The State of English Football

MisterAnarchy

I just wanted to raise a few issues in relation to the current state of English football.
Has the standard ever been so low ?
I am a fan of passing ,flowing football,keeping the ball on the ground and playing to feet.
Football should be a creative not destructive game.
Fans primarily want their team to win matches but they also want to be entertained.
The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor.
The pace of play is ridiculous ,its as if the match is being played at 100 miles an hour.
In any game the away team will generally have 9-10 men behind the ball on most occasions,and rely upon,the long ball or catching a team on the break to score.
Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring.
They deduce that if they can keep a clean sheet,and keep the ball in their opponents half,on the law of averages they will score.
Composure is missing in English football.
I am a fan of Spanish football.
Last night Real Sociedad and Villareal played out a very entertaining match.
The ball remained on the ground for most of the match and the ball was in play for long periods at a time.
The fans demand that the game be played in a positive manner and as the fans own most of the clubs the teams attempt to play good football.
Contrast this with England.
Never has the state of football been so poor there.
It seems if you are fast ,strong and athletic you have the making of a valuable footballer.Skill seems to be secondary.
The pace of the game is far too fast.
Passing football is almost frowned upon as if you make a bad pass it could be intercepted.
Its 'Fear' football.
Most goals in England are scored due to a defensive error under extreme pressure rather that a creative moment.
Players are encouraged to get rid of the ball ,instead of holding it.
How many times after a match has a manager said 'We showed great commitment,fought hard,battled hard,showed great tenacity ' ?
What about skill ?
What about hearing 'We played some good flowing football '?
The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball.
There motto is that if we dont concede then we can grind the opponent down .
I watch football to be entertained and I wont pay £40 to watch drivel.
Andy Gray and his chums on Sky believe the Premiership is the best league in the world.
He is delusional.
I cant remember the last time I saw a good game of football in the Premiership.
I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this topic.

applehunter

You sir, are a SNOB.:D

Memnoch

Agree fully with the OP, football in the premiereship is more akin to rugby than anything else. They seem to be more interseted in kicking each other than kicking the ball, give me fast flowing passing football anyway please.

Agree also about skill vs "defence".

applehunter

I thing the standard of striker in the Premiership is excellent. There is less emphasis on the cultured footballer in midfield though.

The Muppet

Its down to personal taste, Personallly I much prefer the english style fast paced physical game ahead of the continetal style game.

KdjaCL

Blame Greece tbh.

kdjac

Hagar

Why is the style of play so different to other countries given that such a large percentage of the players are not English and would have brought their style and skills with them?
Surely this is a question of management failure in capitalising on those skills rather than lack of skill from the players?

The Muppet

Hagar wrote:

Why is the style of play so different to other countries given that such a large percentage of the players are not English and would have brought their style and skills with them?
Surely this is a question of management failure in capitalising on those skills rather than lack of skill from the players?

The english game is a much more physical game and is played at a much quicker pace. On the continent players go down under the slightest contact , that does not happen as much in the english game with a few notable exceptions.

Veron is a prime example of a player that was judged to be world class when he played in Italy because he had all the time in the world to play his game. He flopped in England at both United and Chelsea because he wasn't given the time and space to play his game. The english game is a different game than the one they play on the continent. It has little to do with management.

mike65

I wont coment on the state of the English game but on the OP lack of paragraphs! I can't read that post!

Mike.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I just wanted to raise a few issues in relation to the current state of English football.
Has the standard ever been so low ?

The standard in English football is as good as it's been for 20 years. The only way to judge is Europe. All four English teams made the knockouts of the CL last year, two made the semis, and of course Liverpool won it. Three have made it to the knock-outs this year. Two winning their groups.

Football today is about winning. The costs of failure are too much.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I am a fan of passing ,flowing football,keeping the ball on the ground and playing to feet.

Arsenal when in the mood are as good as anyone to watch, including Barcelona.

I've actually been really impressed with Liverpool's football recently too. For the first time in years I've thought that they are playing not only impressive football, but effective football.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Football should be a creative not destructive game.
Fans primarily want their team to win matches but they also want to be entertained. The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor.
The pace of play is ridiculous ,its as if the match is being played at 100 miles an hour.

I can't fathom how you can consider a match being played at a fast pace as not "entertaining". Personally I don't find team playing the ball around the back four and holding midfielder at a snails pace as entertaining.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

In any game the away team will generally have 9-10 men behind the ball on most occasions,and rely upon,the long ball or catching a team on the break to score.

I'm currently watching Barcelona VS Sevilla. Gerry Armstrong is after saying "Every single white shirt is in the Sevilla half". It's 0-0 and it's only five minutes into the second half.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring.

