The SOCCER Thread 2013/2014

[supercool]

gerard houiller explains why messi deserved to win the golden ball : http://hereisthecity.com/en-gb/2014/07/17/fs-gerard-houllier-explains-why-lionel-messi-deserved-to-win-wor/

I understand that it has surprised, because everyone only remembers the second half of Lionel Messi in the final. We, the commission, we look at all the games, and we judge that he was the most important man for his team. He went to the final, which is one of the conditions for the attribution of the trophy, he explained.

Moreover, Messi was more than decisive in the first four games. In the semi-final against the Netherlands, he took the first penalty and scored.

The analysis also takes into account the fact he was the captain of a united team a team that played well together. That's something we hadn't seen for a long time from Argentina. He was more than key in the squad and the way it was set up. For me, he fully deserves the Golden Ball given he took his team through to the final.

The ex-Premier League boss also went on to explain why the other prime contenders for the award, such as Arjen Robben, James Rodriguez, Neymar and Thomas Muller, ultimately missed out.

Robben was exciting and very good, but he didn't carry so much weight with the team. He didn't score in either the semi-finals or the quarters. Even though he won the penalty against Mexico, he was much less influential in his team's play, he added.

James Rodriguez stopped too soon, just like Neymar or the other key player in the Albiceleste's performance, Angel Di Maria. Di Maria might have been a very serious contender had he been able to go all the way. He was excellent, and very creative.

[DieselDaisy]

he was the captain of a united team a team that played well together.

Was he watching a different Argentine team from me?

[T.wa.T]

Question: Is it normal for so many good players to switch teams every year?? This is my first full year following BPL and was just wondering.

It is the most tedious aspect of domestic football. Essentially, ''Team A sell Player A to Team B. Team B sell Player B to Team C.…'' - increase all of this in degrees of complexity and scope. It is basically a boring drama conducted by footballers' agents which happens every Summer and at Christmas time, clogging up the sport in the papers and relegating more exciting sports to a footnote. One of the main reasons I never watch the Premier League in fact: no loyalty to the badge; no grassroots ‘community’ elements in the teams. I mean the whole of Newcastle United is French! Why do I want to watch, ‘France’ essentially, dressed as a bunch of Geordies haha? And do not get me started on Arsenal!

Gotcha. Its very similiar for American sports as well. Players go to the highest bidder, so to speak. 20 years ago , or so, it wasn't as bad. Players actually cared about playing their whole career with the same team. Nowadays, that's very rare. In the NBA, so many big name players were changing teams, they made a change, allowing that players current team to be allowed to make the biggest money offer as a way to sway players to stay with their current team. I'm not sure if it always works but in some cases it does, ex: Carmelo Anthony staying with the NY Knicks.

Back to BPL, what made me ask is because I noticed it was alot of big names and I was surprised how many left. Like you said, no loyalty. That's sucks. It certainly puts the fans loyalty to the test, as in, do I root for the team or the player?

[DieselDaisy]

Question: Is it normal for so many good players to switch teams every year?? This is my first full year following BPL and was just wondering.

It is the most tedious aspect of domestic football. Essentially, ''Team A sell Player A to Team B. Team B sell Player B to Team C.…'' - increase all of this in degrees of complexity and scope. It is basically a boring drama conducted by footballers' agents which happens every Summer and at Christmas time, clogging up the sport in the papers and relegating more exciting sports to a footnote. One of the main reasons I never watch the Premier League in fact: no loyalty to the badge; no grassroots ‘community’ elements in the teams. I mean the whole of Newcastle United is French! Why do I want to watch, ‘France’ essentially, dressed as a bunch of Geordies haha? And do not get me started on Arsenal!

Gotcha. Its very similiar for American sports as well. Players go to the highest bidder, so to speak. 20 years ago , or so, it wasn't as bad. Players actually cared about playing their whole career with the same team. Nowadays, that's very rare. In the NBA, so many big name players were changing teams, they made a change, allowing that players current team to be allowed to make the biggest money offer as a way to sway players to stay with their current team. I'm not sure if it always works but in some cases it does, ex: Carmelo Anthony staying with the NY Knicks.

Back to BPL, what made me ask is because I noticed it was alot of big names and I was surprised how many left. Like you said, no loyalty. That's sucks. It certainly puts the fans loyalty to the test, as in, do I root for the team or the player?

You have had a few rare souls: Shearer for instance who refused offers from highly successful Man U to stay at his beloved, but trophy less, Newcastle United; Ferguson's Man U itself always had a nucleus of English players, your Giggsys and Scholes, who you could not imagine playing anywhere else. But generally, it is a depressing picture in top-flight English Football (it is much better when you drop down to the lower leagues though).

It is not like that in County Cricket (which is my favourite sport), whereby 2/3s of the team still come from the local area with only a few lucrative foreign signings placed on top of them (who often stay the long haul and become, virtually adopted anyhow). It is only really when players are ending their career that they might jump to another county.

[T.wa.T]

Question: Is it normal for so many good players to switch teams every year?? This is my first full year following BPL and was just wondering.

It is the most tedious aspect of domestic football. Essentially, ''Team A sell Player A to Team B. Team B sell Player B to Team C.…'' - increase all of this in degrees of complexity and scope. It is basically a boring drama conducted by footballers' agents which happens every Summer and at Christmas time, clogging up the sport in the papers and relegating more exciting sports to a footnote. One of the main reasons I never watch the Premier League in fact: no loyalty to the badge; no grassroots ‘community’ elements in the teams. I mean the whole of Newcastle United is French! Why do I want to watch, ‘France’ essentially, dressed as a bunch of Geordies haha? And do not get me started on Arsenal!

Gotcha. Its very similiar for American sports as well. Players go to the highest bidder, so to speak. 20 years ago , or so, it wasn't as bad. Players actually cared about playing their whole career with the same team. Nowadays, that's very rare. In the NBA, so many big name players were changing teams, they made a change, allowing that players current team to be allowed to make the biggest money offer as a way to sway players to stay with their current team. I'm not sure if it always works but in some cases it does, ex: Carmelo Anthony staying with the NY Knicks.

Back to BPL, what made me ask is because I noticed it was alot of big names and I was surprised how many left. Like you said, no loyalty. That's sucks. It certainly puts the fans loyalty to the test, as in, do I root for the team or the player?

You have had a few rare souls: Shearer for instance who refused offers from highly successful Man U to stay at his beloved, but trophy less, Newcastle United; Ferguson's Man U itself always had a nucleus of English players, your Giggsys and Scholes, who you could not imagine playing anywhere else. But generally, it is a depressing picture in top-flight English Football (it is much better when you drop down to the lower leagues though).

It is not like that in County Cricket (which is my favourite sport), whereby 2/3s of the team still come from the local area with only a few lucrative foreign signings placed on top of them (who often stay the long haul and become, virtually adopted anyhow). It is only really when players are ending their career that they might jump to another county.

Same here, there are the rare few like Derek Jeter staying with the Yankees (MLB) for 20 years (his last) or Tom Brady with the New England Patriots (NFL). But they are fewer and further between.

Funny you mention cricket, I've noticed that matches are being shown on TV over here more and more each year. It also pops up on ESPNs highlight reels once in a while. Being that the US is still working on appreciating soccer/football, I think cricket has a ways to go, lol...

[DieselDaisy]

Question: Is it normal for so many good players to switch teams every year?? This is my first full year following BPL and was just wondering.

It is the most tedious aspect of domestic football. Essentially, ''Team A sell Player A to Team B. Team B sell Player B to Team C.…'' - increase all of this in degrees of complexity and scope. It is basically a boring drama conducted by footballers' agents which happens every Summer and at Christmas time, clogging up the sport in the papers and relegating more exciting sports to a footnote. One of the main reasons I never watch the Premier League in fact: no loyalty to the badge; no grassroots ‘community’ elements in the teams. I mean the whole of Newcastle United is French! Why do I want to watch, ‘France’ essentially, dressed as a bunch of Geordies haha? And do not get me started on Arsenal!

