Atletico Madrid vs Real Madrid - Champions League Final 2014 *Mod Warning Post #856

LuckyLloyd

Pro. F wrote: »

The one thing that would really put me off them is that I don't for a moment believe that they could do all that running, all season and with such a shallow squad, without help from a magic bottle.

No more than Barcelona 2008 - 2011 tbh. I'd say use of 'supplements' is rampant all across football tbh.

keane2097

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

No more than Barcelona 2008 - 2011 tbh. I'd say use of 'supplements' is rampant all across football tbh.

Yeah the idea of Atleti being juiced to the eyeballs and Real being innocent as a maiden's blush is fairly lolworthy.

Morzadec

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I am not comparing this teams journey, merely stating that they are, and have been, a big club that has had success before this season.

True enough, but their glory days were predominantly in the 70s when money was in nowhere near the dictating force it is today.

Historically, no they are not a small club.

But, in modern day terms, in comparision to the heavyweights of Europe, financially yes they are a small club, so the underdog tag is justified and the incredulity at their overachievement understandable, despite their past glories.

I mean, take Liverpool and City and the battle for the Premier League as an example.

Liverpool are a far bigger club historically, so you could point to all their trophies and say 'so what if they win they the league? no big deal, they've done it before.'

But that would be a strange way of looking at it as they were clearly the underdogs at a considerable disadvantage competeing against the might of City's transfer and wage spending.

Atleti's achievment is like that, except doubly impressive, because Liverpool were only at a slight financial disadvantage in comparision to Atleti's paltry budget and the massive financial gulf they had to overcome against their rivals both in La Liga and the Champions League.

The trophies they won in the past don't change the fact they are, in 2014, a financial featherweight compared to the heavyweights of Europe (of which you could arguably include teams like Arsenal and Liverpool).

It is for this reason that they have the underdog narrative, despite being as you say a big club in terms of history.

LuckyLloyd

keane2097 wrote: »

Yeah the idea of Atleti being juiced to the eyeballs and Real being innocent as a maiden's blush is fairly lolworthy.

The perception of the average fan with regards to 'supplementation' across all sports is outright naive. Sports journalism has a lot to answer for in that regard too. We have long passed a level where people would want truly 'clean' sport anyway. Wiping away ~15% of the intensity of play or achievement in elite level sport in one fell swoop would be deeply unpopular.

kryogen

I would be very suspicious of teams like Atleti, Dortmund and Barca 08-11 for the size of their squads and lack of rotation coupled with such a fast paced high pressing game plan, they seem to be unnaturally fit, but I would not limit it to those teams at all, they just tend to stick out more to me.

There is too much money involved in the top level to believe that widespread cheating does not occur tbh, the slightest edge can be worth so much financially

woof im a dog

Ronaldo as well how does he manage to play at such an intense level for long periods? I cant even remember the last time he was out injured for extended length of time.

Turtyturd

woof im a dog wrote: »

Ronaldo as well how does he manage to play at such an intense level for long periods? I cant even remember the last time he was out injured for extended length of time.

Hard work.....you've done it now btw.

keane2097

Even if Ronaldo is on drugs he's obv still an incredible physical specimen considering most of the rest probably are too and he's still vastly more athletic than pretty much everyone else.

Pro. F

keane2097 wrote: »

Yeah the idea of Atleti being juiced to the eyeballs and Real being innocent as a maiden's blush is fairly lolworthy.

I didn't say that Real are innocent. I was talking specifically about Atleti and what qualities cause neutrals to like them.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The perception of the average fan with regards to 'supplementation' across all sports is outright naive. Sports journalism has a lot to answer for in that regard too. We have long passed a level where people would want truly 'clean' sport anyway. Wiping away ~15% of the intensity of play or achievement in elite level sport in one fell swoop would be deeply unpopular.

I've no doubt that doping is rampant but I still see enough variance in physical output from different teams at the top level to think it's likely that some teams are doping considerably more than others and some teams considerably less.

Some teams like Dortmund, Atleti and Barca are so clearly dependant on PEDs when you consider their small squads and workrate over 90 minutes. It's just not credible that they could be clean. Compare that to United, Arsenal and Liverpool, for example, and there's a huge difference in how the physical demands of the game affect them. Then there are a load of other teams who I strongly suspect of doping (for various reasons) but who's output on the pitch is less obviously suspicious.

With regards to the intensity that would be lost if doping were properly policed, I for one would happily pay that price. Football is still excellent entertainment even when you reduce the intensity.

LuckyLloyd

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't say that Real are innocent. I was talking specifically about Atleti and what qualities cause neutrals to like them.



I've no doubt that doping is rampant but I still see enough variance in physical output from different teams at the top level to think it's likely that some teams are doping considerably more than others and some teams considerably less.

Some teams like Dortmund, Atleti and Barca are so clearly dependant on PEDs when you consider their small squads and workrate over 90 minutes. It's just not credible that they could be clean. Compare that to United, Arsenal and Liverpool, for example, and there's a huge difference in how the physical demands of the game affect them. Then there are a load of other teams who I strongly suspect of doping (for various reasons) but who's output on the pitch is less obviously suspicious.

With regards to the intensity that would be lost if doping were properly policed, I for one would happily pay that price. Football is still excellent entertainment even when you reduce the intensity.

Good post, and I commend anyone for holding that position - i.e. I despise cheating enough to want to have a clean game at the expense of my own entertainment.

keane2097

I've still yet to be convinced that PEDs are a priori "immoral" for want of a better word.

Might be worth a thread of its own - why shouldn't teams be allowed to use certain techniques vs others, etc.

Seaneh

keane2097 wrote: »

I've still yet to be convinced that PEDs are a priori "immoral" for want of a better word.

Might be worth a thread of its own - why shouldn't teams be allowed to use certain techniques vs others, etc.

Because it's an unfair advantage.

Any team on the planet can use the same conditioning methods, any team can use the same coaching methods. Only the top teams can afford to employ pharmacists and doctors to design drugs, administer them and keep themselves ahead of the testing curve.

Also, many PED's like say EPO, which I believe is the most likely to be abused in football by teams like Barca/Dortmund/Atleti/etc are extremely dangerous and can cause serious blood clotting leading to problems like stroke etc, it's banned for a reason.

Moneymaker

Turtwig wrote: »

I wouldn't read too much into it.

Barca should have beaten them in the Champions League First Leg. In the second leg, Barca had no Pique, or Valdes. so Atleti could press high with ease.

In contrast, Real beat Atleti in a mid game Copa Del Rey game when Atleti were clearly going through a lull in form. Real were awfully lucky to win the Champions League. Atleti were lacking Turan and Costa. They were also depleted from their game against Barca and the long season with little rotations. Yet but for 2 minutes they would have been champions. The scoreline didn't reflect the match and it's certainly not grounds to say Real performed better than Barca against because in reality I believe the league reflects the standings of the teams in Spain. Barca performed better against Atleti than Real did. Real just happened to win two games. If you go by 90 minutes just one game. In sport, that happens.

I don't think we can conclude anything about Atleti being set up better against tiki taka or not.

I don't think that's fair.

Were Atleti lucky in the first leg? Yes.

But they've met 6 times this. season. Barca haven't won one. Messi has been anonymous every time.

That's pretty telling and enough of a sample size to suggest Atleti are set up better against tiki taka.

UnitedIrishman

Pro. F wrote: »

Some teams like Dortmund, Atleti and Barca are so clearly dependant on PEDs when you consider their small squads and workrate over 90 minutes. It's just not credible that they could be clean. Compare that to United, Arsenal and Liverpool, for example, and there's a huge difference in how the physical demands of the game affect them. Then there are a load of other teams who I strongly suspect of doping (for various reasons) but who's output on the pitch is less obviously suspicious.

That's the thing that I don't get though. If these sides were using PEDs (and I'm firmly in the belief that sides in world football - not necessarily all of those) then it's a fairly dodgy thing to do given the sheer amount of people in and around teams ranging from physios, players, agents, coaches. All it takes is for one person to fall out with the team and they'd blow the lid off it all.

Cycling was much easier to keep it in house because of certain factors (the main one being that each team distrusted the other and felt they had to use EPO etc to just be able to race with the opposition).

Turtwig

Moneymaker wrote: »

I don't think that's fair.

Were Atleti lucky in the first leg? Yes.

But they've met 6 times this. season. Barca haven't won one. Messi has been anonymous every time.

That's pretty telling and enough of a sample size to suggest Atleti are set up better against tiki taka.