Which team "relies" on set pieces? All teams use set pieces, as they do in every league, but I don't know one that "relies" on them.

Set pieces may be the best chance of scoring against certain sides, but that is due to them having great defences, something I would associate with a good standard of football.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball.

They don't rely primarily on the long ball. They have it as an option. Chelsea's top scorer is Frank Lampard, do you think he is getting on the end of Didier Drogba's flick ons? Most of his goals come from outside the box.

If Italian teams adopt this strategy successfully, they are lauded as efficient, and truly great sides. Why does the same not apply to the English ones now doing it?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I watch football to be entertained and I wont pay £40 to watch drivel.
Andy Gray and his chums on Sky believe the Premiership is the best league in the world.
He is delusional.

Gray is selling a product so he will say that. But he's not far off. Judging by performances in Europe over recent years, how can anyone say the the Premiership is definitely not the best league in the world.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I cant remember the last time I saw a good game of football in the Premiership.

Did you watch Charlton VS Man City last week? Cracking game.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring.

Most goals in England are scored due to a defensive error under extreme pressure rather that a creative moment.

Barcelona equalise. A total cock up by a Sevilla defender from a corner kick.

county

considering the english league is by far the most watched football in the world,you are in the minority,and your point on the game being played at 100 mile an hour,that is english football and always has been,watching italian and most spainish football is like watching paint dry

theCzar

I'd love if Everton could play the ball a bit better and get back to the "School of Science" days and leave the "Dogs of War" era behind, but the fact is you can use a brawling mentality to punch above your weight (if you'll excuse the pun). I've always felt it was the reason England do unreasonably well internationally.

It's very frustrating to watch the ball getting pumped long every time, and I think Everton have a midfield who could play a nice passing game if only they had the confidence to try.

Greece are the best team in Europe apparently, Liverpool the best club team (before reds go crazy, I don't say they're long ball merchants but they play a more physical game that gave them an advantage over a lot of continental teams), We finished 4th last season, bolton finished 6th and will likely do so again. Long ball and big strong players who run their socks off will win more games than flair and creativity.

MisterAnarchy

The standard in English football is as good as it's been for 20 years. The only way to judge is Europe. All four English teams made the knockouts of the CL last year, two made the semis, and of course Liverpool won it. Three have made it to the knock-outs this year. Two winning their groups.

The top 4 teams in the league are infinitely better than the rest of the Premiership.
2 of the top 4 teams ,Chelsea and Liverpool employ industrial football methods which while being effective are not pretty .
Everton finished fourth last season and were embarassed in Europe.
Ugly football can be effective ,I'm not questioning that.

Arsenal when in the mood are as good as anyone to watch, including Barcelona.

I agree.
However people are now saying Arsenal do not have enough steel in midfield and are being out muscled by inferior football teams.
They have been physically hammered by Bolton and Newcastle in their last 2 away games.

I can't fathom how you can consider a match being played at a fast pace as not "entertaining".

A fast pace is good but the pace in the Premiership is mostly frenetic,kick and rush stuff.
Its too fast.
Players dont settle on the ball ,all they can think about is getting the ball up the other end of the pitch.

Judging by performances in Europe over recent years, how can anyone say the the Premiership is definitely not the best league in the world.

4 good teams out of 18 teams does not make a league good.

I've actually been really impressed with Liverpool's football recently too

You are joking ?
Liverpool are like a car with only 1 gear ,fifth gear.
They play at a frenetic ,almost insane pace.
Effective but awful on the eye.
It seems the end now does indeed justify the means.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 4 teams in the league are infinitely better than the rest of the Premiership.

The top ten of the Premiership has a very similar points distribution to Serie A, and to a lesser extent La Liga. I fail to see how this equates to the top four teams being "infinitely better" if the same does not apply to the other leagues.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

2 of the top 4 teams ,Chelsea and Liverpool employ industrial football methods which while being effective are not pretty .
Everton finished fourth last season and were embarassed in Europe.
Ugly football can be effective ,I'm not questioning that.

Everton are novices in terms of European football. They drew a team that topped Manchester Uniteds group. They lost 4-2 on aggregate, and as far as I remember wasn't there a somewhat controversial refereeing decision that went against them? I would hardly call that "embarassing".

MisterAnarchy wrote:

However people are now saying Arsenal do not have enough steel in midfield and are being out muscled by inferior football teams.
They have been physically hammered by Bolton and Newcastle in their last 2 away games.

Because the reality of it is, football is more than fancy tricks and flicks. Every team needs steel. Some teams employ it more than others. As I said, when the top Italian teams do it they are lauded, but we have to knock the English I suppose.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

A fast pace is good but the pace in the Premiership is mostly frenetic,kick and rush stuff. Its too fast. Players dont settle on the ball ,all they can think about is getting the ball up the other end of the pitch.

