The Real Football Thread

[Anonymous]

I am a Birmingham fan and we are in an even worse position, most of last years first team gone, NO really good new names and our main backers deep in the merde. Cannot see us challenging for promotion but still in Europe I guess.

European football for the fans St.Andrews will be awsome.

 

[palmerq]

@palmerq I must ask, Rangers or Celtic

saint mirren :S...... but i prefer celtic to rangers although I am finding both of their current situations very funny

saint mirren and sibenik of course, I have been to 2 of their games now, an amazing stadium...

 

[palmerq]

I don't understand Liverpool. Giving Aquilani and Meirelles so easily... Ok, Aquilani wasn't spectacular in Liverpool, and he had problems with injury, but he is still technically better than most of Liverpool players. But selling Meirelles to Chelsea for 12 millions - ridiculous. Especially after spending almost 100 millions of euros in last 2 transfer markets mainly on English players of questionable quality [in relation to the price].

I think Kenny has a slight bias towards british players so charlie adam will be getting a lot of chances and the fellow they signed from sunderland.. I think the italian did not settle well in britain either but maybe I am wrong..

btw charlie adam used to play for saint mirren

 

[l.Harm]

Brazil worse than Holland Germany, Spain?

Internationally Brazil are the best team in the world. 1 idiot messed up their world cup (not the manager) otherwise they would have won. even in that first half, they owned holland the way Barca own la liga teams. A little luck and they would have been 3-0 up at the break.

If Spain had Messi maybe they could challenge Brazil, but Brazil just have super players on all areas of the pitch.

I always thought strenght can beat Spain (look at how they struggled in almost every match, scraping through, losing to Suisse). Lucio, Maicon the others showed when they were with inter even barca had trouble getting through them. and spain dont have Messi.

and Spain are better than Germany and Holland.

Last years Brazil doesn't impress me. Seems like they don't know what to do. They have Ganso, Neymar to implement but now Ronaldinho is in the selection. Will Kaka play or Ganso? Holland and Germany are modern teams and tactical better than the South-American teams. Argentina with Batista don't convince me now. World Cup will be in 3 years so a discussion about Europe vs. South-America doesn't make sense now

In Europe I think Germany, Spain and Holland are the main favourites for the title next year. Spain got the best players imo but I don't know how the rivalry between Real and Barca influences their national team. Germany has a good coach who let them play attractive. They outplayed Argentina because Maradona messed up their tactics. Their central defence doesn't convince me though. Our (Holland) defense is also weak, but it seems with this coach (Van Marwijk) all the weaknesses are compensated. Even Andre Ooijer played well in the quarter final against Brazil last year.

 

[pmcg76]

Last years Brazil doesn't impress me. Seems like they don't know what to do. They have Ganso, Neymar to implement but now Ronaldinho is in the selection. Will Kaka play or Ganso? Holland and Germany are modern teams and tactical better than the South-American teams. Argentina with Batista don't convince me now. World Cup will be in 3 years so a discussion about Europe vs. South-America doesn't make sense now

In Europe I think Germany, Spain and Holland are the main favourites for the title next year. Spain got the best players imo but I don't know how the rivalry between Real and Barca influences their national team. Germany has a good coach who let them play attractive. They outplayed Argentina because Maradona messed up their tactics. Their central defence doesn't convince me though. Our (Holland) defense is also weak, but it seems with this coach (Van Marwijk) all the weaknesses are compensated. Even Andre Ooijer played well in the quarter final against Brazil last year.

Batista has been sacked as coach of Argentina shortly after the Copa America. Can remember if they have appointed a new coach yet. I think Uruguay are best of the South American teams currently.

 

[l.Harm]

I read that, but I forgot. I hope for them the new coach is good, they have fantastic attackers but their defence is average.

Uruguay won Copa America because of their 'teamgeist'. Individually Argentina and Brazil are better but their mentality was outstanding. It will be hard to repeat that some day. Don't forget Holland beated them at the semi's last year

 

[pmcg76]

I read that, but I forgot. I hope for them the new coach is good, they have fantastic attackers but their defence is average.

