolution
of football over 50 years of World Cup history:
I just tried to read that but it wouldn't let me read it
without subscribing and paying.
Try using the 'reader' option on your web browser...
Is that what a paywall is?
Yes.
I officially propose this as the unofficial rss-sanctioned Top 9 best
ever club teams:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1961-1965
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Internazionale 1963-1966
I've made 2 alterations to the years. I've changed Milan back to
1988-96, and I've changed Santos back to 1961-65. Other than that I've
left them as Futbolmetrix chose.
Does anyone strongly disagree with this list?
If nobody strongly disagrees by May 28, I'll declare this the final
list.
Is everyone OK with this list then? Just over 3 days to say if
anyone strongly disagrees with it.
OK, be honest. Assuming nobody does strongly disagree with it,
is this reasonably representative of the views of rssers in
general?
What do you honestly think?
Mark wrote:
Is everyone OK with this list then? Just over 3 days to say if
anyone strongly disagrees with it.
Have I got to swear again? On a Sunday? Do you want me to burn
in hell?
OK, be honest. Assuming nobody does strongly disagree with it,
is this reasonably representative of the views of rssers in
general?
As a regular of RSS it wouldn't represent my opinion, for
reasons given many, many, times... but I am only one person.
What do you honestly think?
As "Mark's Best Club Sides of All Time" list it works fine...
On 2025-05-25 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
Is everyone OK with this list then? Just over 3 days to say if
anyone strongly disagrees with it.
Have I got to swear again? On a Sunday? Do you want me to burn
in hell?
OK, be honest. Assuming nobody does strongly disagree with it,
is this reasonably representative of the views of rssers in
general?
As a regular of RSS it wouldn't represent my opinion, for
reasons given many, many, times... but I am only one person.
It does not represent my opinion at all. I vehemently disagree as I have stated multiple times.
If you want a consensus, I have proposed in this thread a more
democratic way of doing it. Open nominations, ranked vote etc.
Plus I think it should be divided into two pools "Europe" and "rest of
the world".
I think it works better as Futbolmetrix's best club sides of all time.
What do you honestly think?
As "Mark's Best Club Sides of All Time" list it works fine...
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:58:21 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-05-25 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
Is everyone OK with this list then? Just over 3 days to say if
anyone strongly disagrees with it.
Have I got to swear again? On a Sunday? Do you want me to burn
in hell?
OK, be honest. Assuming nobody does strongly disagree with it,
is this reasonably representative of the views of rssers in
general?
As a regular of RSS it wouldn't represent my opinion, for
reasons given many, many, times... but I am only one person.
It does not represent my opinion at all. I vehemently disagree as I have
stated multiple times.
But you haven't stated that you strongly disagree with the latest
proposal for the top 9. Are you saying you do now? Please will you
confirm by May 28?
If you want a consensus, I have proposed in this thread a more
democratic way of doing it. Open nominations, ranked vote etc.
Plus I think it should be divided into two pools "Europe" and "rest of
the world".
I'm not sure it is necessarily more democratic, but OK.
How many people feel strongly that we should have a vote on it? Anyone
who feels strongly that we should have a vote, please say so by May 29.
If enough people say they do, I'll probably organize a vote, if it isn't
a bit late to have one now.
I think it works better as Futbolmetrix's best club sides of all time.
What do you honestly think?
As "Mark's Best Club Sides of All Time" list it works fine...
If you compare my proposal to my list and then compare it to
Futbolmetrix's list, I think you'll find it's a lot more similar to Futbolmetrix's list. (As long as noone strongly disagrees with my
proposal for the top 9 that's OK though.) I'm not sure that it even
work's that well as Futbolmetrix's best club sides of all time though.
It's OUR list.
On 25.05.2025 22:38, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 13:58:21 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-05-25 07:16, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
What do you honestly think?
As "Mark's Best Club Sides of All Time" list it works
fine...
I think it works better as Futbolmetrix's best club sides of
all time. If you compare my proposal to my list and then
compare it to Futbolmetrix's list, I think you'll find it's
a lot more similar to Futbolmetrix's list. (As long as noone
strongly disagrees with my proposal for the top 9 that's OK
though.) I'm not sure that it even work's that well as
Futbolmetrix's best club sides of all time though. It's OUR
list.
I strongly disagree that we need a list.
What do yous think?
On 2025-05-25 14:38, Mark wrote:
But you haven't stated that you strongly disagree with the latest
proposal for the top 9. Are you saying you do now? Please will you
confirm by May 28?
YES ! I disagree. My comments have been ignored, and the list is too
South America centric, and places way too much weight on one off matches
or two legged ties, and indeed also on knock out tournaments.
How many people feel strongly that we should have a vote on it? Anyone
who feels strongly that we should have a vote, please say so by May 29.
I don't feel strongly that we NEED to have a list or elect the top team
of all time or best two. It is not terribly relevant, and there are
people more qualified than any of us who might come up with a much
different list.
However, I will participate in any vote, and even set up what I think
are logical criteria for such a vote.
On 2025-05-26 11:52, Mark wrote:
Anyway are you saying you do feel strongly that we should
have a vote then?
If you wish to present a list as an RSS list, then it should
be voted on just as Milivella's annual RSS best players and so
on are.
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:42:08 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-05-25 14:38, Mark wrote:
What comments have I ignored?But you haven't stated that you strongly disagree with the latest
proposal for the top 9. Are you saying you do now? Please will you
confirm by May 28?
YES ! I disagree. My comments have been ignored, and the list is too
South America centric, and places way too much weight on one off matches
or two legged ties, and indeed also on knock out tournaments.
said they were too high, and I've kicked Bayern Munchen out because you strongly disagreed with them being included. I'm not aware of any other comments you've made that would have changed anything. I haven't
deliberately ignored anything anyone's said.
How much weight should be given to World Club Championships, continental championships, and domestic championships relative to each other? We've
not discussed that.
Which teams do you strongly disagree with? I'm not sure how to adjust
the list in the light of what you've said above. Can you be more
specific about what changes should be made to stop you strongly
disagreeing with the top 9?
I don't agree that it's too South America centric. Wouldn't you expect
it to be about 50% European teams and 50% South American teams?
latest proposal has 6 European teams and 3 South American teams.
How many people feel strongly that we should have a vote on it? Anyone
who feels strongly that we should have a vote, please say so by May 29.
I don't feel strongly that we NEED to have a list or elect the top team
of all time or best two. It is not terribly relevant, and there are
people more qualified than any of us who might come up with a much
different list.
However, I will participate in any vote, and even set up what I think
are logical criteria for such a vote.
Why are you and Werner (more Werner than you) saying we don't need a
list? I think it's very relevant.
Anyway are you saying you do feel strongly that we should have a vote
then?
On 2025-05-26 11:52, Mark wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2025 21:42:08 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-05-25 14:38, Mark wrote:What comments have I ignored?
But you haven't stated that you strongly disagree with the latest
proposal for the top 9. Are you saying you do now? Please will you
confirm by May 28?
YES ! I disagree. My comments have been ignored, and the list is too
South America centric, and places way too much weight on one off matches >>> or two legged ties, and indeed also on knock out tournaments.
Liverpool's claim to be on the list of top 10 for sure. I am not the
only one who has repeatedly asserted this.
I've moved Real Madrid down because you
said they were too high, and I've kicked Bayern Munchen out because you
strongly disagreed with them being included. I'm not aware of any other
comments you've made that would have changed anything. I haven't
deliberately ignored anything anyone's said.
How much weight should be given to World Club Championships, continental
championships, and domestic championships relative to each other? We've
not discussed that.
Sustained success in the top leagues* (assuming they are truly national leagues and involve at least double round robin play, better if the
league titles are usually hotly contested - not one horse or two horse
races) should be the most important criterion. Success in the
Libertadores or European Cup should be secondary to that but still
important. Other trophies like domestic cups, cup winners cup, UEFA cup would be lower than that but still taken into consideration (after all
there were years when the field in the UEFA cup actually looked stronger
than that in the European CUp back in the old days). Because the modern champions league in Europe involves more teams from each of the
strongest leagues, and a round robin component it probably deserves more weight that the old European cup.
Charity shields, Supercups, Intercontinental cups and the like should be weighted close to zero.
*Top leagues = identifiable by high coefficients when such exist, and
also by regularly winning or appearing in finals of continental
competitions.
Eg. English league won 6 European Cups in a row 1977-1982. and 7/8 1977
to 1984. Also won UEFA cup in 1976, 1981, 1984, and CWC in 1985. Those
wins included 6 different teams.
Which teams do you strongly disagree with? I'm not sure how to adjust
the list in the light of what you've said above. Can you be more
specific about what changes should be made to stop you strongly
disagreeing with the top 9?
I don't agree that it's too South America centric. Wouldn't you expect
it to be about 50% European teams and 50% South American teams?
No, because domestic championships in many SA countries were a bit of a
hodge podge and in some cases still are. Brazil boycotted the
Libertadores for several years, apparently due to perceived cono sur brutality, and so on.