Ever watch Xabi Alonso? Claude Makélele? Paul Scholes? I wouldn't associate these with the picture you are describing. Coincidentally they all play in England.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

4 good teams out of 18 teams does not make a league good.

There are 20 teams in the Premiership.

I would consider Bolton and Boro to be good sides. They are both holding their own in Europe. I would also call Spurs a good side. Manchester City are a good side, and personally I think Newcastle have the potential to be a good side.

How many "good teams" are there in Italy or Spain? Would you name them?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

You are joking ?
Liverpool are like a car with only 1 gear ,fifth gear.
They play at a frenetic ,almost insane pace.
Effective but awful on the eye.
It seems the end now does indeed justify the means.

Liverpool play at an insane pace? If anything it is patient. Take yesterdays game as a prime example. They waited, waited and waited, never paniced and finally got the goals they deserved. The first one being a quality piece of football.

mike65

Strange, strange thread!

Liverpool play too sedately at times in my estimation. Anyway what the hell is "the English Game"? Is it the game which has 4 continental managers in the top flight and about 40% foreign players? When those players and managers work in the Prem they proberly over time become a bit more 'English' in attitude but they are still French, Spanish, German, Greek etc.

There is nothing sophisticated about stroking the ball about the place for the sake of it, the purpose of football is to win matches. If that means playing a long ball onto a players bonce so be it.

Mike.

mchurl

i presonally think that it is down to what style of football u prefer watchin and i have to say that i like the blood and thunder of the pl. In saying that though give me barca any day

KdjaCL

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Football today is about winning. The costs of failure are too much.

Hit the nail on the hammer there, but i have every faith in Brazil restoring the way in how to win football matches. This WC is my 6 WC and i have seen how club football follows the pattern of play in them, if a team with 11 players with "not losing" win it rather than 11 wjo intend to win it by scoring more. We are ****ed for a few years.

Barca* vs Chelsea* later in the season will show more as to how it will go.


*examples.

kdjac

MisterAnarchy

This WC is my 6 WC and i have seen how club football follows the pattern of play in them

Very true.
Look at how Ramseys wingless wonders changed the shape of football .

Barca* vs Chelsea* or vs Liverpool later in the season will show more as to how it will go.

If they meet and I hope they do ,for the sake of all that is good in this world Barcelona must win ,and win well.

Davei141

This thread is just a rant, because of what eamon dunphy said about the standard of the premiership. It was the exact same when Wenger said the premiership was boring, people had a field day, threads whinging about "boring premiership", counting the goals, clean sheets frowned upon...Then guess what happens?! Loads of goals fly in and everything is fine. Dunphy has a whinge and around we go. Change the record.

colster

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball.

The ironic thing being that they are both coached by managers who started out in Spanish football.
Also, they are not defensive. They are attacking sides with good defenses. Chelsea sit back when they are ahead and play on the counter attack.
Another thing they are not total long ball merchants. They have the long ball in their armoury. Can you give an example of a goal either of them has scored using the long ball?
The fact is that they are both very organised, combative and very good passing sides.

MisterAnarchy

This thread is just a rant, because of what eamon dunphy said about the standard of the premiership.

Its not a rant.
I've had these opinions for quite a while now .

Loads of goals fly in and everything is fine

Hardly.Goals dont equal entertainment alone.
Teams are now so afraid of losing ,whether they are at the top or bottom of the table that they are resorting to kick and rush football.
A few weeks ago after a bad run of matches Derby County's manager came out in an interview and said that his team were playing too much nice football.
He wanted them to play cruder more direct football.
They are now unbeaten in 4 but playing brutal football.
Their match against preston last weekend was supposedly one of the worst matches seen at Pride Park in years.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Hardly.Goals dont equal entertainment alone.
Teams are now so afraid of losing ,whether they are at the top or bottom of the table that they are resorting to kick and rush football.

If "kick and rush football" was a sure fire way of not losing you would see everyone employing this tactic.

Anyway, what is "kick and rush football"? Pass and move football? Does this not equate to "good football"? Or do you mean long ball football with players running in support?

I think Colster summarised the style of ball that both Liverpool and Chelsea play quite well.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

A few weeks ago after a bad run of matches Derby County's manager came out in an interview and said that his team were playing too much nice football.
He wanted them to play cruder more direct football.
They are now unbeaten in 4 but playing brutal football.
Their match against preston last weekend was supposedly one of the worst matches seen at Pride Park in years.

