What's happening to English football?

Cringed so much.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

The_Quilo wrote:

Are you actually serious?

Man City had an extremely tough group, and still managed 10 points, which would have been enough to progress in any other group bar one (evidently United's group).

United, on the other hand had to face a remarkable Basel side, who did not loose a single game in the group stages. Their exit was also due to several other factors, including a then extremely liable David De Gea who was at fault for several goals, and a Phil Jones who showed the world he can't play CB. Similarly to City, United had just spent over 60 mil pounds on new players, with this campaign being their first season playing together. Vidic's injury did not help the situation, either.

Chelsea's problems are part of their identity? Try Chelsea's problems are due to having a terribly off form manager, and having the fourth oldest squad on average in the league (note: Out of the top 6 oldest squads, including chelsea, two are in the relegation battle, and four (only bar Chelsea and Fulham) are in the bottom half of the table.) Despite all this, their new manager led them to one of the best come backs in the history of the Champions League with a 4-1 victory over Napoli.

As for Arsenal, they just sold their two best midfielders AND their best left back. With injuries coming left, right and center it is amazing that they are in 3rd in the table. Also, had the San Siro pitch been in a half decent state, the tie could have been much different. (The pitch was so bad, Barcelona made an official complaint after their 0-0 draw with Milan).

Don't understand how you came to your conclusion...

1) Why have you bumped a point I made months ago?
2) Man City didn't go through, how many points they got is irrelevant - no one can say they weren't knocked out fair and square by two teams better over the 6 games.
3) Basel are far from a 'remarkable' side.
4) Chelsea having an old squad is part of their identity, part of deep-lying problems at the club, and how does it excuse them from performing poorly anyway?
5) How does Arsenal's policy of flogging their best players excuse them from performing poorly?

Don't understand how someone can write so much and fail to put forward a single cogent argument...

2. It's their first season in the champions league, give them a fucking break. If they fail in the champions league next year, you might have a point.

3. Basel made it to the round of 16, and even beat Bayern in one leg. That is nothing less than remarkable for a swiss side. Sure, United shouldn't have lost to them, but I repeat, we had a liable De Gea, we had just bought several new players and we, at the time, didn't know that Jones can't play CB. We have the second youngest squad in the league, several of these players have never played in the CL before. We are building for the future. We don't expect them all to become superstars during their first season in the CL.

4. How is having an old squad part of your identity? In two years, if they wanted, they could have the youngest squad in the league. Chelsea don't go out buying 30 year olds, in fact they have been investing in youth, such as Sturridge, Mata, lucas piazon, lukaku, etc. And they are in the Champions League final, bitch.

5. What if a rich billionaire-backed club offered you 60+ million pounds for Samaras, Anthony Stokes and Gary Hooper. Do you think you could replace these guys with inexperienced mediocre players and expect to still easily win the title? Add injuries to Adam Matthews, and several other crucial players, and you would not be 18 points ahead like you are now. The fact that Arsenal are still 3rd is practically a miracle. Playing poorly? Watch a Premier League game for once in your life. They have fucking Robin Van Persie, the top goalscorer in the league. Third is a more than respectable standing.

Are you phaggots going to rate the league because of one year? You seem to willingly forget that in the last 7 CL finals, not including this CL final (which AGAIN features a English team), only once has a English club NOT featured. Out of those 7 times, only three times has a Spanish team featured, and only three times has an Italian team featured.

I am not stating the British league is the best league, all I am saying is don't discredit the league because of one off year which has been a year of transition for all of the big 4 clubs.

The_Quilo wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

1) Why have you bumped a point I made months ago?
2) Man City didn't go through, how many points they got is irrelevant - no one can say they weren't knocked out fair and square by two teams better over the 6 games.
3) Basel are far from a 'remarkable' side.
4) Chelsea having an old squad is part of their identity, part of deep-lying problems at the club, and how does it excuse them from performing poorly anyway?
5) How does Arsenal's policy of flogging their best players excuse them from performing poorly?

Don't understand how someone can write so much and fail to put forward a single cogent argument...

2. It's their first season in the champions league, give them a fucking break. If they fail in the champions league next year, you might have a point.

3. Basel made it to the round of 16, and even beat Bayern in one leg. That is nothing less than remarkable for a swiss side. Sure, United shouldn't have lost to them, but I repeat, we had a liable De Gea, we had just bought several new players and we, at the time, didn't know that Jones can't play CB. We have the second youngest squad in the league, several of these players have never played in the CL before. We are building for the future. We don't expect them all to become superstars during their first season in the CL.

4. How is having an old squad part of your identity? In two years, if they wanted, they could have the youngest squad in the league. Chelsea don't go out buying 30 year olds, in fact they have been investing in youth, such as Sturridge, Mata, lucas piazon, lukaku, etc. And they are in the Champions League final, bitch.

5. What if a rich billionaire-backed club offered you 60+ million pounds for Samaras, Anthony Stokes and Gary Hooper. Do you think you could replace these guys with inexperienced mediocre players and expect to still easily win the title? Add injuries to Adam Matthews, and several other crucial players, and you would not be 18 points ahead like you are now. The fact that Arsenal are still 3rd is practically a miracle. Playing poorly? Watch a Premier League game for once in your life. They have fucking Robin Van Persie, the top goalscorer in the league. Third is a more than respectable standing.

Are you phaggots going to rate the league because of one year? You seem to willingly forget that in the last 7 CL finals, not including this CL final (which AGAIN features a English team), only once has a English club NOT featured. Out of those 7 times, only three times has a Spanish team featured, and only three times has an Italian team featured.

I am not stating the British league is the best league, all I am saying is don't discredit the league because of one off year which has been a year of transition for all of the big 4 clubs.

You seem to have a big problem with making excuses for English teams doing badly that actually just provide evidence to suggest that they are bad teams. Like the fact that you have said that Arsenal have bought 'inexperienced mediocre players'; all that does is show that Arsenal, an English side, are not a very good team. It doesn't somehow excuse them from being labelled as one of many English teams who have flopped this year, because the reason they have done so is that they are not that good a team, as you have yourself alluded too. It's the same thing with Chelsea's old squad - how does that excuse them from being judged on the same terms as the other teams? It's part of their identity (a point you just do not seem able to understand) and what I mean by that is that it's a deep-rooted problem that is, among other reasons (all of them their own responsibility), why they are not the force they once were (and that cannot be solved without a ridiculous amount of spending).

"Watch a Premier League game for once in your life," you say? This just compounds my view that you are a bit of an idiot.

Are you daft? His point is that this is a season that the top 4 teams in England are transitioning from old guard to new and still have their 6th place squad in the CL final.

All looks good in England to me.

Only an idiot looks at one CL and makes rash judgements on the state of the league. These things are measured in much greater amounts of time.

I hate how if a English team makes it to the final English football as a whole is excused.. English teams have been average in the champions league since the 09/10 season.

This is the end, my only friend, the end.

Theo Filippo wrote:I hate how if a English team makes it to the final English football as a whole is excused.. English teams have been average in the champions league since the 09/10 season.

Disagree, we were knocked out of it by finalists in 09/10 with 10 men, and we got to the final in 10/11, and we're all that matter.

Theo Filippo wrote:I hate how if a English team makes it to the final English football as a whole is excused.. English teams have been average in the champions league since the 09/10 season.

I dunno if I'd say that.

Arsenal have fought well vs Barcelona....last year Man Utd knocked out Chelsea...could've been an all English final ...Spurs did well but fell to Madrid which is fine. So I'd say that 10/11 was quite a good year.

This year has generally been shit....but Chelsea have done well. Can't see next season being worse (except for Chelsea)

ConorCelticFC wrote:

The_Quilo wrote:

2. It's their first season in the champions league, give them a fucking break. If they fail in the champions league next year, you might have a point.

