English Football Thread! 2006-2007 Season

[Cz]

Bah, saw that coming a mile away. We need Adebayor back.

[Bart's Friend Milhouse]

But their chances aren't being lessened. For example, Spartak Moscow, from Russia (a country that has never produced a winner of the European Cup or Champions League) would not normally have been given qualification because they finished second in the Russian league, got through to the group stages, something which they would not have been able to do under the old system.

And so they should not have since they didn't win the Russian league hence should not be entering a competition specified for champions. But by allowing such teams to enter the tournament you are restricting the amount of places available to other teams who did win domestic titles thus lessening their chances

Using the World Cup analogy, though, it's like giving Europe and Oceania equal qualifying spots.

The number of countries (with national football teams) from Europe certainly outnumbers those from Oceania which makes reasonable sense as to why they are allocated the amount of spaces they have. Barring Australia much of these teams from Oceania would probably get thumped by most European squads especially given the fact that most of them aren't professional footballers anyway. The Champions League however, is a much different story. Don't forget teams from eastern Europe are fully capable of defying the 'stereotypical' status automatically given to them by upsetting the odds and handing able teams defeats they would not normally have seen coming.

In all honesty the way Arsenal have been playing is certainly not the form of champions but given the current system they still will probably finish comfortably in one of England's bountiful qualifying spots and come the time of qualification handed a club (who thoroughly deserve entrance into the main draw) that has had a more tiresome journey to the very same stage

[Doc Sark]

And so they should not have since they didn't win the Russian league hence should not be entering a competition specified for champions. But by allowing such teams to enter the tournament you are restricting the amount of places available to other teams who did win domestic titles thus lessening their chances

So you'd see the Champions of Malta play rather than the Russian runners-up, a move which would reduce the quality of opposition in the competition. Lets not forget it was CSKA Moscow's great performance winning the 2005 UEFA cup which has helped the Russian league gain deserved recognition and a couple of extra coefficient points to bolster their collective Champions League ambitions.

The number of countries (with national football teams) from Europe certainly outnumbers those from Oceania which makes reasonable sense as to why they are allocated the amount of spaces they have. Barring Australia much of these teams from Oceania would probably get thumped by most European squads especially given the fact that most of them aren't professional footballers anyway.

That logic is so flawed. The amount of professional teams in England is more than the amount of professional teams in Albania, and the quality of English sides is far better. By your logic the fact that England has more teams than Albania, it makes "reasonable sense" that England have more teams in the Champions League than Albania

The Champions League however, is a much different story. Don't forget teams from eastern Europe are fully capable of defying the 'stereotypical' status automatically given to them by upsetting the odds and handing able teams defeats they would not normally have seen coming.

Yes, but they don't upset the odds regularly enough to justify say Slavia Prague's entry in the competition over say, Liverpool's. You want the best teams on the continent competing for arguably the biggest accolade in club football, not the fricking Faroe Islands champions, just because they won their league but would probably get turned over by a Leyton Orient under-18's squad. People get far too caught up in the name of the competition, which in the context of the spectacle, is wholly irrelevant. The Champions League is designed to bring the best clubs in Europe together and see who wins. These smaller footballing nations have their chance in the Intertoto and UEFA Cups, and only the Russians and the Turks have really made any impact from Eastern Europe in recent years, by winning the competitions, and that is reflected in the fact they have extra qualifying places in the Champions League now, compared to when it started.

[Bart's Friend Milhouse]

So you'd see the Champions of Malta play rather than the Russian runners-up, a move which would reduce the quality of opposi<b></b>tion in the competition. Lets not forget it was CSKA Moscow's great performance winning the 2005 UEFA cup which has helped the Russian league gain deserved recognition and a couple of extra coefficient points to bolster their collective Champions League ambitions.

