Re: The Football Thread - 2011/12

by Jontyh Sun 25 Sep 2011, 16:07

Dello wrote:
beamer wrote:We all awarded it to Chelsea this time last year... although I can't see a Ferguson team capitulating mid season as they did.

Torres scored a good goal but that miss could put him back to square one. Good business for Liverpool, if they hadn't spent 70% of it on Andy Carroll!

I don't know. United were awful against Benfica in the week. And, honestly, but for Chelsea's terrible finishing, could have been embarrassed today. They're so weak in the middle of the park. No midfield at all - at least not with any defensive brief in mind.

Nani and Young play high up on the wings, making the formation 4-2-4 most of the time. And the two central midfielders contain Anderson - a converted forward who doesn't tackle - and one from old man Giggs, backwards, sideways, backwards, fall over Carrick, still not back to full health Fletcher and Tom Cleverly. Who also doesn't tackle.

I know they demolished Arsenal's reserve reserves, but even then, Arsenal should've scored four or five on the day.

They'll probably win the title, but I think they're quite unbalanced and will have serious difficulties against the better sides on the road, and in Europe.

Torres'll be all right. The only concern with him was that he'd lost his pace, but he's moved well in the games I've seen recently. The goals will follow. Could've had a hat-trick today. Terrible miss, but it happens.

I agree with all of this, though I'd like to think City will take the title! Torres definitely looks like he's returning to his best, although yet again he's set back - this time by a 3 match ban for a shite attempt at a tackle. Far too early to write Chelsea off in any case.

For all United's attacking qualities I also think they're suspect defensively. Ferdinand, at the moment anyway, doesn't look the player he was; Vidic is good, but seems to miss a few games with injuries; Phil Jones looks great going forward, but isn't so convincing in defence and they don't have a top quality defensive midfielder. As you say, Chelsea created more chances than you'd have expected to see in 3 or 4 games at OT against some of their sides in recent memory.

I've been to all the games at Eastlands this season and I can't tell you what it's like to watch the kind of players we couldn't even dream about 5 years ago. Yesterday Everton had only one aim and that was to get a 0-0 draw. Silva was man marked and was clobbered almost every time he got the ball. When they did manage to win a corner they committed 4 players into our box, and rarely attacked with more than 3. But you always thought it was just a matter of time and that, once we did score, Everton would have no plan B - or even any means of executing one. And so it proved.

I know that it was hardly the sternest test, but Hargreaves' debut against Birmingham was excellent. Not just for his goal, but his positional sense, passing, tackling and interceptions were superb - and he really did dictate the game in the first half.Though we were all concerned he wouldn't get injured getting on the bus after the game..

Another one to watch for is Savic. To my eyes he is top drawer. Looks really composed, immense in the air, great timing in the tackle and has calm and perceptive distribution. Yesterday he made an excellent interceptive header that put Silva in a position to create a good chance, and cleared one off the line after a blunder by Lescott.

I'm off to Munich on Tuesday, so that should be interesting! I remember that days of going to the likes of Bury and Shrewsbury away - who'd a thunk it, eh?

by beamer Sun 25 Sep 2011, 19:54

Yeah, it's great for City fans who haven't had the best of times in recent decades. For all the talk of buying trophies etc, as a Premier League neutral I've found it one of the most interesting storylines of recent years to watch the project of developing a super-team virtually from scratch. And it's now at a stage where they have brought in players that it's a real privilege to have in our league, a league which for all its quality and excitement had been running a bit low on superstars.

The trouble with Platini's new rules is that supporters of other sleeping giants and underachieving clubs might no longer be able to dream of such a scenario. Of course, for every Sheikh Mansour there's a dozen asset-stripping, debt-loading or just plain dodgy club owners. But it's a risk most of us would be willing to take rather than just stagnating through lack of investment!

by Brass Monkey Sun 25 Sep 2011, 20:03

beamer wrote:They all do much the same thing though, whether it's Apple, Blackberry or whatever other fruit... Unless you're one of those fiercely loyal to the "dumb-phone" i.e. saying why would you want it to do anything other than make calls and maybe send a text, there do seem to be a fair number of people holding out in that way.

I never want a touch screen, I find it mincey. But I do like a good tech-spec, so must be in-between.

by Jontyh Sun 25 Sep 2011, 20:29

beamer wrote:Yeah, it's great for City fans who haven't had the best of times in recent decades. For all the talk of buying trophies etc, as a Premier League neutral I've found it one of the most interesting storylines of recent years to watch the project of developing a super-team virtually from scratch. And it's now at a stage where they have brought in players that it's a real privilege to have in our league, a league which for all its quality and excitement had been running a bit low on superstars.