Gotcha. Its very similiar for American sports as well. Players go to the highest bidder, so to speak. 20 years ago , or so, it wasn't as bad. Players actually cared about playing their whole career with the same team. Nowadays, that's very rare. In the NBA, so many big name players were changing teams, they made a change, allowing that players current team to be allowed to make the biggest money offer as a way to sway players to stay with their current team. I'm not sure if it always works but in some cases it does, ex: Carmelo Anthony staying with the NY Knicks.

Back to BPL, what made me ask is because I noticed it was alot of big names and I was surprised how many left. Like you said, no loyalty. That's sucks. It certainly puts the fans loyalty to the test, as in, do I root for the team or the player?

You have had a few rare souls: Shearer for instance who refused offers from highly successful Man U to stay at his beloved, but trophy less, Newcastle United; Ferguson's Man U itself always had a nucleus of English players, your Giggsys and Scholes, who you could not imagine playing anywhere else. But generally, it is a depressing picture in top-flight English Football (it is much better when you drop down to the lower leagues though).

It is not like that in County Cricket (which is my favourite sport), whereby 2/3s of the team still come from the local area with only a few lucrative foreign signings placed on top of them (who often stay the long haul and become, virtually adopted anyhow). It is only really when players are ending their career that they might jump to another county.

Same here, there are the rare few like Derek Jeter staying with the Yankees (MLB) for 20 years (his last) or Tom Brady with the New England Patriots (NFL). But they are fewer and further between.

Funny you mention cricket, I've noticed that matches are being shown on TV over here more and more each year. It also pops up on ESPNs highlight reels once in a while. Being that the US is still working on appreciating soccer/football, I think cricket has a ways to go, lol...

Americans have difficulty grasping the fact that you can play for five days continuously, 11am to 6pm each day, and the match can still end a 'draw'. I have heard that Americans also find the concept of, play breaking for 'lunch' and 'tea' highly amusing - and ‘quintessentially English‘. I suppose it is thinking about it (I just take it for granted). Ironically however, Cricket was big on America's East coast until the late 19th century or thereabouts, thereafter baseball replacing it. Impromptu Cricket matches were held at Valley Forge with George Washington. The first international match was held by the United States (v Canada) in 1844 while 'All-England' touring sides (including WG Grace) competed with the United States. You also had Philadelphia Cricket Club which competed in first-class Cricket. By the twentieth century the sport was waning however. It is now, a sort of 'lost' element of American sporting history.

There is however one way in which the sport has risen - will rise - in popularity in the United States: migrants from the Indian sub-continent, who naturally bring their Cricket fanaticism with them. That might explain why there is more of it on your television sets.

[T.wa.T]

Question: Is it normal for so many good players to switch teams every year?? This is my first full year following BPL and was just wondering.

It is the most tedious aspect of domestic football. Essentially, ''Team A sell Player A to Team B. Team B sell Player B to Team C.…'' - increase all of this in degrees of complexity and scope. It is basically a boring drama conducted by footballers' agents which happens every Summer and at Christmas time, clogging up the sport in the papers and relegating more exciting sports to a footnote. One of the main reasons I never watch the Premier League in fact: no loyalty to the badge; no grassroots ‘community’ elements in the teams. I mean the whole of Newcastle United is French! Why do I want to watch, ‘France’ essentially, dressed as a bunch of Geordies haha? And do not get me started on Arsenal!

Gotcha. Its very similiar for American sports as well. Players go to the highest bidder, so to speak. 20 years ago , or so, it wasn't as bad. Players actually cared about playing their whole career with the same team. Nowadays, that's very rare. In the NBA, so many big name players were changing teams, they made a change, allowing that players current team to be allowed to make the biggest money offer as a way to sway players to stay with their current team. I'm not sure if it always works but in some cases it does, ex: Carmelo Anthony staying with the NY Knicks.

Back to BPL, what made me ask is because I noticed it was alot of big names and I was surprised how many left. Like you said, no loyalty. That's sucks. It certainly puts the fans loyalty to the test, as in, do I root for the team or the player?

