Alex. Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Will Dzeko leave in the summer too, do you reckon?Legitimately unsure. I hope not, but at the same time I can recognise hat it might be the correct time. I mean let's be real, teams from across the continent have started showing interest which they wouldn't do without encouragement. Jovetic will go first, but Dzeko might follow. We'd get a fee for him and we've got Bony and Pozo waiting in the wings. Maybe He might go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Davos Baratheon Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Do you think City can kick Barcelona out of the UCL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spockydog Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Sure. Why not? At this level, anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex. Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Do you think City can kick Barcelona out of the UCL?I think for the first time in years it could go either way. Put it this way, there is a betting shop in my block at the Etihad and I love a flutter but I won't be putting money on. Got no idea what's going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Davos Baratheon Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I think for the first time in years it could go either way. Put it this way, there is a betting shop in my block at the Etihad and I love a flutter but I won't be putting money on. Got no idea what's going to happen. To be honest I thought City played better in the first leg last year. Barcelona just got lucky (that penalty changed the whole game. And it wasn't even a penalty). I remember thinking at the time that it would be a tight contest. Now I think it'll be much tighter. Messi does seem to be getting back on form but we haven't seen him play on a big match yet this year (besides Atlético). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Davos Baratheon Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 That's actually the name of the fifth division in Bavaria. I just found out that this is true. Had no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Nope. Sorry. The only respect in which this could be said to be true is that Evra was performing at his best and Giggs was not, but even then, Giggs was more important in many ways. (It's not a time at which I'd say Giggs was in the top 2, mind.)My argument here is simple: Evra, Neville, Beckham - these guys were model professionals, who made the most of their talents. Scholes was exciting, a natural talent. Keane was inspirational. But Giggs was all of these things together. And all without the on- or off-field baggage of a Keane, Beckham or Scholes. If you offered me any of them, I'd pick Giggs. Every time. It's obviously far too late for either of us to change the other's mind, but I just think you're totally wrong on this. Evra at that time was both exceptional at his job and crucial to the team, and as well as Giggs played he was neither thing. On the second part, well, my argument is that Giggs didn't make the most out of his talents. He operated at a similar level to Beckham - Keane and Scholes were well beyond either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 On the second part, well, my argument is that Giggs didn't make the most out of his talents. Can't see the case for that at all. Your main argument about this appears to be that he adapted his game as he got older, which is not the same thing as not making the best of his talent when he was younger. He operated at a similar level to Beckham - Keane and Scholes were well beyond either. I'd say they all operated at a similar level, but as I say Keane and Scholes came with built-in drawbacks to their games that Giggs didn't share. You didn't watch Giggs waiting for the inevitable booking, for example, or hoping like hell he didn't take it into his head to try and tackle someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxus Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 @ljkeane:The whole point of North American professional leagues is for everyone to make money by making the league as interesting as possible.They do it by leveling the playing field as much as they can.You just don't have dynasties any more, because of salary caps, drafts, revenue sharing etc. which do a pretty good job of getting squads' quality as close as can be hoped for.As a result, since 2000 Stanley Cup was won by Los Angeles (twice), Chicago (twice), Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit (twice), Anaheim, Carolina, Tampa Bay, New Jersey (twice) and Colorado.That's ten different champions in fourteen seasons (one season was canceled because of lock-out).AND it's not done by promoting mediocrity, as you said. NHL is still the highest quality hockey league in the world (even with KHL improving all the time).What top European football league can boast the same? Here's more data about other North American top leagues' champions since 2000:Superbowl: St. Louis, Baltimore (twice), New England (four times), Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh (twice), Indianapolis, New York Giants (twice), New Orleans, Green Bay, Seattle - 9 different champions in 15 seasonsNBA champions since 2000: Los Angeles (5 times), San Antonio (4 times), Detroit, Miami (3 times), Boston, Dallas - 6 champions in 15 seasons - not as great example as NHL and NFL but still more than Premier League ;)World Series winners since 2000: New York Yankees (twice), Arizona, Anaheim, Florida, Boston (3 times), Chicago, St. Louis (twice), Philadelphia, San Francisco (3 times) - 9 champions in 15 seasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Can't see the case for that at all. Your main argument about this appears to be that he adapted his game as he got older, which is not the same thing as not making the best of his talent when he was younger. He adapted his game mostly by learning to pass and interlink with the players alongside him rather than just going on long runs then crossing or shooting. Why could he not have done that when he was younger? It's not like Scholes, who was always a sensational passer but learned to do it in a different way as he got older and less mobile so less able to make those off-the-ball runs in and around the box that made him a great AM. I'm not saying it's entirely his fault - the manager and coaches obviously