3. Basel made it to the round of 16, and even beat Bayern in one leg. That is nothing less than remarkable for a swiss side. Sure, United shouldn't have lost to them, but I repeat, we had a liable De Gea, we had just bought several new players and we, at the time, didn't know that Jones can't play CB. We have the second youngest squad in the league, several of these players have never played in the CL before. We are building for the future. We don't expect them all to become superstars during their first season in the CL.

4. How is having an old squad part of your identity? In two years, if they wanted, they could have the youngest squad in the league. Chelsea don't go out buying 30 year olds, in fact they have been investing in youth, such as Sturridge, Mata, lucas piazon, lukaku, etc. And they are in the Champions League final, bitch.

5. What if a rich billionaire-backed club offered you 60+ million pounds for Samaras, Anthony Stokes and Gary Hooper. Do you think you could replace these guys with inexperienced mediocre players and expect to still easily win the title? Add injuries to Adam Matthews, and several other crucial players, and you would not be 18 points ahead like you are now. The fact that Arsenal are still 3rd is practically a miracle. Playing poorly? Watch a Premier League game for once in your life. They have fucking Robin Van Persie, the top goalscorer in the league. Third is a more than respectable standing.

Are you phaggots going to rate the league because of one year? You seem to willingly forget that in the last 7 CL finals, not including this CL final (which AGAIN features a English team), only once has a English club NOT featured. Out of those 7 times, only three times has a Spanish team featured, and only three times has an Italian team featured.

I am not stating the British league is the best league, all I am saying is don't discredit the league because of one off year which has been a year of transition for all of the big 4 clubs.

You seem to have a big problem with making excuses for English teams doing badly that actually just provide evidence to suggest that they are bad teams. Like the fact that you have said that Arsenal have bought 'inexperienced mediocre players'; all that does is show that Arsenal, an English side, are not a very good team. It doesn't somehow excuse them from being labelled as one of many English teams who have flopped this year, because the reason they have done so is that they are not that good a team, as you have yourself alluded too. It's the same thing with Chelsea's old squad - how does that excuse them from being judged on the same terms as the other teams? It's part of their identity (a point you just do not seem able to understand) and what I mean by that is that it's a deep-rooted problem that is, among other reasons (all of them their own responsibility), why they are not the force they once were (and that cannot be solved without a ridiculous amount of spending).

"Watch a Premier League game for once in your life," you say? This just compounds my view that you are a bit of an idiot.

I see your formula. 1 Manager with bad ability in transfer market = Bad team + awful league. Makes perfect sense.

And they got to the round of 16 and were respectably beaten 4-3 on aggregate by Milan. I fail to see how that is a flop, especially as they were missing so many huge players due to transfers or injury.

I repeat, how is Chelsea having an old squad part of their identity? So the identity of every team in football changes every 5-10 years when they phase old players out and new young players in? As vexxed said, they are changing from old guard to new, they are not changing their identity.

Bottom line, an English team, for the seventh time in 8 years, is featuring in the CL final, which is more than can be said for the Spanish and Italians. So your point is invalid.

The_Quilo wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

You seem to have a big problem with making excuses for English teams doing badly that actually just provide evidence to suggest that they are bad teams. Like the fact that you have said that Arsenal have bought 'inexperienced mediocre players'; all that does is show that Arsenal, an English side, are not a very good team. It doesn't somehow excuse them from being labelled as one of many English teams who have flopped this year, because the reason they have done so is that they are not that good a team, as you have yourself alluded too. It's the same thing with Chelsea's old squad - how does that excuse them from being judged on the same terms as the other teams? It's part of their identity (a point you just do not seem able to understand) and what I mean by that is that it's a deep-rooted problem that is, among other reasons (all of them their own responsibility), why they are not the force they once were (and that cannot be solved without a ridiculous amount of spending).

"Watch a Premier League game for once in your life," you say? This just compounds my view that you are a bit of an idiot.

I see your formula. 1 Manager with bad ability in transfer market = Bad team + awful league. Makes perfect sense.

And they got to the round of 16 and were respectably beaten 4-3 on aggregate by Milan. I fail to see how that is a flop, especially as they were missing so many huge players due to transfers or injury.

