4-0 to City, and it was a flattering result for Carlo Allardyce's team.

The way Madrid set up was embarrassing for the stature of that club. This exorcises the demons of last year's CL. It was about the flukiest CL run and victory ever, alongside Chelsea's in 2012. Yesterday was a true reflection of what this team really is now - a group of superstars who don't have much courage on the ball and play on counter attacks and individual ability.

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:01:39 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> 4-0 to City, and it was a flattering result for Carlo Allardyce's team.
>
> The way Madrid set up was embarrassing for the stature of that club. This exorcises the demons of last year's CL. It was about the flukiest CL run and victory ever, alongside Chelsea's in 2012. Yesterday was a true reflection of what this team really is now - a group of superstars who don't have much courage on the ball and play on counter attacks and individual ability.

They did get to the semi, right ? And beat some big names along the way. And if they hadn't met the behemoth, they probably would be in the final. So let's not read too much into this. Looks like Pep finally got everything right and the result is truly impressive. Hopefully they can repeat the performance in the final and don't lose it again by some stupid choke, and then we'll see what they do in coming years. For now I hope for a final that's at least as good as this Etihad match (OK, that's maybe too much to ask for, but at least close it should be).

On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:27:55 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:01:39 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:

> They did get to the semi, right ? And beat some big names along the way. And if they hadn't met the behemoth, they probably would be in the final.

Which big names would that be? The then mid-table Liverpool and Chelsea who were in complete disarray? Or Celtic and Shakhtar?

> So let's not read too much into this.

On the contrary, there's a lot to read into this. That how a team that was completely outplayed in 6 out of 7 games in the last year's knockouts somehow managed to win the whole thing. Was fate, mystique, belief, or just incredible luck? That question as answered on Wednesday.

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 2:34:26 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:27:55 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:01:39 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
>
> > They did get to the semi, right ? And beat some big names along the way.. And if they hadn't met the behemoth, they probably would be in the final.
> Which big names would that be? The then mid-table Liverpool and Chelsea who were in complete disarray?

Yes. They're the big names of the last years. And what they do in the league has little relevance for the UCL.
Who other than City would be winners from the start against Real then ?

> > So let's not read too much into this.
> On the contrary, there's a lot to read into this. That how a team that was completely outplayed in 6 out of 7 games in the last year's knockouts somehow managed to win the whole thing. Was fate, mystique, belief, or just incredible luck? That question as answered on Wednesday.

It wasn't. And it won't ever be (and except for you, nobody seems to care much, not even Pep and City themselves). Then was then and now is now. As I understand, everybody agrees that Pep made some important mistakes last year which he didn't repeat this year. And also that right now City play the best football in recent years. Last year they were strong, but they couldn't have produced such a game.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 2:34:26 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:27:55 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:01:39 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> >
> > > They did get to the semi, right ? And beat some big names along the way. And if they hadn't met the behemoth, they probably would be in the final.
> > Which big names would that be? The then mid-table Liverpool and Chelsea who were in complete disarray?
> Yes. They're the big names of the last years. And what they do in the league has little relevance for the UCL.

It has every relevance. Both these teams had an immensely poor season. Their defenses were shambles. Real caught them both at their lowest ebbs (though LFC has recovered a little since).

> Who other than City would be winners from the start against Real then ?

Bayern, PSG, Arsenal, and Napoli could all have taken them down. Probably even Liverpool in its current form. I don't understand the awe you're in of Real Madrid. They are currently 14 points behind a not-very-good Barcelona team in La Liga.

> > > So let's not read too much into this.
> > On the contrary, there's a lot to read into this. That how a team that was completely outplayed in 6 out of 7 games in the last year's knockouts somehow managed to win the whole thing. Was fate, mystique, belief, or just incredible luck? That question as answered on Wednesday.
> It wasn't. And it won't ever be (and except for you, nobody seems to care much, not even Pep and City themselves). Then was then and now is now. As I understand, everybody agrees that Pep made some important mistakes last year which he didn't repeat this year. And also that right now City play the best football in recent years. Last year they were strong, but they couldn't have produced such a game.

Pep made no glaring mistakes last year. City dominated Real over 2 legs. Even Toni Kroos said that City could have won 10-1 or 10-2 at the Etihad in the first leg last season. Real's victory was remarkably freakish, similar to their victories again PSG and Liverpool that same season.

You seem to be more enamored by Real's historic stature than their actual level of play.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:48:27 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 11:31:55 AM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> > On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 2:34:26 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 2:27:55 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 6:01:39 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> > >
> > > > They did get to the semi, right ? And beat some big names along the way. And if they hadn't met the behemoth, they probably would be in the final.
> > > Which big names would that be? The then mid-table Liverpool and Chelsea who were in complete disarray?
> > Yes. They're the big names of the last years. And what they do in the league has little relevance for the UCL.
> It has every relevance. Both these teams had an immensely poor season. Their defenses were shambles. Real caught them both at their lowest ebbs (though LFC has recovered a little since).
> > Who other than City would be winners from the start against Real then ?
> Bayern, PSG, Arsenal, and Napoli could all have taken them down.