Is your whole rant not about the standard of Premiership football? So what the hell do a midtable Championship side have to do with anything?

You have also failed to addressed any of the points I raised.

MisterAnarchy

Everton are novices in terms of European football. They drew a team that topped Manchester Uniteds group. They lost 4-2 on aggregate, and as far as I remember wasn't there a somewhat controversial refereeing decision that went against them? I would hardly call that "embarassing".

I seem to remember Everton being hammered 5-0 away in the UEFA cup first round.
Is that not an embarassment ?

Ever watch Xabi Alonso? Claude Makélele? Paul Scholes? I wouldn't associate these with the picture you are describing. Coincidentally they all play in England.

And they also coincidentally play for the top 4 teams.

Because the reality of it is, football is more than fancy tricks and flicks. Every team needs steel. Some teams employ it more than others. As I said, when the top Italian teams do it they are lauded, but we have to knock the English I suppose.

I'm not doubting that a team needs steel.
My point was that teams are using overly physical methods to 'roughen' Arsenal up so as to drag them down to their level,to level the playing field .

How many "good teams" are there in Italy or Spain? Would you name them?

You are missing the point.
Its 'Good footballing teams' not effective teams.
Most if not all teams in Spain attempt to play attractive football.

Anyway, what is "kick and rush football"?

Consistently hitting long hopeful balls from the defence bypassing midfield .
Most of these balls are played without looking for a forward and most of then are intercepted.

Pass and move football?

Pass and move football is the basis of good football.

Necronomicon

The problem is that good football (as per your definition MisterAnarchy) is not always the most effective football, and as someone pointed out earlier, the cost of not achieving goals in modern football can be severe.
Case in point, Barcalona. They have argueably the best attacking flair in the world, the best player in the world in Ronaldinho, and a tradition of fine attacking football. But last year they met Chelsea, who had more steel and were better organised. In the second leg at Stamford Bridge, Barca's defensive shortcomings were exposed as Chelsea ripped them apart, scoring 3 goals in the first 20 minutes if I remember. My point is that you can be attractive as any team in the world, but it's not the main criteria for being a 'good' team. Chelsea aren't as attractive to watch as Barca, but were better than them over two legs.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I seem to remember Everton being hammered 5-0 away in the UEFA cup first round.
Is that not an embarassment ?

Well you remember incorrectly. It was 5-1. But to be fair that was a pretty shocking result. However there are mitigating circumstances for Everton. The season was built up as their CL season, and they had already been knocked out. The team was deflated, evidence by seven losses out of eight games following their elimination.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

And they also coincidentally play for the top 4 teams.

There are plenty of other world class ball players playing for teams outside the top four. And plenty of other good ball playing teams.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I'm not doubting that a team needs steel.
My point was that teams are using overly physical methods to 'roughen' Arsenal up so as to drag them down to their level,to level the playing field.

And this happens as much in your beloved Spain as it does in England.

Do you really think that teams go to the Nou Camp or Bernabeu and try and pass their opponents off the park?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

You are missing the point.
Its 'Good footballing teams' not effective teams.
Most if not all teams in Spain attempt to play attractive football.

Seriously, how much of the teams do you get to see in Spain seeing as Barcelona are on every week these days. And in the rare occassions they are not on it's Real Madrid.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Consistently hitting long hopeful balls from the defence bypassing midfield. Most of these balls are played without looking for a forward and most of then are intercepted.

And this is what you claim Chelsea and Liverpool do? Despite both teams regularly playing with five in midfield? Are they trying to eliminate half their side from the game or something?

Chelsea and Liverpool do not play a long ball game.

WhiteWashMan

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Has the standard ever been so low ?

im not sure what your performance indicators are, so i dont know how you judge. personally, i think with 3 english teams and a scottish team in the last rounds of the CL, that there must be something good happening here....

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I am a fan of passing ,flowing football,keeping the ball on the ground and playing to feet..

dunno, im just iunfrom atching spurs v pompy, and spurs played fantastic ground football for the majority of the match. beaten in the first half by an absolute cracker of a goal from lualua (grudgingly given )

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Football should be a creative not destructive game..

says you. but football is about many things. not all teams play like real madrid in their hay day.
take bolton for example. a strong physical team, great skill, but very direct. not exactly your run of the mill harlem globe trotters, but good at what they do. are you saying we should turf them out of europe, ehere they are doing damn well, becuase they are not playing 'proper football'?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor..

that i dont know. i can only tell you that every single spurs match is sold out. i suspect every single arsenal and man utd match are sold out as well.
is the definition of good football based on gate receipts?
not really anything to do with football is it?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The average standard of a Premiership match is very poor..

