Official Football Thread

Eddies Wingman said:
...the biggest one was probably the 1-1 draw between Chelsea and Rosenborg.
Click to expand...
Considering that was at the Bridge, that was a good result for Rosenborg. But as has been pointed out before, remove Fat Frank, Drogba and John Terry from the Chelsea equation (two of these three were not present tonight) and you don't really have such a special team.


Or should that be a plate of omelet with grade 2 eggs :D.
 
Albie said:
Considering that was at the Bridge, that was a good result for Rosenborg. But as has been pointed out before, remove Fat Frank, Drogba and John Terry from the Chelsea equation (two of these three were not present tonight) and you don't really have such a special team.


Or should that be a plate of omelet with grade 2 eggs :D.
Click to expand...

Yeah, especially Drogba because he's that kind of striker that can play a lousy game and still score the necessary goal.

Still, the one egg that delivered yesterday was one of the eggs that was adressed by Moanrinho after the Blackburn game :)

Comment: Many Norwegians follow English football and have an English favourite team along with their local team - I watched the match on Saturday together with my neighbour who is a Blackburn fan. As for myself, the sympathy (or should I say fascination) goes to that gang from Old Trafford, so I am looking forward to tonight. The Portuguese (not counting C. Ronaldo and Nani, of course) shall suffer.
 
Too bad. English football will lose an entertaining personality when Mourinho leaves. He might be arrogant, but we can always trust him to say something funny when Chelsea don't win.

Speaking as a Man United-fan I must say I belive this is an advantage for us (and of course the other title contenders) as Mourinho has shown that he knows something about leading a football team. I think Chelsea will have problems finding a proper replacement, and especially now so early in the season. Wonder how the players react to this. Of course I hope they will still be a little chocked for the weekend's game at Old Trafford ...

And of course I am pleased with the result in Lisbon yesterday. One can always desire more entertaining football, but in a difficult away game I think one should not be disappointed when the game is won. I guess most people were more impressed by Arsenal and Barca, though  B)

By the way, anyone else noticed the "TORCIDA VERDE" banner in the left end of the stand opposite of the TV camera? Written in "Maiden font"  :)
 
We´ll see if he leaves England anyway. Some rumours, but nothing more.

I am also pleased with the result in Lisbon last night...  :innocent:
 
Eddies Wingman said:
Too bad. English football will lose an entertaining personality when Mourinho leaves. He might be arrogant, but we can always trust him to say something funny when Chelsea don't win.
Click to expand...
He most certainly was arrogant - but I have to say, I liked the man (even though he bought the league title). And I'm not so sure he is gone from English football.......
 
Albie said:
He most certainly was arrogant - but I have to say, I liked the man (even though he bought the league title). And I'm not so sure he is gone from English football.......
Click to expand...

Why do you mean bought ?
 
By that I mean that he spent millions on building a team that won the league. Chelsea have not traditionally been a side that wins the league (having only done it once before) and therefore the team that won the league twice was built from the Abramovich's money.
 
Mourinho built the team, not Abramovich. Of course his money have an important role. But that doesn´t mean it´s easy to achieve success with a team.

Chelsea's players in the last 3 years were not top names, except one or two already european champions. He build a team with players avid to win  trophies (Mourinho's trademark), and psychologically worked them. This is by no means easy.

He didn´t ever have the best team in Europe, that´s for sure.

I´m not defending him, he really  is arrogant, and his personality (although we only know him from his outdoor behaviour) sometimes his objectionable. But i have grown some sympathy towards him in the last year or so, he is a gifted manager no doubt about it.
 
Rotam said:
Mourinho built the team, not Abramovich. Of course his money have an important role. But that doesn´t mean it´s easy to achieve success with a team.
Click to expand...
I do see your point, but I think the question is - could Mourinho have won the league with Chelsea twice without the money? The cold hard facts is that Chelsea are not a club renowned for their history. No money at Chelsea means no superstar being fed the carrot at The Bridge. Mourinho would pass the chance up of management. This in turn means and means Chelsea not winning the league. It all stems from Abramovich's money.

