Football

[richw]

120 months? I don't think that zero should be there

On a more serious note, when Lampard scored his penalty, Tyldesley called "Yes!". When Bayern missed their next one, he took it to another level: "YESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Inappropriate - at best. A bit like Chelsea winning really.

No-one call tell me they have been good enough to win the FA Cup this year (remember we had City-United in January), never mind the Champions' League!

Thanks for the 120 point, HTC predictive seems to add a zero everytime I write the number 12! I should know by now to check it!

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

 

[YorkshireBear]

What was so bad about itv coverage? I watched on sky and the coverage was good.
Roberto Di matteo, not good enough for west brom just over 120 months ago, now wins champions league! That is a good achievement in my eyes

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

120 months ago? wasnt he still playing then?

 

[Ivo]

In summary, tonight we have had outstanding proof of why football is not the best game on the planet, and why it will always be associated with dishonesty and corruption. Everyone knows that the saying "Cheaters never Prosper" is wrong - and Chelsea have more than shown as much.

120 months ago? wasnt he still playing then?

No - but he was 124 months ago!

 

[EM2]

Talking about commentary and bias, I watched the Playoff Final on an internet stream. I don't know where it was from, but there was just one commentator, no pundits, no analysis, just one guy describing what was happening. Refeshing, to say the least.

And as for Chelsea and their worth as Champions, I'd reckon that if the 'old guard' hadn't been so precious, and were willing to accept being rested by AVB, rather than not trying, conniving and succeeding in getting him fired, those earlier performances would have been much better.

 

[bnm]

In summary, tonight we have had outstanding proof of why football is not the best game on the planet

In summary, tonight we have outstanding proof of why football is not the best topic for discussion on internet forums.

Irrational arguments, offensive posts (thankfully now removed) wishing death on players, moaning about English commentators showing bias to an English club and accusations of cheating (would any of you be making those potentially libellous accusations if the alleged cheater played for YOUR club?)

Oh, and a great contradiction in the space of one sentence from one poster:

The argument about who-deserves-what is fanciful at best. Bayern probably deserved to win tonight.

A fanciful argument which is then argued. Classic.

:roll::roll::roll:

Congratulations to Chelsea. Commiserations to Bayern Munich and Tottenham Hotspur.

Well done West Ham and Sam Allardyce. Hard lines Blackpool and Ian Holloway.

On that last note, the Premier League would've been all the richer for seeing Ollie back in it. The man is a modern philosopher.

Anyone for cricket?

 

[EM2]

Anyone for cricket?

Absolutely! Start the thread!

 

[Donny Dave]

Anyone for cricket?

Hell yes! Thank god Chris Gayle has stayed in India. He's destroying bowlers left, right and center in the IPL, and quite a few of them are world class!

He hit an unbeaten 128 the other day, with 7 boundries and 13 sixes hock: The shortest of which was a mere 85 meters ....

 

[bnm]

Absolutely! Start the thread!

Done!

 

[Ivo]

In summary, tonight we have outstanding proof of why football is not the best topic for discussion on internet forums.

Irrational arguments, offensive posts (thankfully now removed) wishing death on players, moaning about English commentators showing bias to an English club and accusations of cheating (would any of you be making those potentially libellous accusations if the alleged cheater played for YOUR club?) --- I would (Ivo's Edit)

Oh, and a great contradiction in the space of one sentence from one poster:

The argument about who-deserves-what is fanciful at best Bayern probably deserved to win tonight. We (England) probably deserved to beat Argentina in the 1998 World Cup. Lewis Hamilton probably deserved to win the F1 world title in his debut season. Australia probably deserved to win the First Test of the 2009 Ashes series. None of them happened...

When compared to the entire quote, and not just the bit you quoted (which was two sentences anyway ), the point I attempted to make is quite clear. The first and last sentences are the most important parts of the post; the middle section (the four scenarios) is there that illustrate the point. Four scenarios in which a team or individual did deserve to win - but did not for whatever reason.

 

[Oswyntail]

On deserving to win. I always thought that defence was a part of the game, requiring skill, strength, stamina, and, above all, organisation. From the posts on here, I think most people would prefer to see the standard of overall game that I see in eh local U10 team, with everyone running around like billyoh, desperate to score. IMHO a good defender is way more entertaining than a good striker.
And, for a game strategy, you look at the game as a whole, and that must include extra time and penalties. If the later seems your most realistic chance of winning, play to those strengths.