again, according to you. i happen to think the premier has a high standard. hell, i watched the blackburn v west ham match, hardly a match of the day game, and yet, it was entertaining, full of energy and i was impressed by both teams play.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

In any game the away team will generally have 9-10 men behind the ball on most occasions,and rely upon,the long ball or catching a team on the break to score..

play ball around back for 15 minutes, counter attack.
oppostion gets ball
play ball around back for 15 minutes, counter attack.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Some teams rely on setpieces as their best chance of scoring..

we cant all have zidane on one wing and beckham on the other....

are you suggesting that playing to your teams strength is in some way a negative way to play?
or that its cheating.

or just that it doesnt entertain you.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Composure is missing in English football..

now that is rubbish.
watch any premiership team, and they are all, without exception composed on the ball.
i think the nature of the english game, played at a franetic pace as it is, will make any player pass the ball quickly.
what do you want, some guy to sit on the ball for 5 minutes like italian football?
why would the opostion do that?

hey, have the ball and ake as longa s you want to try and score. hey, why dont i just move out of the way for you?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I am a fan of Spanish football.
Last night Real Sociedad and Villareal played out a very entertaining match.
The ball remained on the ground for most of the match and the ball was in play for long periods at a time..

ok, so you prefer that style of football?
so what?

i watched spurs pompy as i said. very entertaining.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The fans demand that the game be played in a positive manner and as the fans own most of the clubs the teams attempt to play good football.
Contrast this with England..

i think you will find the fans of both countries want to have a team that wins.

i bet every real madrid fan right now would settle for a good old arsenal style 1-0 win for the rest of season if the win the league......

only spurs fans demand you lose with style. for some strange reason....

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Never has the state of football been so poor there.
It seems if you are fast ,strong and athletic you have the making of a valuable footballer.Skill seems to be secondary..

so footballers should all be like matt letissieur and lauren robert eh?
lazy with moments of genious?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The pace of the game is far too fast. .

for what?
record it and play on slow mo. youll get an extra 3 hours inthe game as well.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Passing football is almost frowned upon as if you make a bad pass it could be intercepted..

??????

why not put up some stats about passing from both leagues and see who does what.
i watched some wonderful passing movements tonight.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Most goals in England are scored due to a defensive error under extreme pressure rather that a creative moment..

then it goes to show how great the defense is, and how good the goal scorers are to take advanatge.

what exactly are you looking for?

it seems to be a case of damned if you do and damned if you dont!

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Players are encouraged to get rid of the ball ,instead of holding it..

dont agree.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

How many times after a match has a manager said 'We showed great commitment,fought hard,battled hard,showed great tenacity ' ?

after every match this year. and its a good thing when a manger of a spurs side says it.
and yes, the word skill sometimes gets bandied about. but only after watching matches of decent foreign football games.
the premier players are forced to watch at least 6 hours of spanish football a day just to show them how its played.
when was the last time spain won the world cup?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

What about hearing 'We played some good flowing football '?.

HA!
martin Jol said it tonight.
but in a dutch accent!

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The top 2 teams in the Premiership (Chelsea and Liverpool) have based their success on a solid defence and are 2 extremely defensive sides that primarily rely on the long ball..

and?

(and i dont believe that either of the do.)

MisterAnarchy wrote:

There motto is that if we dont concede then we can grind the opponent down ..

ah, youre thinking of arsenal of the ealry/mid 90's

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I watch football to be entertained and I wont pay £40 to watch drivel..

go watch eircom football so. its up there with panto.

he's behind you!

oh no hes not!

although, tis more expensive to fly to seville for a game than get a coach to liverpool.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Andy Gray and his chums on Sky believe the Premiership is the best league in the world.
He is delusional..

2 things.
1, he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and he gets paid to give it.
2, he knows more about football than you do!

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I cant remember the last time I saw a good game of football in the Premiership..

well, no one can make you enjoy something. if you dont like, hell dont watch it.
im not going to try and change your mind, youre certainly entitled to whinge about the state of english football, but the facts are that english teams have been doing well in europe over the past 5 or 6 years.
foreign players want to join the top english clibs.
most players acknowledge that the english leauge is the place to be.
most people on the planet think that the english league is the best.
most people on the planet thing the english league is the most entertaining.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this topic.

i think youre a sunderland supporter, and who could blame you for being depressed

WhiteWashMan

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I seem to remember Everton being hammered 5-0 away in the UEFA cup first round.
Is that not an embarassment ?

im sure that was celtic, but thats scotland, and by definition isnt actually football....

Slash/ED

Necromomicon wrote:

The problem is that good football (as per your definition MisterAnarchy) is not always the most effective football, and as someone pointed out earlier, the cost of not achieving goals in modern football can be severe.
Case in point, Barcalona. They have argueably the best attacking flair in the world, the best player in the world in Ronaldinho, and a tradition of fine attacking football. But last year they met Chelsea, who had more steel and were better organised. In the second leg at Stamford Bridge, Barca's defensive shortcomings were exposed as Chelsea ripped them apart, scoring 3 goals in the first 20 minutes if I remember. My point is that you can be attractive as any team in the world, but it's not the main criteria for being a 'good' team. Chelsea aren't as attractive to watch as Barca, but were better than them over two legs.

Chelsea may have gone 3-0 up, but ripped them apart they didn't. Barca controlled most of that match, missed a few chances and were ultimately denied by Chelsea cheating.

And outside the top teams in the premiership imo the standard is awful and I simply can't watch it, and I'm an eircom league fan ffs, so you know the matches must be really poor for that to be the case. Whereas in Spain pretty much any two teams put on a better show. I just find it a far, far superior product to watch, but that's only my opinion. People here will follow English/Scottish football as their first choice irregardless of things like standard anyway.

foreign players want to join the top english clibs.
most players acknowledge that the english leauge is the place to be.
most people on the planet think that the english league is the best.
most people on the planet thing the english league is the most entertaining.

Latter two points may be correct, but your first two are complete nonsense.

Pigman II

I couldn't give a damn about 'The Premiership' but two teams I can watch all day (esp in Europe) are Chelsea and Liverpool. TBH I'm more a fan of their managers than I am of the teams themselves but I prefer their modern approach to football than that which you seem to lament the loss of so much.

MisterAnarchy

And outside the top teams in the premiership imo the standard is awful and I simply can't watch it, and I'm an eircom league fan ffs, so you know the matches must be really poor for that to be the case. Whereas in Spain pretty much any two teams put on a better show. I just find it a far, far superior product to watch, but that's only my opinion. People here will follow English/Scottish football as their first choice irregardless of things like standard anyway.

Seems we are in the minority here .

are you suggesting that playing to your teams strength is in some way a negative way to play?
or that its cheating.

Playing rubbish football is not playing to their strengths.
Why dont they try and pass the ball,they are 'Professionals' after all.
Thats my whole point.
They are skilled footballers but most teams are playing in a neanderthal manner.

most people on the planet think that the english league is the best.
most people on the planet thing the english league is the most entertaining.

Most people on the planet eh ?
The planet earth doesnt consist of the British Isles alone
You dont work for Sky by any chance do you ?

i think youre a sunderland supporter, and who could blame you for being depressed

I'm actually a Man Utd fan ,have been for over 25 years.
Before you comment I have been a season ticket holder there and for Real Madrid in the past.

PHB

I think the top 4 play fairly nice football.
Chelsea play the same old same old, but turn it on when they need to, the basis for their success.
I've been impressed with how Rafa has liverpool playing this season also.
Utd and Arsenal are always quite attacking and pass and move teams

The problem arises when you have teams like Newcaste and Bolton.
The standard definally outside the top 12 is awful, and there is very little chance of one of those teams scalping the top 4.

WhiteWashMan

Slash/ED wrote:

Latter two points may be correct, but your first two are complete nonsense.

prove it!

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Playing rubbish football is not playing to their strengths.
Why dont they try and pass the ball,they are 'Professionals' after all.
Thats my whole point.
They are skilled footballers but most teams are playing in a neanderthal manner.

no, playing football that doesnt suit you, does not mean they are playing rubbish football. playing a direct route won style of football isnt very attractive, but i doubt very much if you were complaining when ireland were beating england 1-0 with it in 88, nor beating italy 1-0 with it in 94.
in fact, since ireland started playing the 'beautiful game' of football on the ground, we havent really qualified for much.
playing to your strength does not equate being rubbish.
come on now, at least try and pretend to understand the distinction

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Most people on the planet eh ?
The planet earth doesnt consist of the British Isles alone
You dont work for Sky by any chance do you ?

of course. i dont agree, therefore i must have some sort of agenda as opposed to simply disagreeing!

hahaha. skysports. good one.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I'm actually a Man Utd fan ,have been for over 25 years.
Before you comment I have been a season ticket holder there and for Real Madrid in the past..

that simply means youre a fan. nothing more.

Slash/ED

WhiteWashMan wrote:

prove it!

You prove it, when has a world class player in his prime ever signed for a premiership club from abroad? When has a premiership club signed a Zidane from Juventus or something like that? Very rareily, I can think of none off hand.

growler

Fans, armchair or otherwise, want their team to win but would also like to be entertained in the process, managers are employed to use their knowledge of the tactics of the game to win games or they get the boot, players do what they are told. If the tactics used are entertaining and winning, great... but most of the time the tactics chosed are those designed to prevent the opposition playing to their strengths and isolating key influential players. Entertainment is not a priority for the managers or players, winning is.

