Kolo Toure tests positive (Football)

[The Hitch]

you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Care to set me straight dear?

 

[alpine_chav]

Care to set me straight dear?

It's clear you know nothing of the people you passed judgement on. If you did you wouldn't say what you just did. People don't just happen upon success.

 

[The Hitch]

It's clear you know nothing of the people you passed judgement on. If you did you wouldn't say what you just did. People don't just happen upon success.

So you simply state that your opponent is stupid and win by default?

Nope doesnt work like that.

If you are so in the right surely you should easily come up with the arguments to put down my "ignorance"

Its revealing that you use ad hominem. Usually the preffered method of those who dont like their point of view challenged, but are unable to find arguments against the challenge.

Put up, or shut up

 

[sherer]

Im not 100% sure with that.

Real won i think like 3 champions leagues in late 90's and early 2000's. Barca won a champs league in 1994 or something.

Besides things like the Juve thing suggest that doping was already big in the 90's. And that involved a lot of french players, who we know doped while winning world cup.

Have any of the players admitted being doped though ? I've heard this before but not really seen any proof about it

 

[sniper]

Real have been a non-factor in Europe for years, never making it past the quarterfinals, and Sevilla have never survived the round of 16 (and the UEFA Cup is a minor tournament). At club level, only Barça has been very good, and the national team relies predominantly on Barça players.

We know from Parma and Juventus that Italian football was rotten already in the late 90s, and there's little reason to think that will have changed at all as there's been no pressure in that direction.

If anything, the country dominating football at club level in recent years has been England. Where Toure plays.

I could leave it at that but that'd be unfair - as far as I know, there's little evidence pointing at systematic doping at the Premiership, as there is for Spain and Italy, but let's put things into perspective.

I agree with most parts. and no doubt in my mind that English clubs dope major league.

But still, the dominance of Barca in Europe and la Primera begs the question: is Barca on to some special sauce or are Frank Rijkaard and Pep Guardiola simply brilliant?

It would be interesting to learn when Barca started doing business with Fuentes. I remember the sudden change in results when Rijkaard was in charge. He started with a series of bad results, and then all of a sudden, somewhere in 2005/2006 I believe, things started to fall into place for him and his team.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

I dont agree with that. . Look at Scolari. Best manager in the world at one point, Winning world cups, taking an average Portugal to Euro final and World cup semis. The same guy later failed with Chelsea and is now managing in front of league 1 crowds in brazil

Right, how hard do you think it is to win a WC with Brazil? And i tell you, that Portugal side was one of the best in Europe in 2004, they should have won that, the fact they LOST should be evidence towards the fact HE WASN'T A VERY GOOD MANAGER. Most managers would have tried to change something new against a team that was going to sit back, but he decided to stick with the 4-5-1 and not to play 3 up top, until about 10 minutes left to go when it was all too late.

As for Chelsea, He inherited a team that was still Jose's, and he tried to change the style of play to a manner that just didn't work for us, it's the reason why he was sacked. Plus he was absolutely clueless as to how to approach the big games. Apart from the start of this season, that#s the worst period we'd had in about 12 years, even before Roman's Petro-dollars came into the club. (Yes, i am a Chelsea fan.)

Maybe if there were schools were people learned the trade of managment etc and the best graduated, you could say managment was a skill that some people are experts at. But as it happens all that finding managers these days involves is getting a player with celebrity status and since hes popular, making him manager. Thats how Alan Shearer became manager of newcastle. Thats how Pep Guardiola became manager of Barca. A name people can recognise. Thats it.

Yeah, i'll give you that with Shearer. But Pep had been managing the reserves and youngsters for a few years, with Barca's academy working in the way it does, he had either A) Played with the veteran's of that team (Puyol), or B) helped to bring the youngsters through (Messi, Pedro, Busquets).

Hardly a bad thing for them to do, promote someone up through the management that had previous knowledge of working with the staff. Oh, yeah, that's just called good business.

And Mourinho is no genius.

His Porto win, hes not the first nor last manager to win something with a poorer team, though surely Deschamps would be more of a genius for taking a far weaker Monaco team to that final. All his success since has been with Chelsea - the best club in the world at the time, and then inter- the best club in the world at the time.