However, we only need some rich multi-billionaire tycoon to invest in someone like West Ham and we potentially have a new Chelsea.
 
Albie said:
I do see your point, but I think the question is - could Mourinho have won the league with Chelsea twice without the money?
Click to expand...

[rant]Well, one could of course ask - could Sir Alex Rafa Benitez, or for that sake the leaders in Real Madrid, Bayern München (or Bayern Munich for you English-speaking) or Milan have done success without the money? Of course, the difference between Chelsea and Manchester United/Liverpool is obvious. Chelsea have got their money from a billionaire choosing CFC as his toy while United, Liverpool and others have earned the money from being top clubs for decades. Chelsea might have been bankrupt or at least another Leeds if Roman hadn't shown up. But what about Blackburn in '95? They could afford Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton because Jack Walker wanted to spend money on the club.

For me, Chelsea simply illustrates the extreme of what modern football is becoming. The top clubs are, one after another, becoming the toys of rich men who want to express their egos through the clubs. Rather sad, as most of the clubs have an origin quite far from the one of billionaires, tycoons, giant-scale robbers and so on. For instance, Manchester United was founded in 1878 (as Newton Heath) by railroad workers from the district, now the club is owned by an American bastard (not meant as an insult to American members of the forum, I am speaking about Glazer and only Glazer) who, for what we know, doesn't know fuck about football. I would say, putting the club into the stock market was a wise move on short term. In the long run, the board should have realised that this might have happened. The same has happened to the great rivals from Merseyside, who are now owned by Gillett&Hicks. West Ham have an owner from Iceland, Man City are owned by a Thai politician and Fulham are owned by Mr. al Fayed.

So, Chelsea might have bought the title, but I think the reason why we could say they have done it more than any other team is that Romah A. has put so much money into the club, it seems like they have unlimited resources compared to the other teams. Even including United and Liverpool, who have usually been the leaders when considering money spent on player transfers. For me Roman's buying of a whole new team managed by Mourinho is just a culmination of a development starting in the late 80's when I was just a kid who didn't know what football was. A manifestation of the state of modern football, if you like ... [/rant]

Phewwww, I probably wouldn't have written that much if I hadn't had plenty to drink tonight.
 
I have no doubt he could win the Premiership without Abramovich's money. Like he won two european cups in a row with a fine team, but by no means the best in Europe, and without such a wealthy person on the board.

Are you really convinced that Manchester United couldn´t afford to buy 20 of the best players in the world ? i suppose the richest team on the planet could easily achieve that.

I don´t think this is the perfect squad; it´s great but not super (for sure it´s no better that Man. United team of 1999):

Petr Cech; William Gallas, John Terry, Tiago Mendes; Claude Makelele, Frank Lampard, Wayne Bridge, Joe Cole, Geremi, Paulo Ferreira; Didier Drogba, Damien Duff, Eidur Gudjohnsen, Mateja Kezman > Chelsea's team in the very first official international game with Mourinho, back in September 2004.

He picked some players without many titles won... he always did that on the past.

Of course all the best teams in Europe need to have big money, to be always on the top, but that´s not the point. The point is Abramovich bought the players, not the Premiership. You´re almost saying that everything was achieved without almost any effort whatsoever.

I agree that Chelsea is nowadays the fashion club, soon would disappear from the map as quickly as it went to the top.
 
Rotam said:
I have no doubt he could win the Premiership without Abramovich's money.
Click to expand...
I've no doubt he could also, but would he have gone to Chelsea in the first place had it not been for the money? As you said, Chelsea have become a fashion club of late and the money has helped. However, I am in no way taking away the input of Mourinho had on Chelsea and I would have him manage any team I support.

