2017/18 Football Season Thread

[ca_gere]

The whole Utd team was rubbish.

Thoroughly enjoyable wknd of football I thought. Leicester v Stoke was one of the games of the season for me. Wasn't your typical mid-table slobberknocker - the football was actually really good. Both teams attacking and defending well.

Palace are gonna be ok. Enough quality in that team to start winning for sure. It would have been the most spursian thing to do had they lost to Palace after flattening Real.

City are probably right now the best team I've ever seen in my lifetime. I say that with some careful consideration too. Of course, they've won fuck all but in pure footballing terms, they're absolutely incredible. Beating Napoli 4-2 at their gaff cemented it for me. Barca a few years ago were incredible but still fairly reliant on Messi (controversial opinion perhaps amongst your chin-stroking Xavi/iniesta wank-a-thon types, but it's true - you take him out that team they're nowhere near as unbeatable). Galactico-era Madrid were incredible but patchy. Maldini/Costacurta/Baresi era Milan I caught the tail-end of so can't comment too much on. This City team just have scintillating quality all over and look like a unit. Every player on the pitch seems capable of doing something no other opposing player can. Pep's Barca had a slow triangle-passing build up that would wear teams down and finds holes, this team looks more attack-minded that makes those holes. 

Morata can fairly head a football eh? A really satisfying header in a world where it seems a forgotten art-form.

[Soda Jerk]

United were awful. And have been for a few weeks. They are built around Pogba. Since he got inured, they've been scraping by, in truly awful fashion. No idea when he's back. It was hamstring injury that wasn't severe enough to warrant surgery, but he's been gone nearly 10 weeks now. Chelsea could have bent United over if they wanted. Fortunately for United, Bakayoko seemed to be involved more than anyone on the pitch, and everything he touched turned to shite. What does that guy even do? He buzzes round a lot, but his technique is non-existent.

Mkhitaryan though. I don't get him. He was Bundesliga Player of the Year. What is he good at? He pussies out of every challenge, everything he does seems to result in the opposition retrieving the ball. Mata is 10 times the player. Even though he is slower and weaker, he doesn't lose every challenge like Mkhi does, and he's a good finisher. Mkhi just lashes aimlessly at everything, but he's undroppable at the moment. United play with 10 men when he's on the pitch. I don't remember Kagawa being anywhere near as bad, yet he was pretty bad.

 

City are playing well, but best team ever (in your lifetime)? I think that is incredibly hyperbolic at this stage, considering that they were only decent at best last season, and this season is only 2 and a half months old (and they just beat a hapless Arsenal side at home with a dive and an offside goal). I understand your point about Messi, and even though they were incredibly functional as a team, he was the spearhead of it, and without him, they could often be a little toothless. I think City have a similar reliance on De Bruyne. Nobody in that side can do what he does, and without him, they lack that spark, especially as Silva isn't quite the player he was, and Aguero isn't as explosive as he used to be. Take De Bruyne out of that side, and they become decent at best. They really struggled when he was out last season. I'd still put Pep's Barca miles ahead of them, and most/all sides. Whilst Messi made them a real threat, the midfield 3 was arguably the best midfield 3 ever, and it's easy to forget how explosive Samuel Eto'o was in Pep's first season. He was the best centre forward at that time. In Rome against United, they were just incredible. Eto'o, Messi and Iniesta tore United a new arsehole.

Even just in the Premier League, I'd put 98-01 United, 04-06 Chelsea and 06-09 United ahead of current City. 07/08 United especially was ridiculous. Best defence in the league, possibly ever. Rooney, Ronaldo Tevez up front was just carnage, Scholes as a one man midfield, Edwin getting better with age... if not for dropping a bollock and playing a weakened side against Portsmouth in the cup, they'd have won the treble and gone down as one of the best ever. That missing trophy is a major blow, and means the '99 side is probably ranked ahead of them, when they probably shouldn't be.

