Couldnt your very own reasoning be used against you? How can you prove that there was or wasnt a gap in quality? The matter of fact is that this is and will always be a matter of opinion as there is no forseeable way to measure this without being subjective.

I agree with that, but then I'm not the one making the claim that there is a big difference between them.

He is making such a claim, and while once again I am sincerely not trying to be inflammatory, I don't believe, based upon his comment and a few others, that he is qualified to make that assessment. I would like him to give me reasons why I should take his view that there was no big gap in quality between first and second tiers, in English football or any other, because until he does...

...there's no reason to diminish the winning of a European Cup, just to try and make Leicester look better.

It is my opinion that football before the 1990s was pretty scrappy. It lacked tactics and high performance atheletes. "

Okay, so what does that tell you? It tells you that the teams who DID use tactics and high-performance athletes (lol, btw, as I think of Eusebio) were pioneers, and made memorable, lasting changes to the game.

Like Nottingham Forest. Otherwise? Madrid's first 5 European Cups mean nothing, and neither do any World Cups before the 1990s. I don't think you believe that, but it follows the same logic.

Great teams made great history. Leicester City made great history indeed themselves, but compared to the greatness and achievements of some of the teams from the past, they're not in the top bracket for me.

If you compared an average football player in terms of speed, endurance, technique, ball control, etc. to a player from 1980 youd see the modern player excells. Again this is an opinion. You may not agree and thats totally fine.

I agree with that part absolutely, and is a large part of why I think it's clear that Messi is the best player to have ever laced up a pair of boots. But... is he the greatest?

That's a different question, isn't it?

Do you see my overall point?

Couldnt your very own reasoning be used against you? How can you prove that there was or wasnt a gap in quality? The matter of fact is that this is and will always be a matter of opinion as there is no forseeable way to measure this without being subjective.

I agree with that, but then I'm not the one making the claim that there is a big difference between them.

He is making such a claim, and while once again I am sincerely not trying to be inflammatory, I don't believe, based upon his comment and a few others, that he is qualified to make that assessment. I would like him to give me reasons why I should take his view that there was no big gap in quality between first and second tiers, in English football or any other, because until he does...

...there's no reason to diminish the winning of a European Cup, just to try and make Leicester look better, which is the foundation of the argument I'm hearing. That winning 2 European Cups after winning a league title, and ALL directly after promotion to the first division... is somehow not such a big deal, because: Malmo.

That doesn't really persuade me.

It is my opinion that football before the 1990s was pretty scrappy. It lacked tactics and high performance atheletes. "

Okay, so what does that tell you? It tells you that the teams who DID use tactics and high-performance athletes (lol, btw, as I think of Eusebio) were pioneers, and made memorable, lasting changes to the game.

Like Nottingham Forest. Otherwise? Madrid's first 5 European Cups mean nothing, and neither do any World Cups before the 1990s. I don't think you believe that, but it follows the same logic.

Great teams made great history. Leicester City made great history indeed themselves, but compared to the greatness and achievements of some of the teams from the past, they're not in the top bracket for me.

If you compared an average football player in terms of speed, endurance, technique, ball control, etc. to a player from 1980 youd see the modern player excells. Again this is an opinion. You may not agree and thats totally fine.

I agree with that part absolutely, and is a large part of why I think it's clear that Messi is the best player to have ever laced up a pair of boots. But... is he the greatest?

That's a different question, isn't it?

Do you see my overall point?

Couldnt your very own reasoning be used against you? How can you prove that there was or wasnt a gap in quality? The matter of fact is that this is and will always be a matter of opinion as there is no forseeable way to measure this without being subjective.

I agree with that, but then I'm not the one making the claim that there is a big difference between them.

He is making such a claim, and while once again I am sincerely not trying to be inflammatory, I don't believe, based upon his comment and a few others, that he is qualified to make that assessment. I would like him to give me reasons why I should take his view that there was no big gap in quality between first and second tiers, in English football or any other, because until he does...

...there's no reason to diminish the winning of a European Cup, just to try and make Leicester look better, which is the foundation of the argument I'm hearing. That winning 2 European Cups after winning a league title, and ALL directly after promotion to the first division... is somehow not such a big deal, because: Malmo.

That doesn't really persuade me.

It is my opinion that football before the 1990s was pretty scrappy. It lacked tactics and high performance atheletes. "

Okay, so what does that tell you? It tells you that the teams who DID use tactics and high-performance athletes (lol, btw, as I think of Eusebio) were pioneers, and made memorable, lasting changes to the game.

Like Nottingham Forest. Otherwise? Madrid's first 5 European Cups mean nothing, and neither do any World Cups before the 1990s. I don't think you believe that, but it follows the same logic.

Great teams made great history. Leicester City made great history indeed themselves, but compared to the greatness and achievements of some of the teams from the past, they're not in the top bracket for me, and I think that the reasons why people are placing them in that bracket are down to an (understandable) ignorance. It's understandable, because we live in today's age and not the past. and none of us saw the great teams of the past. It's easy to assume that the best thing YOU'VE seen is the best thing ever, if you see what I mean?

I'm just pointing out to Sun that, well, maybe the scope of his assessment is a little on the narrow side, is all...

If you compared an average football player in terms of speed, endurance, technique, ball control, etc. to a player from 1980 youd see the modern player excells. Again this is an opinion. You may not agree and thats totally fine.