Check how weak that year was. Yeah, credit to Didier for knocking us out, but there were hardly any big teams left in by the 1/4 finals. Hence why Porto, a 1/4 team at best, where able to win.

But thanks for calling us the best team in the world, we were until we sold Robben.

Hell 2 months later Greece won the Euro Championships, now they cant score a goal ( its the same manager). So if managment is such a precious skill either then presumably Otto reg(something) has lost all his skill. Or more likely managment is a far more fragile business where luck plays a very big part.

That was a ageing team, full of experience, and they old scored 2 or more goals in one game. Hardly hot shots. As far as i know, Charisteas, the only striker they had that was any good, has quit international football. Hardly Otto's fault, that's the lack of talent failing him, not him failing a lack of talent.

And mourinho was already tipped as next chelsea manager before he won that cup. He was lucky to be sacked in November 2007 as he was clearly on his way down. He had the best team in the world with Chelsea, but had not even reached the CL final in his 3 years there, and had lost the title the year before. He was doing even poorer in those first 3 months of that season before he was given the coup de grace.

Yeah, not gonna disagree with that. Okay, okay, but to the wider world, he was hardly known. He was only heavily tipped after they knocked Utd out of the CL in the 1/4's, i'd still say that means he was hardly known before he won the competition...

Mourniho has shown time and time again with his comments about Islam and Omlets and messianic claims that he is a total idiot who would be laughed in any other proffession. But football being what it is with papers making millions on any little story, someone who comes out claiming to be the special one, is exactly what the media wants. When he said that crap about Omlets they were actually fainting in adulation that he was saying such things.

But if a politician had done that, they would be called mad, and forced to leave politics for ever.

Some of what he says may be "idiotic". But how does that affect his management style/techniques/etc?

 

[The Hitch]

Have any of the players admitted being doped though ? I've heard this before but not really seen any proof about it

Theres never any proof

even with people like carl Lewis who we now know were doping, there was no proof.

But the case against France 98 comes on 3 levels.

1 this http://blogs.hereisthecity.com/2010...s_1998_world_cup_winners_had_blood_test_anom/

2 Several of the players played for Juve who had the doping scandal in 97.

3 Emanuelle Petit - scorer of the 3rd goal, says he knew people who were doping

http://www.german-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1834&Itemid=74

 

[The Hitch]

Right, how hard do you think it is to win a WC with Brazil? And i tell you, that Portugal side was one of the best in Europe in 2004, they should have won that, the fact they LOST should be evidence towards the fact HE WASN'T A VERY GOOD MANAGER. Most managers would have tried to change something new against a team that was going to sit back, but he decided to stick with the 4-5-1 and not to play 3 up top, until about 10 minutes left to go when it was all too late.

As for Chelsea, He inherited a team that was still Jose's, and he tried to change the style of play to a manner that just didn't work for us, it's the reason why he was sacked. Plus he was absolutely clueless as to how to approach the big games. Apart from the start of this season, that#s the worst period we'd had in about 12 years, even before Roman's Petro-dollars came into the club. (Yes, i am a Chelsea fan.)

Id say that with Portugal he did some great stuff. Even if only beat england in 2004. That epic match alone makes him a great manager. What a game that was. I think england had a far better team, and the fact that it was a Totenham reserve player and a 33 year old that did it for them, shows it was impressive ish. He also beat heavy favourites holland the next game.

And in 2006 they did the same again. beat holland again and drew to england again, when england was even better.

I mean Portugal had C ronaldo and Figo but other than that it was an average squad compared to the Dutch and English squads. They only barely lost to France too.

Yeah, i'll give you that with Shearer. But Pep had been managing the reserves and youngsters for a few years, with Barca's academy working in the way it does, he had either A) Played with the veteran's of that team (Puyol), or B) helped to bring the youngsters through (Messi, Pedro, Busquets).

Hardly a bad thing for them to do, promote someone up through the management that had previous knowledge of working with the staff. Oh, yeah, that's just called good business.