I repeat, how is Chelsea having an old squad part of their identity? So the identity of every team in football changes every 5-10 years when they phase old players out and new young players in? As vexxed said, they are changing from old guard to new, they are not changing their identity.

Bottom line, an English team, for the seventh time in 8 years, is featuring in the CL final, which is more than can be said for the Spanish and Italians. So your point is invalid.

No offence, but you are an idiot. After everything I've said, you're still blaming transfers and banging on about the semantics of the word 'identity.' I doubt you understood a single word in my last post so I'm going to break this down for you: when I talk about their identity I am referring to the fact that using their old, past-it squad as an excuse for poor performances makes you the one with the invalid point. Because an old squad is their responsibility, and just like transfers, if it results in poor performances they cannot complain that it is not their fault - it is their own prerogative to preserve the quality of their squad and, unlike a more valid excuse like injuries, the current quality of a squad is part of the club's identity and what it deserves to be judged upon every season. So don't try to use it as a fucking excuse. If you bring up the word 'identity' again I'm going to throw myself off a building.

Your points about injuries are also largely invalid because clubs all over Europe have had far worse injury crises than those suffered by English ones.

ConorCelticFC wrote:

The_Quilo wrote:

I see your formula. 1 Manager with bad ability in transfer market = Bad team + awful league. Makes perfect sense.

And they got to the round of 16 and were respectably beaten 4-3 on aggregate by Milan. I fail to see how that is a flop, especially as they were missing so many huge players due to transfers or injury.

I repeat, how is Chelsea having an old squad part of their identity? So the identity of every team in football changes every 5-10 years when they phase old players out and new young players in? As vexxed said, they are changing from old guard to new, they are not changing their identity.

Bottom line, an English team, for the seventh time in 8 years, is featuring in the CL final, which is more than can be said for the Spanish and Italians. So your point is invalid.

No offence, but you are an idiot. After everything I've said, you're still blaming transfers and banging on about the semantics of the word 'identity.' I doubt you understood a single word in my last post so I'm going to break this down for you: when I talk about their identity I am referring to the fact that using their old, past-it squad as an excuse for poor performances makes you the one with the invalid point. Because an old squad is their responsibility, and just like transfers, if it results in poor performances they cannot complain that it is not their fault - it is their own prerogative to preserve the quality of their squad and, unlike a more valid excuse like injuries, the current quality of a squad is part of the club's identity and what it deserves to be judged upon every season. So don't try to use it as a fucking excuse. If you bring up the word 'identity' again I'm going to throw myself off a building.

Your points about injuries are also largely invalid because clubs all over Europe have had far worse injury crises than those suffered by English ones.

I doubt any Round of 16 side in the CL had nearly as bad an injury crisis as Arsenal did. They literally did not have a single fit fullback at one time. They were missing possibly their best midfielder in Jack Wilshere, they were missing 4 out of the 5 CB's in the WHOLE senior squad (it got to the point where they were starting midfielders in the CB positions), they were missing the clubs best two wingers, another second-line midfielder and another attacking midfielder. In names, it was: Wilshere, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Koscielny, Squillaci, Djourou, Gibbs, Sagna, Walcott, Gervinho, Diaby and Benayoun. 12 players, all who are starting or second string. They were at the point were they were starting midfielders as defenders. If that is non a devastating injury crisis, I do not know what is.

I don't know if you are simply retarded, blind or both. An Englsih team are in the final, again, no spanish, italian or french team can say that. If there is one nation that is the picture of consistency in the CL over the last few years, it is England and English teams.

You are a fucking moron if you continue to try and make a point out of nothing.

The_Quilo wrote:

ConorCelticFC wrote:

No offence, but you are an idiot. After everything I've said, you're still blaming transfers and banging on about the semantics of the word 'identity.' I doubt you understood a single word in my last post so I'm going to break this down for you: when I talk about their identity I am referring to the fact that using their old, past-it squad as an excuse for poor performances makes you the one with the invalid point. Because an old squad is their responsibility, and just like transfers, if it results in poor performances they cannot complain that it is not their fault - it is their own prerogative to preserve the quality of their squad and, unlike a more valid excuse like injuries, the current quality of a squad is part of the club's identity and what it deserves to be judged upon every season. So don't try to use it as a fucking excuse. If you bring up the word 'identity' again I'm going to throw myself off a building.

