Jump to content
IGNORED

Football Thread 2011/2012

SMD

By SMD
in Sport

 Share

Recommended Posts

Charliemouse

Charliemouse

Posted
Posted

What?

Well its quite simple really both AVB and Rodgers have been failures at a club they have managed, if anything Rodgers was even worse as he turned a team that was in the play offs the season before into a relegation candidate and spent £2.5 million on Matt Mills. Both AVB and Rodgers were bad fits for Chelsea and Reading while both have had success at other clubs and I am fairly sure will have some success where they are now. They also are similar as they both seem to have certain way they want their teams to play and are stubborn to change things when they are not going so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rsdio

Rsdio

Posted
Posted

Well its quite simple really both AVB and Rodgers have been failures at a club they have managed, if anything Rodgers was even worse as he turned a team that was in the play offs the season before into a relegation candidate and spent £2.5 million on Matt Mills.

Didn't they sell him on for twice that? Doesn't sound like a bad bit of business to me.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gabe

Gabe

Posted
Posted

Well its quite simple really both AVB and Rodgers have been failures at a club they have managed, if anything Rodgers was even worse as he turned a team that was in the play offs the season before into a relegation candidate and spent £2.5 million on Matt Mills. Both AVB and Rodgers were bad fits for Chelsea and Reading while both have had success at other clubs and I am fairly sure will have some success where they are now. They also are similar as they both seem to have certain way they want their teams to play and are stubborn to change things when they are not going so well.

I don't really see how you can compare a job a guy was in 3 years ago with a job a guy was in 4 months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Well if it has a couple of Arsenal fans worried, it is surely a good appointment.

To be fair Arsenal fans get worried if the wind changes direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gabe

Gabe

Posted
Posted

So I see that the talk ahead of the Rangers vote is that sending them to division 3 would damage the income of everybody else too much to be viable. The former Celtic chief exec has said this earlier today:

"I think if Rangers went into the third division, Celtic wouldn't have to pay for decent players, the whole standard of Scottish football would fall away, people wouldn't watch it on the television without Celtic and Rangers competing for the title; it's simply the first step to destruction and I would avoid that at all costs."

All the talk from teams has been that Rangers need to be punished severely to maintain sporting integrity. But it makes it hard to talk about that with a straight face if you say that you're only knocking them down to division 1 because of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sportello

Sportello

Posted
Posted

So I see that the talk ahead of the Rangers vote is that sending them to division 3 would damage the income of everybody else too much to be viable. The former Celtic chief exec has said this earlier today:

All the talk from teams has been that Rangers need to be punished severely to maintain sporting integrity. But it makes it hard to talk about that with a straight face if you say that you're only knocking them down to division 1 because of money.

The quote there is from Michael Kelly, a man who helped push Celtic to the edge of liquidation in 1994 until the eminently sensible Fergus McCann came in and steadied the club.

We're in a situation where most people want Rangers to start again in the third division, including three quarters of Rangers fans. The people that want them to stay are those who want to retain steady profits - SPL and SFA chiefs, some SPL Chairmen, dying newspapers that can't afford not to have a strong Rangers, the Rangers Sevco owners, and possibly even the Celtic board themselves.

The fix appears to be to put Rangers in Div 1, because the SPL can't possibly do without Sky and the increased attendances. What happens if they don't get promoted? Change the league again? What happens if Celtic or Rangers ever get relegated? Halt relegation for a year? Why not just make it so Rangers and Celtic are guaranteed first or second place, while the rest of the clubs dine on their scraps? If that's what the game relies on then maybe it should fail.

Although it won't. The SFL1 is bigger than the League Of Ireland and survives without Rangers at the moment. I'm sure the SPL will do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaB

PaB

Posted
Posted

Doesn't somebody run that story every time European nations get a bunch of points while South America is inactive? All it does is further prove that the current system of rankings is bollocks.

I think its quite clearly bollocks without the South American nations. England are above Italy, Portugal, Argentina, Holland & France.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rev

Rev

Posted
Posted

I think its quite clearly bollocks without the South American nations. England are above Italy, Portugal, Argentina, Holland & France.

I thought Argentina were quite a let down in Euro 2012. I was expecting more from them.

1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Revival

Revival

Posted
Posted

The thing I don't understand with the Rangers situation, If they are fully accepting the idea that they'll be playing in a lower division why don't they just bite the bullet and apply to play in the lower leagues of English football? Surely this would be the better option if they still have ambition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blooming Marvellous

Blooming Marvellous

Posted
Posted

The thing I don't understand with the Rangers situation, If they are fully accepting the idea that they'll be playing in a lower division why don't they just bite the bullet and apply to play in the lower leagues of English football? Surely this would be the better option if they still have ambition.

because it's in a practical sense completely and utterly impossible

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naysonymous

Naysonymous

Posted
Posted
I think its quite clearly bollocks without the South American nations. England are above Italy, Portugal, Argentina, Holland & France.

Italy I am surprised about. The others not so much, it's hardly like they set the world alight is it? Portugal are more exciting than we are but I am not sure they are a better team. France were disappointing at Euro 2012, they had the lions share of possession against us but they folded against Sweden and Spain. The Netherlands were a fucking disaster this summer. It seems that having a few really good attacking players does not mean you have a good team. They were a bunch of individuals going forwards and collectively abysmal at the back which is why they lost every game they played. If the Dutch had the team spirit that England always (well, usually) seem to display then they would be an exceptional side. At the moment all they prove is that you need a lot more than good flair players to be successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fry Crayola

Fry Crayola

Posted
Posted

A rankings table like that can only take into account results - it says little about whether or not you win convincingly and nothing about how well you performed. Hence, things like Italy's implosion at the 2010 World Cup and dire lead up to the European Championship will count against them more than England's uninspiring brand of football that got them to two knockout stages in the same time.

There's not much point in reading anything into them.

Except when American Samoa no longer prop up the table, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 8 years later...
Loik V credern

Loik V credern

Posted
Posted

10 years feels like so long ago in football. Talk in this thread at the beginning; AVB going to Chelsea, which i actually forgot, Sanchez going to Barcelona, which i forget too, Stuart Pearce managing some England youth which i can't recall either. Maybe it's more my memory is bad. I think it’s because there's matches every day, press conferences, interviews, analysis, so you see a lot of a player or manager at a club, in the moment things feel so substantial and comprehensive. Sanchez being a mixture of Hazard and Aguero at Arsenal feels like a lifetime ago now he's dropped off a cliff and no longer so prominent, and Arsenal has gone through so much since. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.

  I accept