What is the fascination with Real Madrid?!

what was my point?

(26-03-2010 09:55 )cosmonaut Wrote:  Contrary to what the original post implies, Real Madrid isn't fascinating to everyone. Carlos Tevez turned them down last summer in favour of Man City. Then there's the case of the mightly Jermaine Pennant:

Francesco Totti turned down Real Madrid in the past in favour of staying at Roma.

(28-03-2010 11:39 )whothat Wrote:  

(27-03-2010 14:36 )jimbo5030 Wrote:  

(27-03-2010 13:11 )whothat Wrote:  id watch la liga anyday over the premiership

Is the EPL the most widely watched and supported league in the world? Yes, and that's fact. your argument is rubbish anyway, Barca have lost once all season only let in 18 goals and scored 70! Man utd have lost 6. and let in 25 goals and scored 72, so even when they have lost, they have scored goals. They lost 3-0 to Fulham for christs sake. Barca havn't lost 3-0 to anyone. So therefore by stats alone the EPL is more interesting and exciting.

So in your opinion you would rather watch spanish football. I'm patriotic and I'll argue that our league is the best in the world to my grave but there are quite a few million fans world wide who agree with me. We have the most widely supported club in the world (man u) and league.

So now let's get back on the thread topic and ask what is the fascination with joining the 2nd best team in spain over every other team in the world. My ideal job would be to play professionally. I would never join Real because I would want to be known as a successful footballer and not a 'galactico'.

did you read my post at all before you whent on that ramble

this post was in reply to a lot of posts not just yours. i just used ur post as a quote.

(28-03-2010 11:43 )whothat Wrote:  

(27-03-2010 13:05 )whothat Wrote:  the first post was about why ribery would move to Madrid/barca and not Manchester,Madrid a far nicer city,shops,cafes,restaurant,weather
and that has nothing to do with the competitiiveness of the leauge
from a football point of veiw.
Spannish football is alot nicer to watch,english football is boring with one team deciding they dont want to play and just siting back and put up a brick wall.

Just beacause its the most followed leauge means nothing.
You cannot argue that spnnish football is not alot nicer to watch.

I didnt, i simply said that the EPL is the most commonly watched league and most widely supported league in the world. Why would all these people watch it if it was second best so i would say it means something.

(28-03-2010 12:56 )aaron Wrote:  

(26-03-2010 09:55 )cosmonaut Wrote:  Contrary to what the original post implies, Real Madrid isn't fascinating to everyone. Carlos Tevez turned them down last summer in favour of Man City. Then there's the case of the mightly Jermaine Pennant:

Francesco Totti turned down Real Madrid in the past in favour of staying at Roma.

He is one of a few who did and im glad he did. Players like Francesco Totti and Del Piero are real football fans who stayed loyal to their clubs through whatever and i really respect them for that. I'd like to think that i would also be loyal like that. Players like these are amongst a very few who should be allowed to kiss their badge, because they support the club and have stayed loyal as a pose to Andriy Shevchenko kissing his badge on his first Chelsea appearance.

(26-03-2010 16:30 )Mister Gummidge Wrote:  Man for man, Spain aren't significantly better than England. They edge it terms of goalkeepers, but that's about all. Torres and Rooney are about on a par for quality, as are Gerrard and Iniesta, Xavi and Lampard, Johnson and Sergio Ramos, Terry and Ferdinand are both better than Puyol and I'd argue that a fit Defoe playing in a side in decent form will get as many goals as Villa.

Man for man Spain are significantly better. Goalkeepers Spain are far and away ahead. Spain have Victor Valdes, the European Cup and World Champion's goalkeeper, can't even get into the squad!. England have, with no disrespect to West Ham, but a keeper who's fighting relegation. Only in defense, on current form, are England marginally superior.

Midfield, Iniesta, Xavi and Xabi Alonso, 3 of the best players in the world in that position. You'd find difficulty fitting any footballer of any nationality in that 3. Add on top of that David Silva, who is more consistent and has more quality and ability than any of England's current wingers.

Arguing that Defoe could get as many goals as David Villa comment i can only imagine is born out of sheer ignorance of David Villa and Spanish football. As he is widely regarded, by those who watch more than just English football, as one of the best strikers in the world, if not the best. Defoe is nowhere near that standard, even when he is on top form. You only have to look at Villa's phenomenal goal scoring record at International level, considering he played a many games wide on the left of a 3 prong forward line.

