posted Mar 10, 2007

dont you think champions league is to big anyway,i know its great to watch all this football but its not true champions any more?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2007

More like Shev misses a penalty and the whole thing goes pear-shaped!!!

Long live Shev!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2007

comment by ValidValid
Anybody would die to see another match like the 2005 final.
----------------------

I probably would.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2007

Liverpool 2-1 Man United After Extra Time

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2007

Sorry to p*ss on the big potential bonfire of an all ‘English’ final, but the one and only reason I can see for the fact that ‘English’ teams get so far in the Champions League is the fact that there are very little English-born players in it and that they have non-English managers! These have steady but slowly given the Premiership a quality injection that made it competitive with other leagues in Europe. Hence, calling the potential meeting between two Premierships teams as an all ‘English’ final sums up the fact that – despite that the game is invented by the English – some of you never managed to understand that there is no such thing as ‘birthright’ bringing home prices. Instead of being grateful that foreign players (admitted: for a lot of cash as compensation) were willing to help your league recover in the European cup tournaments, there seems to be the feeling that these are teams of English achieving this. Have the performances of the English national team over the past 10 (or more ?) European and World Cups not been enough prove that the native English player is very average and definitely not as world class as lots of people believe they are. These have been good occasions for comparison and they clearly demonstrated that the native players on average lack something that players from other teams do have. Considering the amount of people playing the game the overall quality of the native player is poor. So please next time you visit/watch your ‘local’ Premiership team please realise that you are watching a good selection of international footballers (amongst which perhaps a few decent English born players) that you should be grateful of letting you see them perform. I wonder if as many people would have supported Chelsea in the numbers they do now if Abramovich would have renamed it ‘Sibneft FC’ when he bought it. World class players and managers go there where the money is at a given time and at the moment that is in England, but who says it won’t be in Russia in 20 years ? How would Premiership teams perform if that were to happen; understand you live on borrowed time. It is the fact that the people in England are willing to be ripped off by Sky Sports (hefty monthly fees & pay per view etc.) and pay lots for their season tickets that makes the Premiership a league with relatively a lot of cash to splash out on buying foreign players and as a result of that they do well in the Champions League at the moment. Take away all that money (and that of foreign investors) and gone are all the foreign players, managers and investors – the Premiership would not be were it is right now without all that cash injection. If there is going to be a Champions League final between two Premiership teams, please recall this post and count how much English born players there are actually present on the pitch that night and come to the conclusion that naming it a clash in the final between ‘England based teams’ would be a much fairer terminology in the context of this forum subject. To convince yourself, see below the starting line-ups of the 4 Premierships teams in the Champions league games of last week (number of English born players in parentheses): 8 out of 44, English teams ???
Arsenal (0): Lehmann, Toure, Silva, Gallas, Clichy, Ljungberg, Fabregas, Denilson, Hleb, Julio Baptista, Adebayor. Liverpool( 2): Reina, Finnan, Carragher, Agger, Arbeloa, Gerrard, Sissoko, Alonso, Riise, Kuyt , Bellamy. Chelsea (2): Cech, Diarra, Essien, Carvalho, Ashley Cole, Makelele, Robben, Ballack, Lampard, Shevchenko, Drogba. Man Utd(4): Van der Sar, Neville, Ferdinand, Vidic, Silvestre, Carrick, Scholes, O'Shea, Ronaldo, Rooney, Larsson.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2007

Sorry to p*ss on the big potential bonfire of an all ‘English’ final, but the one and only reason I can see for the fact that ‘English’ teams get so far in the Champions League is the fact that there are very little English-born players in it and that they have non-English managers!
These have steady but slowly given the Premiership a quality injection that made it competitive with other leagues in Europe.
===============================================
So how does that explain the fact that English teams did better in European competition in the 70’s and 80’s, when there were very few foreign players playing for English clubs? Liverpool’s first European Cup winning team had an English manager and 9 Englishmen in the team (and the other two were half-English).

===============================================
Have the performances of the English national team over the past 10 (or more ?) European and World Cups not been enough prove that the native English player is very average and definitely not as world class as lots of people believe they are.
===============================================
Anybody who has ever followed football knows that the quality of a team cannot be deduced by summing the quality of the players in it. There have been mediocre teams with very good players in them, and very good teams with mediocre players in them.