The Chelsea v Barca game was extremely entertaining (for me anyway) but if Barca could play that game again there is no way they would approach it with the same tactics. ( be interested to hear Slash/Ed's accusation that Chelsea cheated to win that game explained too) .

growler

Slash/ED wrote:

You prove it, when has a world class player in his prime ever signed for a premiership club from abroad? .

Arjen Robben
Hernan Crespo
Veron
Ronaldo ( not the fat one)
Petit
Viera
Zola
Gullit
Vialli
Hasselbaink
Forlan ;-)

seems to be bit of bias in my selection

PHB

You prove it, when has a world class player in his prime ever signed for a premiership club from abroad? When has a premiership club signed a Zidane from Juventus or something like that? Very rareily, I can think of none off hand.

This is the funniest example ever but:

Veron

Kingp35

growler wrote:

Arjen Robben
Hernan Crespo
Veron
Ronaldo ( not the fat one)
Petit
Viera
Zola
Gullit
Vialli
Hasselbaink
Forlan ;-)

Forlan, Petit, Viera, Ronaldo, Hasselbaink were not world class when they joined the premiership. Gullit and Vialli were well past it when they joined.

Arguably you are right when you say Zola, Crespo and Veron but what he really meant was player who are considered one of the best in the world such as Figo was when he moved to Madrid, Ronaldinho was when he moved to Barcelona, Zidane was when he moved to Madrid. None of the players you mentioned were considered the worlds best at the time.

cruiserweight

growler wrote:

Arjen Robben
Hernan Crespo
Veron
Ronaldo ( not the fat one)
Petit
Viera
Zola
Gullit
Vialli
Hasselbaink
Forlan ;-)

seems to be bit of bias in my selection

Zola, Crespo and Veron are the only world class players on that list who signed in their prime!

PHB

Ronaldinho was not like Figo or Zidane, he was still a prospect, not valid comparisions.

Veron was considered one of the best midfielders in the world when he joined United. United fought off much internal italian compo and real madrid and barca were apparently interested in signing him

Kingp35

PHB wrote:

Ronaldinho was not like Figo or Zidane, he was still a prospect, not valid comparisions.

Thats arguable really. I remember ronaldinho being mentioned as one of the best players while he was still playing in Brazil. He was certainly rated unbelievably highly when he moved anyway.

Veron was considered one of the best midfielders in the world when he joined United. United fought off much internal italian compo and real madrid and barca were apparently interested in signing him

I acknowledged Veron.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

and were ultimately denied by Chelsea cheating.

This is a load of garbage and I think I've seen you and other claim it before.

How did Chelsea cheat? If anything the ref gave them a decision that was debatable but I don't recall any Cheslea player specifically cheating.

And on the other hand I notice you, and the others that claim this, conveniently forget, every time, the sending off of Didier Drogba in Barcelona, which was most definitely debatable. And if recall correctly Valdes the Barca keeper writhed around theatrically in agony until the card was shown, and then got up happy as larry. Now that is intentionally faking something to get the upper hand, or "cheating" if you will.

If Terry did foul Valdes, I'm sure it wasn't intentional. And even at that, I watched the game and the highlights and have seen it since, and have yet to see a clear cut angle that shows it was definitely 100% a foul.

Slash/ED wrote:

And outside the top teams in the premiership imo the standard is awful and I simply can't watch it, and I'm an eircom league fan ffs, so you know the matches must be really poor for that to be the case. Whereas in Spain pretty much any two teams put on a better show. I just find it a far, far superior product to watch, but that's only my opinion. People here will follow English/Scottish football as their first choice irregardless of things like standard anyway.

So tell me. How often to you get the chance to watch mid-table Spanish/Italian football?

Slash/ED wrote:

Latter two points may be correct, but your first two are complete nonsense.

Obviously not complete non-sense as has been pointed out with a few examples.

Another few:

Van Nistelrooy
Stam
Overmars
Alonso
Bergkamp

Who were all chased by foreign clubs as well as English. Also the likes of the Brazilians will always favour the Spanish league over somewhere like England. And Luis Figo signed for Barca he was 22 and definitely not world class. So we have two examples so far, Ronaldinho and Zidane.

Mark

How did Chelsea cheat? If anything the ref gave them a decision that was debatable but I don't recall any Cheslea player specifically cheating.

