Jump to content
AncalagonTheBlack

Football: Mo Please!

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Notone said:

I am not disagreeing with you, that Kovac doesn'T look like a first choice pick for them. However three out of the four managers you mentioned spoke German. Van Gaal is Dutch, and Dutch and German are linguistically speaking very close (if I wanted to tease our Dutch boarders a bit, I'd go as far as calling Dutch some weird German dialect). So I have yet to meet a Dutch that doesn't speak German to some degree. Guardiola used his sabbatical in New York to learn German extensively (like I said before), and he is able to speak it. In a way Guardiola paved the way for Ancelotti. The rational was exactly what you mentioned, proven CL winner, which could give Bayern the final push for a CL run. But generally speaking, check the Bayern managers for the last 20 years or so, the only one who didn't speak German was Trappatoni (at least during his first tenure there). If you use German language as a requirement for the job, then the list of potential high profile managers grows pretty thin. Had Peter Bosz stayed at Ajax last year instead of crashing and burning at Dortmund this year, he might have made it to their short list.

Kovac only signed a two year contract. So if that appointments fails, then they will probably go after Nagelsmann (or somebody else) next year.

I wasn’t meaning so much that he doesn’t seem like a first choice, more that he seems a different type of choice to what they have normally gone for.

It looks as though, by going for Kovac (and the other names linked), they have abandoned their recent trend of appointing a proven Champions League winning manager. This is fair enough, given that experienced managers like LvG, Guardiola and Ancelotti all failed to win the Champions League. 

I quite like to see when big clubs go for a younger, up and coming manager, rather than seeing the same big names make their way through Europe’s top clubs. So, despite not being a fan of Bayern Munich, I hope it works out well for Kovac, and I respect them for choosing him.

As Chelsea are likely to be in the market for a new manager in the summer, I would much rather they took the route Bayern have, than what Chelsea tend to do, which is go for whichever flavour of the month is available.

The most talked about manager linked with Chelsea is Luis Enrique. He was incredibly successful at Barcelona, of course, but I’d much rather Chelsea took a chance on someone like Eddie Howe, for instance. 

50 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

I'd be very surprised if they don't go all in to win the Champions League. It'd probably be the biggest moment in their history and Italian football's not quite as cutthroat as the Premier League in terms of getting into the Champions League so missing out for a season probably wouldn't be the end of the world.

I think Roma are in quite a lot of debt, which is why they’ve recently sold a lot of their best players, such as Pjanic, Rüdiger, Salah. They probably would have sold Džeko to Chelsea for the right price in January.

I’d still say they would prioritise an opportunity to win the Champions League, but qualifying for next year’s competition will be vital for them, too, as it would be a big loss for them to miss out on the Champions League money.

Edited by JordanJH1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

Roma are in a tight battle for CL qualification still.  I wonder how they’ll approach the balance of remaining league games vs. CL.  I’m guessing at this point they’ll go for broke in the CL.  It’s a long time since they had a chance like this. 

Hells yes, they already did, even though they were down 4-1 against barca. That said, a lot rides on this weekends derby as far as cl goes. If they win, their situation will be fairly good going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I wasn’t meaning so much that he doesn’t seem like a first choice, more that he seems a different type of choice to what they have normally gone for.

It looks as though, by going for Kovac (and the other names linked), they have abandoned their recent trend of appointing a proven Champions League winning manager. This is fair enough, given that experienced managers like LvG, Guardiola and Ancelotti all failed to win the Champions League. 

I quite like to see when big clubs go for a younger, up and coming manager, rather than seeing the same big names make their way through Europe’s top clubs. So, despite not being a fan of Bayern Munich, I hope it works out well for Kovac, and I respect them for choosing him.

As Chelsea are likely to be in the market for a new manager in the summer, I would much rather they took the route Bayern have, than what Chelsea tend to do, which is go for whichever flavour of the month is available.