 

[Butts]

Don't forget the Scottish Cup Final Today as well Hearts v Hibs...

My Treble..

Hearts Blackpool Chelsea
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But not in the FA Cup or league matches head to head :roll:

Ah well as the song says 2 out of 3 aint bad !!!!

Well done Chelsea and Hearts - sorry Blackpool

 

[YorkshireRider]

On deserving to win. I always thought that defence was a part of the game, requiring skill, strength, stamina, and, above all, organisation. From the posts on here, I think most people would prefer to see the standard of overall game that I see in eh local U10 team, with everyone running around like billyoh, desperate to score. IMHO a good defender is way more entertaining than a good striker.
And, for a game strategy, you look at the game as a whole, and that must include extra time and penalties. If the later seems your most realistic chance of winning, play to those strengths.

Well said. A pure example of team spirit and organisation been just about enough to win. What ever you say about Drogba and many do have lots to say about him, is there anyone on here who really wouldnt want him in their team?? I suggest if the answer is no your lying. I would love him at Leeds, we needed players with just have his desire to win this season. I for one was pleased for him.

 

[AlterEgo]

An absolute disgrace to football that Chelsea are the best team in europe

Yes - fancy entering a knockout competition and never getting knocked out. The bloody cheek of it.

Bitter? (I'm a Liverpool fan by the way)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

....Everything you said....

I agree totally and with every word.

There is so much hatred and partisan bias amongst some so called football fans.

I'm a Liverpool fan, there's no way I wanted Chelsea to win. They played poorly for most of the game and offered little by way of attacking threat. But, they held on bravely, rode their luck and brought the game to penalties.

The game, while not being a "classic" final like 1999 or 2005, was great entertainment. High drama - and while I find much of what Chelsea and John Terry stand for distasteful, you just have to accept that they won the competition and applaud them for doing so.

Why all the hate, cynicism and conspiracy?

Few people will know on this forum that I have actually played competitive football at Academy level until an injury effectively ended that. Football is a wonderful game, and while I've never played in a CL Final I certainly have played games in grounds with a crowd, and twice in front of television cameras. Winning a major final is no mean feat and the Chelsea players will be utterly delighted.

Good for them, and roll on next season.

 

[Johnuk123]

It's called the Champions League yet it's mainly teams who didn't win the league.

The original European cup was so much better, champions only and straight knock-out.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's called the Champions League yet it's mainly teams who didn't win the league.

The original European cup was so much better, champions only and straight knock-out.

Right - so Manchester United shouldn't have won in 1999 either, as Arsenal won the League the season before?

The idea of the European Cup being for champions only is fair enough, but it would reduce the overall quality of the competition, in my view.

 

[SS4]

Irrational arguments, offensive posts (thankfully now removed) wishing death on players, moaning about English commentators showing bias to an English club and accusations of cheating (would any of you be making those potentially libellous accusations if the alleged cheater played for YOUR club?)

Guess neutrality, fairness and honesty are all swear words in today's media :cry:

edit: Allow me to expand on this, the role of any football broadcaster, whether on radio or tv or by text, is to portray what is going on in an accurate and fair manner for those who are not watching it live in the stadium and, in a lesser sense, to use their professional opinions to summarise the game. With TV the pictures give a very close approximation to accuracy so commentator bias can be forgiven a little. On the radio the listener is totally dependent on the commentators and how they describe it - therefore they have a responsibility to fairly assess the game without bias so that the listener gets the maximum accuracy possible.
They are there to report on the facts. Pure and simple

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On deserving to win. I always thought that defence was a part of the game, requiring skill, strength, stamina, and, above all, organisation. From the posts on here, I think most people would prefer to see the standard of overall game that I see in eh local U10 team, with everyone running around like billyoh, desperate to score. IMHO a good defender is way more entertaining than a good striker.
And, for a game strategy, you look at the game as a whole, and that must include extra time and penalties. If the later seems your most realistic chance of winning, play to those strengths.

It used to be but FIFA are doing everything in their power to screw over defence: the extra slippery ball, the re-jigging of the offside rule, doing nothing about diving (esp in the box) and effectively outlawing tackling.

 

[richw]

Guess neutrality, fairness and honesty are all swear words in today's media :cry:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It used to be but FIFA are doing everything in the power to screw over defence: the extra slippery ball, the re-jigging of the offside rule, doing nothing about diving (esp in the box) and effectively outlawing tackling.