Uruguay won Copa America because of their 'teamgeist'. Individually Argentina and Brazil are better but their mentality was outstanding. It will be hard to repeat that some day. Don't forget Holland beated them at the semi's last year

Well a good 'team' will always beat a team of individuals. Holland did beat them but they still were the best performing South American at the World Cup team, combined with their Copa America win they are currently best in South America. However, I think they have reached their peak but will have passed it by the time the World Cup rolls around.

 

[pmcg76]

European football for the fans St.Andrews will be awsome.

We need something to cheer us up

 

[Thomsena]

Brazil worse than Holland Germany, Spain?

Internationally Brazil are the best team in the world. 1 idiot messed up their world cup (not the manager) otherwise they would have won. even in that first half, they owned holland the way Barca own la liga teams. A little luck and they would have been 3-0 up at the break.

If Spain had Messi maybe they could challenge Brazil, but Brazil just have super players on all areas of the pitch.

I always thought strenght can beat Spain (look at how they struggled in almost every match, scraping through, losing to Suisse). Lucio, Maicon the others showed when they were with inter even barca had trouble getting through them. and spain dont have Messi.

and Spain are better than Germany and Holland.

Absolutely 100% rubbish.

So your argument to which Brazil is better than Holland is 30 minutes of a game... And you don't even have one for the Spain postulate. Holland beat Brazil and eventully ended up being 2nd playing an outstanding World Cup and outplayed every opponent before the World Cup too.
Spain won the whole thing without even playing their usually level.

Yeah, Spain have always had alot of problems with teams of great strengthness... - Up till the World Cup Spain won 15 games in a row which is the most consecutive wins in the history and did not lose a match in 35 games in a row. Spain shares that record with Brazil - the thing is though, with the Brazil record, that it was in the mid-90's... Oh, and do you want me get the statistics from that match against Suisse?..

Brazil was the best national team 10 years ago. But they are in no way better than Spain and Holland (perhaps same level as Germany) at this time and you haven't made one point that should counter that.

"But Brazil just have super players all over the pitch" - ? So does Spain, Holland, Germany and every top 10 national teams in the world?..

Only thing that made sense in your comment was the last sentence.

 

[The Hitch]

Absolutely 100% rubbish.

So your argument to which Brazil is better than Holland is 30 minutes of a game... And you don't even have one for the Spain postulate. Holland beat Brazil and eventully ended up being 2nd playing an outstanding World Cup and outplayed every opponent before the World Cup too.
Spain won the whole thing without even playing their usually level.

Yeah, Spain have always had alot of problems with teams of great strengthness... - Up till the World Cup Spain won 15 games in a row which is the most consecutive wins in the history and did not lose a match in 35 games in a row. Spain shares that record with Brazil - the thing is though, with the Brazil record, that it was in the mid-90's... Oh, and do you want me get the statistics from that match against Suisse?..

Brazil was the best national team 10 years ago. But they are in no way better than Spain and Holland (perhaps same level as Germany) at this time and you haven't made one point that should counter that.

"But Brazil just have super players all over the pitch" - ? So does Spain, Holland, Germany and every top 10 national teams in the world?..

Only thing that made sense in your comment was the last sentence.

A championship like the world cup is hardly a perfect way to analyze whether a country is better than another. in 1 game anything can happen - see Spain vs Switzerland.

Brazil have better players than Holland that much is obvious.

Brazil were by far the most impressive team in the world cup until Felipe Meilo decided to go full genius. without him scoring an own goal then getting him sent of in a manner so outrageous that a match fixing conspiracy needs to be seriously considered, Brazil were on their way to another world title.

Spains 15 match streak is misleading and you know it. Brazil have to play Argentina Uruguay Ecuador etc in knockouts. Spains best opponents were Turky and Bosnia.

Ill repeat the bit you ignored. Inter vs Barca, the inter defense outmuscled Spain. Barca are used to outplaying better teams. Spain the same. The second you put them against better teams (USA confed cup), Portugal (goal was offside) even Germany (though they did score) they struggle. Lucio Maicon, Julio Caesar stopped Barca totaly in that semi in the Nou camp. Add Juan to that and you have a beast team that can play football and Spain have no idea what to do against that. Spain on the other hand have to replace dont have Messi who is half of barca.

Holland won 1 match against Brazil just like Switzerland did against Holland. Hardly makes them a better team.

in 2014 the hosts will have no rivals.

 

[Anonymous]

Absolutely 100% rubbish.

