Jump to content

Unpopular opinions: Football but not DCFC

IlsonDerby

By IlsonDerby
in Football Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 262
  • Created
  • Last Reply
rynny

rynny

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Rampant said:

Free-kicks and penalties for handball should only be awarded if there is - in the opinion of the referee - a clear and obvious intent by the defender to use his arm deliberately. The idea of arms being in an unnatural position is too vague and unfair on defenders.

That is the rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sexydadbod

Sexydadbod

Posted
Posted

The premier league is one of the easiest “top leagues” to score in. The standard of defending in the league is appalling. The only world class defender in the premier league is alderweireld, and even he hasn’t played recently due to injuries.

Mbappe is already a top 5 player in the world, he’s a freak.

Belgium as a team are overrated, they have a number of good players on paper but the only players who turn up for them are hazard, Lukaku and mertens. The rest are a much of a muchness and underperform greatly.

Sadio Mane is one of the best players in the world, I’d rather have him in my team than Firmino and Salah.

Yaya Toure was at least as good as Lampard and Gerrard but given nowhere near the same amount of praise.

Fabian Barthez was overrated and made too many mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
GadFly

GadFly

Posted
Posted
On 06/06/2018 at 17:45, Bris Vegas said:

If you’re going to spout out something, at least do a little research first.

Man Utd had a bigger wage bill than City in the 2017-18 campaign by £10m. They also have the record buy in Pogba.

Arsenal’s wage bill is also £4.45m shy of City’s yearly wage bill, so £85k per week, or in other words less than what Danny Welbeck earns in a week.

This myth that City blow everybody else out of the water financially is absolute nonsense. They’ve spent huge sums on fees, but they’ve spent incredibly well when you consider they’re miles better than United who spend more on wages and Arsenal finished about 40 points behid them despite paying their players very similar.

Pep’s cosching ability is evident for all to see. And his record in the transfer market is decent.

City haven’t bought a single player which was out of reach of the other big six. Fees and wages prove this...

 

 

Whilst that is all true, Arsenal and United (the 2 teams you've mentioned) also have a host of home grown players each. Whether they're from London or Manchester or not is another matter, but they're products of the clubs academy systems... including record buy Pogba. 

What irks me about Manchester City is that they don't have a single lad from Manchester in their side, ever. They simply purchased a borderline world-class player in each position. Arsenal have/had Bellerin, Wilshere, Ramsey, Maitland-Niles, all classed as home grown. United have Lingard, Pogba, McTominay and Rashford. Liverpool have Trent. Spurs have a number of players including Harry Kane. City (and also Chelsea) have no one! Don't try and say "McFoden!"... introducing a kid for 8 minutes when you're already 3-0 up, or picking one for the first time in like 5 years, when the title is already won, does not count. 

That is what gets people's backs up, mine at least. 

If it were up to me I'd introduce a rule whereby every club in the top 4 tiers of England has to field at least one (preferably 3 or 4, over time) academy graduate(s) in their team each week. It's madness that this isn't already the case IMO. if they're not good enough, tough titty. 

That's another discussion, admittedly, but it's my 2 cents nonetheless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GadFly said:

Whilst that is all true, Arsenal and United (the 2 teams you've mentioned) also have a host of home grown players each. Whether they're from London or Manchester or not is another matter, but they're products of the clubs academy systems... including record buy Pogba. 

What irks me about Manchester City is that they don't have a single lad from Manchester in their side, ever. They simply purchased a borderline world-class player in each position. Arsenal have/had Bellerin, Wilshere, Ramsey, Maitland-Niles, all classed as home grown. United have Lingard, Pogba, McTominay and Rashford. Liverpool have Trent. Spurs have a number of players including Harry Kane. City (and also Chelsea) have no one! Don't try and say "McFoden!"... introducing a kid for 8 minutes when you're already 3-0 up, or picking one for the first time in like 5 years, when the title is already won, does not count. 

That is what gets people's backs up, mine at least. 