You have had a few rare souls: Shearer for instance who refused offers from highly successful Man U to stay at his beloved, but trophy less, Newcastle United; Ferguson's Man U itself always had a nucleus of English players, your Giggsys and Scholes, who you could not imagine playing anywhere else. But generally, it is a depressing picture in top-flight English Football (it is much better when you drop down to the lower leagues though).

It is not like that in County Cricket (which is my favourite sport), whereby 2/3s of the team still come from the local area with only a few lucrative foreign signings placed on top of them (who often stay the long haul and become, virtually adopted anyhow). It is only really when players are ending their career that they might jump to another county.

Same here, there are the rare few like Derek Jeter staying with the Yankees (MLB) for 20 years (his last) or Tom Brady with the New England Patriots (NFL). But they are fewer and further between.

Funny you mention cricket, I've noticed that matches are being shown on TV over here more and more each year. It also pops up on ESPNs highlight reels once in a while. Being that the US is still working on appreciating soccer/football, I think cricket has a ways to go, lol...

Americans have difficulty grasping the fact that you can play for five days continuously, 11am to 6pm each day, and the match can still end a 'draw'. I have heard that Americans also find the concept of, play breaking for 'lunch' and 'tea' highly amusing - and ‘quintessentially English‘. I suppose it is thinking about it (I just take it for granted). Ironically however, Cricket was big on America's East coast until the late 19th century or thereabouts, thereafter baseball replacing it. Impromptu Cricket matches were held at Valley Forge with George Washington. The first international match was held by the United States (v Canada) in 1844 while 'All-England' touring sides (including WG Grace) competed with the United States. You also had Philadelphia Cricket Club which competed in first-class Cricket. By the twentieth century the sport was waning however. It is now, a sort of 'lost' element of American sporting history.

There is however one way in which the sport has risen - will rise - in popularity in the United States: migrants from the Indian sub-continent, who naturally bring their Cricket fanaticism with them. That might explain why there is more of it on your television sets.

Great insite there. I'd no idea cricket was so popular for a time on the US east coast, where I'm from. I know it can be played by anyone just about anywhere but could it be that it is looked upon as a upper class sport, that is why it isn't so popular anymore?? If that's even true. Kind of like how Polo is looked at here, ad an example.

I agree, if it is to have a resurrection it will start with the Indian population. Much like how the Mexican population is helping to bring soccer to the forefront. Nowadays, in my town when I drive past a park where kids are playing basketball, alongside them is usually a large group of Mexicans playing soccer. Its pretty cool if you ask me.

[DieselDaisy]

Question: Is it normal for so many good players to switch teams every year?? This is my first full year following BPL and was just wondering.

It is the most tedious aspect of domestic football. Essentially, ''Team A sell Player A to Team B. Team B sell Player B to Team C.…'' - increase all of this in degrees of complexity and scope. It is basically a boring drama conducted by footballers' agents which happens every Summer and at Christmas time, clogging up the sport in the papers and relegating more exciting sports to a footnote. One of the main reasons I never watch the Premier League in fact: no loyalty to the badge; no grassroots ‘community’ elements in the teams. I mean the whole of Newcastle United is French! Why do I want to watch, ‘France’ essentially, dressed as a bunch of Geordies haha? And do not get me started on Arsenal!

Gotcha. Its very similiar for American sports as well. Players go to the highest bidder, so to speak. 20 years ago , or so, it wasn't as bad. Players actually cared about playing their whole career with the same team. Nowadays, that's very rare. In the NBA, so many big name players were changing teams, they made a change, allowing that players current team to be allowed to make the biggest money offer as a way to sway players to stay with their current team. I'm not sure if it always works but in some cases it does, ex: Carmelo Anthony staying with the NY Knicks.

Back to BPL, what made me ask is because I noticed it was alot of big names and I was surprised how many left. Like you said, no loyalty. That's sucks. It certainly puts the fans loyalty to the test, as in, do I root for the team or the player?

