10 most hated football teams
in [World Football]
|
From: Joachim Parsch on 1 Mar 2010 15:16 Bruce D. Scott schrieb: > Joachim Parsch (sm(a)bunuel.franken.de) wrote: > > : Maybe Bayern's additional European success tilted the balance. > : And you need a good guy <-> bad guy setup for medial purposes, so > : Gladbach had to take the role of the good guys. > > Was any of this due to some particular personalities? Beckenbauer for > reasons already noted? Beckenbauer was never a darling of the people, like, for example, a guy like "Uns Uwe" Seeler was. Breitner provided some food for dislike with his leftist political tendencies (in RAF* times, remember). Generally the Bayern stars of that time were blamed for being arrogant (there is also the story of Bayern bringing their own food to the EC away game in Dresden). *Rote Armee Fraktion, not Royal Air Force > Some glamour boy on Gladbach (note this is > before my football time, mostly)? No, not Netzer anyway. If anything it should have been the fact, that Gladbach's championship team of 70/71 (the "Fohlenelf") was slightliy younger than the - in a way - already established Bayern squad (DFB-Pokal 66/67, EC2 67, championship 69). So Gladbach may have been viewed as the challengers of the establishment, which makes a media's favourite (see also Hoffenheim). Actually I don't know whether Gladbach really had a younger squad. > Or some general dislike of Bayern > within Germany (this was after all the Franz Joseph Strauss time)? This surely played a role. There were many factors (region, timing of the success, some personalities), and when Bayern regrouped at the beginning of the 80s around Breitner and Rummenigge, the bad guy role was written in stone (almost) forever, no matter, how the team played and how many goals they scored :-) It has become a little bit better in the last few years - the media seems to have realised that it's no good annoying the Bayern fans constantly ;-) > : What's more important is the fact, that the opinion leader in German > : BL football back then was clearly the Sportschau (Sports TV at > : saturday 18:00). And the Sportschau was based in the West: K�ln, > : Gladbach et.al. were the media darlings, while Bayern was simply > : from the wrong region of Germany (don't forget the everlasting > : quarrel inside ARD, between leftist WDR and stone-conservative BR). > > That too, but if the main opinion would have been Koeln then Gladbach > would not be darlings :-) But the Koeln <=> Gladbach rivalry wasn't so intense in the early 70s, I think, it was all Bayern and Gladbach. But yes, Koeln would have been number one for the Sportschau, but Gladbach was preferred over the wild South :-) Joachim
From: Sven Mischkies on 1 Mar 2010 17:27 anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote: > I have no link, but there was official (I think) figures for how much every > player in every team ran in meters in each game. That was the main reason I > immediately and always maintained Greece were juiced up. There is simply no > way top trained athletes can suddenly differ that much without aid from > doping. It is normal to run 10-12km in a game, I don't believe that the greeks ran 15-18km. Ciao, SM -- http://www.gourockviews.co.uk I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously. Douglas Adams
From: MH on 1 Mar 2010 17:45 Abubakr wrote: > On Feb 27, 1:14 am, Sven Mischkies <hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net> > wrote: > >>On Feb 26, 12:46 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Feb 26, 8:27 pm, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) >>>wrote: >> >>>>>>AC Milan early 90's >>>>> >>>>>No way. One of my hate teams. Basically bought their way to glory, >>>>>besides played closed rough cheat italian football IIRC. >>>> >>>>I agree regarding the money, Milan of 80s and 90s was no different to >>>>Chelski today. >>> >>>Except that the Milan of the late 80's and early 90's played >>>brilliant, ground breaking, epoch making football and Chelski are just >>>one of many similar bores going around. >> >>Let me correct this: >>Except that the Milan of the 80's and early 90's used the money that >>they didn't have in the first place better than Chelski. > > > Well Milan did become a prototype of the modern football club, highly > commercialised, a global fanbase, big spending, rapacious and > Berlusconi had everything to do with it that. And hated too, > especially if you were a fan of Juve or Inter. But then they both > ended up copy catting his methods on and off the field. It was his > lobbying that made the Italian authorities change the foreigner rule > from 3 in the entire squad to 3 in the match squad, so that he could > not only hoard the most in form Italian players but the best on the > continent too, and presented it as a fait accompli to UEFA, even > before the Bosman ruling. That was in 92 and he had already bought > Boban and three Dutchmen to whom he added Papin, Savicevic, Elber, and > the Italians Lentini, De Napoli, Eranio. By the expense and standards > of those times, this was every bit a big a spending spree as any in > this decade, and he kept it up for a number of years. In other words, Milan were trend-setting in the move to a few mega clubs around Europe wanting everything their way. They were the first, as far as I can tell, to put an excessive emphasis on winning the European Cup/CL ahead of their own league, among the first to do squad rotation and among the first to stock their bench with international players. If you like the current state of European football, you should be very grateful to Milan and their influence. I find the whole process a bit revolting and nostalgically look back on the 70s and 80s, when small clubs that regularly had to sell players could win many of the European leagues - hell even Spain had a sea-change in the early 80s with Athletic and Real Sociedad winning titles, and Italy had Verona and ROma winning first titles in a long while, while England had Villa (Ipswich in contention) and Everton win titles out of nowhere. > > >