The trouble with Platini's new rules is that supporters of other sleeping giants and underachieving clubs might no longer be able to dream of such a scenario. Of course, for every Sheikh Mansour there's a dozen asset-stripping, debt-loading or just plain dodgy club owners. But it's a risk most of us would be willing to take rather than just stagnating through lack of investment!

Aye, Beamer. The other trouble with Platini's new rules is that it seems specifically aimed at English sides, as they generally have more international appeal than other country's teams. I reckon a club like Nottingham Forest would be a prime candidate for a City-type takeover, given its European history, but that's a lot less likely now thanks to that jealous French twat's legislation.

by beamer Sun 25 Sep 2011, 21:20

I've always thought that, but there has never seemed to be much interest, either that or Nigel Doughty isn't making much of an effort to find any. Fair enough he keeps the club afloat with his own money, even if his track record with managers and investing at the right time isn't great.

You say it affects English clubs most, but what about the new rich clubs in Europe this year, PSG, Malaga and Anzhi Makachkala? Two of them in less fashionable leagues, the other in a country where two clubs dominate the trophies and finances. If anything, money in such places will benefit the game by opening up new markets for top level football.

by Jontyh Sun 25 Sep 2011, 22:32

True. But these investors are all interested in streaming revenues in the future - that's why the Glazers went into such massive debt to get United. It's got to be a club with the best marketable potential for the big boys to think that they'll get a good return.
I reckon we got lucky by dint of our illustrious namesakes as much as our history, but other than Liverpool and maybe Villa, Leeds, Arsenal and Chelsea, Forest must be right up there.

by G.Wood Mon 26 Sep 2011, 07:55

Brass Monkey wrote:I'll never have a whyPhone. I do still have male genitals.

I am starting to doubt if you have ever even whacked off a dead bloke in the back of a car whilst bogarting a spliff

by embee Mon 26 Sep 2011, 10:14

G.Wood wrote:
Brass Monkey wrote:I'll never have a whyPhone. I do still have male genitals.

I am starting to doubt if you have ever even whacked off a dead bloke in the back of a car whilst bogarting a spliff

Where do you think he got his male genitals from?

by beamer Mon 26 Sep 2011, 19:08

Jontyh wrote:True. But these investors are all interested in streaming revenues in the future - that's why the Glazers went into such massive debt to get United. It's got to be a club with the best marketable potential for the big boys to think that they'll get a good return.
I reckon we got lucky by dint of our illustrious namesakes as much as our history, but other than Liverpool and maybe Villa, Leeds, Arsenal and Chelsea, Forest must be right up there.

The problem with Forest as an investment is that we're never likely to fill a 40 or 50k capacity stadium, being a club from a medium sized city with several local rivals. And the historical success is getting more and more distant, before long we will be considered along with the likes of Preston and Huddersfield in that respect!

I think the ship may have sailed now for English clubs in terms of mega-money investors. There's too many established clubs to get past if you're a new contender wanting Champions League football, it's much easier to do so through a different league. It's a shame that all the power is concentrated in London and the North West though, other regions deserve a shot at football at the highest level.

by Brass Monkey Mon 26 Sep 2011, 19:50

G.Wood wrote:
I am starting to doubt if you have ever even whacked off a dead bloke in the back of a car whilst bogarting a spliff

It's tough to whack off dead blokes. But if the rigor mortis sets just right, they give a good tuggy.

by Gary 111 Mon 26 Sep 2011, 23:27

Jontyh wrote:
beamer wrote:Yeah, it's great for City fans who haven't had the best of times in recent decades. For all the talk of buying trophies etc, as a Premier League neutral I've found it one of the most interesting storylines of recent years to watch the project of developing a super-team virtually from scratch. And it's now at a stage where they have brought in players that it's a real privilege to have in our league, a league which for all its quality and excitement had been running a bit low on superstars.

The trouble with Platini's new rules is that supporters of other sleeping giants and underachieving clubs might no longer be able to dream of such a scenario. Of course, for every Sheikh Mansour there's a dozen asset-stripping, debt-loading or just plain dodgy club owners. But it's a risk most of us would be willing to take rather than just stagnating through lack of investment!

Aye, Beamer. The other trouble with Platini's new rules is that it seems specifically aimed at English sides, as they generally have more international appeal than other country's teams. I reckon a club like Nottingham Forest would be a prime candidate for a City-type takeover, given its European history, but that's a lot less likely now thanks to that jealous French twat's legislation.