I agree with that part absolutely, and is a large part of why I think it's clear that Messi is the best player to have ever laced up a pair of boots. But... is he the greatest?

That's a different question, isn't it?

Do you see my overall point?

Couldnt your very own reasoning be used against you? How can you prove that there was or wasnt a gap in quality? The matter of fact is that this is and will always be a matter of opinion as there is no forseeable way to measure this without being subjective.

I agree with that, but then I'm not the one making the claim that there is a big difference between them.

He is making such a claim, and while once again I am sincerely not trying to be inflammatory, I don't believe, based upon his comment and a few others, that he is qualified to make that assessment. I would like him to give me reasons why I should take his view that there was no big gap in quality between first and second tiers, in English football or any other, because until he does...

...there's no reason to diminish the winning of a European Cup, just to try and make Leicester look better, which is the foundation of the argument I'm hearing. That winning 2 European Cups after winning a league title, and ALL directly after promotion to the first division... is somehow not such a big deal, because: Malmo.

That doesn't really persuade me.

It is my opinion that football before the 1990s was pretty scrappy. It lacked tactics and high performance atheletes. "

Okay, so what does that tell you? It tells you that the teams who DID use tactics and high-performance athletes (lol, btw, as I think of Eusebio) were pioneers, and made memorable, lasting changes to the game.

Like Nottingham Forest. Otherwise? Madrid's first 5 European Cups mean nothing, and neither do any World Cups before the 1990s which were not won by Brazil, Germany or Italy. I don't think you believe that, but it follows the same logic.

Great teams made great history. Leicester City made great history indeed themselves, but compared to the greatness and achievements of some of the teams from the past, they're not in the top bracket for me, and I think that the reasons why people are placing them in that bracket are down to an (understandable) ignorance. It's understandable, because we live in today's age and not the past. and none of us saw the great teams of the past. It's easy to assume that the best thing YOU'VE seen is the best thing ever, if you see what I mean?

I'm just pointing out to Sun that, well, maybe the scope of his assessment is a little on the narrow side, is all...

If you compared an average football player in terms of speed, endurance, technique, ball control, etc. to a player from 1980 youd see the modern player excells. Again this is an opinion. You may not agree and thats totally fine.

I agree with that part absolutely, and is a large part of why I think it's clear that Messi is the best player to have ever laced up a pair of boots. But... is he the greatest?

That's a different question, isn't it?

Do you see my overall point?

I believe this stems out of the fact that European Cup does not have the same merit as the modern Champions League and not out of ignorance. There was a reason why the cup was replaced and in my eyes they are not equal competitions whatsoever.

Well, the reason why was because UEFA wanted more money. So they changed to a format which brought in more top teams, to attract more interest and TV attention.

That doesn't make it a better, or harder competition.

By the way, I personally DO prefer the current format, so it's not any kind of complaint I'm making, but considering the old format was pitting literal champions against each other, with no entrance for anyone who wasn't a league champion, I don't think it's feasible to claim that it was somehow easier.

Again, Nottingham deserve all the praises theyve recieved yet it still somehow feels not as magnificent or outstanding.

Then I don't know what to tell you, because it's never been done before or since, by any team in any country (including Leicester).

The Leicester sotry does have that feeling and maybe its due to actually living the story and seeing it happen

THAT seems to me to be pretty much the entire reason, to be honest.

Honestly im intrigued as to what the sports newspapers claimed about the Nottingham team, probably claimed they were the greatest ever.

I don't know, but this cool article can tell you about the team itself, and how most of the 17 players who twice won the European Cup were nobody when Clough took over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3269817/Brian-Clough-s-miracle-men-happened-17-European-Cup-winning-players-history-Nottingham-Forest.html

Seriously, it's just like Leicester's story, only even more humble, and they won the bloody European Cup as well; twice.

I believe this stems out of the fact that European Cup does not have the same merit as the modern Champions League and not out of ignorance. There was a reason why the cup was replaced and in my eyes they are not equal competitions whatsoever.

Well, the reason why was because UEFA wanted more money. So they changed to a format which brought in more top teams, to attract more interest and TV attention.

That doesn't make it a better, or harder competition.

By the way, I personally DO prefer the current format, so it's not any kind of complaint I'm making, but considering the old format was pitting literal champions against each other, with no entrance for anyone who wasn't a league champion, I don't think it's feasible to claim that it was somehow easier.

Again, Nottingham deserve all the praises theyve recieved yet it still somehow feels not as magnificent or outstanding.

Then I don't know what to tell you, because it's never been done before or since, by any team in any country (including Leicester).

The Leicester sotry does have that feeling and maybe its due to actually living the story and seeing it happen

THAT seems to me to be pretty much the entire reason, to be honest.

Honestly im intrigued as to what the sports newspapers claimed about the Nottingham team, probably claimed they were the greatest ever.

I don't know, but this cool article can tell you about the team itself, and how a lot of the 17 players who twice won the European Cup were nobody before they met 'Cloughie'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3269817/Brian-Clough-s-miracle-men-happened-17-European-Cup-winning-players-history-Nottingham-Forest.html

Seriously, it's just like Leicester's story, only even more humble, and they won the bloody European Cup as well; twice.

SunFlash

Let's wait and see.