Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

Football 2015/16


TheGayTent

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

13 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think theres a bigger reason that they have only won the league once and that is the existence of a pretty decent team in the same country.

Barca have had their dips over the last 7-8 years though. Real just haven't capitalised. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Barca have had their dips over the last 7-8 years though. Real just haven't capitalised. 

Well even the greatest have dips in form, but Barcelona have been the best team in the last 20 years.  In my lifetime only Milan in the late 80s early 90s may be better.  If Real Madrid with the exact same team spirit were put in the premiership I have no doubt they would have won multiple titles in that time. I think the players accept Ronaldo is a cock, but one they want on their side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
4 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

That Liverpool team of the late 70s/early 80s would put up a strong argument, no? 

They won a lot, but 'better'? Nah.

They'd get badly whipped if the same team of the same player-ages could play today's Barca. There's no comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
5 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I don't think you can make statements like that - too many variables to make worthwhile comparisons. 

while I get where you're coming from, I'd say the standard of footie has massively improved from the days when footballers were part of the beer and fags gang - and that's one variable that's varied and shouldn't be ignored, I reckon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

They won a lot, but 'better'? Nah.

They'd get badly whipped if the same team of the same player-ages could play today's Barca. There's no comparison.

Players of different times/eras who experienced different approaches to the game and nurturing and training methods etc etc. The game is so much more professional today then back then. The players we see today if born back in the 50s/60s would not be playing like they do today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

while I get where you're coming from, I'd say the standard of footie has massively improved from the days when footballers were part of the beer and fags gang - and that's one variable that's varied and shouldn't be ignored, I reckon.

Then the comparison is a pointless one anyway - as the most recent team will always win out. Health and fitness technology does not go backwards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Then the comparison is a pointless one anyway - as the most recent team will always win out. Health and fitness technology does not go backwards. 

It's difficult to say, I don't think that great Milan team would struggle today. I think the bigger factor is the movement of players from abroad, that Liverpool team were picking from a far smaller pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

It's difficult to say, I don't think that great Milan team would struggle today. I think the bigger factor is the movement of players from abroad, that Liverpool team were picking from a far smaller pool.

They would struggle less because the Italians took nutrition seriously a lot earlier than the Brits did but they would still struggle in many other ways. 

One thing is for sure - that Milan team wouldn't be been eating Beef Wellington for lunch before a 3pm game !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Arsenal team that went undefeated were pretty damn good, Plus the United team that won the champs league in 2008 with Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney would imo beat both the old Liverpool team and that AC Milan team (as much as it pains me to say so)

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, eastynh said:

The Arsenal team that went undefeated were pretty damn good, Plus the United team that won the champs league in 2008 with Ronaldo, Tevez and Rooney would imo beat both the old Liverpool team and that AC Milan team (as much as it pains me to say so)

I disagree. You look at that Milan team and there's a few who I would classify as being amongst the best in their position in the last 25 years, look at the man utd team and there's one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I disagree. You look at that Milan team and there's a few who I would classify as being amongst the best in their position in the last 25 years, look at the man utd team and there's one.

I think that United team was a far better all round team team. Scholes was imo better than any player in that Milan midfield. The forward 3 of Uniteds was a better combination that the 2 of Milans. As good as Gullit and Van Basten were, none of them were as good as Ronaldo. Tevez and Rooney in his prime were no mugs either. Vidic and Ferdinand were a fantastic pairing. Plus Hargreaves was a fantastic player, it was injuries that done in him. Van Der Saar was a far better keeper than Milans as well.

There are great names in that Milan team. You could argue that Van Basten, Baersi and Maldini are the greatest ever players in their position respectively. Yet I think overall the United team would have the upper hand. That Milan defence was slow, football especially Italian football in the 80's was far slower than it was in 2008. Ronaldo and Tevez would have imo ran them ragged.

Football is all about opinions and we will never know what the outcome would have been unfortunately.

That squad of Uniteds though is the best United squad I have ever seen.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barcelona for me are head and shoulders above anything I've seen and Messi is probably the best player. Ajax 95 also deserve a mention though it was split up pretty quickly and didn't reach its full potential. It beat still a very good Milan side 3 times on the way to the trophy that year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, eastynh said:

I think that United team was a far better all round team team. Scholes was imo better than any player in that Milan midfield. The forward 3 of Uniteds was a better combination that the 2 of Milans. As good as Gullit and Van Basten were, none of them were as good as Ronaldo. Tevez and Rooney in his prime were no mugs either. Vidic and Ferdinand were a fantastic pairing. Plus Hargreaves was a fantastic player, it was injuries that done in him. Van Der Saar was a far better keeper than Milans as well.

There are great names in that Milan team. You could argue that Van Basten, Baersi and Maldini are the greatest ever players in their position respectively. Yet I think overall the United team would have the upper hand. That Milan defence was slow, football especially Italian football in the 80's was far slower than it was in 2008. Ronaldo and Tevez would have imo ran them ragged.

Van Basten and Papin played together briefly too. That would've been unbelievable if it lasted. Van Basten was one of the first to average a goal a game over his entire career, when he was fit obviously. He played injured a lot.

Also, that Milan defence being slow is a myth. Baresi was lightning quick, as was Maldini.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
19 minutes ago, The Nal said:

I didn't say that! Quote fail!

whoops, sorry  ... that's what happens when you do the quote thing from within a post of yours where you're quoting someone else.

I';ll try not to make that mistake again (I knew it wasn't you who'd said it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...