GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
You know they've challenged for the title more recently than Arsenal yeah?
Edit - not designed to be an argument over semantics.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* English Football Season 2014-15
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
Edit - not designed to be an argument over semantics.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
They'd be competing with us and United on that front. Would need to shift Mario as well.
Uppercut
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah but Spurs have no soul. Their fans are dog****e and they reliably and consistently roll over to every team that's better than them.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Some of you might remember ex-Fulham coach Felix Magath.
Well he's now got a job in the Austrian league, at FK Austria Wien
Enjoying seeing someone's star fall that fast.
Well he's now got a job in the Austrian league, at FK Austria Wien
Enjoying seeing someone's star fall that fast.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Ultimately I just feel Furball's post is everything I hate about the game currently. Not his fault, as to an extent I think the perception is correct (but obviously I wouldn't go as far as him, with the points Marcuss and myself have made)
This era of only now counts. Why would anyone want to go to Juve. Or Liverpool. Jesus if Man U had finished 5th this season we'd be saying it about them.
Football existed before 1992, it existed before 2009 etc etc. The modern game is a ****ty ****ing closed shop full of ****ty hipster football and qualifying for the CL is the means to an end, ****ing bore off.
I'm not in a very good mood today tbf
This era of only now counts. Why would anyone want to go to Juve. Or Liverpool. Jesus if Man U had finished 5th this season we'd be saying it about them.
Football existed before 1992, it existed before 2009 etc etc. The modern game is a ****ty ****ing closed shop full of ****ty hipster football and qualifying for the CL is the means to an end, ****ing bore off.
I'm not in a very good mood today tbf
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I think even if you look at it with cold-hard logic there is still an argument to be made about him staying. He's a fantastic player as is, will undoubtedly improve, but it can be a car crash of a decision if it goes wrong. He's literally pegged himself as a top 5 world player for the future; and if he is short of that at other clubs he'll be riding the pine a lot. I don't particularly like the point of "well if he stays he can develop better" - as if his free will should be second to what someone else thinks of how he can progress - but I think in this case a couple more years in Liverpool won't hurt him any. He'll still have a long career ahead of him no matter where he goes and he'll probably be better equipped for it to boot. And people won't think of him as a **** as well, whatever that is worth.
The noise around the place is that his agent - Aidy Ward - has put himself in such odds against the club it is either Rodgers goes (don't think that's happening) or Sterling might need a new agent.
The noise around the place is that his agent - Aidy Ward - has put himself in such odds against the club it is either Rodgers goes (don't think that's happening) or Sterling might need a new agent.
God no. Whoever we get needs to be relatively fast and mobile. What basically cost us top 4 is not moving Sterling up front earlier. Not that he scored a bazillion goals but it helped our play a lot.
Last edited:
Furball
Evil Scotsman
Football existed before 1992, but today's young players didn't. Obviously Juventus are a massive club but they're not in a position financially to sign the top players.
Last edited:
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Pretty good point tbf.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Yeah so today's young players are just as stupid as the hipster masses who think football exists in this tiny little bubble of cash, what's your point?
Nah, look, I kind of went on a tangental rant. Players should sign for whoever they want. Money talks and I wouldn't pretend that it hasn't always been the case. I just find it sad that people see clubs as 'relevant' or not based on whatever happened in the last 2, 3, 10 seasons. Granted, Liverpool's decline is longer and deeper than that and largely self-inflicted (they could easily have dominated the Prem had they made some wise decisions in the early 90s. Food for thought). It's just that we have a game where there are 150 years of history and yet who the 'biggest' clubs are is determined by what's happened in recent memory. It's shallow and depressing.
EDIT - It's not that I'm adovcating the status quo. We shouldn't accept a pecking order. But to say a club who've won a bunch of FA Cups and little else is as attractive as the club with most European titles for an English side, second most leagues? It's utterly insane, and yet it's probably true in many cases. It's bizarre.
It is modern football. Or modern society maybe. Dunno. But when I was a lad, Man U hadn't won a league in a quarter of a century. Do you think anyone would have said they weren't relevant? Clue - they wouldn't.
I was thinking of starting a new thread tbh for me to sound off in, and a more general discussion about the modern game etc, because it must be almost as boring to read my rants as it is to read about how wonderful Arsenal are
Last edited:
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
What have you heard? Would be dipped in **** if we signed him.
Furball
Evil Scotsman
GIMP, you might as well rage that players sign for Chelsea iver Notts Forest. The latter have won more European Cups after all.
Football is cyclical, sure Liverpool are a big club but in terms of title challenges etc they've been largely irrelevant for 25 years. You can rage about history and jonny come latelys and 'there was football before 1992' - but the funny thing is in 1992 it was Liverpool who were the Jonny Flash in the Pan who'd only been successful for 25 years.
Football is cyclical, sure Liverpool are a big club but in terms of title challenges etc they've been largely irrelevant for 25 years. You can rage about history and jonny come latelys and 'there was football before 1992' - but the funny thing is in 1992 it was Liverpool who were the Jonny Flash in the Pan who'd only been successful for 25 years.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Not really. I did say I don't think we should accept the pecking order. Forest had one three-year spell of success.
Don't know how you figure they'd only been successful for 25 years - would be like saying that of United now - alas in 1977 Liverpool had 9 league titles. I think that was more than any other English club at that point. In fact I reckon it would be enough to see them joint third with Everton now? So really, you couldn't be more off target with that one.
I support a small club. I'm a huge advocate of the pyramid and that clubs can rise and fall. I don't think clubs should dwell on their history, Man U and Liverpool have respectively suffered through phases of trying to do that, but I don't think they become irrelevant. In fact, it's nonsense.
EDIT - bearing in mind here you were putting Spurs on par with Liverpool. This is despite, in the last decade having won fewer trophies, not coming close to a title and finishing lower probably 7 or 8 times.I wasn't saying people should sign for Liverpool over Chelsea, at any point.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Sterling with better dribbling, less game IQ. Looks a prospect, too early to tell whether he is the 'real deal' but he'll be a good player for Liverpool for years I reckon.
As for the discussion above...I think the game has shifted from who wins what towards who is noticed where. Not to take a shot at Arsenal, but if you look in the last 10 years we've won a champions league, gone to another final; won an FA cup, gone to another final; won a league cup, gone to another final; and have challenged for the title twice.
Arsenal has won 2 FA cups; gone to a champions league final; gone to 2 league cup finals; and that's it if I'm not mistaken? But they've regularly been in the champions league and that's what I mean by players simply wanting to play at the highest level to be noticed more these days. It's better if you're a team that is always in the CL than one who is there half the time but wins a few more cups.
It makes the comparison with Liverpool and Tottenham even sillier but I guess maybe players are seeing it that way. The thing with Liverpool is that it doesn't challenge for players that tend to go to Tottenham - because I think we'd beat them out 9/10 - but that most of the players we are after are wanted by clubs in better positions than us.
Whereas a few years ago that was fine because at least we were in the the top 4 and we'd be in the CL (and could attract a better caliber of player); now with City it means we are the 5th best club. And by virtue of the monetary considerations it's about where we can expect to be. We have to be shrewd with our signings and develop players. As much as I don't like that direction because it requires a lot of patience and time; until we increase our revenues to increase our spending under FFP rules it is what we have to do. Credit to the owners, it's what they've done by expanding the stadium and garnering more commercial deals.
Last edited: