|
On June 15 2012 21:46 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 03:33 Rebs wrote:On June 15 2012 00:37 Sated wrote:On June 14 2012 23:14 Rebs wrote:On June 14 2012 22:59 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On June 14 2012 22:28 Rebs wrote:On June 14 2012 22:16 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On June 14 2012 22:08 Rebs wrote:On June 14 2012 19:49 eaT_Mi_Lquid wrote:On June 14 2012 19:42 AIOL! wrote:Modric wll come with us in Paris wit his new mate Thiago Silva  Man City 2 is disgusting. Didn't you backed your investor for being reasonable ? And now i hear a 50€ mil. bid for Thiago Silva and 40€ mil. bid for Modric ? To me those clubs are the reason for inflated transfer tags in current football. It was only a matter of time, smart business in the end only gets you a team like the one Wenger makes and we all know those dont win trophies. Although why anyone would be "disgusted" by it is beyond me. Those players arent leaving those clubs for lesser fees. The market is just really inflated. Paris has money they want to spend it let them spend it. The inflated transfer tags started a while ago, but yes keeping the trend going doesnt help. The thing is Man City, Chelsea and Malaga (which is a mini Man City of sorts) all play in top leagues. PSG play in the 5th best league in the world and the biggest stars will in most cases (Thiago Silva exempting) be unwilling to go there no matter the money. Now obviously it helps that A) France produces a lot of great players they will essentially now have a monopoly on and B) Paris is a beautiful and desirable city far more so than Manchester is. But I still don't see the likes of Gotze, Falcao, Modric and the other best players in the world not already playing for a big club moving to play for PSG over Barcelona, Real, Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea. PSG will destroy the French league from now until the money runs out of that I have no doubt, but they'll always be handicapped by the inferior league they play in. Which is why to me they're a really odd investment over the likes of Milan/Inter/Juventus/Roma/Lazio/Arsenal/Tottenham who would surely all have been better buys for the owners. I'd say its the best outside the big 3. England, Italy, Germany and Spain all have far, far better leagues than France with a lot more strength in depth. France's woeful performances in the Champions League and Uefa Cup show there's a lack of quality there. Oh sorry I dont know why I said it was better than Germany that was stupid. Regardless making a league attractive has to start somewhere and if PSG getting money helps do that I dont see the problem. Additionally Uniteds "history" is about 2 decades old as far as being a major club is concerned. Otherwise and this ofcourse a big otherwise is no better than an Everton or a Liverpool. Outside of the Busby and Fergie era I dont see to much in terms of being a great club. Every club has a history some more so than others but suggesting United have been all that for the greater part of the last century isnt particularly accurate. What? Although the club might not have been consistently at the top of English football since Busby (which was a lot longer than two decades ago), the same thing can be said about any top club in English football. The English league isn't like Spain, where the same 2 teams have been near or at the top since it started. Yea it can that was my point. You can call the other leagues whatever you want but the teams he was comparing them to have been at the top or near the top of their leagues consistently. I dont see why the league quality arguement has to get dragged in we arent discussing that. They have been at the top or near the top of their leagues so they have a greater history end of discussion. The Juve's the Barcelona's the Real Madrid's and the Milan's have a far richer "history" if your into that sort of thing. I dont think it matters much personally other than lousy brag points. And again the relative parity back in the day across all of them wasnt really that different. Atleast not like it is now. On June 15 2012 03:31 Tigi wrote:On June 14 2012 23:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
1st Rate - England, Spain
2nd Rate - Germany, Italy
3rd Rate - France, Portugal
The debt is the fault of our owners. Manchester United football club is a profitable business, we do not ever spend more than we have.
Lol, this has to be a joke. Bundesliga's 6-18th teams are so much ahead of the comparable teams in England and Spain. And yes that is a joke, just like Englands national team + Show Spoiler +oo nooo heee dddidddnntttttttt :p. Playing in non-competitive leagues =/= greater history. By that logic, Rangers and Celtic have the best histories in world football =P
yea they actually do have some of the best histories in the world. And you seem to assume those other leagues werent competitive in the larger scheme of things maybe they were, maybe the teams that won were just that good.
point being get off the imaginary pedestal. Your not as good as you think you are and everyone else is not as bad so you think they are. Everytime an international tournament comes around its a pretty heavy handed reminder, its almost a slap to the face and still its seems hard to grasp.
|
They have. would you compare Celtic history to the likes Totthenam or Everton ? For me the two Glasgow clubs are as great historicaly as Real Madrid, Barça, Fenerbahce, Galatasaray, Bayern Munchen, Juve, ManU, Liverpool etc... This is pure football history. These are legendary clubs.
|
No they're not. There are obviously more relevant clubs historically than others. Real Madrid has left a much bigger mark on world football than a Celtic or a Galatasaray...
|
On June 15 2012 22:30 warding wrote:
No they're not. There are obviously more relevant clubs historically than others. Real Madrid has left a much bigger mark on world football than a Celtic or a Galatasaray...
Real Madrid is probably the club with the richest history but there aren't that many teams with as rich a history as Celtic most teams really don't compare..
|
On June 15 2012 21:59 Rebs wrote:
yea they actually do have some of the best histories in the world. And you seem to assume those other leagues werent competitive in the larger scheme of things maybe they were, maybe the teams that won were just that good.
point being get off the imaginary pedestal. Your not as good as you think you are and everyone else is not as bad so you think they are. Everytime an international tournament comes around its a pretty heavy handed reminder, its almost a slap to the face and still its seems hard to grasp.
You just will do anything to avoid arguing the point at hand won't you? Every time you post you completely ignore the actual discussion (because you're always losing 100% of the time because you know nothing about football) and start ranting about something wholly irrelevant.
I'm going to make this really simple for you:
The English league (along with La Liga) is the best league in the world, it is across these two leagues where the largest majority of the worlds best players play and that depth extends beyond just the best teams but to the smaller clubs as well. Italy and Germany are comparable in terms of their weaker clubs but Spain and England has more top clubs and our very best teams are better than those in Italy and Germany.
France matches England and Spain in none of these departments and is a weaker league in every facet of footballing measurement.
That is why (and this brings us back to original debate so pay attention), PSG will never be a top club and will struggle to attract the best players because very, very few of the nailed on talents (like Ozil, Gotze, Hazard and so on) are going to choose PSG when Real, Chelsea, City and Barcelona come knocking and if they do choose PSG they will soon want to jump ship because you will never ever be accepted as one of the worlds true elite top 5/10 players while not playing your football in one of the big four leagues.
Now, feel free to never ever mention again in this disucssion, the quality of the England national team, which has absolutely nothing to do at all with the quality of the Premier League. The majority of players playing in the league are not English and most of the best teams are built around non English players (with the notable exception of Rooney at Man Utd). No one in this thread, or any thread I've seen on TL has ever claimed that England have a great national team or that it is going to win Euro 2012 or that it's better than France. I know you like to completely dodge arguments you're losing (which would be all of them) because you never have a relevant point to begin with, but I'm just making it clear that you ripping on the England team has zero place in this discussion and when you finally decide to actually make a relevant, insightful or interesting point it better concern the actual discussion at hand and not some wild tangent about a form of the game (international football) that no one has been brought into the discussion.
|
Yes, England and Spain have the best leagues, player wise.
Because the clubs are allowed to throw money around which they don't have. And the good players go where the money is, why shouldn't they.
The clubs of the Primera Division together have about 3.500.000.000 € debt. And they have about 490.000.000 € unpaid tax money, Athletico Madrid alone owes 215.000.000 € tax money, but they where still able buy Falcao for 40.000.000 €.
Literally none clubs from the Primera Division would get a licence for the Bundesliga.
I wouldn't call any of those 2 "best league(s)", in my opinion there most recent achievements are simply cheated.
|
On June 15 2012 23:42 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 21:59 Rebs wrote:
yea they actually do have some of the best histories in the world. And you seem to assume those other leagues werent competitive in the larger scheme of things maybe they were, maybe the teams that won were just that good.
point being get off the imaginary pedestal. Your not as good as you think you are and everyone else is not as bad so you think they are. Everytime an international tournament comes around its a pretty heavy handed reminder, its almost a slap to the face and still its seems hard to grasp. You just will do anything to avoid arguing the point at hand won't you? Every time you post you completely ignore the actual discussion (because you're always losing 100% of the time because you know nothing about football) and start ranting about something wholly irrelevant. I'm going to make this really simple for you: The English league (along with La Liga) is the best league in the world, it is across these two leagues where the largest majority of the worlds best players play and that depth extends beyond just the best teams but to the smaller clubs as well. Italy and Germany are comparable in terms of their weaker clubs but Spain and England has more top clubs and our very best teams are better than those in Italy and Germany. France matches England and Spain in none of these departments and is a weaker league in every facet of footballing measurement. That is why (and this brings us back to original debate so pay attention), PSG will never be a top club and will struggle to attract the best players because very, very few of the nailed on talents (like Ozil, Gotze, Hazard and so on) are going to choose PSG when Real, Chelsea, City and Barcelona come knocking and if they do choose PSG they will soon want to jump ship because you will never ever be accepted as one of the worlds true elite top 5/10 players while not playing your football in one of the big four leagues. Now, feel free to never ever mention again in this disucssion, the quality of the England national team, which has absolutely nothing to do at all with the quality of the Premier League. The majority of players playing in the league are not English and most of the best teams are built around non English players (with the notable exception of Rooney at Man Utd). No one in this thread, or any thread I've seen on TL has ever claimed that England have a great national team or that it is going to win Euro 2012 or that it's better than France. I know you like to completely dodge arguments you're losing (which would be all of them) because you never have a relevant point to begin with, but I'm just making it clear that you ripping on the England team has zero place in this discussion and when you finally decide to actually make a relevant, insightful or interesting point it better concern the actual discussion at hand and not some wild tangent about a form of the game (international football) that no one has been brought into the discussion.
We werent really talking about PSG anymore. I figured that discussion was over. Its not just about you lots of people in the thread. I just move with the flow of the dicsussion. I believe how a team has done and how a league has done in preceeding years is absolutely vital to how it is viewed and injecting cash into any team in a league will make it more attractive. That is precisely what happened in England and there is no reason it cant happen anywhere else. Projects have to start somewhere. Why get so riled up over it ?
You say they will never be and Im saying theres no reason they cant be, and that the reasons you are providing arent really going to cut it. PSG can absolutely become a top club. The factors for which I have already outlined and wont bother to repeat since I'll give you more credit then you seem to be giving me.
End of discussion there is no fungible way to actually prove either position. So there is no dodging we agree to disagree.
We can talk about a myriad of things. I can talk about whatever I want, thanks for telling me I was "losing" though. Whatever thats supposed to mean.
As for the quality of the English team that was just a petty jab I figured that much was obvious. Or did the spoiler not give it away. Sarcasm fail much ? But I see your panties got in enough of a twist to rant over a stupid joke. Shows me how clearly you are thinking telling me I know nothing and that Im losing and changing the subject and then going on to repeat the same drivel that anyone could really come up with. "Oh crappy league never gonna happen" This is standard rhetoric no one needs any instructions on how it flows. And yes they wont attract the same potentials the bigger teams can but they can do well enough and how those potentials grow up is a very matter of fact thing. Theres tons of talent in the world and there will always be some available for PSG or any other team that wants to get hold of it. Once you start performing in Europe everyone pays attention. Thats why Dortmund dont get any fanfare, great league team hasnt done it Europe.
You can have whatever view you want but dont be an asshole about it.
Thanks for pointing out that England itself actually hasnt really contributed any improvement to the English league btw or am I putting words in your mouth, if thats the implication. Nice of you to admit that, most people wouldnt.
As for your very best teams being better than Germany or Italy you said yourself there is no way to prove that earlier. I personally just go by European performance and they do well enough for me to pay attention and say yeah they can play.
In summary that post was..
Snide jab at me for dodging whatever thats supposed to mean. Offhandedly claiming im losing, whatever thats supposed to mean.
Repeating the same shit we all know. And making claims with incomplete information.
England and Spain > France. France can never be good.
Why ? Because france is shit and remain shit. But what about when france was good ?
Maybe they can become good again.? No they cant fuck you they were never good !
But what about the time when... ? NO never they were never good !
Why? I said so. Good teams remain good and bad teams (a matter of opinon ofcourse) in bad leagues remain bad, because good players dont go to bad teams and bad teams dont get good players.
again more personal ranting.
Take it easy yo.
edit : Also please stop saying your I have nothing to do with PSG.
|
is awesome32278 Posts
|
On June 16 2012 00:59 Rebs wrote:
Thanks for pointing out that England itself actually hasnt really contributed any improvement to the English league btw or am I putting words in your mouth, if thats the implication. Nice of you to admit that, most people wouldnt.
You're way exaggeratting there. Right now the English national team is the worst it's been in my lifetime (i.e since the 80s) but even then you've got:
Liverpool - Gerrard is still their main man along with Suarez
Man Utd - Rooney is our best player by a mile, Carrick our best centre midfielder and Rio about as good as Vidic.
Chelsea - 3/4 defenders are English, Lampard is still a key player for them.
So three of the six best clubs in England are still built around English players.
In terms of the history of England no one can deny that the following players are amongst the best to play football in the last 10 years:
Scholes, Ferdinand, Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney, Terry, Carragher, Beckham.
Those players have all been instrumental in Champions League and Premier League wins.
Since England started doing well in Europe since we got unbanned after Heysel I'd say the following players were key:
Man Utd: Keane, Scholes, Cantona, Yorke, Cole, Stam, Ferdinand, Vidic, Carrick, Rooney, Neville, Beckham Evra, Van Der Sar, Giggs, Schmeichel, Van Nistelrooy
Arsenal: Henry, Ljunberg, Pires, Campbell, Seaman, Fabregas, Cole, Bergkamp, Gilberto, Van Persie.
Chelsea: Lampard, Terry, Robben, Cole, Joe Cole, Drogba, Carvalho, Mata, Essien, Makelele, Anelka, Cech.
Liverpool: Gerrard, Carragher, Hamann, Reina, Dudek, Riise, Torres, Luis Garcia, Kuyt, Alonso, Mascherano, Hyypia.
Now obviously the foreigners outweigh the English but no one can pretend than some of those English players aren't some of the absolute best to play for those clubs, we certainly have had far, far more than 'no influence' on the success of English clubs.
|
Yes I was infact exaggerating , I stopped taking this seriously since I saw the overly sensitive, defensive and butthurt responses to a pretty obvious joke.
Still you cant even make a squad out of that many players. Thats pretty sad
|
On June 15 2012 23:42 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
The majority of players playing in the league are not English and most of the best teams are built around non English players (with the notable exception of Rooney at Man Utd).
Just want to point out that Chelsea has thrived and won nearly everything under a core of english players with Ashley Cole, Terry and Lampard. Terry and Lampard being the spine of the team.
|
On June 16 2012 04:00 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:59 Rebs wrote:
Thanks for pointing out that England itself actually hasnt really contributed any improvement to the English league btw or am I putting words in your mouth, if thats the implication. Nice of you to admit that, most people wouldnt.
Since England started doing well in Europe since we got unbanned after Heysel I'd say the following players were key: Seaman
I really don't want to join this discussion, but you've got to be kidding here.
|
On June 16 2012 06:15 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 04:00 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On June 16 2012 00:59 Rebs wrote:
Thanks for pointing out that England itself actually hasnt really contributed any improvement to the English league btw or am I putting words in your mouth, if thats the implication. Nice of you to admit that, most people wouldnt.
Since England started doing well in Europe since we got unbanned after Heysel I'd say the following players were key: Seaman I really don't want to join this discussion, but you've got to be kidding here.
Seaman was a great keeper for Arsenal for years. Far better than Lehmann, Almunia or Szcenzny ever have been.
|
While I do say Messi is a deserving winner of the Ballon d'Or (except the 2010 one). I wonder does Messi actually have no real competition for it other than Cristiano?
I mean Zidane had Figo, Shevchenko, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Henry (don't think he won one), etc.
There were tons of big names there we would consider title contenders every year, people who would change games' outcomes on their own.
Nowadays we pretty much only have Christiano, Messi and maybe Iniesta/Sneijder. Did skill/talent drop this decade or is everyone just inconsistent?
|
On June 16 2012 07:02 sharkie wrote:
While I do say Messi is a deserving winner of the Ballon d'Or (except the 2010 one). I wonder does Messi actually have no real competition for it other than Cristiano?
I mean Zidane had Figo, Shevchenko, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Henry (don't think he won one), etc.
There were tons of big names there we would consider title contenders every year, people who would change games' outcomes on their own.
Nowadays we pretty much only have Christiano, Messi and maybe Iniesta/Sneijder. Did skill/talent drop this decade or is everyone just inconsistent?
Well my take on it is somewhat different.
Numbers wise they keep hitting it further out the park every year so it makes everyone by comparison look really bad.
The other thing is outside of these two there are just so many really good players now that no one ever really stands out the way a Figo or a Sheva or a Ronnie did.
Late 90's people would make the same criticisms of the same generation of players your talking about and reminisce about I dont knowww pfft Platini, Maradona, Baggio, Romario, Gullit ,Van Basten and so on.
I will agree though that the game in the last decade or so has become so volatile it really is painfully difficult to maintain consistency. Which is why Messi and Ronaldo doing it is even a bigger deal.
Also you mention Zidane having all those names to compete against but very rarely did they all always do well enough to be legit contendors in the same years. So its a bit of a case of rose tinted glasses.
Only the year they gave it to Figo did some of big names have killer seasons 99-00 or 00-01 not sure whatever year it was he moved from Barca to Real.
Problem with the award is whenever you have record breaking goal scoring performances they pretty much auto give it to that guy which I think is a bit unfair, unless theirs a Euro or a WC in which case they usually chuck it at the guy who led his team to victory regardless of what kind of season he had.
|
In the past 5 years Messi has won 3, runner up once, third once. Ronaldo with 1 win, and 3 runner up places. It's crazy how dominant these two are right now, and only a glimpse of what they'll be elevated to when we get to look back at their whole careers.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
On June 16 2012 03:12 IntoTheWow wrote:![[image loading]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/578810_391162570905225_110786304_n.jpg)
I think we can safely add 2012 as well, xP.
|
On June 16 2012 06:03 Stimp wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 23:42 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
The majority of players playing in the league are not English and most of the best teams are built around non English players (with the notable exception of Rooney at Man Utd). Just want to point out that Chelsea has thrived and won nearly everything under a core of english players with Ashley Cole, Terry and Lampard. Terry and Lampard being the spine of the team.
Thats a bunch of bullshit..what about Cech, Carvalho, Essien, Drogba are/were they not as much of a spine as the ones you mentioned..?
|
I dont even know what you guys are all arguing about. Just cool off and watch the Euros. I understand if you want to feel passionately for a team you support, but NO ONE has enough knowledge on politics/economics/history of all the clubs and big leagues in Europe to be presenting some of the arguments I've read in the past three pages.
Particularly Rebs, stop being such a douchebag in your posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
