-A-

Not being beaten for 49 games in the league. So that's mostly based on one extremely successful season, domestically only (and in the league, only.) Not really enough to prove anything. If you're going to argue that it's 'best football teams' then this is an entirely subjective debate and I'm not quite sure how you can argue that a team that can only get to one CL quarter final in 3 years is really the best.

Yeah, West Ham won the cup from the Second Division in 1980, they should definitely be on the list.

No way. Nothing you do in your domestic league is enough to merit a place as the greatest side of all time. You'd have to win the English/Spanish/Italian leagues at least 4 times in a row to counter zero European success. Are the present Inter team anywhere near being the best team of all time? EDIT: Getting thrashed at home to Inter and having one quarter final to show from the 3 season around that Invincible year shows that they weren't really in the top 10 sides of all time. The fact that a Bayern team that wasn't really noteworthy was included can't be used as justification for every marginal slightly better than them to be included.

Unfortunate timing...

Well I guess it's a matter of opinion, but tenth best team in Europe doesn't really seem fitting of the description 'European power.' 'Quite decent,' yes, but not really a genuine contender. They've done absolutely nothing in Europe for 5 years, they're really not a threat at the moment. It's never as simple as this because of the variation in which teams you're drawn against (and the simple fact that a better team can still lose any given match) but getting into the quarter finals of the CL means you're roughly in the best 8 teams in Europe. That's not really an arbitrary cut-off point either because up until then seedings are used and country protection is given. Madrid haven't been in the 'top 8' for 5 years, they're in a genuine slump. I really believe that when you use the description 'best team/top team in Europe' it should be primarily based on the CL and not domestic performance (and it's not even as if the Madrid team that won the league last year did it in convincing fashion.) Except in the quarter finals or later

Bioshock, for me. Better and more varied than the excellent Fallout 3 soundtrack. Also loved Halo 2, In Amber Clad is one of my favourite individual game tracks and it's an original composition. I didn't even realise Civ 4 had music to it, I always play it muted in windowed mode so I can browse the web at the same time.

They're not a European power at all. They haven't even had a single CL quarter final in 5 years, they're roughly the 10th best team in Europe at the moment.

Can't really classify a team as in the top 10 of all time when they won no European Cups (or Libertadores for South American teams.)

I don't think the Treble-winning side of 1999 is in the top ten sides of all time. The Busby babes have a shout and if the current squad retains the CL and wins another trophy then they should be in there, but I don't think you need to put in a token Man United squad because the club is one of the most successful in history. It's pretty clear that this is supposed to be about individual sides and not total club achievements. The problem is that including some obviously undeserving teams like Bayern 2001 leaves the door open to criticisms of teams left out. The Liverpool, Madrid and mid-90s Ajax teams pretty much pick themselves. Personally I'd have included international teams as well - not because they're particularly comparable with club sides but because it makes the list a bit easier to compile. There's absolutely no way the Galacticos were in the top 10 sides of all time. In the 5 years of Perez's Presidency they won 1 league and and 1 CL (both in the first 2 years) and then won no trophies for 3 years. They're possibly the most under-achieving side in history.

It's a bit frustrating having to pick what we think are the 5 top teams from a list of 10. I know absolutely nothing about the Santos, Torino or Benfica sides mentioned and I really don't think the Bayern team of 2001 merits a place, so the rest of my list almost picks itself.

That's really not true at all, come on. Football games average anywhere between 2.5 and 3 'scores' per game depending on the league. Basketball averages something like 75 scores per game and the NFL average is roughly 6 scores per game, I think (possibly one more.)

Yeah, football definitely isn't a game for the casual fan in any way. Even now I think I appreciate things like the ability to keep possession or make runs off the ball more than I used to. If it weren't for the fact that football is a totally dominant sport over here and I knew all the players, the teams, transfers and everything, I'd still say I prefer rugby. For sitting down and watching a random match that I know nothing about, I prefer rugby union. I find more interest in the forward battles, I think a well-worked try from the midfielders is something better than most beautiful goals in football and most gaes have at least something like that. But I still watch football far more because I'm interested in the transfers, I can watch more games on TV and I've grown up with it.