You have had a few rare souls: Shearer for instance who refused offers from highly successful Man U to stay at his beloved, but trophy less, Newcastle United; Ferguson's Man U itself always had a nucleus of English players, your Giggsys and Scholes, who you could not imagine playing anywhere else. But generally, it is a depressing picture in top-flight English Football (it is much better when you drop down to the lower leagues though).

It is not like that in County Cricket (which is my favourite sport), whereby 2/3s of the team still come from the local area with only a few lucrative foreign signings placed on top of them (who often stay the long haul and become, virtually adopted anyhow). It is only really when players are ending their career that they might jump to another county.

Same here, there are the rare few like Derek Jeter staying with the Yankees (MLB) for 20 years (his last) or Tom Brady with the New England Patriots (NFL). But they are fewer and further between.

Funny you mention cricket, I've noticed that matches are being shown on TV over here more and more each year. It also pops up on ESPNs highlight reels once in a while. Being that the US is still working on appreciating soccer/football, I think cricket has a ways to go, lol...

Americans have difficulty grasping the fact that you can play for five days continuously, 11am to 6pm each day, and the match can still end a 'draw'. I have heard that Americans also find the concept of, play breaking for 'lunch' and 'tea' highly amusing - and ‘quintessentially English‘. I suppose it is thinking about it (I just take it for granted). Ironically however, Cricket was big on America's East coast until the late 19th century or thereabouts, thereafter baseball replacing it. Impromptu Cricket matches were held at Valley Forge with George Washington. The first international match was held by the United States (v Canada) in 1844 while 'All-England' touring sides (including WG Grace) competed with the United States. You also had Philadelphia Cricket Club which competed in first-class Cricket. By the twentieth century the sport was waning however. It is now, a sort of 'lost' element of American sporting history.

There is however one way in which the sport has risen - will rise - in popularity in the United States: migrants from the Indian sub-continent, who naturally bring their Cricket fanaticism with them. That might explain why there is more of it on your television sets.

Great insite there. I'd no idea cricket was so popular for a time on the US east coast, where I'm from. I know it can be played by anyone just about anywhere but could it be that it is looked upon as a upper class sport, that is why it isn't so popular anymore?? If that's even true. Kind of like how Polo is looked at here, ad an example.

I agree, if it is to have a resurrection it will start with the Indian population. Much like how the Mexican population is helping to bring soccer to the forefront. Nowadays, in my town when I drive past a park where kids are playing basketball, alongside them is usually a large group of Mexicans playing soccer. Its pretty cool if you ask me.

Yes, most Americans are not even aware that they used to love Cricket. It is their 'lost' sport. I read a theory somewhere that it began to decline during the Civil War because, Union troops in the trenches found they did not have significant room to set a Cricket field so they began playing baseball which does not need, as, big a playing surface to field upon. That cannot be the whole reason, surely, but it might be one of a series of factors? Probably the main reason is, Cricket’s inherent connection with Commonwealth - America not being in the British Commonwealth. It is no coincidence that all the test playing nations are Commonwealth countries. It is only in the last fifteen years in the Limited Over competitions where we see non-Commonwealth countries aspire to that degree of status (e.g. Dutch and the Irish).

[supercool]

xavi, lampard and david villa will play with new york city fc. nice team.

[moreblack]

That's a pretty aging core to try and build a team around.

[AtariLegend]

That's a pretty aging core to try and build a team around.

It's MSL. They could probably have brought Zidane out there too and had him run rampant.

I don't think it's just a marketing ploy, I'd assume they'd still do pretty good. No offense to yanks though, but apart from the stadiums and the wages, it's not a major step up from the top European 2nd divisions i.e Championship, Serie B.

[AtariLegend]

Real Madrid have got James Rodriguez (80 Million Euros) now, Kroos, Alonso, Luka Modric, Khedira, Di Maria, Ronaldo, Bale and Benzema.

Isco's getting sold it looks like, if Di Maria doesn't go too that is the craziest most unbalanced offensive team ever. To say nothing of the defense.

[sturginho]

Real Madrid have got James Rodriguez (80 Million Euros) now, Kroos, Alonso, Luka Modric, Khedira, Di Maria, Ronaldo, Bale and Benzema.

