Facts about football that shouldn't be true - but are

Jonny Evans departure means that next season will be the first at Manchester United since 1973-74 without a player who played for the club under Alex Ferguson.

So I been thinking about this Arthur Albiston played for United since 1974 until 88 so played under Sir Alex for a couple of years, Willie Morgan played for United from 68-75, so next season will be the 1st to not have a player who would have been coached by Sir Matt or Sir Alex at some point during their United careers since I don't know when
 
Our biggest home win was at Maine Road too. No floodlights at Old Trafford when we played Anderlecht so it was moved.
the biggest attendance at Old Trafford was an FA Cup semi-final (I think) between Wolves and Grimsby in the 30s.
So I been thinking about this Arthur Albiston played for United since 1974 until 88 so played under Sir Alex for a couple of years, Willie Morgan played for United from 68-75, so next season will be the 1st to not have a player who would have been coached by Sir Matt or Sir Alex at some point during their United careers since I don't know when
Since before the Second World War or shortly after it, probably. So for about 80 fecking years or so. Reminds me of that stat about Stanley Matthews, Peter Shilton, and Gianluigi Buffon.
 
So I been thinking about this Arthur Albiston played for United since 1974 until 88 so played under Sir Alex for a couple of years, Willie Morgan played for United from 68-75, so next season will be the 1st to not have a player who would have been coached by Sir Matt or Sir Alex at some point during their United careers since I don't know when

From a quick look on Wikipedia I think the last Manchester United season where no player ever played for the club under the management of Busby or Ferguson was 1933-34
 
Michael B. Jordan, star of the hit Creed films and the recent horror movie Sinners is the co owner of AFC Bournemouth.
 
Net Spend in last 5 years:

so called "Evil oil clubs that ruin football":
PSG: EUR580M
Newcastle: EUR 420M

Whereas:
Man Utd: EUR 690M
Tottenham: EUR 570M
Arsenal: EUR556M
 
Net Spend in last 5 years:

so called "Evil oil clubs that ruin football":
PSG: EUR580M
Newcastle: EUR 420M

Whereas:
Man Utd: EUR 690M
Tottenham: EUR 570M
Arsenal: EUR556M

This is incredibly facetious because the three bottom clubs are practically entirely self funded through years of growth, development and commercial exposition.

The top two just got incredibly lucky with sugar daddy oil monies.
 
This is incredibly facetious because the three bottom clubs are practically entirely self funded through years of growth, development and commercial exposition.

The top two just got incredibly lucky with sugar daddy oil monies.

how is presenting facts "facetious"??

Do you think it is a right mentality to think like "Look, these soulless clubs spent $500M gifted by their rich daddies, no wonder we, who also spent $600M MADE BY OURSELVES, are not as successful as them" - which I see many of our fans are doing?
 
This Inter Milan side has to be the worst side that has reached the UCL final in the last 30 years. It's a squad full of old and average players and it's baffling to me how they managed to defeat Barcelona and Bayern. United flops like Darmian and Mkhitaryan are playing for them. No wonder PSG completely humilitated them in the final...
 
Net Spend in last 5 years:

so called "Evil oil clubs that ruin football":
PSG: EUR580M
Newcastle: EUR 420M

Whereas:
Man Utd: EUR 690M
Tottenham: EUR 570M
Arsenal: EUR556M

PSG Net spend since 2011 in the French league €1.5bn. Next French club €240m.
 
Sadio Mane’s equaliser against Real Madrid in 2018 remains the last goal scored by a runner-up in a Champions League Final.
 
Sadio Mane’s equaliser against Real Madrid in 2018 remains the last goal scored by a runner-up in a Champions League Final.

That's not really so shocking, chief, I don't know if you just read Liverpool into everything.
 
That's not really so shocking, chief, I don't know if you just read Liverpool into everything.
It is shocking. Its been 7 years since the CL final wasn't won something to nil. That's incredible.
 
It is shocking. Its been 7 years since the CL final wasn't won something to nil. That's incredible.

Yes, It's very unlikely. In a typical match both teams will score more often than they don't.

Premier League both teams to score (BTTS) column here as an example:
eDBvsTv.png

If we assume it's about 55% for both to score and 45% not to we'd need to do 0.45^7 for how often that should roughly happen. About 0.37% of the time.

Some games would be more likely than others of course in reality, but either way it's a long shot.
 
The fact you used to be able to pass it back to the goalkeeper and they could just pick it up is absurd
 
The fact you used to be able to pass it back to the goalkeeper and they could just pick it up is absurd
Without the Yugoslav wars, it might still be a thing. I can easily see how that one slipped through initially, because both sides can do this. But how long it lasted was strange.
 
The fact you used to be able to pass it back to the goalkeeper and they could just pick it up is absurd
Without the Yugoslav wars, it might still be a thing. I can easily see how that one slipped through initially, because both sides can do this. But how long it lasted was strange.

