Liverpool and their fans have this weird thing where everything they do or are involved in is insanely epic and the greatest thing ever.One massive myth is that Liverpool and City have had an impressive rivalry. Jamie Carragher embarrassing himself on sky sports the other day by claiming it’s the biggest rival in PL historyWhy do they insist on embarrassing themselves like this week in week out. It’s barely even top 5.
Biggest Myths in Football
- Thread starter Offside
- Start date
The whining over Dortmund’s winning goal
against Malaga in 2013 being offside, when Malaga’s goal to go 2-1 up in that same game also should have been ruled out for offside, was definitely over the top. Pellegrini brought it up a few times when he managed in the Premier League, notably when he came up against Klopp.
against Malaga in 2013 being offside, when Malaga’s goal to go 2-1 up in that same game also should have been ruled out for offside, was definitely over the top. Pellegrini brought it up a few times when he managed in the Premier League, notably when he came up against Klopp.
Some good stats there, puts things in perspective. It reminds me of when a lot of media outlets were in a rush to declare Arsene Wenger the greatest Premier League manager in history in the mid-2000s, just to say anyone other than the obvious Ferguson/Man United. They'd throw in things like the unbeaten season, revolutionising the game because everyone drank and ate fast food every day before Wenger invented good health, and that only Arsenal played good football.
When it ultimately ended up 10 leagues to 3 to Ferguson by the end of their careers. And even in Wenger's, Henry and Arsenal's peak, Ferguson still beat Wenger to the league in 2002/03.
Thanks for that. That's definitely the one.
Yeah I think the point you've made there is what takes away from the claim of one of the best teams / best rivalries etc etc.
United and Arsenal stayed either at the top or near the top for so much longer, and shared titles a lot more evenly over the late 90's / early 2000's, so you can't really compare that to Liverpool and City.
For there to be a rivalry, I think it has to be less one-sided between City and Liverpool and it is way overblown what these teams "have done" for the game etc.
In reality, City have the trophies to back it up, Liverpool less so. There's a chasm between them in terms of honours, consistency every season, games won, points won throughout the Klopp / Pep era.
This characterisation is a by-product of the Neville / Carragher / Richards dynamic on Sky, with Carragher happy to praise Liverpool, Richards happy to praise City, and Neville happy to exaggerate them both to show United in as negative a light as possible.
The best players have the best stats.
Haaland and KDB aren't City's best players. That'd be Silva and Rodri whom both are stupidly consistent and never get injured.
In fact, if you actually watch games, Silva is perhaps the most underrated player in the world. He can score, create, dribble, cross and never loses the ball. Deep or near the box.
Haaland and KDB aren't City's best players. That'd be Silva and Rodri whom both are stupidly consistent and never get injured.
In fact, if you actually watch games, Silva is perhaps the most underrated player in the world. He can score, create, dribble, cross and never loses the ball. Deep or near the box.
You might get short shrift claiming Luis Suarez is a misunderstood avenging angel.
I’m not claiming that Luis Suarez is a misunderstood avenging angel.
I’m claiming that the notion that Ghana were robbed against Uruguay in 2010 was and continues to be a ridiculous myth. There’s a big difference. It’s very silly if some people harp on about the handball, when the sequence of play stemmed from a clear dive, with the diver himself taking the shot that was blocked, and any goal scored offside anyway.
The Loch Ness monster was good at football.
I think I’ve heard before that the story behind City fans calling United fans rags (allegedly in the 1850s or some shit we borrowed their kits) is just an urban legend and there’s no confirmation of this ever happening
I also think Foden is absolutely criminally underrated.
The concept of "pragmatic" football
So in sharper words, that match was a bunch of cnuts getting each other what they deserved
One massive myth is that Liverpool and City have had an impressive rivalry. Jamie Carragher embarrassing himself on sky sports the other day by claiming it’s the biggest rival in PL history
Most Liverpool supporters above a certain age will probably agree with you on that one.
The "rivalry" between Liverpool and City is created artificially by the media as an attempt to make the league more interesting after City ruined it. The only real arguments for Liverpool vs City being an impressive rivalry is Liverpool losing out by a point a couple of times in the league, Liverpool beating them in a couple of cup-matches, combined with two good managers and a couple of bottles thrown at each others buses for good measure.
It's not even close to other great rivalries and I would personally even rate the matches vs. Chelsea back in the "Benitez vs Mourinho days" as bigger in terms of pure feelings, even though it really only lasted for a couple of seasons.
That ETH is a tactically astute manager.
Tbf he was a bit of a beast.
The myth of the Anderson/Cleverley axis.
Very short lived but not a myth!!
I think it's blown out of proportion on here though.
It exists, it's just completely misused. For example, Ferguson was more pragmatic than, say, Mourinho.
It really wasn’t a myth at the start. Wenger may have “only” won 3 titles, but it was in a 7 year period where Ferguson won the other 4. Surely a 4 - 3 split is the very definition of a league rivalry. I can’t think of closer example over a sustained period in my lifetime (I’m 38).
