The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won a title in their prime
in [World Football]
|
Prev: UEFA playoffs [R]
Next: Worst soccer confederations
From: JK on 30 Nov 2009 13:13 Benny wrote: > > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won > a title in their prime > > From : jknapp(a)oacpc.com > > > Look, I can't stand the guy either, and I'm not here to defend him, but > > with him they were looking very much like potential winners. > > Do you think the fact that he was pilled-up to the eyeballs had no > impact on his performances? He had five variants of ephedrine in his > system which helps weight loss and boosts adrenaline. He took a > short-cut, he cheated, he was rightly sent home. > Honestly, I have no idea if it impacted his performance or to what degree. I doubt anyone REALLY does. I'm glad he got caught and was punished. I'm just saying that Argentina with him were a very good side in that WC.
From: ken.overton on 30 Nov 2009 14:44 On Nov 29, 5:15 pm, FF <FAIRFOOTBALL....(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2 > legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never > agree about this. Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is another. They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly better at fouling.
From: FF on 30 Nov 2009 17:53 ken.overton(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Nov 29, 5:15 pm, FF <FAIRFOOTBALL....(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > > Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2 > > legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never > > agree about this. > > Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is > another. They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached > the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly > better at fouling. True, but these are the rules. On the one hand you have a lot of field fouls, which the ref should have punished with a few yellow cards for persistent fouling but he didn't. On the other hand you have 3 non- granted penalties (3 more than for Barca). Which one do you choose ? I think it's hard to argue against 3 penalties. But then, of course, if the ref had been stricter against Chelsea's dirty game there's no saying how it would have ended. So things are far from certain anyway.
From: Enzo on 30 Nov 2009 21:08 On Nov 29, 2:32 pm, Benny <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote: > > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never > won a title in their prime > > From : s_debgu...(a)yahoo.com > > > Rubbish. Nigeria were a **very strong** side. > > Physically yes. Not physically. Technically. Better than any African side playing at present. And the physical bit helps. Not for nothing do you yourself constantly go on about "midgets". Except for Messi, of course, who for some strange reason you all seen to think is the messiah. Reminds me of that Portuguese poster who used to think the same of Fabio Paim. > > > Rest happened after Maradona left, so it is irrelevant. > > It is not irrelevant he cheated and deserved to be banned. > It is irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, he was banned, but he did not cheat. That Italian defender who knocked out Enrique's nose, he cheated. > > If you look at the composition of the side, they had the best players > in at least > > 4 positions, and very good ones elsewhere. > > > > strike duo = caniggia and batistuta, best in the world > > Your attempts are revisionist history are pathetic. Caniggia was a > mediocre player. 16 goals in 50 games for Argentina, 4 in 20 for Roma > before the World Cup. A good link man, nothing more. I didnt say Caniggia singly. I said "strike duo". > > > midfield = redondo and maradona, best in the world, > > Maradona didn't play any league games in 1994. Best in the World because > of a goal against Greece? Don't be ridiculous. > Dont be delusional. From someone who raves week in and week out about Cassano, the rest of this stuff is not worth consideration. > > simeone, ortega > > Simeone was a thug, Ortega an overrated midget, no better or worse than > that other fraud Aimar. > > > world class > > defense = sensini, ruggeri world class > > Sensini maybe. Ruggeri was playing for a mediocre San Lorenzo team in > 1994. Clearly not World Class. > > > others = islas, chamot, caceres, balbo etc borderline world class > > You don't know the meaning of the words World Class. Balbo was brilliant > for Roma, average for Argentina. > > > After Maradona's expulsion, they lost a meaningless game to the > > greatest Bulgarian side ever, and then a competitive game to the > > greatest Rumanian side ever. > > They were a massively overrated team as you clearly demonstrate with > your romantic views in this post. Great teams don't get knocked out in > the second round. > > --http://soccer-europe.com > Rss feed :http://soccer-europe.com/RSS/News.xml
From: Enzo on 30 Nov 2009 21:22
On Nov 30, 7:44 pm, "ken.over...(a)gmail.com" <ken.over...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 29, 5:15 pm, FF <FAIRFOOTBALL....(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > > > Anyway, park-the-bus is part of the game, unfortunately. Over the 2 > > legs Chelsea still were probably better. But obviously we'll never > > agree about this. > > Again, park-the-bus is one thing; foul everything that moves is > another. They did a nice job of fouling everybody before they reached > the box, so by your metric they were probably better ... certainly > better at fouling. Revisionist lies. Here is the match statistics link - http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season=2009/round=15279/match=302812/report=st.html Total fouls - 16 Chelsea, 17 Barcelona. |