Football LXXXIV - Expecting League champions vs runners-up match tonight

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

Say what you like about City, but the people in charge are superb long term strategists.

That is true, I just think that much money wasn't maybe necessary. There's also the fact that FC Porto is really good at training and hyping up players.

Yes, I'm really looking forward to the Euro 2016. The french people finally made its peace with the NT and it was about damn time. But if Mamadou Sakho had not scored 2 goals in a raging Stade de France in November, we wouldn't be there (still got chills just thinking about it). Other than Mangala, Pogba and Griezmann show great prospect.

Even though Nasri and Ribéry said they won't be coming back to the NT, I think we could win this one.

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

Yeah, I was just about to say, there is a worse defender in the air than Johnson and it's Clichy.

I remember one game when he was still playing for Arsenal and I think Defoe was at Pompey but whoever it was was just constantly lumping long balls to that flank and Defoe was winning the headers every time. It was pitiful.

That's because he's not a great defender. He's a good left back, with great offensive abilities, quick, skilled, but at the end of the day, he's a poor man's Dani Alves. On a good day, he'll be very helpful, on a bad day, he can be responsible for 2 goals.

But a lot of lateral backs are like this nowadays. You take the other strong teams in Europe, and except for a few exceptions like Philip Lahm or Arbeloa (who's not very good, just very defensive), you have mostly very offensive lateral backs.

[polishgenius]

I'll let you do the math, which one should cost more?

The one who played for Porto, because at the end of the day, when it comes to transfer fees, Porto always win.

Also, on the subject of Benfica, they've been properly Southampton'd this season. Lost Markovic, Oblak, Cardozo, Garay and Gomes in one window.

That's because he's not a great defender. He's a good left back, with great offensive abilities, quick, skilled, but at the end of the day, he's a poor man's Dani Alves. On a good day, he'll be very helpful, on a bad day, he can be responsible for 2 goals.

But a lot of lateral backs are like this nowadays. You take the other strong teams in Europe, and except for a few exceptions like Philip Lahm or Arbeloa (who's not very good, just very defensive), you have mostly very offensive lateral backs.

I don't rate Clichy at all, offensively or defensively (though he's got better since going to City). He gets forward well enough, but his delivery is poor, and defensively his positioning is absolutely woeful. Lots of fullbacks aren't great defenders, no, but many are better than him.

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

Haha I just had to say something, because I've been a fullback (am I using the right english terminology ?) for many years now, and I am strongly opinionated on the matter.

[Alex.]

Come one man, even you must admit that signing a striker (one of the most promising ones in the world at that moment) is significantly different than signing a 23 year old defender who's only played in Belgium and Portugal.

And I must be missing something if there's actually that many who think he'll be world class. To be more precise, I've never even heard of him until City signed him.

I don't even remember some club other than City coming after him which they definitely would if he's considered as this next big thing in world football you try to present him as.

Why would playing Mangala make more sense than playing Nastasic?

Nastasic already has one great full season behind him and one he spent most of injured (or out with a coke habit, if we're to believe polish :D).

How is Mangala, a relatively unknown and untested player an improvement, especially when he's 2-3 years older than Nastasic?

EDIT:

I meant to ask why would signing Mangala for 30m£ make more sense than playing Nastasic who's already there?

I'm not saying signing a striker is the same as a defender, I'm saying that I suspect that looking back in hindsight in four years it will look like decent deal due to inflation, just like it looks with Aguero now. It ws an illustrative example, not a direct comparison.

Everyone who's actually watched him talks about how he's got potential to be world class. It's fairly common knowledge. I'm not trying to "present him as the next big thing in world football". Nowhere have I said anything apart from he's got a lot of learning to do. No City fan is expecting him to drop straight into the starting XI and boss the league. Not one of us that I've spoken to thinks that. You say he's relatively unknown and untested because you personally haven't heard of him, but he's played about 150 professional games, including in Europe and internationally, and won titles wherever he's been. Chelsea were interested in him, as were Man United.

There will be a whole season of people writing him off if he doesn't play 45 games due to this price tag and every single one of them will be being completely and utterly unfair.

And Nastasic will be playing too, obviously.

That lack of knowledge from my part can be attributed to not following Portuguese nor Belgian league, but still.

If you compare Mangala and Markovic - one has just won Portuguese league and the other hasn't, one is 20 the other one is 23, one is a striker the other a defender (pointing this out due to pricing differences between players in different positions in general), both are considered great prospects for the future... I'll let you do the math, which one should cost more?

I wanted to address this bolded point separately. This is a nonsense. There's not a scale you can consult which gives definitive values. You're assuming there's a baseline everyone works from, but there isn't. Shane Long is two thirds of a Balotelli. Lallana is the same as a Cesc. All that matters is:

Are they good?

Do they fill a need in the team?

Anything else is for the accountants and the people with the money. Value is relative. I would argue that, in the long term which is how deals work as they are amortised over a contract, Mangala will be worth more to City than Markovic will be worth to Liverpool. A top central defender is a rarer, and therefore more valuable, commodity than a player like Markovic. That's not to say Markovic isn't a good buy, but there are more players like him than top class central defenders, or central defenders with the potential to become top class. I'm sure you'll disagree, but that's my viewpoint on it.

[polishgenius]

Haha I just had to say something, because I've been a fullback (am I using the right english terminology ?)

It's fullback, yeah.

Mangala's fee does seem high even by BT standards at first glance, but then we paid 33 mil for a teenage left-back with one season at the top level and no European experience. It's the way it is now. The biggest clubs especially feel no need to barter any more, they just meet the asking price because they can. 27mil for Lallana, 13mil for Shane Long, 31mil for Herrera, 13mil for Shane Long, 31mil for Lukaku, 13mil for Shane Long, 17mil for Chambers, and 13mil for Shane Long.

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

The most overpaid was still Dejan Lovren with 25 million euros (I'm sorry, I'm going to try to adapt and use pounds now). He was already overpaid by Southampton IMO.

I have a question for you though. Is it not troubling you that big BPL clubs are training less and less players on their own ? I think it's a crucial part of any sports team, financially as well as on a performance level. I know that these particular teams have enough money to bring young players to play for them, but still.

What's your opinion on this issue ?

[Rorshach]

Mangala's fee does seem high even by BT standards at first glance, but then we paid 33 mil for a teenage left-back with one season at the top level and no European experience. It's the way it is now. The biggest clubs especially feel no need to barter any more, they just meet the asking price because they can. 27mil for Lallana, 13mil for Shane Long, 31mil for Herrera, 13mil for Shane Long, 31mil for Lukaku, 13mil for Shane Long, 17mil for Chambers, and 13mil for Shane Long.

£28m is what I've heard.

I'm also unsure if you managed to underline enough the lunancy that someone paid £13m for Shane Long.

[ljkeane]

Looks like Eto'o to Everton as well. I think that's a solid signing for them, he's obviously not the player he was and he's probably not capable of playing huge amounts of football but as someone to provide an occasional back up for Lukaku he's a reasonable option.

I think Everton have quietly had a pretty decent transfer window actually. It's a shame Barkley picked up an injury.

[baxus]

The most overpaid was still Dejan Lovren with 25 million euros (I'm sorry, I'm going to try to adapt and use pounds now). He was already overpaid by Southampton IMO.

I have a question for you though. Is it not troubling you that big BPL clubs are training less and less players on their own ? I think it's a crucial part of any sports team, financially as well as on a performance level. I know that these particular teams have enough money to bring young players to play for them, but still.

What's your opinion on this issue ?

I think it's too early to tell how Lovren will fare in Liverpool, as it is for pretty much every summer signing in every club.

It's been only two real games, so there's nowhere near enough info to form a conclusion either way.

On the matter of big BPL clubs training less and less players of their own, I don't think that's the case.

There is a matter of young players not getting through to the first team, but that's also down to quality.

I mean, is there any chance that an 18 year old will be good enough to get significant playing time next to Aguero, Dzeko, Jovetic and Negredo (in alphabetical order :P)?

How extraordinary would an 18 year old have to be to force his way into starting 11 against Hazard, Oscar, Shurrle, Fabregas etc.?

On the other hand, there are quite a few talented youngsters from big BPL clubs' academies who do get to play on Premier League level (or in the Championship and/or in some other European league) on loans.

Only Liverpool had Spearing on loan at Bolton last year (or was it 2 years ago?), Wisdom was at Derby last season and is now in WBA... I don't know about other clubs' Academy lads on loans but I'm sure they numerous.

[Rorshach]

Looks like Eto'o to Everton as well. I think that's a solid signing for them, he's obviously not the player he was and he's probably not capable of playing huge amounts of football but as someone to provide an occasional back up for Lukaku he's a reasonable option.

I think Everton have quietly had a pretty decent transfer window actually. It's a shame Barkley picked up an injury.

I tend to agree. All I wish for now (given the amount of money we had) is a central defender that will leave Alcaraz rooted to the bench.

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

Still, they don't put out nearly as many players out as Madrid or Barcelona. BPL is the best league there is though they only have 2 clubs (Arsenal & United within the top 20 of the best training centers, it makes one wonder.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CIES-best-producers-13-14-top-22.jpg

Then again, it's just a feeling I had, I follow BPL as much as the next guy but I mostly follow Arsenal and a couple of french players I like, otherwise I mostly follow Ligue 1 and (quite extensively) the Champion's League. I wanted your opinions because you surely know more about BPL than I do.

To answer what you said about Dejan Lovren, it is true, it is only 2 games with Liverpool, but I've seen him play with Lyon since 2010 without any sign of improvement. Then again, my father and used to have that kind of opinions about Sylvain Distin and at 36, he's better than he ever was, so you never know with center backs.

[Alex.]

I'm not sure it's really fair to write of all the clubs in the Premier League and below which provide players to other clubs outside the "Top 5 big leagues" in Europe. There's so much more value to academies than purely the amount of players which end up in the Champion's League for instance.

