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: ken.overton on 29 Nov 2009 07:44 On Nov 29, 4:50 am, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Chelsea admitted their own > inferiority to Barcelona with their park the bus in own half and pass > back to keeper to hoof out policy, adding a nice dose of that other > quality of great teams, persistent tactical fouling to break up the > play to the proceedings. I'm not speaking of just this tie, I mean for a team who has always kicked, clutched, held, and otherwise obstructed opponents to get points (not to mention their healthy appetite for turf) to feel they lost because the referee didn't call their fouls is so rich and creamy as to give us a coronary with just one bite.
From: Benny on 29 Nov 2009 09:32 > Subject : The Wunderteams of football history and why they never won a title in their prime > From : s_debgupta(a)yahoo.com > Rubbish. Nigeria were a **very strong** side. Physically yes. > Rest happened after Maradona left, so it is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant he cheated and deserved to be banned. > 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. > 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. > 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: FF on 29 Nov 2009 17:15 Abubakr wrote: > On 29 Nov, 05:03, FF <FAIRFOOTBALL....(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > > ken.over...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > On Nov 27, 2:35 pm, FF <FAIRFOOTBALL....(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > > > > Barca could only stop them by doing > > > > many penalty offenses, which were systematically overlooked by Ovrebo. > > > > > I feel so bad for Chelsea; they were such a clean, non-fouling, > > > positive, attack-oriented side. > > > > They were defense-oriented but they didn't park the bus. They > > countered whenever they had the chance, which was a lot of times. > > So you missed the first leg did you? I was talking mainly about the return leg, indeed. I don't remember the first one at all, so it may very well be as you say. It makes sense, playing away to Barcelona. 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.
From: FF on 29 Nov 2009 17:24 ken.overton(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Nov 29, 4:50 am, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Chelsea admitted their own > > inferiority to Barcelona with their park the bus in own half and pass > > back to keeper to hoof out policy, adding a nice dose of that other > > quality of great teams, persistent tactical fouling to break up the > > play to the proceedings. > > I'm not speaking of just this tie, I mean for a team who has always > kicked, clutched, held, and otherwise obstructed opponents to get > points (not to mention their healthy appetite for turf) to feel they > lost because the referee didn't call their fouls It's what happened. > is so rich and creamy as to give us a coronary with just one bite. You're probably right generally, and in this tie as well they did do exactly as you say. It doesn't change the fact that according to the laws they most likely should have won.
From: ken.overton on 29 Nov 2009 18:06
On Nov 29, 5:24 pm, FF <FAIRFOOTBALL....(a)domainsbyproxy.com> wrote: > > It's what happened. I don't recall denying it; I do recall enjoying it, though. > You're probably right generally, and in this tie as well they did do > exactly as you say. It doesn't change the fact that according to the > laws they most likely should have won. Which is precisely why it was so enjoyable. I'm crying The Freaking Nile for them .... tears of laughter. |