Busquets made his first team debut in a cup match for Rijkaard.
Thiago is a good one, but I don't think it's enough to have the reputation that he does for it.
Football myths
- Thread starter El cangrejo
- Start date
Thiago is a good one, but I don't think it's enough to have the reputation that he does for it.
In China: China invented football.
Agree. And that's the myth I am talking about
We had guys like Vidic,Rio and Evra who were elite at their position for years. And guys like RVP, Rooney, Nani, Valencia, Carrick, Fletcher have great individual seasons.
Fixed for you
This applies to most people IMO. The average person only does what they need to do at school then leaves as soon as they can. Being poorly educated doesn't automatically mean stupid. I just don't think the average footballer is any less smart than the average McDonalds employee or the average postie or the average bricklayer, etc.
The English NT is a powerhouse .
I think 1966 was the last time anyone said that.
Guess you've been in a coma since 1966 ?? lol
The notion that England fans think England will win anything is a myth.
There has been pessimism surrounding the English national team for a long while now.
Yeah, I think it fizzled out after 2006 really. The media carried it on until 2010, but by then most fans had given up on it. And to be honest it was mostly media-led expectation before then.
I think a lot of that comes from the completely pointless post-match interviews they give. Wayne Rooney came across like a fecking robot in his post-match interviews for us, whereas when he signed for Everton I saw some genuine signs of sentience in his eyes. It was very strange.
I suppose on that subject I could add the myth that players genuinely believe they're playing for the "biggest club in the world" when they sign. Obviously it's a line fed to them by the PR department. Lovely as it is to hear.
The English expects has become a meme now.
I watched an episode of ESPN FC for the Lukaku interview and the guests were telling us how English fans are comparing Rashford to Neymar and the English press were shocked that our visit wasn't carried on the front pages of USA Today etc.
All blatant lies and I have no idea why they were told but it gave the chance for everybody to go off on English football.
Its a strong meme
I watched an episode of ESPN FC for the Lukaku interview and the guests were telling us how English fans are comparing Rashford to Neymar and the English press were shocked that our visit wasn't carried on the front pages of USA Today etc.
All blatant lies and I have no idea why they were told but it gave the chance for everybody to go off on English football.
Its a strong meme
England had really good squads at 02 and 04. The defensive line was up there with the best in the world and a midfield with Beckham, Scholes, Lampard, Gerrard, Hargreaves and Butt could have potentially been great but the manager just wasn't very good.
That van Nistelrooy being gone was one of the key factors for our 06/07 season.
Saha had a noticeable impact and was more fluid than van Nistelrooy, allowing for better movement and interchanging amongst the forwards. However, I wouldn't say RvN was detrimental to our attack by any means, he had good link-up play and created plenty of space for his fellow forwards with his movement and of course markers tending to him. I'd say Ronaldo-Rooney's rise, Scholes return from the eye injury, Scholes partnership with Carrick were the most important factors. I'd say we'd have played the same enthralling football and could have even been better with van Nistelrooy in the side in 06/07. Also the point on van Nistelrooy's relatively 'static and selfish' presence being a hinderance for Ronaldo's emergence, Ronaldo was already on the ascendancy from the second half of the 05/06 season and had a great run iirc.
Saha had a noticeable impact and was more fluid than van Nistelrooy, allowing for better movement and interchanging amongst the forwards. However, I wouldn't say RvN was detrimental to our attack by any means, he had good link-up play and created plenty of space for his fellow forwards with his movement and of course markers tending to him. I'd say Ronaldo-Rooney's rise, Scholes return from the eye injury, Scholes partnership with Carrick were the most important factors. I'd say we'd have played the same enthralling football and could have even been better with van Nistelrooy in the side in 06/07. Also the point on van Nistelrooy's relatively 'static and selfish' presence being a hinderance for Ronaldo's emergence, Ronaldo was already on the ascendancy from the second half of the 05/06 season and had a great run iirc.
I've got to disagree with you there, Van Nistelrooy played on the shoulder of the centre backs, he'd switch from one to the other and try to convince them he was offside. His movement was fantastic but it meant that teams sat deeper because he was constantly pushing them back.
In 06/07 we switched it up and had an attack that were more than happy to all be in their own half when the move started and that sucked centrebacks out towards the half way line - if they sat deep we dominated the middle and they didn't stand a chance. We then exploited the space in behind by throwing 5/6 players forward. It was a style of play RVN was completely incompatible for.
Trevor Sinclair and Danny Mills were both starters in 2002. That was a pretty run-of-the-mill England squad, with a few outstanding players but overall lacking that extra that would elevate them past the level of the quarter-finals. Which has been true for pretty much every England team since 1966, except those that were even worse.
04-06 were a bit better, with the emergence of the likes of Rooney and Lampard (Not-actually-Fat Frank wasn't in the squad in 2002) and warranted some optimism in my opinion. Maybe with a more daring, less conservative coach... who knows.
Which coincided with Van Nistelrooy being on the bench far more often than ever before in his United career. He started five league games out of 12 after the League Cup final against Wigan where he was left on the bench.
Yeah, fair enough our counter-attacking threat and transitional play improved significantly, no doubt (that Rooney-Ronaldo Bolton goal
).Foreign players aren't up to the physical nature of the premier league
Yeah that is the silliest one. Especially since foreign players are the best ones in the PL. Some here tried to say Neymar would struggle in the PL. Neymar.
