| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:08:10 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,309 |
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.
Mark <Pammiesheart@yahoo.co.uk> 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
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.
On 2025-07-02 04:47, Werner Pichler wrote:
Mark <Pammiesheart@yahoo.co.uk> 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.
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?
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:
LetrCOs 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 <Pammiesheart@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
On 05.07.2025 22:18, Mark wrote:
Werner Pichler wrote:
LetrCOs 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? ItrCOs 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 itrCOs pointless having a list.
Your whole methodology is flawed.
What have you got against a list that nobody strongly disagrees
with?
IrCOve told you before, I strongly disagree with the
dishonest way yourCOve been conducting this, and
IrCOm not the only one.
Anyway they're not my 2 options.
Yes, it is. Option B. No list. IrCOll 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 havenrCOt moved
an inch despite strong disagreement on every side.
So fairrCOs fair. IrCOll 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Mark <Pammiesheart@yahoo.co.uk> 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 MarkrCys 'I donrCOt like English teamsrCy list.
ThatrCOs a good solution.
Ciao,
Werner October
What do yous think?
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.
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.
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?
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.
It's not my list, it's our list, and nobody strongly disagrees with it.list as 'our list'. By my count you've used that term nine times and
So what are these problems? Show me one message where anybody except yourself has described this
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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;
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, Pe|#arol 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.
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
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.
Rubentus 2011-2020
Jesus Petry brought next idea :
Rubentus 2011-2020
you must put several "asterisks" on this entry
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.
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 M|+nchen 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-a 1930-1935
Arsenal-a 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.-a I doubt there are many people left alive who can comment reliably on those old teams.-a-a 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.-a Scored a
typical bullet header vs. Celtic old crocks, he said.-a >
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-a 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.
Mark wrote:
Snip
OK, people seem to have lost interest in having a vote. Sorry
Futbolmetrix, Ammammata and Jesus for your nominations ending up being
a bit of a waste of time. Thank you for your nominations anyway. The
vote's cancelled.
I hereby declare this the official RSS-not-strongly-disagreed-about Top
9 Best Club Teams Of All Time:
1 Barcelona 2009-2015
2 AC 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 think we did reasonably well to get a Top 9 that noone strongly
disagreed with. If anyone wants to go through the list and comment on
what they (not so strongly) disagree about etc, please feel free.
On 24/07/2025 11:09, Mark wrote:
Mark wrote:
Snip
OK, people seem to have lost interest in having a vote. Sorry
Futbolmetrix, Ammammata and Jesus for your nominations ending up
being a bit of a waste of time. Thank you for your nominations
anyway. The vote's cancelled.
I hereby declare this the official RSS-not-strongly-disagreed-about
Top 9 Best Club Teams Of All Time:
1 Barcelona 2009-2015
2 AC 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 think we did reasonably well to get a Top 9 that noone strongly
disagreed with. If anyone wants to go through the list and comment
on what they (not so strongly) disagree about etc, please feel free.
Hmmm... so I gather you decided to disregard all the strong
disagreement about teams not being there? I don't thinks that works
this way. But anyway, people told you several times this is your
list, so suit yourself.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry