What's your unpopular football opinion?

Ormus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

When I were a lad an assist was the player who created the goal, maybe the winger who beat 4 players on a mazy run and then crossed the ball.
The assist concept seems bizarre nowadays with players getting them for unknowing deflections or miscued shots which happen to somehow fall into a colleagues path, or a really minor contribution which just happens to be the second last touch.

Its understandable if the fantasy game has to calculate the figures like that, but I don't like that it has become an accepted stat for a players contributions.

By that logic, miscued shots which go in shouldn't be accepted as a goal for the purposes of individual player stats.

Ormus

super_furry wrote: »

Gaizka Mendieta is one of the best midfielders of the last 30 years and probably the most under-rated player of his generation.

He was great for Valencia (man I loved that team), but he never produced anything like that sort of form with any of his other clubs.

jacool

Players are paid too much (don't give me "it's a short career" rubbish, as oft stated by Trevor Sinclair!)

The Talking Bread

jacool wrote: »

Players are paid too much (don't give me "it's a short career" rubbish, as oft stated by Trevor Sinclair!)

What an "unpopular " opinion! !

I think everyone, even most of the players know this!

Lofty123

The LOI needs to be restructured. 5 teams from the capital and great swathes of the country with none. I would love to attend LOI games, but my nearest team is Limerick, a 70 mile round trip to a city/club I have no affinity with.
I suggest a two division league of 13 teams, one from each county.

The Talking Bread

It's economics: supply and demand,

GustavoGaviria

The Bar-stool Stereotype is a false flag attack invented by insecure Irish Premier League fans to make League of Ireland fans look hostel and provide them with an excuse to neglect their domestic league further.

Arghus

I've no problem with what players get paid, fair play to them. They make the game and for a long while they were shafted financially. People moan about it in the UK media and a lot of it is down to class snobbery.

Lofty123

GustavoGaviria wrote: »

The Bar-stool Stereotype is a false flag attack invented by insecure Irish Premier League fans to make League of Ireland fans look hostel and provide them with an excuse to neglect their domestic league further.

??
Translation anyone...?:D

The Talking Bread

Lofty123 wrote: »

GustavoGaviria wrote: »

The Bar-stool Stereotype is a false flag attack invented by insecure Irish Premier League fans to make League of Ireland fans look hostel and provide them with an excuse to neglect their domestic league further.

??
Translation anyone...?:D

I thought it was just me! And I got an A1 in English!!

The_Kew_Tour

Steve Bruce and Gary Palister were overrated CB patnership.

Arghus

GustavoGaviria wrote: »

The Bar-stool Stereotype is a false flag attack invented by insecure Irish Premier League fans to make League of Ireland fans look hostel and provide them with an excuse to neglect their domestic league further.

So beyond that rough exterior they are actually quite welcoming?:D

jacool

GustavoGaviria wrote: »

The Bar-stool Stereotype is a false flag attack invented by insecure Irish Premier League fans to make League of Ireland fans look hostel and provide them with an excuse to neglect their domestic league further.

Its cheaper to follow the LOI if you stay out of the bar and get put up in a hostel - Babelfish

Omackeral

Lofty123 wrote: »

The LOI needs to be restructured. 5 teams from the capital and great swathes of the country with none. I would love to attend LOI games, but my nearest team is Limerick, a 70 mile round trip to a city/club I have no affinity with.
I suggest a two division league of 13 teams, one from each county.

Why not just add counties without a team to the existing structure instead of breaking Dublin/Louth/etc up into one. No Rovers fan is gonna follow a Dublin Utd team and no Drogheda fan is gonna stand with Dundalk fans. Who'd follow these amalgamated sides?

NIMAN

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Steve Bruce and Gary Palister were overrated CB patnership.

Didn't Romario or Stoichkov say they were the worst CBs they had played against after they hammered them 4-0 in 1994 at Camp Nou?

The_Kew_Tour

NIMAN wrote: »

Didn't Romario or Stoichkov say they were the worst CBs they had played against after they hammered them 4-0 in 1994 at Camp Nou?

Dont ever remember hearing that, although could be true.

Dont think they were that bad mind you. Just overhyped

irishman86

I dont consider Liverpool or Spurs a top club no matter where they finish in the table and subsequently if a top club wants one of there players it will happen even if they finish below them in the table :o
I also dont think City are

blinding

irishman86 wrote: »

I dont consider Liverpool or Spurs a top club no matter where they finish in the table and subsequently if a top club wants one of there players it will happen even if they finish below them in the table :o
I also dont think City are

Once upon a time Liverpool were a big club....

