The State of English Football

A Dub in Glasgo

Best league in Britain is the EPL and for this season at least, the most entertaining and interesting league in Britain is the SPL

ButcherOfNog

"Aye and when i were a lad all this were green, and i used to lick the pavement clean before I went to school in the mornings...."

Its better than it used to be, watch some games from the 80's to see how the game has changed. The quality of the top teams is higher but in other ways its not much different, you had skilled teams at the top playing good football and the others trying to kick them out of their stride. You also have a few mid table teams insisting on playing good football too (take Fulham as an example this season).

The spanish league has to be full of the worst defenders on the planet, theres so much standing off and joke defending going on, its hard to take it seriously.

therecklessone

As someone who's only in the door an hour after travelling home from last night's Spurs-Pompey game...

The relative entertainment value (or lack thereof) of English football versus the continental game hasn't changed a whole lot TBH. Technically speaking the English game has always suffered in comparison to the Spanish and Italian leagues, but then they've always attracted the best talent that South America has had to offer, so if its flair you're after then you'd be hard pressed to find an English side in the last 40 years who have consistently out-performed their European counterparts.

Thats not to say English football has never been capable of competing at the highest level in Europe, cos the late 70s and early 80s were dominated by English (and British) sides.

If you want flair, look to Spain.

If you want the best in defence/goal keeping look to Italy.

If you want entertainment, look to England.

I had a ball at last night's game at White Hart Lane. I was on the edge of my seat from the first whistle. Yes, the game was played at 100%, with tackles flying in and wayward passes abounding. Some of the finishing was awful (Robbie Keane knows who I'm talking about...), and the defending wasn't much better, but for 90s minutes of heart-stopping entertainment, you'd do well to find it elsewhere.

The difference between now and earlier times os that European football is much more accessible, so maybe thats why there's a perception that English football is at an all time low.

Kingp35

Necromomicon wrote:

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.

True. He still wasnt one of the top players in the world and still isnt one of the top players in the world what you wrote is kind of irrelevant.

Slash/ED

NONE of the players listed were considered amoungst the best in the world, the absolute elite, when they went to England. Ronaldo ffs!?

The closest would be Veron and Bergkamp and both would be pushing it.

Chelsea cheated to win in so much as Argentina cheated to win v England in 1986, yes it was the refs fault as much as anything, but it was intentional and the goal should have been disallowed.

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

Always a few on Sky, Bravo or Setanta. And by mid table I mean anything out of the top sides, in English teams that means anything bar Chelsea Liverpool Man U Arsenal. I find the mid table English matches completley unwatchable.

The English league is however outrageously well marketed. Brilliantly so, and so it is the most popular in the world and here.

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

NONE of the players listed were considered amoungst the best in the world, the absolute elite, when they went to England. Ronaldo ffs!?

So how many players are "the absolute elite"? To be honest you are full of sh1t. You are narrowing your sample to three or four players.

Slash/ED wrote:

The closest would be Veron and Bergkamp and both would be pushing it.

Closest to what? You have set your bar at an unreasonable level. If Bergkamp isnt "one of the best players in the world" please dont let one come up against Liverpool.

Slash/ED wrote:

Chelsea cheated to win in so much as Argentina cheated to win v England in 1986, yes it was the refs fault as much as anything, but it was intentional and the goal should have been disallowed.

You are talking rubbish again.

For the record, I never said Chelsea's "goal" was 100% legitimate, but I've yet to see an angle that makes me certain that it was 100% illegitimate.

To compare it with "The hand of God" is just moronic.

Also I've noted you have once again ignored Drogba's unfair sending off and Valdes's "cheating" in the first leg.

There is no point in me even responding to you on this issue when you are so intent on ignoring the facts, and just believing whatever spin you put on things.

Slash/ED wrote:

Always a few on Sky, Bravo or Setanta. And by mid table I mean anything out of the top sides, in English teams that means anything bar Chelsea Liverpool Man U Arsenal. I find the mid table English matches completley unwatchable.