Also because for the last 30-35 years it has been quite clear that most
of the best South American players have been playing on teams based in Europe.
And finally because there was no reliable way to compare the relative strengths of the leagues, given the nature and timing of
intercontinental matchups and the cumbersome useless World Club Cup.
We tried to agree on a top 10 before and couldn't agree. We managed a
top 10 national teams that no one strongly disagreed with and a top 5
women's national teams and a top 1 women's club side though. And we
haven't really had any very interesting discussions like this since the >google groups era. So I thought we might as well try this again and see
if we can come up with at least a top 2 or 3 or 4 that nobody strongly >disagrees with.
So to start the discussion off, here's who I think the top 10 are:
1 Real Madrid 1956-60
2 AC Milan 1988-96
3 Independiente 1972-75
4 Barcelona 2009-15
5 Real Madrid 2014-18
6 Bayern Munchen 1974-76
7 Ajax 1971-73
8 Sao Paulo 1992-94
9 Penarol 1960-66
10 Internazionale 1963-66
Santos 1961-65 are the other team I'd say are worth considering.
What do yous think?
I'll settle this ginormous thread:
The two best teams of all time are Stoke and Wrexham.
I figured you'd go for best team of all time per number of inhabitants
and nominate Mj�llby.
Can we have some clarification about whether there's any strong
disagreement about the latest proposal for a top NINE please?
If anyone strongly disagrees with the proposal for a top NINE, please
say so stating which team (or teams) you strongly disagree about, and
whether they should be in, out, higher or lower, by June 15.
Can we have some clarification about whether there's any strong
disagreement about the latest proposal for a top NINE please?
If anyone strongly disagrees with the proposal for a top NINE,
please say so stating which team (or teams) you strongly
disagree about, and whether they should be in, out, higher or
lower, by June 15.
Deadline remains in place whether anyone else says they
strongly disagree or not, until further notice. (Ie don't
assume I'm going to change the deadline just because someone
else has strongly disagreed.)
If nobody strongly disagrees AND makes it clear which team
they strongly disagree about etc by June 15, the latest
proposal will be declared the final list, unless I decide to
have a vote on it.
And remember, it's a top NINE now; it seems possible there's
been some confusion about that.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:52:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
Can we have some clarification about whether there's any
strong disagreement about the latest proposal for a top NINE
please?
Yes, there is. People have argued multiple times that
Liverpool should be included.
Mark wrote:
Can we have some clarification about whether there's any strong
disagreement about the latest proposal for a top NINE please?
If anyone strongly disagrees with the proposal for a top NINE,
please say so stating which team (or teams) you strongly
disagree about, and whether they should be in, out, higher or
lower, by June 15.
IIRC, people did disagree.
Deadline remains in place whether anyone else says they
strongly disagree or not, until further notice. (Ie don't
assume I'm going to change the deadline just because someone
else has strongly disagreed.)
Just change it to "Mark's All-time Best Club Sides" and nobody
will argue with you!
If nobody strongly disagrees AND makes it clear which team
they strongly disagree about etc by June 15, the latest
proposal will be declared the final list, unless I decide to
have a vote on it.
From what I have seen people have strongly disagreed with your
proposal and given their reasons... but you carry on anyway!
<shrugs>
And remember, it's a top NINE now; it seems possible there's
been some confusion about that.
No, I don't think we are the ones confused.
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:52:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
Can we have some clarification about whether there's any strong
disagreement about the latest proposal for a top NINE please?
Yes, there is. People have argued multiple times that Liverpool should
be included.
If anyone strongly disagrees with the proposal for a top NINE, please
say so stating which team (or teams) you strongly disagree about, and
whether they should be in, out, higher or lower, by June 15.
Your current list is the following:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1961-1965
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Internazionale 1963-1966
On further reflection, I think that sustained excellence is not getting enough weight in this list. I would argue that a team needs to be
dominant for a period of at least 5 years to be included. So, Inter
1963-1966 (three years) has no business being here (I strongly disagree
about their inclusion).
The other candidate on the chopping block would be Ajax, but I guess one could add 1968 (they did reach the European Cup final in 1968-1969), and
they would squeak in. Also, the transcendent nature of their superstar
makes me lean towards their inclusion.
Santos's 1961-1965 is five seasons, so they are in.
My proposed revised list:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Liverpool 1976-1985
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Independiente 1971-1975
9. Penarol 1960-1966
I have bumped up Santos, but bumped down Independiente and Penarol.
On Fri, 30 May 2025 14:14:14 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Just change it to "Mark's All-time Best Club Sides" and
nobody will argue with you!
Yes they would; they'd say "What happened to Bayern Munchen,
Sao Paulo and Inter?!!"
On Thu, 29 May 2025 21:40:46 +0000, Futbolmetrix wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:52:37 +0000, Mark wrote:MH and Blueshirt have strongly disagreed with them being excluded from
Can we have some clarification about whether there's any strong
disagreement about the latest proposal for a top NINE please?
Yes, there is. People have argued multiple times that Liverpool should
be included.
the top 10 (and I've strongly disagreed with them being included in the
top 10; so we can't get a top 10 that nobody strongly disagrees with,
that's why it's a top 9 now).
Nobody has said that they strongly disagree with them being excluded
from the top 9.
If anyone strongly disagrees with the proposal for a top NINE, please
say so stating which team (or teams) you strongly disagree about, and
whether they should be in, out, higher or lower, by June 15.
Your current list is the following:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Ajax 1969-1973
5. Santos 1961-1965
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Internazionale 1963-1966
On further reflection, I think that sustained excellence is not getting
enough weight in this list. I would argue that a team needs to be
dominant for a period of at least 5 years to be included. So, Inter
1963-1966 (three years) has no business being here (I strongly disagree
about their inclusion).
The other candidate on the chopping block would be Ajax, but I guess one
could add 1968 (they did reach the European Cup final in 1968-1969), and
they would squeak in. Also, the transcendent nature of their superstar
makes me lean towards their inclusion.
Santos's 1961-1965 is five seasons, so they are in.
My proposed revised list:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Liverpool 1976-1985
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Independiente 1971-1975
9. Penarol 1960-1966
I have bumped up Santos, but bumped down Independiente and Penarol.
Why am I not surprised that you strongly disagree with the inclusion of Inter? :-)
I don't strongly disagree with the top 5. 1 rsser has already strongly disagreed with Liverpool, so they can't be included.
have to be as low as no. 7? I can live with it if so, I fairly strongly disagree though.
What does everyone else think about which way round Independiente
1971-1975 and Real Madrid 2014-2018 should be?
Other than that I'm OK with it.
So that gives us:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Real Madrid 2014-2018
7. Independiente 1971-1975
8. Penarol 1960-1966
with possibly Independiente and Real Madrid the other way round.
And to avoid any more claims that this is somehow my list, I'll leave it
for someone else to suggest who no. 9 should be.
Perhaps this is a good time to ask this though. How good were Torino
1945-49? They only won 4 Italian League Championships. River Plate's
team of the 1940s at first glance seem to have been a better team, but
of course that might have been because of the plane crash. How old were Torino's players? Were they all in their 30s, or were they at the peak
of their abilities, or what?
On Thu, 29 May 2025 19:52:37 +0000, Mark wrote:
On further reflection, I think that sustained excellence is not getting enough weight in this list. I would argue that a team needs to be
dominant for a period of at least 5 years to be included. So, Inter
1963-1966 (three years) has no business being here (I strongly disagree
about their inclusion).
The other candidate on the chopping block would be Ajax, but I guess one could add 1968 (they did reach the European Cup final in 1968-1969), and
they would squeak in. Also, the transcendent nature of their superstar
makes me lean towards their inclusion.
Santos's 1961-1965 is five seasons, so they are in.
My proposed revised list:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Liverpool 1976-1985
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Independiente 1971-1975
9. Penarol 1960-1966
I have bumped up Santos, but bumped down Independiente and Penarol.
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2025 14:14:14 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Just change it to "Mark's All-time Best Club Sides" and
nobody will argue with you!
Yes they would; they'd say "What happened to Bayern Munchen,
Sao Paulo and Inter?!!"
But then you would be able to give your reasons for including
them on YOUR list. Your list, your rules. Nobody can argue with
that.
If others disagreed with your list, they are free to make their
own lists and we could have a whole thread of people's all-time
best club sides. Instead of you trying to force through your
list and make it an officially sanctioned RSS one... which it
will never be... as you found out the last time we done this
two/three years ago.
I will never accept a list that excludes a top English side,
like Liverpool FC, who conquered Europe on multiple occasions
and dominated their domestic league and easily fit the criteria
of "sustained excellence".
On 2025-05-30 13:53, Mark wrote:
I don't strongly disagree with the top 5. 1 rsser has already strongly
disagreed with Liverpool, so they can't be included.