Im not saying that Pep is either good nor bad rather that i find it strange that on the one hand people like Ranieri managed for decades in the lower leagues and it is said that they "learned their trade" there, while Pep, a couple of years after retiring becomes manager of FC Barcelona.

But as far as whether hes good or not, i think the greatness of that team is all there is to it. Messi, Etoo, Puyol, Xavi. If your not winning trebles with that you deserve to be sacked

That was a ageing team, full of experience, and they old scored 2 or more goals in one game. Hardly hot shots. As far as i know, Charisteas, the only striker they had that was any good, has quit international football. Hardly Otto's fault, that's the lack of talent failing him, not him failing a lack of talent.

But they went from beating Portugal TWICE in 3 weeks, France and Czech republic and drawing to Spain, to absolute abysmality. Theres a middle ground. I dont expect them to win again, but they arent even scoring goals anymore.

Some of what he says may be "idiotic". But how does that affect his management style/techniques/etc?

My point isnt that it would affect his managment, rather that managment is in and of itself, not as complex a skill as it is made out to be. I dont believe that real mangers neccesarily know much more about football than many fans.

I know several people obbsessed about football, and i think if you gave them a year or 2 of coaching training, they could be just as good managers as the existing ones, at least from a tactical perspective. I mean this is a proffession that gets studied and analyzed every day out in the open, in the media on television.

The media on the one hand claims Benitez is a tactical genius, one of the best brains in the world, then a few years later is calling his tactics idiotic. But if managers are a special breed, then surely mere mortals in the media wouldnt know as much about him about the tactics.

I argue that if Managment was as great a skill as it was made out to be, the intelligence of managers would be higher. Perhaps you would be getting camberidge mathematicians, with a heavy interest in football, being hired as lieutenants to managers to help out with tactics. As it happens I dont buy the idea of former footballers as tactical geniuses.

I mean they even tried making Gascoine a manager

Check how weak that year was. Yeah, credit to Didier for knocking us out, but there were hardly any big teams left in by the 1/4 finals. Hence why Porto, a 1/4 team at best, where able to win.

But thanks for calling us the best team in the world, we were until we sold Robben.

I was a chelsea fan back in the day and it was obvious chelsea were the best team. It was actually partly due to that that i left. It was really exciting to watch chelse from 97 when i started, where any game could be a win or a loss. In the champs league in 99, was the best. But in 2004- 05- 06 Chelsea were winning none stop to the point where i didnt even see it as a thrill. There was no excitement to it as i knew they would win. Hell even after they won the title and sent their b team to old trafford they STILL won away at old trafford. The next year they won the title by beating Man utd 3-0 at home with even Carvalho scoring.

They were unlucky with the champs league, especially when that c******* piece of s*** Gudjohnsen had a open goal to beat liverpool in the last minute and missed

 

[sherer]

I agree with most parts. and no doubt in my mind that English clubs dope major league.

But still, the dominance of Barca in Europe and la Primera begs the question: is Barca on to some special sauce or are Frank Rijkaard and Pep Guardiola simply brilliant?

It would be interesting to learn when Barca started doing business with Fuentes. I remember the sudden change in results when Rijkaard was in charge. He started with a series of bad results, and then all of a sudden, somewhere in 2005/2006 I believe, things started to fall into place for him and his team.

don't forget when we talk about Barca or Real dominance, even if they have a really bad season they will still finish second. It's like saying Rangers and Celtic must be doped to the gills because they both challenge the leage each season

 

[Galic Ho]

To be fair Kolo Toure doesn't make a living from being fastest. Doping in football gives a much smaller advantage than in cycling because football primarily relies on technical skills levels for success while cycling is all about fitness and power. Hope we see Kolo back in action soon. He's a class act which is not something you can generally say about footballers these days.

You really have no idea. In local junior soccer, my youngest brother would run rings around everyone physically. He was technically sound in ball skills/control, but it was his fitness and speed that made him dangerous. When the district age team went to NSW Western Region games, there was one powerhouse team. Dubbo. He out ran their best players every single time. So they got dirty because they couldn't execute their skills to full effect. Being faster is necessary. My brother was a centre back. He won every sprint event he entered in athletics. 100m up to 1500m. Every year he entered. Then to rub it in, he'd win cross country. He got so bored he stopped trying. Went to State every year. So he had burst speed combined with endurance running.

