|
|
On June 12 2022 05:41 Mafe wrote:
Once the nations league has been around for a few iterations, I expect that players and fans will start caring eventually, even among the big teams.
Sorta, but it's not really intended for that either. At least for the A teams. The prize of qualifying for the Euros is kinda wasted as they expect to qualify anyway. But that's okay, because that means they already have the Euros to satisfy the itch for competitive matches.
Using the Nations League as friendlies but with a little bit more on the line is fine, imho.
|
Northern Ireland27187 Posts
I think there’s a certain degree of recency bias on the NL league as it pertains to the A tier teams.
This round has been a bit underwhelming, but I think everyone is just knackered after a brutal season. There’s been lots of fantastic games in previous windows.
I like the idea of regional merged leagues to help offset the dominance of the big ones more than I do with it in international football.
Rarity can add a lot of edge to rivalries when they do occur. I mean wow England playing Wales in their first World Cup since the 50s is going to be incredibly hyped, if it was occurring all the time, such as when the home internationals were a thing it’s a bit less special.
|
wow ecuador is not going to get punished
|
The last two Nations League final rounds (semi and final) have been rather underwhelming.
Rivalries are built over regular clashes, just like derbies for club football. I have friends in Asia telling me how regional competitions (Gulf and ASEAN) are really hyped even though the quality isn't top draw. Winning regionals mean a lot to fans who are resigned to not seeing their countries making it to the World Cup or going very far even in continental cups. Maybe these smaller competitions are what keeps the confederation and competitive scene alive in weaker regions in the world.
Of course, competitiveness ain't a problem for resource rich Europe. But it's nice to have more equality and diversity. I miss the 90s era of the likes of Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Croatia tearing it in the World Cup and producing world class footballers. Maybe it's just me being blinded by nostalgia and recency bias, but football just seems too top-heavy these days. Upsets only happen because top teams dramatically collapse (Netherlands and Italy) or the underdog just fluke out a miracle run playing park-the-bus anti-football (sorry, but really have to call out Greece on this one, that Euro really turned off a lot of my friends who are casual football fans).
|
On June 12 2022 15:59 RKC wrote:
The last two Nations League final rounds (semi and final) have been rather underwhelming.
Rivalries are built over regular clashes, just like derbies for club football. I have friends in Asia telling me how regional competitions (Gulf and ASEAN) are really hyped even though the quality isn't top draw. Winning regionals mean a lot to fans who are resigned to not seeing their countries making it to the World Cup or going very far even in continental cups. Maybe these smaller competitions are what keeps the confederation and competitive scene alive in weaker regions in the world.
Of course, competitiveness ain't a problem for resource rich Europe. But it's nice to have more equality and diversity. I miss the 90s era of the likes of Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Croatia tearing it in the World Cup and producing world class footballers. Maybe it's just me being blinded by nostalgia and recency bias, but football just seems too top-heavy these days. Upsets only happen because top teams dramatically collapse (Netherlands and Italy) or the underdog just fluke out a miracle run playing park-the-bus anti-football (sorry, but really have to call out Greece on this one, that Euro really turned off a lot of my friends who are casual football fans).
Yes but imho the "top" now also contains more teams than it did in the 90s.
Back then, I would have considered the following teams among the top: Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, France, the Netherlands, and maybe Spain. In the 90s, as an underdog beating just one of these big nations could often be enough to get you into the semifinal of a big tournament (Sweden in 94 didn even beat a single one).
Today, it's all of the above, but they have been joined by Portugal, Belgium, and maybe Uruguay. this means that a) there are fewer places (in the knockoutstages) available for non-top teams, and b) those non-top teams would now more likely have to beat two top teams to make it to the semis.
|
On June 12 2022 22:14 Mafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2022 15:59 RKC wrote:
The last two Nations League final rounds (semi and final) have been rather underwhelming.
Rivalries are built over regular clashes, just like derbies for club football. I have friends in Asia telling me how regional competitions (Gulf and ASEAN) are really hyped even though the quality isn't top draw. Winning regionals mean a lot to fans who are resigned to not seeing their countries making it to the World Cup or going very far even in continental cups. Maybe these smaller competitions are what keeps the confederation and competitive scene alive in weaker regions in the world.
Of course, competitiveness ain't a problem for resource rich Europe. But it's nice to have more equality and diversity. I miss the 90s era of the likes of Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Croatia tearing it in the World Cup and producing world class footballers. Maybe it's just me being blinded by nostalgia and recency bias, but football just seems too top-heavy these days. Upsets only happen because top teams dramatically collapse (Netherlands and Italy) or the underdog just fluke out a miracle run playing park-the-bus anti-football (sorry, but really have to call out Greece on this one, that Euro really turned off a lot of my friends who are casual football fans). Yes but imho the "top" now also contains more teams than it did in the 90s. Back then, I would have considered the following teams among the top: Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, France, the Netherlands, and maybe Spain. In the 90s, as an underdog beating just one of these big nations could often be enough to get you into the semifinal of a big tournament (Sweden in 94 didn even beat a single one). Today, it's all of the above, but they have been joined by Portugal, Belgium, and maybe Uruguay. this means that a) there are fewer places (in the knockoutstages) available for non-top teams, and b) those non-top teams would now more likely have to beat two top teams to make it to the semis.
Portugal and Belgium were always brimming with talent. Same as Spain. They just recently overcome their 'choker' mental block in big tourneys (except for Belgium perhaps). I was a big fan of Spain even in the 90s (Raul, Hierro, etc) and early 2000. Simply heartbreaking to support them in those days.
Uruguay is an enigma. They have a rich history in football, winning an early WC. Then they just dropped off the cliff in the 80s-90s. Colombia was the rage in those days (Valderama!).
Anyway, I'm quite excited to catch Norway v Sweden later today. Should be a cracker. Both teams with a promising new generation of stars.
|
Aaaannnnd Haaland strikes again! Such a monster!
|
Norway28852 Posts
Yep! Fun game! And indeed of 15 fielded players today, 9 were 24 or younger, and the oldest was 31.
|
Nordic teams are really fun to root for... Iceland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway. Even when they're short of quality and reliant on a single superstar like Zlatan, Eriksen, Haaland, they still keep a tight knit of cammaderie that's heartwarming and inspiring. There's just some magical quality about them. Even when they play defensive football like Finland, they play with a sense of professionalism and dignity that doesn't make them dislikable to the neutral fans. Their spirit is truly exemplary.
|
On June 12 2022 23:28 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2022 22:14 Mafe wrote:On June 12 2022 15:59 RKC wrote:
The last two Nations League final rounds (semi and final) have been rather underwhelming.
Rivalries are built over regular clashes, just like derbies for club football. I have friends in Asia telling me how regional competitions (Gulf and ASEAN) are really hyped even though the quality isn't top draw. Winning regionals mean a lot to fans who are resigned to not seeing their countries making it to the World Cup or going very far even in continental cups. Maybe these smaller competitions are what keeps the confederation and competitive scene alive in weaker regions in the world.
Of course, competitiveness ain't a problem for resource rich Europe. But it's nice to have more equality and diversity. I miss the 90s era of the likes of Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Croatia tearing it in the World Cup and producing world class footballers. Maybe it's just me being blinded by nostalgia and recency bias, but football just seems too top-heavy these days. Upsets only happen because top teams dramatically collapse (Netherlands and Italy) or the underdog just fluke out a miracle run playing park-the-bus anti-football (sorry, but really have to call out Greece on this one, that Euro really turned off a lot of my friends who are casual football fans). Yes but imho the "top" now also contains more teams than it did in the 90s. Back then, I would have considered the following teams among the top: Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, France, the Netherlands, and maybe Spain. In the 90s, as an underdog beating just one of these big nations could often be enough to get you into the semifinal of a big tournament (Sweden in 94 didn even beat a single one). Today, it's all of the above, but they have been joined by Portugal, Belgium, and maybe Uruguay. this means that a) there are fewer places (in the knockoutstages) available for non-top teams, and b) those non-top teams would now more likely have to beat two top teams to make it to the semis. Portugal and Belgium were always brimming with talent. Same as Spain. They just recently overcome their 'choker' mental block in big tourneys (except for Belgium perhaps). I was a big fan of Spain even in the 90s (Raul, Hierro, etc) and early 2000. Simply heartbreaking to support them in those days. Uruguay is an enigma. They have a rich history in football, winning an early WC. Then they just dropped off the cliff in the 80s-90s. Colombia was the rage in those days (Valderama!). Anyway, I'm quite excited to catch Norway v Sweden later today. Should be a cracker. Both teams with a promising new generation of stars.
Belgium wasn't always brimming with talent. They had a whole period where they didn't qualify for big tournaments. This last generation is quite exceptional for them and you can see that they're already having large issues to replace some of the key players who quit.
|
On June 13 2022 14:53 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2022 23:28 RKC wrote:On June 12 2022 22:14 Mafe wrote:On June 12 2022 15:59 RKC wrote:
The last two Nations League final rounds (semi and final) have been rather underwhelming.