@Eddies Wingman: I think you touched on it in the way I would - the likes of Man U, Liverpool, Milan, Bayern, etc. have history and because of this, players would want to play for them - not just for money. And I understand your point about the boys with toys attitude of the super rich who buy into football.
 
Anybody been watching the Women's World Cup? I saw some highlights yesterday and once again (from the last time I watched women's soccer) the thing that jumped out at me is that women's football is much more.... finesse, than mens. Prettier passes, plays and even goals (in general), while men's is much more physical, slidetackle, shirt pulling and elbow flying laden. But that's just me :D
 
Onhell said:
Anybody been watching the Women's World Cup? I saw some highlights yesterday and once again (from the last time I watched women's soccer) the thing that jumped out at me is that women's football is much more.... finesse, than mens. Prettier passes, plays and even goals (in general), while men's is much more physical, slidetackle, shirt pulling and elbow flying laden. But that's just me :D
Click to expand...

Well, women's footballis a bit slower, so there is more room for the technical finesse. However, there are (of course, as women have only played organized football for 30 years) quite few players who can deliver consistently good performances.

As for the goals, I must say what strikes me most is the weak goalkeeping. Personally I think women should have smaller goals. Remember, the world record in high jump for men is 2,47 - 3 cm higher than the crossbar of a football goal. For women, it's 2,05 or something like that. This means no woman has ever jumped as high as the crossbar. I mean, women are generally shorter than men and can't reach so far in a jump, neither horisontally or vertically. If you manage a shot, even a shot with little power, closer to the crossbar than 30 cm, you'll probably not find a single female goalkeeper in the world that can save it.

This isn't meant as a disrespect for female footballers. After all, I come from one of the pioneering countries of women's football (there is a reason why Norway is a top 8 nation in women's football but only some place between 30th and 40th in men's football). But I think that when considering the obvious physical differences, one should take measures to compensate a bit for it. I realise that having separate football stadiums for men and women would be totally unrealistic, but using different sizes of goals wouldn't be too much of a measure.

As for the slide tackles, shirt pulling and other dirty tricks, I don't think there is so much less of that in women's football when considering the top level (the few existing professional leagues and the international games). And for the few games I watch from the top flight in the Norwegian women's league there is certainly no love lost between the players ...
 
What I've definitely noticed with women's football is that they tend to make less of a fuss over tackles and "injuries" incurred during tackles...they just get up and get on with it (unless it really is serious). It is so pleasant to watch a game with less of all that bad acting going on. Oh yes and I'm really happy right now because guess who finally beat the US? BRAZIL! :D:D And by a really high score too, 4-0 (ok, granted, one of them was an own goal but whatever). Brazil I love you!
 
OK, so you are unhappy with the feigning of injuries, the shirt pulling, and so on, in the mens game. Well, you're watching the wrong sport if you don't want that (either that or you're too mixed up with la Liga and Seria A). ;)

As for the womens World Cup, I followed the progress of England and I have to say, they did pretty well considering how low down in the pecking order the game is in the UK. Nearly the entire squad was made up of women based in London and its surrounding counties and, I believe, (although I don't know how the game is structured elsewhere) all amateurs. Making the last 8 was their apparent objective and they achieved it (after a resounding thrashing of Argentina). Well done to them.
 
Albie said:
An interesting stat was made on the BBC coverage is that Hiddink has never coached a side that has beaten any English side (at club level or international level) in any match (be it competitive or friendly). And we all remember the last time he took a side to Wembley - if you need reminding, click here. :D
Click to expand...

Maybe this will change if Hiddink would coach Chelsea? ;)
 
Forostar said:
Maybe this will change if Hiddink would coach Chelsea? ;)
Click to expand...
I think that may well happen should England beat Russia next month. That would (almost) give Russia a mountain to climb to qualify. However, he seems to always honor his contracts and will no doubt stay 'til the end.

Off topic: How was the Rhodes trip? I've been there before and enjoyed it. Nice place Greece (for a tourist).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top