Yeah but Real only beat them once within 90 minutes and that was a midweek game when Atleti were going through a lull in form. (This was a time when Aleti should have been hammered by AC Milan but somehow won the game!) The return fixture was a dead rubber. Outside of that Atleti and Real have drawn all their games in 90 minutes. And Atleti have won one. Though it must be said for that one Ancellotti was still finding his team.

There's not enough of difference between Barca/Real's performances to conclude Ateli are better set up against either team. When in fact, both teams have mostly drawn within them all season. The exception being Real, but like I said that was a midweek cup game with a low ebb Atleti playing Real at home. Can't read too much into it. The second leg was dead rubber and Costa and few other key players didn't even play iirc.

Pro. F

keane2097 wrote: »

I've still yet to be convinced that PEDs are a priori "immoral" for want of a better word.

Might be worth a thread of its own - why shouldn't teams be allowed to use certain techniques vs others, etc.

Do you mean, why not legalise them in the sport?

I think that medical science warns athletes against using the illegal PEDs as they're seen as more likely to be hazardous to long term health. Although I'm far from an expert in what the medical consensus is. I've heard that EPO is ropey as fúck to use, having harsh effects on the body when it's in your system. All the evidence I've heard about anabolic steroids is that they are harmful to long term health. I don't know much about HGH.

Using pain killers, amphetamines and anti-inflammatories to be able to work harder definitely puts you at risk. But some of these are currently allowed in sports, like pain killing and anti-inflammatory shots into injured joints. I think there is a moral issue when a player is encouraged to use pain killers to play through an injury. But I suppose in those cases at least the long term harm is mostly limited to the injured area rather than causing harm/risk to the whole body or vital organs.

So if the governing bodies were to allow the currently banned PEDs there would be a moral issue in the harm that the players are going to be exposed to and there would be a practical issue in the legal repercussions of players being exposed to that harm.

Pro. F

UnitedIrishman wrote: »

That's the thing that I don't get though. If these sides were using PEDs (and I'm firmly in the belief that sides in world football - not necessarily all of those) then it's a fairly dodgy thing to do given the sheer amount of people in and around teams ranging from physios, players, agents, coaches. All it takes is for one person to fall out with the team and they'd blow the lid off it all.

Cycling was much easier to keep it in house because of certain factors (the main one being that each team distrusted the other and felt they had to use EPO etc to just be able to race with the opposition).

My understanding is that cycling is actually one of the hardest sports in which to hide doping. It was because of all the border crossings and teams living such a nomadic lifestyle that they got caught so frequently and it all came out.

In a football team that's doping it's only the players and some medical staff who need to be in on it and all the evidence can be hidden away in one building. Sure look at American football. They have gigantic staffs in comparison and they have no problem keeping their doping in house most of the time.

When the governing body don't care about the issue then it's easy to keep it quiet enough. Even when evidence does come out about doping, it gets forgotten very quickly.

Turtwig

Any sustained doping unless it's for medical reasons where the risk is offset by the potential health benefit is likely detrimental to a person's health in some way.

Spain in general, I may be wrong here, has a stupid attitude to doping. If you win you're still a winner or some sh*t, but yeah I agree football in general is naive and corrupt in so many ways. I wouldn't be surprised if doping is happening.

Sheepy99

If this was happening, as someone suggested, i'm sure a whistleblower would have crept up somewhere by now.

As regards certain teams, Dortmund only had that intensity for one season(at the highest(European) level).
As injuries have really held them back this season i'd be inclined to think that it's just certain individuals in their team could train themselves to that level of fitness. If not then why couldn't the players who come in replicate it? (maybe not in technique, but they were definitely slower when breaking ) Their thin squad was more than exposed this year.

As for Barca, personally i don't like them but I don't think there's a case for them doping at all.
The tiki-taka was just after being perfected, with players who had the technique and team spirit to carry it out, always fighting for each other. They were heavily reliant on what can't be denied, was a god-like Messi at the time. I wouldn't call doping, it was just that Messi's influence was so big. I could be wrong but I don't think they had a razor thin squad either. Young players on the bench but they more than performed when needed (Jeffren to make it 5-0 in the clasico as a loose example)

I don't know if it was suggested, but if anyone thinks that they stopped doping after '11 (if they were of course) , i'd just be inclined to think that teams realised how to stop them, similar to 06-07 in England when teams figured out how to stop Mourinho's Chelsea in the league who for the 2 seasons before that were fairly unstoppable in the league.