That is a weird process to say the least. One person (you) disagrees
with a choice, so it is automatically invalidated ? I still maintain a properly organized nomination and voting process is the only way to
establish a consensus ranked list. I might get around to organizing
that some time soon. Until then your process is flawed.
Mark wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:31:55 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
If you are happy with your list, who are we to argue?
Your list, your rules.
It's our list.
Most definitely NOT!
I think my rules say it doesn't get declared the
unofficial rss-sanctioned list unless there's no strong
disagreement about it.
How strongly do you want me to disagree with you this time?
Your list is certainly not my list and I don't think it will
ever represent the opinion of this newsgroup. But as "Mark's
list" it works fine, so be happy with the teams that you have
chosen and the reasons why you have chosen them... all your
list has to do is work for you.
You seem to be concerned about what the people of RSS think and
want our opinions regarding your choices, but then when we
express disagreement you just continue anyway and still propose
your list as an RSS sanctioned list!!! <shrugs>
MH wrote:
On 2025-06-09 11:51, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:31:55 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
If you are happy with your list, who are we to argue?
Your list, your rules.
It's our list. I think my rules say it doesn't get declared
the unofficial rss-sanctioned list unless there's no strong
disagreement about it.
That is where the flaw in your process is. You are basically
giving any one individual a complete veto over the position in
the list of highly deserving teams. Because of the absence of
Liverpool in this list (pointed out by me and several others),
and vetoed only by you with your anti-English league bias, I
do not accept this as an RSS sanctioned list.
It's a list with biases and yes, we all have them, but even then
Mark's preferences seem to count a lot more than anybody else's preferences/disagreements, so that only goes to strengthen the
fact that it's "Mark's list" and nothing more.
So STRONG disagreenent hereby registered.
I'm not sure it sinks in, as I feel like a goldfish going around
in the RSS bowl. How many times do people have to disagree?
But I will also express STRONG DISAGREEMENT.
On 2025-06-09 11:51, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:31:55 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
If you are happy with your list, who are we to argue?
Your list, your rules.
It's our list. I think my rules say it doesn't get declared the
unofficial rss-sanctioned list unless there's no strong disagreement
about it.
That is where the flaw in your process is. You are basically giving any
one individual a complete veto over the position in the list of highly deserving teams. Because of the absence of Liverpool in this list
(pointed out by me and several others), and vetoed only by you with your anti-English league bias, I do not accept this as an RSS sanctioned
list.
So STRONG disagreenent hereby registered.
As Blueshirt has often said, you are perfectly within your rights to
publish your own lists, and to modify them according to feedback that confirms your own biases (and hey, we all have biases). But you can't
speak on behalf of everyone.
As I have mentioned, I will get around to posting a process for voting
on this issue, but right now I am in and out of a medical roundabout,
moving house, and wrapping up my lab after a 40 year career. It won't
be for a wee while.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:17:08 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-06-09 11:51, Mark wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 15:31:55 +0000, Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
If you are happy with your list, who are we to argue?
Your list, your rules.
It's our list. I think my rules say it doesn't get declared the
unofficial rss-sanctioned list unless there's no strong disagreement
about it.
That is where the flaw in your process is. You are basically giving any
one individual a complete veto over the position in the list of highly
deserving teams. Because of the absence of Liverpool in this list
(pointed out by me and several others), and vetoed only by you with your
anti-English league bias, I do not accept this as an RSS sanctioned
list.
There's no other way of getting a list that nobody strongly disagrees
with though is there?
So STRONG disagreenent hereby registered.
Do you actually strongly disagree with the choice of teams in the list though? It sounds as if it might be just the methodology that you
strongly disagree with?
As Blueshirt has often said, you are perfectly within your rights to
publish your own lists, and to modify them according to feedback that
confirms your own biases (and hey, we all have biases). But you can't
speak on behalf of everyone.
Not even if noone strongly disagrees with the list? I think I can.
As I have mentioned, I will get around to posting a process for voting
on this issue, but right now I am in and out of a medical roundabout,
moving house, and wrapping up my lab after a 40 year career. It won't
be for a wee while.
That won't get us a list that nobody strongly disagrees with though.
you want to do that in addition to the list that nobody strongly
disagrees with, that's fine though.
On 2025-06-13 12:16, Mark wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 16:17:08 +0000, MH wrote:
On 2025-06-09 11:51, Mark wrote:
It's our list. I think my rules say it doesn't get declared the
unofficial rss-sanctioned list unless there's no strong disagreement
about it.
That is where the flaw in your process is. You are basically giving any >>> one individual a complete veto over the position in the list of highly
deserving teams. Because of the absence of Liverpool in this list
(pointed out by me and several others), and vetoed only by you with your >>> anti-English league bias, I do not accept this as an RSS sanctioned
list.
There's no other way of getting a list that nobody strongly disagrees
with though is there?
A representative RSS list would be one that a majority of people agree
on. By ranked vote. There would almost certainly be teams on it that
you or I strongly disagree with, but I would accept it.
So STRONG disagreenent hereby registered.
Do you actually strongly disagree with the choice of teams in the list
though? It sounds as if it might be just the methodology that you
strongly disagree with?
BOTH
As Blueshirt has often said, you are perfectly within your rights to
publish your own lists, and to modify them according to feedback that
confirms your own biases (and hey, we all have biases). But you can't
speak on behalf of everyone.
Not even if noone strongly disagrees with the list? I think I can.
No you can't
As I have mentioned, I will get around to posting a process for voting
on this issue, but right now I am in and out of a medical roundabout,
moving house, and wrapping up my lab after a 40 year career. It won't
be for a wee while.
That won't get us a list that nobody strongly disagrees with though.
Who cares ?
It will be far more representative than anything that allows any single person a veto over any team, however meritorious.
As nobody has strongly disagreed and stated which teams they strongly disagree about, I hereby declare this the unofficial rss-sanctioned
Top 9 best club sides of all time, subject to a possible vote.
Actually, yes, I've decided I'll definitely organize a vote; unless
it proves impractical because of the problems I'm having with
novaBBS. Anyway, here it is:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
Mark wrote:
As nobody has strongly disagreed and stated which teams they strongly
disagree about, I hereby declare this the unofficial rss-sanctioned
Top 9 best club sides of all time, subject to a possible vote.
Actually, yes, I've decided I'll definitely organize a vote; unless
it proves impractical because of the problems I'm having with
novaBBS. Anyway, here it is:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
I'm still having problems with novaBBS, so I can't see the part of this thread where milivella and I discussed the Borda count method of voting.
I suppose I can open things up for nominations though.
The following 4 teams are excluded from the vote because their
inclusion in the top 9 has already been strongly disagreed with:
Sao Paulo 1992-94
Internazionale 1963-66
Liverpool 1976-85
Bayern Munchen 1974-76
Other than those 4, you can nominate whoever you want for the top 9.
So, start nominating your teams for the top 9 best club sides ever.
Deadline for nominations: July 16.
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark wrote:
As nobody has strongly disagreed and stated which teams they strongly
disagree about, I hereby declare this the unofficial rss-sanctioned
Top 9 best club sides of all time, subject to a possible vote.
Actually, yes, I've decided I'll definitely organize a vote; unless
it proves impractical because of the problems I'm having with
novaBBS. Anyway, here it is:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
I'm still having problems with novaBBS, so I can't see the part of this
thread where milivella and I discussed the Borda count method of voting.
I suppose I can open things up for nominations though.
The following 4 teams are excluded from the vote because their
inclusion in the top 9 has already been strongly disagreed with:
Sao Paulo 1992-94
Internazionale 1963-66
Liverpool 1976-85
Bayern Munchen 1974-76
Other than those 4, you can nominate whoever you want for the top 9.
So, start nominating your teams for the top 9 best club sides ever.
Deadline for nominations: July 16.
I strongly (STRONGLY) disagree with Independiente,
Peñarol and Boca Juniors. Reason: I believe the Club
World Cup has been hugely overrated. It’s all hype.
(Santos can stay coz Pele)
So by your very own definition and criteria they now
need to be excluded from the vote, correct?
Let’s vote on a Top 6 from the remaining teams.
Looking forward to it!
Ciao?
Werner
On 2025-07-02 04:47, Mark wrote:
The following 4 teams are excluded from the vote because
their inclusion in the top 9 has already been strongly
disagreed with:
Sao Paulo 1992-94
Internazionale 1963-66
Liverpool 1976-85
Bayern Munchen 1974-76
I think that is ridiculous.
MH wrote:
On 2025-07-02 04:47, Mark wrote:
The following 4 teams are excluded from the vote because
their inclusion in the top 9 has already been strongly
disagreed with:
Sao Paulo 1992-94
Internazionale 1963-66
Liverpool 1976-85
Bayern Munchen 1974-76
I think that is ridiculous.
The whole thing is ridiculous, that's why I gave up bothering.