Rivalries are built over regular clashes, just like derbies for club football. I have friends in Asia telling me how regional competitions (Gulf and ASEAN) are really hyped even though the quality isn't top draw. Winning regionals mean a lot to fans who are resigned to not seeing their countries making it to the World Cup or going very far even in continental cups. Maybe these smaller competitions are what keeps the confederation and competitive scene alive in weaker regions in the world.
Of course, competitiveness ain't a problem for resource rich Europe. But it's nice to have more equality and diversity. I miss the 90s era of the likes of Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden, Denmark and Croatia tearing it in the World Cup and producing world class footballers. Maybe it's just me being blinded by nostalgia and recency bias, but football just seems too top-heavy these days. Upsets only happen because top teams dramatically collapse (Netherlands and Italy) or the underdog just fluke out a miracle run playing park-the-bus anti-football (sorry, but really have to call out Greece on this one, that Euro really turned off a lot of my friends who are casual football fans). Yes but imho the "top" now also contains more teams than it did in the 90s. Back then, I would have considered the following teams among the top: Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, England, France, the Netherlands, and maybe Spain. In the 90s, as an underdog beating just one of these big nations could often be enough to get you into the semifinal of a big tournament (Sweden in 94 didn even beat a single one). Today, it's all of the above, but they have been joined by Portugal, Belgium, and maybe Uruguay. this means that a) there are fewer places (in the knockoutstages) available for non-top teams, and b) those non-top teams would now more likely have to beat two top teams to make it to the semis. Portugal and Belgium were always brimming with talent. Same as Spain. They just recently overcome their 'choker' mental block in big tourneys (except for Belgium perhaps). I was a big fan of Spain even in the 90s (Raul, Hierro, etc) and early 2000. Simply heartbreaking to support them in those days. Uruguay is an enigma. They have a rich history in football, winning an early WC. Then they just dropped off the cliff in the 80s-90s. Colombia was the rage in those days (Valderama!). Anyway, I'm quite excited to catch Norway v Sweden later today. Should be a cracker. Both teams with a promising new generation of stars. Belgium wasn't always brimming with talent. They had a whole period where they didn't qualify for big tournaments. This last generation is quite exceptional for them and you can see that they're already having large issues to replace some of the key players who quit.
Yes, Belgium slumped into the dark ages for about a decade after the golden Scifo-Wilmots era.
This will probably get me a lot of heat from Dutch fans, but I see a lot of similarities between both countries in the modern era. Netherlands has the slight edge in terms of achievements, of course (and few countries have revolutionised the game like the Dutch have with total football). But both teams are still struggling to shake their "nearly men" status despite their skill and brilliance. Right now, Netherlands seem to be still stuck in a semi slump with the new generation like De Jong still struggling to make a mark at the international level.
As much as I want to see Belgium finally winning a WC or Euro, sadly I think the ship has already sailed for this current golden generation. Martinez is the wrong guy imo. They should've put aside patriotic pride and gone for a top class foreign coach... maybe even someone like LVG lol!
|
Norway28852 Posts
We basically have the five big ones - Germany Spain Italy France England, where the talent pool is so deep that at least looking player by player, they pretty much always have strong players in nearly every position. There are still some variations in terms of team cohesion, managerial ability and prevalence of truly world class players, but these teams will pretty much never have 'bad' players in any position.
Then teams like NDL and Portugal, while being less populous, also have such strong football culture that they normally have a couple world class players no matter the generation. However, they also will normally have a weaker 'weakest link', and less squad depth, than what the case is for the aforementioned five. Then there are teams like Czech republic, Croatia, Belgium, arguably also Denmark and Sweden, where you'll see the occasional golden generation that's able to challenge, but where you'll also occasionally see a significantly weaker side emerging. Then there's also your Switzerland, Austria, Serbia, where they seem a bit more consistently decent but without ever being truly great. Hoping Norway can join that latter group/ get up to danish/swedish level.
|
I think I've seen some talk about how Belgium reworked their youth development and it resulted as the current goldenish generation they've got. I think the main idea was to almost divide players into two or more categories and focus on their strengths in those. As a really blunt simplification one group produced players like De Bruyne while other tried to create players more like Lukaku.
