| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
I'm getting angry now. The two words on everybody's lips about the Superleague are 'greed' and 'ludicrous'. Perhaps I might gently point out it can't be both. In order to make the kind of money billionaires are 'greedy' for means they will have to sell the concept absolutely big time to the customers and for a long time to come. If that were to happen it meant the whole thing was far from ludicrous after all. If it doesn't work out, if the customer doesn't bite, the billionaires and/or their backers will have lost bucketloads of money but that's their problem. Superleague, less good than what we've got? Possibly yes. Ludicrous? No.
And while we're on the subject, billionaires are not greedy for money -- they already have plenty of that -- they are greedy for .... well, I suppose you would call it new horizons. That's what differentiates real billionaires from their children who might start off as, but rarely finish as, billionaires. But that's not the worst of it. Two quotes from the Guardian, the first from the City pages
| The spectacular collapse of the deal in the face of opposition from all quarters, has prompted fresh questioning of J P Morgan's ethics |
That's not the left-wing Guardian talking, that's a financial journalist who thinks taking big risks in order to try out big ideas is unethical. Yippee! Let's stay living ethically in trees. And one in the sport section from the normally level-headed Barney Ronay
| And so we have the deliberate stupidising of sport. It's there in the idea that if people like seeing Real Madrid versus Manchester United then they should be given it unceasingly. |
Well, Barney, it is true in the Superleague they will be playing each other twice a year every year, as opposed to the Champions' League where they play each other twice a year some years. But if, as you say, that's what people want to see, I suppose they will just have to carry on going without some years. Seems a shame to me, I'd quite like it, but I'm known for my lack of ethics.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | I'm getting angry now. |
You rejected my idea that this was about the owners who wanted a guaranteed income and capped costs ie a profitable well regulated league and those that are in favour of the current unregulated madness ie players, agents, TV presenters pundits and papers who have successfully manipulated the fans into thinking this was all about so called tradition.
Of course none of the above want change. Do you think the players and agents want a NFL system with drafting and salary caps?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Sigh. When is it going to dawn on you (and everyone else) that people never know what they want. They like what they have got used to, they hate anything new until they have got used to it, then they like it. Or, sometimes, they hate it and do something else. Or demand to go back to the status quo ante. It varies. It's called life. At least it is in societies where change is permitted. Or where the citizens permit change.
I can't stand all this crap about fans 'owning' the clubs. They watch their clubs, they identify with their clubs, they get all miz when their clubs are doing badly, very miz when they go out of business. But they do absolutely nothing for the long-term prosperity of their clubs aside from (sometimes) paying to watch them. Well, no, that's not completely true. When a particularly disreputable billionaire comes along they say, "Go away, we'd rather scuff around in the Sky Bet Championship than play Real Madrid on the back of your ill-gotten loot."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
The Euro Super League people made a catastrophic mistake in removing relegation from their plans. Next time they try they will include relegation plus astronomical parachute payments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Apart from one or two things. The permanent clubs are never relegated the way things are so they are unlikely to embrace a system where they would be in real danger of it every year. But since, for the Big Jobs, relegation would only be for a year and your astronomical parachute payments will cover that, it's hard to see what diff. The present proposals do have promotion and relegation for all the other clubs, without exciting warm embrace from the public.
I suppose it's no use pointing out that, in practice, it's always the same clubs that qualify for Europe year after year without anyone storming the barricades in protest. Always remember, Grant, the public never know why they hate The New and it is generally futile AE-ists trying to discern what those reasons are. But I am forwarding your proposals to our new sponsors, J P Morgan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Which means the late removal of a section from a forthcoming book by a popular London literary figure concerning the authenticity of a work from the French Enlightenment
| The Pierpont Morgan Library should at least have the decency to take the wretched thing off their shelves and admit they’re a complete bunch of wallies who wouldn’t know a genuine eighteenth century manuscript if it came wrapped round Madame de Pompadour’s pompadour because curators can always be swindled by even second-rate forgers. |
Sounds like a book well worth promoting but will, after a single season, be relegated to the 'Three for 50p' bin. The author should be in a bin if you want my opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Real Madrid 1 Chelsea 1
This Tuchel chappie is sure working miracles. It is not possible to picture Frank Lampard's side being camped out on the edge of the Real box at their place. Yet it is the same side -- or at any rate the same squad. Not that I have any great faith in Chelsea actually going through. That is too much to ask at this stage in the New Blue Heaven.