UnitedIrishman

Pro. F wrote: »

My understanding is that cycling is actually one of the hardest sports in which to hide doping. It was because of all the border crossings and teams living such a nomadic lifestyle that they got caught so frequently and it all came out.

In a football team that's doping it's only the players and some medical staff who need to be in on it and all the evidence can be hidden away in one building. Sure look at American football. They have gigantic staffs in comparison and they have no problem keeping their doping in house most of the time.

When the governing body don't care about the issue then it's easy to keep it quiet enough. Even when evidence does come out about doping, it gets forgotten very quickly.

With regards cycling, it was the Festina affair that kinda blew it all up first but there was still a decade or so after that and it was all kept under wraps because Armstrong and the UCI wanted it that way. Those in around cycling knew that everyone was doping but they all felt it was a level playing field (except it wasn't, it was a case of the best doping program won - and if that wasn't Lance then you could be expected to be found out and disqualified). But it also relied heavily on all members of the team such as the soignors and management all keeping stum aswell as opposition - there was a code of silence amongst all teams.

American football is different too in that players don't use during the season or they will get banned for 4 games up to an entire season. However, the teams will say "OK, you need to go away and get bigger..." and players go away on their offseason and do what they have to do in order to get bigger - usually using PED's and other growth hormones. The teams, whilst saying they know nothing about what they player does in offseason and not being responsible for them (they don't get paid by teams in offseason) will not be naive enough to not know how a guy has put on massive bulk of muscle in a short space of time. But they won't care.

Football is different in that I don't think you could run a doping program all that effectively without word getting out somewhere. I don't think an entire team of players and doctors would be able to keep that in house. Only chance you have is on an individual basis where an agent could say 'you need to take this, everyone else is doing it, but you cannot say anything about it'. And he could have a large group on his books.

As you say though, if UEFA/FIFA don't want this to come out then it will never do.

jmayo

kryogen wrote: »

I would be very suspicious of teams like Atleti, Dortmund and Barca 08-11 for the size of their squads and lack of rotation coupled with such a fast paced high pressing game plan, they seem to be unnaturally fit, but I would not limit it to those teams at all, they just tend to stick out more to me.

There is too much money involved in the top level to believe that widespread cheating does not occur tbh, the slightest edge can be worth so much financially

God be with that days when you had the likes of Jan Molby who could dominate a game yet not move much beyond the centre circle.

And you just knew the only stimulants that guy had been near was either a beer or a fryup.
And yes I know he had injuries which meant he couldn't train.
Then again he was lighter coming out of jail than after a few months back training.

The great Puskas was told by Real when they signed him that he was 40lbs overweight.
And this was in the 1958.
Granted he had been out of football for a year or so.

Imagine an attacking team with two Real greats Puskas and Ronaldo (the original one). Lots of goal chances and XL kit.

And I almost forgot Doctor Socrates, the man who told the Italians he didn't like to train.

Maybe he picked up the ould drinking and smoking habit when he played for UCD. ;)

Pro. F

@UnitedIrishman & Sheepy99: Since we've been getting into purely talking about doping, rather than this game in particular, I've responded to you in the Doping in football thread.

Nuri Sahin

Cristiano Ronaldo's Shirtless Goal Celebration Was Reportedly Done for Movie

Not everyone was a fan of Cristiano Ronaldo's shirtless goal celebration in the Champions League final, but if reports are accurate, the star put some thought into it.

After Ronaldo found the back of the net on a penalty for Real Madrid's fourth goal against Atletico Madrid, he ripped his shirt off and flexed his muscles. Given that his goal gave his club a 4-1 lead, it seemed a bit excessive.

As it turns out, there may have been a reason for the move. Spanish outlet El Confidencial's Jose Felix Diaz reported that Ronaldo's celebration was all for the cameras.

The report states that the shirtless celebration was done for Ronaldo, the Movie. The Real Madrid star reportedly knew where the camera was and went to a certain spot so the camera could pick up the celebration.

Real Madrid had every right to celebrate their three-goal lead, but Ronaldo may have been more concerned with finding the camera than celebrating with his teammates.