I'm not sure about the finer details and how dramatic the division was and all that, but I still find it interesting as it apparently coincided with the development of the golden generation. I guess we are about to see if their system has long term merit in it.
|
On June 13 2022 17:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
We basically have the five big ones - Germany Spain Italy France England, where the talent pool is so deep that at least looking player by player, they pretty much always have strong players in nearly every position. There are still some variations in terms of team cohesion, managerial ability and prevalence of truly world class players, but these teams will pretty much never have 'bad' players in any position.
Then teams like NDL and Portugal, while being less populous, also have such strong football culture that they normally have a couple world class players no matter the generation. However, they also will normally have a weaker 'weakest link', and less squad depth, than what the case is for the aforementioned five. Then there are teams like Czech republic, Croatia, Belgium, arguably also Denmark and Sweden, where you'll see the occasional golden generation that's able to challenge, but where you'll also occasionally see a significantly weaker side emerging. Then there's also your Switzerland, Austria, Serbia, where they seem a bit more consistently decent but without ever being truly great. Hoping Norway can join that latter group/ get up to danish/swedish level.
Fully agreed, except for the England bit 
|
On June 13 2022 17:50 Bacillus wrote:
I think I've seen some talk about how Belgium reworked their youth development and it resulted as the current goldenish generation they've got. I think the main idea was to almost divide players into two or more categories and focus on their strengths in those. As a really blunt simplification one group produced players like De Bruyne while other tried to create players more like Lukaku.
I'm not sure about the finer details and how dramatic the division was and all that, but I still find it interesting as it apparently coincided with the development of the golden generation. I guess we are about to see if their system has long term merit in it.
Yes, I believe some major grassroots development happened for Germany as well to produce all the technical flair players which traditionally they're not too great about.
Also, I've read articles how the Nordic countries are undergoing some revolution of their own (like Iceland). Maybe you or Drone can shed some light on this?
|
On June 13 2022 17:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
We basically have the five big ones - Germany Spain Italy France England, where the talent pool is so deep that at least looking player by player, they pretty much always have strong players in nearly every position. There are still some variations in terms of team cohesion, managerial ability and prevalence of truly world class players, but these teams will pretty much never have 'bad' players in any position.
Then teams like NDL and Portugal, while being less populous, also have such strong football culture that they normally have a couple world class players no matter the generation. However, they also will normally have a weaker 'weakest link', and less squad depth, than what the case is for the aforementioned five. Then there are teams like Czech republic, Croatia, Belgium, arguably also Denmark and Sweden, where you'll see the occasional golden generation that's able to challenge, but where you'll also occasionally see a significantly weaker side emerging. Then there's also your Switzerland, Austria, Serbia, where they seem a bit more consistently decent but without ever being truly great. Hoping Norway can join that latter group/ get up to danish/swedish level.
Germany yes with exception late 90s/early 2000s - 2002 is one of the most overachievements by a country in football history. Similar to 2006: Germany did not have good players, they had ok players (with exceptions obv Kahn, Ballack, Klose, Schneider).
Also Austria hasnt been good for decades :p We were definitely in the Norway group till 2-3 years ago - now we also have some talented players
|
On June 13 2022 18:22 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2022 17:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
We basically have the five big ones - Germany Spain Italy France England, where the talent pool is so deep that at least looking player by player, they pretty much always have strong players in nearly every position. There are still some variations in terms of team cohesion, managerial ability and prevalence of truly world class players, but these teams will pretty much never have 'bad' players in any position.
Then teams like NDL and Portugal, while being less populous, also have such strong football culture that they normally have a couple world class players no matter the generation. However, they also will normally have a weaker 'weakest link', and less squad depth, than what the case is for the aforementioned five. Then there are teams like Czech republic, Croatia, Belgium, arguably also Denmark and Sweden, where you'll see the occasional golden generation that's able to challenge, but where you'll also occasionally see a significantly weaker side emerging. Then there's also your Switzerland, Austria, Serbia, where they seem a bit more consistently decent but without ever being truly great. Hoping Norway can join that latter group/ get up to danish/swedish level. Germany yes with exception late 90s/early 2000s - 2002 is one of the most overachievements by a country in football history. Similar to 2006: Germany did not have good players, they had ok players (with exceptions obv Kahn, Ballack, Klose, Schneider). Also Austria hasnt been good for decades :p We were definitely in the Norway group till 2-3 years ago - now we also have some talented players
Yes, Germany definitely over-achieved during that era. But it's amazing how they were self-aware of their shortcomings and swiftly revamped their system and mindset from bottom up without letting the rot sink too much.