This is evident in that the season just ended was the most ever goals in the premier league history since it became a 38 game season./ 20 team league.

 

[Ivo]

Well said. A pure example of team spirit and organisation been just about enough to win. What ever you say about Drogba and many do have lots to say about him, is there anyone on here who really wouldnt want him in their team?? I suggest if the answer is no your lying. I would love him at Leeds, we needed players with just have his desire to win this season. I for one was pleased for him.

No thank you! He'd be a disruptive influence on a very well-organised team. And he isn't that much better than the Everton forwards - certainly not enough to justify ruining said balance.

On deserving to win. I always thought that defence was a part of the game, requiring skill, strength, stamina, and, above all, organisation. From the posts on here, I think most people would prefer to see the standard of overall game that I see in eh local U10 team, with everyone running around like billyoh, desperate to score. IMHO a good defender is way more entertaining than a good striker.
And, for a game strategy, you look at the game as a whole, and that must include extra time and penalties. If the later seems your most realistic chance of winning, play to those strengths.

True - but there's a difference between defending well and playing negatively and/or for a draw. Like I said before, if you play for a draw you deserve no more than a draw. To set out with this mentality and expect Shoot-Out glory is not good for the sport in general. By contrast, a team that defends exceptionally and takes their chances whenever they come most certainly does deserve to win. (I just wish my brother would accept this )

FIFA are doing everything in their power to screw over defence: the extra slippery ball, the re-jigging of the offside rule, doing nothing about diving (esp in the box) and effectively outlawing tackling.

This is evident in that the season just ended was the most ever goals in the premier league history since it became a 38 game season./ 20 team league.

Here is a list of 0-0 draws (27 in all). More than half of these involved at least one of Villa, Sunderland and Swansea - and even more amazingly, precisely one tie between each of these was 0-0 (AST-SUN, SWA-AST, SWA-SUN)! This would suggest these three team know how to defend effectively (sorry SS4) - and that everyone else is "screwed". (Or wins too often in the case of the Manchester clubs, who recorded just one between them.)

ARS 0-0 CHE
AST 0-0 SUN
AST 0-0 WOL
BOL 0-0 ARS
CHE 0-0 TOT
FUL 0-0 AST
LIV 0-0 STO
LIV 0-0 SWA
LIV 0-0 TOT
NEW 0-0 ARS
NEW 0-0 SWA
NOR 0-0 CHE
QPR 0-0 NEW
STO 0-0 AST
STO 0-0 CHE
SUN 0-0 FUL
SUN 0-0 TOT
SUN 0-0 WOL
SWA 0-0 AST
SWA 0-0 SUN
SWA 0-0 WIG
WBA 0-0 AST
WBA 0-0 FUL
WBA 0-0 MNC
WIG 0-0 AST
WIG 0-0 LIV
WOL 0-0 EVE

 

[EM2]

Right - so Manchester United shouldn't have won in 1999 either, as Arsenal won the League the season before?

Yep, they shouldn't have been in the competition! And nor should the team they beat in the final.
If you're going to call it a Champion's League, then it should be for Champions.

 

[richw]

Thats quite interesting, Ivo,
this season there was 380 games with a total of 1066 goals, or 2.81 goals per game,
If we take out your goal-less 27, that means the other 357 games avergaed 3.02 goals a game.
Suppose it kept match of the day interesting!

 

[Johnuk123]

Yep, they shouldn't have been in the competition! And nor should the team they beat in the final.
If you're going to call it a Champion's League, then it should be for Champions.

Right, a good name for it now would be :

"The Champions and near misses League"

 

[Butts]

Just watching the start of the Chelsea Victory Parade....

Showed them earlier arriving at Heathrow on a Virgin Atlantic service - from Munich ????

Stewardess helping Frank Lampard carrying the Cup in Virgin gear.

Whats all that about - a special charter ?????

 

[Ivo]

Right - so Manchester United shouldn't have won in 1999 either, as Arsenal won the League the season before?

The idea of the European Cup being for champions only is fair enough, but it would reduce the overall quality of the competition, in my view.

Typical Liverpool fan, ignoring his own team's failure to win the League at all during the CL's existence even though they too have won it

Sorry - I wanted a little dig after what was said yesterday!

You are right though, running the competition only for champions would be a mistake. The average Championship team could beat most Eastern European teams, so running a competition exclusively for them against only one from each of England/Spain/Germany/Italy/etc would be a massive mistake. It would at least make the Europa League more competitive - but then the two wouldn't suffice, so we'd be back to Square One with the CWC as well. In other words, I heartily agree with your sentiment (if not your biased choice of United in 1999 as opposed to Liverpool in 2005! ).