Ok, again lie all you want. I know that you never see a live Spanish game unless it involves Madrid or Barca. Yet the mid-table teams in Spain are streets ahead of England!

Slash/ED wrote:

The English league is however outrageously well marketed. Brilliantly so, and so it is the most popular in the world and here.

Just as the Spanish or Italian league are in their countries. Do you really just think that it's only in England that you get such hype? Please answer that one.

Jivin Turkey

Kingp35 wrote:

Van Nistelrooy and Stam again were not considered to be one of the best players in the world when they were signed.

Nor was Ronaldinho, and to be honest the two mentioned probably had a higher profile than Ronaldinho at the time they signed for United.

Kingp35 wrote:

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

But fact of the matter is Liverpool got him ahead of Madrid, which was what this whole argument started on.

Kingp35 wrote:

Overmars possibly, Bergkamp I would agree with.

No both were world class players when they signed to the Premiership.

WhiteWashMan

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Best league in Britain is the EPL and for this season at least, the most entertaining and interesting league in Britain is the SPL

move this post to the humour forum please.

Slash/ED

Jivin Turkey wrote:

So how many players are "the absolute elite"? To be honest you are full of sh1t. You are narrowing your sample to three or four players.

No, there's plenty of the worlds absolute top players out there, I can think of none who have signed for an English club in their prime except maybe Bergkamp. Flys in the face of the "Foreigners all want to be in the premiership" line a tad.

Closest to what? You have set your bar at an unreasonable level. If Bergkamp isnt "one of the best players in the world" please dont let one come up against Liverpool.

Bergkamp was not one of the elite players, he was exceptional though. He is about the best example.

You are talking rubbish again.

For the record, I never said Chelsea's "goal" was 100% legitimate, but I've yet to see an angle that makes me certain that it was 100% illegitimate.

To compare it with "The hand of God" is just moronic.

You obviously haven't seen it at a proper angle then. It is 100% blatant and I didn't even realise people actually denied this. No point arguing with it, get a proper angle of it.

Also I've noted you have once again ignored Drogba's unfair sending off and Valdes's "cheating" in the first leg.

There is no point in me even responding to you on this issue when you are so intent on ignoring the facts, and just believing whatever spin you put on things.

Neither was intentional cheating but the point wasn't about the cheating, it was about luck. Both sides had their share of bad luck, but to say Barca were destroyed is deluded sky sports enduced nonsense. Barca controlled the match in Stamford Bridge after the penalty and missed a good few chances and lost to a goal that shouldn't have stood. It being used as some kind of idication that Chelsea are definitely better than Barca or controlled the game is complete b*ll*cks, do you disagree?

Ok, again lie all you want. I know that you never see a live Spanish game unless it involves Madrid or Barca. Yet the mid-table teams in Spain are streets ahead of England!

You're not very bloody observent then are you? Villareal Sociedad was this very weekend, excellent game, then again games with Juan Roman Riquelme and the like tend to me. Don't accuse me of lying when you haven't a bloody clue what you're on about.

Just as the Spanish or Italian league are in their countries. Do you really just think that it's only in England that you get such hype? Please answer that one.

Not as well marketed outside their own country however.

Nor was Ronaldinho, and to be honest the two mentioned probably had a higher profile than Ronaldinho at the time they signed for United.

Ronaldinho had just won the world cup as part of the famous three Rs line up, and been probably Brazils second best player in the tournament, destroying England. There is no way his profile was lower than that of Stams and Van Nistelrooys at the time.

The Rooster

All indications were that Ronaldhino would have signed for United, had they not got stingy with the cash. Barca only become serious contenders when United started haggling.

My own opinion is that players follow the cash. They couldnt give a crap about "quality of football", although they use it an an excuse/reason for time to time. I don't buy it. Climate would be a bigger factor than quality of football, and a genuine affection for a particular team can be a big factor, but cash is king

gracehopper

The Rooster wrote:

All indications were that Ronaldhino would have signed for United, had they not got stingy with the cash. Barca only become serious contenders when United started haggling.