The most talked about manager linked with Chelsea is Luis Enrique. He was incredibly successful at Barcelona, of course, but I’d much rather Chelsea took a chance on someone like Eddie Howe, for instance. 

I think Roma are in quite a lot of debt, which is why they’ve recently sold a lot of their best players, such as Pjanic, Rüdiger, Salah. They probably would have sold Džeko to Chelsea for the right price in January.

They would have sold him, but be opted to stay, unlike Emerson.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I think Roma are in quite a lot of debt, which is why they’ve recently sold a lot of their best players, such as Pjanic, Rüdiger, Salah. They probably would have sold Džeko to Chelsea for the right price in January.

I’d still say they would prioritise an opportunity to win the Champions League, but qualifying for next year’s competition will be vital for them, too, as it would be a big loss for them to miss out on the Champions League money.

Roma’s problem is with FFP rather than debt.  They’re another team with financial juicing in recent years to jump to this new level — although nothing like City or PSG — and it was the threat of FFP that forced player sales to create revenue.  Since the major potential FFP sanction is exclusion from UEFA competition, failing to qualify for the CL makes that kind of toothless because exclsuion from the EL is less of a blow.  Failure to qualify for next year’s CL would dent their revenue for FFP criteria, but at that point they would just accept the FFP sanction.

I’m sure they want to make recurring CL qualification a habit in order to keep building and to see progress from all their spending, but missing out on CL causes just a temporary FFP sanction rather than doing a Leeds. 

But overall we’re agreed: they’re all-in for the CL now even if it risks missing CL next year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Player of the year, Salah or De Bruyne?  Anybody who says anybody else needs to have a word with themselves.

I'd link the BBC article about this just for the giggles as to who some pundits would have chosen, but i know most of you can't access. 

Some picks for top 6 include  Pope, Linguard, Zaha, Arnoutovic, Doucoure and Dembele. 

Edited by BigFatCoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread discusses hockey and rugby, while not calling for Samuele’s head?

I am dissappoint. Clearly, I need to get back into football again. Though, with Samuele busy f*cking up my favourite team in the PL, I can’t find the energy. 

Therefore, there needs to be more calls for Samuele’s head. QED.

#Samueleout!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For most of the season I'd probably have said De Bruyne but, although I may be a little biased, at this point I think it probably has to be Salah.

He's having a Messi or Ronaldo type of season, 38 goals and 11 assists with at least 7 games to play is nuts, and if Liverpool were to somehow pull off a Champions League win you could make a genuine case for someone other than Messi or Ronaldo winning the Ballon d'Or for the first time in a decade. It would probably depend if Messi carries Argentina to a World Cup win. 

Edited by ljkeane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Player of the year, Salah or De Bruyne?  Anybody who says anybody else needs to have a word with themselves.

I'd link the BBC article about this just for the giggles as to who some pundits would have chosen but i know most of you can't access. 

Some picks for top 6 include  Pope, Linguard, Zaha, Arnoutovic, Doucoure and Dembele. 


I wouldn't pick either one above De Bruyne but, fair's fair, Pope as well as Tarkowski have been fucking great this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to be between De Bruyne and Salah. Some may say Kane, but, if I were to choose a Spurs’ player as contender, it would be Eriksen. David Silva deserves a mention, too.

I agree with ljkeane. First half of the season: De Bruyne. But Salah has been on fire the past few months.

I think Salah’s influence at Liverpool is greater than De Bruyne’s at Man City. You could even argue David Silva has been Man City’s player of the season, whereas it is quite clear Salah is the star at Liverpool - and the star in the Premier League, currently.

What’s more impressive is that this is his first full season in England and he is in with a great chance of breaking the record for most goals in a 38 game season, playing as a wide forward. To think his signing was largely unheralded makes it all the more incredible.

What’s disappointing, as a Chelsea fan, is that the two stand out players in the Premier League used to play for us, and were sold by Jose. To be fair, I doubt De Bruyne would have developed into the player he has - moving into central midfield - without the help of Guardiola; and Salah seems to be a perfect player for the way Klopp gets his Liverpool team to play.