Also Heynckes' Bayern. They were a right laugh to watch that season, whilst being rock solid at the back. They kicked the bollocks off of Barca and Juve on their way to the final, won the Treble. That was such a functional, well oiled team. They didn't have a player who scored more than 20 goals in the league, despite them scoring 98 league goals, which is insane. The goals were all across the squad. Muller was their top scorer with only 23 in all comps. They broke heaps and heaps of league records that year too, and it was even before they pinched Lewandowski and Gotze from Dortmund. City are a million miles off of that.

And back to back Champions League winners, Real Madrid. It's certainly a platform built to get the best out of Ronaldo, but it is one hell of a platform, and they are still a great team. Take age out of the equation, and I'd take Modric over De Bruyne (or anyone in that City side) every day. Peak Modric is sublime.

 

TL;DR I disagree.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Soda Jerk

[ca_gere]

Agreed on Modric. If there was ever one MOTM award to give out for all eternity it’d go to him.

I think in general teams are better now - faster, stronger, more tactically aware than ever, more stats-driven, more globalized in terms of influence and playing styles. For City to be playing at the level they are, as attractive as they are, against such high caliber players is why I’m saying they’re playing the best football I’ve ever seen. Again, they’ve won nothing so as a team, this isn’t the best ever. But, the football I’m seeing is the best I’ve ever seen. It’s tiki-taka with a bit of a bite to it. 

As much as you’re not allowed to say it in these football hipster days, both pep’s Barca and Hyncke’s Bayern were hardly pushed domestically. They were bossing games at a canter, with ridiculous possession stats. You’d watch a game of theirs and go ‘oh that was a nice 70 pass move and goal’ but moments where they took the game by the scruff of the neck and ‘beat’ teams rather than outplaying them were few and far between. As a collective over-the-course-of-a-season-or-two of course they were better teams. The trophies and performances in late stages of cups will prove that. This city side though are just a pure joy to watch. It’s more the eye test I’m referring to I think. That Napoli game was at times like watching the Hurricanes.

[Soda Jerk]

Barca were pushed by Madrid, who were probably better than any other team in the world except Barca, and Atletico have been better than most for a long time. And Bayern under Heynckes reclaimed the title after Dortmund winning it back to back. That Dortmund side were great. No defence, but still great and made it to the Champions league final, which Bayern won. Their run to the final was seriously impressive. The two legs against Barca, 7-0 on agg I think it was in the end, was just stupid. To me, that was the best individual season of any club side.

Right now you can argue the same for this City side. Who is pushing them? They're 8 points ahead in the first week of November. All their potential challengers are deeply flawed. United or Spurs look most likely to finish second, and it will most likely be a distance behind City. Compare that to late 00's Premier League era and the "Sky Four". United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal. Those teams have not been as strong as they were in that 2005-2010 period. All of those teams are now significantly weaker than they were then, and City now, IMO, aren't close to Mourinho's first Chelsea side or United 06-09.

If City end this season with the title, a domestic cup and the Champions League, I'll certainly be open to changing my tune. I don't think they will though. They'll win the league comfortably, and possibly a cup. I still think they'll fall short in Europe. This is PSG's year, I reckon. That attack is just mad

Edited November 7, 2017 by Soda Jerk

[ca_gere]

As I say, those great teams are better, absolutely no question. Although I would still argue two other good teams (real and athletico) doesn’t make for a fully competitive league. When you’re routinely whooping Leganes and deportivo 8-0 it’s easier to conserve some energy to face those good teams.

I would still prefer to watch this City team over any of the ones mentioned. Maybe peak Ronaldo Utd would make me switch over for a half. Current Napoli are a joy to watch at the moment too. 

[Soda Jerk]

Is the Premier League much different? City are in their own tier on current form. Beneath them you have Spurs, Chelsea and United, then a tier below that Arsenal and Liverpool (in my opinion, of course). Everything outside of that 6 is pretty poor, and even at least 4 of that 6 (Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal) are nowhere near as strong as they've been in recent years. There's some dreadful teams in the Premier League at the moment, and there's barely a side outside of Spurs and United (and arguably Chelsea) that know how to defend. Whilst the whippings aren't as enormous in the Premier League, easy and comprehensive victories from the top 6 against the sides below are fairly regular.