JamboMac

irishman86 wrote: »

I dont consider Liverpool or Spurs a top club no matter where they finish in the table and subsequently if a top club wants one of there players it will happen even if they finish below them in the table :o
I also dont think City are

I find this funny coz in another thread some blokes been trying to convince me Leeds are a big club.:D

In reality I wouldn't consider Chelsea there either just had money.

ERG89

JamboMac wrote:

In reality I wouldn't consider Chelsea there either just had money.

As apposed to all the other teams in England who don't spend money at all

irishman86

blinding wrote: »

Once upon a time Liverpool were a big club....

But you can use that for 99% of clubs, I personally feel they just havent done anything in the league for so long to earn the title, I do think they are a big british club

JamboMac wrote: »

I find this funny coz in another thread some blokes been trying to convince me Leeds are a big club.:D

In reality I wouldn't consider Chelsea there either just had money.

The thing with Chelsea is they have been quiet successful for a long period now that I personally consider them a big club
They have won 4 in 12 years, possibly 5 in 13.
My ranking of clubs in England is United/Chelsea gap Arsenal/City gap gap Liverpool gap Spurs
Each year they get closer to Newcastle than Manchester for me

Arghus

irishman86 wrote: »

But you can use that for 99% of clubs, I personally feel they just havent done anything in the league for so long to earn the title, I do think they are a big british club

No you can't. Have 99% of clubs won the European Cup multiple times and the league 18 times? History does count. Liverpool are a massive club - and I say that as an Arsenal fan.

JamboMac

ERG89 wrote: »

As apposed to all the other teams in England who don't spend money at all

By that i mean they aren't a big club because abramhovich's money. Manchester United are the biggest thanks to the history and success. The money came as a result of that and not the Glazer's where Chelsea, Man City and other's just gained financial clout from nowhere. Arsenal are a big club thanks to Arsene and spurs could be bigger if they weren't so cheap.

Fr Tod Umptious

irishman86 wrote: »

But you can use that for 99% of clubs, I personally feel they just havent done anything in the league for so long to earn the title, I do think they are a big british club


The thing with Chelsea is they have been quiet successful for a long period now that I personally consider them a big club
They have won 4 in 12 years, possibly 5 in 13.
My ranking of clubs in England is United/Chelsea gap Arsenal/City gap gap Liverpool gap Spurs
Each year they get closer to Newcastle than Manchester for me

Back in 1992 someone could make the same argument against Utd being a big club as you are making against Liverpool.

Would you agree ?

KaiserGunner

JamboMac wrote: »

By that i mean they aren't a big club because abramhovich's money. Manchester United are the biggest thanks to the history and success. The money came as a result of that and not the Glazer's where Chelsea, Man City and other's just gained financial clout from nowhere. Arsenal are a big club thanks to Arsene and spurs could be bigger if they weren't so cheap.

I agree with most of that, however Arsenal were a big club before Wenger came along. The club had already won 10 league titles before Wenger. Historically Spurs aren't that big, they have won two league titles in their history. Sure Arsenal have won as many titles at White Hart Lane as Spurs have.

Mr.H

I think they should scrap offside.

As in no offside rule. If you wanna keep a striker marking the keeper so be it.

Also arguing with the ref automatic 5 mins sun bin and strictly as well. If 5 players argue then all 5 to the sin bin. Of course you would have to scrap rules about the game being abandoned if a team has less then x amount of players.

The Jman

I don't mind players that dive. Defenders cheat by tugging on jerseys and tripping strikers, why shouldn't a striker cheat by diving

bucketybuck

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Back in 1992 someone could make the same argument against Utd being a big club as you are making against Liverpool.

Would you agree ?

In 1992 United were the holders of the European cup winners cup, had won the FA cup the year before that, and for most of 1991/92 led the league before getting pipped to the post by Leeds.

Even regardless of their storied history they were quite a big club on their own merits in 1992.

The Golden Miller

bucketybuck wrote: »

In 1992 United were the holders of the European cup winners cup, had won the FA cup the year before that, and for most of 1991/92 led the league before getting pipped to the post by Leeds.

Even regardless of their storied history they were quite a big club on their own merits in 1992.

