Football myths
- Thread starter El cangrejo
- Start date
He can't stand Souness. I didn't realise some Scousers felt like that.That's exactly what I was going to reply to anyone who questioned my myth!
Souness proper fecked them, he should have extended a few senior player contracts but instead sold them on. The only positive that came out of his tenure was kick starting the careers of Fowler, Mcmanaman & Redknapp and buying in David James (if that's considered a positive).
Klopp is a cool guy. No he's not. He's a massive bell end of epic proportions.
Think they hate him in part because he signed some contract with The Sun whilst he was still the manager.
He bought some absolute tosh as well I believe. No wonder he is so bitter about United after watching his Liverpool crumble whilst United grew at the same time.
He did an interview with them which got published on the day of the hillsborough anniversary (at the same time while banning his players from talking to The Sun)
FIFA and various other historians and academics disagree.
Is true.
There's a direct correlation, a direct line between the modern game and what was played in England back then, it's undeniable.
Kicking an object at a goal doesn't make it the same game, no more than Squash or Tennis is the same game.
Well no, they don't. They all agree, unanimously, that what was played in China (taking it in turns to kick a ball at a ten foot high net) has no correlation to the modern game.
That Brazil was awful. Iirc they were outplayed but Ghanians even though they won 3-0. Then, when they played the first good team in the tournament they lost easily.
Though, I still cant believe how the argentinians lost to the germans..
8-9 world class players? Gattuso for god's sake, a world class player? Luca Toni? Totti had his worst international tournament as far as i recall, it was their GK and defense that propelled them that far into the tournament (especially Cannavaro, he was astounding, maybe even better than his EC 2000 version).
When a home team scores the first goal in the second leg of a tie and supporters of away team say, 'It doesn't change much as we still need to score x amount to go through anyway'.
Roy Keane v juventus away, just rewatch the game id say Beckham and the forwards were even better than Keane in that game
Why is that a myth?
Because it's not taking into account the fact that the other team can still score again.
Even Keane has said that it was overhyped. I actualy missed this game as was working late and only caught the last 20 minutes so can't comment on it further but Keane's performance v Liverpool in FA Cup final in 1996 was definitely one of his best displays.
Edit:
Last edited:
I don't see how it has more relation to the modern game than the Chinese kickball. The English game was started with a ball (If we ignore the pig bladder game) and post and the aim was to put the ball in the post, anyway possible. From what I have read, even hands could have been allowed at that time.
The Chinese kick ball actually involved a ball, they passed among the players and they had defined roles like passer and specialist shooters. The main difference being that the goal neat was some meters above the ground.
Also from the records, it seems they had strategies, coaches etc.
Again, England is the home of modern football is true in the sense of defining rules and documenting stuff. But if we go back and trace the origins of football, the Chinese have a claim as good as what England has.
Gattuso, like Casemiro, is a player who was never rated as highly as he should have been because he was not very flashy. The truth is that Gattuso was an incredibly effective player, and one of the best defensive midfielders of his generation. His positional awareness and defensive prowess more than made up for his limited technique.
Toni score 33 goals in 42 games for Fiorentina the season before the World Cup. Those are world class numbers, regardless of whether or not you think he was world class in his entire career.
Totti had 4 assists in 2006, not bad for his worst international tournament ever.
I'm happy to let China have the "you invented this shit but you're terrible" badge England currently wear.
There's more than a billion of those guys as well yet they still can't put 11 decent players on a field. At least England are only drawing from a pool of 50 millions donkeys.
Because theres a direction correlation. The modern game evolved and developed directly from it - that is indisputable.
Chinese Kickball has absolutely zero influence on the game we play today, none. It was a game where teams kicked an object at a target, that's it. It has a few vague similarities, that doesn't make it a precursor to what we know to be football.
Agree. Consider the implication of saying the Chinese game somehow influenced the modern game. That implies that the guys who first starting playing in England somehow saw/heard/learned about the Chinese game and gave it a go, which I don't think is true. However, the modern game, the Scottish took what the English were doing and developed it, so there's a clear development.
This is a bit like saying that if we discover some tribe somewhere who hit a 'ball' between themselves with some form of paddle/bat they have a good claim on inventing the modern game of tennis.
Bryan Robson really couldn't pass the ball that well.
That guys like Steven Gerrard "deserved" to win the league.
Like... what?
If he deserved it, he would have won it.
Like... what?
If he deserved it, he would have won it.
That possession is all that. That you need 40 points to stay in the PL. That Jose is purely defensive. That Lukaku has a bad first touch. That any contact should equal a penalty.
Dalglish was every bit as culpable for Liverpools decline as Souness was. Thing is, Dalglish is a saint and Souness isn't. The success he had was partly due to the team still being on auto pilot from their glory days and he certainly bought some rubbish into the club and the chinks had already appeared before he walked. Eventually saw the writing on the wall and jumped ship, leaving Souness to take the blame.
Well, they're much better than India who have a similar population.
No team can be successful forever. It's cyclical to a degree. As well we know!
Totti might have had good numbers, but he just wasn't that impressive as far as i recall. I expected him to be their best player in that tournament, he fell well short.
I agree about Gattuso being a great cog in the machine, but that doesn't get you world class tag as far as i am concerned. He was very good in WC 2006 mind you. I somehow forgot Pirlo, he was probably most important out of their midfield players.
I still feel their goalkeeper, defense, and defensive midfielders did most of the heavy lifting in 2006. Both fullbacks were also impressive, fairly unknown (at the time at least) Grosso and Zambrotta.
That's spot on. They were well on the slide before Souness turned up and signing players (David Speedie, Jimmy Carter) who had no business being at Liverpool. The mitigating factor for Dalglish is of course Hillsborough (attending every funeral, many of them kids) and it's entirely understandable why he let standards slip.
Totti was injured in 2006. It was a minor miracle that he even could play at all, and the only reason Lippi called him and even played him despite the evident lack of fitness was that he was Totti
Rino Gattuso, world class player, i leave to someone else. Honestly if you consider Makelele or Kante as world class, than so's Gattuso. Otherwise no, he wasn't WC
Pirlo was our best player by far, our most important player, and if Zidane didn't put together a tournament for the ages he would have won the award for WC's best player
Another myth: Zidane was the best player at the 2006 World Cup.
Pirlo was, by every objective measure, better than Zidane that tournament.
Pirlo had more MOTM performances than Zidane (3-1). Pirlo scored the same amount of non-penalty goals as Zidane (1), and had more assists than Zidane (3-1) despite playing in a deeper position. Pirlo also outplayed Zidane in the WC final even before Zidane got sent off.
Daglish went on to win a league elsewhere though, which further validates him.
Zidane won the award though
Wrongfully.
I've always been amazed at how Zidane escaped any criticism when he won that award.
Agreed.
Agree on the standing of Pirlo's tournament. But Cannavaro was impeccable and produced as flawless and commanding a series of performances as any other defender has ever put together in the World Cup.
Here's another statistic about the 2006 World Cup, according to optasports.com
- Pirlo created 24 chances in 668 minutes played. That's 3.23 chances per 90 minutes.
- Zidane created 12 chances in 559 minutes played. That's 1.93 chances per 90 minutes
Pirlo created twice as many chances as Zidane despite playing a deeper position, and yet Zidane won the Golden Ball.
- Pirlo created 24 chances in 668 minutes played. That's 3.23 chances per 90 minutes.
- Zidane created 12 chances in 559 minutes played. That's 1.93 chances per 90 minutes
Pirlo created twice as many chances as Zidane despite playing a deeper position, and yet Zidane won the Golden Ball.