I fully admit we would not find the champions of Malta as exciting to watch as most of the teams that made the group stages under the current system but frankly many Maltese people would. And don't forget the results prior to CSKA's European glory Doc,
Lokomotiv 3-0 Inter
Spartak 4-1 Arsenal
surely you wouldn't need to see such a team to go as much as winning a cup just to realise they should be given a fairer chance

That logic is so flawed. The amount of professional teams in England is more than the amount of professional teams in Albania, and the quality of English sides is far better. By your logic the fact that England has more teams than Albania, it makes "reasonable sense" that England have more teams in the Champions League than Albania

I understand the contradiction in my statement. But I'm not sure that still makes the current scheme of things totally justifiable. A better solution to this problem would be to allocate every country one spot. Again if you will allow me to refer back to the World Cup, I for one would find it rather unjust to allow any top seeded country (eg Italy) the chance to enter two or three squads (say Italy A, Italy B, and Italy C) to qualify for the finals which is again by the very same logic

Yes, but they don't upset the odds regularly enough to justify say Slavia Prague's entry in the competition over say, Liverpool's. You want the best teams on the continent competing for arguably the biggest accolade in club football, not the fricking Faroe Islands champions, just because they won their league but would probably get turned over by a Leyton Orient under-18's squad. People get far too caught up in the name of the competition, which in the context of the spectacle, is wholly irrelevant. The Champions League is designed to bring the best clubs in Europe together and see who wins. These smaller footballing nations have their chance in the Intertoto and UEFA Cups, and only the Russians and the Turks have really made any impact from Eastern Europe in recent years, by winning the competitions, and that is reflected in the fact they have extra qualifying places in the Champions League now, compared to when it started.

I am not asking for the champions of the Faroe Islands to be put into the main draw. If that was the case the group stages would take eternity to complete. There certainly has to be some sort of qualification programme (like most other tournaments) in order to determine those who should be obliged to enter the latter stages. A mere suggestion would be to gradually (I realise an abrupt change of things would make a joke of a reformation) revert back to the mid-90's system (4 groups of four clubs) where only the best 16 would be able to compete in the group stages, besides managers moan about the number of games they are due to play anyway. Having said that, I still stand by my statement that the way Arsenal and Liverpool have been far from the likes of champions. There is no doubt smaller clubs would relish the opportunity of playing in such a competition possibly even more so than the regular visitors

[Psychotic]

I fully admit we would not find the champions of Malta as exciting to watch as most of the teams that made the group stages under the current system but frankly many Maltese people would.

Don't be entirely too sure of that one. I think you'll find that it's the case in Malta, and many other Eastern European countries, that they watch the main European leagues, and support teams from those leagues, so they're just as happy either way. The people who lose are us, who don't know the Maltese teams as well as we do, say, Liverpool, Arsenal, or even the likes of Real Madrid and Inter Milan, for example.

I understand the contradiction in my statement. But I'm not sure that still makes the current scheme of things totally justifiable. A better solution to this problem would be to allocate every country one spot. Again if you will allow me to refer back to the World Cup, I for one would find it rather unjust to allow any top seeded country (eg Italy) the chance to enter two or three squads (say Italy A, Italy B, and Italy C) to qualify for the finals which is again by the very same logic.

I'd argue that this is not the very same logic. The very same logic would be Man United A, Man United B and Man United C entering into the CL.

Having said that, I still stand by my statement that the way Arsenal and Liverpool have been far from the likes of champions. There is no doubt smaller clubs would relish the opportunity of playing in such a competition possibly even more so than the regular visitors

Arsenal and Liverpool were certainly the likes of champions, if you watch the way they played. Whether or not you consider them to be deserving of entry into the competition, you can't fault them on the quality of their football/tactics. What's more, both teams were unfancied. Nobody thought they'd get to the final, or make it past the last 16 for that matter. To continue with the World Cup theme, it's like Turkey or Croatia finishing third. But, if you were to apply the same rules that you want to apply to the CL, the likes of Croatia and Turkey would certainly not have qualified for the World Cup. It's the upper-middle teams that miss out at the expense of the poorer teams, and which ones are more likely to create a shock?

Anyway, onto Spurs v Chelsea. Woeful first half, somewhat interesting second half. Blimey, Aaron Lennon's a bit...well...overrated, isn't he? Lord knows I hope Stevie starts on the right against Israel, although then again, I'd hope that anyway, as otherwise that would mean the dreaded Lampard-Gerrard partnership, and in such a crucial game, a tricky away game at that, it'd be suicide. Also, nice to see a crazed Spurs fan run on the pitch at the end and try to attack the Chelsea players.

[Loony BoB]

Haha, Cristiano Ronaldo became a proper legend tonight as far as I'm concerned. "Why do you think people might hate you?" (or was it "Why does controversy follow you everywhere?"... I forget. Either way...)

"Because I'm too good." Haha, I cracked up laughing when he said that. Cocky bastard, but it's true.

EDIT: Ah, here we go.