So your argument to which Brazil is better than Holland is 30 minutes of a game... And you don't even have one for the Spain postulate. Holland beat Brazil and eventully ended up being 2nd playing an outstanding World Cup and outplayed every opponent before the World Cup too.
Spain won the whole thing without even playing their usually level.

Yeah, Spain have always had alot of problems with teams of great strengthness... - Up till the World Cup Spain won 15 games in a row which is the most consecutive wins in the history and did not lose a match in 35 games in a row. Spain shares that record with Brazil - the thing is though, with the Brazil record, that it was in the mid-90's... Oh, and do you want me get the statistics from that match against Suisse?..

Brazil was the best national team 10 years ago. But they are in no way better than Spain and Holland (perhaps same level as Germany) at this time and you haven't made one point that should counter that.

"But Brazil just have super players all over the pitch" - ? So does Spain, Holland, Germany and every top 10 national teams in the world?..

Only thing that made sense in your comment was the last sentence.

thats not exactly right, is it?...england are 4th in FIFA ranking and they are ****, even italy dont have super players all over the pitch.

 

[Thomsena]

A championship like the world cup is hardly a perfect way to analyze whether a country is better than another. in 1 game anything can happen - see Spain vs Switzerland.

That's basically why we play the competition - to see who's the best team in the world. And if you do worse than other teams you are clealy not a better team. That's pretty simple.

Brazil have better players than Holland that much is obvious.

Yet another postulate without any evidence of being true what so ever. You'll find just as many dutch players in the best clubs in the world as you find brazilian.

Brazil were by far the most impressive team in the world cup until Felipe Meilo decided to go full genius. without him scoring an own goal then getting him sent of in a manner so outrageous that a match fixing conspiracy needs to be seriously considered, Brazil were on their way to another world title.

No they were difinately not. They did not impress in any games bar the Chile match. They barely beat North Korea in the group stage. It's just rubbish to say that they were on the way to another world title when they got eliminated in 1/8 stage. They were hammered out of that World Cup in the last 60 minutes of that match. You'd think you could play better even though you man down if they are - as you want them to be - better than every other country in the world..

Spains 15 match streak is misleading and you know it. Brazil have to play Argentina Uruguay Ecuador etc in knockouts. Spains best opponents were Turky and Bosnia.

Yeah, there were some very poor teams in the UEFA Euro 2008 which they btw won if you forgot that... Yep, that's true...

Ill repeat the bit you ignored. Inter vs Barca, the inter defense outmuscled Spain. Barca are used to outplaying better teams. Spain the same. The second you put them against better teams (USA confed cup), Portugal (goal was offside) even Germany (though they did score) they struggle. Lucio Maicon, Julio Caesar stopped Barca totaly in that semi in the Nou camp. Add Juan to that and you have a beast team that can play football and Spain have no idea what to do against that. Spain on the other hand have to replace dont have Messi who is half of barca.

I ignored it on purpose because it makes no sense at all. Why are we talking Inter - Barca now? And why are we talking Inter vs Spain defense!? I like that fact that you need to do a comparison with a totally different team (and it's even a club team!) Though there are several players in Barcelona who plays for the spanish international team it's two very different teams which really can't be compared to eachother. To different managers with different mind set, a different view on how to run things and different players to use. It simply makes no sense this. You start out by saying:

A championship like the world cup is hardly a perfect way to analyze whether a country is better than another. in 1 game anything can happen

yet you use Confed - which we all know is more prestigious as the World Cup... - as an example [/QUOTE]

The fact that Spain is defending champions in both the two most prestigious championships (what more can they possibly do?!) and yet you still questions the quality of that team is just laughable.

 

[Thomsena]

thats not exactly right, is it?...england are 4th in FIFA ranking and they are ****, even italy dont have super players all over the pitch.

Don't know why I even answer this comment when it states that 'England is ****'..
And yes, Italy have super players all over the pitch as well. Some nations have better players but of course they still have super players all over.

And the Fifa Ranking is no use. Norway is 13th on that list.

 

[slim charles]

Spain are, in my opinion, absolutely the best team in the world. Euro + World Cup - that certainly hasn't happened just like that. They have incredibly large number of great players to chose from. With all due respect to other nations, this Spanish generation is one of the best in the history of football. And lots of their key players are still young.

