Football 2015/16

[pink_triangle]

36 minutes ago, Celery said:

I'm not making the argument that they didn't deserve to win or were inferior to any Chelsea team, not in the slightest. I referred to the Chelsea team from last season because it was the most recent season in which the league was won convincingly. The original point was that MP isn't that great a manager because they needed to rely on Liverpool and Chelsea messing up when their squad was far superior. It was one small comment vaguely supporting eastnyh's opinion that MP was shit and City had gone backwards under him. 

Also, you can't make a fair comparison between champions form different seasons by looking at points totals alone. How early the league was won is also important. Champions often drop silly points in end of season games when the title is already over.

I disagree with what you say about Pelligrini.  You previously said that he is unable to get a team of stars playing consistently. Yet to me Man Citys problems have not been when the stars have been fit.  I think when De Bruyne is playing their record is very strong. Also at the start of the season when all the stars were fit they were very strong. To me the issue is with the quality of their backup and the age of their squad. Which is more related to transfer activity, something which he isn't in control of at City. From memory his points total at Real Madrid was also very high, possibly one of the highest for a runner up.  Its simplistic to say when a team regresses its all down to the manager.  Its a team effort with different people responsible for different things.

I agree you cant make a pure comparison on points totals, but it can give a few pointers.  When a team wins the league it is down to both them and the quality of their opposition.  Man City had a team putting up a better fight than Chelsea did. In reality for all the talk about managers, by far the main reason both won the league is cold, hard cash.

30 minutes ago, Celery said:

Having skimmed over the teams, I would guess they were similar. Can we go back to talking about City now?

It is relevant to whether City won because someone bottled it. While talking about a cobbled reserve side may be accurate, its not like it was a load of kids who had never seen the premiership.  Liverpool dropped points to an 11 who were comparible (or superior) in terms of transfer fees paid, wages, medals won and experience. The vast majority of that cobbled together Chelsea team would have played huge amount of first team football in that Liverpool side,

[lost]

Should be an interesting cup semi. Both sets of fans worried their manager will keep his job if they win it?

[Celery]

27 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I disagree with what you say about Pelligrini.  You previously said that he is unable to get a team of stars playing consistently. Yet to me Man Citys problems have not been when the stars have been fit.  I think when De Bruyne is playing their record is very strong. Also at the start of the season when all the stars were fit they were very strong. To me the issue is with the quality of their backup and the age of their squad. I agree though this only relates to this season. Which is more related to transfer activity, something which he isn't in control of at City. You may be right here but I wouldn't absolve him of all responsibility.  From memory his points total at Real Madrid was also very high, possibly one of the highest for a runner up.  Its simplistic to say when a team regresses its all down to the manager.  I haven't said that. I think he is partly responsible alongside the management. Its a team effort with different people responsible for different things.

I agree you cant make a pure comparison on points totals, but it can give a few pointers.  When a team wins the league it is down to both them and the quality of their opposition.  Man City had a team putting up a better fight than Chelsea did Yes, largely because they benefitted from having exited the CL early. In reality for all the talk about managers, by far the main reason both won the league is cold, hard cash. For sure. 

It is relevant to whether City won because someone bottled it. While talking about a cobbled reserve side may be accurate, its not like it was a load of kids who had never seen the premiership.  True. Liverpool dropped points to an 11 who were comparible (or superior) in terms of transfer fees paid, wages, medals won and experience. The vast majority of that cobbled together Chelsea team would have played huge amount of first team football in that Liverpool side, Whoever they were playing, the manner in which they lost was stupid. 

 

[pink_triangle]

Despite having a soft spot for Barca since the early 90s, I'm glad to see Athletico go through today.  If theres a team and manager who deserve the champions league title in the last few years, its athletico and Simeone.

[TheGayTent]

Thoroughly outplayed. 

Hairy gonads. 

[ThomThomDrum]

13 hours ago, Celery said:

A game in April/ May when trophies are within touching distance is a lot more pressurised that a game at the start of the season when there is plenty time to reclaim lost ground. That is not a difficult concept to understand. 

No one said that games later in the season are not more pressurised.

However, you did said earlier games are completely irrelevant. I fundamentally disagree with you

Games over the course of the season obviously have a bearing on who is worthy of winning a league

That should not be a difficult concept to understand, but seemingly it is.

You would like to reduce Citys achievement down to a few isolated instances at the end of the season when other teams "slipped up". Or as you say "bottled it", but you ignore the fact that City still had to get to that position in the first place to be there to take advantage and they also had to win out their remaining games, which they did without "bottling it".

The idea that City were dramatically underperforming that season and only won it because of "bottlers" is laughable

[mrtourette]

I guess Upton Park wasn't rocking as hard as it could have been last night, although as an Everton fan it was the preferred result.

Very interested in seeing the Olympic Stadium deal get published, I suspect West ham have got one hell of a bargain there.

