Fallacies in football

recylingbin

Form goes out the window in a derby game. This isn''t true at all. The better team nearly always wins it.
e.g. Arsenal do Spurs more often than not in recent history
Man utd do Man city more....
Liverpool do Everton ...

Decisions even themselves out over the course of the season.
Try telling that to the teams down around the bottom. Teams at the top end get far more questionable decisions going their way than the rest.

Foreigners introduced diving into english football. This had been going on years previous to the foreign influx. It's certainly alot more endemic now.

Blackburn/Chelsea bought their league titles. Well, maybe they did. So did man utd and arsenal if we apply the same criteria.

Theo Walcott is a good player.

Jazzy

i think theo is pretty good

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Liverpool are a one/two player team.

Liverpool fans always assume that this is goign to be their year. (always makes me laugh!!)

English media always go on about 1966 (no more than we do about 1988)

Karmafaerie

Zonal marking doesn't work.

Bodhisopha

Eamonn Dunphy is a La Liga expert.

Paul Scholes is a bad tackler. Okay, he is in many respects but mainly because he is a nasty little bastard.

redout

“These things even themselves out over the course of the season”

d22ontour

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Paul Scholes is a bad tackler.

One would think that people would realize what he is doing at this stage tbh.

Bodhisopha wrote: »

Okay, he is in many respects but mainly because he is a nasty little bastard.

Now his tackles fouls are hardly what you would call leg breakers. :rolleyes:

grenache

recylingbin wrote: »

Form goes out the window in a derby game. This isn''t true at all. The better team nearly always wins it.
e.g. Arsenal do Spurs more often than not in recent history
Man utd do Man city more....
Liverpool do Everton ...

It can be true a lot of the time though. Take Forest's derby with Derby last Saturday week - Forest unbeaten in 19 games against Derby who couldn't buy a win. And the Rams won 1-0. Also, Man City had a very good record against United in the middle of the last decade, even when United were at their strongest. Likewise Everton with Liverpool in the mid-late 90s, i think Everton won 60% of Merseyside clashes. Derbies are different. The underdog is more up for this game than for any other game in the season. While the saying 'form goes out the window' may not totally reflect the intensity and eveness of a derby game, the chances of an upset are certainly greater than in your average game.

Decisions even themselves out over the course of the season.
Try telling that to the teams down around the bottom. Teams at the top end get far more questionable decisions going their way than the rest.

100% agree with you here. United went from 94 to 04 without conceding a penalty at OT. :rolleyes: Proof if ever that refs side with big clubs on important decisions.

Blackburn/Chelsea bought their league titles. Well, maybe they did. So did man utd and arsenal if we apply the same criteria.

I'll put it to you this way - how many of their own academy players did Chelsea & Blackburn have on their title winning teams? Blackburn had not one. Chelsea had 2 players - John Terry and Solomon Kalou. Both United and Arsenal had plenty of their own home grown talent on the majority of their title teams. Blackburn in the 90s and Chelsea now are artificially created power bases who in every sense of the word, 'bought' the league.

CHD

Next year Wenger's kids will be one too watch.

Sure they will.

recylingbin

grenache wrote: »

I'll put it to you this way - how many of their own academy players did Chelsea & Blackburn have on their title winning teams? Blackburn had not one. Chelsea had 2 players - John Terry and Solomon Kalou. Both United and Arsenal had plenty of their own home grown talent on the majority of their title teams. Blackburn in the 90s and Chelsea now are artificially created power bases who in every sense of the word, 'bought' the league.

Man united brought through one crop of youth players. They consistently broke the transfer record in the last 20 years.
Arsenal bought vieira, petit, henry, bergkemp, reyes, kanu, pires and so on. Since they've started relying on grooming players, they've won nothing.

it's a fallacy to suggest any set of champions is less deserving or less entitled than any other.

CHD

recylingbin wrote: »

Man united brought through one crop of youth players. They consistently broke the transfer record in the last 20 years.
Arsenal bought vieira, petit, henry, bergkemp, reyes, kanu, pires and so on. Since they've started relying on grooming players, they've won nothing.

it's a fallacy to suggest any set of champions is less deserving or less entitled than any other.

Post more please.

Karmafaerie

Sky Sports News.

Liam O

grenache wrote: »

100% agree with you here. United went from 94 to 04 without conceding a penalty at OT. :rolleyes: Proof if ever that refs side with big clubs on important decisions.

um, does anyone ever think that maybe because Arsenal and maybe Liverpool were the only teams that would leave there own half against United at OT back then?

It's pretty much the same now except for the other top teams.

major bill

andy reid is a superstar!!!!:rolleyes:

celtic and rangers are big clubs:P

Bodhisopha

d22ontour wrote: »

One would think that people would realize what he is doing at this stage tbh.





Now his tackles fouls are hardly what you would call leg breakers. :rolleyes:

No, but still often quite nasty and reckless all the same.

Liam O

major bill wrote: »

andy reid is a superstar!!!!:rolleyes:

celtic and rangers are big clubs:P

probably have more fans than every premier league club except United, Arsenal and Liverpool...

grenache

recylingbin wrote: »

Man united brought through one crop of youth players. They consistently broke the transfer record in the last 20 years.
Arsenal bought vieira, petit, henry, bergkemp, reyes, kanu, pires and so on. Since they've started relying on grooming players, they've won nothing.

it's a fallacy to suggest any set of champions is less deserving or less entitled than any other.

That would be one crop more than either Chelsea or Blackburn have brought through. And that crop of youth has won United the majority of their titles. They also picked up players like Schmeichel, Solskjaer and Irwin for pittance when compared to the millions Chelsea in particular have splashed out on their squads.

CHD

grenache wrote: »

That would be one crop more than either Chelsea or Blackburn have brought through. And that crop of youth has won United the majority of their titles. They also picked up players like Schmeichel, Solskjaer and Irwin for pittance when compared to the millions Chelsea in particular have splashed out on their squads.

Are you really comparing prices back then to prices now?

Seriously?

grenache

CHD wrote: »

Are you really comparing prices back then to prices now?

Seriously?

I'm saying in 'relative terms' United spent a lot less for some players back then than Chelsea are spending these days.


*And to the person who said Celtic and Rangers aren't big clubs - what planet are you on??!! :eek:

Mad_Max

grenache wrote: »

I'm saying in 'relative terms' United spent a lot less for some players back then than Chelsea are spending these days.

Prices cant be brought into it if you're arguing one team bought a title and another didn't. Plus united are spending way more than they did before too e.g. Anderson at 18mill!

There shouldn't be any shame in buying a league anyway. It's just a sad attempt of fans to demean others success.

Liam O

Mad_Max wrote: »

Prices cant be brought into it if you're arguing one team bought a title and another didn't. Plus united are spending way more than they did before too e.g. Anderson at 18mill!

There shouldn't be any shame in buying a league anyway. It's just a sad attempt of fans to demean others success.

link?

Mad_Max

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11667_4597002,00.html

18 mill euros actually but my point stands. Everyone overpays now.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Liam O

Mad_Max wrote: »

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11667_4597002,00.html

18 mill euros actually but my point stands. Everyone overpays now.

I reckon United may have paid that much now but they paid a lot less initially but with add ons

major bill

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

thank you for biting;) only took 9 or 10 replys.


very annoying when people try to talk about rangers and celtic in same tone as clubs like man u,liverpool,chelsea,man city,even newcastle(yea i went there). maybe they are big clubs support wise but finacially and on the pitch they are small fish compared to most european clubs

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

Mitch Connor

recylingbin wrote: »

Blackburn/Chelsea bought their league titles. Well, maybe they did. So did man utd and arsenal if we apply the same criteria.

unsurprisingly, I disagree with this.

Yeah, United and Arsenal bought players which led to titles, but they did so with money earned and natural growth of the team and the club.

Chelsea and Blackburn were just given fistfulls of cash by a wealthy owner - without the outside investment and bankrolling of signings, neither side would have won the league when they did (though chelsea were building towards it imo).

For me, it is different. United and Arsenal earned the money they spent through on and off the field success. Chelsea and Blackburn didn't earn a penny of the money that was required for their success, it was simply handed to them.

astrofool

Chelsea would have been the next Leeds without their sugar daddy, they wouldn't have been in a shout for the leage for decades.

gimmick

grenache wrote: »

I'll put it to you this way - how many of their own academy players did Chelsea & Blackburn have on their title winning teams? Chelsea had 2 players - John Terry and Solomon Kalou.

Didn't Chelsea pay a large fee for Kalou? He certainly is not an academy product. And John Terry came through the West Ham academy before headingto Chelseas (that said, I am not going to be pedantic and say he is West Hams, a la Lampard).

ctrl-alt-delete

Mitch Connor wrote: »

unsurprisingly, I disagree with this.

Yeah, United and Arsenal bought players which led to titles, but they did so with money earned and natural growth of the team and the club.

Chelsea and Blackburn were just given fistfulls of cash by a wealthy owner - without the outside investment and bankrolling of signings, neither side would have won the league when they did (though chelsea were building towards it imo).

For me, it is different. United and Arsenal earned the money they spent through on and off the field success. Chelsea and Blackburn didn't earn a penny of the money that was required for their success, it was simply handed to them.

So hold on....

If United win the league this year, given their current financial status, have they won or bought the league?

GavRedKing

gimmick wrote: »

Didn't Chelsea pay a large fee for Kalou? He certainly is not an academy product.

Correct, he is not an academy player at all. Bought from Feyenoord for I think about 8 million, open to correction though.

Mitch Connor

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

So hold on....

If United win the league this year, given their current financial status, have they won or bought the league?

no, because they are still earning any money they spend.

the glazers have not put a single penny into United, they have not paid for a single player nor a single wage.

Everything United spend is paid for by the club, through money the club earns.

For me, it is the source of the money that is the issue. United's money comes from being successful, Chelsea's comes Abramovic and oil, Blackburns came from Walker. For me, it is different.

The Davestator

Chelsea were second and third before Roman came along, so its not as if they came from nowhere! Just a few additions to make the difference.

Also, if they win the league this year, noone can say they bought it because they have spent feck all over the last 2 years!

ctrl-alt-delete

Mitch Connor wrote: »

no, because they are still earning any money they spend.

the glazers have not put a single penny into United, they have not paid for a single player nor a single wage.

Everything United spend is paid for by the club, through money the club earns.

For me, it is the source of the money that is the issue. United's money comes from being successful, Chelsea's comes Abramovic and oil, Blackburns came from Walker. For me, it is different.

Yeah bit correct me if i'm wrong, but United are operating on loans. Part of that process would lead me to assume that they havn't earned the money they are spending yet.

If a Mega Rich Man United fan took over the club from the Glazer's. i'm pretty sure that no fan would be up in arms at the prospect of buying the title for the forseeable future.

Walker was a Blackburn man born and bred, I don't agree with saying Blackburn bought the title and the likes of Man Utd never have, every team that has won the title has bought it in one way or another. Blackburn's success should not be frowned upon because they were "handed" money, i admire it more (yes i'm biased) because they beat the "big boys".

MementoMori

gimmick wrote: »

Didn't Chelsea pay a large fee for Kalou? He certainly is not an academy product. And John Terry came through the West Ham academy before headingto Chelseas (that said, I am not going to be pedantic and say he is West Hams, a la Lampard).

I think Kalou cost Chelsea £5m plus £3m in add-ons so it's pretty clear he cant be counted as a youth player.

The Davestator wrote: »

Chelsea were second and third before Roman came along, so its not as if they came from nowhere! Just a few additions to make the difference.

Also, if they win the league this year, noone can say they bought it because they have spent feck all over the last 2 years!

While I agree that it's not as if Chelsea came from no-where, the second part is wrong.

Zhirkov £18m
Sturridge £3.5m (at least) (possibly up to a maximum of £6.5m)
Throw in the cost of Kakuta who probably cost them at a minimum £1m and probably even more and you're looking at a spend of somewhere about the
£25m in the last year or so - Hardly feck all.

Mitch Connor

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Yeah bit correct me if i'm wrong, but United are operating on loans. Part of that process would lead me to assume that they havn't earned the money they are spending yet.

If a Mega Rich Man United fan took over the club from the Glazer's. i'm pretty sure that no fan would be up in arms at the prospect of buying the title for the forseeable future.

Walker was a Blackburn man born and bred, I don't agree with saying Blackburn bought the title and the likes of Man Utd never have, every team that has won the title has bought it in one way or another. Blackburn's success should not be frowned upon because they were "handed" money, i admire it more (yes i'm biased) because they beat the "big boys".

But any debt incurred by United, mainly due to the debt itself, is paid by United. not by some wealthy bazillionaire. The club itself is operating at a bigger profit than most other sides. it is the holding companies that are loss making due to the PIK interest roll ups and the like.

But, overall, fine. You don't care where the money comes from, I do. You don't think it matters, I do. We'll have to agree to disagree cause I doubt either of us is going to change the other's mind.

28064212

The Davestator wrote: »

Chelsea were second and third before Roman came along, so its not as if they came from nowhere! Just a few additions to make the difference.

Before Roman came along, they were 4th (97-98), 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th and 4th (02-03). The season they came 3rd, they were 4 points behind the champions, every other season was at least 15 points behind. I'm fairly ambivalent about the whole "titles are bought" argument, but don't delude yourself that Chelsea had a shot at the league before Roman's billions

pickarooney

"Penalties are just a lottery"

No they're not. The team whose players retain their collective composure will always win.

