Who is going to win the premiership title.

[Deleted member 18588]

I could take that if they did move 'down the pitch'.
Trouble is on many occasions it is across the pitch and backwards.
Not very exciting.
High ball into a big centre forward will always cause a bit of excitement as he may score a goal.

Can you name one truly great side that adopted that style.

Certainly not Hungary (early '50s), Brazil ('58 to '70), Scotland ('67), the list goes on to France & Spain and includes club sides like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool (post Keegan & Toshack), Celtic's Lions of Lisbon.

Not too many Hateleys, Crouchs or Carrolls in that lot.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Wimbledon !!!

As previous post, I said that I did not advocate high ball football.

Of the old teams mentioned above, did any of them do 20 'tippy tappy Ole's' or run the ball into the opponents corner flag for the last 5 minutes of the game. No.

 

[Papas1982]

Can you name one truly great side that adopted that style.

Certainly not Hungary (early '50s), Brazil ('58 to '70), Scotland ('67), the list goes on to France & Spain and includes club sides like Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool (post Keegan & Toshack), Celtic's Lions of Lisbon.

Not too many Hateleys, Crouchs or Carrolls in that lot.

Bayern and Dortmund had no problem going direct last year and they both play good footy. It's nice that some teams have played more attractive footy, but I'm sure Greece would rather have a euro title to their name than an accolade for pretty footy.

Im not old enough to remember the teams you've mentioned. But they covered maybe 10 years of success between them, were the other teams in between not good? Just because they didn't tic tac the ball?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Bayern and Dortmund had no problem going direct last year and they both play good footy. It's nice that some teams have played more attractive footy, but I'm sure Greece would rather have a euro title to their name than an accolade for pretty footy.

Im not old enough to remember the teams you've mentioned. But they covered maybe 10 years of success between them, were the other teams in between not good? Just because they didn't tic tac the ball?

Certainly covered more than 10 years as I didn't include all others in that list such as Holland, West Germany etc; My point is that I cannot name any team that had consistent success playing "route one".

Even Greece, when they won the Euros, played counter attack rather than lumping it long & early.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Wimbledon !!!

As previous post, I said that I did not advocate high ball football.

Of the old teams mentioned above, did any of them do 20 'tippy tappy Ole's' or run the ball into the opponents corner flag for the last 5 minutes of the game. No.

Wimbledon!!! Are you serious? One fluked FA Cup.

And yes the other teams I listed would retain possession rather than chuck it away in the hope that some big lump might get on the end of it.

 

[Papas1982]

Certainly covered more than 10 years as I didn't include all others in that list such as Holland, West Germany etc; My point is that I cannot name any team that had consistent success playing "route one".

Even Greece, when they won the Euros, played counter attack rather than lumping it long & early.

I don't think anyone is advocating big sam tactics as beautiful. But the luxury that the teams you mention had is that they had the players to play that way.

Its t's all well and good saying play tht way, but could the Wimbledon crazy gang have done that? Bolton under big same had some crackers at one stage. Djorkaeff, jay jay and played good footy. But when they left they went direct. They had relative success in tht it kept them up. I'm sure if the history books were trawled there would be examples of direct footy that worked. But they aren't as memorable as pretty footy. Swansea get all the accolades for ball retention, as do saints. But they're still only similarly placed to west ham.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I don't think any of the teams in the in the premier league are overly impressive at the minute. Chelsea obviously need a couple of strikers.City are hit & miss & have missed Aguero,not sure whats happened to Negrado. Arsenal are pants. & Liverpool are pretty much a one man team. Obviously they managed without the vile one when he was serving his ban but doubt they'd have kept it up all season.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Wimbledon!!! Are you serious? One fluked FA Cup.

ehh no [hence !!!]

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I don't think anyone is advocating big sam tactics as beautiful. But the luxury that the teams you mention had is that they had the players to play that way.