Torres over Rooney, although it pains me to say it, as a Man Utd fan, Torres is better than Rooney. He's a better finisher, better headerer, link up play is better, more pace, better dribbler. Torres is in the top 3 strikers in the world, Rooney's would struggle to get in the top 5.

Back to the matter in hand.

The attraction to Real Madrid is simple.
Glamorous club, steeped richly in history. The fact that so many of the greatest players of their respective era's have played for the club. The supporters, globally. The brand name, the culture of playing stunning football (last 5 years discounted from that).

Why would someone move to La Liga over Premier League is simple. The high tax rate on the higher incomes, the strength of the Euro over the pound. This both allows Madrid to offer higher net wages. To be honest And then there's the glorious weather, relaxed lifestyle and culture.

I despise Real Madrid, but you can't deny the attraction. As a club you have the utmost respect for them, their ethics and conduct on the other hand is another issue.

(29-03-2010 15:54 )654321 Wrote:  Back to the matter in hand.

The attraction to Real Madrid is simple.
Glamorous club, steeped richly in history. The fact that so many of the greatest players of their respective era's have played for the club. The supporters, globally. The brand name, the culture of playing stunning football (last 5 years discounted from that).

Why would someone move to La Liga over Premier League is simple. The high tax rate on the higher incomes, the strength of the Euro over the pound. This both allows Madrid to offer higher net wages. To be honest And then there's the glorious weather, relaxed lifestyle and culture.

I despise Real Madrid, but you can't deny the attraction. As a club you have the utmost respect for them, their ethics and conduct on the other hand is another issue.

I agree with all of that, but like you say (the last 5 years) recently they've been their own worst enemies. They can't win trophies, because they are overidden by fantasy. Their way of solving the problem is to just keep throwing money at it, spending millions on attacking and attack minded players, when all the time the rest of the footballing world can see the glaringly obvious........


They can't defend.

With just a couple of world class defenders (for a fraction of the cost that they've spent on forwards) they could easily have swept all before them, but the lure and the quest for football's equivalent of utopia is just too strong. Until there's a change in attitude, they'll just continue to keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Followers of Real Madrid will know the biggest mistake they've made in the past 10 years, was sacking Vicente Del Bosque.
The reason they've been trouble since is due to the constant interfering of the President, and the dressing room faction lead by Raul. Raul got his way all the time because he shared a healthy relationship with the President so used this to undermine a manager if he didn't like him.

The problem is the heirachy. Even now your seeing and hearing too much about Perez and co.
To be fair they have invested in decent defenders, it's just that when your the manager and your constantly being undermined by your boss and your players it makes his job difficult.

They've got more than decent defenders currently, it's just they lack that cohesion and organisation. Albiol, Metzelder, Pepe and Garray are a decent set of centre backs. Sergio Ramos, Arbeloa are 2 excellent right backs, it's just left back is a big big problem.

And the fact that Kaka has been pretty poor by his high standards and has struggled to settle into the team doesn't help. But this is where a coach earns his money. With the way the club is currently running, it's nigh on impossible for the manager. The Real Madrid manager's job is a poisoned chalice. It's the pinnacle of club football but equally a job which you'd stay away from, which is why considering what happened at Chelski, i don't see Mourinho taking that job. Managers these days want total control.

(29-03-2010 15:46 )654321 Wrote:  

(26-03-2010 16:30 )Mister Gummidge Wrote:  Man for man, Spain aren't significantly better than England. They edge it terms of goalkeepers, but that's about all. Torres and Rooney are about on a par for quality, as are Gerrard and Iniesta, Xavi and Lampard, Johnson and Sergio Ramos, Terry and Ferdinand are both better than Puyol and I'd argue that a fit Defoe playing in a side in decent form will get as many goals as Villa.

Man for man Spain are significantly better. Goalkeepers Spain are far and away ahead. Spain have Victor Valdes, the European Cup and World Champion's goalkeeper, can't even get into the squad!. England have, with no disrespect to West Ham, but a keeper who's fighting relegation. Only in defense, on current form, are England marginally superior.