 

[The Hitch]

That's basically why we play the competition - to see who's the best team in the world. And if you do worse than other teams you are clealy not a better team. That's pretty simple.

If Switzerland vs Spain was a knockout game they would not be world champions. Brazil lost as many games as Spain.

The world cup is not designed to find the best team, it exists to make a lot of money. Is the team that wins the EPL or the team that wins the fa cup the best team in England. What you are arguing is that its the team that wins the fa cup.

Yet another postulate without any evidence of being true what so ever. You'll find just as many dutch players in the best clubs in the world as you find brazilian.

Hollands defense is clearly weaker than Brazils i dont care who they play for.

Holland have top players like Schneider however its spelt and robben, but Brazil have more quality.

No they were difinately not. They did not impressed in any games bar the Chile match. They barely beat North Korea in the group stage. It's just rubbish to say that they were on the way to another world title when nothing really seemed to go that way - which it of course didn't.

Beating Cote divoir 3-1 was quite impressive, considering Ivory Coast were by far the top african team.

even if you take away the second goal, then you would also have to take away kakas sending off which weakened Brazil against Portugal.

Unlike Spain Brazil didnt lose a game in the group stages. They topped the group of death comfortably, then thrashed a Chille team that Spain just scraped past even though Chille played most of the game with 10 men and gave Spain their first goal in.


They were getting into their stride and were clearly the better team against Holland before that idiot went nuts. Thats why leagues decide rankings better than knockout games. 1 player goes awol in a match and your out for ever.

I ignored it on purpose couse it makes no sense at all. Why are we talking Inter - Barca now? And why are we talking Inter vs Spain defense!? I like that fact that you need to do a comparison with a totally different team (and it's even a club team!) Though there are several players in Barcelone who plays for the spanish international team it's two very different teams which really can't be compared to eachother. To different trainers with different mind set and a different view on how to run things.

Why do i not compare Brazil vs Spain in a Brazil vs Spain match. Umm maybe because they havent met in a world cup in some time.

You seem to miss my point completely. I dont say Barca vs Inter proves Brazil could win.
You ask why i think Brazil could outmuscle Spain and i point you to a match where a small team containing Spains entire midfield and its centre backs and play very similar football to spain, failed to get past a big team which contained Brazils goalkeeper, main defender and right back.

How would a team that got a bare 2 goals past 10 man chile, 2 past Honduras, 0 past Switzerland, 0 legit past Portugal and 1 past Paraguay, get past a defense that puts all those teams to shame?

Oh wait, but after extra time they got 1 past Holland (who had they had Brazils strike force could have won the game by then) and Holland beat Brazil after a lot of luck and a midfielder going rogue.

Yes that proves beyond doubt that a Spain team would with ease beat a Brazil team.

The fact that Spain is defending champions in both the two most prestigious championships - what more can they possibly do?!

Theres nothing more they can do. There is no international league, so they cant. The fact that they won the world cup does not convince me they are the best.

Is Cadel Evans the best Gt rider because he just won the Tour?

If the referee was better they might not have even beaten Portugal. Luck played a part in their win. Brazil were never at the euro championships so i dont care if they won it or not.

Its tough to argue that a team that wins a knockout where referee decisions come into play, and they only have to face 2 good teams in the whole tournament, both of which they scrape past, is the best. .

 

[Anonymous]

Don't know why I even answer this comment when it states that 'England is ****'..
And yes, Italy have super players all over the pitch as well. Some nations have better players but of course they still have super players all over.

And the Fifa Ranking is no use. Norway is 13th on that list.

super players well that must depend on how you rank them and yea fifa ranking is no use..the reason i mention that was because of your "top 10 team have super players all over the pitch".

 

[palmerq]

Brazil had a really good team in the 2010 world cup and were playing well, but they messed it up, shame, they could have beaten spain, it would have been a very interesting final, if they beat uruguay of course who are very good... Brazil are very bad just now though, they need a lot of improvement if they are going to be world cup winners in 2014, they are hosts though so that always gives a big boost, I guess it depends on how neymar and ganso grow up.