Its t's all well and good saying play tht way, but could the Wimbledon crazy gang have done that? Bolton under big same had some crackers at one stage. Djorkaeff, jay jay and played good footy. But when they left they went direct. They had relative success in tht it kept them up. I'm sure if the history books were trawled there would be examples of direct footy that worked. But they aren't as memorable as pretty footy. Swansea get all the accolades for ball retention, as do saints. But they're still only similarly placed to west ham.

Teams like Wimbledon of 1980's vintage only existed because of lazy (or pragmatic) coaches looking for relative success which those coaches probably realised would be unsustainable.

You may well be right about teams with a direct style having success. My point was that in the 50 odd years I have followed the game the successful teams have been those playing a more complete game.

A long pass can be a good pass, an out ball very often is not.

I agree with your last point, it just appears that the West Ham fans would rather be watching Swansea or Southampton.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Come to think of it one of England's most successful teams Leeds United won loads in the 1960's playing a form of direct football.
Mick Jones and Jackie Charlton scored many goals route one.

Bremner and Giles were great midfield ball winners.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Come to think of it one of England's most successful teams Leeds United won loads in the 1960's playing a form of direct football.
Mick Jones and Jackie Charlton scored many goals route one.

Bremner and Giles were great midfield ball winners.

But it was the Leeds fans in 1973 (?) who introduced the Ole's of which you are critical as they completed twenty something passes of "keep ball" having destroyed Southampton 7-0 at Elland Road.

Jack Charlton's goals largely resulted from set pieces created by the pressure that Leeds football imposed upon the opposition.

Bremner and Giles were great ball winners but there was a lot more to their game than that.

 

[MadAdey]

Liverpool are pretty much a one man team.

i have heard it all now............yes Suarez has played a big part in the success this year. I have listed though some stats for the other player though:

goals maybe, total of 96 scored but only 31% by Suarez

30 for Suarez
20 for Sturridge,
13 for Gerrard,
9 for sterling,
7 for Skrtel,
5 for Coutinho,
4 for Henderson

Assists maybe, 54 made but only 22% by Suarez

12 for Suarez
10 for Gerrard
7 for Sturridge
7 for Couthino
7 for Henderson
4 for Sterling

I can go all day listing OPTA stats but I just wanted to highlight that liverpools success this year has been a team effort, not just one single player.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Sorry to have taken this a little off topic with the discussion on different styles of play.

With regard to the OP and speaking as a complete neutral it now seems clear that Liverpool will deservedly win the title.

Again, as a neutral I can say that they and Man City have given me the most enjoyment this season.

Football is a simple game, pass & move, give the man in possession options, when you have not got the ball close the opposition down and get it back.

When teams execute these simple facets of the game as well as Liverpool and Man City it is not just a simple game but a very entertaining one.

 

[Papas1982]

i have heard it all now............yes Suarez has played a big part in the success this year. I have listed though some stats for the other player though:

goals maybe, total of 96 scored but only 31% by Suarez

30 for Suarez
20 for Sturridge,
13 for Gerrard,
9 for sterling,
7 for Skrtel,
5 for Coutinho,
4 for Henderson

Assists maybe, 54 made but only 22% by Suarez

12 for Suarez
10 for Gerrard
7 for Sturridge
7 for Couthino
7 for Henderson
4 for Sterling

I can go all day listing OPTA stats but I just wanted to highlight that liverpools success this year has been a team effort, not just one single player.

I fully agree that it's a team game. But stats can be used in many ways. Before Suarez ban ended Liverpool had played 6 and scored 8 at a ratio of 1.33 goals per game. Since his return it's 2.74. Also, of the 88 goals scored by Liverpool he has been involved in 42 of them, that's 47% of your league goals. A one man team you may not be, but ask yourself honestly where you would be if it was Borini leading the line if Suarez had left.