Just like Liverpool now

blinding

They should have brought in the Sin Bin in football.....12 minutes.......

irishman86

Arghus wrote: »

No you can't. Have 99% of clubs won the European Cup multiple times and the league 18 times? History does count. Liverpool are a massive club - and I say that as an Arsenal fan.

I guess we dont agree on this, Nottingham were a big club in the 80's, Partizan were at one time a top european club. I dont think either are anymore.
I just dont see them as a big club now

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Back in 1992 someone could make the same argument against Utd being a big club as you are making against Liverpool.

Would you agree ?

Yes, obviously Im not old enough to have really paid much attention to England back then. But its been 27 years since they won the league that for me and I reiterate this is my view but I think its just to long for me to consider them a top club.

tastyt

The one that gets me is penalties is a lottery and you cant re create the pressure on the training ground. What a load of bollocks!! Its a skill to put the ball as far into the corner as powerful as you can from the penalty spot.

If that logic were true then why would dan Carter or johnny wilkinson have bothered with the hours of place kicking in training when nobody is watching or even a free taker in GAA.

Its a skill and the more you practice it the more comfortable you are and the more likely you are to reproduce it under pressure situations.

Fr Tod Umptious

irishman86 wrote: »

I guess we dont agree on this, Nottingham were a big club in the 80's, Partizan were at one time a top european club. I dont think either are anymore.
I just dont see them as a big club now


Yes, obviously Im not old enough to have really paid much attention to England back then. But its been 27 years since they won the league that for me and I reiterate this is my view but I think its just to long for me to consider them a top club.

Ok, so Utd were not a big club in 1992 based on your logic

Glad we have that sorted.

bucketybuck

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Just like Liverpool now

Liverpool are the current holders of a major European trophy, won the FA cup two years ago and currently lead the Premier league?

Since that clearly isn't the case, once again the only explanation we are allowed to say is that you live in your own bizarre alternate reality.

irishman86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Ok, so Utd were not a big club in 1992 based on your logic

Glad we have that sorted.

Yes just like I said, the thing is football has changed massively since that time and now United are easily a top 5 club.
Liverpool have a few times had some mini revival but never pushed on. In the last 10 years they averaged 5th place, with two 2nd places with the rest 6th+
Like I said its a unpopular view, but it is how I see it.

ERG89

JamboMac wrote:

By that i mean they aren't a big club because abramhovich's money. Manchester United are the biggest thanks to the history and success. The money came as a result of that and not the Glazer's where Chelsea, Man City and other's just gained financial clout from nowhere. Arsenal are a big club thanks to Arsene and spurs could be bigger if they weren't so cheap.

Of course they are a big club now ffs. They won a champions league, won 4 (maybe 5 leagues the last 15 years), six (maybe 7) FA Cups the last 22 years, Cup Winners Cup & a Europa League.
Just cause they didn't win a league in the 70's doesn't mean it disqualified them as all the major teams in England have had long stretches without leagues or success.

Arghus

irishman86 wrote: »

I guess we dont agree on this, Nottingham were a big club in the 80's, Partizan were at one time a top european club. I dont think either are anymore.
I just dont see them as a big club now

Liverpools current fanbase and profile is still way, way bigger than either of those two clubs and is bigger than 99% of clubs currently in existence, despite how long it's been since they won the title.

irishman86

Arghus wrote: »

Liverpools current fanbase and profile is still way, way bigger than either of those two clubs and is bigger than 99% of clubs currently in existence, despite how long it's been since they won the title.

Well off course it is, they play in the premier league. I would say globally Everton have a bigger fan base than the two clubs combined. My point regarding them is historically they were massive clubs that no longer are. I dont think being in the top 99% is a good argument at all, Hull are in the top 99% so are probably Bradford. For me it takes a lot more than that to be a top club.

JamboMac

Here's a fun link of where fans really come from

http://blog.sportsdirect.com/post/shirt-sales-2014-15-where-are-your-team-s-supporters-really-from

irishman86

JamboMac wrote: »

Here's a fun link of where fans really come from

http://blog.sportsdirect.com/post/shirt-sales-2014-15-where-are-your-team-s-supporters-really-from

Some of that is quiet funny, Im guessing the Birmingham folk dont use sportsdirect

JamboMac

irishman86 wrote: »

Some of that is quiet funny, Im guessing the Birmingham folk dont use sportsdirect

Chelsea are the only one that don't even make a mark this side. Doe's that mean everybody buy's from the sports shops. I know my sister gets the kids Chelsea jersey's off this site. How many Irish Chelsea supporter's are there.

irishman86

JamboMac wrote: »

Chelsea are the only one that don't even make a mark this side. Doe's that mean everybody buy's from the sports shops. I know my sister gets the kids Chelsea jersey's off this site. How many Irish Chelsea supporter's are there.