[Psychotic]

Excellent, Liverpool are through to the FA Youth Cup final for the second successive year, beating those filthy barcodes 3-1 (7-3 on aggregate) Shame Ajdarevic got sent off though, as I think he'll now miss the final. Also sent off was Kazenga LuaLua, although nobody is sure what relation he is to the Portsmouth striker.

[Bart's Friend Milhouse]

I understand the contradiction in my statement. But I'm not sure that still makes the current scheme of things totally justifiable. A better solution to this problem would be to allocate every country one spot. Again if you will allow me to refer back to the World Cup, I for one would find it rather unjust to allow any top seeded country (eg Italy) the chance to enter two or three squads (say Italy A, Italy B, and Italy C) to qualify for the finals which is again by the very same logic.

I'd argue that this is not the very same logic. The very same logic would be Man United A, Man United B and Man United C entering into the CL.

Hmm.
In my previous post [post 917] I was partially referring to the amount of professionals footballers owned by the continent being proportional to the amount of spaces they had been allocated. In my last post [919] I used Italy (a country with a long historical affair with football) as an example. If the manager were to require a checklist of all players eligible to play for the country he would have a long list of names that would probably outnumber the population of Brunei shall we say. The current Man Utd squad fails to exceed the number of players of a lesser club in such a way thus branding it ridiculous to allow them an A a B and a C team

Arsenal and Liverpool were certainly the likes of champions, if you watch the way they played. Whether or not you consider them to be deserving of entry into the competition, you can't fault them on the quality of their football/tactics. What's more, both teams were unfancied. Nobody thought they'd get to the final, or make it past the last 16 for that matter.

Are you really serious about this?
Arsenal and Liverpool unfancied? I certainly would expect them at the very least to make the last 16

To continue with the World Cup theme, it's like Turkey or Croatia finishing third. But, if you were to apply the same rules that you want to apply to the CL, the likes of Croatia and Turkey would certainly not have qualified for the World Cup. It's the upper-middle teams that miss out at the expense of the poorer teams, and which ones are more likely to create a shock?

Obviously the world cup is on a broader scale. There are probably five times the amount of countries in the world than there are in Europe so clearly 4 groups of 4 teams would not be appropriate or fair to the teams you mentioned I grant you that.
So, how about extending the amount of groups for the World Cup finals to eight (something already acheived under FIFA's current system) simply because there are more countries in the world than there are in Europe or better yet not change anything about the World Cup (I have no problem with it)

[Cuchulainn]

He plays on the left
He plays on the righttttttt
our boy Ronaldo.
Makes England look e.

[Psychotic]

Hmm.
In my previous post [post 917] I was partially referring to the amount of professionals footballers owned by the continent being proportional to the amount of spaces they had been allocated. In my last post [919] I used Italy (a country with a long historical affair with football) as an example. If the manager were to require a checklist of all players eligible to play for the country he would have a long list of names that would probably outnumber the population of Brunei shall we say. The current Man Utd squad fails to exceed the number of players of a lesser club in such a way thus branding it ridiculous to allow them an A a B and a C team

China and India have populations of over 1,000,000,000. The Netherlands has a population of 16,000,000. Now, I know not all of these people are registered footballers, but I think we can agree that the amount that could be potentially registered as footballers is much higher in the two asian countries. If we're basing this on the amount of eligible players, does this mean they should be allowed to qualify for the World Cup ahead of the Netherlands?

Anyway, I would also say that United could, in fact, field three teams. I'm going to base this on Liverpool, because I don't know entirely too much about Manchester United, but I imagine they have the same amount of players, and of the same sort of quality. Chosen from here. I didn't even have to use the youth team, although let us assume that they make up the reserves.

Liverpool A:
Reina
Darby
Agger
Paletta
Roque
Pennant
Sissoko
Guthrie
Gonzalez
Crouch
Fowler

Subs:
Roberts
O'Donnell
Threlfall
Le Tallec
El Zhar

Liverpool B:
Dudek
Arbeloa
Carragher
Hobbs
Aurelio
Gerrard
Alonso
Hammill (which reminds me http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxGuQUpvupQ check this goal against Celtic out. I think this lad could be huge. But this is off topic so back to Liverpool B!)
Zenden
Kuyt
Cisse

Subs:
Padelli
Smith
Anderson (sorry Cz. I think Hammill is better than him these days. The boy needs a loan move)
Flynn
Brouwer