My own opinion is that players follow the cash. They couldnt give a crap about "quality of football", although they use it an an excuse/reason for time to time. I don't buy it. Climate would be a bigger factor than quality of football, and a genuine affection for a particular team can be a big factor, but cash is king

its worth point out that Ronaldinho didnt go to United because Kenyon intentionally hashed the transfer up, knowing he himself was going to Chelsea a few months later

Somebody mentioned Alonso, he went to liverpool because he from Basq country and his father said he'd disown him if he joined kings club (Madrid)

PHB

Nope, you're just wrong Rooster.

United actually offered more money than Barca at first.
When Kenyon made this offer however, the board were not happy, because he hadn't been given permission.
At which point he was told to go back and withdraw the offer, and explain his **** up
When he did this, Ronaldinho was like wtf, Barca got involved, and the rest is history.

---

Slash/ED, could you please list for us the elite players at this moment in time so we can get an idea of what you are talking about

Slash/ED

PHB wrote:

Slash/ED, could you please list for us the elite players at this moment in time so we can get an idea of what you are talking about

It's very open to debate in fairness, I wouldn't do a list. I'm just talking about signing the likes of Figo when he was at Barca, Zidane when he was at Juventus, or say someone signing Shevchenko now. Signing a player at the top of his game when he's considered one of the best players in the world.

TheMonster

I too would be interested in your ELITE list(the current one) -

Slash/ED

Well currently you'd have Ronaldinho, Shevchenko, Adriano, Buffon, maybe Kaka, maybe Lampard, Eto'o, Ibrahimovic, Henry, Terry, Nedved, Pirlo, maybe Rooney, not sure but certinaly in a few years. It's all very debatable. The point was someone said all the forigners want to play in England when the evidence doesn't back this up.

growler

Slash/ED wrote:

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.
.

sounds like a point about cheating to me. then you change your tune and say it was about luck. Carvalho could be seen to have impaired the keeper, however that was as much the fault of the keeper's starting position as anything, sure he was a bit clever in chosing to stand where he did but both ref and linesman allowed it.

I've watched the Chelsea v Barca games many many times and Chelsea had the upper hand for large sections of the game, they weren't ripped apart ( that would have required a 4-0) but they were matched in every part of the field, except for Goofy ( ronaldinho) who is in a class of his own.

To settle your elite super players argument you're going to have to list all the players worldwide ( passt / present) who would make it into your list.

Slash/ED

growler wrote:

sounds like a point about cheating to me. then you change your tune and say it was about luck. Carvalho could be seen to have impaired the keeper, however that was as much the fault of the keeper's starting position as anything, sure he was a bit clever in chosing to stand where he did but both ref and linesman allowed it.

I've watched the Chelsea v Barca games many many times and Chelsea had the upper hand for large sections of the game, they weren't ripped apart ( that would have required a 4-0) but they were matched in every part of the field, except for Goofy ( ronaldinho) who is in a class of his own.

To settle your elite super players argument you're going to have to list all the players worldwide ( passt / present) who would make it into your list.

My point was that the goal should not have stood. Whether they're cheaters or not isn't relevent, there was an element of cheating in the goal however and it was illegal, my point was the goal shouldn't have stood. Try not to tell me what point I'm making in the future if at all possible.

They did indeed allow it, but they shouldn't have, but that game was not as one person tried to describe it some kind of indication of Chelseas superiority.

And I'm not about to do a long list like that I haven't the time or patience and it would only start nonsense arguments anyway, I think I've made it pretty clear what I'm talking about at this stage.

Kingp35

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Nor was Ronaldinho, and to be honest the two mentioned probably had a higher profile than Ronaldinho at the time they signed for United.

Are you having a laugh? Go watch the 2002 World Cup and then tell me he wasnt rated as one of the worlds best

But fact of the matter is Liverpool got him ahead of Madrid, which was what this whole argument started on.

No this argument started by saying the worlds top players dont move to England, it doesnt matter who was currently after him and as someone stated, Alonso didnt move to Madrid because of where he was from. fact remains the argument is based on worlds top players and its blatantly obvious that Alonso was not and is not one of the worlds top players.