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark wrote:
strongly >> disagree about, I hereby declare this the unofficial rss-sanctioned >> Top 9 best club sides of all time, subject to aAs nobody has strongly disagreed and stated which teams they
possible vote. >> Actually, yes, I've decided I'll definitely
organize a vote; unless >> it proves impractical because of the
problems I'm having with >> novaBBS. Anyway, here it is:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
I'm still having problems with novaBBS, so I can't see the part of
this thread where milivella and I discussed the Borda count method
of voting.
I suppose I can open things up for nominations though.
The following 4 teams are excluded from the vote because their
inclusion in the top 9 has already been strongly disagreed with:
Sao Paulo 1992-94
Internazionale 1963-66
Liverpool 1976-85
Bayern Munchen 1974-76
Other than those 4, you can nominate whoever you want for the top 9.
So, start nominating your teams for the top 9 best club sides ever. Deadline for nominations: July 16.
I strongly (STRONGLY) disagree with Independiente,
Peñarol and Boca Juniors. Reason: I believe the Club
World Cup has been hugely overrated. It’s all hype.
(Santos can stay coz Pele)
So by your very own definition and criteria they now
need to be excluded from the vote, correct?
Let’s vote on a Top 6 from the remaining teams.
Looking forward to it!
Ciao?
Werner
On 2025-07-02 04:47, Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
Mark wrote:
As nobody has strongly disagreed and stated which teams they
strongly disagree about, I hereby declare this the unofficial rss-sanctioned Top 9 best club sides of all time, subject to a
possible vote. Actually, yes, I've decided I'll definitely
organize a vote; unless it proves impractical because of the
problems I'm having with novaBBS. Anyway, here it is:
1. Barcelona 2009-2015
2. Milan 1988-1996
3. Real Madrid 1956-1960
4. Santos 1961-1965
5. Ajax 1969-1973
6. Independiente 1971-1975
7. Real Madrid 2014-2018
8. Penarol 1960-1966
9. Boca Juniors 2000-2003
I'm still having problems with novaBBS, so I can't see the part
of this thread where milivella and I discussed the Borda count
method of voting.
I suppose I can open things up for nominations though.
The following 4 teams are excluded from the vote because their
inclusion in the top 9 has already been strongly disagreed with:
Sao Paulo 1992-94
Internazionale 1963-66
Liverpool 1976-85
Bayern Munchen 1974-76
I think that is ridiculous. All those teams deserve to be nominated
and to have their case pleaded by people who think they belong there.
Then let the vote decide.
I will spell it out once more very clearly.
You have two options - you either let people vote freely on
whatever team they want to, tally the votes, and live with the
fact that there's a very high probability Liverpool will be on
it.
Or you will never get a 'RSS sanctioned' list at all, since I
will strongly disagree with it, and I am pretty sure I will
not be the only one.
What you don't get to do is apply your veto on the teams you
dislike, and then pretend the list is still RSS sanctioned.
If you apply your veto so will I - and so might Blueshirt or
Michael, and we'll never get a list. So what.
On 05.07.2025 22:18, Mark wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Let’s vote on a Top 6 from the remaining teams.
Looking forward to it!
Ciao,
Werner
Are you serious or are you just messing me around?
Both.
I will spell it out once more very clearly.
You have two options - you either let people vote freely on whatever
team they want to, tally the votes, and live with the fact that
there's a very high probability Liverpool will be on it.
Or you will never get a 'RSS sanctioned' list at all, since I will
strongly disagree with it, and I am pretty sure I will not be the only
one.
What you don't get to do is apply your veto on the teams you
dislike, and then pretend the list is still RSS sanctioned.
If you apply your veto so will I - and so might Blueshirt or Michael,
and we'll never get a list. So what.
After all, Liberum Veto already destroyed the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, it won't stop short of your paltry list.
Ciao,
Werner
Werner Pichler wrote:
I will spell it out once more very clearly.
Why? It should be clear to everyone that he's just manipulating
his list to be the RSS list. Oh, you've missed the deadline,
sorry. These teams are excluded from a vote, because... blah,
blah blah. <rolls eyes>
It's a nonsense. It's Mark's list, nobody else's... his list
will never represent RSS. That should be clear to him from the
various objections, but still he carries on.
You have two options - you either let people vote freely on
whatever team they want to, tally the votes, and live with the
fact that there's a very high probability Liverpool will be on
it.
Or you will never get a 'RSS sanctioned' list at all, since I
will strongly disagree with it, and I am pretty sure I will
not be the only one.
What you don't get to do is apply your veto on the teams you
dislike, and then pretend the list is still RSS sanctioned.
If you apply your veto so will I - and so might Blueshirt or
Michael, and we'll never get a list. So what.
I have strongly disagreed, on many occasions... but he just
keeps going on and on... so I gave up. Maybe that's what he's
hoping for? We all give up and so his list is the RSS list by
default.
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 05.07.2025 22:18, Mark wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Let’s vote on a Top 6 from the remaining teams.
Looking forward to it!
Ciao,
Werner
Are you serious or are you just messing me around?
Both.
Well please don't mess me around.
I will spell it out once more very clearly.
You have two options - you either let people vote freely on whatever
team they want to, tally the votes, and live with the fact that
there's a very high probability Liverpool will be on it.
Or you will never get a 'RSS sanctioned' list at all, since I will
strongly disagree with it, and I am pretty sure I will not be the only
one.
The whole point of the thread was to compile a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with. If there's a team in it that someone strongly disagrees with, then we won't achieve that. If the vote produces a list
that includes a team that has been strongly disagreed with then the
vote is a waste of time. So it's pointless including those teams in the
vote.
What have you got against a list that nobody strongly disagrees with?
Anyway they're not my 2 options.
What you don't get to do is apply your veto on the teams you
dislike, and then pretend the list is still RSS sanctioned.
If you apply your veto so will I - and so might Blueshirt or Michael,
and we'll never get a list. So what.
I'm not applying my veto on the teams I dislike anymore than
Futbolmetrix was applying his veto on a team he dislikes when he
strongly disagreed with the inclusion of Inter. If Michael is MH he
already has 'applied his veto' on Bayern Munchen. I've accepted 3 teams
that I think are among the top 10 best teams ever not being included.
There's nothing unreasonable about expecting other people to accept 1
team that they think should be included not being included. I've
treated everyone fairly.
It's not as if I deliberately designed it so that I could exclude teams
that I personally strongly disagree with. I had as little idea that
this is the way things would turn out as everyone else did.
After all, Liberum Veto already destroyed the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, it won't stop short of your paltry list.
What's Liberum Veto?
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 05.07.2025 22:18, Mark wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Let’s vote on a Top 6 from the remaining teams.
Looking forward to it!
Ciao,
Werner
Are you serious or are you just messing me around?
Both.
Well please don't mess me around.
Why not? It’s just a pointless list in a venerable but
half-forgotten corner of the internet.
whatever >> team they want to, tally the votes, and live with theI will spell it out once more very clearly.
You have two options - you either let people vote freely on
fact that >> there's a very high probability Liverpool will be on it.
only >> one.
Or you will never get a 'RSS sanctioned' list at all, since I will
strongly disagree with it, and I am pretty sure I will not be the
The whole point of the thread was to compile a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with. If there's a team in it that someone
strongly disagrees with, then we won't achieve that. If the vote
produces a list that includes a team that has been strongly
disagreed with then the vote is a waste of time. So it's pointless including those teams in the vote.
Actually, in that case it’s pointless having a list.
Your whole methodology is flawed.
What have you got against a list that nobody strongly disagrees
with?
I’ve told you before, I strongly disagree with the
dishonest way you’ve been conducting this, and
I’m not the only one.
Anyway they're not my 2 options.
Yes, it is. Option B. No list. I’ll veto everything.
Michael, >> and we'll never get a list. So what.What you don't get to do is apply your veto on the teams you
dislike, and then pretend the list is still RSS sanctioned.
If you apply your veto so will I - and so might Blueshirt or
I'm not applying my veto on the teams I dislike anymore than
Futbolmetrix was applying his veto on a team he dislikes when he
strongly disagreed with the inclusion of Inter. If Michael is MH he
already has 'applied his veto' on Bayern Munchen. I've accepted 3
teams that I think are among the top 10 best teams ever not being
included. There's nothing unreasonable about expecting other
people to accept 1 team that they think should be included not
being included. I've treated everyone fairly.
It's not as if I deliberately designed it so that I could exclude
teams that I personally strongly disagree with. I had as little
idea that this is the way things would turn out as everyone else
did.
Yes you did, and from the beginning. You were
adamant about no English teams and haven’t moved
an inch despite strong disagreement on every side.
So fair’s fair. I’ll do the same for the South American
teams except Santos.
After all, Liberum Veto already destroyed the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, it won't stop short of your paltry list.
What's Liberum Veto?
Look it up in Wikipedia. It's a very good web-site.
Ciao,
Werner
Ciao,
Werner
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca
Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
Ciao,
Werner
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca
Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
It will be resolved amicably when I launch an independent nomination and voting process. Just forget about it until then. Hint: nobody gets a
veto.
Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 05.07.2025 22:18, Mark wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
Let’s vote on a Top 6 from the remaining teams.
Looking forward to it!
Ciao,
Werner
Are you serious or are you just messing me around?
Both.
Well please don't mess me around.
Why not? It’s just a pointless list in a venerable but
half-forgotten corner of the internet.
It's not pointless. It would be a fun, interesting and informative
discussion if you and Blueshirt didn't spoil it.
The whole point of the thread was to compile a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with. If there's a team in it that someone
strongly disagrees with, then we won't achieve that. If the vote
produces a list that includes a team that has been strongly
disagreed with then the vote is a waste of time. So it's pointless
including those teams in the vote.
Actually, in that case it’s pointless having a list.
Your whole methodology is flawed.
And yet nobody has come up with a better way. If anybody does, they're
free to start their own thread.
What have you got against a list that nobody strongly disagrees
with?
I’ve told you before, I strongly disagree with the
dishonest way you’ve been conducting this, and
I’m not the only one.
It's not dishonest. I've been open and fair right from the start.
Anyway they're not my 2 options.
Yes, it is. Option B. No list. I’ll veto everything.
Then why should I take you seriously? The evidence suggests you're just messing me around and don't really strongly disagree with those teams.
Please will you stop messing me around and let me know whether you
really do strongly disagree with the teams you've said you strongly
disagree with?
1 of my other options is to stop being lenient with the deadlines and
dismiss your strong disagreement. As I want this to be as accurate a representation of the views of rssers as possible (and that desire
seems to be what you're counting on for your messing me around to
work), I'd prefer not to be too strict with deadlines though. If I
decide that that's my best option, I'm willing to settle for the list
we've already got though.
I'm not applying my veto on the teams I dislike anymore than
Futbolmetrix was applying his veto on a team he dislikes when he
strongly disagreed with the inclusion of Inter. If Michael is MH he
already has 'applied his veto' on Bayern Munchen. I've accepted 3
teams that I think are among the top 10 best teams ever not being
included. There's nothing unreasonable about expecting other
people to accept 1 team that they think should be included not
being included. I've treated everyone fairly.
It's not as if I deliberately designed it so that I could exclude
teams that I personally strongly disagree with. I had as little
idea that this is the way things would turn out as everyone else
did.
Yes you did, and from the beginning. You were
adamant about no English teams and haven’t moved
an inch despite strong disagreement on every side.
No I didn't. I've never said anything suggesting English teams weren't allowed. Blueshirt may have said that, I've never even hinted at that ridiculous bias.
So fair’s fair. I’ll do the same for the South American
teams except Santos.
After all, Liberum Veto already destroyed the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth, it won't stop short of your paltry list.
What's Liberum Veto?
Look it up in Wikipedia. It's a very good web-site.
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca
Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca
Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 14:10:56 +0000, MH wrote:
It will be resolved amicably when I launch an independent
nomination and voting process. Just forget about it until
then. Hint: nobody gets a veto.
ANO OPEN VOTE WITH NO VETO MAKES SENSE - THAT WOULD BE
DEMOCRATIC.
On 7/8/2025 9:00 AM, Mark wrote:
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol
and Boca Juniors are all still available for nomination
until further notice, just in case anyone was unsure whether
to nominate them or not. Hopefully we can resolve this
amicably.
May I suggest another way to resolve this amicably? Mark, why
don't you concede that Liverpool 1976-1985 belongs in a top-10
list (and probably even above that?) As a reminder, they won 4
continental championships in that time period, and dominated
the league that was pretty undisputably the strongest one in
Europe at the time.
One can have a reasonable argument as to whether the best in
Europe at the time were better than the best in South America,
but that's probably true of many of the other teams on the
list (example: Independiente in the 1970s, who lost
comprehensively to Cruyff's Ajax).
So, if you stop strongly disagreeing with the inclusion of
Liverpool, we have a list of top teams that nobody strongly
disagrees with, and we can all go home happy.
Ciao,
Werner
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
It will be resolved amicably when I launch an independent nomination
and voting process. Just forget about it until then. Hint: nobody
gets a veto.
On 7/8/2025 9:00 AM, Mark wrote:
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
May I suggest another way to resolve this amicably? Mark, why don't
you concede that Liverpool 1976-1985 belongs in a top-10 list (and
probably even above that?) As a reminder, they won 4 continental championships in that time period, and dominated the league that was
pretty undisputably the strongest one in Europe at the time. One can
have a reasonable argument as to whether the best in Europe at the
time were better than the best in South America, but that's probably
true of many of the other teams on the list (example: Independiente
in the 1970s, who lost comprehensively to Cruyff's Ajax).
So, if you stop strongly disagreeing with the inclusion of Liverpool,
we have a list of top teams that nobody strongly disagrees with, and
we can all go home happy.
The SA v Europe thing is the hardest metric to judge... and it
is something that will be based on personal bias. You cannot use
a simple one-off or two-legged game as definitive proof.
Especially if none of us were around to see those teams play in
the flesh and are basing our opinions on something we've read in
a book or on Wikipedia.
That's why it would have been easier for everyone to post
their own list in a 'Best Club Sides' thread, which we could all discuss/ignore. Mark has posted his list, but wants it to be an
RSS list. Which is where the problems arrive.
Futbolmetrix wrote:
So, if you stop strongly disagreeing with the inclusion of Liverpool,
we have a list of top teams that nobody strongly disagrees with, and
we can all go home happy.
Asking someone to stop strongly disagreeing with something is like
asking someone to believe something they know isn't likely to be true
(asking them to believe in the Loch Ness monster or something). We can
have a top 9 best teams ever that nobody strongly disagrees with. I
can't see a problem with the top 9 we've already got.
Imagine if it was Sao Paulo that had caused all this fuss and everyone
was pressuring you to stop strongly disagreeing with Sao Paulo being in
the top 9 or 10.
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
MH wrote:
Ciao,
Werner
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca
Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
It will be resolved amicably when I launch an independent nomination
and voting process. Just forget about it until then. Hint: nobody
gets a veto.
That will be a different list. I don't have a problem with having 2
lists.
None of us would I think.
One will be the RSS sanctioned list created by
democratic voting as organised by MH, and the
other one Mark‘s 'I don’t like English teams‘ list.
That’s a good solution.
Ciao,
Werner October
MH wrote:
Ciao,
Werner
For clarification for everyone else: Independiente, Penarol and Boca
Juniors are all still available for nomination until further notice,
just in case anyone was unsure whether to nominate them or not.
Hopefully we can resolve this amicably.
It will be resolved amicably when I launch an independent nomination
and voting process. Just forget about it until then. Hint: nobody
gets a veto.
That will be a different list. I don't have a problem with having 2
lists.
MH wrote:
It will be resolved amicably when I launch an independent
nomination and voting process. Just forget about it until
then. Hint: nobody gets a veto.
That will be a different list. I don't have a problem with
having 2 lists.
Blueshirt wrote:
The SA v Europe thing is the hardest metric to judge... and
it is something that will be based on personal bias. You
cannot use a simple one-off or two-legged game as definitive
proof. Especially if none of us were around to see those
teams play in the flesh and are basing our opinions on
something we've read in a book or on Wikipedia.
For once you're making sense. I have actually seen the 1981
and 1984 Intercontinental Cup Finals (recordings online), and
judging by those matches Liverpool were inferior to Flamengo
and Independiente, never mind Boca Juniors's team of the late
1970s. But yes in those 2 cases it was just 1 match.
That's why it would have been easier for everyone to post
their own list in a 'Best Club Sides' thread, which we could
all discuss/ignore. Mark has posted his list, but wants it
to be an RSS list. Which is where the problems arrive.
Well unlike your previous post, that's an accurate description
of what I've done. So what are these problems?
It's not unreasonable to suggest that a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with is more democratic and/or a more
accurate representation of the view of rssers in general than
a list that may have 1 or more people strongly disagreeing
with 1 or more teams in the list is it?
After all, we're never going to get a list that nobody
disagrees with at all, by any method. And does it really
matter?
I'm willing to call it the very very very unofficial
rss-sanctioned list if anyone wants me to. Would that help
people feel better about it? It would matter even less then.
What do yous think?
On 7/10/2025 4:55 AM, Mark wrote:
Futbolmetrix wrote:
So, if you stop strongly disagreeing with the inclusion of
Liverpool, we have a list of top teams that nobody strongly
disagrees with, and we can all go home happy.
Asking someone to stop strongly disagreeing with something is like
asking someone to believe something they know isn't likely to be
true (asking them to believe in the Loch Ness monster or
something). We can have a top 9 best teams ever that nobody
strongly disagrees with. I can't see a problem with the top 9 we've
already got.
It's called "debate," which is what you were after in this thread, no?
Listen to the other side's arguments and then maybe reevaluate your
position? Maybe you'd go from "strongly disagreeing" to just
"disagreeing"?