Midfield, Iniesta, Xavi and Xabi Alonso, 3 of the best players in the world in that position. You'd find difficulty fitting any footballer of any nationality in that 3. Add on top of that David Silva, who is more consistent and has more quality and ability than any of England's current wingers.

Arguing that Defoe could get as many goals as David Villa comment i can only imagine is born out of sheer ignorance of David Villa and Spanish football. As he is widely regarded, by those who watch more than just English football, as one of the best strikers in the world, if not the best. Defoe is nowhere near that standard, even when he is on top form. You only have to look at Villa's phenomenal goal scoring record at International level, considering he played a many games wide on the left of a 3 prong forward line.

Torres over Rooney, although it pains me to say it, as a Man Utd fan, Torres is better than Rooney. He's a better finisher, better headerer, link up play is better, more pace, better dribbler. Torres is in the top 3 strikers in the world, Rooney's would struggle to get in the top 5.

David Healy has a phenomenal record of scoring goals at international level. It doesn't make him the best player around, not by a long chalk, just a reasonable quality striker who's spent some time playing in a side perfectly set up to accommodate his style of play. David Villa is a very good striker (I'm not trying to imply he's only as good as Healy, that would be stupid), but he's not significantly better than half a dozen other goal poachers playing football right now (Torres, Klose, Rooney, Defoe, Eto'o, Ibrahimovic...). He simply benefits from being part of a pair of sides which set themselves up to feed a single striker. I've watched him play quite a bit, for both Valencia and Spain and feel very comfortable in my assertion that he's a far better than average striker, but no more and certainly no less than that. Putting ball into net is a very valuable ability indeed, but it's helped significantly by being in a team that focuses itself entirely on feeding a single player. Looking at Ibrahimovic's records at Inter and Barcelona shows that difference to a player's goal scoring ratio quite starkly. For Valencia, their only attacking concern is geting the ball to Villa, then hoping that if Silva didn't lay it on, he's the one backing up. For Spain, he always looks far better as the solitary attacking prong ahead of a five man midfield, than he does as part of a three or two man attack.

The central midfield is very pretty indeed, but it's lightweight and can be closed down effectively by any reasonable quality side willing to put in a good shift of pressing. Of the three players in there, only Xabi Alonso has the footballing nous to play well when everything else is being effectively closed down, something he learned he playing against the the physically strong and aggressively defensive (Yes, it's a real approach. Close down quickly, tackle hard and start the defence in the opposition's half of the pitch) mentality of sides like Blackburn and Stoke. Rubin Kazan made made Xavi and Iniesta look like the show ponies they really are. In the Euros two years ago, Spain only got past Italy and Germany by the skin of their teeth. They aren't the invincible and untouchable side people gull themselves into thinking they are, unless you sit back to stare in awe at the pretty little triangles they pass the ball in.

You state that my opinions are based on ignorance. Not true, I love football and watch matches from as many leagues as I possibly can. I watch Spanish football and enjoy it immensely, but I don't trick myself into thinking that foreign and exotic equals intrinsically better. I would argue that your opinion is based on watching a league with 2 real teams & 2 pretty good teams in it, plus 14 bunny rabbits who park the bus and pray for an off day from the big boys, then think that that watching swaggering bullies dominate psychologically pathetic sides with no real belief in their own ability to beat them constitutes the totality of worthy football. People who do that with the EPL (Also a two team league) are labelled as myopic, nationalistic partisans, yet no-one bothers to question those who do it with Spain, or those who did it with Italy in the 90's.

Spain and are not invincible or inherently superior to England. Both national sides are very good, but both are only one of a pair of sides out of 6 or 7 who have a genuine shout of winning the world cup. Holland, Argentina, Brazil, Germany and Italy are all equally capable of winning the tournament, as well as England and Spain. Anyone who thinks England have no chance at all is as blinkered and tunnel-visioned as those who claim England are the favourites. The same applies to Spain. It's a seven game winning streak to win it, and Spain's defensive frailties and unwillingness to do the necessary and ugly is just as likely to cost them the tournament as England's lack of creative flair. Big tournaments are rarely won by flair alone. Just ask Italy, the dullest and least talented national side to win multiple world cups.