Talking of which, Manchester City -- playing tomorrow, in the other semi -- still do nothing for me. Why is this? They are no more 'foreign' than any of the other BigBrits, they just seem somehow alien. But I don't mind any particular outcome as long as it isn't a Chelsea vs City final. I won't even watch that one. Bor-ring. Who cares? Seen it all before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
PSG 1 Man City 2
Memo to Sir Gareth Waistcoat
Phil Foden: Automatic choice
Raheem Stirling: Unused substitute
Do I have to come round there and tattoo it on your forehead? In mirror-writing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
Like most people I have an instinctive dislike for Sterling, but why? Is it my inherent racism? I don’t think so - I like Lingard, Calvert-Lewis and the other black players. Is it the machine gun tattoo? Don’t think so because they’ve all got tattoos now.
I think it’s the fact the he isn’t the real deal. He’s just about good enough to make up the quota of English players in Man City but not really world class.
So really it’s just jealousy of someone who got promoted beyond their abilities - lucky bugger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | PSG 1 Man City 2
Memo to Sir Gareth Waistcoat
Phil Foden: Automatic choice
Raheem Sterling: Unused substitute
Do I have to come round there and tattoo it on your forehead? In mirror-writing. |
Why?
Is there a single stat on which Foden, at his best, is better than Raheem at his best?
Perhaps you were alerting The Waistcoat that Raheem has lost a bit of confidence?
Form is temporary.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I too worry about my incipient racism re Sterling and I too make the same caveats. Here's a nice corrective: Benzema. Now I don't know what race he is but I know it's 'other'. But it's only when I heard the blackmail story that I decided he was 'other' for all purposes. And then there is Suarez. He's a bit swarthy and he gets swarthier the more often he does something horrible. But I'd put them in my squad (or not) on merit, no sweat.
No. Sterling's always been a bit less than he's cracked up to be, doubly so for England, and we should take Guardiola's word for it. He can come on in the 68th minute of the Final and prove me wrong. Thus proving me right.
Wylie: I' might buy your argument if I knew what 'Stirling at his best' is. I'm still waiting to find out. Whatever it is Foden, day in day out, is better than it. And he's getting better, day by day. Even you can't say that about your man. He peaked early. Like at Liverpool.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: |
Wylie: I' might buy your argument if I knew what 'Stirling at his best' is. I'm still waiting to find out. Whatever it is Foden, day in day out, is better than it. And he's getting better, day by day. Even you can't say that about your man. He peaked early. Like at Liverpool. |
The waistcoat knows that if Sterling and Kane hit the form that they did in the Euro Qualifiers (Kane/Son Aguero/Sterling are two of the most prolific attacking partnerships ever seen in the premiership, the best league in the world) then he will have a world class front line.
I suspect that you are just picking the best team on form to face Croatia. No doubt they will prove to be promising. The next golden generation. A real force for the next competition. If, however, we accidentally end up in the final, who will Harper's "main men" be ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You speak of the 'golden generation' and I have been impressed by how quickly 'the youth' is coming through. Is this an AE matter? Are we witnessing a once-and-for-all effect of players brought up in the post-2000 era of manicured pitches (or even coming to the fore during Covidian empty stadiums)? You are right though to worry about the 'front line'. It seems to have become a dinosaur. Look at Kane, our best striker. He isn't most of the time. It is no accident that
| Kane/Son Aguero/Sterling are two of the most prolific attacking partnerships ever seen in the premiership |
because that should read 'used to be' and in any case most of the time 'weren't anyway' because of injury or managerial whim. But mostly 'how can you tell' because it was their respective teams that were serving up the prolific-ness in the form of creating multitudinous chances. Which, by the way, is definitely not the case with England. Sterling is a dinosaur. Foden is the mud-skipper though we may have to fail at the Euros to ensure the Harper/Southgate vision of the future gets implemented.