Could have taken them down, or could have just as well lost to them.
I strongly doubt all of them, actually. PSG, Arsenal and Napoli still have to deliver in the UCL, and Bayern I understand had a poor season for their standards.

> > > > So let's not read too much into this.
> > > On the contrary, there's a lot to read into this. That how a team that was completely outplayed in 6 out of 7 games in the last year's knockouts somehow managed to win the whole thing. Was fate, mystique, belief, or just incredible luck? That question as answered on Wednesday.
> > It wasn't. And it won't ever be (and except for you, nobody seems to care much, not even Pep and City themselves). Then was then and now is now. As I understand, everybody agrees that Pep made some important mistakes last year which he didn't repeat this year. And also that right now City play the best football in recent years. Last year they were strong, but they couldn't have produced such a game.
> Pep made no glaring mistakes last year. City dominated Real over 2 legs. Even Toni Kroos said that City could have won 10-1 or 10-2 at the Etihad in the first leg last season. Real's victory was remarkably freakish, similar to their victories again PSG and Liverpool that same season.
>
> You seem to be more enamored by Real's historic stature than their actual level of play.

I saw them play. Last year as well as this year. In my humble judgement, last year they were close to both City and Liverpool. Yes, if they hadn't had Courtois in goal things would have been different, but they did and he defended incredibly. You might say they were a bit lucky but nothing out of the ordinary. Happens all the time. Nothing comparable to Chelsea 2012.
This year they did reasonably OK in the first leg and only looked rather poor in the second one because of they way City played. In such form they would make anybody look second-league. (BTW, they just won the first piece of the treble without even playing. :) And Arsenal, which you say would be strong favorites against Real, lost a rather important game for them to a bottom-table team. So it's very hard to believe.)

Long story short, what you're trying to prove is at best uncertain and of no interest to anybody. We'll see next year what everybody does domestically and in the UCL. My guess is Real will still be in the last 8 at least.

On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:41:30 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:48:27 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:

> > You seem to be more enamored by Real's historic stature than their actual level of play.
> I saw them play. Last year as well as this year. In my humble judgement, last year they were close to both City and Liverpool. Yes, if they hadn't had Courtois in goal things would have been different, but they did and he defended incredibly. You might say they were a bit lucky but nothing out of the ordinary. Happens all the time. Nothing comparable to Chelsea 2012.

Disagree. They are absolutely comparable to Chelsea 2012. Arguably two of the flukiest single season victors in Champions League history.

> This year they did reasonably OK in the first leg and only looked rather poor in the second one because of they way City played. In such form they would make anybody look second-league. (BTW, they just won the first piece of the treble without even playing. :) And Arsenal, which you say would be strong favorites against Real, lost a rather important game for them to a bottom-table team. So it's very hard to believe.)

And as we speak, 13th place Valencia beats RM and drops them to 3rd place in La Liga.

>
> Long story short, what you're trying to prove is at best uncertain and of no interest to anybody. We'll see next year what everybody does domestically and in the UCL. My guess is Real will still be in the last 8 at least.

Top 8? You were just arguing that they are the second best team in Europe. That's quite a drop in 1 day :-)

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:41:57 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:41:30 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:

> And as we speak, 13th place Valencia beats RM and drops them to 3rd place in La Liga.
Well, I can imagine Real aren't in the best play disposition right now. But it doesn't change much, they'll be in a UCL position anyway and they had no chance of being champions.

> > Long story short, what you're trying to prove is at best uncertain and of no interest to anybody. We'll see next year what everybody does domestically and in the UCL. My guess is Real will still be in the last 8 at least.
> Top 8? You were just arguing that they are the second best team in Europe.. That's quite a drop in 1 day :-)

No I wasn't. Let's be clear about this. What I was saying is that aside from City, which right now seems to be head and shoulders above everybody else (we'll see if they confirm it on the field but right now this is definitely the impression), there are another 5 - 6 teams of close value that, with a bit of luck, could be UCL champions if not for City. Real among them, of course. (Which you seem to dispute by calling them West Brom Madrid and other such stuff.) They are all in second place, basically. This is the situation now. Last year, City wasn't yet that powerful, maybe Real were a bit better than today, after all a year has passed over Modric and Courtois, their clearly best players. Whatever. Last year the gap in class wasn't that big so Real's win over City, while probably a bit lucky, wasn't as far-fetched as you make it out to be.

On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:51:12 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:41:57 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:41:30 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
>
> > And as we speak, 13th place Valencia beats RM and drops them to 3rd place in La Liga.
> Well, I can imagine Real aren't in the best play disposition right now. But it doesn't change much, they'll be in a UCL position anyway and they had no chance of being champions.