If it were up to me I'd introduce a rule whereby every club in the top 4 tiers of England has to field at least one (preferably 3 or 4, over time) academy graduate(s) in their team each week. It's madness that this isn't already the case IMO. if they're not good enough, tough titty. 

That's another discussion, admittedly, but it's my 2 cents nonetheless. 

McFoden is only 18, and then you’ve got Angus Gunn, Brahim Diaz and Lukas Nmecha around the first-team squad.

For a world class team, it takes time for players who have world class potential to come through.

City have only been world class for less than a decade. Let’s not forget, before that they were just another midtable PL club like Newcastle.

I’m sure if they were only a midtable club, they’d give more chances to youth and Foden in particular would be a regular by now. But this is a world class team chasing all the titles. It takes time. Players like Iniesta didn’t become a Barca regular until he was 23 or 24.

City have produced players. Daniel Sturridge and Micah Richards to name two. But neither was ever world class and not at the level needed to win titles.

City will have graduates in their first-team in the near future. They wouldn’t have invested so heavily in the academy and training centre if that wasn’t the case. But it won’t happen overnight.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andicis

Andicis

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

McFoden is only 18, and then you’ve got Angus Gunn, Brahim Diaz and Lukas Nmecha around the first-team squad.

For a world class team, it takes time for players who have world class potential to come through.

City have only been world class for less than a decade. Let’s not forget, before that they were just another midtable PL club like Newcastle.

I’m sure if they were only a midtable club, they’d give more chances to youth and Foden in particular would be a regular by now. But this is a world class team chasing all the titles. It takes time. Players like Iniesta didn’t become a Barca regular until he was 23 or 24.

City have produced players. Daniel Sturridge and Micah Richards to name two. But neither was ever world class and not at the level needed to win titles.

City will have graduates in their first-team in the near future. They wouldn’t have invested so heavily in the academy and training centre if that wasn’t the case. But it won’t happen overnight.

 

Let's face it, if we're being honest here, the chances of City ever giving these players a fair shot is close to 0. They'd prefer to buy a new player for 50 million than give what they have a chance. Pretty sure Chelsea invest heavily in their academy, yet they do not give the academy players a chance. City and Chelsea represent everything wrong in football at the moment. They were some of the clubs who started to escalate spending in the first place, and they are absolutely awful at giving players a chance. 

Was Kane world class and ready when Spurs put him in? Absolutely not. Is he now? Yes. It requires a bit of faith and a little bit of encouragement from the club. I'm absolutely positive if the City youngsters want to get a shot in the first team it'll require them to move elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EssendonRam

EssendonRam

Posted
Posted
On 06/06/2018 at 07:47, David said:

Guardiola is not a genius. Mourinho is a better manager.

Tony Pulis looks daft without a hat.

Premier League is the best league in the world.

La Liga is the most overhyped league because of the Barca and Real fanboys.

If England’s top clubs formed a European breakaway league it would kill English football. 

Sky Sports did not ruin football.

Monday and Friday football is great.

Liverpool are the most entertaining team to watch in Europe as a neutral under Klopp.

Liverpool and Celtic fans create the best atmospheres.

Football shirts without sponsors look poo.

Modern stadiums are much better than older run down grounds such as City Ground and Hillsbrough.

Leicester City winning the Premier League is the greatest thing to happen since the Premier League was formed.

Arsenal’s invincible are criminally underrated.

Any footballer can look good in a 5 minute YouTube reel, including Conor Sammon.

The FA need to keep Wembley.

England travelling around the country is rubbish, they need to play at Wembley.

VAR will be a great addition to the game once they have it sorted.

Some of those surely aren't unpopular?

For instance, the only competitor with the Premier League is the Bundesliga (and it's not close). La Liga overhyped? That is an understatement.

 

Agree with you about sponsors on shirts too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GadFly

GadFly

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Andicis said:

Let's face it, if we're being honest here, the chances of City ever giving these players a fair shot is close to 0. They'd prefer to buy a new player for 50 million than give what they have a chance. Pretty sure Chelsea invest heavily in their academy, yet they do not give the academy players a chance. City and Chelsea represent everything wrong in football at the moment. They were some of the clubs who started to escalate spending in the first place, and they are absolutely awful at giving players a chance. 