So that French twat is trying to make it a level playing field and lowly unheard of teams with no history like Manchester City or Nottingham Forest will have to rely on shrewd management and developing good players as opposed to going to bed every night pining for some billionaire sheikh to come in and throw £500m down the drain as their only hope of getting Champions League football?

by Jontyh Tue 27 Sep 2011, 09:06

City and Forest are 'unheard of' and have 'no history'? Righto. I assume you're being sarcastic Gary - I'm pretty sure you know your footy.
You still need shrewd management even if you are able to invest heavily and it's getting much harder pick up talented young players like Wenger did now that all the top clubs are looking to do it.

by taipan Tue 27 Sep 2011, 09:10

Jontyh wrote:City and Forest are 'unheard of' and have 'no history'? Righto. I assume you're being sarcastic Gary - I'm pretty sure you know your footy.
You still need shrewd management even if you are able to invest heavily and it's getting much harder pick up talented young players like Wenger did now that all the top clubs are looking to do it.

TBF Jonts, I had heard of Forest.

by Jontyh Tue 27 Sep 2011, 10:08

Exactly. He's talking bollocks.

by JKLever Tue 27 Sep 2011, 11:05

It's almost like Gaz thinks football only existed post Sky. I'm sure he's on the wind up!

The top clubs are incredibly arrogant and so are their fans - remember the scousers singing the 'F off Chelsea FC, you ain't got no history' toss at the Chelski fans? Probably too busy nicking hubcaps to realise whilst their side was slumming it in the 2nd Div Chelsea were one of Englands first representatives in the Champions cup.

by beamer Tue 27 Sep 2011, 18:18

All Platini's plans will do is make sure the same teams stay at the top, year after year, because they get the biggest TV, gate and merchandising revenues. Instead of making it more competitive it will have the opposite effect, unless accompanied by strict salary caps (in absolute terms, rather than in relation to individual clubs' turnover).

The big clubs have been after guarantees for years, rather than their fortunes being tied to the lottery of results - if they didn't have to actually play any matches, it would be easier for them! So let's at least take away one threat, that of the "new money" clubs. For the time being at least, you can become an established Premier League club through good management and player development, but as for breaking into the top four, well you might as well be tackling the Grand National without a horse.

by beamer Tue 27 Sep 2011, 22:36

Tevez refuses to come on as sub, as City are outclassed in Munich. And United lucky to draw 3-3 at home to Basel.

The Manchester meltdown starts here... Always knew Chelsea would win the title this season!

by Gary 111 Tue 27 Sep 2011, 23:16

Jontyh wrote:City and Forest are 'unheard of' and have 'no history'? Righto. I assume you're being sarcastic Gary - I'm pretty sure you know your footy.

Maybe a tad! But I do hope the strangehold the big clubs have with their buckets of cash can be loosened. I think that is the aim of Platini's fair play rules? We could soon end up otherwise like Spain where the top two's reserve team is worth more than the rest of the league combined. And they dole out 6-0 thrashings every week to the other 18 sides making up the numbers.

Jontyh wrote:You still need shrewd management even if you are able to invest heavily and it's getting much harder pick up talented young players like Wenger did now that all the top clubs are looking to do it.

Up to a point, but if you've got ridiculous amounts of money you can paper over the cracks. Man City finished 9th in 2007-08. In the 3 and a bit years since they've spent over £400m net on transfer fees! Even with unshrewd management £400m would surely be worth an improvement of 6 league places and 16 points. And that's not even mentioning the amount they've spent on wages in that time.

Since Sven left they've signed:

£38m Sergio Aguero
£32.5m Robinho
£27m Edin Dzeko
£26m James Milner
£25.5m Carlos Tevez
£25m David Silva
£25m Emmanuel Adebayor
£24.5 Mario Balotelli
£24m Yaya Toure
£22m Samir Nasri
£22m Jolean Lescott
£18m Jo
£17.5 Roque Santa Cruz
£17m Aleksandar Kolarov
£16m Kolo Toure
£16m Nigel De Jong
£14m Craig Bellamy
£12m Gareth Barry
£12m Wayne Bridge
£11m Jerome Boateng
£9m Shaun Wright-Phillips
£9m Stefan Savic
£8m Shay Given
£7m Adam Johnson
£6.7 Vincent Kompany
£7m Gael Clichy
£6m Costel Pantilimon
£6.5m Pablo Zabaleta
£5m Tal Ben Haim

Not sure how many of those are shrewd. They may have been better bidding £200m for Messi and offering him the other £200m in wages right at the start. That would probably been worth more than 16 points a season.

by taipan Wed 28 Sep 2011, 07:13

Whither Tevez?

by Henry Wed 28 Sep 2011, 09:16

Refusing to play is probably the worst thing a player can do to his team, his manager, and his fans. Unforgivable. Tevez deserves all the criticism that comes his way.

by taipan Wed 28 Sep 2011, 09:26

Henry wrote:Refusing to play is probably the worst thing a player can do to his team, his manager, and his fans. Unforgivable. Tevez deserves all the criticism that comes his way.