I agree about Napoli. They are this year's Monaco in terms of all-out attacking football. I was quite shocked to learn that their manager, Maurizio Sarri, has been managing since 1990, and only started managing professional clubs in 2000. He was the living derogatory stereotype of a semi-professional in that he was a part time footballer (and then manager), part time banker. He looks fairly young for someone nearing 60 (and for someone who smokes on the touchline), I assumed he was a fairly new manager.

It's quite bizarre when someone - like Sarri - who has been managing at a low level for so long, then they just start to get it right so late in their career. Normally, it happens in reverse: New manager gets an opportunity at a big club, wins, keeps winning at other clubs, begins to lose touch with dated tactics, fizzles out. If Guardiola continues his trend of not being at clubs very long, Sarri would be a sound replacement.

[Soda Jerk]

Sunderland fan has a poo on his seat:

http://www.sportbible.com/football/news-reactions-weird-a-sunderland-fan-has-gone-viral-after-taking-a-st-in-his-seat-20171203

 

Shit fans.

[ca_gere]

Still don't rate Lingard.

[Soda Jerk]

He's good at being better than Mkhitaryan and faster than Mata. He'll go back to being weak and useless in a few weeks. But if he keeps it up all season, he should definitely go to Russia in the Summer. 

Morata last night though. Might be the worst centre forward performance I've seen. Should have scored 5. Ozil was magic. 

[scottyboy]

Wouldn't normally be of interest (except to all the people here dancing on the roofs of public buses in the middle of intersection traffic jams here. Including the bus staff...), but since most of Qatar's U23 team will be part of its World Cup squad in 4 years...

Qatar's U23 team just lost to Vietnam, on penalties. Haven't watched much football in years, but the highlights looked like Sunday league to me. Qatar's keeper gave away a free kick inside the penalty box; not sure I've ever seen that in a pro game before. Qatar's first goal was from a (seemingly to me) dive-gotten penalty and the second a goalmouth crapfest; Vietnam scored after the defence lost possession outside the box; second was a pretty good finish.

4 years away (and for these guys to become something not a million miles away from world class...), but methinks the karmic schadenfreude at FIFA/Qatar will probably be realised.

Edited January 23, 2018 by scottyboy

[Mr Owl PhD]

19 minutes ago, scottyboy said:

Wouldn't normally be of interest (except to all the people here dancing on the roofs of public buses in the middle of intersection traffic jams here. Including the bus staff...), but since most of Qatar's U23 team will be part of its World Cup squad in 4 years...

Qatar's U23 team just lost to Vietnam, on penalties. Haven't watched much football in years, but the highlights looked like Sunday league to me. Qatar's keeper gave away a free kick inside the penalty box; not sure I've ever seen that in a pro game before. Qatar's first goal was from a (seemingly to me) dive-gotten penalty and the second a goalmouth crapfest; Vietnam scored after the defence lost possession outside the box; second was a pretty good finish.

4 years away (and for these guys to become something not a million miles away from world class...), but methinks the karmic schadenfreude at FIFA/Qatar will probably be realised.

Or alternatively they'll just buy the citizenship of half the Brazil team and will go and win it.

[ca_gere]

can someone explain why this game is in the news? is it just coz vietnam is so shit?

[scottyboy]

I can't multi-quote, but: some of the Qatari team had an international look about it (as would an England, French, Brazil etc. team). Brazil exports footballers all over the place: some in the Vietnamese leagues; and some African footballers have gotten Vietnamese citizenship to maybe sorta hopefully play for the national team, but looks like all born and bred Vietnamese players are playing for team atm. Eh, where was I going with this... yeah they might try something like that, but it'll be more like USA's teams of late, or Scotland poaching English players who have a Scottish granny being a thing for a bit (dunno about now). Not sure that they could field any Brazilian capped player regardless of citizenship: them's (still) the rules, no? I dunno why I spent 3 lines typing a serious response to that joke, so here's my much VERY serious business riposte: because they've been declared  persona non grata in the gulf and are worried about the Saudis, the Qataris have just increased their military aircraft sevenfold. Expensive. Probably ate up the budget for buying the Brazilian team. (I should get some kind of analyst job or at least a football journalist gig or a I'd settle for a podcast, just for this bit of punditry alone). Fuck, that is a TLDR bad joke and a pointless point I've just written up there...