 

[flymo]

All I will say is that if Motherwell can qualify for the Champions League anyone can.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

And York City beat Luton Town 2-1 to gain promotion back to the Football League, with an offside winner apparently.

 

[Butts]

Typical Liverpool fan, ignoring his own team's failure to win the League at all during the CL's existence even though they too have won it

Sorry - I wanted a little dig after what was said yesterday!

You are right though, running the competition only for champions would be a mistake. The average Championship team could beat most Eastern European teams, so running a competition exclusively for them against only one from each of England/Spain/Germany/Italy/etc would be a massive mistake. It would at least make the Europa League more competitive - but then the two wouldn't suffice, so we'd be back to Square One with the CWC as well. In other words, I heartily agree with your sentiment (if not your biased choice of United in 1999 as opposed to Liverpool in 2005! ).

It should not be called the Champions League as that infers a League of Champions which it obviously is not. European Cup in the context of the contestants makes a far more logical choice.

Some herbert will tell us since its formation in the current guise how many winners have actually been their countries champions and how many have not.

My guess is there have been more non-champions winners
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All I will say is that if Motherwell can qualify for the Champions League anyone can.

They are only in the qualifying part of the tournament which I doubt they will emerge from into the champions league proper

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And York City beat Luton Town 2-1 to gain promotion back to the Football League, with an offside winner apparently.

Good news to see York City back in the Football League.

 

[Ivo]

Some herbert will tell us since its formation in the current guise how many winners have actually been their countries champions and how many have not.

I'm going to take that as a challenge

I'll be back shortly.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I do not wish to sound too pedantic (....well I do really..:), but how can you call a competition a Champions League, when, for example, England has FOUR teams that are allowed to enter to enter this competition....hock:

 

[Ivo]

[U]Year[/U]  [U]Winner[/U]     [U]P.[/U] [U]P.[/U]
55-56 R Madrid   1  3
56-57 R Madrid   3  1
57-58 R Madrid   1  1
58-59 R Madrid   1  2
59-60 R Madrid   2  2
60-61 Benfica    1  1
61-62 Benfica    1  3
62-63 Milan      1  3
63-64 Inter      1  2
64-65 Inter      2  1
65-66 R Madrid   1  2
66-67 Celtic     1  1
67-68 Man Utd    1  2
68-69 Milan      1  3
69-70 Feyenoord  1  2
70-71 Ajax       1  2
71-72 Ajax       2  1
72-73 Ajax       1  1
73-74 Bayern     1  1
74-75 Bayern     1  10
75-76 Bayern     10 3
76-77 Liverpool  1  1
77-78 Liverpool  1  2
78-79 Nott'm For 1  2
79-80 Nott'm For 2  5
80-81 Liverpool  1  5
81-82 Aston V    1  11
82-83 Hamburg    1  1
83-84 Liverpool  1  1
84-85 Juventus   1  6
85-86 Steaua     1  1
86-87 Porto      1  2
87-88 PSV        1  1
88-89 Milan      1  3
89-90 Milan      3  2
90-91 Red Star   1  1
91-92 Barcelona  1  1
92-93 Marseille  1  X
93-94 Milan      1  1
94-95 Ajax       1  1
95-96 Juventus   1  2
96-97 Dortmund   1  3
97-98 R Madrid   1  4
98-99 Man Utd    2  1
99-00 R Madrid   2  5
00-01 Bayern     1  1
01-02 R Madrid   1  3
02-03 Milan      4  3
03-04 Porto      1  1
04-05 Liverpool  4  5
05-06 Barcelona  1  1
06-07 Milan      Y  4
07-08 Man Utd    1  1
08-09 Barcelona  3  1
09-10 Inter      1  1
10-11 Barcelona  1  1
11-12 Chelsea    2  6

First "P."   Position that qualified team for EC/CL (if applicable)
Second "P."  Position team achieved in glory year
X            Disqualified and relegated (reinstated, minus title, on appeal)
Y            Deducted points and dropped from 2nd to 3rd

Note how only three teams have ever failed to finish at least fifth in the year they won the EC/CL (four if you count Marseille). Unfortunately, two of those were English (one of which has just happened); the other team successfully defended their title and thus earned the only double-figure entry in history.