What's your unpopular football opinion?

sheroman01

eh i dunno wrote: »

Tim Cahill was better than Dele Alli

Even though I don't agree with this, I can see it being a great discussion in the pub :P

irishman86

ERG89 wrote: »

I like Busquets as much as one can but he is not on the level of Modric, Alonso, Xavi and Iniesta.
He's been in poor form for a few years too since Xavi left and Iniesta dipped.

I wouldnt rate him close to those either
He has a job and does it well but for me he plays for Barcelona and thus gets more praise than he deserves. I'd prefer prime Javi Martinez myself

irishman86

eh i dunno wrote: »

Tim Cahill was better than Dele Alli

How could something so obvious be a unpopular opinion

The Talking Bread

eh i dunno wrote: »

Tim Cahill was better than Dele Alli

Cahill was playing with Millwall at 22, Dele Alli has been a starter and an integral player for a few years in a top 3/4 team that almost won the league twice and has been a World Cup semi finalist by then.

Compare them in a few years when Dele has become more experienced and mature.

This isn't me knocking Cahill, far from it, or bigging up Dele. Just a bit of perspective

alchemist33

A keeper getting beaten at his near post is not a bigger offence than being beaten at the far post. They count just as much as each other, and with strikers being ecouraged to shoot across the keeper, concentrating too much on the near post just leaves more space on the other side. Plus a near post shot will probably be at greater pace with less time to react.

~Rebel~

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Cahill was playing with Millwall at 22, Dele Alli has been a starter and an integral player for a few years in a top 3/4 team that almost won the league twice and has been a World Cup semi finalist by then.

Compare them in a few years when Dele has become more experienced and mature.

This isn't me knocking Cahill, far from it, or bigging up Dele. Just a bit of perspective

I think we may have found another unpopular football opinion!

I'll give you 16/17 - 86 points is a really solid total, and Chelsea were genuinely looking over their shoulder on the run in.

But 15/16? Finishing in 3rd place, and 11 points off the winners? Nah, really can't say Spurs almost won it that year. 70 points was never going to be anywhere near enough to win the league, even on a weird off-year like that. You could say that "had they won more of their last 11 games (instead of just 4), they might have won the league"... but that wouldn't really mean much..

PhlegmyMoses

eh i dunno wrote: »

Tim Cahill was better than Dele Alli

I also don't agree but great shout :pac:

Shanotheslayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The fact that, in this day and age of social media, people are interested in this nonsense in the first place.

I don't care if Terry, Giggs or anyone is riding half the country. I don't need to know if footballers are moral people or not. My interest in them really should extend to performances on the pitch and, as a citizen, if they break the law. That's it.

Some people have morales and don't like supporting players that have done such rotten things.

It's ok to judge other people by their actions. Nobody is 'interested' in the stuff as you say, but it changes the perspective of the type of person you thought they were

sheroman01

alchemist33 wrote: »

A keeper getting beaten at his near post is not a bigger offence than being beaten at the far post. They count just as much as each other, and with strikers being ecouraged to shoot across the keeper, concentrating too much on the near post just leaves more space on the other side. Plus a near post shot will probably be at greater pace with less time to react.

100% agree. It's a ridiculous myth that is now gospel. I challenge anyone to play a few matches as a keeper and come back to me to say it should never happen. Any of these factors can allow a shot to go into near post; power of the shot, the angle that the shot is taken at, distance of the ball from your hands/feet, swerve on the shot, obstructed view, etc. It's possible that a shot is powerful and low that you have NO chance of saving it.

MarkY91

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I think a big part of it comes down to what you think a captain does. Some people think its all about on pitch leadership, which I'd totally disagree with. On field leaders are on field leaders, regardless whether they have an armband or not. Did Sami Hyypia become less of an on-field leader when he passed the armband to Gerrard? Not a bit. Would VVD suddenly act differently if he had the armband? Doubtful.

A Captains primary role is off the field. It's acting as a liason for the players, it's dealing with media commitments, it's going to Alder Hey and local schools and events and showing the club in a good light. it's taking the responsibility of all that stuff so other players don't have to worry about it - and being a person other players can turn to if they have an issue they don't feel comfortable bringing to the manager yet. It's helping new players get comfortable in their new city/country/continent. And helping young players who have come up to train/play with the senior squad, making them feel welcome. And at all that stuff, Henderson is great.

And I'd agree that him being English is a big part of why he got it, because Liverpool are an English club, and he has a very firm understanding of what being a Liverpool representative means in the wider context.

Honestly, I think Henderson and Milner are about the perfect combination for captain and vice captain for the actual responsibilities those roles entail.

You changed my whole perspective on my original comment.

And I also agree that Milner is great to have at the club off field too. He is an upmost professional.

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Some people have morales and don't like supporting players that have done such rotten things.

It's ok to judge other people by their actions. Nobody is 'interested' in the stuff as you say, but it changes the perspective of the type of person you thought they were

So you think following tittle tattle about the sex lives of others means someone has better morals?

That's laughable.

But we'll agree to differ. I'll concern myself with my morals and you and others can peep through bedroom windows and tut tut.

Arghus

Deleted User wrote: »

The truth is they are not football fans, they are brand fans.

In my experience a lot of people who could be classed as "die-hard" fans are often the most one-eyed and deluded of all.

I've met countless people over the years that care so deeply about the team they follow, that they'll deny basic facts rather than even try to be fair. Sometimes it can be so blatant that I assume they must be aware they are doing it at some level. You'd wonder what good is football to them really if they seemingly can't assess anything about it with objectivity.

Niles Crane

irishman86 wrote: »

I wouldnt rate him close to those either
He has a job and does it well but for me he plays for Barcelona and thus gets more praise than he deserves. I'd prefer prime Javi Martinez myself

Which lasted for about 1 season.

Shanotheslayer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you think following tittle tattle about the sex lives of others means someone has better morals?

That's laughable.

But we'll agree to differ. I'll concern myself with my morals and you and others can peep through bedroom windows and tut tut.

I'm not like you sorry buddy. I've no need to peep through bedroom windows. Although the fact it crossed your mind is a bit strange. Something you want to talk about?

Doesn't mean I'm not going to lose respect for a footballer player because he sleeps with his brothers wife. Extremely low thing to do.

It doesn't take away from his footballing ability but as I said, it goes to the character of the man.

Shanotheslayer

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I'm not like you sorry buddy. I've no need to peep through bedroom windows. Although the fact it crossed your mind is a bit strange. Something you want to talk about?

Doesn't mean I'm not going to lose respect for a footballer player because he sleeps with his brothers wife. Extremely low thing to do.

It doesn't take away from his footballing ability but as I said, it goes to the character of the man.

The only one talking about what they think of Giggs sleeping with this one or Terry sleeping with that one is you.

It's amusing that you will analyse and judge them for that behaviour, and claim that I'm the one thinking about the bedroom antics.

Are you following the argument at all? Do you understand your own position? I say this stuff is irrelevant, I suspect footballers do a lot worse. You want it assessed in the context of character and rate them on how seedy it is.

Shanotheslayer

Deleted User wrote: »

I suspect footballers do a lot worse..

What do you think is worse? Without breaking the law that is.

Dots1982

Anyone who doesn’t think Neymar is at least in the top 5 current players on the planet has not an earthly about football.

Dublin Spur

That Pele was a fraud

Never played in Europe
Never captained his Country
His biggest moments are misses/saves (eg Banks save, through ball keeper dummy, half way line shot)


An excellent player in probably the best team that ever played the game (Brazil 70) but a long way off the greatest ever for me.

blinding

Football is way over rated and is no loss.

Bridge93

Dublin Spur wrote: »

That Pele was a fraud

Never played in Europe
Never captained his Country
His biggest moments are misses/saves (eg Banks save, through ball keeper dummy, half way line shot)


An excellent player in probably the best team that ever played the game (Brazil 70) but a long way off the greatest ever for me.

Did any of the South American greats of the 60s or early 70s play in Europe? Was hardly the stick to beat him with it would be now

eagle eye

Dublin Spur wrote:

That Pele was a fraud

How do you explain that he is Brazil's top scorer of all time at international level? That's 15 goals more scored than Ronaldo in 6 less internationals.

jacool

Seeding ruins football.

Dublin Spur

eagle eye wrote: »

How do you explain that he is Brazil's top scorer of all time at international level? That's 15 goals more scored than Ronaldo in 6 less internationals.

It's not his fault I guess, more a media thing, for years he was considered the best ever and I think that's a very flawed argument for the reasons I have given.
Great Player? Yes I suppose so, the greatest ? miles off this in my (unpopular) opinion

jacool

jacool wrote: »

Seeding ruins football.

I'd go along with this.

Hodors Appletart

offside should be offside, no "not interfering with play" - if you are on the pitch you are involved, no "phase of play", keep yourself onside and all will be good.

Richard Hillman

Bridge93 wrote: »

Did any of the South American greats of the 60s or early 70s play in Europe? Was hardly the stick to beat him with it would be now

I don't think Pele was allowed to leave Brazil. He was deemed a national treasure. He only went to the US right at the end of his career

Dots1982

Dublin Spur wrote: »

It's not his fault I guess, more a media thing, for years he was considered the best ever and I think that's a very flawed argument for the reasons I have given.
Great Player? Yes I suppose so, the greatest ? miles off this in my (unpopular) opinion

Ok so not a fraud?

Dublin Spur

Dots1982 wrote: »

Ok so not a fraud?

the person? - not a fraud
the notion that he's in the mix as the greatest? - very fraudulent

Jimbob1977

Romario was scathing of Pele.

He claimed that half of his goals were scored in matches against the Brazilian Army XI

Dots1982

Dublin Spur wrote: »

the person? - not a fraud
the notion that he's in the mix as the greatest? - very fraudulent

To be honest since any average player these days can do a cruyff turn I find it pointless to measure players from back in the day to the players of today.

Pele is probably the most influential footballer to have ever lived. That’s the only way I can measure old players and new players against each other because in terms of skill and S&C they are far far inferior.

Dots1982

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Romario was scathing of Pele.

He claimed that half of his goals were scored in matches against the Brazilian Army XI

That’s fine but he scored 77 for the Selecao Which is more than Romario and anyone else so it’s a fecitious argument

Jimbob1977

David Ginola played extremely well in 1999, but there is no way he should have won the PFA Player of the Year Award.

Beckham, Stam, Scholes, Keane, Yorke and Cole were red hot that season.

JohnnyFlash

Old Trafford is even more soulless and lifeless a stadium than the Emirates Stadium.

blinding

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

David Ginola played extremely well in 1999, but there is no way he should have won the PFA Player of the Year Award.

Beckham, Stam, Scholes, Keane, Yorke and Cole were red hot that season.

Maybe it was time for a good looking fella with a bit of glamour about him to have it.

One for the Ladies !

eagle eye

Jimbob1977 wrote:

Beckham, Stam, Scholes, Keane, Yorke and Cole were red hot that season.

All United players, do you support United? Ginola was great that season, he won the football writers award too.

Brian?

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Romario was scathing of Pele.

He claimed that half of his goals were scored in matches against the Brazilian Army XI

Romario is an egomaniac. He diminishes Pele because everyone knows he's better than Romario. Romario is his own biggest fan.

Peel was the best player in the greater Brazil side in 1970. He deserves to be in contention for the greatest of all time.

He's no Dixie Dean though. Greatest centre forward of all time.

Brian?

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

David Ginola played extremely well in 1999, but there is no way he should have won the PFA Player of the Year Award.

Beckham, Stam, Scholes, Keane, Yorke and Cole were red hot that season.

If his fellow pro's decided it, it's hard to argue. I've more respect for PFA award than any other, because it's voted for by players.

y0ssar1an22

jordan henderson is vastly overrated.

the intervention between gomez and sterling annoyed me. that was harry kane's responsibility, and behind closed doors. i dont think JH was even in the camp at that stage? i know they all played for liverpool.

if he wins POTY i think it will be fully underserved. like giggs winning it, a gesture to a player who was not the best in the league.

y0ssar1an22

Brian? wrote: »

If his fellow pro's decided it, it's hard to argue. I've more respect for PFA award than any other, because it's voted for by players.

beckham in the league had 6 goals and 15 assists. ginola had 4 and 2. beckham came 2nd in the ballon'dor that year.

these things do largely depend on media hype i feel

Sebastian Dangerfield

Guardiolas Barcelona, while so impressive, weren''t as entertaining to watch as Rijkaard team with Ronaldinho, Deco and co.

Depends on what you consider to be entertaining I suppose.

Girly Gal

Guardiola's Barca team were a very good team, filled with some wonderful players, but, are overrated as they could not defend, instead relying on holding onto possession.

BonnieSituation

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Guardiolas Barcelona, while so impressive, weren''t as entertaining to watch as Rijkaard team with Ronaldinho, Deco and co.

Depends on what you consider to be entertaining I suppose.

Yes! A thousand times yes!

Mourinho's, Etoo and Milito's dismantling in the 2010 SF first leg was a joy to watch.

But the frustration of them in that second leg in Barcelona was infinitely more entertaining than anything they had served up from my pov. God I'm a sadistic cúnt.

---

Barcelona's "Mes que une Club" schtick has always annoyed the shít out of me as well. So, that I guess.

Ronin247

Lionel Messi shouldn't have been allowed to play professional football.
I will always have an issue with Barcelona being allowed to give him Human Growth Hormone. I realise that he was small, but I don't think it is a coincidence that he turned out to be possibly the greatest player ever. Should teams be allowed to give drugs to players that are "too slow" a course of steroids for players who need to add bulk?

Either drugs are not allowed or everyone can do them....

y0ssar1an22

Ronin247 wrote: »

Lionel Messi shouldn't have been allowed to play professional football.
I will always have an issue with Barcelona being allowed to give him Human Growth Hormone. I realise that he was small, but I don't think it is a coincidence that he turned out to be possibly the greatest player ever. Should teams be allowed to give drugs to players that are "too slow" a course of steroids for players who need to add bulk?

Either drugs are not allowed or everyone can do them....

it would be interesting to see that dr's records, they were all destroyed because the authorities were only looking at cycling and against privacy laws. nadal was heavily implicated as well.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/sports/cycling/spanish-doctor-sentenced-in-operation-puerto-doping-case-in-cycling.html

chicorytip

I think goalkeepers ought to be allowed to pick the ball up after a pass back from a team mate. Keepers have no ball playing skills. That's why they end up playing in goal. Why did FIFA change that rule anyway? I think it was an ill thought out innovation, a consequence of one particular match - the 1990 World Cup final - where the tactic was employed in a deliberately cynical manner by West Germany in order to waste time and frustrate the opposition.
Well, whatever the intention, it certainly has not resulted in more skillful, open or entertaining football.

Sebastian Dangerfield

chicorytip wrote: »

I think goalkeepers ought to be allowed to pick the ball up after a pass back from a team mate. Keepers have no ball playing skills. That's why they end up playing in goal. Why did FIFA change that rule anyway? I think it was an ill thought out innovation, a consequence of one particular match - the 1990 World Cup final - where the tactic was employed in a deliberately cynical manner by West Germany in order to waste time and frustrate the opposition.
Well, whatever the intention, it certainly has not resulted in more skillful, open or entertaining football.

I dont know if it was was just one match. I remember my oul fella losing his mind over it every time he saw John Lukic play

Guy:Incognito

Brian? wrote: »

If his fellow pro's decided it, it's hard to argue. I've more respect for PFA award than any other, because it's voted for by players.

On this. My (most likely not unpopular in any way) opinion is that the awards should be voted for the week after the season ends.

adox

chicorytip wrote: »

I think goalkeepers ought to be allowed to pick the ball up after a pass back from a team mate. Keepers have no ball playing skills. That's why they end up playing in goal. Why did FIFA change that rule anyway? I think it was an ill thought out innovation, a consequence of one particular match - the 1990 World Cup final - where the tactic was employed in a deliberately cynical manner by West Germany in order to waste time and frustrate the opposition.
Well, whatever the intention, it certainly has not resulted in more skillful, open or entertaining football.

It has. It’s one of the best rule changes in the modern era.

eagle eye

chicorytip wrote:

I think goalkeepers ought to be allowed to pick the ball up after a pass back from a team mate. Keepers have no ball playing skills. That's why they end up playing in goal. Why did FIFA change that rule anyway? I think it was an ill thought out innovation, a consequence of one particular match - the 1990 World Cup final - where the tactic was employed in a deliberately cynical manner by West Germany in order to waste time and frustrate the opposition. Well, whatever the intention, it certainly has not resulted in more skillful, open or entertaining football.

It wasn't just the final, every group stage match with a weak team against a strong team was pass back to the keeper every play. Awful stuff, as said already it's the best change ever made to the rules.

Mr.Nice Guy

Unpopular opinion: I think the Neymar to PSG move will go down as one of the tragic 'what if?' stories of our era.

He was exceptional domestically, but he was always going to be judged on his performances in the Champions League. In his first season at PSG, he missed the Last 16 second leg with Madrid due to injury; in his second season, he missed the Last 16 second leg with United due to injury (becoming a meme in the process over the penalty); and now in this most recent season, just when it all seemed to be coming together for him as he helped PSG get past Dortmund into the quarter-finals, the virus pandemic looks to have put a stop to his Champions League hopes. And Paris were looking a very decent bet to go all the way this time with a lot of big teams getting knocked out.

Not many will sympathise with him as he's not the easiest to like, but he's a superb talent and I would have liked to see if he could have delivered a Champions League before he presumably heads back to Spain. I suppose there's still a small chance the tournament could be completed in 2020, but if cases continue to spread I'd be sceptical it can happen.