One would hope his contract has a "no play, no pay" clause.

Now we see why SAF did not put up a big fight to keep him.

by JKLever Wed 28 Sep 2011, 13:35

Any of you Forest fans heard the rumour about Roy Keane replacing McLaren?

Bwahahaha, i'd love Gus to be forumming on here if that happens.

by Jontyh Wed 28 Sep 2011, 13:57

Gary 111 wrote:
Jontyh wrote:City and Forest are 'unheard of' and have 'no history'? Righto. I assume you're being sarcastic Gary - I'm pretty sure you know your footy.

Maybe a tad! But I do hope the strangehold the big clubs have with their buckets of cash can be loosened. I think that is the aim of Platini's fair play rules? We could soon end up otherwise like Spain where the top two's reserve team is worth more than the rest of the league combined. And they dole out 6-0 thrashings every week to the other 18 sides making up the numbers.

Jontyh wrote:You still need shrewd management even if you are able to invest heavily and it's getting much harder pick up talented young players like Wenger did now that all the top clubs are looking to do it.

Up to a point, but if you've got ridiculous amounts of money you can paper over the cracks. Man City finished 9th in 2007-08. In the 3 and a bit years since they've spent over £400m net on transfer fees! Even with unshrewd management £400m would surely be worth an improvement of 6 league places and 16 points. And that's not even mentioning the amount they've spent on wages in that time.

Since Sven left they've signed:

£38m Sergio Aguero
£32.5m Robinho
£27m Edin Dzeko
£26m James Milner
£25.5m Carlos Tevez
£25m David Silva
£25m Emmanuel Adebayor
£24.5 Mario Balotelli
£24m Yaya Toure
£22m Samir Nasri
£22m Jolean Lescott
£18m Jo
£17.5 Roque Santa Cruz
£17m Aleksandar Kolarov
£16m Kolo Toure
£16m Nigel De Jong
£14m Craig Bellamy
£12m Gareth Barry
£12m Wayne Bridge
£11m Jerome Boateng
£9m Shaun Wright-Phillips
£9m Stefan Savic
£8m Shay Given
£7m Adam Johnson
£6.7 Vincent Kompany
£7m Gael Clichy
£6m Costel Pantilimon
£6.5m Pablo Zabaleta
£5m Tal Ben Haim

Not sure how many of those are shrewd. They may have been better bidding £200m for Messi and offering him the other £200m in wages right at the start. That would probably been worth more than 16 points a season.

Well, many of them aren't. Some are plain rubbish,; several are overpriced and several are bargains (if several £million on any player can be a bargain).
But Mancini's brief is to get us up there with the likes of ManU, Chelsea, Real, Bayern and Barcelona. How else would you suggest he goes about it?
On last night's evidence there's a way to go, but the gulf isn't as big as some are suggesting in my opinion. Had Silva been awarded a penalty and converted it before we went one down things may have been different as we started off well. Micah might have had one too later on had he not made such a meal of it. However, as the game went on we were increasingly out-passed and devoid of attacking ideas. Tevez' antics and Balotelli's ban didn't help Mancini there, but it was mystifying when he replaced Dzeko with a defensive midfielder when we were 2-0 down.
Equally as odd was the decision to play Kolo Toure, which meant that Kompany had to switch to the left side of the central defensive partnership and disrupted a decent partnership he's developing with Lescott. Maybe the latter wasn't fully fit as he was out on the pitch doing warm-downs after the game. Either way, our defence was shambolic on occasions and the scoreline could have been worse.
Which brings me back to what I meant by shrewd management. If it were just a case of buying decent players with unlimited funds then there'd be loads of managers that could do it, but the fact is that approach, and managing high-profile sides generally, brings a whole load of problems that only a very few are capable of dealing with.

by LeFromage Wed 28 Sep 2011, 18:25

They should cancel Tevez's contract and sue him for the loss of the potential transfer fee, as Chelsea successfully did to Adrien Mutu when he got coked up.

by Jontyh Wed 28 Sep 2011, 18:37

Yup. He's obviously been advised of the consequences of his breach of contract as the cheeky twat is now trying to claim that he didn't refuse to play, even though he admitted as much immediately after the game, and it was blatantly obvious from the footage of him on the bench that he did exactly that.

by Sponsored content