28064212

recylingbin wrote: »

Decisions even themselves out over the course of the season.
Try telling that to the teams down around the bottom. Teams at the top end get far more questionable decisions going their way than the rest.

grenache wrote: »

100% agree with you here. United went from 94 to 04 without conceding a penalty at OT. :rolleyes: Proof if ever that refs side with big clubs on important decisions.

How is that proof? From 94 to 04 United were completely dominant in the Premiership, especially at Old Trafford. Of course they didn't concede many penalties, teams spent a tiny amount of time anywhere near the United box

gimmick

pickarooney wrote: »

"Penalties are just a lottery"

No they're not. The team whose players retain their collective composure will always win.

Somewhat agree. If you cast your mind back to the Turkey Vs Croatia game at Euro 2008, when that went to penos, there was only going to be one team to win that. Croatia were totally and completely shellshocked after Turkeys late late late equaliser and were never going to regain enough composure to win those spots.

Zonal marking

Rafa's a lucky manager

You won't win anything with Djimi Traore in your team

grenache

28064212 wrote: »

How is that proof? From 94 to 04 United were completely dominant in the Premiership, especially at Old Trafford. Of course they didn't concede many penalties, teams spent a tiny amount of time anywhere near the United box

Come off it. Are you trying to say there wasn't one foul committed in their box in ten years? Refs are always more influenced at the homes of the bigger clubs, Old Trafford especially. 76,000 fans and the thought of incurring the wrath of Fergies ire will make sure it continues.

Mitch Connor

what is the stat for other top clubs, such as Liverpool.

rovingrover

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

£700 million better off than Man Utd. So are Shamrock Rovers and Templeogue United. That doesn't make them big clubs. Although the current Rovers side would give Celtic a good run form their money.

astrofool

grenache wrote: »

Come off it. Are you trying to say there wasn't one foul committed in their box in ten years? Refs are always more influenced at the homes of the bigger clubs, Old Trafford especially. 76,000 fans and the thought of incurring the wrath of Fergies ire will make sure it continues.

Penalties were awarded, but most were saved. Stats here (from 98/99):

http://www.redcafe.net/f6/myth-busting-penalties-187837/#post4213376

TonyD79

pickarooney wrote: »

"Penalties are just a lottery"

No they're not. The team whose players retain their collective composure will always win.

Not all the time. There are loads of factors- bottle,bad technique, good goalkeeping, unpredictable events ie John Terry on ice! Man Utd totally played Arsenal off the pitch in the FA cup final a few years back but lost on penos, who would have thought Roberto Baggio would have missed that peno in the USA94. So many unpredictable factors make it a lottery. You get players who dont take them for their clubs acting the hero with pathetic results ie kevin Kilbane, Gareth Southgate etc

everdead.ie

That players think they have a right to win a match
example spurs v Utd in the league cup put out a strong team and they think they'll walk it because of all the youngsters in the team:(

Dozen Wicked Words

That Ireland were winning the play-off before Henry cheated.

The Muppet

recylingbin wrote: »

Blackburn/Chelsea bought their league titles. Well, maybe they did. So did man utd and arsenal if we apply the same criteria.

Liverpool disprove your theory, they have consistantly outspent United and Arsenal and yet have never won the premiership proving money alone will not win you the title.

dfx-

rarnes1 wrote: »

You won't win anything with Djimi Traore in your team

It should be that "You shouldn't win anything with Djimi Traore in your team":)

kippy

Fallacies in football.....
Well of course you've gotten all those cliches...many of which have already been mentioned 1. The biggest fallacie in football is that the premierleague is the most entertaining league in the world.
News Flash - Its not. 90% of the games are pants, dour football, negative "tactics", poor quality players, not that entertaining at all.....Anyone who would watch any more than 3 or three games in the week would realise that.

2. Footballers are "professionals" richly deserving of their pay packet. Give me a break, yeah sure theres a few out there but look at the calibre of the median. Any player who can take a decent set piece is a "class act" while those that can use both feet are an extremely beneficial for a team to have. We are dealing with alleged professionals here. If all you do every day is play soccer the least one should expect (never mind their pay) is that you can strike a dead ball consistently. (Corners not beating the first man, poor corners, aimless free kicks). Then why cant you also kick with both feet? Its all you do ffs.........you get well paid for it, learn how to use both feet........

I could go on but it could take a while.