Your points about injuries are also largely invalid because clubs all over Europe have had far worse injury crises than those suffered by English ones.

You can throw around all the words you like. It doesn't change the facts. Chelsea are in the fucking final, and they have a good chance of winning the whole competition. In fact no other nation has been getting to the final so consistently. You have no argument.

You are a fucking moron if you continue to try and make a point out of nothing.

they were missing 4 out of the 5 CB's in the WHOLE senior squad (it got to the point where they were starting midfielders in the CB positions), they were missing the clubs best two wingers, another second-line midfielder and another attacking midfielder. In names, it was: Wilshere, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Koscielny, Squillaci, Djourou, Gibbs, Sagna, Walcott, Gervinho, Diaby and Benayoun. 12 players, all who are starting or second string. They were at the point were they were starting midfielders as defenders. If that is non a devastating injury crisis, I do not know what is.

Why are you making up stuff? Mertesacker and Koscielny have been fit for the majority of the season, as soon as Vermaelen returned, Mertesacker got injured we played Song at central defence for like 2 games overall this season, Benayoun just didn't play he didn't get injured, Squillaci wouldn't of been in the squad regardless, Djourou wasn't injured either...

Walcott has hardly been injured either

Chelsea are in the CL final. Why is there any talk of them being rubbish or any talk of their "old" squad being at fault?

Ignazio Abate
Mark van Bommel
Christian Abbiati
Alessandro Nesta
Sulley Muntari
Rodney Strasser
Alexander Merkel
Pato
Alberto Aquilani
Mario Yepes
Antonio Cassano
Gennaro Gattuso
Mathieu Flamini

Milan's injury list before the 1st leg of the Arsenal game.

Theo Filippo wrote:

The_Quilo wrote:

You can throw around all the words you like. It doesn't change the facts. Chelsea are in the fucking final, and they have a good chance of winning the whole competition. In fact no other nation has been getting to the final so consistently. You have no argument.

You are a fucking moron if you continue to try and make a point out of nothing.

they were missing 4 out of the 5 CB's in the WHOLE senior squad (it got to the point where they were starting midfielders in the CB positions), they were missing the clubs best two wingers, another second-line midfielder and another attacking midfielder. In names, it was: Wilshere, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Koscielny, Squillaci, Djourou, Gibbs, Sagna, Walcott, Gervinho, Diaby and Benayoun. 12 players, all who are starting or second string. They were at the point were they were starting midfielders as defenders. If that is non a devastating injury crisis, I do not know what is.

Why are you making up stuff? Mertesacker and Koscielny have been fit for the majority of the season, as soon as Vermaelen returned, Mertesacker got injured we played Song at central defence for like 2 games overall this season, Benayoun just didn't play he didn't get injured, Squillaci wouldn't of been in the squad regardless, Djourou wasn't injured either...

Walcott has hardly been injured either

I was thinking that reading his post.

Lux wrote:Chelsea are in the CL final. Why is there any talk of them being rubbish or any talk of their "old" squad being at fault?

Because I criticized their squad a few months ago, and I still stand by my comments, but Quilo randomly bumped my post and started this moronic argument.

It's declining, I mean look at last season we had a team in the final...oh wait.

6th best team in England, Champions of Europe.

kyro7 wrote:6th best team in England, Champions of Europe.

England > Everywhere.

BUSSIN.

As Schweinsteiger's shot deflected off the post, I just thought to myself

"That thread's going to get bumped"

And buried my head in my hands

BUSSIN, JELLY AND ICE CREAM.

Nothing

IT IS WRITTEN IN THE STARS.

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Theo Filippo wrote:

The_Quilo wrote:

You can throw around all the words you like. It doesn't change the facts. Chelsea are in the fucking final, and they have a good chance of winning the whole competition. In fact no other nation has been getting to the final so consistently. You have no argument.