No both were world class players when they signed to the Premiership.

debatable whether overmars was. I wouldnt disagree with you on this point though.

MisterAnarchy

I wonder what percentage of the Sky Sports subscription goes on paying for the EPL rights alone ?
If I were to have a guess (based on a few articles I read ) it would be >50% of the complete sub,not to mention advertising and sponsorship income.
That means Sky Sports spend half their output on one product.
You can imagine why they want it to be considered the best league in the world and use their propaganda machine so much.

The Rooster

PHB wrote:

Nope, you're just wrong Rooster.

United actually offered more money than Barca at first.
When Kenyon made this offer however, the board were not happy, because he hadn't been given permission.
At which point he was told to go back and withdraw the offer, and explain his **** up
When he did this, Ronaldinho was like wtf, Barca got involved, and the rest is history.

Did you mean "you're just wrong Rooster" or "you're just wrong gracehopper" ?

Not sure how my comments differed from yours. United would more than likely have got him had they stumped up the cash. They dithered and Barca came in.

PHB

I meant the latter sorry Rooster

A Dub in Glasgo

WhiteWashMan wrote:

move this post to the humour forum please.

Hmmm, I would have expected you do agree with me about the EPL being the best league in Britain :eek:

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

No, there's plenty of the worlds absolute top players out there, I can think of none who have signed for an English club in their prime except maybe Bergkamp. Flys in the face of the "Foreigners all want to be in the premiership" line a tad.

But that is not the point that was made. The word "all" was never used. It was a generalisation. Foreign players want to join the top clubs. Not every one obviously, but as has been pointed out, there are reasons more than the quality of football behind this.

Slash/ED wrote:

Bergkamp was not one of the elite players, he was exceptional though. He is about the best example.

So let me get this straight, Bergkamp is not one of the "elite" players although he is as close as anyone in England has got. This "elite" list of yours includes Eto'o and Ibrahimovic, but not Bergkamp???

I agree with you that the last thing we want to do here is go off on a tangent discussing who is on this "elite" list but the main point I'm trying to get across here is that such an "elite" list would probably only have enough names that you could count it on one hand. Every one else is just world class. And plenty of world class players in their prime come to the Premiership.

Slash/ED wrote:

You obviously haven't seen it at a proper angle then. It is 100% blatant and I didn't even realise people actually denied this. No point arguing with it, get a proper angle of it.

Neither was intentional cheating but the point wasn't about the cheating, it was about luck. Both sides had their share of bad luck, but to say Barca were destroyed is deluded sky sports enduced nonsense. Barca controlled the match in Stamford Bridge after the penalty and missed a good few chances and lost to a goal that shouldn't have stood. It being used as some kind of idication that Chelsea are definitely better than Barca or controlled the game is complete b*ll*cks, do you disagree?

No not at all. But again the last thing I'm trying to do here is get into an arugment over who is better. I took issue with your claim that Chelsea "cheated" to get through. Something that I've seen claimed before. That is non-sense, even if it were a free, it is a perfect case of swings and roundabouts.

Slash/ED wrote:

You're not very bloody observent then are you? Villareal Sociedad was this very weekend, excellent game, then again games with Juan Roman Riquelme and the like tend to me. Don't accuse me of lying when you haven't a bloody clue what you're on about.

I apologise sincerely if I came across as obnoxious and condescending. If you check the posting time it might shed some light as to how that might have happened

But one question I'd like to ask you regarding what you said there. Would a team that finished third in La Liga last year and are currently fourth this year, and have topped a CL group not be considered a "top team".

My point was that mid-table Spanish league matches, say something like Getafe - Malaga, are rarely if ever shown on TV. It would not be a fair comparison to say anything outside the top teams in England is crap, and cite Villarreal as an example of how good "mid-table" sides abroad.

Slash/ED wrote:

Not as well marketed outside their own country however.

You could argue that Sky do a good enough job of marketing Spanish football, hey, maybe thats why we have so many people here claiming it's the best..............................................