Tests on distance footballers distance travelled have been done extensively. Players in midfield run at least 10km per game. GPS devices are attached to a heart rate monitor and you can see accelerations, maximal speeds and total distance covered in detail at match end. The speed football is played at increased in the 90s. Guess what other sport had the same change? Cycling and it was because of doping. Football today is faster than it ever has been. When the other team has the ball, especially if they are ahead on the pitch with numbers, running faster counts big time. Games go for 90 minutes. Drugs will help fatigue and endurance massively. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. Technical skills count, but those skills are never evenly distributed. Having superior endurance can help bridge the gap...enter PEDs.

 

[The Hitch]

You really have no idea. In local junior soccer, my youngest brother would run rings around everyone physically. He was technically sound in ball skills/control, but it was his fitness and speed that made him dangerous. When the district age team went to NSW Western Region games, there was one powerhouse team. Dubbo. He out ran their best players every single time. So they got dirty because they couldn't execute their skills to full effect. Being faster is necessary. My brother was a centre back. He won every sprint event he entered in athletics. 100m up to 1500m. Every year he entered. Then to rub it in, he'd win cross country. He got so bored he stopped trying. Went to State every year. So he had burst speed combined with endurance running.

Tests on distance footballers distance travelled have been done extensively. Players in midfield run at least 10km per game. GPS devices are attached to a heart rate monitor and you can see accelerations, maximal speeds and total distance covered in detail at match end. The speed football is played at increased in the 90s. Guess what other sport had the same change? Cycling and it was because of doping. Football today is faster than it ever has been. When the other team has the ball, especially if they are ahead on the pitch with numbers, running faster counts big time. Games go for 90 minutes. Drugs will help fatigue and endurance massively. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. Technical skills count, but those skills are never evenly distributed. Having superior endurance can help bridge the gap...enter PEDs.

Great post. And bare in mind that that 10 k is run, not a a base pace like a 10km run is, but rahter, stopping and starting, stoping and starting. Full speed then no speed.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

I was a chelsea fan back in the day and it was obvious chelsea were the best team. It was actually partly due to that that i left. It was really exciting to watch chelse from 97 when i started, where any game could be a win or a loss. In the champs league in 99, was the best. But in 2004- 05- 06 Chelsea were winning none stop to the point where i didnt even see it as a thrill. There was no excitement to it as i knew they would win. Hell even after they won the title and sent their b team to old trafford they STILL won away at old trafford. The next year they won the title by beating Man utd 3-0 at home with even Carvalho scoring.

They were unlucky with the champs league, especially when that c******* piece of s*** Gudjohnsen had a open goal to beat liverpool in the last minute and missed

I'll come back to the rest of your post in a bit, going for a ride, but you just put a massive smile of my fact Hitch.

The Champ's league run was the best thing i've ever seen us do. A Gudjohnsen masterclass to out us 3-0 up in 20 minutes against Barca is one of my favourite memories of the lifetime i've supported them. The European cup winners cup final with Zola's brilliant goal against Stuttgart, that crazy 3-2 loss to Tromso, the tears after losing to Parma the following year...

I will admit, the first title was great, but you're right, the others DID feel a bit hollow. Last year's was good in my eye's, we were written off, we'll finish 3rd apparently, and to break the scoring records, and to play like we did was incredible. That's why i'm hoping Ancelotti doesn't get the sack this year, i think he's the perfect man to move us forward over time.

RE: Gudjohnsen's open goal miss. I was more pi**ed that Luis Garcia's goal stood, and then the awful referring of the Barca game when we should have had 4 pen's, and Iniesta scored last minute at the Bridge. I can't bring myself to hate Eidur, even though he's at the devil incarnate's team atm, Spurs.

 

[Met de Versnelling]

You really have no idea. In local junior soccer, my youngest brother would run rings around everyone physically. He was technically sound in ball skills/control, but it was his fitness and speed that made him dangerous. When the district age team went to NSW Western Region games, there was one powerhouse team. Dubbo. He out ran their best players every single time. So they got dirty because they couldn't execute their skills to full effect. Being faster is necessary. My brother was a centre back. He won every sprint event he entered in athletics. 100m up to 1500m. Every year he entered. Then to rub it in, he'd win cross country. He got so bored he stopped trying. Went to State every year. So he had burst speed combined with endurance running.