Liverpool C:
Carson
Finnan
Hyypia
Antwi
Riise
Luis Garcia
Mascherano
Peltier
Kewell
Bellamy
Sinama-Pongolle

Subs:
Martin
Huth
Insua
Idrizaj
Lindfield

There you have it. Established Premiership and international players, plus a few talented (youth cup winning) youngsters. All three could easily tank Birkirkara FC, the champions of Malta. And yes, a lot (12, I believe) are out on loan, if we had three teams, there would be no need to send them out on loan, so that is irrelevant. These squads are a bit thin, even with the youth team reserves, but, if Liverpool/Manchester United needed to, they could easily buy a fair chunk of Birkirkara's rivals' players and use them to fill out the squad.

...is it sad that I knew all of these players without having to even look?

Are you really serious about this?
Arsenal and Liverpool unfancied? I certainly would expect them at the very least to make the last 16

Yeah, I expect them to make the last 16, I expected Arsenal to make the last 16 and then get knocked out in 2006, and I don't think anybody could say they fancied Liverpool making it out of their group in 2005. I'm a blind LFC optimist, and even I had my doubts.

Obviously the world cup is on a broader scale. There are probably five times the amount of countries in the world than there are in Europe so clearly 4 groups of 4 teams would not be appropriate or fair to the teams you mentioned I grant you that.
So, how about extending the amount of groups for the World Cup finals to eight (something already acheived under FIFA's current system) simply because there are more countries in the world than there are in Europe or better yet not change anything about the World Cup (I have no problem with it)

Yeah, but there are probably five times (at the very least) more professional teams in Europe than there are countries in the world, so reducing it to 16 while keeping the World Cup at 32 is extremely unbalanced.

[Bart's Friend Milhouse]

China and India have populations of over 1,000,000,000. The Netherlands has a population of 16,000,000. Now, I know not all of these people are registered footballers, but I think we can agree that the amount that could be potentially registered as footballers is much higher in the two asian countries. If we're basing this on the amount of eligible players, does this mean they should be allowed to qualify for the World Cup ahead of the Netherlands?

I do believe we have missed the point here. My claim in post 917 was targetted at spaces allocated for continents (i.e. groups) not individuals. Besides this specific sub-argument has sidetracked too far off the point I was making so let's not continue him any further and stop wasting our time in searching for these bloody figures to back up our claims. (For your information, it took me way too much time to find a country (i.e. Brunei) that had the population I was looking for )

And no one cares about your pathetic little reserve players and no one in their right mind would ever check up on you anyway

*cheerfully deletes each and every Liverpool player*

Are you really serious about this?
Arsenal and Liverpool unfancied? I certainly would expect them at the very least to make the last 16.

Yeah, I expect them to make the last 16, I expected Arsenal to make the last 16 and then get knocked out in 2006, and I don't think anybody could say they fancied Liverpool making it out of their group in 2005. I'm a blind LFC optimist, and even I had my doubts.

The heck? I thought Liverpool's 2005-06 group didn't seem pretty bad. Naturally I would expect Chelsea to emerge with you but considering the others? Anderlecht have failed to impress in seasons before that and Betis had not only not featured in the tournament for as long as I can remember but to boot, have had no major impact in European football for the last, well decade (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not in the mood to start rading wikipedia again, I'll settle with the services of my memory)

Yeah, but there are probably five times (at the very least) more professional teams in Europe than there are countries in the world, so reducing it to 16 while keeping the World Cup at 32 is extremely unbalanced.

I'm not going to argue with this seeing that I am content with the way things are run in the World Cup. If your hunch is right in the sense that there are five times the professional teams in Europe than there are countries than I guess football is vastly becoming a popular sport. However I doubt the increase of the number of groups (first from four to six then to eight) was because of this

[Psychotic]

And no one cares about your pathetic little reserve players and no one in their right mind would ever check up on you anyway

*cheerfully deletes each and every Liverpool player*

Each and every single player you deleted would become Arsenal's greatest player (of all time! well maybe with the exception of Michael Thomas in some cases) if he signed for you. Still, I guess deleting them will ease the pain of them being better than you.

