John am Rhein

It's not just Cruyff. That whole club and its supporters has the same attitude.

Well that's true - although you wouldn't know it given the respect Barcelona (European Cup winning equals of Aston Villa and Red Star Belgrade) seem to command - even from Liverpool fans, FFS. But what I meant was that Barcelona are among our rivals for future European trophies, including this season.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Some 'a them buggaz can meeke the ball SWERVE! We'll beet them with IRON, son

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

Sat 10 June (1400): England v Paraguay (Gp B) Tue 13 June (1400): South Korea v Togo (Gp G) Sat 17 June (1400): Portugal v Iran (Gp D) Wed 21 June (2000): Holland v Argentina (Gp C) Sat 1 July (2000): Quarter-final Apart from the first one, it's looking good. Bear in mind that Cologne, Kaiserslautern and, at a push, Nurnberg are all within reasonable travelling distance.

I remember Hugh McIlvaney interviewing George Steinbrenner (baseball). One of the things Steinbrenner said was that McIlvaney was better informed than most of the US journalists he met.

But the point here was that certain types of football supposedly "can only take you so far" and the European Cup is somehow out of reach if you play a certain way. Man U (and other circuses like Barcelona) are supposedly the alternative to this with their more politically correct styles of football. Arsenal - who have zero European Cups - also presumably fall into that category. These clubs show the exact failing it was suggested Chelsea will suffer from: they can't sustain success at the top level (i.e. the European Cup).

This content is not viewable to guests.

Porto had the massive advantage of having less money. Chelsea's massive financial resources mean that they can only go so far

Their financial muscle will be reflected on the pitch - as it already has been.

You do really.

And then some people complain that Chelsea are too good and they'll be dominating football for the next 20,000 years and the rules should be changed to stop them - nothing to do with Man U fans, of course. The basic fact is the're just a very good team - and as likely to sustain their success as anybody ever was. Not least because of their financial resources.

The press SHOULD hate them but they don't. Everyone else does.

Exactly what is wrong with their brand of football? And how long were Man U successful at the top for? All they did was fluke one European Cup win. Would I be right in assuming you prefer Arsenal's brand of football circa 2002? They didn't exactly stay at the top for long, did they? In fact the dour 'mechanical' types of football are more likely to bring sustained success than any other - as the history of LFC shows.

This content is not viewable to guests.