Right now, Italy is in the same boat. Winning last Euro is a false sense of security. If they don't reform, the rot will fester.
|
On June 13 2022 18:10 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2022 17:50 Bacillus wrote:
I think I've seen some talk about how Belgium reworked their youth development and it resulted as the current goldenish generation they've got. I think the main idea was to almost divide players into two or more categories and focus on their strengths in those. As a really blunt simplification one group produced players like De Bruyne while other tried to create players more like Lukaku.
I'm not sure about the finer details and how dramatic the division was and all that, but I still find it interesting as it apparently coincided with the development of the golden generation. I guess we are about to see if their system has long term merit in it. Also, I've read articles how the Nordic countries are undergoing some revolution of their own (like Iceland). Maybe you or Drone can shed some light on this?
I haven't heard of any major changes in player development itself in Finland. Maybe there has been some internal changes, but I don't think it's any widely talked about subject.
For Finns it has been more about a recovery after long slump under various coaches and quite a bit of negative football. We had a golden generation of Hyypiä, Jääskeläinen and Litmanen in the late 90s and 2000s that constantly flirted with qualification to big tournaments but never quite got there. I think the closest run ended up with us conceding a decisive goal against Hungary somewhere in the 95th minute, the ball bouncing off from some 4 Finns before ending up in the own goal.
After the golden generation, managers came in, produced terrible results and got sacked and nothing changed for a long while. Things were really bad somewhere around 2015 with really negative football, zero creativity and lots of underwhelming 0-1 and 0-2 defeats. Spirits we at all time low.
Then they hired Markku Kanerva, who had been a long time interim manager and assistant in the NT and everything clicked somehow. Suddenly the team played extremely well together and there was even some flair visible, which is very foreign thing for Finnish football. There was suddenly interest in football again and then we got a decent group draw for the Euro qualifier and rode it to first ever succesful qualification run. It's been sort of a honeymoon after that long drawn slump. There are also likable player personalities in the team and the team spirit seems great.
So, I don't think there was any well documented structural changes or so, but the turnaround and excitement of Euro qualification has created loads of good buzz in Finnish football. I think the honeymoon phase is now starting to be over, but it's still really good and positive vibe around the NT.
Edit: The famous Finland - Hungary catastrophe seen here at 45 seconds:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Norway28852 Posts
On June 13 2022 18:10 RKC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2022 17:50 Bacillus wrote:
I think I've seen some talk about how Belgium reworked their youth development and it resulted as the current goldenish generation they've got. I think the main idea was to almost divide players into two or more categories and focus on their strengths in those. As a really blunt simplification one group produced players like De Bruyne while other tried to create players more like Lukaku.
I'm not sure about the finer details and how dramatic the division was and all that, but I still find it interesting as it apparently coincided with the development of the golden generation. I guess we are about to see if their system has long term merit in it. Yes, I believe some major grassroots development happened for Germany as well to produce all the technical flair players which traditionally they're not too great about. Also, I've read articles how the Nordic countries are undergoing some revolution of their own (like Iceland). Maybe you or Drone can shed some light on this?
Not sure how uniform it is for all of the Nordic countries, but in Norway, the trend is very little specialization and people being encouraged to play lots of different sports, with very little focus on developing top talent, rather focusing on including as many as possible for as long as possible.
However, in the cases Haaland and Ødegaard, we're looking at one absolute physical monster (Haaland supposedly set a world record in jumping for 5 year olds) with a former premier league playing dad, and in Ødegaard, his dad is a pretty decent coach (been involved with several top league teams), who basically installed a degree of professionalism and focused on technical ability+understanding from a very young age, he basically had a football field with lots of pro team tools always available from a very young age. I think the fact that we have a lot of pretty solid blooming talent can be attributed to the aforementioned inclusiveness (this principle applies to all sports in Norway, and we're doing pretty damn great per capita in all sorts of sports), but cases Haaland+Ødegaard are special, and they're exceptions where I don't think you can attribute it to some overarching governing principle or whatever.
|
Thanks for all the sharing! I'm generally fascinated with Nordic culture as a whole. Finland's unorthodox educational system has been talked up as the way forward for nurturing kids. Norway produces geniuses like Carlsen for chess and Haaland for football.
Maybe there's something ingrained in the culture of your countries that grooms talents in all fields? Of course, being economically and politically stable helps. But it's still a rarity for small developed countries to produce sporting talents of high pedigree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