The heck? I thought Liverpool's 2005-06 group didn't seem pretty bad. Naturally I would expect Chelsea to emerge with you but considering the others? Anderlecht have failed to impress in seasons before that and Betis had not only not featured in the tournament for as long as I can remember but to boot, have had no major impact in European football for the last, well decade (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not in the mood to start rading wikipedia again, I'll settle with the services of my memory)

By "2005", I referred to 2004-2005, the group in which Liverpool needed a last minute smash from Gerrard in the last game in order to qualify from. The other teams were Monaco, the previous tournament's runners up, Olympiacos, a team featuring several players from the Greek side which had just won Euro 2004, and Deportivo La Coruna, who, if you remember, actually used to be somewhat decent. Also keep in mind that this was a Liverpool which had just lost its main outlet of goals, Michael Owen, and relied on the likes of Biscan, Josemi, Baros, Nunez, Pellegrino, Traore, Mellor (although maybe to an Arsenal fan, Neil Mellor is a frightening opponent ), and Le Tallec. They even lost the home leg of the qualifying game against the mighty AK Graz.

[Doc Sark]

Also keep in mind that this was a Liverpool which had just lost its main outlet of goals, Michael Owen, and relied on the likes of Biscan, Josemi, Baros, Nunez, Pellegrino, Traore, Mellor (although maybe to an Arsenal fan, Neil Mellor is a frightening opponent ), and Le Tallec. They even lost the home leg of the qualifying game against the mighty AK Graz.

Dark days my friend, dark days indeed! Don't forget Smicer, for me one of the worst players in LFC history, who's swansong, ironically, was to produce a 25-yard+ wonder strike to bring it back to 3-2 at the Ataturk, forever etching him in the annals LFC history as a hero. Aah, Neil Mellor...my girlfriend is an Arsenal fan. She loved that I made her watch the goal every time she came to see me at uni. Absolutely loved it! It's a miracle I'm not single...

At the risk of taking this off on a tangent, you mentioned Michael Owen, a player who I am still angry we sold regardless of whatever extenuating circumstances Rafa touted at the time. If you sell a 20+ goal a season striker, you have to replace him. Something we are yet to do. If you could buy any striker in the close season, who would you have and who (not including Robbie Fowler) would you offload?

[Psychotic]

Dark days my friend, dark days indeed! Don't forget Smicer, for me one of the worst players in LFC history, who's swansong, ironically, was to produce a 25-yard+ wonder strike to bring it back to 3-2 at the Ataturk, forever etching him in the annals LFC history as a hero.

I always had a soft spot for old Vladimir, to be honest. Maybe it was his long, Czech locks Oh, and while we're on the subject, Zenden is the new Smicer.

Aah, Neil Mellor...my girlfriend is an Arsenal fan. She loved that I made her watch the goal every time she came to see me at uni. Absolutely loved it! It's a miracle I'm not single...

You are a shining example to all men. I salute you.

At the risk of taking this off on a tangent, you mentioned Michael Owen, a player who I am still angry we sold regardless of whatever extenuating circumstances Rafa touted at the time. If you sell a 20+ goal a season striker, you have to replace him. Something we are yet to do. If you could buy any striker in the close season, who would you have and who (not including Robbie Fowler) would you offload?

£8m + Nunez was a ridiculous fee, and certainly not enough to buy a decent replacement. Personally, I'd like to see us buy Miroslav Klose. He probably only has 2 or 3 decent seasons left in him, (which would mean we could get him on the cheap, I hope) but his record clearly shows he is a natural goalscorer, something we desperately need. I'm guessing I can't choose Fowler because Rafa's already chosen to replace him with Voronin. Can I say Cisse? No? Bah. I would say Bellamy, but he has pace, which is a necessary alternative, so I suppose it would have to be Crouchie, even though I am a huge fan of his.

[Doc Sark]

Oh yes, Zenden is certainly that. I've made plain from the start my distaste for Bolo Zenden. I'm just glad he didn't cost anything.

You're the second person I've spoken to who has suggested Klose and it's someone I'd never really considered before now, but he would be a quality signing. Berbatov has done really well since coming over from Germany in the summer, and is a similar type of striker. I think he would be good. Though before I would have said David Villa. The new owners have a reputation for splashing out on big name players apparently.

I think everyone at Liverpool was hoping Dirk Kuyt had displayed the profilic side he had shown in the Dutch league, so that a player like Villa could come in and play alongside him. His workrate can't be faulted, but the last thing we need is another Emile. He needs to score more or will end up replaced.

I'd have said Crouchie too. I think we're headed towards a total football style and I don't think he complements it. Even though he's got some lovely moves.

What do you make of Sissoko?