Football 18/19

[Wooderson]

That side was full to the brim with lucky generals.

[eastynh]

52 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

i've been considering the idea that last night's line-up means that Pep doesn't think he can win everything.

I think it was damage limitation last night and it is a risky game to play. Pep seems happy with the result and I expect a full strength team against Palace on Sunday. Spurs can't rest players at the weekend and then have to play us twice with their best team. Pep has managed the squad. If we win Sunday and then on Wednesday then who can argue with his selection? 

31 minutes ago, thetime said:

People for get what a great side that 99 side was. You only have to look at the FA cup draws(Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal together to the final. Champions league draw with Barcelona and Bayern Munich in the groups. Followed by Juventus, inter Milan and Bayern in the knock outs to win it. 

I would say a midfield of Keane, scholes, Giggs, becks and Cole and Yorke upfront would be more than a match. 

I think the Tevez, Rooney and Ronaldo team that won the Champs league was a far better team than the 99 team and would be a sterner test for this City team. If I take my City blinkers off, I reckon that team was the best ever premier league team.

It was a great feat winning the treble but they won the league with 79 points, fluked the FA Cup as Arsenal should have put them out and then got totally outplayed off Bayern in the final. Bayern got complacent and took Matthaus off. He had totally dominated that final and they thought they had it won.

That other United team that won the champs league and got to another final were a totally different beast. 

[thetime]

21 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 

It was a great feat winning the treble but they won the league with 79 points

I’ve heard that one a few times this week. 

[pink_triangle]

Surely judging title winners on point totals is a very flawed metric.

[eFestivals]

20 minutes ago, thetime said:

I’ve heard that one a few times this week. 

what does it even mean, anyway?

Winning the league with high points could mean either the rest are crap or the winner is outstanding, and winning with low points could mean either the rest are decent or the winner was weak.

[eastynh]

1 hour ago, pink_triangle said:

Surely judging title winners on point totals is a very flawed metric.

It is a flawed metric, but it shows that, that United team were not actually head and shoulders above the rest. 

Bayern absolutely played them off the park in the final but got complacent. To be fair to United, Scholes and Keane were missing due to suspension. Keane would have made a massive difference.

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

It is a flawed metric, but it shows that, that United team were not actually head and shoulders above the rest. 

that's because the top league is less competitive now than it used to be. The bottom teams are only really there to make up the numbers. 

(no offence meant to those teams).

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

that's because the top league is less competitive now than it used to be. The bottom teams are only really there to make up the numbers. 

(no offence meant to those teams).

Fuck knows, we were going through our wilderness years in 1999. I was more interested in how Gillingham were getting on.

[eFestivals]

Just now, eastynh said:

Fuck knows

the points know. The closer the points between top and bottom, the more competitive the league.

What that doesn't tell you is why it was more competitive, whether it was because the top teams were better or because the bottom teams were worse.

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

the points know. The closer the points between top and bottom, the more competitive the league.

What that doesn't tell you is why it was more competitive, whether it was because the top teams were better or because the bottom teams were worse.

The level of football was not as good back then, it was very kick and rush, less tactical and the midfield hard man image was encouraged. Roy Keane would be sent off every match now and City would run rings round that United team.  

 

[pink_triangle]

14 minutes ago, eastynh said:

It is a flawed metric, but it shows that, that United team were not actually head and shoulders above the rest. 

Bayern absolutely played them off the park in the final but got complacent. To be fair to United, Scholes and Keane were missing due to suspension. Keane would have made a massive difference.

I would argue that an English team has never played well in a champion league final. They could easily have lost everyone apart from Chelsea v Man Utd.

[pink_triangle]

8 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

the points know. The closer the points between top and bottom, the more competitive the league.

What that doesn't tell you is why it was more competitive, whether it was because the top teams were better or because the bottom teams were worse.

I would argue there are other factors as well. Some title winners take their foot off the gas when it's over. Some opposition teams give up when there is nothing to play for.

[eastynh]

2 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I would argue that an English team has never played well in a champion league final. They could easily have lost everyone apart from Chelsea v Man Utd.

Liverpool in Istanbul? Dodgy first half but well deserved winners in the end.

[thetime]

4 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The level of football was not as good back then, it was very kick and rush, less tactical and the midfield hard man image was encouraged. Roy Keane would be sent off every match now and City would run rings round that United team.  

 

Keane was a lot more than a hard man. 

Football has changed, unfortunately not for the better. That’s why I prefer to watch championship football and non league stuff nowadays. 

[pink_triangle]

Just now, eastynh said:

Liverpool in Istanbul? Dodgy first half but well deserved winners in the end.

No I think it was a great comeback, but far from a great performance. Also a penalty victory always takes away something for me as a neutral.

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, thetime said:

Keane was a lot more than a hard man. 

Football has changed, unfortunately not for the better. That’s why I prefer to watch championship football and non league stuff nowadays. 

There was a lot more to him but I have serious doubts he would have been able to adjust his game so he could fit in today. He is a very angry man. Take away that side of his game and he would have been nothing special. His tenacity, aggression and determination is what set him apart. He was a dirty bastard, make no mistake about that.

We shall have to agree to disagree in regards to whether football is better now. 20 years ago I was watching 3rd tier football. Now I am watching glorious free flowing football. While our bitter rivals who were happy to dish out abuse when they were top of the tree are now seeing their arse and saying football is not far and not as good as it used to be. Kind of funny it does not seem to be as good now they are not winning everything.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The level of football was not as good back then, it was very kick and rush,

you weren't even alive when it was that.  

Or perhaps you're remembering the times watching City in the 3rd?

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

you weren't even alive when it was that.  

Or perhaps you're remembering the times watching City in the 3rd?

I am 40 Neil. Started going to watch City when Liverpool were the best team and you could pass it back to the keeper. Seen City be really good, really bad and distinctly average. Stuck with it during the bad times and now enjoying the good times.

[thetime]

10 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 

We shall have to agree to disagree in regards to whether football is better now. 20 years ago I was watching 3rd tier football. Now I am watching glorious free flowing football. While our bitter rivals who were happy to dish out abuse when they were top of the tree are now seeing their arse and saying football is not far and not as good as it used to be. Kind of funny it does not seem to be as good now they are not winning everything.

You agree to disagree, then have a dig.

I don’t think it works like that. ?

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I would argue there are other factors as well. Some title winners take their foot off the gas when it's over. Some opposition teams give up when there is nothing to play for.

perhaps, tho those would tend to cause fairly marginal differences as those would be for a comparatively small number of games, and where those 'altered' results via those factors would still go with the trend for those teams.

[thetime]

Just now, eastynh said:

I am 40 Neil. Started going to watch City when Liverpool were the best team and you could pass it back to the keeper. Seen City be really good, really bad and distinctly average. Stuck with it during the bad times and now enjoying the good times.

At least you are quite modest with it all. 

[eastynh]

Just now, thetime said:

You agree to disagree, then have a dig.

I don’t think it works like that. ?

Sorry mate, could not resist ?

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, eastynh said:

I am 40 Neil. Started going to watch City when Liverpool were the best team and you could pass it back to the keeper. Seen City be really good, really bad and distinctly average. Stuck with it during the bad times and now enjoying the good times.

footballers are fitter today and there's a more professional approach to the game - but that's the same for all clubs, and those factors don't really cost money, so that shouldn't really cause any greater differential between the teams than in the past.

 

[eastynh]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

footballers are fitter today and there's a more professional approach to the game - but that's the same for all clubs, and those factors don't really cost money, so that shouldn't really cause any greater differential between the teams than in the past.

 

Tactics have changed, formations have changed. It was pretty much 4-4-2 during the 90's. Either lump it long and play off the big man or do what United did and hit it long down the channels and let the quick men attack from wide, or Beckham whip it in from a wide, deep angle. There was more dribbling and generally more touches per phase of play. Midfield was a battle ground if any team dared play through the middle. The way the game is played has totally changed in this country. Far more emphasis on tactics and intricate one touch football.

 

[thetime]

10 minutes ago, eastynh said:

 The way the game is played has totally changed in this country. Far more emphasis on tactics and intricate one touch football.

 

That’s just down to more Non British managers and players coming into the league.