Just to clarify, for Terrys header (to put Chelsea 4-2 ahead), Carvalho was holding onto Valdes and preventing him from getting across the goal. I haven't seen the video since the time but I remember it being Moriarty pretty clear cut. I doubt he would have saved it regardless though.

Jivin Turkey

Mark wrote:

Just to clarify, for Terrys header (to put Chelsea 4-2 ahead), Carvalho was holding onto Valdes and preventing him from getting across the goal. I haven't seen the video since the time but I remember it being Moriarty pretty clear cut. I doubt he would have saved it regardless though.

Sorry I mixed Terry and Carvalho up.

But aside from that I remember the incident clearly, and saw it numerous times at the time of the incident and since. I've still to see an angle that is conclusive that it was definitely a foul and not the keeper making a meal of it, looking for the protection they are too often afforded.

chiller

i agree with county very valid and correct point the best league is the premiership

Kingp35

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Van Nistelrooy
Stam
Overmars
Alonso
Bergkamp

Who were all chased by foreign clubs as well as English. Also the likes of the Brazilians will always favour the Spanish league over somewhere like England. And Luis Figo signed for Barca he was 22 and definitely not world class. So we have two examples so far, Ronaldinho and Zidane.

Van Nistelrooy and Stam again were not considered to be one of the best players in the world when they were signed. Definitely Alonso was not considered one of the worlds top players and still isnt. Overmars possibly, Bergkamp I would agree with.

Oh and when I said Figo I meant when he moved from Barcelone to Real Madrid, not when he signed for Barcelona, although if we are talking only about signings between different leagues then fair enough.

And just to clear up I agree that there is nothing wrong with the current game in England im just pointing out that I do agree that the Worlds top players do tend to move to other Leagues and not England.

~Rebel~

In fairness though, just as a country, a culture and a place, england just does not compete with spain and italy for attracting foreign players. Eg. You're Ronaldinho. You have the choice to go to sunny beautiful Barcelona where you can enjoy living in a beautiful beach house (have you seen the pictures of his house?!?) and play for a great club, or move to rainy, windy northern english Manchester where noone will understand any language but english, and play for another great club. Pretty straightforward decision id imagine. Same goes for most players. id imagine if it was a case of just choosing the team, giving the conditions outside of football remained equal and constant, english clubs would have just as big a chance of luring the bigger guns as spanish and italian clubs. But these players do have to live here beyond the 90minutes they play on a saturday. I really dont believe its the quality of the league that might stop players coming, but the quality of life.

Kingp35

~Rebel~ wrote:

In fairness though, just as a country, a culture and a place, england just does not compete with spain and italy for attracting foreign players. Eg. You're Ronaldinho. You have the choice to go to sunny beautiful Barcelona where you can enjoy living in a beautiful beach house (have you seen the pictures of his house?!?) and play for a great club, or move to rainy, windy northern english Manchester where noone will understand any language but english, and play for another great club. Pretty straightforward decision id imagine. Same goes for most players. id imagine if it was a case of just choosing the team, giving the conditions outside of football remained equal and constant, english clubs would have just as big a chance of luring the bigger guns as spanish and italian clubs. But these players do have to live here beyond the 90minutes they play on a saturday. I really dont believe its the quality of the league that might stop players coming, but the quality of life.

Thats a very good point rebel and I totally understand that some South Americans would prefer to move to a hot country but then again many of the top players, including South Americans, move to cities like Milan which actually has a lower average winter temperature than some cities in England, namely London.

I agree that it may some some effect on choice but if these players really considered the league to be the best in the world wouldnt they not want to play there anyway?

~Rebel~

Kingp35 wrote:

I agree that it may some some effect on choice but if these players really considered the league to be the best in the world wouldnt they not want to play there anyway?

To be honest i personally think that the Spanish, Italian and English leagues are all much of a muchness in terms of quality, especially when only considering the top teams which would actually be capable of competing for these big name players. They all have contrasting styles of play, which may influence a players decision, but seeing as all top players have different attributes to each other, this makes no difference. My point is that, givin that its much of a muchness when comparing league quality (joining one of the top teams in any of the 3 leagues means you'll be playing at the top level in the world), that other factors come into play. Im quite sure if Ronaldinho had to choose between Albacete and Manchester United, it would be Man U every time. But when its Man U v Barcelona, they're both around the same level (or were at the time) so it wasn't about the better quality, and instead the other factors come in.

Necronomicon

Kingp35 wrote:

Definitely Alonso was not considered one of the worlds top players and still isnt.

Alonso had just come off the end of a season where Real Sociedad narrowly finished runner's up to Real Madrid in La Liga, and Alonso was probably their best player all season. There was rave reviews about him by all in Spain, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a large interest from other Spanish clubs for him.