Soccer Champions

[English Lady]

I didn't mean to offend anyone but what I'm saying is even today, majority of the EPL teams play that style of football that's a throw back to the late 70-ish era of the English style - Kick the ball up-field and swarm around it.

Oh, no offence taken but i just wonder if we're watching the same matches? I really don't think that's the predominant style in the EPL, I love the mix. I love pretty football (Ronaldo and Giggs are my favourite United players) but I admire the strengh and precision of others like Vidic and Wayne Rooney -who's far more direct and strong in style.

I love a bit of variety.

 

[N0madS0uL]

You're talking just about ManU whereas I'm talking about other mid table teams and even some top tier ones. They just play one style, like how Liverpool and Bolton play the direct long ball and Arsenal, Newcastle play passing football.

In the Spanish League, every team is capable of playing both styles of football, like direct "in-your-face" or smooth, free flowing, one touch, champaigne football. They can mix it up whenever they want.

 

[English Lady]

You're talking just about ManU whereas I'm talking about other mid table teams and even some top tier ones. They just play one style, like how Liverpool and Bolton play the direct long ball and Arsenal, Newcastle play passing football.

In the Spanish League, every team is capable of playing both styles of football, like direct "in-your-face" or smooth, free flowing, one touch, champaigne football. They can mix it up whenever they want.

I could talk about other teams, I'm just not so knowledgeable about them.


Gerrard, Terry, Lampard -all strong and very "English players" and I find Bolton very entertaining to watch for their sher grit and determination.

I guess its a case of horses for courses - We Brits likeour football just te way it is, well, most do I'd think.

 

[N0madS0uL]

Well being a CAM for my college team 1.5 years ago, I like free flowing football better. No point in showcasing grit, determination, power and skill without grace.

 

[English Lady]

Well being a CAM for my college team 1.5 years ago, I like free flowing football better. No point in showcasing grit, determination, power and skill without grace.

Nope, can't agree. Every type of play has it's place. Too much pretty football gets cloying but just a sprinkle here and there is magical.

 

[N0madS0uL]

Pretty football = fast paced and open ended + enjoyable. To me anyway. It may not lead to the desired results but its wonderful to watch.

Atleast I found someone who's just as crazy about real football as me Maybe by this time next year, we can argue about who's gonna win the UCL - Barca or ManU

 

[gauchecritic]

Pretty football = fast paced and open ended + enjoyable. To me anyway. It may not lead to the desired results but its wonderful to watch.

Atleast I found someone who's just as crazy about real football as me Maybe by this time next year, we can argue about who's gonna win the UCL - Barca or ManU

I think you'll find liverpool defending it again. (it's ECL by the way)

 

[R. Richard]

My computer has been down most of the day, thus I have been unable to contribute to the thread I started. Apologies.

The discussion of English versus Italian versus Spanish football has concentrated almost completely on the offensive side.

I used to think along those lines, but I was shown a video of the 1982 world cup match Italy versus West Germany. Italy won 3-1, mainly on defense. The West Germans tried time and again to penetrate Italy's defense. However they kept running into Gaetano Scirea figuratively and Claudio Gentile literally. It was perhaps the Smiling Butcher of Torino's finest hour. The West Germans simply could not get the ball past the Italian defense.

 

[English Lady]

I think you'll find liverpool defending it again. (it's ECL by the way)

Hmm, I doubt that, actually.

 

[English Lady]

Pretty football = fast paced and open ended + enjoyable. To me anyway. It may not lead to the desired results but its wonderful to watch.

Atleast I found someone who's just as crazy about real football as me Maybe by this time next year, we can argue about who's gonna win the UCL - Barca or ManU

*chuckles* I was surprised to find a whole batch of real fotball loving folks ove in the GB the other night -it's lovely to chat with peole who know what they're on about

 

[R. Richard]

The red devils and the blues will also meet in the FA Cup final at Wembley on May 19.

OK, all of you knowledgeable football fans, who wins the FA cup and why?

 

[N0madS0uL]

(it's ECL by the way)

I write UCL instead of UEFA Champions League. It's a bit different even though it may seem wrong.

*chuckles* I was surprised to find a whole batch of real fotball loving folks ove in the GB the other night -it's lovely to chat with peole who know what they're on about

Oh yea, most definitely

The discussion of English versus Italian versus Spanish football has concentrated almost completely on the offensive side.

I used to think along those lines, but I was shown a video of the 1982 world cup match Italy versus West Germany. Italy won 3-1, mainly on defense. The West Germans tried time and again to penetrate Italy's defense. However they kept running into Gaetano Scirea figuratively and Claudio Gentile literally. It was perhaps the Smiling Butcher of Torino's finest hour. The West Germans simply could not get the ball past the Italian defense.

That's 'coz "attacking football" is where you'll find the most variety. All teams can defend (but every team has a bad day), be it zonal or man-for-man style but the attack varies.

Regarding your video... there's a major difference between "getting the balance between attack and defence right" and actually "having that perfect balance". The Barca team in the early 90s under Cryuff was a dream team. 2000-2004 belonged to Real Madrid's superstars. You see, every team undergoes a transition and if you want to improve, then you must change.

 

[N0madS0uL]

The red devils and the blues will also meet in the FA Cup final at Wembley on May 19.

OK, all of you knowledgeable football fans, who wins the FA cup and why?

I want Chelsea to win 'coz I don't want Jose getting fired and end up in Spain *shudders at the thought*.

 

[English Lady]

The red devils and the blues will also meet in the FA Cup final at Wembley on May 19.

OK, all of you knowledgeable football fans, who wins the FA cup and why?

The red devils have a good record at wembley, I cant give you figures 'cos I've not got a brain that holds stats and I'm too lazy to google *L* and they're flying at the moment. We'll have the strength at the back back, especially if Gary Neville can play and United's attack at the moment is really good.

My money is on the reds, but I reckon it could be a high scoring match, a 3-2 to united maybe?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Just a few points.

Surely it is 'soccer', Association Football, to distinguish it from rugby (football), American (football) - even table and blow (football)?

Tell me if I've got this right. In the English premiership, an American team won, a Russian was second, another American third and the highest English was fourth. They had no English coaches and over 90% of the players were non-English.

Could never happen in the NFL/AFL.

 

[R. Richard]

Just a few points.

Surely it is 'soccer', Association Football, to distinguish it from rugby (football), American (football) - even table and blow (football)?

Tell me if I've got this right. In the English premiership, an American team won, a Russian was second, another American third and the highest English was fourth. They had no English coaches and over 90% of the players were non-English.

Could never happen in the NFL/AFL.

Six of the 20 first team Man U players are English. There is also an Irish player and a Scottish coach. However, Sir Alex Ferguson is a Knight of the British Empire.

There is no more AFL. In the NFL there are quite a few African players and several players from Canada.

 

[English Lady]

An American OWNS Manchester United now *sigh* and a Russian OWNS Chelsea but their are plenty of English Players in both teams -in most teams in the premiership, actually.

And the season isn't over yet, every team has another game to play.

I don't think it'd be 90% non UK players in the premiership. It's probably fairly high -but where's the harm in that? Good players want to play in England, I can't blame'em!

I love how our teams are made up of so many nationalities -it makes for exciting football and it's lovely to see people from lots of different countries and races being united together.

I English football and I Manchester United the most!

 

[wehstar]

Just a few points.

Surely it is 'soccer', Association Football, to distinguish it from rugby (football), American (football) - even table and blow (football)?

Tell me if I've got this right. In the English premiership, an American team won, a Russian was second, another American third and the highest English was fourth. They had no English coaches and over 90% of the players were non-English.

Could never happen in the NFL/AFL.

That's because the cream of international talent ends up playing in Europe, particularly England, Spain and to a lesser extent in the last few years, Italy. The money gained from the television broadcasting deals in these countries is far in excess of any other nation, and that is how they financially reinforce their world dominance.

The only English players that can cut it in a top English team do so because they are amongst the greatest players in the world.