It's interesting from a human psychology point of view if that's the right term.

For it to survive so long as a rule teams must have been much less about doing whatever it takes to win, or they were more naive to put it another way. If they weren't then teams would have taken advantage of the rule with extreme levels of back passing from the very early days of football when leading to waste time. I can only imagine the rule would have changed much earlier if they were doing that.

The cynical use of the back pass to defend a lead only caught on relatively late. Would have been seen as unsporting I'd assume for a long time. When enough teams stopped caring about that and felt no shame they had change it. It did well to last as long as it did.

Edit: I suppose diving/simulation, exaggerating fouls or feigning injury wasn't much of a thing for a long time either. At some point everything became about pushing the absolute limits of gaining every advantage.
 
Last edited:
For it to survive so long as a rule teams must have been much less about doing whatever it takes to win, or they were more naive to put it another way. If they weren't then teams would have taken advantage of the rule with extreme levels of back passing from the very early days of football when leading to waste time. I can only imagine the rule would have changed much earlier if they were doing that.
I think it is just that the understanding had evolved to the point that many more people realized the actual value of this, like we see so many examples of in any other game/sport.

What is standard knowledge at the top level is forever changing in games/sport. We get a bigger sample size of everything, and that changes the impression of what the exact value of doing X is.
 
Leeds United have never won the FA Cup at Wembley. The year they won the replay or should I say infamous replay in 1970 was at OT
Chelsea won the FA Cup in 1970; we beat Leeds in the final. Leeds won the FA Cup in 1972 at Wembley against Arsenal.
 
Cristiano Ronaldo has played with players born across five decades, Couto in 2004 Euros was born in the late 1960s.

If he keeps playing a few more years he will probably extend that to six decades.
 
Cristiano Ronaldo has played with players born across five decades, Couto in 2004 Euros was born in the late 1960s.

If he keeps playing a few more years he will probably extend that to six decades.
Presumably he’s played with or against players in every decade since the ‘60s then? If so, isn’t that already seven decades?
 
Presumably he’s played with or against players in every decade since the ‘60s then? If so, isn’t that already seven decades?
Yea but I mean when the player was born, 1960s - 2000s. I imagine in the next year or two he'll play with someone born in the 2010s.
 
It's interesting from a human psychology point of view if that's the right term.

For it to survive so long as a rule teams must have been much less about doing whatever it takes to win, or they were more naive to put it another way. If they weren't then teams would have taken advantage of the rule with extreme levels of back passing from the very early days of football when leading to waste time. I can only imagine the rule would have changed much earlier if they were doing that.

The cynical use of the back pass to defend a lead only caught on relatively late. Would have been seen as unsporting I'd assume for a long time. When enough teams stopped caring about that and felt no shame they had change it. It did well to last as long as it did.

Edit: I suppose diving/simulation, exaggerating fouls or feigning injury wasn't much of a thing for a long time either. At some point everything became about pushing the absolute limits of gaining every advantage.
I once saw Plymouth Argyle pass back to the goal keeper direct from a corner, in a match at Chester in the 70s!!
I also think in the days when it was only 2 points for a win, a draw was a good result, especially away from home, which encouraged passing back to the goalie, to pick up.
 
I once saw Plymouth Argyle pass back to the goal keeper direct from a corner, in a match at Chester in the 70s!!
I also think in the days when it was only 2 points for a win, a draw was a good result, especially away from home, which encouraged passing back to the goalie, to pick up.

The 70s does seem to be when teams suddenly got more defensive if these slightly out of date graphics below are correct. Perhaps it was the beginning of the end of rules that could encourage overly defensive play.



By the mid 80's we had this, not quite from a corner like your example!


Suppose it had a good run to last so long before finally being outlawed in '92. Something did need to be done to encourage attacking by looks of those stats. Great point about 2 points for a win as well. 3 points for a win introduced in England in '81, probably as part of that effort. In Italy they were still on 2 for a win until '95, just after the backpass law was changed. 80's and early 90's Serie A was infamously cagey.
 
Without the Yugoslav wars, it might still be a thing. I can easily see how that one slipped through initially, because both sides can do this. But how long it lasted was strange.

Back-passing was in IFAB's sights before Euro 92, but yep, go check out Denmark in that tournament. Just constantly passing the ball back to Schmeichs.


Ravel Morrison is 32 years old. Only a year younger than Casemiro and Eriksen.
He runs a property company called 'Winnerz Circle Investments'

Seriously: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/15767373/filing-history
 
The manager of wales is Craig Bellamy.

I get that people change a bit, but he was never a standard bad boy. He is one of the least emotionally mature people to ever play fotball proffesionally.
Taking orders at a national team level from someone that brings a golfclub to his own teammates hotelroom if offended, has to be weird.
 
Harry Kane is the 6th European International top scorer ever. Ronaldo has scored nearly double the amount.