It is no wonder, though, that Roman Abramovich has given Chelsea managers less say in transfers...

Edited by JordanJH1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Player of the year, Salah or De Bruyne?  Anybody who says anybody else needs to have a word with themselves.

I'd link the BBC article about this just for the giggles as to who some pundits would have chosen, but i know most of you can't access. 

Some picks for top 6 include  Pope, Linguard, Zaha, Arnoutovic, Doucoure and Dembele. 

Well, apart from Lingard all of them are somewhat crucial players for their team. Having that said, it's gonna be either de Bruyne or Salah. You can make a convincing case for both players. Let's wait till the end of season and see how their seasons end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mme Erzulie said:

Trying to... nope. Can't do it.

While football's simplicity is perhaps a necessary condition for its popularity, I don't think it's sufficient. Its relative paucity of scoring (goals) means that you get a statistical greater chance of upsets. It's a localised team sport, which means fans (often; not exclusively) have a geographical connection with their clubs (which isn't really the case with sports like motor racing and cycling), which again allows for history and traditions to develop beyond the scope of a single athlete's career. However, it also has room for individual brilliance (arguably to a greater extent than many other team sports). There is something about a sport where the players can't use the most naturally appropriate appendages for the task (i.e. arms and hands) which elevates the greatest feats of that sport to another level. Football at its best approaches art in a way that other sports just don't (figure skating is only arguably a sport).

How do you figure that:

  1.  football approaches art in the first place?
  2. if football does approach art, other sports don't?

Honestly, I never understood people who claim that football is something it's not. Sure, it's a sport most of us grew up playing, watching and loving. It's often very entertaining to watch and we all have some irrational, emotional bond with some teams and players. That's fine and there's no denying it, no one is claiming otherwise.

On the other hand, saying that not being able to use your hands ?elevates the greatest feats of that sport to another level" is just wrong. Going back to ice hockey. Players need to move around in a way that's completely unnatural, to the point of having to start learning it before you start school in order to play at the top level. Not only that, but they need to use sticks to control a very small piece of hard rubber. And to top it all off, everything happens way, WAAAAY faster than it does in football. I'd be very surprised if you managed to find a single person who's played both football and hockey that would claim that football is the more difficult one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, baxus said:

How do you figure that:

  1.  football approaches art in the first place?
  2. if football does approach art, other sports don't?


1. You've seen Zinedine Zidane play.

Admittedly, 2. doesn't have so pithy an answer. I will say that out of all the sports I follow (bar F1 for reasons of being very different), while each of them does have its own artistic performers- a Roger Federer here, a Bryan O'Driscoll there - they aren't as consistent as players I can find that aethsetic pleasure with in football. This will come down partly to bias and just knowing it best so seeing it best but I do also think there's something to what Ezrulie is saying about the limits of the game drawing something out of it.

That said, I'll admit that while I don't care about ice hockey at all I've certainly seen one or two plays in passing that were pretty breathtaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Imagine if we had won the league in the last 91 years or the FA cup in the last 63. 

exactly!

you really think 52000 would turn up at anfield on a tuesday to watch them play in the championship? 

not a fucking chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a close call between Salah and KdB but I'd go for Salah as player of the season. He's certainly far more important for Liverpool than KdB is for City and could very well hit (or get close to) 50 goals for the season which would be a sensational achievement. 

Special mention for Sterling as well. He's been brilliant especially in the first half and a bit of the season. All of those late goals he scored won City around 8-10 points which contributed massively to them building an unassailable lead. If not for those crucial late goals of his, we would be having a proper title race. 

De Gea deserves a mention as well. Easily the best keeper in the league whose brilliance has once again won us a bunch of points. If not for him, we'd be in a battle for 4th place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, baxus said:

How do you figure that:

  1.  football approaches art in the first place?
  2. if football does approach art, other sports don't?

