Football 18/19

[The Nal]

8 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I don't agree that you need a core of 4/5 top players, I think the last man utd winning team didn't have that.

Yeah they did. RVP, Rooney, Vidic, Rio, De Gea, Evra, Carrick.

[ThomThomDrum]

If a team wins a title without a core of 4/5 top performing players in that given season then that team IMO is an exception to the rule. You would be hard pressed to find many league winning teams/squads that did not possess such. Yes, luck plays a big part in winning things, no doubt, but you also have to take advantage of that luck when it comes your way. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Each new season has new challenges.  Leicester got a little lucky, but UTD have enough money to buy their own luck. At the moment, they look massively off the pace

I certainly don't begrudge them their luck. I would however argue that if last season man utd team won the league Leicester won, the narrative would be very different, despite them having the same strengths and weaknesses. As they say history is written by the victors.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, The Nal said:

Yeah they did. RVP, Rooney, Vidic, Rio, De Gea, Evra, Carrick.

I think a few were on their way down.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

The last United team only had two really (RVP seemed to win them the league single handedly), but every team since then has had four or so players who were either exceptional or had exceptional seasons.

2018 - City: All of them basically

 

I think that's a big exaggeration. I probably wouldn't include any of their defenders or strikers as having exceptional seasons.

[zahidf]

6 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think that's a big exaggeration. I probably wouldn't include any of their defenders or strikers as having exceptional seasons.

City? They had the fourth best defence of the league and scored over 100 goals...

 

[pink_triangle]

6 minutes ago, zahidf said:

City? They had the fourth best defence of the league and scored over 100 goals...

 

I would argue having the 4th best defensive record in the league is not exceptional, also the defensive (goals conceded) record is not just down to defenders.

If you ask me do I think the likes of Walker, stones, Delph, Jesus had exceptional seasons, I would say no, but they did their job. If you ask me are last seasons city team significantly above anybody else who has won the league in the last 20 years, I would say no.

[Hugh Jass]

17 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I think that's a big exaggeration. I probably wouldn't include any of their defenders or strikers as having exceptional seasons.

It was a flippant based on their outstanding team performances last season, but Ederson and Kyle Walker beg to differ from the defence whilst Aguero still scored 21 PL goals (and 30 for the season).

[ThomThomDrum]

21 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I certainly don't begrudge them their luck. I would however argue that if last season man utd team won the league Leicester won, the narrative would be very different, despite them having the same strengths and weaknesses. As they say history is written by the victors.

Thats a whole load of "whatifry" right there......... What if the 2017/18s Man Utd traveled back in time and won the league in 2015/16?? WTF?

Stop........Utd were not good enough in 2016 (along with 18 other teams), not good enough last year (along with 18 other teams) and are not looking so hot this year thus far. 

[pink_triangle]

11 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

It was a flippant based on their outstanding team performances last season, but Ederson and Kyle Walker beg to differ from the defence whilst Aguero still scored 21 PL goals (and 30 for the season).

I would argue no more outstanding than the best man u, arsenal and Chelsea teams I have seen. Different times and different styles admittedly, I'm far from convinced the "outstanding" city team would have triumphed over these, although clearly in the conversation.

We will have to differ on Walker, Ederson and Aguero, but exceptional is a subjective term.

[jyoung]

Tbh the Mourinho situation is obv a mess and we've seen it before with his style of management but as already mentioned... Finished above Liverpool and Spurs, both of whom the media will convince you are God's gifts to football despite having won zero trophies whilst United managed two. 

It's hard to sympathise with him when his demeanor is so unattractive / the way he treats players but at the same time, I understand his position. People say Klopp and Guardiola would do better, well Guardiola perhaps yes but Klopp hasn't managed anything Mou has at United? 

IDK.

Edited August 29, 2018 by jyoung

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Tbh the Mourinho situation is obv a mess and we've seen it before with his style of management but as already mentioned... Finished above Liverpool and Spurs, both of whom the media will convince you are God's gifts to football despite having won zero trophies whilst United managed two. 

Utd managed 2, with a squad that had little Moaniho influence. Now he's had some influence, how's it going?

One of his tricks is to not allow negative comparison with (for instance) Liverpool and Spurs by bailing out before there's a negative comparison to make.

 

[Hugh Jass]

55 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I would argue no more outstanding than the best man u, arsenal and Chelsea teams I have seen. Different times and different styles admittedly, I'm far from convinced the "outstanding" city team would have triumphed over these, although clearly in the conversation.