Tests on distance footballers distance travelled have been done extensively. Players in midfield run at least 10km per game. GPS devices are attached to a heart rate monitor and you can see accelerations, maximal speeds and total distance covered in detail at match end. The speed football is played at increased in the 90s. Guess what other sport had the same change? Cycling and it was because of doping. Football today is faster than it ever has been. When the other team has the ball, especially if they are ahead on the pitch with numbers, running faster counts big time. Games go for 90 minutes. Drugs will help fatigue and endurance massively. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. Technical skills count, but those skills are never evenly distributed. Having superior endurance can help bridge the gap...enter PEDs.

Seconding Hitch here too, great post, highlight's just why PED's are/could be a massive part of football.

Much better off with Futsal. THAT's the game that relies on skills and technique.

 

[alpine_chav]

You really have no idea. In local junior soccer, my youngest brother would run rings around everyone physically. He was technically sound in ball skills/control, but it was his fitness and speed that made him dangerous. When the district age team went to NSW Western Region games, there was one powerhouse team. Dubbo. He out ran their best players every single time. So they got dirty because they couldn't execute their skills to full effect. Being faster is necessary. My brother was a centre back. He won every sprint event he entered in athletics. 100m up to 1500m. Every year he entered. Then to rub it in, he'd win cross country. He got so bored he stopped trying. Went to State every year. So he had burst speed combined with endurance running.

Tests on distance footballers distance travelled have been done extensively. Players in midfield run at least 10km per game. GPS devices are attached to a heart rate monitor and you can see accelerations, maximal speeds and total distance covered in detail at match end. The speed football is played at increased in the 90s. Guess what other sport had the same change? Cycling and it was because of doping. Football today is faster than it ever has been. When the other team has the ball, especially if they are ahead on the pitch with numbers, running faster counts big time. Games go for 90 minutes. Drugs will help fatigue and endurance massively. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. Technical skills count, but those skills are never evenly distributed. Having superior endurance can help bridge the gap...enter PEDs.

I've played centre-mid for years.... box to box. And I raced bikes and athletics at international underage level... I know that doping helps out in those far more than football. Yes running is important in football but the best technical teams make the other team run. Playing football is essentially what cyclists call interval training. But it only lasts for 90minutes. It's quite easy to last that long if you are half way fit and can read the game well which all the pros can no bother. Steroids and weight training followed by epo for recovery would make sense in pro football and I'm not saying it's not going on because it blatantly is but the gains are marginal for footballers while they are all the difference for athletics and cycling.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

But isn't it a game of one-upmanship? I can last 90 minutes just fine, but you can last 90 minutes well and finish at a higher pace, prompting me to start taking things to improve my endurance because you keep beating me thanks to scoring in the 88th, 89th, 90th minute. As I suddenly become strong, your fans who are used to winning start to get disillusioned, and you start taking the same things to reassert your advantage. This prompts me to realise that you're beating me again and I need to do more to achieve the same effect, which prompts you to take more again to win, which prompts me to take more to solve that, which prompts you to take more, and eventually we end up with one of us dying of cardiac problems on the field.

 

[hrotha]

I've played centre-mid for years.... box to box. And I raced bikes and athletics at international underage level... I know that doping helps out in those far more than football. Yes running is important in football but the best technical teams make the other team run. Playing football is essentially what cyclists call interval training. But it only lasts for 90minutes. It's quite easy to last that long if you are half way fit and can read the game well which all the pros can no bother. Steroids and weight training followed by epo for recovery would make sense in pro football and I'm not saying it's not going on because it blatantly is but the gains are marginal for footballers while they are all the difference for athletics and cycling.

Marginal gains?

Look, we get it. You need some degree of technical skill to become a pro, and huge amounts of it to become a star, but that doesn't mean physical prowess by itself is not game-changing.