Slash/ED wrote:

Ronaldinho had just won the world cup as part of the famous three Rs line up, and been probably Brazils second best player in the tournament, destroying England. There is no way his profile was lower than that of Stams and Van Nistelrooys at the time.

Ronaldinho had achieved very little in club football before he moved to Barcelona. He had never played in the CL and while he was a huge fan favourite, he was not a huge favourite of Victor Fernandez (the PSG manager) due to his lifestyle.

Kingp35 wrote:

Are you having a laugh? Go watch the 2002 World Cup and then tell me he wasnt rated as one of the worlds best

No, read above. It was obvious that after the world cup he was definitely going to become something special. He was not however there yet. He had achieved little in club football before arriving at Barcelona.

Slash/ED

Jivin Turkey wrote:

But that is not the point that was made. The word "all" was never used. It was a generalisation. Foreign players want to join the top clubs. Not every one obviously, but as has been pointed out, there are reasons more than the quality of football behind this.

The original point was the foreigners think the premiership is the place to be. imo there is no evidence to back this claim that they favour the premiership over all other leagues up if anything the evidence indicates the opposiate.

So let me get this straight, Bergkamp is not one of the "elite" players although he is as close as anyone in England has got. This "elite" list of yours includes Eto'o and Ibrahimovic, but not Bergkamp???

I agree with you that the last thing we want to do here is go off on a tangent discussing who is on this "elite" list but the main point I'm trying to get across here is that such an "elite" list would probably only have enough names that you could count it on one hand. Every one else is just world class. And plenty of world class players in their prime come to the Premiership.

Not as much as other leagues, certinaly not enough to back up the claim made that I was originally arguing with.

No not at all. But again the last thing I'm trying to do here is get into an arugment over who is better. I took issue with your claim that Chelsea "cheated" to get through. Something that I've seen claimed before. That is non-sense, even if it were a free, it is a perfect case of swings and roundabouts.

I should probably not have used the word cheating, my point was it did nothing to prove Chelsea were a better team than Barca, which you seem to agree with...

I apologise sincerely if I came across as obnoxious and condescending. If you check the posting time it might shed some light as to how that might have happened

But one question I'd like to ask you regarding what you said there. Would a team that finished third in La Liga last year and are currently fourth this year, and have topped a CL group not be considered a "top team".

Yeah but neither will challenge for the title, looks like it's Real or Barca bound this year. Again, mid table probably not the word to use, I meant the best of the non title challenging teams. Even looking at this Man U Wigan game, both sides have been awful with a few good flashes from Man U, mainly Rooney. One example, defender has ball in acres of space, nobody around him. Passes the ball to opposition player, Fletcher, who is standing also with nobody around him. To compound it, Fletchers first touch is so poor it goes right back to the defender.

My point was that mid-table Spanish league matches, say something like Getafe - Malaga, are rarely if ever shown on TV. It would not be a fair comparison to say anything outside the top teams in England is crap, and cite Villarreal as an example of how good "mid-table" sides abroad.

Well Villareal would be a smaller club in Spain than Arsenal or Man U are in England but I'd cosnider them better, and my opinion alone, I'd rather prefer to watch them. Matches like that are rare but are shown the odd time and again I find them betterto watch, the skill on display is just superior imo.

You could argue that Sky do a good enough job of marketing Spanish football, hey, maybe thats why we have so many people here claiming it's the best..............................................

I don't think they promote it enough tbh, it's rarely given proper ads and the like except for el classico

Jivin Turkey

Slash/ED wrote:

The original point was the foreigners think the premiership is the place to be. imo there is no evidence to back this claim that they favour the premiership over all other leagues up if anything the evidence indicates the opposiate.

No the original point was that foreign players want to come to the top teams in the Premiership. In general terms I don't think that is that far from the truth, if at all.

Slash/ED wrote:

Not as much as other leagues, certinaly not enough to back up the claim made that I was originally arguing with.

You original claim was that it was complete and utter non-sense. Now we are at a level where you are saying its "not as much as other leagues", which is probably closer to the truth.