 

[Pin-seeker]

i have heard it all now............yes Suarez has played a big part in the success this year. I have listed though some stats for the other player though:

goals maybe, total of 96 scored but only 31% by Suarez

30 for Suarez
20 for Sturridge,
13 for Gerrard,
9 for sterling,
7 for Skrtel,
5 for Coutinho,
4 for Henderson

Assists maybe, 54 made but only 22% by Suarez

12 for Suarez
10 for Gerrard
7 for Sturridge
7 for Couthino
7 for Henderson
4 for Sterling

I can go all day listing OPTA stats but I just wanted to highlight that liverpools success this year has been a team effort, not just one single player.

Ok your entitled to your opinion. You take Suarez out & Liverpool would probably be battling for 4th IMO. Do you honestly think Sturridge would have had the season he's had if it wasn't for Suarez? Or sterling for that matter.
You put a top striker in the Chelsea team & the league would have been over by now.
Rodgers as done a very good job,but the competition as been poor IMO.

 

[brendy]

Until last week competition was red hot. Chelsea and city stumble and all of a sudden its given to Liverpool? I dont buy that at all. Would I be correct in saying you do not support Liverpool? They still have to see out each match, as do city and chelsea.

Ok your entitled to your opinion. You take Suarez out & Liverpool would probably be battling for 4th IMO. Do you honestly think Sturridge would have had the season he's had if it wasn't for Suarez? Or sterling for that matter.
You put a top striker in the Chelsea team & the league would have been over by now.
Rodgers as done a very good job,but the competition as been poor IMO.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Until last week competition was red hot. Chelsea and city stumble and all of a sudden its given to Liverpool? I dont buy that at all. Would I be correct in saying you do not support Liverpool? They still have to see out each match, as do city and chelsea.

Who said it was given to Liverpool?? Try n get it right mate. I said the competition was poor.

 

[Slime]

I am a neutral in that I don't support any of the teams fighting for the title.
I am, however, incredibly biased and desperately hope that Liverpool find a way of stumbling badly enough to allow Chelsea or Man City to win ....................... I really don't want Liverpool to win it, but I think they will.
However they win it, be it as a one man team or because it's handed to them on a plate by City & Chelsea or they've had the luck that maybe others haven't or for whatever reason, after a 38 game competition I would have to state that, (and believe me this hurts), they deserve it.
Unfortunately I don't think anyone could argue against that, as much as I'd like to.
So I'll say it just one more time.

If Liverpool win they would have done on merit and they would have thoroughly deserved so to do!


Slime.

P.S. Excuse me now, I'm off to be sick :thup:.

 

[Pin-seeker]

I agree Slime if Luverpool win it then they deserve it,same if City or Chelsea win it.
You can only win what is infront of you.
But obviously their was no United fighting for it this season & Chelsea's 2 top scorers are on 14 & 8 which is shocking.
I'll be more impressed if Liverpool can seriously challenge for the league next season whilst having a good go at the Champions League.

 

[Foxholer]

I am a neutral in that I don't support any of the teams fighting for the title.
I am, however, incredibly biased and desperately hope that Liverpool find a way of stumbling badly enough to allow Chelsea or Man City to win ....................... I really don't want Liverpool to win it, but I think they will.
However they win it, be it as a one man team or because it's handed to them on a plate by City & Chelsea or they've had the luck that maybe others haven't or for whatever reason, after a 38 game competition I would have to state that, (and believe me this hurts), they deserve it.
Unfortunately I don't think anyone could argue against that, as much as I'd like to.
So I'll say it just one more time.

If Liverpool win they would have done on merit and they would have thoroughly deserved so to do!


Slime.

P.S. Excuse me now, I'm off to be sick :thup:.

:rofl: :rofl:

I'm in a similar 'neutral' position. I've been anti-Chelsea in the past which was either down to dislike of 'buying the title' in the early days or the number of pig-headed completely blinkered/one-eyed Chelsea fans I know, the only acknowledgement of the quality of other clubs players being how well they'd fit in at 'the Bridge' - and they are lifers!

I'm pretty sure I've become rather anti-Liverpool because of this thread.

Another consistency is the presence of an outrageous Diver - and a thug in defence!