I think england will be a big threat in 2012 if rooney can keep up his form, just now he is unstopable... another 2 goals today, ever since he wanted to leave man united he has been brilliant, with rooney on that form you dont need that great a team behind him :S

 

[Anonymous]

Anywayzz ... 2012 qualifiers

Azerbaijan 1 - 1 Belgium
Turkey 2 - 1 Kazakhstan
Germany 6 - 2 Austria

Euro 2012 - Group B (qualifiers)
Andorra 0 - 3 Armenia
Russia 1 - 0 Rep. of Macedonia
Rep. of Ireland 0 - 0 Slovakia

group C (qualifiers)
Faroe Islands 0 - 1 Italy
Northern Ireland 0 - 1 Serbia
Slovenia 1 - 2 Estonia

Group D (qualifiers)
Belarus 0 - 2 Bosnia-Herzegovina
luxembourg 0 - 2 Romania

Group E (qualifiers)
Finland 4 - 1 Moldova
Hungary 2 - 1 Sweden
Holland 11 - 0 San Marino

Group F (qualifiers)
Israel 0 - 1 Greece
Georgia 0 - 1 Latvia
Malta 1 - 3 Croatia

Group G (qualifiers)
Bulgaria 0 - 3 England
Wales 2 - 1 Montenegro

Group H (qualifiers)
Norway 1 - 0 Iceland
Cyprus 0 - 4 Portugal

Group I (qualifiers)
Lithuania 0 - 0 Liechtenstein

 

[Thomsena]

I edit my post before you made your comment just to point that out.
Hitch, All I read is hypotheses and allegations with 'if, if, if' as arguments.

- "The World Cup exist to make money and not designed to find the best team."

Aha. I don't think the thousends of organizers agree with you - but hey, what do they now?...

- "Hollands defense is clearly weaker than Brazils i dont care who they play for"

Holland's weakest point IS the defense. But so is Brazils. And Hollands midfield is by far better than the brazilian.

-"Holland have top players like Schneider however its spelt and robben, but Brazil have more quality."

This I didn't undestand at all. And do I see another postulate - I think, I do.

Ingoring yet another 'if' 'argument' and moves on to:

-"They were getting into their stride and were clearly the better team against Holland before that idiot went nuts. Thats why leagues decide rankings better than knockout games. 1 player goes awol in a match and your out for ever."

But this is not club games. Of course leagues give us a better picture but this is International matches and this is how it's been done for ages.

-"You ask why i think Brazil could outmuscle Spain"

No, I haven't? And I didn't get one word of the following sentences below.

-"The fact that they won the world cup does not convince me they are the best."

This is why were a going nowhere with this.

"Is Cadel Evans the best Gt rider because he just won the Tour?"

If winning Giro D'italia (Euro Cup) and The Tour (World Cup) Yeah, I would genuinely think so.

- "Its tough to argue that a team that wins a knockout where referee decisions come into play, and they only have to face 2 good teams in the whole tournament, both of which they scrape past, is the best."

The fact is that Spain and Holland have done much better recently that brazil in the few competitions national teams play and the proofs lies in the metal they've earned. You are impossible to convince even though i have the strongest argument you can have in this situation 'the winner of the biggest tournaments on the planet' and everyone that knows a tiny bit about football will back me about Spain being a better football team than Brazil. The results speaks for themselves. I'm out.

 

[The Hitch]

I edit my post before you made your comment just to point that out.
Hitch, All I read is hypotheses and allegations with 'if, if, if' as arguments.

- "The World Cup exist to make money and not designed to find the best team."

Aha. I don't think the thousends of organizers agree with you - but hey, what do they now?...

- "Hollands defense is clearly weaker than Brazils i dont care who they play for"

Holland's weakest point IS the defense. But so is Brazils. And Hollands midfield is by far better than the brazilian.

-"Holland have top players like Schneider however its spelt and robben, but Brazil have more quality."

This I didn't undestand at all. And do I see another postulate - I think, I do.

Ingoring yet another 'if' 'argument' and moves on to:

-"They were getting into their stride and were clearly the better team against Holland before that idiot went nuts. Thats why leagues decide rankings better than knockout games. 1 player goes awol in a match and your out for ever."

But this is not club games. Of course leagues give us a better picture but this is International matches and this is how it's been done for ages.

-"You ask why i think Brazil could outmuscle Spain"

No, I haven't? And I didn't get one word of the following sentences below.