I apologise for my lack of focus. I am the mud-skipper's skipper and can but dimly see the path evolution will take. Only that we must take it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You speak of the 'golden generation' and I have been impressed by how quickly 'the youth' is coming through. Is this an AE matter? Are we witnessing a once-and-for-all effect of players brought up in the post-2000 era of manicured pitches (or even coming to the fore during Covidian empty stadiums)? |
England always had a golden generation. It used to be David Beckham, Michael Owen, Rio Ferdinand, Gary Neville, Steven Gerrard, Ashley Cole, Paul Scholes. Frank Lampard et al......
I am struggling to think what this golden generation won internationally.
| You are right though to worry about the 'front line'. It seems to have become a dinosaur. Look at Kane, our best striker. He isn't most of the time. |
The problem won be the front line, it will be at the other end.
| Kane/Son Aguero/Sterling are two of the most prolific attacking partnerships ever seen in the premiership should read 'used to be' and in any case most of the time 'weren't anyway' because of injury or managerial whim. But mostly 'how can you tell' because it was their respective teams that were serving up the prolific-ness in the form of creating multitudinous chances. |
You are obsessed with current form, a bit like a punter who bets on a horse just because it has won its last three races. Tottenham's problems were at the other end. Kane and Son get an astonishing average of a goal and a third a game with fewer chances created than the teams around them. Your lack of focus is overlooking a partnership that won't be as good as Kane/Son, but if Sterling reaches his 2019 form, and he is 27, this will get you, on average, well over a goal a game, even with a defensive (Mourhino set up) type of team. Mourhino got sacked because of a poor defence not because his front players weren't scoring. The only team to throw away more winning positions than Tottenham was Southampton.
We surely need a manager that picks a team to win. When Enzo Bearzot, who had in 1978 managed a young team to fourth place in the 1978 World Cup, picked a team for 1982 he kept faith with that team. He left out Roma striker Roberto Pruzzo, who was Serie A's top scorer that year, the form player and stuck with a disgraced Paolo Rossi, who had only had a couple of games in the last 3 years. Did it work? Hell no, of course not. Italy barely made it through their qualification group, they were totally out of form. They didn't win a game, Rossi didn't score and they scraped it only on goal difference.
In their second qualification group they had to face one of the best Brazilian sides ever and Argentina with Maradona. The rest is history. Rossi and the team found their form and they swept all aside, including a very good German team in the final.
Bearzot recognised world beaters could suffer periods of poor form, but you have to stick with them through the group phases as these are the players that can win you a World or European cup ......
Foden might be in that team but he ain't no De Bruyne.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| England always had a golden generation. |
Come off it. There's an occasional hype but nothing like the current crop at their age.
| You are obsessed with current form, a bit like a punter who bets on a horse just because it has won its last three races. |
Well, I'd certainly do that. But this old 'form is temporary class is permanent' is mainly rubbish. 'Top' players are usually on a trajectory 1. they're learning the ropes 2. they burn brightly 3. other teams work them out 4. they splutter 5. they return with a more rounded game. But, I agree, 'form' is operating as a cycle within a cycle and it is very difficult to discern which is which.
And then there is the other factor, 'the environment'. How players are great on the continent, so-so in the Premiership, great on the continent again. Ain'tya, di Maria? Plus playing under one manager or another manager, or at one club or another club, within the Premiership. But there's also the individual 'psychic cycle'. Sterling has been lacking form a long time for both Man City and England. Burnt out at 27 or just overtaken by the twenty-youngers? I agree, it's a suck-it-and-see situation. Though I don't see Sterling as the sort who sucks it up and then sees what he should do about it.
| Foden might be in that team but he ain't no De Bruyne. |
The rub. Is he as good as de Bruyne was at his age? Bet you don't know. De Bruyne is (maybe) the best player in the world right now so not being as good as him is good enough for me. Is/was/will be Sterling as good as de Bruyne?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