From: Benny on 1 Mar 2010 19:13 > Subject : 10 most hated football teams > From : MH <nospam(a)ucalgary.ca> > In other words, Milan were trend-setting in the move to a few mega clubs > around Europe wanting everything their way. They were the first, as far > as I can tell, to put an excessive emphasis on winning the European > Cup/CL ahead of their own league, You can make that argument now but not back then, after all they won four league titles in five years under Capello. > among the first to do squad rotation and among the first to stock their bench with international players. True. > If you like the current state of European football, you should be very > grateful to Milan and their influence. If teams followed Milan's methods TODAY they would get their books in order, as Milan have (now a club with no debts) and would spend wisely in the market and have a core of players born in that country. Another aspect of the Milan side teams have followed is in not ditching ageing players, look at Manchester United for example. > I find the whole process a bit revolting and nostalgically look back on the 70s and 80s, when small > clubs that regularly had to sell players could win many of the European > leagues - hell even Spain had a sea-change in the early 80s with > Athletic and Real Sociedad winning titles, and Italy had Verona and ROma > winning first titles in a long while, while England had Villa (Ipswich > in contention) and Everton win titles out of nowhere. Criticising Milan is ridiculous. They club was on it's knees when Berlusconi took over. Juve had been having their way in Italy for years. Berlusconi restored Milan to what he thought was their rightful place among Europe's elite. Given Gullit aside the team was cheaply built, had a backbone of players from the youth team and played fabulous, state of the art football that had an impact in Italy and beyond and that is why Sacchi, who has only won one league title, and his team are held in higher regard than almost any other club side in history, bar Di Stefano's Real Madrid. It's under only Capello that Milan started to stockpile talent and spend heavily and that policy failed. Criticising Milan would be like criticising Barcelona now. The models are the same only Barca are some �300 million in debt and that's due to heavy spending, something Milan haven't done in almost a decade. -- http://soccer-europe.com Rss feed : http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
From: Abubakr on 1 Mar 2010 19:19
On Mar 2, 9:45 am, MH <nos...(a)ucalgary.ca> wrote: > Abubakr wrote: > > On Feb 27, 1:14 am, Sven Mischkies <hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net> > > wrote: > > >>On Feb 26, 12:46 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>On Feb 26, 8:27 pm, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) > >>>wrote: > > >>>>>>AC Milan early 90's > > >>>>>No way. One of my hate teams. Basically bought their way to glory, > >>>>>besides played closed rough cheat italian football IIRC. > > >>>>I agree regarding the money, Milan of 80s and 90s was no different to > >>>>Chelski today. > > >>>Except that the Milan of the late 80's and early 90's played > >>>brilliant, ground breaking, epoch making football and Chelski are just > >>>one of many similar bores going around. > > >>Let me correct this: > >>Except that the Milan of the 80's and early 90's used the money that > >>they didn't have in the first place better than Chelski. > > > Well Milan did become a prototype of the modern football club, highly > > commercialised, a global fanbase, big spending, rapacious and > > Berlusconi had everything to do with it that. And hated too, > > especially if you were a fan of Juve or Inter. But then they both > > ended up copy catting his methods on and off the field. It was his > > lobbying that made the Italian authorities change the foreigner rule > > from 3 in the entire squad to 3 in the match squad, so that he could > > not only hoard the most in form Italian players but the best on the > > continent too, and presented it as a fait accompli to UEFA, even > > before the Bosman ruling. That was in 92 and he had already bought > > Boban and three Dutchmen to whom he added Papin, Savicevic, Elber, and > > the Italians Lentini, De Napoli, Eranio. By the expense and standards > > of those times, this was every bit a big a spending spree as any in > > this decade, and he kept it up for a number of years. > > In other words, Milan were trend-setting in the move to a few mega clubs > around Europe wanting everything their way. They were the first, as far > as I can tell, to put an excessive emphasis on winning the European > Cup/CL ahead of their own league, among the first to do squad rotation > and among the first to stock their bench with international players. > > If you like the current state of European football, you should be very > grateful to Milan and their influence. I find the whole process a bit > revolting and nostalgically look back on the 70s and 80s, when small > clubs that regularly had to sell players could win many of the European > leagues - hell even Spain had a sea-change in the early 80s with > Athletic and Real Sociedad winning titles, and Italy had Verona and ROma > winning first titles in a long while, while England had Villa (Ipswich > in contention) and Everton win titles out of nowhere. Yes, of course. Remember also that this whole business of a European super league, and the UEFA compromise with the creation of the CL, was a Berlusconi brainchild. He is on record wanting to do with International football altogether and just have a European league of the biggest clubs playing all year round. But they were also trendsetting on the field of play. They almost singlehandedly brought back zonal marking in most of Europe (England was its last surviving enclave before Sacchi came on the scene), and their high tempo pressing married to the best available talent became the modus operandi of all the most successful teams after them. While some teams copied the outward formations and overall strategy (Man Utd throughout the 90's), others went for the philosophy behind them, e.g. Barcelona post 2004. It is no accident that it was a former Milan man that instilled in that club the high pressing style that became turned them from a club playing just pretty football to one virtually impossible to beat on a good day. Milan were also the first the play wide attackers on "the wrong" wing, now almost part and parcel of modern tactics through Rijkaard's Barcelona. |