Dude, you seem to be tripping over your own line of reasoning. You denigrated Arsenal for losing to the lesser team yesterday, but now that Real does the same you're full of compassion for them. The parallels are strikingly similar - both were deflated after just losing out on their chief goal for the season (EPL for Arsenal, UCL for RM), both had almost no chance of being champions, and both will conformably make next season's UCL. So which one is it, do we laugh at them, or do we "understand" their poor result?

> > > Long story short, what you're trying to prove is at best uncertain and of no interest to anybody. We'll see next year what everybody does domestically and in the UCL. My guess is Real will still be in the last 8 at least.
> > Top 8? You were just arguing that they are the second best team in Europe. That's quite a drop in 1 day :-)
> No I wasn't. Let's be clear about this. What I was saying is that aside from City, which right now seems to be head and shoulders above everybody else (we'll see if they confirm it on the field but right now this is definitely the impression), there are another 5 - 6 teams of close value that, with a bit of luck, could be UCL champions if not for City. Real among them, of course. (Which you seem to dispute by calling them West Brom Madrid and other such stuff.) They are all in second place, basically. This is the situation now. Last year, City wasn't yet that powerful, maybe Real were a bit better than today, after all a year has passed over Modric and Courtois, their clearly best players. Whatever. Last year the gap in class wasn't that big so Real's win over City, while probably a bit lucky, wasn't as far-fetched as you make it out to be.

My point wasn't that they were as poor as West Brom, but rather that the tactics they employed were similar to the West Broms of this world.

And yes, the gulf in class between them and City was huge last season as well. But sometimes the weaker team wins - that's football.

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 3:20:45 AM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 7:51:12 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 21, 2023 at 9:41:57 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 20, 2023 at 7:41:30 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
> >
> > > And as we speak, 13th place Valencia beats RM and drops them to 3rd place in La Liga.
> > Well, I can imagine Real aren't in the best play disposition right now. But it doesn't change much, they'll be in a UCL position anyway and they had no chance of being champions.
> Dude, you seem to be tripping over your own line of reasoning. You denigrated Arsenal for losing to the lesser team yesterday, but now that Real does the same you're full of compassion for them. The parallels are strikingly similar - both were deflated after just losing out on their chief goal for the season (EPL for Arsenal, UCL for RM), both had almost no chance of being champions, and both will conformably make next season's UCL. So which one is it, do we laugh at them, or do we "understand" their poor result?

They're indeed similar to a point but there's a difference: I'm sure Arsenal didn't like handing the title over themselves to City, formally speaking. Real had long ago lost any chance for La Liga. And you can't compare the drubbing Real got wednesday to the fact that Arsenal lost the home title. I do understand Real not being themselves for some time after something like that. But they'll get over it. Anyway, it's true that the actual chance Arse had of becoming champions was practically 0, so there's not much to read into that either. Minor point anyway.

> > > > Long story short, what you're trying to prove is at best uncertain and of no interest to anybody. We'll see next year what everybody does domestically and in the UCL. My guess is Real will still be in the last 8 at least.
> > > Top 8? You were just arguing that they are the second best team in Europe. That's quite a drop in 1 day :-)
> > No I wasn't. Let's be clear about this. What I was saying is that aside from City, which right now seems to be head and shoulders above everybody else (we'll see if they confirm it on the field but right now this is definitely the impression), there are another 5 - 6 teams of close value that, with a bit of luck, could be UCL champions if not for City. Real among them, of course. (Which you seem to dispute by calling them West Brom Madrid and other such stuff.) They are all in second place, basically. This is the situation now. Last year, City wasn't yet that powerful, maybe Real were a bit better than today, after all a year has passed over Modric and Courtois, their clearly best players. Whatever. Last year the gap in class wasn't that big so Real's win over City, while probably a bit lucky, wasn't as far-fetched as you make it out to be.
> My point wasn't that they were as poor as West Brom, but rather that the tactics they employed were similar to the West Broms of this world.
>
> And yes, the gulf in class between them and City was huge last season as well. But sometimes the weaker team wins - that's football.

My point is that you have no way to know that. If it was indeed, it didn't show. And what happened this year proves nothing about last year.
That said, we've wasted far too much time on this debate. Which nobody can prove and it's of no big interest to anybody anyway.

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:

> That said, we've wasted far too much time on this debate.

Au contraire monsieur. Protracted debates are something of a critically endangered species in RSS, and something I miss quite a bit.

Thank you for indulging me for the past few days.

On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 10:29:24 PM UTC+3, Al Kamista wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2023 at 12:05:23 PM UTC-4, FF wrote:
>
> > That said, we've wasted far too much time on this debate.
> Au contraire monsieur. Protracted debates are something of a critically endangered species in RSS, and something I miss quite a bit.
>
> Thank you for indulging me for the past few days.

You're most welcome.