For the real request for an explanation: It's in the Vietnamese news (no one follows U21, let alone UWhatever, in the UK... but any Vietnam team in a football tournament, Vietnam's watching and going nuts if they win again/ go further than Thailand or Malaysia, etc.  I've seen it Asia-based English media and/or really hardcore nerd football sites/blogs/twitter feeds. It's of interest to them and maybe some others because of the Qatar World Cup angle (auto-qualified as hosts and will play in 2022, assuming there's no derailment due to corruption, using and abusing basically indentured labour, the heat or pain in the arse laws/social norms, etc). Regards Vietnam: Asia's big, and an ASEAN/Southeast Asian team, none of which is competitive outside of Southeast Asia, getting into the final in a competition where Japan and South Korea (and maybe North Korea now and again) are the only countries that make a splash at, say, the World Cup, is... uh, interesting. Since the I read all the above mentioned, Uzbekistan knocked out South Korea (also put out Japan, the champs, in the quarters). So that's an unusual (best I got...) final, even if it U23.

That's probably also TLDR but hey. Also, the pictures of Saigon alone (wasn't lying about the buses...) must've been great click-bait.

[ca_gere]

Thanks. 

I saw it on a bunch of twitter accounts and whatnot. Thought there was more to it but that clears it up, ta

Mon the nam!

[scottyboy]

As an interesting aside, Palestine (which I didn't know until now had a national team) made the quarters (Israel plays in Europe groups/comps, no? Can't think why). Their attendances were in the 100-200, think they just broke 200 in a group stage match against Japan (tournament is hosted in China). Came out of the groups stages by beating North Korea (World Cup pedigree again) on goal difference. And Thailand, who usually edge maybe second in SE Asia, just head of Vietnam and just behind Malaysia, as far I follow this stuff, who gained no points. Lost to that Qatar team though...  Eyebrow-raising. Australia's (and yeah it's U23 but) team crashed out in 3rd in Vietnam's group (topped by the S. Koreans). Maybe switching from the Oceania (with it's 1 spot contingent on winning a play-off against the just-missed-out S. American team) wasn't a great idea (considering right after they did it New Zealand qualified from the same set-up); or erm, got where I was going with this: Australia's up-and-comings might send them back to obscurity regardless of which continent they've rigged to play in.

[scottyboy]

No World Cup thread this year? Everyone else boycotting it because it's held in Russia? Still... How am I going to pick my avatar for the next couple of years?

[Soda Jerk]

On 1/3/2018 at 5:18 PM, ca_gere said:

Still don't rate Lingard.

How about now?

He's got United fans reluctantly eating humble pie. The belief was it was a purple patch, and it would level out in a few weeks, but over the course of the season he was one of United's most important players. He's also been one of England's best players in Russia, even aside from his goal.

There's something very easy to dislike about him, which is probably why United fans do. He seems like a total bell, but he's turned out to be pretty good.

[ca_gere]

2 hours ago, Soda Jerk said:

How about now?

He's got United fans reluctantly eating humble pie. The belief was it was a purple patch, and it would level out in a few weeks, but over the course of the season he was one of United's most important players. He's also been one of England's best players in Russia, even aside from his goal.

There's something very easy to dislike about him, which is probably why United fans do. He seems like a total bell, but he's turned out to be pretty good.

Quite honestly no, I still don’t rate him. That’s not to say I don’t ‘get’ why he’s in the team and he’s able to do a job. You look at the class oozing out of RLC when he cushions a fizzing pass and accelerates past a man, or the dogged determination and speed of Sterling going at a defender, or the assuredness with which Hazza Kane strikes the ball... you got no tangible quality with Lingard. But, he gets in the right space, knows when to drop, when to run as a decoy etc. He’s doing a solid job in a team of much better individual players. I suppose that’s a superficial way of looking at it - if he’s playing well surely he must be good. He just isn’t though. He simply comes with less risk than a Rashford or a Vardy.

