Jump to content

Football: Final thread of the season. Start delayed.


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Uefa will render the Superleague a better alternative sooner or later

Superleague has been a better alternative all along. Had it only operated on the same principle as CL and clubs got into it based on performance in their domestic leagues instead of based on marketing value, I don't think many people would mind having it.

Edited by baxus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, baxus said:

Superleague has been a better alternative all along. Had it only operated on the same principle as CL and clubs got into it based on performance in their domestic leagues instead of based on marketing value, I don't think many people would mind having it.

You are entitled to your own opinion. Let's leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case you had hope we would have a better World Cup after the tournament was hosted twice in a row in petro-states with an obscene human rights record, one of them in the end of the year in a tiny one with no footballing history, Here's a reminder things will get worse, because we will have 48 freakin' nations in 2026, competing in groups of 3 in the first round, and we'll likely have many repetitions of the Disgrace of Gijón.

Anyway, the host cities were selected- anyone that follows the MLS or lives in North American can tell whether the selected cities are good fits, but anyway looks like we'll have an even more sprawled competition in terms of distance than the one in Brazil, which held the record so far, so another wonderful point in it's favor.

 

Edited by Winterfell is Burning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Just in case you had hope we would have a better World Cup after the tournament was hosted twice in a row in petro-states with an obscene human rights record, one of them in the end of the year in a tiny one with no footballing history, Here's a reminder things will get worse, because we will have 48 freakin' nations in 2026, competing in groups of 3 in the first round, and we'll likely have many repetitions of the Disgrace of Gijón.

Anyway, the host cities were selected- anyone that follows the MLS or lives in North American can tell whether the selected cities are good fits, but anyway looks like we'll have an even more sprawled competition in terms of distance than the one in Brazil, which held the record so far, so another wonderful point in it's favor.

For the teams, I don't think that the distances will be overwhelmingly bad unless they schedule a group that plays in Monterrey and Toronto or some such nonsense.  Which, knowing FIFA, they probably will.  But in general, flights between the cities selected don't necessarily have to be bad.

For fans, I can see possibilities for foul-ups if, again, the venues for groups are selected poorly.  And they will have to deal with the TSA if they fly, which is incredibly annoying.

But for the teams who have to play games in Atlanta, Dallas, Miami and Houston, they will wish they had never been born with the heat and humidity.  I foresee a lot of slow, lethargic games in those cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, baxus said:

Yeah, if you like what UEFA is doing then we better leave it at that.

No. That's a different (and ridiculous) argument. Thanks for playing Fighting Straw. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

No. That's a different (and ridiculous) argument. Thanks for playing Fighting Straw. 

The only problem I saw with the Superleague proposal was that list of participants was set in stone, and those clubs would have had to abandon domestic competitions. That was unacceptable to fans, and the only reason why it didn't take off. If that was remedied, I'm quite sure fans wouldn't mind as much. UEFA and FIFA are out of control and it's time biggest clubs told them to bugger off.

The fact that smaller clubs would not be able to take part in such a league is irrelevant since they are at the moment just token participants in Champions League who can neither achieve a good result nor can they earn a substantial amount of money and the best they can hope for is that third spot that would allow them to drop into Europa league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

UEFA and FIFA are out of control and it's time biggest clubs told them to bugger off.

This is like saying 'the Republican party are out of control and it's time Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates just got rid of them and ran the country themselves as a dictatorship'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, baxus said:

The only problem I saw with the Superleague proposal was that list of participants was set in stone, and those clubs would have had to abandon domestic competitions. That was unacceptable to fans, and the only reason why it didn't take off. If that was remedied, I'm quite sure fans wouldn't mind as much. UEFA and FIFA are out of control and it's time biggest clubs told them to bugger off.

The fact that smaller clubs would not be able to take part in such a league is irrelevant since they are at the moment just token participants in Champions League who can neither achieve a good result nor can they earn a substantial amount of money and the best they can hope for is that third spot that would allow them to drop into Europa league.

My problem (and apparently most fans outside the fishbowl agreed and even inside to their credit), that it was just a money grab for big clubs further distorting competition (domestic leagues). The game is broke on a competitive level anyway, but that was just more than one bridge too far. If you want to play Real Madrid 10x over, fine, but then bugger just get a room and leave the domestic comps.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, baxus said:

The only problem I saw with the Superleague proposal was that list of participants was set in stone, and those clubs would have had to abandon domestic competitions.

*chokes on coffee*

"The only problem."

LOL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2022 at 4:04 AM, Wilbur said:

For the teams, I don't think that the distances will be overwhelmingly bad unless they schedule a group that plays in Monterrey and Toronto or some such nonsense.  Which, knowing FIFA, they probably will. 

They did at least split the cities into 3 groupings.

EAST: Toronto (BMO Field); Boston (Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, Mass.); Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field); Miami (Hard Rock Stadium, Miami Gardens, Fla.); and New York/New Jersey (MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, N.J.).

CENTRAL: Kansas City, Mo. (Arrowhead Stadium); Dallas (AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas); Atlanta (Mercedes Benz Stadium); Houston (NRG Stadium); Monterrey, Mexico (Estadio BBVA, Guadalupe); Mexico City (Estadio Azteca).

WEST: Vancouver (BC Place); Seattle (Lumen Field); San Francisco (Levi’s Stadium, Santa Clara, Calif.); Los Angeles (SoFi Stadium, Inglewood, Calif.); and Guadalajara, Mexico (Estadio Akron, Zapopan).

Significant travel still required but there is a touch of sanity at least. 

On the other hand, with only 3 teams in each group, it only represents 2 games for each country.  After that, you may end up travelling all over the place (I didn't bother checking).  So the whole structure of the 2026 World Cup remains an embarrassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uff, 2026 will be a shitshow with those three team groups.

16 Groups...

I suspect the three Mexican Cities will share 3 groups.

Vancouver and Seattle will be another pair. 3 Groups

Atlanta Miami 3 Groups

Houston, Dallas, KC 3 Groups

Toronto, Boston, NY/NJ and Philadelphia will be paired in some shape or form. Toronto-Boston and NJ-Philly would be the most sensible pairs. 4 Groups

That'd be my guess, what the schedule could look like.

Splitting a group between Canada and Florida wouldn't make any sense, whatsoever. 

Since we're talking FIFA some ufortunate team will definitely end up travelling between Vancouver and Guadalajara for their two group games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

DiMarzio reports that if Lukaku leaves Chelsea, they'll try for Sterling.

That seems odd when they already have so many wide forwards — Pulisic, Werner, Ziyech, Hudson-Odoi — and they really need a prolific finisher.  Sure, they may plan to sell some of those wide forwards, and Sterling is flexible to play on either wing, but his finishing is poor outside of the large number of back-post tap-ins that only City can create.

City look set to make good money on Sterling and Jesus, both of whom are unlikely to put up massive numbers at any other team.

I thought Chelsea’s priority was a CB as Rudiger and Christensen depart.  Or will Chalobah be trusted as a first choice alongside Thiago Silva in a back four?  Sarr doesn’t seem ready yet.

Edit: What about Broja and Gallagher after their excellent loans.  Chelsea must regret letting Abraham, Fomori and Guehi depart last summer.  Are they going to learn from that?

Edited by Iskaral Pust
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...