The Real Football Thread

[yellowjersey]

Arsenal FC fan!

 

[ramjambunath]

Socrates on life support after being admitted to the hospital on Friday with an intestinal infection.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16017071.stm

 

[Mambo95]

Socrates on life support after being admitted to the hospital on Friday with an intestinal infection.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/16017071.stm

He's died now.

That 1982 Brazil team was brilliant, (although a bit dodgy in defence). The best team never to win the World Cup IMO.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

RIP Sócrates Brasileiro Sampaio de Souza Vieira de Oliveira

 

[craig1985]

RIP, not a good last 7 days for football.

 

[l.Harm]

Yeah Feyenoord-PSV 2-0 Nice match.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

before my time but what a legendary player..may he Rest In Peace
against ussr 1982

 

[craig1985]

He's died now.

That 1982 Brazil team was brilliant, (although a bit dodgy in defence). The best team never to win the World Cup IMO.

So where do the Dutch teams of the 70's and 80's compare to the Brazil team of '82?

 

[Mambo95]

So where do the Dutch teams of the 70's and 80's compare to the Brazil team of '82?

The '74 team would be the next in line alongside the '54 Hungary side.

 

[The Hitch]

The best team to never win the world cup is the Brazil 1950 side that had like 20 chances against Uruguay in the 1950 final, and Uruguay got 2 but they stuck both away.


It was a group to decide the winner. Uruguay drew 2-2 to Spain while Brazil thrashed them 6-1. Uruguay then scraped Sweeden 3-2 in the 85th minute to even make the final game worth playing, while Brazil went 1 better and crushed Sweeden 7-1. The 2 goals Uruguay scored were the only times they had the ball in the Brazilian half. If you played that match 100 times Brazil would have won 99.

Then its the Austrian side that got half their team poisoned by Mussolini on the eve of the final.

After that its the Hungary side that thrashed Germany in the group games, then lost in the final that could have gone either way.

Holland 74 and Brazil 82 are a long long way behind.

Also with regard to those 2 teams, I dont care much for the Polish national team but its worth pointing out that in 74 Poland went in as Olympic champions and only lost to Germany in the final playoff, in a game of mud football that ranks as the game with the worst conditions in World Cup history. They beat Brazil for 3rd though.

And in 82 they finished 3rd again, had the top scorer, and drew to the eventual winners in the opening match of the Tournament.

So they could match both those "greatest teams never to win the world cup" and had they not been behind the iron curtain, one would hear a lot more about them.

 

[Mambo95]

The best team to never win the world cup is the Brazil 1950 side that had like 20 chances against Uruguay in the 1950 final, and Uruguay got 2 but they stuck both away.


It was a group to decide the winner. Uruguay drew 2-2 to Spain while Brazil thrashed them 6-1. Uruguay then scraped Sweeden 3-2 in the 85th minute to even make the final game worth playing, while Brazil went 1 better and crushed Sweeden 7-1. The 2 goals Uruguay scored were the only times they had the ball in the Brazilian half. If you played that match 100 times Brazil would have won 99.

Perhaps (I know little about that team). However, European football had been devastated by the war, so the level of competition was probably lower than in most WCs. It's notable that Spain and Sweden, who hadn't been in the war, made the final group.

 

[ramjambunath]

It's difficult to be so sure when ranking great teams definitively without even watching their matches. It isn't statistically as clear as Bradman being way more than a cut above the rest. Also, there aren't many videos of that era to see exactly how they used to play unlike Netherlands mid '70s and late '80s and the Brazilian '82 side. Also, you can't just look at scores and be sure, there definitely wasn't the depth of field back then that there was later on.

It's all very subjective stuff and it's clearly in the eyes of the beholder rather than on the football field. One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the power of literature, I'd forward the sceptics to any Neville Cardus piece.

 

[ramjambunath]

It's difficult to be so sure when ranking great teams definitively without even watching their matches. It isn't statistically as clear as Bradman being way more than a cut above the rest. Also, there aren't many videos of that era to see exactly how they used to play unlike Netherlands mid '70s and late '80s and the Brazilian '82 side. Also, you can't just look at scores and be sure, there definitely wasn't the depth of field back then that there was later on.

It's all very subjective stuff and it's clearly in the eyes of the beholder rather than on the football field. One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the power of literature, I'd forward the sceptics to any Neville Cardus piece.

 

[Mambo95]

One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the power of literature, I'd forward the sceptics to any Neville Cardus piece.

Something that's particularly true of cycling.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Can there be any doubt who will win this year's 'Ballon d'Or', the 'Golden Ball'?

The three candidates are -

Messi
Xavi
C. Ronaldo

I expect Leo to complete his hat-trick.

 

[Cobblestoned]

The '74 team would be the next in line alongside the '54 Hungary side.

Yeah agree. Also the Argentina's team in 1990 and the Czech in 1996.
Oh wait....

 

[The Hitch]

Perhaps (I know little about that team). However, European football had been devastated by the war, so the level of competition was probably lower than in most WCs. It's notable that Spain and Sweden, who hadn't been in the war, made the final group.

Spain was devestated by its own civil war.

Also doesnt matter if level of competition was poor. By that logic the most recent team to make the final should be best team never to win world cup because football like all sports is always improving and Pele, Maradona etc would struggle to make the Championship on their past level.