[Guest E.C]

He's also fucking insufferable.

[Soda Jerk]

1 hour ago, ca_gere said:

Quite honestly no, I still don’t rate him. That’s not to say I don’t ‘get’ why he’s in the team and he’s able to do a job. You look at the class oozing out of RLC when he cushions a fizzing pass and accelerates past a man, or the dogged determination and speed of Sterling going at a defender, or the assuredness with which Hazza Kane strikes the ball... you got no tangible quality with Lingard. But, he gets in the right space, knows when to drop, when to run as a decoy etc. He’s doing a solid job in a team of much better individual players. I suppose that’s a superficial way of looking at it - if he’s playing well surely he must be good. He just isn’t though. He simply comes with less risk than a Rashford or a Vardy.

I disagree. I think Lingard's overall technique is underrated. He's not launching past people at speed, but his close control under pressure is good, and is one of few players who seems to not need to take that extra touch to play the ball. Somewhat underrated traits in the blood-and-thunder mentality of Premier League football.

Personally, I think he's got more to his game than Sterling, who is mostly speed, and little else. Sterling makes far too many wrong decisions, and his finishing is beyond woeful, but he's threat because he's quick, yet I don't think he can do half the things Lingard can. On current form, I'd take Lingard over Dele Alli too, who hasn't been great this season, and seems to have not really moved forwards in the last year.

1 hour ago, E.C said:

He's also fucking insufferable.

He has a face you just wouldn't tire of powerboming through a table. Also like Delli Alli. And most of the England team. Pickford, actually, is front of the queue for a powerbomb.

God just look at it.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Soda Jerk

[Guest E.C]

I actually reluctantly agree. He basically saved United's season (in which they won fuck all lol) but the dancing and the incessant snapchat/instagram crap AND the fact he cheated on his girlfriend with a middle-aged woman (footballer in adultery shocker) just makes him come across as a big silly fud.

[Soda Jerk]

I thought that cheating lark turned out to be nonsense? Not that I really care.

The celebrations are wack though. that JL hand mask thing he does is super cringey.

[ca_gere]

He's hit his ceiling. Good for him and i'm happy he's thriving in the team at the moment but I would disagree he's better than Sterling in any facet other than finishing from distance. I would have him in over Dele at the moment by a mile but only on current form. Sterling has under-performed and Messi Lingaldo has over-performed. Not sure what games you've watched that would give you any idea his close control is any better than most other attacking players in the squad to be honest. He works hard and put away his only real chance and I hope for England's sake that continues but i'm just not convinced he's anything other than a decent player.

If it came down to a death squad line up and I had to save only the players I think give England the best chance of winning the World Cup: Hendo and Dier would get bullets right away. Walker, Kane, Sterling, Trippier, Stones, Vardy, Ali would be safe and I'd have a long think about Rashford, Young and Lingard. If the fella running this diabolical exercise pushed me to pick one from that lot in the interests of time, i'd take Rashford's hood off and shake his hand before executing Jlingz and Ashley with a tear in my eye.

 

[ca_gere]

See what I mean?... Lingard totally anonymous against Belgium!

[Soda Jerk]

17 hours ago, ca_gere said:

He's hit his ceiling. Good for him and i'm happy he's thriving in the team at the moment but I would disagree he's better than Sterling in any facet other than finishing from distance. I would have him in over Dele at the moment by a mile but only on current form. Sterling has under-performed and Messi Lingaldo has over-performed. Not sure what games you've watched that would give you any idea his close control is any better than most other attacking players in the squad to be honest. He works hard and put away his only real chance and I hope for England's sake that continues but i'm just not convinced he's anything other than a decent player.