 

[The Hitch]

I've played centre-mid for years.... box to box. And I raced bikes and athletics at international underage level... I know that doping helps out in those far more than football. Yes running is important in football but the best technical teams make the other team run. Playing football is essentially what cyclists call interval training. But it only lasts for 90minutes. It's quite easy to last that long if you are half way fit and can read the game well which all the pros can no bother. Steroids and weight training followed by epo for recovery would make sense in pro football and I'm not saying it's not going on because it blatantly is but the gains are marginal for footballers while they are all the difference for athletics and cycling.

Now its you who doesnt know what they are talking about. Whats this crap about it being easy if your half fit.

You must have been a real superman then. How comes footballers are usualy exhausted then when it comes to extra time? AlWAYS. Hell last week in the Carling Cup final they had to take Zigic off in the 85th minute cos he couldnt move anymore and thats someone who didnt even run that much.

in fact i remember Zidane vomiting right before taking the penalty against England and he read the game better than anyone else + it was only the first match.

Why do teams have a whole friendly schedule to build up their fitness for the season if its something that can be done after a night out. Why is it that "match fitness" is required for players coming back after a break?

You probably wrote that hoping that no one else ever played football and would take your word for it that its easy. Sorry mate, I play it all the time too, and im certainatly if nothing else, one of the fitter people on my team, and i know just how tiring it can get.

You dont seem to understand the concept of 100%. Going 100% even for a short time can tire you out extremely quikly.
Bare in mind also that 100m sprinters talk about getting tired after a few 10 second races. Are you fitter than them?

Now in football, they are going 100% every sprint and sprinting far more than 10 seconds.

Easy for anyone whos half fit? Your avin a laugh.

 

[palmerq]

I think football is an exceptionally tiring sport when you're playing it right, I would say endurance boosting drugs would be a huge help. I only play 5 a side football and that is a shorter game but you can feel your skill diminishing as the game goes on, you miss tackles you would have made easily at the start of the game, less spring in your legs and so on.. I only ever played a couple of 11 a side games but they were very tough, so I guess a normal footballer v someone who is drugged up would have a hellish time.

Not that I like to suspect people of taking drugs with no evidence but barca are the most suspicious of all to me, I read barcelona are the team that run the most during the game and the general style of play in spain and barca is not usually associated with such hard running, combine that with the fuentes stories then I am very suspicious of them...

As for toure, hearing that it was from a diet pill is very suspicious that sounds like it could be doping.

 

[sniper]

Now its you who doesnt know what they are talking about. Whats this crap about it being easy if your half fit.

You must have been a real superman then. How comes footballers are usualy exhausted then when it comes to extra time? AlWAYS. Hell last week in the Carling Cup final they had to take Zigic off in the 85th minute cos he couldnt move anymore and thats someone who didnt even run that much.

in fact i remember Zidane vomiting right before taking the penalty against England and he read the game better than anyone else + it was only the first match.

Why do teams have a whole friendly schedule to build up their fitness for the season if its something that can be done after a night out. Why is it that "match fitness" is required for players coming back after a break?

You probably wrote that hoping that no one else ever played football and would take your word for it that its easy. Sorry mate, I play it all the time too, and im certainatly if nothing else, one of the fitter people on my team, and i know just how tiring it can get.

You dont seem to understand the concept of 100%. Going 100% even for a short time can tire you out extremely quikly.
Bare in mind also that 100m sprinters talk about getting tired after a few 10 second races. Are you fitter than them?

Now in football, they are going 100% every sprint and sprinting far more than 10 seconds.

Easy for anyone whos half fit? Your avin a laugh.

+1

Several guys at my club are as technical as Xavi. Still, they never get picked for the 1st squad, but play in the 2nd, cuz they don't show up at trainings too often, and their condition just doesn't match up with those from the 1st squad.

Really, Alpine, you can be as Xavi as you want, you don't get nowhere in soccer without a top condition.

 

[LugHugger]

Care to set me straight dear?

In order to manage a top tier football club in Europe you need to have a Pro Manager license

Just saying that all top football managers are educated and qualified. Some may hide this fact well but they are.

 

[alpine_chav]

Now its you who doesnt know what they are talking about. Whats this crap about it being easy if your half fit.