didn't guide him in that direction and it wasn't particularly in vogue for most of that time in Britain for wingers to do more than run and cross - but his later career shows he clearly had an aptitude for it and it would have made him a better player if he'd done it when he was still fast. Players like Figo, Nedved and Pires did those things and it made them better than him. It would have been different if he'd been an exceptional crosser or shooter, but he wasn't - he was average at both those things but his sensational dribbling gave him lots of opportunity to do them.I'm not saying he wasn't a good, verging on the great, player - but he was overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Moff Mithrandir Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Ah screw it! Just give the damn thing to Emile Heskey. He's the real legendary footballer here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 You spelt Ali Dia wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Alan Shearer is the correct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disturber of Peace Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 On the Barca and City thing,Messi has been in great form throughout the last month and Neymar, Suarez and he clicked very well.And last year i think that if it were not a penalty it would still be a red card for Demichelis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Yeah Messis form right now is god like, can't see Barca going out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Davos Baratheon Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 On the Barca and City thing,Messi has been in great form throughout the last month and Neymar, Suarez and he clicked very well.And last year i think that if it were not a penalty it would still be a red card for Demichelis.Yeah, it would still be a red card, but not a penalty. A red card AND a penalty completely changed City's tactics. They were behind and one man down. Not to mention it was Barcelona they were facing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Davos Baratheon Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Demichelis is a good defender, but he has the annoying habit of screwing things up in crucial moments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Can't wait for tmmrw. Merseyside derby, North London derby, and Madrid Derby all in one day :commie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 @ljkeane: The whole point of North American professional leagues is for everyone to make money by making the league as interesting as possible. They do it by leveling the playing field as much as they can. You just don't have dynasties any more, because of salary caps, drafts, revenue sharing etc. which do a pretty good job of getting squads' quality as close as can be hoped for. As a result, since 2000 Stanley Cup was won by Los Angeles (twice), Chicago (twice), Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit (twice), Anaheim, Carolina, Tampa Bay, New Jersey (twice) and Colorado. That's ten different champions in fourteen seasons (one season was canceled because of lock-out). AND it's not done by promoting mediocrity, as you said. NHL is still the highest quality hockey league in the world (even with KHL improving all the time). What top European football league can boast the same? Here's more data about other North American top leagues' champions since 2000: Superbowl: St. Louis, Baltimore (twice), New England (four times), Tampa Bay, Pittsburgh (twice), Indianapolis, New York Giants (twice), New Orleans, Green Bay, Seattle - 9 different champions in 15 seasons NBA champions since 2000: Los Angeles (5 times), San Antonio (4 times), Detroit, Miami (3 times), Boston, Dallas - 6 champions in 15 seasons - not as great example as NHL and NFL but still more than Premier League ;) World Series winners since 2000: New York Yankees (twice), Arizona, Anaheim, Florida, Boston (3 times), Chicago, St. Louis (twice), Philadelphia, San Francisco (3 times) - 9 champions in 15 seasons I agree that this is an interesting summing up of the diversity of winners. It shows that the idea in the US to have more teams be competitive for the overall win, works, and is a success. They have salary caps, hard taxing when you go over the cap like in the NBA, the draft system also works to diminish the differences etc. At the same time, looking at the Champions League this season, you've got 6 teams that all look very capable of causing upsets and winning the league. That's exciting enough for me. I like the super teams. I like the dynasties. I don't need West Brom to be a title contender in the EPL. I think there is also a lot to be said for creating as good a team as you can, without salary caps. That makes those teams more exciting to watch, and ultimately that is what it is about. I don't need all the best talent to be spread out over a great many teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterOJ Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It gets even more interesting when you look at the number of teams that finished as either champions or runners-up. Since 2000 (since that was the year baxus was using) for example: In the NFL 18 teams have finished as either league champs or runners-up up (St. Louis, Tennessee, Baltimore, NY Giants, New England, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Carolina, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Indianapolis, Chicago, Arizona, New Orleans, Green Bay, San Francisco and Denver). That's 56 percent of the league! I live just outside of Nashville where the Tennessee Titans play. They've been a pretty bad to mediocre team for the past 10 years or so, but you know, their fans still have all the great memories of that 2000 season where they built a really good team and was within literally inches of winning it all. Compare that to the EPL where you have only 5 teams that have finished first or second in that same time frame. If you're a fan of one of those five teams, that's great. But if not, I don't see what the point is. You can talk about rewarding mediocrity all you want, but if your team's main goal is to just finish 16th out of 20 teams, that seems more like rewarding mediocrity to me than in American sports where every team's main goal is working toward winning a championship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.