I know two personally, mostly United/Celtic/Liverpool in my area. Irish connection clubs. Is there a Chelsea Irish connection

Arghus

irishman86 wrote: »

Well off course it is, they play in the premier league. I would say globally Everton have a bigger fan base than the two clubs combined. My point regarding them is historically they were massive clubs that no longer are. I dont think being in the top 99% is a good argument at all, Hull are in the top 99% so are probably Bradford. For me it takes a lot more than that to be a top club.

I'm not saying that Liverpool are in the top 99%. On the contrary - I'm trying to say they're in the top 1% of clubs in terms of judging what makes a club "big" or not. The only reason I'm talking about percentages at all is because your counter argument to someone saying that Liverpool were once big was to suggest that the same could be said about 99% of clubs. Which is completely untrue.

irishman86

Arghus wrote: »

I'm not saying that Liverpool are in the top 99%. On the contrary - I'm trying to say they're in the top 1% of clubs in terms of judging what makes a club "big" or not. The only reason I'm talking about percentages at all is because your counter argument to someone saying that Liverpool were once big was to suggest that the same could be said about 99% of clubs. Which is completely untrue.

Sorry Ill re-word what I meant by that. 99% of clubs who have won titles/CL can say that. I thought I had said it in the original post, thats my fault. Its why I used Partizan and Nottingham has examples in a later post.
For me winning a solitary CL in the last 27 years just doesnt make a team a top club. Porto have done the same and they arent a top club.
I explained how I see Liverpool right now a 3rd bracket club along with Spurs.
You clearly dont agree, which is entirely your right

Omackeral

irishman86 wrote: »

I know two personally, mostly United/Celtic/Liverpool in my area. Irish connection clubs. Is there a Chelsea Irish connection

Quite the contrary, historically!

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

If people will get so upset about teams 'buying the league', they should probably find another league or sport to watch.

irishman86

Omackeral wrote: »

Quite the contrary, historically!

Thats what I thought, although Im the last who would know. How about Spurs Irish connection??

764dak

ERG89 wrote: »

JamboMac wrote:

By that i mean they aren't a big club because abramhovich's money. Manchester United are the biggest thanks to the history and success. The money came as a result of that and not the Glazer's where Chelsea, Man City and other's just gained financial clout from nowhere. Arsenal are a big club thanks to Arsene and spurs could be bigger if they weren't so cheap.

Of course they are a big club now ffs. They won a champions league, won 4 (maybe 5 leagues the last 15 years), six (maybe 7) FA Cups the last 22 years, Cup Winners Cup & a Europa League.
Just cause they didn't win a league in the 70's doesn't mean it disqualified them as all the major teams in England have had long stretches without leagues or success.

Most sport fans say Kournikova was a rubbish player even though she was ranked 8th.  Imagine being the 8th best person in your profession.  Most sport fans are elitist.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Saying that a club aren't big because they got their success on the back of a rich owner, makes absolutely no sense. Imagine arguing that in any other field. "That airline only became so successful when it was bought by a rich businessman, so it's not a big airline."

Anyway, the entire debate about what constitutes a big club is nothing more than a dick measuring contest.

The Golden Miller

bucketybuck wrote: »

Liverpool are the current holders of a major European trophy, won the FA cup two years ago and currently lead the Premier league?

Since that clearly isn't the case, once again the only explanation we are allowed to say is that you live in your own bizarre alternate reality.

Alternate reality? Really? Surely the point is, in spite of United not winning the league in 30 years, they were a big club "on their own merits" because of their other trophies and successes in the meantime? Just like Liverpool can be considered a big club "on their own merits" in spite of not winning the league in quite a while, due to other achievements in the meantime? Bizarre alternate reality indeed! Unless you must hold a major European trophy and lead the league on the exact year the topic is being discussed to qualify as a big club, while winning the FA cup exactly two seasons ago? Which tbh, would be "bizarre alternate logic". I must of missed the handbook on what defines a big club on a year to year basis!