If it came down to a death squad line up and I had to save only the players I think give England the best chance of winning the World Cup: Hendo and Dier would get bullets right away. Walker, Kane, Sterling, Trippier, Stones, Vardy, Ali would be safe and I'd have a long think about Rashford, Young and Lingard. If the fella running this diabolical exercise pushed me to pick one from that lot in the interests of time, i'd take Rashford's hood off and shake his hand before executing Jlingz and Ashley with a tear in my eye.

 

Surprised you mentioned Vardy. He was taken on merit over the course of the last few seasons, but I don't think Vardy suits this England team or the way they play, I'd certainly not have him as one of England's better players. Maybe that will change when they play better teams and have to sit back a bit more, but Vardy is a pure counter-attack centre forward. He can't hold the ball up and his positioning in the box isn't great. A ball through/over a high line, and Vardy is the man you'd want on the end of it over any other striker around. I can't see England being in that position often though or him being utilised in a way that gets the best out of him. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it. He'd have to be a completely different player. I don't agree with Stones either. Great with the ball at his feet, bags of technique, but as an out and out defender, he's not great. Stones is arguably the reason England are playing 3 at the back, Stones in a 2 would be suicide, but he's integral to the way Southgate wants this team to play, but that might come undone against better opposition. You mentioned Loftus Cheek earlier too, and he too is the epitome of the brutish English centre midfielder if there ever was one. Power and speed over actual talent. Last night it looked like couldn't trap a bag of cement. He runs a lot, which makes him appear threatening, but what is he actually good at? (He's still better than Bakayoko though, who Chelsea paid big £££ for instead of playing RLC, which was silly). It was similar when Ross Barkley burst on to the scene, he was all huff and puff, charging around at 100mph, scoring a few 25 yarders, but he didn't really do anything particularly well and his technique was severely lacking. Now it's debatable if he even still exists. I don't think there's much room in the modern game for the all action gung-ho midfielder, yet work rate and physicality seems to be more eye catching to English football's audience than being able to pick a pass before you've even received the ball, or being able to find space at the right time. That sort of stuff doesn't get on your "Skills and Goals 17/18 | Despacito (Remix)" Youtube compilations, but it's much more functional, and takes a lot more skill.

Anyway. Lingard. I saw him play just about every game for United, his close control and protection of the ball is better than Rashfords and I don't think it's even close. Rashford's touch is heavy and inconsistent. The amount of times he runs the ball over the by line with a heavy touch is just mad. I'd peg Lingard's use of the ball as better than Sterling's also. Lingard is also a better passer than both. Rashford's final ball is naff and his passing in general is a bit wayward. Sterling always seems like he needs to take that extra touch, he slows things down unless he's running at a defender. Lingard has that Silva/Iniesta thing about him where he can play the ball on the move without needing to come to a stop and look around. Obvs not saying he's anywhere near Silva/Iniesta overall, that would be silly, but having that agility to move the ball and play it positively whilst in motion is often overlooked. Carragher did a MNF bit about Lingard and his technique in general, so I'm pretty much regurgitating what he said, but it's an underrated trait. He made United's attack tick more than any other player, more than Mata, Pogba, Sanchez, etc. and when he didn't play, United tended to struggle. On current form, especially as Alli seems to have regressed a little and Sterling has been poor, he's probably the most important attacking player in the England squad behind Kane. If they're all on top form, then it's probably Kane then Alli by a distance, though I'd still have Lingard over Sterling.

Sterling is better at getting the ball past a defender, For me, that's the only facet I'd rate Sterling as better than Lingard at. Over the course of the season, even with Sterling playing in a well functioning attacking team and Lingard playing in a pragmatic and inconsistent team, Lingard has still been the better player IMO.

I disagree Lingard has over-performed. He hasn't just come out of nowhere. Fergie said some years ago he'd be a late bloomer, and he's made gradual improvements over the last 3 seasons. United fans were a bit desperate for him to fail, because he's impossible to like and is an insufferable arse 100% of the time (and United fans are mostly dickheads who revel in their own failure to have something to moan about) but they're having to accept he's actually a good player, and arguably United's best player last season after De Gea, and maybe on a par with Lukaku.