It really was harder. It was unseeded for starters. You could win your league, and play Real Madrid in the first round. Plane travel was a huge pain and nothing like the private jet existence they all have now.
In the modern era it’s geared to seperate the best teams for as long as possible. They want the big games as late as possible.
It’s true that you could get an easy European Cup run. But there was jeopardy from the first draw. Many teams could go out to a decent side after flying to Eastern Europe to play on a frozen lumpy pitch in winter. We also had less knowledge of other teams and players. No internet or video footage to analyse. Just 11 vs 11 and seeing what happens.
It was harder to qualify for, obviously, but I don't think it necessarily stacks up as being harder to win.
The European Cup was retained 13 times by eight different sides.
The Champions League has been retained twice, and that was by Real Madrid in their run of three in a row.
While there was some jeopardy in drawing one of the big guns early on, the competition was heavily diluted by the champions of Luxembourg, Malta, Northern Ireland, Cyprus, etc.
It's pure nostalgia that makes people say the European Cup was harder to win.
It was a rivalry indeed, no doubt. But Ferguson was always the dominant and better manager in that rivalry.
In those days you needed to be an excellent team for two years in a row - at first to win your own league/cup, and then to win the European competition that you qualified for by doing that.
Now teams that are on the up can already qualify while not yet being at their best, and then compete in the CL/EL/ECL when they peak, while at the other hand not all league champions retain their level (look at Napoli this year for a massive drop in performances). Today you really have more teams at their peak in European competitions than then.
I genuinely can't work out whether you're saying it was harder to win then, or it's harder to win now.
First paragraph suggests the former, second the latter.
Things like plane travel and less data to analyse applied to all teams though so you weren’t put at a disadvantage. The benefits now are also shared so again no advantage.
Whether you play a ‘big’ team in the first round or the semi final, you still need to beat them to win the competition. The only difference now is that you likely have to be beat more than one big team.
Yes and no. In its early iterations, you’d see the Champions of Poland beat the Champions of France in the home leg, then lose away. Madrid would lose or draw away, then win at home. They simply were not weak teams and easy fixtures. It was a different world.
It’s the removal of those teams (along with societal/travel/technology factors) that’s seen them get worse. Those matches you mention were far more competitive than yours suggesting. Not all, but many.
UEFA has pandered to cash and handed it to the wealthy, as it always does. This next turn is going to bake that in further. They’ve removed two legged ties. It’s all now a procession to the final 16 and it’s getting worse. We’re 20 years removed from the last shock winner. It’s boring as feck. But we get it fed to us and the masses chug it down.
The knockout era European Cup was exciting from the first round, or course the best teams won more games, but they weren’t handed an almost guaranteed Quarter Final place.
I’m probably arguing for spectacle rather than against difficulty now, I guess the truth is somewhere between our respective views.
I agree with @Rooney in Paris that it wasn't a myth, but the thing is it wasn't just about Cleverley and Anderson. It was our entire front six which included Rooney, Welbeck, Nani and Young. The interplay and one touch football between the six was really good.
A lot is made about Cleverley's injury against Bolton, which is fair, but we also didn't line up with the other five of Anderson, Rooney, Welbeck, Nani and Young together once after that either. It was a real shame. I would've loved to have seen that six against City again because, in the community shield, said six totally outplayed them.
I agree our attack looked good. But the revisionism on here around Anderson/Cleverley looking like prime Xavi/Iniesta is insane.
I think a lot of it was said in jest.
The pair showed their best levels at about the same time. Anderson really shone bright for a while. Great in the tackle, great passer, good in tight spaces and carried the ball well. Cleverley was neat and tidy and did some good work in the final third.
That period didn’t last long, and I don’t think many were truly excited or seriously suggesting they were world class. Though I think with a different attitude, Anderson could have got near it, in the way that Nani did.
Yeah, it just felt that way because of the whole "zombie football" phase outside of that run
He's saying it's harder to win now because you're more likely to have teams at peak performance (as they don't need to be at peak performance for that long).
What a post. But also shows how the media can create a narrative - you do naturally think of City/Liverpool going toe to toe since 2017, and City being slightly better but Liverpool also a top top team on their level.
When in reality, they are a top team but nowhere near comparable to City.
When you get drawn against a difficult team in a tournament in the 2nd round. 'Well you have to beat the best teams to win the tournament.'No you don't
What stats, your handpicked stats? Who has more goals than Haaland? Surely not Silva.
Silva was an amazing player but your post tell nothing without providing what stats you're talking about.
If someone did a large scale analysis of this I’m pretty sure they’d find the winners typically had an easier run to the final.
The overall point is many people think players with the highest goals and assists (Haaland and KDB) are the best players.
If you've watched city the last 2 seasons, Silva and Rodri are there best players.
I see what you mean
I guess I am saying it is just different. Then you needed to be great for a long time, now a short peak is enough. But that peak often needs to be higher as then, due to more teams in it to get the chance of such a burst of great form.
Liverpools 3-3 draw with Palace in 2014 cost them the League. Even if they had won and other results stayed the same they would have finished 2nd.