Mark wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
The SA v Europe thing is the hardest metric to judge... and
it is something that will be based on personal bias. You
cannot use a simple one-off or two-legged game as definitive
proof. Especially if none of us were around to see those
teams play in the flesh and are basing our opinions on
something we've read in a book or on Wikipedia.
For once you're making sense. I have actually seen the 1981
and 1984 Intercontinental Cup Finals (recordings online), and
judging by those matches Liverpool were inferior to Flamengo
and Independiente, never mind Boca Juniors's team of the late
1970s. But yes in those 2 cases it was just 1 match.
One match means nothing. Chelsea have played six matches to make
the FIFA Club World Cup final on Sunday, does that mean you
consider them superior to every other club side in the world
apart from PSG?
So why should a South American team winning a one-off game
against Liverpool mean that Liverpool were not a great club
side?
Your argument is not logical and does not make sense. Unless you
do consider the current UEFA Conference League Champions to be
the second best club side in the world (at least).
That's why it would have been easier for everyone to post
their own list in a 'Best Club Sides' thread, which we could
all discuss/ignore. Mark has posted his list, but wants it
to be an RSS list. Which is where the problems arrive.
Well unlike your previous post, that's an accurate description
of what I've done. So what are these problems?
My previous posts have said exactly the same thing. It's YOUR
list, that you want to be an RSS approved list. Which as we have
seen, it never can. So it won't be. It's your list guided by
your criteria. Please don't make me jump through the same hoops
over and over again. The members of RSS will have a vote, when
Michael can organise it, and we will end up with a list that
is a fairer representation of what RSS members believe to be the
best club sides.
I can't understand why you would be against RSS members voting
for what will be an RSS list?
It's not unreasonable to suggest that a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with is more democratic and/or a more
accurate representation of the view of rssers in general than
a list that may have 1 or more people strongly disagreeing
with 1 or more teams in the list is it?
After all, we're never going to get a list that nobody
disagrees with at all, by any method. And does it really
matter?
A vote would be the fairest way and nobody can argue with the
outcome of democracy... even if they don't fully agree with it.
Futbolmetrix wrote:
If people want to present their arguments, I'm willing to listen. We've already done the discussion part of the process though. And it's unfair
for people to pressure me into not strongly disagreeing by means other
than that.
Mark presented the following explanation :
What do yous think?
in the pre-european cups era, say before the fifties, I'd like to add
Torino squad, with Valentino Mazzola as leader :-)
On 11/07/2025 18:32, Mark wrote:
The discussion part of this thread HAS produced a list that
nobody strongly disagrees with; or more accurately nobody
strongly disagreed with AND specified which teams they
strongly disagreed about. How is that not an RSS approved
list?
Non-inclusion can just as strongly be disagreed with as
inclusion. That's what you repeatedly refuse to grasp.
The only unusual thing about my criteria is that nobody
strongly disagrees with it. Nobody's explained how a list
that nobody strongly disagrees with is a less fair
representation of what RSS members believe to be the best
club sides than a list that people do strongly disagree
about.
A majority of RSS members believe that there should be a team
on it that you, as the only one, don't want to see there.
It's not my list, it's our list, and nobody strongly
disagrees with it. So what are these problems? Show me one
message where anybody except yourself has described this
list as 'our list'. By my count you've used that term nine
times and nobody has ever agreed with you. There, that's one
of the problems.
Ammammata wrote:
Mark presented the following explanation :
What do yous think?
in the pre-european cups era, say before the fifties, I'd
like to add Torino squad, with Valentino Mazzola as leader
:-)
Are you nominating Torino 1945-49 for the vote then?
On 11/07/2025 18:32, Mark wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
The SA v Europe thing is the hardest metric to judge... and
it is something that will be based on personal bias. You
cannot use a simple one-off or two-legged game as definitive
proof. Especially if none of us were around to see those
teams play in the flesh and are basing our opinions on
something we've read in a book or on Wikipedia.
For once you're making sense. I have actually seen the 1981
and 1984 Intercontinental Cup Finals (recordings online), and
judging by those matches Liverpool were inferior to Flamengo
and Independiente, never mind Boca Juniors's team of the late
1970s. But yes in those 2 cases it was just 1 match.
One match means nothing. Chelsea have played six matches to make
the FIFA Club World Cup final on Sunday, does that mean you
consider them superior to every other club side in the world
apart from PSG?
So why should a South American team winning a one-off game
against Liverpool mean that Liverpool were not a great club
side?
Your argument is not logical and does not make sense. Unless you
do consider the current UEFA Conference League Champions to be
the second best club side in the world (at least).
1 match when there's the World Championship at stake means lots more
than, say, a domestic Cup match. Other than that though I mostly
agree.
That's why it would have been easier for everyone to post
their own list in a 'Best Club Sides' thread, which we could
all discuss/ignore. Mark has posted his list, but wants it
to be an RSS list. Which is where the problems arrive.
Well unlike your previous post, that's an accurate description
of what I've done. So what are these problems?
My previous posts have said exactly the same thing. It's YOUR
list, that you want to be an RSS approved list. Which as we have
seen, it never can. So it won't be. It's your list guided by
your criteria. Please don't make me jump through the same hoops
over and over again. The members of RSS will have a vote, when
Michael can organise it, and we will end up with a list that
is a fairer representation of what RSS members believe to be the
best club sides.
Well, make that fairly accurate then. I don't want my list to be an
rss list; I just used my list as a starting point. I could just as
easily have not mentioned any teams in the OP and just started with
a blank slate.
The discussion part of this thread HAS produced a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with; or more accurately nobody strongly
disagreed with AND specified which teams they strongly disagreed
about. How is that not an RSS approved list?
Non-inclusion can just as strongly be disagreed with as inclusion.
That's what you repeatedly refuse to grasp.
The only unusual thing about my criteria is that nobody strongly
disagrees with it. Nobody's explained how a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with is a less fair representation of what RSS
members believe to be the best club sides than a list that people
do strongly disagree about.
A majority of RSS members believe that there should be a team on it
that you, as the only one, don't want to see there.
It's not my list, it's our list, and nobody strongly disagrees withlist as 'our list'. By my count you've used that term nine times and
it. So what are these problems? Show me one message where anybody
except yourself has described this
nobody has ever agreed with you. There, that's one of the problems.
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 11/07/2025 18:32, Mark wrote:
The only unusual thing about my criteria is that nobody
strongly disagrees with it. Nobody's explained how a list
that nobody strongly disagrees with is a less fair
representation of what RSS members believe to be the best
club sides than a list that people do strongly disagree
about.
A majority of RSS members believe that there should be a team
on it that you, as the only one, don't want to see there.
This is where Mark's disingenuity and manipulating come in...
Mark produced his list of ten teams and asked here for a
discussion on this list... so we could produce a list people
here largely agreed on. A couple of us (myself included) put
forward, as part of this open discussion, the idea that
Liverpool FC of the late 1970's/early 1980's deserved to be
included in this top ten. Mark - not RSS as a group - disagreed
with these opinions. Opinions of the people he said he wanted to
assist in compiling this list! So to avoid including Liverpool,
Mark's list then became a top nine!
Nine? I mean who does a top nine? It's five/ten/twenty/maybe
twenty five/fifty (etc.) A top nine is his way of not accepting
Liverpool FC so therefore - it's his list and not representative
of the people posting here.
He then keeps stating that nobody has strongly disagreed with
his list despite the fact I can find at least four people here
who have posted exactly that! And I have even done so in no
uncertain terms. He just ignores any opposition to his views and
carries on thinking his list will be accepted. It won't be and
it isn't.
It's not my list, it's our list, and nobody strongly
disagrees with it. So what are these problems? Show me one
message where anybody except yourself has described this
list as 'our list'. By my count you've used that term nine
times and nobody has ever agreed with you. There, that's one
of the problems.
It is not 'our' list and anyone with one iota of common sense -
and reading comprehension - can see.
MH has offered to do a vote on this issue but now, according to
Mark, that will have to be a "second list"... <rolls eyes>
You just couldn't make it up...
Mark wrote:
Ammammata wrote:
Mark presented the following explanation :
What do yous think?
in the pre-european cups era, say before the fifties, I'd
like to add Torino squad, with Valentino Mazzola as leader
:-)
Are you nominating Torino 1945-49 for the vote then?
i have already nominted MANCHESTER UNITED of the Sir Alex Feguson era.
They are deserving of inclusion based on their large trophy haul
during that era which includes the inter-continental cup and a club
world cup.
On 12/07/2025 12:29, Mark wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 11/07/2025 18:32, Mark wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
The SA v Europe thing is the hardest metric to judge...
and it is something that will be based on personal bias.
You cannot use a simple one-off or two-legged game as
definitive proof. Especially if none of us were around
to see those teams play in the flesh and are basing our
opinions on something we've read in a book or on
Wikipedia.
