From: Sven Mischkies on 2 Mar 2010 04:14
anders t <anthu_001(a)no_-_spam_.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Quoting Sven Mischkies in rec.sport.soccer:
> >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.
> But that's exactly what happened. Some Greeks posted ~15k.
Ah, some. ;)
I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it
does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.
From: Diabolik on 2 Mar 2010 05:09
"Abubakr" <deltarasha(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
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)
> >>>>>>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.
These are very good points you make and often taken for granted, even though
Milan spent a lot of money.
1. Berlusconi took risks by hiring an unknow to coach Milan, Sacchi
2. Sacchi was an innovative coach, by "perfecting the "Dutch 70's" zonal
play. Almost every other team in Italy and Europe played man-to-man. So he
made zonal play widestream.
3. Sacchi applied a major point to his tatics, pressing all over the field,
from every player on the field. This is also widestream, but not very.
At the time, everyone was sceptical about Sacchi, but after he won a few
Serie A titles and 2 CL's, he was seen as a football god in Italy, and every
team, from youth teams to Serie A teams, we're trying to study his tatics.
I wonder the influence he had at the time outside of Italy.
Sacchi brought tactical "theory" to the game.
From: Abubakr on 2 Mar 2010 05:44
On Mar 2, 8:13 pm, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) wrote:
> higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > That they now are, 20 years down the track, largely self-sufficient is
> > admirable. Give Chelski 20 years and who's to say they wont be either.
> > Who's to say ManU wont be debt free in 20 years time either.
> It is not admirable. it is the reason why they don't win any titles
> anymore. They scaled back their expenditure only because hte law
> required it.
So it is not admirable that they are a solvent, financially self
And the law has nothing to do with it. Just take a look at Inter,
they've outspent and still almost outspend every other club ever since
Moratti took over. It is just that Milan and Juve decided to change
the way they did the business side of things.
From: Abubakr on 2 Mar 2010 05:49
On Mar 2, 7:45 pm, higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 6:55 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 6:34 pm, higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 2, 11:13 am, Benny <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote:
> > > > > Subject : 10 most hated football teams
> > > > > From : MH <nos...(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.
> > > Milan have no debts because of Berlusconi, just as Chelski have no
> > > debts because of Abramovich.
> > > Most clubs don't have a wealthy benefactor, which is why they borrow.
> > > To compete at the highest level, you need tens of millions, if not
> > > more, which is why so many clubs are currently wallowing in debt.
> > > Had Milan not had Berlusconi, they'd either not have enjoyed the
> > > success they did, or else they'd be heavily in debt.
> > You miss the point. Berlusconi has changed his ways in this decade, he
> > doesn't fork out from his own pockets anymore. Milan is now self
> > sufficient. OTOH, Chelsea owe Abramovic hundreds of millions, just as
> > Man Utd and others owe their investors hundreds of millions.-
> I'd suggest that you're the one missing the point.
> The Milan team of the 80s/90s were, according to Benny, a role model
> for how modern clubs should operate and how to end up debt free.
No, as is usual with you, you've missed the point completely. This is
what Benny had writtern, which you quote but fail to see (or refuse to
see and are off on another strawman adventure?):
"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."
From: Sven Mischkies on 2 Mar 2010 06:47
On Mar 2, 10:44 am, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:13 pm, hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) wrote:
> > higgs <kenhig...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > That they now are, 20 years down the track, largely self-sufficient is
> > > admirable. Give Chelski 20 years and who's to say they wont be either..
> > > Who's to say ManU wont be debt free in 20 years time either.
> > It is not admirable. it is the reason why they don't win any titles
> > anymore. They scaled back their expenditure only because hte law
> > required it.
> So it is not admirable that they are a solvent, financially self
> sufficient club?
Is normality admirable?
Is it admirable when it was only achieved by force of law?
Is it admirable when it was only achieved after cementing the status
of the club by excessive spending?
> And the law has nothing to do with it. Just take a look at Inter,
> they've outspent and still almost outspend every other club ever since
> Moratti took over. It is just that Milan and Juve decided to change
> the way they did the business side of things.
Ok, I am not sure about the law, scratch that if you want. ;)
I think Juve has always been more cautious with money than both Milano
clubs, but of course I could be a victim of the Bianconeri Propaganda