On the other hand, saying that not being able to use your hands ?elevates the greatest feats of that sport to another level" is just wrong. Going back to ice hockey. Players need to move around in a way that's completely unnatural, to the point of having to start learning it before you start school in order to play at the top level. Not only that, but they need to use sticks to control a very small piece of hard rubber. And to top it all off, everything happens way, WAAAAY faster than it does in football. I'd be very surprised if you managed to find a single person who's played both football and hockey that would claim that football is the more difficult one.

 

1. It just does, man. There's something about watching Bergkamp control the ball, dink it over a hapless defender and smash the ball into the corner of the goal that is just... art. 

Ok, do this with me: take off one ice hockey team's skates and let them play against a team with skates - who wins? Or with/without sticks? with or without bats in baseball? Take away cycles from cyclists or skis from skiers. Most (all?) equipment in sports is beneficial to the athletes. Now, what would happen if you allowed one football team to use their hands? They could carry, throw and knock the ball with their hands (as well as their feet), while the other team could only use their hands - which team (other things being equal) would win? You can disagree with the consequence that this makes the sport more artful, somehow, but I think the premise is sound. There are few other sports where you are prohibited from using the most natural/beneficial part of your body. It's sort of similar to why we're impressed by foot and mouth painters. In general, shit's hard for humans when they're not allowed to use their hands.

And much like the way blind people can have improved hearing, there is something about watching players do things to a ball with their feet that seemingly defies logic, physics and sometimes gravity, that is just mesmerising. Add to that interaction between players and the evading of opponents hellbent on stopping them, and you get something very special that I haven't seen replicated in other sports.

I say this as someone who's very fond of ice hockey and the NHL, and many other sports besides. I find most (well, at least a good few) sports entertaining, intriguing and engaging, but something sets football apart from the pack. It doesn't really matter to me personally whether football is the best sport or not, it just is. I'm just postulating some theories for why that might be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mme Erzulie said:

 

1. It just does, man. There's something about watching Bergkamp control the ball, dink it over a hapless defender and smash the ball into the corner of the goal that is just... art. 

 

If there ever a footballer that made this game look like an art, for me, it was Dennis Bergkamp. A quick YouTube search of his best goals or best moments is enough to validate this point.

I think that’s why many of the ‘purists’ pick Messi over Ronaldo, say. People seem to be impressed more by abilities they never imagine they could have themselves. 

I love Cristiano in a much different way to Messi. I appreciate his dedication and desire to being the best. But I also wonder if more players had his attitude, could we not see more players like him? Because that’s quite clearly what sets him apart; it’s what makes him the best physical specimen in the game; it’s what makes him come alive in big matches; it’s what makes him relish moments like the opportunity to score the goal to send Real Madrid through last night.

What Messi has, I look at as unachievable by anyone else. It’s a one off. A gifted talent. There aren’t any other Messi’s because there can’t be any other Messi’s. Bergkamp, to, maybe a lesser scale was the same. PG mentioned Zidane. Has there been a midfielder close to Zidane in terms of guile, elegance, artistry(?) since he retired? 

That’s what artists are to me: special, one off talents. And many footballers fit that bill.

ETA: Just a footnote: I wouldn’t say football itself is an art. It’s more that certain players art artists with the ball, and can produce certain moments that look like a visual art. Think Messi goal vs Bayern in 2015. 

The best football games are made out of chaos. End to end matches aren’t an art, for example. But even the most boring game could involve a moment of art.

 

Edited by JordanJH1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Give 'em credit, Chelsea are putting a really solid effort into avoiding the Europa League next season.

Say whaaat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been saying this for a while now. Eventually the buy low, sell high policy of Southampton was bound to catch up with them. This looks to be the season where that policy leads to relegation. Blame lies squarely on the previous ownership who gambled the clubs premier league stability in favour of short term profit. A season like this was an inevitable consequence of selling over £200m of talent and then not adequately reinvesting in the squad, instead hoping that cheapo signings would be enough to keep the club in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×