Zidane and Figo aside (I'm not including Ronaldinho as he still had to develop a lot to the player he is today), there is not much difference in the standard of player purchased by the top teams in England and the top teams from abroad. Add to that the two mentioned were bought for silly money and silly wages by a silly club that was incomparable to anyone in the transfer market pre-Abramovich. I wouldn't be surprised to see a bid for say Adriano over the next couple of years by Chelsea with similarly ridiculous sums involved.

It's a very subjective topic, and IMO there is only a couple of "elite" players that really stand head and shoulders above everyone else. And even a fewer number of them ever get transferred while in their peak. The two mentioned are the only ones I can think of off hand. I don't think the fact that they didn't come to England says anything about the standard of football played there.

I also don't think the gulf in the quality of player signed by top English clubs is nearly as large as you and others are suggesting.

Slash/ED wrote:

I should probably not have used the word cheating, my point was it did nothing to prove Chelsea were a better team than Barca, which you seem to agree with...

The term "cheating" was what I took issue with. Because it's not really accurate, and trys to make little of the win, which I don't think is fair.

And for the record, personally I thought Chelsea were a better side than Barcelona last year, and while I feel the margin has closed considerably this year, I still think Chelsea are a better side. I would love to see them face off again though.

Slash/ED wrote:

Yeah but neither will challenge for the title, looks like it's Real or Barca bound this year. Again, mid table probably not the word to use, I meant the best of the non title challenging teams.

Can we say with certainty that Arsenal, Liverpool or Man U will challenge for the title? I think they all play good football. I'd also say that there are mid-table teams in the Spanish league that know they are punching above their weight and employ physical tactics á la Bolton etc., it's much of a muchness to be honest.

My main point is while the standard of football (again very subjective) may be marginally better in Spain, due to superiour technique on average amongst the players, I don't think the gulf is nearly as large (if it even exists!) as people here are claiming.

Slash/ED wrote:

Even looking at this Man U Wigan game, both sides have been awful with a few good flashes from Man U, mainly Rooney. One example, defender has ball in acres of space, nobody around him. Passes the ball to opposition player, Fletcher, who is standing also with nobody around him. To compound it, Fletchers first touch is so poor it goes right back to the defender.

It happens everywhere. I've posted already on this thread remarking at the hilarity of Barcelona's equaliser against Sevilla, where a defender completely missed a kick from a corner, and a keeper stood by as Eto'o headed it in. And sure people will laud Ronaldinho's goal as incredible, but the reality of it is, it was shocking defending. No player should be able to beat three or four men, no matter how good he is, he would be taken down by a good defender before he gets a chance to shoot, be it fairly or unfairly.

Slash/ED wrote:

Well Villareal would be a smaller club in Spain than Arsenal or Man U are in England but I'd cosnider them better, and my opinion alone, I'd rather prefer to watch them. Matches like that are rare but are shown the odd time and again I find them betterto watch, the skill on display is just superior imo.

I think Villareal are a good side too. But I also think they may be the exception rather than the rule for the "smaller" Spanish sides. Every Spanish league team doesn't have a player like Riquelme. I also think that Sky know this and will show a few Villareal games a year as a result.

Slash/ED wrote:

I don't think they promote it enough tbh, it's rarely given proper ads and the like except for el classico

Well they are doing a decent job as its popularity is soaring. Even on these boards I've noticed more topics, and more references to it than when I first joined.

eirebhoy

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Best league in Britain is the EPL and for this season at least, the most entertaining and interesting league in Britain is the SPL

WhiteWashMan wrote:

move this post to the humour forum please.

No offense WWM but you say you're a Rangers supporter, opening threads when they do well, etc. I think I can safely say you're just anti-Celtic.

PHB

Just as a comparision:

Spain:
1. Barcelona - 34
2. Osasuna - 34
3. Real Madrid - 28
4. Villarreal - 26
5. Deportivo La Coruna - 26

Italy
1. Juve - 42
2. Inter - 32
3. Fiorentina - 32
4. Milan - 31
5. Livorno - 28

England
1. Chelsea - 43
2. Man Utd - 34
3. Liverpool - 31
4. Spurs - 30
5. Bolton - 27

CorkMan

IMO La Liga is the best, the football is just so fluent and it has many of the worlds top stars. Add Iker Casillas to that elite list BTW

MisterAnarchy

Add Iker Casillas to that elite list BTW

Definitely.
He is a great keeper and still only 24 !