[h/t Business Insider]

.

Fescue

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

.

I don't know which is worse.

NIMAN

Re: doping, I am convinced that football teams dope. Not sure how widespread it is, but anywhere where huge money is involved in sport then I do believe that doping will occur.

It may take decades for the news to become public knowledge, but I am sure it will become known some day.

As for no whistleblowers coming out, what about that Spanish doctor (Fuentes) who was blood doping and who was up in court recently? Did he not say he saw famous Real Madrid and Barca players at the offices?

I always had my suspicion about Xavi if I'm honest. Earlier in his career he was very injury prone and not very athletic, but then he became this player who chased everything down for 90mins, and who was able to play football without much of a rest for the guts of 6 years, going from La Liga to WC to La Liga to EC etc when Spain started their great run. Now perhaps he simply got a better training regime, but I always found it a bit suspect.

Couple of interesting links:
http://fussballdoping.derwesten-recherche.org/en/2013/02/doping-in-spain-xabi-alonso-involved/

http://www.goal.com/en/news/12/spain/2013/05/23/3999415/doping-is-everywhere-says-xavi

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/xavi-says-spains-world-cup-269296

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/the-barcelona-doping-scandal/

Turtwig

I find it difficult to believe that a team sport hasn't got any whistleblowers. It'd only take one. That said, just because it's difficult to believe doesn't mean it's beyond the realm of possibility that all eleven players and the extended squad and staff would keep shtum about doping.

Regarding Xavi, he's most likely gonna retire at the end of the world cup. Del Bosque's convinced him to keep playing. Guy plays every game through a pain barrier. Iirc, the distance covered by him decreased from the Riijarkd to Guardiola era. Pep just made him far far more effective. Also think the style of lifestyle he leads outside of the sport doesn't exactly scream doping ego. But who knows. Medical team can play a huge part in assessing and preventing injuries. Messi is a great example of physios importance. The physio that looked after Messi when Pep was at Barcelona left with Pep. It's surely no odd coincidence that he's become injury prone again.

Fescue

The best way to go about doping players is to do so without them being aware. Much in the way Richie Sadlier described.

I'm sure many players are given "supplements" they know little or nothing about.

Aenaes

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

"The Real Madrid star reportedly knew where the camera was and went to a certain spot so the camera could pick up the celebration."

Sounds like bs just by that one sentence. There's cameras catching players pulling pranks in the dugouts, Joachm Low was filmed picking his nose but Ronaldo has to stand on X marks the bloody spot to record a celebration a few feet away from the goal.

COYVB

Aenaes wrote: »

Sounds like bs just by that one sentence. There's cameras catching players pulling pranks in the dugouts, Joachm Low was filmed picking his nose but Ronaldo has to stand on X marks the bloody spot to record a celebration a few feet away from the goal.

If the movie producers had the rights to film using just one camera in the stadium, which isn't unrealistic given the fact that it was CL final, then I don't think it's out of the realms of possibility that Ronaldo was informed exactly where it was, and to run to it if he scored

Definitely a lot cheaper capturing your own footage with permission than licensing CL final coverage for a movie

Ulysses Gaze

Fescue wrote: »

The best way to go about doping players is to do so without them being aware. Much in the way Richie Sadlier described.

I'm sure many players are given "supplements" they know little or nothing about.

Summed up by this quote from Matias Almeyda from his autobiography

“At Parma we were given an IV [intravenous] drip before games," wrote Almeyda. "They said it was a mixture of vitamins but before entering the field I was able to jump up as high as the ceiling." “Players do not ask questions, but then in the following years there are cases of former players dying from heart problems, suffering from muscular issues and more. I think it is the consequence of the things that have been given to them."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/serie-a/9568603/Italian-football-filled-with-corruption-doping-and-match-fixing-says-former-Argentina-midfielder-Matias-Almeyda.html

Turtwig

Fescue wrote: »

The best way to go about doping players is to do so without them being aware. Much in the way Richie Sadlier described.

I'm sure many players are given "supplements" they know little or nothing about.

This is actually one of the best arguments for routine doping checks. Not to catch cheats but to ensure the health and safety of the individual. It'd be a lot harder for a club to dope a player unsuspectingly if they had to keep informing them on er, 'routines' to hide PEDs in their body. They'd probably still find a way but it would be a lot lot harder.