 

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

33 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

I guess Upton Park wasn't rocking as hard as it could have been last night, although as an Everton fan it was the preferred result.

Very interested in seeing the Olympic Stadium deal get published, I suspect West ham have got one hell of a bargain there.

 

 

Someone is on the make £270 million ish to convert it. £2.5 million a year rent. Who signed that contract?

[ThomThomDrum]

[TheGayTent]

55 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

Very interested in seeing the Olympic Stadium deal get published, I suspect West ham have got one hell of a bargain there.

Hmm, the tax payer have done well out of it, Gold and Sullivan have done well out of it, the supporters have been shafted. 

On a similar theme, Everton and Manchester United fans getting home after a 5.15pm semi final kick off at Wembley...

[The Nal]

11 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Hmm, the tax payer have done well out of it, Gold and Sullivan have done well out of it, the supporters have been shafted. 

On a similar theme, Everton and Manchester United fans getting home after a 5.15pm semi final kick off at Wembley...

Train?

[TheGayTent]

Just now, The Nal said:

Train?

How many trains do you think there are after 8pm going back up to the north west? 

Just highlights the madness of cup semi finals at Wembley. 

[The Nal]

7 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

How many trains do you think there are after 8pm going back up to the north west? 

Just highlights the madness of cup semi finals at Wembley. 

Coaches. Only other alternative is 2 legs?

Edited April 14, 2016 by The Nal

[ThomThomDrum]

Does no authority organise extra trains and the likes when such a game is on in the capital? Seems a simple solution could be found to such

 

[mrtourette]

4 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Coaches. Only other alternative is 2 legs?

The logical alternative is a neutral venue in the North, although the days of logic trumping income for the FA are long gone.

[TheGayTent]

5 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Does no authority organise extra trains and the likes when such a game is on in the capital? Seems a simple solution could be found to such

 

Think there's only 2 trains available going back to Liverpool and 1 of those means 2 changes. No additional trains can be put on due to engineering works...

There will be far more people on the roads and stopping over for the night in London than there will be on the railway. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by TheGayTent

[TheGayTent]

4 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

The logical alternative is a neutral venue in the North, although the days of logic trumping income for the FA are long gone.

Exactly. 

If they must insist on Wembley then they should ensure the kick off is earlier in the day so that there are more available trains to get back on. 

5.15 is a joke of a kick off time chosen only to ensure maximum tv viewing figures. 

The fans are always the people considered last. 

[mrtourette]

40 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Hmm, the tax payer have done well out of it, Gold and Sullivan have done well out of it, the supporters have been shafted. 

On a similar theme, Everton and Manchester United fans getting home after a 5.15pm semi final kick off at Wembley...

I'm not convinced the taxpayer has done particularly well out of it, but yes the fans will suffer. It's not a great stadium with crummy public transport access and uninspiring local facilities.

[TheGayTent]

4 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

I'm not convinced the taxpayer has done particularly well out of it, but yes the fans will suffer. It's not a great stadium with crummy public transport access and uninspiring local facilities.

Depends what you mean. Have the tax payer done as well as they could have done had the idiotic decision to design the stadium as athletics only not been taken? The answer is obviously no. 

However, once that decision was taken and finalised, the tax payer have done as well as possible. 

Great stadium? It might be a great athletics stadium, it very much isn't a great football ground.  

[mrtourette]

10 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Depends what you mean. Have the tax payer done as well as they could have done had the idiotic decision to design the stadium as athletics only not been taken? The answer is obviously no. 

However, once that decision was taken and finalised, the tax payer have done as well as possible. 

Great stadium? It might be a great athletics stadium, it very much isn't a great football ground.  

Well yes all in it was a terrible use of taxpayer money, but West Ham can't be blamed for that. It's galling compared to what the club did eventually pay, but again expecting a football club to voluntarily pay more than they have to is unrealistic. 

And you may has misread the bit about the stadium.

[TheGayTent]

4 minutes ago, mrtourette said:

And you may has misread the bit about the stadium.

I assumed it was sarcasm. 

[mrtourette]

Nah, for football it's not a great stadium.

[The Nal]

1 hour ago, mrtourette said:

The logical alternative is a neutral venue in the North, although the days of logic trumping income for the FA are long gone.

On 9 days notice?

[kaosmark2]

16 minutes ago, The Nal said:

On 9 days notice?

While Wembley was rebuilt semi finals were held at 2 of 3 grounds, typically old Trafford and villa park. Kickoffs were also typically sensible times. 

Edited April 14, 2016 by kaosmark2

[TheGayTent]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

While Wembley was rebuilt semi finals were held at 2 of 3 grounds, typically old Trafford and villa park. Kickoffs were also typically sensible times. 

They were held at plenty of other grounds when old Wembley was still around too. Hillsborough, Highbury, and Maine Road the most barring the ones already mentioned IIRC.