A recent one I heard was that Italy 2006 were "underdogs" and "a defensive team".
I don't really understand how a team that has Buffon, Nesta, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Pirlo, Gattuso, De Rossi, Totti and Toni can be classified as underdogs. They had 8 or 9 world class players, you'd struggle to think of a single national team that stacked in football today.
Nor do I understand how a team that had over 50% possession in every game they played, and created more chances than their opponent in every game they played, can be labelled a defensive team. They knew how to defend, but that doesn't make them defensive.
I don't really understand how a team that has Buffon, Nesta, Cannavaro, Zambrotta, Pirlo, Gattuso, De Rossi, Totti and Toni can be classified as underdogs. They had 8 or 9 world class players, you'd struggle to think of a single national team that stacked in football today.
Nor do I understand how a team that had over 50% possession in every game they played, and created more chances than their opponent in every game they played, can be labelled a defensive team. They knew how to defend, but that doesn't make them defensive.
As far as I've heard, that's pretty much right though. Where do you think it was invented?
Simple: Dida-Cafu-Lucio-Juan-Roberto Carlos-Emerson-Ze Roberto-Kaka-Dinho-Ronnie-Adriano
Everyone else was an underdog compared to that
As for being a defensive team, we very much were. We just never played teams on our level until Germany in the semis, and we reverted to type and played on the counter the whole game. We did dominate France in the first half before running out of gas in the second, but France were basically Zidane+10 in 2006. Still, we were certainly better at defending than attacking
You're right that that team was stacked though, even with Totti playing on half a leg. Generally speaking, all of our NT between 1978 and 2006 were
Liverpool were good to watch back in the day
Erm, England?
Kicking inflated bladders around doesn't = the modern game of football.
Kicking balls into goals in a game with rules does though.
England certainly was the birthplace of association football, but the earliest games that can be recognised as a precursor to that were probably played in China.
No more than punching someone in the face equates to inventing boxing of that throwing rocks at ducks is a precursor to darts. There's no correlation to 'kickball' in China to the game we play today, none.
Last edited:
Myth: Roy Keane ended Halaand's career.
What about Mesut Ozil using 'Premier League myths' as an excuse for being crap! Scandalous.
'Although I initially struggled when coming to the Premier League, I accepted the challenge. I started as a left-winger at the beginning, and in all honestly, I am not a great admirer of that position for myself - I’m better as a ‘number 10’. When playing in the centre I can control the game and generate chances. The Premier League is physically much more demanding then La Liga or the Bundesliga. 1-1 draws are much tougher, and the smaller clubs also have very strong teams that can easily catch you out. Furthermore, there is no winter break, meaning the season is extremely long and exhausting, especially when you are playing at European and National Team level too.'
'Although I initially struggled when coming to the Premier League, I accepted the challenge. I started as a left-winger at the beginning, and in all honestly, I am not a great admirer of that position for myself - I’m better as a ‘number 10’. When playing in the centre I can control the game and generate chances. The Premier League is physically much more demanding then La Liga or the Bundesliga. 1-1 draws are much tougher, and the smaller clubs also have very strong teams that can easily catch you out. Furthermore, there is no winter break, meaning the season is extremely long and exhausting, especially when you are playing at European and National Team level too.'
England invented it
The backpass rule killed Liverpool.
If that's the case, I guess the first game English invented has no relation to the modern game. A player ran towards the goal and rest all team mates ran alongside that person and opposition job was to run in opposite direction and rob the ball in a similar fashion.
There was no passing involved.
So the football English created may have more resemblance to NFL or Rugby rather than the football played today.
I would agree that Association Football and rules around the football were all English inventions, but the actual game was not necessarily the same.
You had 58% possession. Germany were the ones playing on the counter. Italy were the ones taking the initiative and controlling the match. You might want to rewatch that game again.
That team looks good on paper, but let's delve further into it. Cafu and Roberto Carlos were well past their prime in 2006. Having Kaka, Ronaldinho, Ronaldo and Adriano was complete overkill and made the team unbalanced. R9 was old and fat by 2006, and Adriano was already declining after 2005.
Kaka played too deep to make an impact, and Ronaldinho had an immobile R9 in front of him instead of the hard-working Eto which made him much less effective. Brazil was very vulnerable defensively thanks to too many players who did not track back (the front 4) and fullbacks who were completely past it.
The organized Italian side would have beat that Brazil team easily if they had met.
Graeme Souness destroyed them according to a Scouser I know.
No, like I say, the current game of association football was invented and refined in England just over 150 years ago. The first games involving kicking (but not handling) balls and scoring goals is much older than that at around 2000 years old and were played in China.
Isn't it Scotland?
No, we weren't proactive in the 90 minutes. We held the ball a lot in our own half hoping to create counterattacks against their pressing, most of the time we just held the ball and did nothing while they didn't press us. We defended mostly with the ball rather than without, but we didn't attack them until extra time, where we were in better shape than them and started going for it
That brazil team were massive favourites to win the world cup. It was almost unthinkable that they wouldn't win before the WC stated
Iirc we weren't underdogs in any of the games we played save maybe the final
Also, the calciopoli scandal created a lot of doubt about us. Wrongly, because calciopoli is the reason we won that WC. Historically we're the ultimate nobody believes in us! NT
Not really, they amended some laws to incorporate passing and dribbling but they didn't invent the game. Perhaps you could say it was shared if you want.