You must have been a real superman then. How comes footballers are usualy exhausted then when it comes to extra time? AlWAYS. Hell last week in the Carling Cup final they had to take Zigic off in the 85th minute cos he couldnt move anymore and thats someone who didnt even run that much.

in fact i remember Zidane vomiting right before taking the penalty against England and he read the game better than anyone else + it was only the first match.

Why do teams have a whole friendly schedule to build up their fitness for the season if its something that can be done after a night out. Why is it that "match fitness" is required for players coming back after a break?

You probably wrote that hoping that no one else ever played football and would take your word for it that its easy. Sorry mate, I play it all the time too, and im certainatly if nothing else, one of the fitter people on my team, and i know just how tiring it can get.

You dont seem to understand the concept of 100%. Going 100% even for a short time can tire you out extremely quikly.
Bare in mind also that 100m sprinters talk about getting tired after a few 10 second races. Are you fitter than them?

Now in football, they are going 100% every sprint and sprinting far more than 10 seconds.

Easy for anyone whos half fit? Your avin a laugh.

Resting heart rate 35... I cramp sometimes but that's because I sweat too much and don't replace the salts and fluids because i can't run/play football with fluid in my belly. You never run 100m flat out in a game but are constantly doing 10m all out efforts and strides of up to 80m (sometimes all out sprints) and then you are tired but if you're halfway fit you recover quick enough. I can still run 100m in under 11secs so yes I am quite 'superman' if you want to call it that but I rarely use my all out pace over distance in football because I want to be in certain places on the pitch during certain phases of play in order to not forgo my defensive responsibilities. I will however use my 100% acceleration all game and it is tiring but not nearly as tiring as alpine road racing. I vomit regularly doing anaerobic training. Sometimes I pass out. Passing out is 100% and vomiting is close to that. And I have only vomited twice in a game of football. In mountain bike racing I vomited pretty much every race... less so in road racing. As I said before if you read the game well and are tactically astute you rarely do 100% efforts over distance in football.

 

[alpine_chav]

I only ever played a couple of 11 a side games but they were very tough

That's because you haven't conditioned to play 11 aside... after a full seasons of 11 aside it gets much easier. %

 

[doxter]

Now its you who doesnt know what they are talking about. Whats this crap about it being easy if your half fit.

You must have been a real superman then. How comes footballers are usualy exhausted then when it comes to extra time? AlWAYS. Hell last week in the Carling Cup final they had to take Zigic off in the 85th minute cos he couldnt move anymore and thats someone who didnt even run that much.

in fact i remember Zidane vomiting right before taking the penalty against England and he read the game better than anyone else + it was only the first match.

Why do teams have a whole friendly schedule to build up their fitness for the season if its something that can be done after a night out. Why is it that "match fitness" is required for players coming back after a break?

You probably wrote that hoping that no one else ever played football and would take your word for it that its easy. Sorry mate, I play it all the time too, and im certainatly if nothing else, one of the fitter people on my team, and i know just how tiring it can get.

You dont seem to understand the concept of 100%. Going 100% even for a short time can tire you out extremely quikly.
Bare in mind also that 100m sprinters talk about getting tired after a few 10 second races. Are you fitter than them?

Now in football, they are going 100% every sprint and sprinting far more than 10 seconds.

Easy for anyone whos half fit? Your avin a laugh.

Easy for anyone whos half fit? Your avin a laugh.

dont fancy being one of the other outfield players in his team

 

[hfer07]

Well, it's certainly all over the news now.
Arsene Wegner has put it out there, that he "accidentally" took one of his wife's slimming pills.

and I thought only cyclists where the only sportsmen to come up with the most stupid excuses on self doping....

next time he might as well take her pregnancy pill by accident too

 

[palmerq]

That's because you haven't conditioned to play 11 aside... after a full seasons of 11 aside it gets much easier. %

yes of course, but my point is you play 11 a side v someone who has physical advantages over you, then you're in trouble. You have 11 players doped up v 11 standard players, the doped up fellows give em hell everytime, football tires you out no doubt, if it doesn't you aren't doing it right.