You are a fucking moron if you continue to try and make a point out of nothing.

they were missing 4 out of the 5 CB's in the WHOLE senior squad (it got to the point where they were starting midfielders in the CB positions), they were missing the clubs best two wingers, another second-line midfielder and another attacking midfielder. In names, it was: Wilshere, Mertesacker, Vermaelen, Koscielny, Squillaci, Djourou, Gibbs, Sagna, Walcott, Gervinho, Diaby and Benayoun. 12 players, all who are starting or second string. They were at the point were they were starting midfielders as defenders. If that is non a devastating injury crisis, I do not know what is.

Why are you making up stuff? Mertesacker and Koscielny have been fit for the majority of the season, as soon as Vermaelen returned, Mertesacker got injured we played Song at central defence for like 2 games overall this season, Benayoun just didn't play he didn't get injured, Squillaci wouldn't of been in the squad regardless, Djourou wasn't injured either...

Walcott has hardly been injured either

The manager is without nine players for the visit of Olympiakos on Wednesday night, with the headline-grabbing absentee remaining Jack Wilshere who, Wenger said, has had a metal screw inserted to repair his fractured ankle and will be out for 22 weeks.

But Wenger has been hit hardest in defence, where he is missing four of his five recognised centre-backs, necessitating the deployment of Alex Song, the defensive midfielder, alongside Per Mertesacker against the Greek champions. Thomas Vermaelen, Laurent Koscielny, Johan Djourou and Sébastien Squillaci are on the sidelines while, further forward, Wenger is without Theo Walcott, Gervinho, Abou Diaby and Yossi Benayoun.

Explain to me what I am making up, if you will. I never said that these players were injured for the majority of the season. Maybe you should learn to read, I heard it helps.

To top it off, Chelsea are the Champions, so you can fuck off.

We topped the group already by that time you fucking spastic, get cancer.

I'll await your reply in 3 months.

The_Quilo wrote:

Theo Filippo wrote:Why are you making up stuff? Mertesacker and Koscielny have been fit for the majority of the season, as soon as Vermaelen returned, Mertesacker got injured we played Song at central defence for like 2 games overall this season, Benayoun just didn't play he didn't get injured, Squillaci wouldn't of been in the squad regardless, Djourou wasn't injured either...

Walcott has hardly been injured either

The manager is without nine players for the visit of Olympiakos on Wednesday night, with the headline-grabbing absentee remaining Jack Wilshere who, Wenger said, has had a metal screw inserted to repair his fractured ankle and will be out for 22 weeks.

But Wenger has been hit hardest in defence, where he is missing four of his five recognised centre-backs, necessitating the deployment of Alex Song, the defensive midfielder, alongside Per Mertesacker against the Greek champions. Thomas Vermaelen, Laurent Koscielny, Johan Djourou and Sébastien Squillaci are on the sidelines while, further forward, Wenger is without Theo Walcott, Gervinho, Abou Diaby and Yossi Benayoun.

Explain to me what I am making up, if you will. I never said that these players were injured for the majority of the season. Maybe you should learn to read, I heard it helps.

To top it off, Chelsea are the Champions, so you can fuck off.

Does anyone genuinely believe Chelsea are the best side in Europe?

Theo Filippo wrote:We topped the group already by that time you fucking spastic, get cancer.

I'll await your reply in 3 months.

Doesn't change the facts.

Who are you calling the spastic, when you lot are judging 20 years of premier league action by the under par performances of a handful of teams in 1 year

Do you even hear yourself.

And I'm the spastic. Its mind boggling, your stupidity.

(Oh, and nice going telling me to develop a illness that tragically kills millions of people a year. I can tell you are extremely mature.)

You can fucking wait for a thoughtful reply.

Henrik's Tongue wrote:As Schweinsteiger's shot deflected off the post, I just thought to myself

"That thread's going to get bumped"

And buried my head in my hands

you are extremely sad if all you think about is this forum whilst watching the CL final