-"The fact that they won the world cup does not convince me they are the best."

This is why were a going nowhere with this.

"Is Cadel Evans the best Gt rider because he just won the Tour?"

If winning Giro D'italia (Euro Cup) and The Tour (World Cup) Yeah, I would genuinely think so.

- "Its tough to argue that a team that wins a knockout where referee decisions come into play, and they only have to face 2 good teams in the whole tournament, both of which they scrape past, is the best."

The fact is that Spain and Holland have done much better recently that brazil in the few competitions national teams play and the proofs lies in the metal they've earned. You are impossible to convince even though i have the strongest argument you can have in this situation 'the winner of the biggest tournaments on the planet' and everyone that knows a tiny bit about football will back me about Spain being a better football team than Brazil. The results speaks for themselves. I'm out.

Everyone agrees with you. so what? that is a oft used tactic that isnt as strong as you might think. To play the everyone agrees with me card doesnt even begin to make a proper argument. Whether people think

In my opinion Brazil are a better team than Spain and in a 1 on 1 match i think they will win.

I am not trying to convince you of that. Rather you are the one, for whatever reason upset that someone could possibly disagree with your view that Brazil would lose agains Spain. Therefore you do not have the strongest card when you point to the trophy winners because I do not count the world cup to be the be all end all in this debate, and i do not look to Spain winning a European trophy for proof that they are better than a team that was ilegible for that competition.

So Holland have done better in 1 competition and Spain have done better in 1 competition. to suggest that this 1 competition is a sufficient sample, as you do, is get a very inaccurate reading.

I do not see how Spain would get past a Brazil defense, considering the teams they had such problems with. That it took them 117 minutes to get past the Holland defense will not convince me that they will beat Brazil. That they beat an inferior Germany team in 2008 in a competition Brazil didnt enter, doesnt go a very long way either.

 

[l.Harm]

I do not see how Spain would get past a Brazil defense, considering the teams they had such problems with. That it took them 117 minutes to get past the Holland defense will not convince me that they will beat Brazil. That they beat an inferior Germany team in 2008 in a competition Brazil didnt enter, doesnt go a very long way either.

Maybe you underestimate the Dutch defense. Holland was well organized and it's difficult to score against them. I'm sure Spain got a better team than Brazil and they would beat them in 80% of the matches.

 

[Thomsena]

I said that Spain are defending champions in both the biggest tournaments in the world and THAT is the biggest argument without any 'if, if, if' - I dind't use the 'everyone agrees with me as an argument?

I can never convince you of otherwise since you believe that international championships are like worthless to the sport. You can't just rule out a Euro Championship that's just.. It gives no meaning what so ever. - but that just shows me your knowledge about this sport.

Ask any pro player to choose between playing on the team that wins the Euro Cup or Premier League. There's absolutely no doubt what they'll pick.

And i'm not upset

 

[The Hitch]

I said that Spain are defending champions in both the biggest tournaments in the world and THAT is the biggest argument without any 'if, if, if' - I dind't use the 'everyone agrees with me as an argument?

I can never convince you of otherwise since you believe that international championships are like worthless to the sport. You can't just rule out a Euro Championship that's just.. It gives no meaning what so ever. - but that just shows me your knowledge about this sport.

Ask any pro player to choose between playing on the team that wins the Euro Cup or Premier League. There's absolutely no doubt what they'll pick.

And i'm not upset

I consider footballers to be among the dumbest species around so what they think doesnt matter much to me.

Besides I already said that i see the "other people think this" card to be a pretty weak argument. Whether other people think one thing or another does not contribute to the substance of an argument.

I never said Euro Championships dont mean anything at all, just that they dont neccesarily decide who is the best.

The team that won before them was Greece after-all.

And yes the European Cup is more prestigious. Maybe because all of Europe takes part not just England

But the team that wins the Champions League isnt always the best team in Europe. Plenty of occasions when secondary teams got some lucky draws, ref decisions or a good performance on the night or all 3.

 

[Thomsena]

Mate, we'll never agree on this anyway. And we are starting to repeat previous replies which means it's time to stop. I think your dead wrong and you probably vise versa.

Hephey.

 

[Anonymous]

Italy 1-0 Slovenia, Azzurri in Euro 2012! ...yesssssh