Was Kane world class and ready when Spurs put him in? Absolutely not. Is he now? Yes. It requires a bit of faith and a little bit of encouragement from the club. I'm absolutely positive if the City youngsters want to get a shot in the first team it'll require them to move elsewhere. 

Took the words right out of my mouth 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David

David

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Mo salah won’t score 15 goals next season. 

We shouldn’t have sacked Big Sam from England

 

Didn’t score 15 goals last season, shed load more, which he will again next season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, Andicis said:

Let's face it, if we're being honest here, the chances of City ever giving these players a fair shot is close to 0. They'd prefer to buy a new player for 50 million than give what they have a chance. Pretty sure Chelsea invest heavily in their academy, yet they do not give the academy players a chance. City and Chelsea represent everything wrong in football at the moment. They were some of the clubs who started to escalate spending in the first place, and they are absolutely awful at giving players a chance. 

Was Kane world class and ready when Spurs put him in? Absolutely not. Is he now? Yes. It requires a bit of faith and a little bit of encouragement from the club. I'm absolutely positive if the City youngsters want to get a shot in the first team it'll require them to move elsewhere. 

City already are giving chances to those players. Foden was in and around the first-team, getting minutes off the bench and starting cup games. He’s 18, he isn’t going to start the big games just yet.

Also, where is your proof that City would prefer to buy £50m players? They have bought a lot of players because it was necessary. The real test is in the next five years, as they have quite a few top youngsters on their books and a young squad. They no longer need to replace 70% of the first-team squad unlike when Pep first joined.

Kane is the only Spurs graduate currently getting games there. He had loans at Leicester first. Let’s see if Foden comes in for City when he turns 21 to make it a fair comparison.

And I also disagree about City and the spending. Manchester United bought players for £30m+ back in 2001, the equivalent of £80m today. Let’s not just forget that.

United have the British transfer record for a striker and midfielder. Liverpool have the British transfer record for a defender. United have the biggest wage bill in the PL. But let’s blame City for the spending... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andicis

Andicis

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

City already are giving chances to those players. Foden was in and around the first-team, getting minutes off the bench and starting cup games. He’s 18, he isn’t going to start the big games just yet.

Also, where is your proof that City would prefer to buy £50m players? They have bought a lot of players because it was necessary. The real test is in the next five years, as they have quite a few top youngsters on their books and a young squad. They no longer need to replace 70% of the first-team squad unlike when Pep first joined.

Kane is the only Spurs graduate currently getting games there. He had loans at Leicester first. Let’s see if Foden comes in for City when he turns 21 to make it a fair comparison.

And I also disagree about City and the spending. Manchester United bought players for £30m+ back in 2001, the equivalent of £80m today. Let’s not just forget that.

United have the British transfer record for a striker and midfielder. Liverpool have the British transfer record for a defender. United have the biggest wage bill in the PL. But let’s blame City for the spending... 

Foden is getting sporadic performances, it's not really enough to prove anything. It's far too little to actually help him as a player. 

Where is my proof they'd prefer to buy £50 million worth of players? How about the fact that they spent more in one window than any other club ever? City and Chelsea would always prefer to splash the cash than look at what they have. See Chelsea missing out on De Bruyne. Isn't that why Jadon Sancho left to Dortmund? 

Kane, you're forgetting Winks before he got injured, and a lot of academy graduates before that who got a chance, Mason, Bentaleb, Alli was signed from league 1 and given a chance as a youngster etc. 

Manchester United earned their revenue and are the biggest club in England. City have an oil sugar daddy. Different levels. 

Why is United even relevant in this discussion? United and Liverpool give youth a chance. That's proven. United spend, but also give youth players a chance. McTominay, Rashford, Lingard. Liverpool have Trent Alexander-Arnold. City ARE to blame for the spending, so I will quite rightly blame them. They escalated the fees in the first place. They're everything wrong with world football in one plastic club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...