Whether they would have beaten the United teams of the 90's, the Invincibles or Mourinho's (first) Chelsea over 38 matches is impossible to tell, as you say, different styles, eras, etc. However what is irrefutable is that City gained more points, won more matches and scored more goals than any other team has managed since Sky invented football in 1992. Purely in terms of cold, hard, facts they have been better over a season than anyone else has. 

[Hugh Jass]

46 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Finished above Liverpool and Spurs, both of whom the media will convince you are God's gifts to football despite having won zero trophies whilst United managed two. 

Also spent much, much more than them too.

[zahidf]

50 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Tbh the Mourinho situation is obv a mess and we've seen it before with his style of management but as already mentioned... Finished above Liverpool and Spurs, both of whom the media will convince you are God's gifts to football despite having won zero trophies whilst United managed two. 

It's hard to sympathise with him when his demeanor is so unattractive / the way he treats players but at the same time, I understand his position. People say Klopp and Guardiola would do better, well Guardiola perhaps yes but Klopp hasn't managed anything Mou has at United? 

IDK.

Going by last season? Getting to the champions league final was a massive achievement by klopp given the team he had. And spurs have around a quarter of the wage bill of Utd. Getting 3/4 more points than them isn't a massive achievement. 

 

Also, the football is a LOT more fun.

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Getting to the champions league final was a massive achievement by klopp given the team he had

Not too sure about that. They didn't meet much in the way of decent teams till the final.

It was defo a well-done thing, but "massive achievement" is probably overstating it.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not too sure about that. They didn't meet much in the way of decent teams till the final.

It was defo a well-done thing, but "massive achievement" is probably overstating it.

Man city over two legs. And Roma had beaten barcelona...

Fair enough it was a relatively easy draw but it wasn't MUCH harder than RMs

[Hugh Jass]

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Not too sure about that. They didn't meet much in the way of decent teams till the final.

 

Oh come on, it's not like they were playing the Dog & Duck, or Villa. Teams that get to the later stages of the CL tend to be more than decent.

[eFestivals]

55 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Man city over two legs.

that was the biggie, but the only biggie - and not quite the same as getting one over on RM or Barca.

 

55 minutes ago, zahidf said:

And Roma had beaten barcelona...

which isn't the same as Liverpool beating Barcelona.

 

51 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Oh come on, it's not like they were playing the Dog & Duck, or Villa. Teams that get to the later stages of the CL tend to be more than decent.

As I said, it was a well-done thing.

But in other years (if everything else is equal) they're less likely to get a route to the final quite as 'easy' as it was last season, and consequently they're less likely to make that final.

I'm not knocking them, they were an exceedingly good team last season - but probably not the 2nd best team in Europe. The luck rolled for them to an extent by the teams they had to play.

[Hugh Jass]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

But in other years (if everything else is equal) they're less likely to get a route to the final quite as 'easy' as it was last season, and consequently they're less likely to make that final.

I'm not knocking them, they were an exceedingly good team last season - but probably not the 2nd best team in Europe. The luck rolled for them to an extent by the teams they had to play.

Isn't that the very essence of knock out football though? You could make a compelling argument that Real Madrid haven't been the best team in Europe for the last three years. Hell, they haven't been the best team in Spain for that period.

[thetime]

1 hour ago, Hugh Jass said:

Also spent much, much more than them too.

I would of thought klopp has spent more than jose, net spend is another matter though. 

[Hugh Jass]

1 minute ago, thetime said:

I would of thought klopp has spent more than jose, net spend is another matter though. 

If you don't count this summer's dealings, which I don't as we are discussing historical performance, then I'd wager Jose has spent more.

However I am too lazy to actually check this.

[thetime]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

 

Fair enough it was a relatively easy draw but it wasn't MUCH harder than RMs

Real Madrid had Dortmund and spurs in the group stage.

last 16 - PSG

quarters - juventus 

Semis - Bayern 

final - Liverpool 

i doubt there’s many teams who have won the champions league with such a tough draw. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by thetime

[thetime]

4 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

If you don't count this summer's dealings, which I don't as we are discussing historical performance, then I'd wager Jose has spent more.

However I am too lazy to actually check this.

Since taking over klopp has spent 436m and Mourinho 432m.

Although as I’ve said Liverpool have a much better net spend if that’s your bag. So klopp hasn’t spent much, much less than jose. 

Pochettino on the other hand. 

[Hugh Jass]

3 minutes ago, thetime said:

Since taking over klopp has spent 436m and Mourinho 432m.

Although as I’ve said Liverpool have a much better net spend if that’s your bag. So klopp hasn’t spent much, much less than jose. 

Pochettino on the other hand. 

The net spend argument is one that has no interest to me. Genuinely surprised by those figures though, honestly thought Jose had spent more.