Of the Manchester United players team that won the league, 5 out of the 11 first choice players were English (Neville, Ferdinand, Carrick, Scholes, Rooney) whilst another (Giggs) is technically Welsh, though was brought up in Manchester itself.

The clubs Manchester United, Chelsea (London) and Liverpool are not American or Russian, they are of course English cities. The financial investors from America have been attracted by a new and better television deal that kicks in soon. I'm not sure what it is, but it basically means that English clubs will be much more profitable.

 

[R. Richard]

That's because the cream of international talent ends up playing in Europe, particularly England, Spain and to a lesser extent in the last few years, Italy. The money gained from the television broadcasting deals in these countries is far in excess of any other nation, and that is how they financially reinforce their world dominance.

The only English players that can cut it in a top English team do so because they are amongst the greatest players in the world.

Of the Manchester United players team that won the league, 5 out of the 11 first choice players were English (Neville, Ferdinand, Carrick, Scholes, Rooney) whilst another (Giggs) is technically Welsh, though was brought up in Manchester itself.

The clubs Manchester United, Chelsea (London) and Liverpool are not American or Russian, they are of course English cities. The financial investors from America have been attracted by a new and better television deal that kicks in soon. I'm not sure what it is, but it basically means that English clubs will be much more profitable.

Excellent points! The American NBA was once all US players, save for the rare Canadian, Cuban, Jamaican, etc. Now, NBA players come from all over the world. The pay is VERY good in the NBA and the level of competition brings in the revenues to pay the NBA stars.

 

[gauchecritic]

The financial investors from America have been attracted by a new and better television deal that kicks in soon. I'm not sure what it is, but it basically means that English clubs will be much more profitable.

And have virtually killed the rest of the league and the nurturing of home talent. We have Mr Murdoch to thank for that.

Surely it is 'soccer', Association Football, to distinguish it from rugby (football), American (football) - even table and blow (football)?

Football is football. It is original and longest living of any of the others, that's why American Football has the prefix.

In much the same way as has often been attempted to re-title The Open as British. It's the original and just 'The Open'. everything else is a copy.

 

[N0madS0uL]

Just a few points.

Surely it is 'soccer', Association Football, to distinguish it from rugby (football), American (football) - even table and blow (football)?

Tell me if I've got this right. In the English premiership, an American team won, a Russian was second, another American third and the highest English was fourth. They had no English coaches and over 90% of the players were non-English.

Could never happen in the NFL/AFL.

I don't even know why Americans call their game, Football 'coz you hardly touch the ball with your foot apart from when you're taking a field goal or when you're restarting the game or the occasional thump to get it airborne in the middle of the game. And Rugby is Rugby, you don't call it football. Period.

Those are English teams based on English cities. So what if an American business group owns them? They know that it's good money since the "real" football is the most popular, the most loved and the most played sport in the world.

Consider this for example, the World Series champs in Baseball; which is played between the American League and the National League. How can they be world champions when all the teams are from the USA?

 

[R. Richard]

Consider this for example, the World Series champs in Baseball; which is played between the American League and the National League. How can they be world champions when all the teams are from the USA?

The Toronto Blue Jays would be shocked to learn that they are in the USA. Although, most of the players are from outside Canada.

A large number of major league baseball players are from places in central America like the Dominican Republic and even Cuba. The Cubans have to first escape from Cuba, but many do.

 

[N0madS0uL]

That's what I mean. Most of the teams "are" based in the USA though there are foreign players.

 

[gauchecritic]

Consider this for example, the World Series champs in Baseball; which is played between the American League and the National League. How can they be world champions when all the teams are from the USA?

It's called the 'World Series' because it was inaugurated by a newspaper The Daily World or whatever. That's what I read anyway.

 

[Grushenka]

It's called the 'World Series' because it was inaugurated by a newspaper The Daily World or whatever. That's what I read anyway.

Urban myth. The paper, or any similarly named, did not sponsor the games or name them. They were originally called World's Championship Series, or derivations of such, because the early promoters (it was always about the money, guys) were expecting the game to take hold in Europe, even Australia. The name became shortened, as we know it, and stuck.

How do I know this? My Russki scientist husband is a baseball fanatic.