Isco's getting sold it looks like, if Di Maria doesn't go too that is the craziest most unbalanced offensive team ever. To say nothing of the defense.

how to fit all of them into the starting line up? 3-4-3 Ajax style?

[SoNobodyToldYaBaby]

Vidal better hurry the fuck up back from holiday and sign for United already. Slap juve in the face with 50 mil and just get it done. PS Hummels and Di Maria be nice too.

[ronaldo9]

That's a pretty aging core to try and build a team around.

It's MSL. They could probably have brought Zidane out there too and had him run rampant.

I don't think it's just a marketing ploy, I'd assume they'd still do pretty good.

Yeah, think they'll still do well--just like Henry, Cahill, Defoe, etc. have done well past their prime--but, the marketing angle is still the main reason, especially with NYCFC being a brand new franchise. Same main reason why Orlando City, another new franchise, is bringing in Kaka and [it sounds like] Robinho. Bring in names that the average fan will recognize to get your franchise off on the right foot. MLS is really still in its infancy compared to other leagues (and other sports leagues domestically), so it's still relying on aging star names for marketing. It's been working though since the true commitment to that plan started in the past decade. Next step is bringing back/retaining key American players (and getting to the point where it won't hold back young players' development), and that phase seems to be just starting with Dempsey, Bradley, Gonzalez, Zusi, Besler, etc. Still not there yet, but progressing.

Good for James Rodriguez. Was a lot of fun to watch in the World Cup and was definitely the tournament's breakout star. Would think this means Di Maria will likely be gone and discussions will start up again about Khedira. Does it sound like Lukaku will be on the move if Chelsea signs Drogba? Would think Lukaku would be someone you'd like to hold on to.

Looks like it's going to be another race to the Europa League for Inter. Glad that it looks like Ranocchia is going to sign an extension, and like the M'Vila and Vidic additions, but not looking forward to the imminent Guarin departure and really hope they hold on to Icardi and Kovacic. Would like to add Chicharito, but not getting my hopes up. Think Dani Osvaldo is more likely.

Happy that Balotelli is still with Milan for the U.S. tour--going to see Milan vs. Liverpool next weekend. He's the player I'm most looking forward to seeing, so would be great if the transfer rumors hold off until after that match...

[moreblack]

How Pogba won the young player award I'll never know.

[The Sandman]

All sponsored by adidas, like the awards.

[SoNobodyToldYaBaby]

Do many MyGNR posters play Fantasy premier league? If so it would be cool to get a MyGNR private league going

[The Sandman]

[wasted]

Got my FPL team:

Howard

Debuchy

Vlar

Cahill

Shaw

Sanchez

Henderson

Mata

Barkley

Rooney

Diego Costa

Might have it right this time!

[Chris1989]

You've gone for DIego Costa, the latest big money signing at the Strikers Graveyard?

I joke - less than an hour ago, Diego Costa scored his first Chelsea goal in a friendly!

[AtariLegend]

I'm really worried about Liverpool's transfer policy this window and I'm not convinced we'll get a Champions League spot this season again. Really seems like a waste, with the money they got from Barca.

On the other hand I'm not convinced Costa was worth it either. If you look at his record past last season, it doesn't exactly scream big money striker. Chelsea will probably finish above us, but I'd pick Sturridge to out score Costa.

[wasted]

Mmm I think it's a point, because Chelsea strikers don't get a lot of chances the way they play. It's just Sturridge is more expensive. I could switch Henderdon for a 4.5 mid. But Chelsea have Burnley and I think someone toss at home next.

Could just get rid of Costa and Rooney, bring in Yaya.

Drogba is back so he might be a good sub option.

Edited July 27, 2014 by wasted

[DieselDaisy]

Guy in the paper yesterday saying the Premier League is no longer as good as what is on offer in Europe. He points to James Rodriguez and Suarez signings and the workmanlike ability of Munich. His main argument is, the big stars simply do not want to go into the Premier League. I suppose the fact Man U had a crap season helps his argument as Man U are the one club which can compete with Barca and Madrid.

[The Sandman]

New Spurs.