“Not as world class as lots of people believe they are”. Last year, only Brazil had as many players in FIFA’s top 30 rankings as England. Are these the deluded people you are talking about, who need to be educated by you?

England’s tournament performances have probably been better over the course of the past 10 years than they were in the 70’s and 80’s. They haven't been outstanding during any of those periods. There could be many reasons for this, but your reasons don’t add up.

===============================================
It is the fact that the people in England are willing to be ripped off by Sky Sports (hefty monthly fees & pay per view etc.)
===============================================
In fact, it’s because people all over the world are willing to be “ripped off”, because it’s the most-watched league in the world. It could be because it has become a technically accomplished league with the influx of foreigners, as you are implying, but most people would agree that La Liga is generally better technically, so that’s unlikely to be the reason.

A more likely explanation is the pace of the games, and the passion of the crowds (both of which are commented on by the foreign players), and these are generally recognised as characteristics of the British game.

You write a lot, but none of it adds up.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2007

Kemlyn Road, you are my Hero

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2007

===============================================
So how does that explain the fact that English teams did better in European competition in the 70’s and 80’s, when there were very few foreign players playing for English clubs? Liverpool’s first European Cup winning team had an English manager and 9 Englishmen in the team (and the other two were half-English).
===============================================
Did not see much of the 70/80s stuff as I was quite young then. Could have been that around that time the English-born player actually were relatively quite strong - must have been
as around that time teams did not contain as many foreign players as now. However, refering back to that time is so typically English: living in the past when your football players had been quite good contrary to the overpaid idiots (best example: Rio F) that you have now.

'Anybody who has ever followed football knows that the quality of a team cannot be deduced by summing the quality of the players in it. There have been mediocre teams with very good players in them, and very good teams with mediocre players in them.'
===============================================
Agreed, but that has always been the case: the best TEAM wins.

“Not as world class as lots of people believe they are”. Last year, only Brazil had as many players in FIFA’s top 30 rankings as England. Are these the deluded people you are talking about, who need to be educated by you?
===============================================
Fact is that only players from countries large enough to be playing themselves in the picture in tournaments are being seen by the average football fan (and yes: some of them are so biased they could do with some education). Best example is Jari Litmanen never even been considered for footballer of the year simply because Finland would never reach any mayor tournaments because. However, on club level in the middle of the 90's no other player could match his achievements. So frankly speaking I don't really rate the FIFA top 30 ranking you are talking about as FIFA only cares about staying good mates with the larger countries that bring in the big bugs. Not really necessary to prove this statement, but OK there we go: look at the seedings system of the world cup.

England’s tournament performances have probably been better over the course of the past 10 years than they were in the 70’s and 80’s. They haven't been outstanding during any of those periods. There could be many reasons for this, but your reasons don’t add up.
===============================================
Might have missed something buy haven't seen any at performances bringing you anywere near a trophy.

In fact, it’s because people all over the world are willing to be “ripped off”, because it’s the most-watched league in the world. It could be because it has become a technically accomplished league with the influx of foreigners, as you are implying, but most people would agree that La Liga is generally better technically, so that’s unlikely to be the reason.
===============================================
You hit the nail on the head: it became the most watched league since the influx of foreign players. Not many people abroad were interested when it was the good old brainless 'kick and rush'.

A more likely explanation is the pace of the games, and the passion of the crowds (both of which are commented on by the foreign players), and these are generally recognised as characteristics of the British game.
===============================================
I think it is quite likely that these players quite happily go elsewhere if there would be more cash there and say similar things (great
crowds/games etc. - they wouldn't slag it off in public would they, it's their job after all, so they have to be political about it. That's why they get media training!).

You write a lot, but none of it adds up.
===============================================
Well, that's your opinion. I think you just don't like the fact that I pointed out that the contribution of the English players in the uprise of the champions league is not as large as many people would have liked it to be. Your younger players do not get much chance to play in the first teams as better foreign players are available since there's enough cash around too buy them.

To get back to the original subject: if 2 premiership teams were to meet in the final then fewer players of the country the clubs come from will be on the pitch as ever before. If you think this is good for English football, than that's up to you.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 12, 2007

========================
Did not see much of the 70/80s stuff as I was quite young then. Could have been that around that time the English-born player actually were relatively quite strong - However, refering back to that time is so typically English: living in the past when your football players had been quite good contrary to the overpaid idiots (best example: Rio F) that you have now.
=========================
Er...you’ve completely missed the point. I referred back to that time, in my “typically English way”, because if you are going to make the point that English clubs have only become stronger because of the influence of foreign players, it makes sense to compare them with a time when there weren’t many foreign players.

The point you are making is that the clubs have become stronger as a result of foreign influence, and the England team weaker.

I know you don’t want anything so tiresome as evidence to obstruct the formation of your opinions, but in fact the English clubs have done worse in Europe since the foreigners arrived, and the English team has done better. (It’s irrelevant whether England have won trophies since the foreigners arrived: they didn’t win trophies in the 20 years before they arrived either, and on balance the England team has done better).

========================
Agreed, but that has always been the case: the best TEAM wins.
========================
If you agree, then why do you conclude that England’s failures must be attributable to crap players? It could be, but you've just agreed that it's not axiomatic.

=========================
Fact is that only players from countries large enough to be playing themselves in the picture in tournaments are being seen by the average football fan (and yes: some of them are so biased they could do with some education). Best example is Jari Litmanen never even been considered for footballer of the year simply because Finland would never reach any mayor tournaments because.
=========================
There could well be bias towards the bigger countries, but it’s kind of irrelevant to the point I was making. My point was that England have had more players in FIFA’s top 30 than they had when there weren’t many foreign players in England, which suggests that the presence of foreigners hasn’t had a deleterious effect on the quality of home-grown players.

Whether the top 30 is distorted by the absence of Finnish players is irrelevant to that point. (By the way, Litmanen came third in European Player of the year in 1995. He was beaten to the top spot by George Weah, whose country of origin was that colossus of international football: Liberia.)

=========================
You've hit the nail on the head: it became the most watched league since the influx of foreign players. Not many people abroad were interested when it was the good old brainless 'kick and rush'.
=========================
In fact, it was the most-watched league before the arrival of the foreign players. It always had audiences in places like Scandinavia and Holland, where they had access before the advent of satellite television.

The big money came with satellite television, and the big audiences came at the same time, because they had better access. If they are only interested in it because of the foreign players, why do the Spanish or Italian leagues (with Ronaldinho, Messi, Ronaldo, Figo, etc.) not get bigger audiences?

=========================
I think it is quite likely that these players quite happily go elsewhere if there would be more cash there and say similar things (great
crowds/games etc. - they wouldn't slag it off in public would they, it's their job after all, so they have to be political about it. That's why they get media training!).
========================
True, but irrelevant. Your argument was that people are only interested in the English league to see the foreign players, but La Liga is widely considered to be better in terms of the level of technique, so why doesn’t it get bigger audiences? There must be some other reason, mustn’t there?....because they can just as easily tune in and see Ronaldinho, Messi, etc.

=========================
Well, that's your opinion. I think you just don't like the fact that I pointed out that the contribution of the English players in the uprise of the champions league is not as large as many people would have liked it to be.
=========================
Yes, it is my opinion, and unlike you I backed it up with evidence. I’m not as patriotic as you evidently are, so there is no reason for you to assume I took offence. I disagreed with you because I disagreed. If you compare the period since the arrival of foreigners to the period which preceded it, none of your points stand up.

========================
Your younger players do not get much chance to play in the first teams as better foreign players are available since there's enough cash around too buy them.
=========================
“enough cash to buy them”. The influx of foreigners is driven by pure economics. Since it is English clubs who are benefiting from the satellite TV money, they tend to put a premium on English players.

Coaches have found that they can get the same talent cheaper if they shop abroad, so it’s not necessarily the case that they buy foreigners “since there’s enough cash around to buy them”…in some respects it’s because they don’t want to pay the premium on English players, and many of the coaches have said so. Only Chelsea (and to a lesser extent United) buy the “big-name” foreign players.

=========================
If you think this is good for English football, than that's up to you.
========================
I don’t know if it’s good for English football or not, but as I’ve pointed out, there’s no real evidence that it’s bad for it. I think it will eventually come full circle, as it did in Italy.

I’ve enjoyed watching my club since the age of six, and my enjoyment of it didn’t diminish when the foreigners arrived. I’ve never had the same attachment to England as I do to my club, but I vaguely support them when the major tournaments come round.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 13, 2007

comment by rafathegaffa08
posted 2 Days Ago

Kemlyn Road, you are my Hero

----------

DITTO!

add comment | complain about this comment