Also regarding Barcelona, they've recently been done for the illegal trafficking of minors, so they probably aren't the ideal to strive for

[baxus]

Still, they don't put out nearly as many players out as Madrid or Barcelona. BPL is the best league there is though they only have 2 clubs (Arsenal & United within the top 20 of the best training centers, it makes one wonder.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CIES-best-producers-13-14-top-22.jpg

Then again, it's just a feeling I had, I follow BPL as much as the next guy but I mostly follow Arsenal and a couple of french players I like, otherwise I mostly follow Ligue 1 and (quite extensively) the Champion's League. I wanted your opinions because you surely know more about BPL than I do.

To answer what you said about Dejan Lovren, it is true, it is only 2 games with Liverpool, but I've seen him play with Lyon since 2010 without any sign of improvement. Then again, my father and used to have that kind of opinions about Sylvain Distin and at 36, he's better than he ever was, so you never know with center backs.

Are you really saying that other clubs should follow Rennes or Le Havre's example?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Lovren is top-level centre back or anything like that.

I'm just not willing to say he's crap after watching him in 2 games this season and a couple of matches last season at Southampton.

Who knows where I'll sit on that subject when the season gets a bit further along.

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

Well, I've been a Rennes fan for 20 years and an ultra for 5, so yes, you should definitely follow Rennes (where the great Petr Cech and Sylvain Wiltord among others find their roots :cool4: ), Le Havre's only purpose is to put out youngsters, I think the average age of the team is like 22 years (Pogba played there for instance).

My point is, besides french teams that are a melting pot of young players getting ready to play abroad and old players coming back to play where they started, you'll find all the european top teams save City, Chelsea (and maybe la Juve to be thourough).

[baxus]

Would you rather your team have a great youth academy or national league and Champions League trophies?

That pretty much settles the whole "other clubs should follow Rennes example" debate ;)

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

As Rennes hasn't won anything since 1971, I tend to think that it wouldn't be a great idea, no.

That being said, I'm thinking long term here. Imagine the money stops flowing one day or another. What happens then ? Gods know in modern football, if you don't have the money, there's not a lot you can do. You can quite quickly find yourself in a loop where you don't even play BPL for ten years. A great youth academy is not necessarily something necessary to be performant at the european top level, I'm just saying it's a very important safety net.

But maybe the reason isn't a lack of infrastructure but a lack of a great pool of players at disposition, that is true, in that case, what I've been saying is pretty pointless. Though if you look at how Porto is faring financially, if they keep the same model (quite the same as Bayern these last 15 years), they can be both a financially sane team and be among the best team in Europe within the next ten years.

My opinion is mostly driven by the fact that I dislike the whole "oil money football" thing that makes football a toy of billionaires more than the game I've been loving my wholo life. So maybe I'm kinda biased :drunk:

[Alex.]

As Rennes hasn't won anything since 1971, I tend to think that it wouldn't be a great idea, no.

That being said, I'm thinking long term here. Imagine the money stops flowing one day or another. What happens then ? Gods know in modern football, if you don't have the money, there's not a lot you can do. You can quite quickly find yourself in a loop where you don't even play BPL for ten years. A great youth academy is not necessarily something necessary to be performant at the european top level, I'm just saying it's a very important safety net.

But maybe the reason isn't a lack of infrastructure but a lack of a great pool of players at disposition, that is true, in that case, what I've been saying is pretty pointless. Though if you look at how Porto is faring financially, if they keep the same model (quite the same as Bayern these last 15 years), they can be both a financially sane team and be among the best team in Europe within the next ten years.

My opinion is mostly driven by the fact that I dislike the whole "oil money football" thing that makes football a toy of billionaires more than the game I've been loving my wholo life. So maybe I'm kinda biased :drunk:

It's been true for decades that the teams with the most money are the ones at the top of the table. It's not a "modern football" thing, beyond a continuation of the trend. Teams get funded by multi-millionaires, they then get into the Champion's League, then they have more money than everyone else and can pay to keep your place by buying new players and improving your infrastructure. It's been a self perpetuating cycle for years. Even most of the teams which have their wealth from a so called "organic" source had huge amounts of money pumped into them back in the day, something which gets conveniently forgotten.

[Mexal]

I wish today was tomorrow. I'm a bit nervous about the Besiktas match and want it over with even though I can't watch it. Likely to dictate the rest of Arsenal's transfer window.

[Ser Lucious Left-Foot]

It's been true for decades that the teams with the most money are the ones at the top of the table. It's not a "modern football" thing, beyond a continuation of the trend. Teams get funded by multi-millionaires, they then get into the Champion's League, then they have more money than everyone else and can pay to keep your place by buying new players and improving your infrastructure. It's been a self perpetuating cycle for years. Even most of the teams which have their wealth from a so called "organic" source had huge amounts of money pumped into them back in the day, something which gets conveniently forgotten.

Yes, that is true. Perhaps I'm wrong. Like I said, it's just a feeling I had, and I wanted to know your opinions.

What makes me sad is the fact that, like you said, it's self perpetuating. Meaning that the smaller teams cannot play a significant part unless they have a huge amount of money pumped in, leaving them quite depending on those who have those huge amounts of money.

Meaning the team I've been rooting for all my life won't probably win anything for a long time. Even if we lost 3 Cup finals in the las 5 years haha.