Brazil 1950 dominated that world cup possibly as much as they did in 70 and 62.

Also Hungary was the dominant side of 54.

This cannot be said of Holland 74 or Brazil 82.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Can there be any doubt who will win this year's 'Ballon d'Or', the 'Golden Ball'?

The three candidates are -

Messi
Xavi
C. Ronaldo

I expect Leo to complete his hat-trick.

Wow. Can we have a do-over?

I'd vote for Xavi if he'd put Hernández on the back of his shirt. Just cos I dislike him least.

 

[ramjambunath]

Something that's particularly true of cycling.

Indeed, a couple of minutes of grainy footage from the 50s, some great prose and results aren't enough to compare riders of that generation to this one. This holds true for every sport around. There are just far too many intangibles which cannot be quantified, no matter how logically we try.

SAFF championships-
India beat Bhutan 5-0, thank goodness.
Afghanistan are performing surprisingly well and have beaten Sri Lanka 3-1 and are on course for the semis, if they can beat or draw against Bhutan.

 

[Havetts]

Yeah Feyenoord-PSV 2-0 Nice match.

That match made me so incredibly happy.

Utreg here we come ^^

 

[Timmy-loves-Rabo]

The best team to never win the world cup is the Brazil 1950 side that had like 20 chances against Uruguay in the 1950 final, and Uruguay got 2 but they stuck both away.


It was a group to decide the winner. Uruguay drew 2-2 to Spain while Brazil thrashed them 6-1. Uruguay then scraped Sweeden 3-2 in the 85th minute to even make the final game worth playing, while Brazil went 1 better and crushed Sweeden 7-1. The 2 goals Uruguay scored were the only times they had the ball in the Brazilian half. If you played that match 100 times Brazil would have won 99.

Then its the Austrian side that got half their team poisoned by Mussolini on the eve of the final.

After that its the Hungary side that thrashed Germany in the group games, then lost in the final that could have gone either way.

Holland 74 and Brazil 82 are a long long way behind.

Also with regard to those 2 teams, I dont care much for the Polish national team but its worth pointing out that in 74 Poland went in as Olympic champions and only lost to Germany in the final playoff, in a game of mud football that ranks as the game with the worst conditions in World Cup history. They beat Brazil for 3rd though.

And in 82 they finished 3rd again, had the top scorer, and drew to the eventual winners in the opening match of the Tournament.

So they could match both those "greatest teams never to win the world cup" and had they not been behind the iron curtain, one would hear a lot more about them.

you're talking about the final rather then the team on a whole, Holland in the 70's are certainly up there in regards to the best team to not win the world cup. Hungary and Brazil also extreamly good.

 

[craig1985]

Can there be any doubt who will win this year's 'Ballon d'Or', the 'Golden Ball'?

The three candidates are -

Messi
Xavi
C. Ronaldo

I expect Leo to complete his hat-trick.

Call me biased, but I was a little bit disappointed that Stanković didn't get nominated for goal of the year for his effort against Schalke in the CL Quarter Final.

 

[The Hitch]

you're talking about the final rather then the team on a whole, Holland in the 70's are certainly up there in regards to the best team to not win the world cup. Hungary and Brazil also extreamly good.

No, I was not talking about the final. I pointed out how Brazil beat the 3rd and 4th best teams 6-1 and 7-1 respectively.

Hungary meanwhile were aknowledged as the best team in the world decimated the winners in the group stage. The fact that they both lost narrowly in the final is not why they are considered the best not to win otherwise France 2006 would have that award.

 

[craig1985]

What a choke by Dortmund there.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Milan agree loan terms with Carlos Tevez but City want to sell

• Tevez agrees massive pay cut if he leaves Manchester City
• 'We're awaiting a response from City,' says Milan vice-president

The Manchester City striker Carlos Tevez has agreed to join Milan from Manchester City, though the clubs have yet to finalise a deal. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA

Manchester City's desire to sever their ties with Carlos Tevez will see Milan make an opening offer to take him on loan for the rest of the season before paying €20m (£17.2m) to sign him next summer.

Milan are aware that City want a permanent transfer in the January window, but the Italian club are hoping to negotiate a compromise for a player who has been on strike since 8 November.

The Serie A side have already agreed terms with Tevez and their vice-president, Adriano Galliani, said an official bid had now been emailed to City. "I hope that City accept our offer. I foiled a few enemies in Italy and Europe, though I can't say whom. We're in pole position now."

City will almost certainly reply that they are not willing to accept a loan arrangement but their manager, Roberto Mancini, reiterated there was no way back for Tevez in Manchester. "It is important to sell Carlos, for him and the club. If he has a chance to go to Italy I am happy for him."

Corriere dello Sport reported that Tevez had agreed a basic salary of £3.4m for this season, rising to £4.3m plus bonuses for the following three seasons. The latter sum is less than half his current salary in Manchester. "He's turning down a mountain of money," said Galliani. "He's not playing, he's a great player and if he does well with us we'll exercise the option. Tevez wants to join us, half the deal is done. Now we're awaiting a response from City."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/dec/06/milan-carlos-tevez-manchester-city

I hope that they go for this construction so that Carlitos finally gets to play football again.