Davei141

If you add casillas to the "elite" list then it'll have to be the biggest elite list ive ever seen. Hes a very good keeper, but there is plenty better.

MisterAnarchy

Hes a very good keeper, but there is plenty better.

I dont think there are any better than him .
He is as good as any of the top 5 goalies in the world.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I dont think there are any better than him .
He is as good as any of the top 5 goalies in the world.

If there are no better GKs in the world, surely he is more than "as good" as four of the top five GKs in the world???

Besides I think this is going way off topic, it's pretty plain to see that the English game is not a "state", in fact, there is very little between the top leagues in Europe in terms of entertainment, quality of football, and standard of football.

PHB

The reason I brought it up is, because you seemed to dismiss a lot of peoples transfers as not being in the elite.
Of course, the elite you have defined, shows that the transfer you dismissed were not infact valid dismissals.

KdjaCL

KdjaC wrote:

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


*examples.

Bollix.


kdjac

MisterAnarchy

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

For all that is good in football,I hope Barca absolutely maul Chelsea and show them up for the limited side they are.

WhiteWashMan

eirebhoy wrote:

No offense WWM but you say you're a Rangers supporter, opening threads when they do well, etc. I think I can safely say you're just anti-Celtic.

i support rangers, but im more of an anti-plastic paddy celtic supporter really.

all scottish football is crap. and all irish football is crap.
end of.

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

For all that is good in football,I hope Barca absolutely maul Chelsea and show them up for the limited side they are.

You have been continually question as to what is the "good of football" etc, and have constantly refused to answer.

Hope all you like, I can't wait for this match to come around, it will be a cracker, personally I think Chelsea will win. This Barcelona side are a very inexperienced team when it comes to top level club football. Having said that I know it will be a close game, and it will only illustrate that the margin between the English league and the almighty Spanish league is as tight as a gnat's chuff.

MisterAnarchy

You have been continually question as to what is the "good of football" etc, and have constantly refused to answer.

What ?
I think the difference between the fantastic offensive total football as played by Barcelona and the efficient ,grinding style of football played by Chelsea is evident for all to see.
One team is a creative team,the other primarily a destructive team.
Which style you prefer is up to the individual.
If you can honestly tell me that you would prefer to see Chelsea beat Barcelona then that is your choice.
I believe the vast majority of fans of the 'Beautiful game' would prefer to see Barcelona win.

galwaydude

message deleted

Pigman II

WhiteWashMan wrote:

all scottish football is crap.

As much as I hate Celtic and Rangers they'd both whip the arse off Spurs. Does that make Spurs crap too?

Jivin Turkey

MisterAnarchy wrote:

What ?
I think the difference between the fantastic offensive total football as played by Barcelona and the efficient ,grinding style of football played by Chelsea is evident for all to see.

You are comparing two single teams. Not every foreign team plays like Barcelona. In fact I'll stick my neck out and say that no team plays like Barcelona. So to use them as your benchmark to say that "the standard is English football is crap" is complete rubbish.

growler

MisterAnarchy wrote:

For all that is good in football,I hope Barca absolutely maul Chelsea and show them up for the limited side they are.

last season chelsea v barca was one of the best games of the season, and you think this is bad for football ?

I'd love to hear you explain how they are limited.

While Barcelona play some great football and can really showboat in attack when playing poorer opposition you'd be insane to think they play non stop total attacking style for all games. As far as limited goes, they are reliant on attack and can't defend at the highest level, they don't like a physical game.

growler

Pigman II wrote:

As much as I hate Celtic and Rangers they'd both whip the arse off Spurs. Does that make Spurs crap too?

do you really think this ? I'd expect Spurs (crap as they are) to comfortably beat either glasgow team. Spurs are playing really well this season, much as it pains me to say it.