I think a lot of people were just talking about the merits of the sport (and sports in general) which is pretty interesting IMO. We managed to have some interesting discussion in the 'Least Favourite Sport' thread for example. It's just that some people will use any excuse to lol, America and some people will look for any excuse to make anything into a lol, America statement. EDIT: And Kaney, I don't think that's what HTTK meant by 'actual play.' The normal game of football is what happens in the 90 minutes and extra time. The ability to take/save a penalty is a pretty tiny part of the normal game of football, but that's how a lot of European, cup and international games are settled. If matches were settled by a competition to see who could take the longest throw-in, that wouldn't really be fair. Taking penalties is not really all that related to who's the better team - football's about passing and creating chances and scoring goals.

EDIT: Argh, keeps cutting off my posts. Things like 'tedium' and 'boring' are totally subjective. You might as well say you don't like something because it's 'bad' - come on, be more descriptive. If you want to talk about low-scoring, then that's a valid opinion. But you don't deserve to win because you have more possession. You don't deserve to win because you string together more passes or have the most shots on goal. You deserve to win because you score more goals, and that's the only reason. In the NFL, if a team is doing particularly well you often see their opponents having far more time in possession. If a team is particularly ineffective, they have often have more unsuccessful trips to the red zone ... they are worse and probably don't deserve to win. A clinical NFL team gets the ball, moves up the pitch swiftly and scores, then gives the ball to the opposition who might manage to keep it but don't necessarily progress up the field quickly or score heavily. The worse team has more time in possession, more first downs and potentially even more total yardage, but, just like football - those stats mean absolutely nothing. They're encouraging signs, but you win because you score more, that's it. If you don't score more than the opposition, you don't deserve to win. If you're talking about my comment, are you serious? I was trying to refute his point about pansy football being one of the most pussy sports around when clearly basketball as a non-contact sport takes that honour. Your point about 'the best team should win' seems to have two elements that I gather from this post - you can dominate the game and still lose and that you think referee decision too often decide the game. I've already made my counter-point to the first - you don't deserve to win for having more possession and you don't deserve to win for creating chances but missing them. Upsets happen when the weaker team scores more goals than the stronger team - they are legitimate results. If you think the weaker team wins too often, that's really a matter of opinion and not a fundamental criticism of the sport. I can totally agree with the latter argument, though. Football refereeing is behind the times and it's only now that things are starting to be rectified. The tide seems to be turning - public opinion is in favour of goal-line technology and FIFA are trialling a system where there's an extra referee behind each goal to supervise decisions in the penalty area.

As people have already mentioned, superficially, baseball is just as boring as football. If we're talking about cowardly non-violent sports about basketball? Holy shit, non-contact, it's for pussies.

WHY DO YOU TEASE ME SO? The Wire is the greatest thing ever invented by man.

Average White Band! FUNK! I really need to buy a new wireless adapter and get these songs, this is my favourite DLC pack yet.

Apparently the guy loves partying more than football and that's why Barcelona let him go so cheaply. Really can't see why he hasn't even got more opportunities at Spurs, even under Ramos. Can easily see how he's not a Redknapp player, but I thought that, all things being equal, he'd get chances under Ramos.

Is the West Ham player Wanchope? Doesn't really look like him but I'm not sure. This is embarrassing

The Turks are worse. Seriously, remember all the violence, damage and arrests at the UEFA Cup Final last year? Remember Middlebrough fans (either them or Sunderland) fighting each other inside the stadium this season? How many British fans were arrested in Moscow last year? 25 was it? There are examples of football-related violence everywhere and someone getting cut in the shin is not a reason to move the final. Talk about a terrorist attack? What if there's a terrorist attack wherever they move the final to? Rome has been preparing for the final for two years, how prepared would the substitute be? Travel arrangements have to be changed and accommodation switched, so the authorities have less control over where the fans are. There are dozens of implications to changing the venue this close to the final.

The final will probably be fine. Roma won't be there, no Italian teams will be there so there will be far less aggro. They managed a CL final in Istanbul for god's sake, they can manage one in Rome. They guy last night got cut on the ankle kicking a Roma fan in the face and then went to watch the match before getting it seen to, this has been ridiculously over-dramatised.

Wow, fantastic goal from SWP. City 2-0 up and they look in the mood for a rout.

Knocked the guy out in under 10 seconds, looked a bit sad really.

Fortunately System Shock 2 is one of the best games ever made, so the omens aren't all bad.

I remember reading about proposals for extensive youth-team set-ups and the potential for allowing clubs to develop home-grown players. Has anything come of that?