For once you're making sense. I have actually seen the 1981
and 1984 Intercontinental Cup Finals (recordings online),
and judging by those matches Liverpool were inferior to
Flamengo and Independiente, never mind Boca Juniors's team
of the late 1970s. But yes in those 2 cases it was just 1
match.
One match means nothing. Chelsea have played six matches to
make the FIFA Club World Cup final on Sunday, does that mean
you consider them superior to every other club side in the
world apart from PSG?
So why should a South American team winning a one-off game
against Liverpool mean that Liverpool were not a great club
side?
Your argument is not logical and does not make sense. Unless
you do consider the current UEFA Conference League Champions
to be the second best club side in the world (at least).
1 match when there's the World Championship at stake means lots
more than, say, a domestic Cup match. Other than that though I
mostly agree.
That's why it would have been easier for everyone to post
their own list in a 'Best Club Sides' thread, which we
could all discuss/ignore. Mark has posted his list, but
wants it to be an RSS list. Which is where the problems
arrive.
Well unlike your previous post, that's an accurate
description of what I've done. So what are these problems?
My previous posts have said exactly the same thing. It's YOUR
list, that you want to be an RSS approved list. Which as we
have seen, it never can. So it won't be. It's your list
guided by your criteria. Please don't make me jump through
the same hoops over and over again. The members of RSS will
have a vote, when Michael can organise it, and we will end up
with a list that is a fairer representation of what RSS
members believe to be the best club sides.
Well, make that fairly accurate then. I don't want my list to
be an rss list; I just used my list as a starting point. I
could just as easily have not mentioned any teams in the OP and
just started with a blank slate.
The discussion part of this thread HAS produced a list that
nobody strongly disagrees with; or more accurately nobody
strongly disagreed with AND specified which teams they strongly disagreed about. How is that not an RSS approved list?
Non-inclusion can just as strongly be disagreed with as inclusion.
That's what you repeatedly refuse to grasp.
No I don't. Nobody has strongly disagreed with the non-inclusion of
anybody other than Inter, Sao Paulo and Bayern Munchen in a top 9.
I've accepted that the non-inclusion of another team from the top
10 is strongly disagreed with. Their inclusion in a top 10 has also
been strongly disagreed with. The only possible way to get a list
that nobody strongly disagrees with is to make it a shorter list.
It's a logical impossibility to have a top 10 that both includes
and excludes that team.
And if you think about it, that's the only way that strong
disagreement could make it necessary to shorten the list isn't it?
And I've been clear from the start that it was possible that making
it a list that noone strongly disagrees with might mean making it a
short list.
Fair enough. I already told you in that case I'd strongly disagree
with Independiente, Peñarol and Boca Juniors, so it's going to be a
Top 6.
That's a short list, just like you said.
The only unusual thing about my criteria is that nobody strongly disagrees with it. Nobody's explained how a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with is a less fair representation of what
RSS members believe to be the best club sides than a list that
people do strongly disagree about.
A majority of RSS members believe that there should be a team on
it that you, as the only one, don't want to see there.
3 people is not a majority.
Neither is 1.
It's not my list, it's our list, and nobody strongly disagreeslist as 'our list'. By my count you've used that term nine times
with it. So what are these problems? Show me one message where
anybody except yourself has described this
and nobody has ever agreed with you. There, that's one of the
problems.
OK that could indicate a problem. At least 4 people have
contributed to compiling the list though. That's evidence that it's
our list. And it was certainly intended to be our list. If other
people aren't interested in taking part in discussions like this,
what are they doing on rss?
I think it's reasonable to think enough people have contributed to
the compilation of the list to be able to call it our list. And
people can take part in the vote I'm planning on organizing;
You're not organizing it; MH is.
Blueshirt wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 11/07/2025 18:32, Mark wrote:
The only unusual thing about my criteria is that nobody
strongly disagrees with it. Nobody's explained how a list
that nobody strongly disagrees with is a less fair
representation of what RSS members believe to be the best
club sides than a list that people do strongly disagree
about.
A majority of RSS members believe that there should be a team
on it that you, as the only one, don't want to see there.
This is where Mark's disingenuity and manipulating come in...
Mark produced his list of ten teams and asked here for a
discussion on this list... so we could produce a list people
here largely agreed on. A couple of us (myself included) put
forward, as part of this open discussion, the idea that
Liverpool FC of the late 1970's/early 1980's deserved to be
included in this top ten. Mark - not RSS as a group - disagreed
with these opinions. Opinions of the people he said he wanted to
assist in compiling this list! So to avoid including Liverpool,
Mark's list then became a top nine!
Nine? I mean who does a top nine? It's five/ten/twenty/maybe
twenty five/fifty (etc.) A top nine is his way of not accepting
Liverpool FC so therefore - it's his list and not representative
of the people posting here.
He then keeps stating that nobody has strongly disagreed with
his list despite the fact I can find at least four people here
who have posted exactly that! And I have even done so in no
uncertain terms. He just ignores any opposition to his views and
carries on thinking his list will be accepted. It won't be and
it isn't.
It's not my list, it's our list, and nobody strongly
disagrees with it. So what are these problems? Show me one
message where anybody except yourself has described this
So what exactly are these problems?
MH has offered to do a vote, but it won't be the rss-sanctioned list
because if he makes it a top 10 we're guaranteed strong disagreement.
We'll have an RSS-sanctioned list determined by a combination of
discussion and vote, and whatever MH calls his list determined by vote
only. Of course it will be a different list. That's fine though.
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 12/07/2025 12:29, Mark wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 11/07/2025 18:32, Mark wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
Mark wrote:
Blueshirt wrote:
The SA v Europe thing is the hardest metric to judge...
and it is something that will be based on personal bias.
You cannot use a simple one-off or two-legged game as
definitive proof. Especially if none of us were around
to see those teams play in the flesh and are basing our
opinions on something we've read in a book or on
Wikipedia.
For once you're making sense. I have actually seen the 1981
and 1984 Intercontinental Cup Finals (recordings online),
and judging by those matches Liverpool were inferior to
Flamengo and Independiente, never mind Boca Juniors's team
of the late 1970s. But yes in those 2 cases it was just 1
match.
One match means nothing. Chelsea have played six matches to
make the FIFA Club World Cup final on Sunday, does that mean
you consider them superior to every other club side in the
world apart from PSG?
So why should a South American team winning a one-off game
against Liverpool mean that Liverpool were not a great club
side?
Your argument is not logical and does not make sense. Unless
you do consider the current UEFA Conference League Champions
to be the second best club side in the world (at least).
1 match when there's the World Championship at stake means lots
more than, say, a domestic Cup match. Other than that though I
mostly agree.
That's why it would have been easier for everyone to post
their own list in a 'Best Club Sides' thread, which we
could all discuss/ignore. Mark has posted his list, but
wants it to be an RSS list. Which is where the problems
arrive.
Well unlike your previous post, that's an accurate
description of what I've done. So what are these problems?
My previous posts have said exactly the same thing. It's YOUR
list, that you want to be an RSS approved list. Which as we
have seen, it never can. So it won't be. It's your list
guided by your criteria. Please don't make me jump through
the same hoops over and over again. The members of RSS will
have a vote, when Michael can organise it, and we will end up
with a list that is a fairer representation of what RSS
members believe to be the best club sides.
Well, make that fairly accurate then. I don't want my list to
be an rss list; I just used my list as a starting point. I
could just as easily have not mentioned any teams in the OP and
just started with a blank slate.
The discussion part of this thread HAS produced a list that
nobody strongly disagrees with; or more accurately nobody
strongly disagreed with AND specified which teams they strongly
disagreed about. How is that not an RSS approved list?
Non-inclusion can just as strongly be disagreed with as inclusion.
That's what you repeatedly refuse to grasp.
No I don't. Nobody has strongly disagreed with the non-inclusion of
anybody other than Inter, Sao Paulo and Bayern Munchen in a top 9.
I've accepted that the non-inclusion of another team from the top
10 is strongly disagreed with. Their inclusion in a top 10 has also
been strongly disagreed with. The only possible way to get a list
that nobody strongly disagrees with is to make it a shorter list.
It's a logical impossibility to have a top 10 that both includes
and excludes that team.
And if you think about it, that's the only way that strong
disagreement could make it necessary to shorten the list isn't it?
And I've been clear from the start that it was possible that making
it a list that noone strongly disagrees with might mean making it a
short list.
Fair enough. I already told you in that case I'd strongly disagree
with Independiente, Peñarol and Boca Juniors, so it's going to be a
Top 6.
That's a short list, just like you said.
Are you just messing me around or do you really strongly disagree with
their inclusion?
Why didn't you say before the deadline?
The only unusual thing about my criteria is that nobody strongly
disagrees with it. Nobody's explained how a list that nobody
strongly disagrees with is a less fair representation of what
RSS members believe to be the best club sides than a list that
people do strongly disagree about.
A majority of RSS members believe that there should be a team on
it that you, as the only one, don't want to see there.
3 people is not a majority.
Neither is 1.
I never claimed it is. How is that relevant?
It's not my list, it's our list, and nobody strongly disagreeslist as 'our list'. By my count you've used that term nine times
with it. So what are these problems? Show me one message where
anybody except yourself has described this
and nobody has ever agreed with you. There, that's one of the
problems.
OK that could indicate a problem. At least 4 people have
contributed to compiling the list though. That's evidence that it's
our list. And it was certainly intended to be our list. If other
people aren't interested in taking part in discussions like this,
what are they doing on rss?
I think it's reasonable to think enough people have contributed to
the compilation of the list to be able to call it our list. And
people can take part in the vote I'm planning on organizing;
You're not organizing it; MH is.
No he's not. I am.
Are you nominating Torino 1945-49 for the vote then?
It happens that Mark formulated :
Are you nominating Torino 1945-49 for the vote then?
yes, of course, maybe start from 1942-43 https://www.rsssf.org/tablesi/ital43.html
Rubentus 2011-2020
Jesus Petry brought next idea :
Rubentus 2011-2020
you must put several "asterisks" on this entry
Ammammata wrote:
Jesus Petry brought next idea :
Rubentus 2011-2020
you must put several "asterisks" on this entry
In light of all the recent criticism, I've decided to rename the list.
I accept that rss-sanctioned isn't particularly accurate. From now on
it's the rss not strongly disagreed about top 9.
I'm still having problems with novaBBS, so there might not be a vote.
Maybe I'll decide for sure next time I try novaBBS.
Just in case we do have one, keep the nominations coming though; the
deadline is midnight tonight. I might as well nominate the 9 in the 'provisional' list:
Barcelona 2009-2015
AC Milan 1988-1996
Real Madrid 1956-1960
Santos 1961-1965
Ajax 1970-1973
Independiente 1971-1975
Real Madrid 2014-2018
Penarol 1960-1966
Boca Juniors 2000-2003
I have already nominated MANCHESTER UNITED of the Sir Alex treble
winning era.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 6:37:41 +0000, Theory11 wrote:
I have already nominated MANCHESTER UNITED of the Sir Alex
treble winning era.
One could make a case for the inclusion of two separate
Manchester United teams:
1992-2003: 8 Premier league titles in 11 years, CL in 1999,
plus an assortment of domestic cups. This is the team
identified with Giggs, Beckham, Scholes, Neville, Keane,
Schmeichel, Solskjaer. But there was a lot of turnover, and
only Giggs was a regular at both the beginning and the end of
the era.
2007-2013: 5 Premier League titles in 7 years, the CL in 2008,
Club World Cup in 2008, two CL finals (both lost to Gurdiola's
Barcelona), plus domestic cups. I would identify this team
with Rooney, Cristiano Ronaldo, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra.
Giggs and Scholes were still around, but clearly in decline.
I think the later team had more star power and was more
successful on the international stage, but it's possible that
ManU fans are more fond of the earlier team, maybe because of
its core of home-grown players.
On 14/07/2025 10:56, Mark wrote:
Ammammata wrote:
It happens that Mark formulated :
Are you nominating Torino 1945-49 for the vote then?
yes, of course, maybe start from 1942-43
https://www.rsssf.org/tablesi/ital43.html
Just a reminder: people have got just over 2 days to nominate their
teams for the vote.
So far we have:
Torino 1942-49
Surely somebody's going to nominate 1 or more of the 9 in the
'provisional' list.
I nominate (again) the following teams:
River Plate 1996-2000
Boca Juniors 1998-2003
Santos 1961-1965
Internacional 1975-1979
São Paulo 2005-2008
Palmeiras 2016-2023
Liverpool 1975-1984
Manchester United 1992-2003
Manchester City 2017-2024
Bayern München 2012-2023
Internazionale 1962-1966
AC Milan 1987-1996
Juventus 2011-2020
Real Madrid 1960-1969
Barcelona 2008-2016
And endorse the following additions by Lléo:
Vasco da Gama 1945-1952
Botafogo 1957-1962
Flamengo 1980-1983
Corinthians 1998-2000
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
If we are also doing historical teams for which we have close
to zero visual records, then I would add:
Honved 1949-1956
Juventus 1930-1935
Arsenal 1930-1935
Futbolmetrix wrote:
If we are also doing historical teams for which we have close
to zero visual records, then I would add:
Honved 1949-1956
Juventus 1930-1935
Arsenal 1930-1935
Arsenal? No fucking way! No continental championships, no
world titles (of any description).
If Bob Paisley's Liverpool or Alex Ferguson's Man Utd can't
get on the list with everything they won domestically and
internationally, there's no way the Arse can be taken seriously
for it...
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:51:09 +0000, Jesus Petry wrote:
I nominate (again) the following teams:
Bayern München 2012-2023
Juventus 2011-2020
Real Madrid 1960-1969
Barcelona 2008-2016
A few more nominations:
Juventus 1976-1985: 6 Serie A title in 10 years, UEFA CUo, Cup Winners
Cup, European Cup, Intercontinental Cup during that period, two other European semifinals narrowly lost, the core of the Italian team that
did do well at WC1978 and won WC1982. The record would have been even
better if the 1983 European Cup Final has not been mysteriously
cancelled.
Juventus 1930-1935
On 2025-07-18 06:16, Blueshirt wrote:
Futbolmetrix wrote:
If we are also doing historical teams for which we have
close to zero visual records, then I would add:
Honved 1949-1956
Juventus 1930-1935
Arsenal 1930-1935
Arsenal? No fucking way! No continental championships, no
world titles (of any description).
Well there were no continental cups in the 1930s.
MH wrote:
On 2025-07-18 06:16, Blueshirt wrote:
Futbolmetrix wrote:
If we are also doing historical teams for which we have
close to zero visual records, then I would add:
Honved 1949-1956
Juventus 1930-1935
Arsenal 1930-1935
Arsenal? No fucking way! No continental championships, no
world titles (of any description).
Well there were no continental cups in the 1930s.
As a club they haven't even won a continental championship
or world title in the years when there were!
Personally, I'd find it hard to put teams that just dominated
domestically from bygone days - when we've no lengthy footage
of matches, just short news clips/b&w photos of men on muddy
fields with big boots kicking a brown leather ball around -
above teams that dominated domestically and internationally on
a list of best club sides.
It's hard enough to judge good teams from the 1950's & 1960's
let alone the pre-war days.'
On 2025-07-19 05:24, Blueshirt wrote:
MH wrote:
On 2025-07-18 06:16, Blueshirt wrote:
Futbolmetrix wrote:
If we are also doing historical teams for which we have
close to zero visual records, then I would add:
Honved 1949-1956
Juventus 1930-1935
Arsenal 1930-1935
Personally, I'd find it hard to put teams that just dominated
domestically from bygone days - when we've no lengthy footage
of matches, just short news clips/b&w photos of men on muddy
fields with big boots kicking a brown leather ball around -
above teams that dominated domestically and internationally on
a list of best club sides.
I can't disagree with that at all. I doubt there are many people left
alive who can comment reliably on those old teams. My father used to
wax eloquent about Jimmy McRory, whom he did see play - with St. Roch's
Old Crocks in the 50s if I remember the tale correctly. Scored a
typical bullet header vs. Celtic old crocks, he said. >
It's hard enough to judge good teams from the 1950's & 1960's
let alone the pre-war days.'
Even 70s, since the footage is often not great and the condition of
the fields often appalling. And refereeing standard were far less
uniform within Europe to say nothing of the huge discrepancy between
south america and Europe, which I kept hearing from older fans was the reason for matches laballed "the battle of" (Santiago, etc.)
But you don't need people who are alive today to comment on historical
facts. You have the historical record (how dominant was the team at the
time relative to its opponents), and you have the written testimonies of contemporaries. Did they think the team at the time was head and
shoulders above its opponents? And so we can make a judgment about that team's relative standing in an all-time great list. Of course it's not
going to be 100% precise, but in the end this is just a little leisurely exercise, so why not do it anyway?
As for the claim that you can't compare men in boots kicking around a
thick leather ball on muddy fields and different standards of refereeing
to the teams of today: for the millionth time, everything is relative to one's contemporaries.
chance against any semi-decent top-level club today (the only question
is how far down you have to go in today's pyramid to find someone to
whom the great teams of the past wouldn't succumb embarrassingly), let
alone one from the 1950s or 1930s.
A few years ago I suggested (I think it was in a private exchange with milivella) that it would be interesting to create blurred videos to see
if experts today can distinguish between Champions League football and,
say, League 1 football (the third level of the English pyramid).
haven't seen that specific exercise done, but I have seen academic
papers that have taken up that idea to study discrimination (against
women or against black athletes). So, the exercise I have in mind
(comparing today's teams to those of the past) is technologically
feasible. (And we may be only a few years away from creating an AI-
generated highlight reel of the 1930 World Cup final). Now, you just
have to find someone with the resources and time to actually carry it out.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:18:37 |
| Calls: | 12,105 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,126 |