|
Gigi Galli posted:It is not the way it has always been, you used to get less Yeah but going back to that is an option.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
Waroduce posted:can you link or talk about this i would like to hear more. perhaps an entry level paragraph and than link a dissertation? I don't have any academic stuff to hand, but I don't need to be asked twice to write 10,000 words about a thing It depends what question you want to ask. If it's why those four leagues are the biggest leagues, they're the four biggest countries this side of the Iron Curtain, and have the majority of the most historic teams in football. The obvious caveat there is France, but French football culture is weird, and almost entirely absent in Paris. To put that in context, Paris has one major team, which was founded in the 70s as a novelty. London has six teams in the EPL next year, and four teams in the next tier down. If it's specifically about how football, particularly English football, changed in the 90s, I have to start going into things that are far more arguable and subjective. There are a lot of cumulative factors that happened pretty much simultaneously. The Premier League was founded for the 1992-93 season, which effectively involved them breaking away from the existing Football League in order to sell their own TV rights and monopolize revenue among the top 24 (as it was then) clubs. The TV deal they struck was with a subscription satellite channel that made the Premier League the core part of its programming, and that deal is still ongoing and is worth billions at this point. The 1992-93 season was also the first time that Manchester United won the league since 1967, which meant that you had the most famous club in English football coming back to the fore at exactly the right time. There's also a real process of gentrification that pushed up interest, but also ticket prices. In the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster and the subsequent Taylor Report, standing areas were replaced with seating at all top-level English grounds. That significantly curtailed the amount of violence that you were likely to experience going to a game, as did security cameras becoming a thing at most stadia in the late 80s and early 90s. That said, those that were there suggest that the actual thing that really killed off mainstream hooliganism was acid house and the drug culture that surrounded it in the early 90s. Why have a fight when you can go to an all-night warehouse rave and get pilled off your face instead? Euro 96 coming home was also one of the real turning points where football became a mainstream thing that splitties and terrible breakfast presenters would discuss as if they actually understood the concepts involved (they didn't and still don't). And by the time you reach 2014, pretty much all of the horrid proles have been pushed out of the game, or at least attending games, in favour of selling corporate boxes to sponsors and £80 seats to middle-class sniffly computer janitors from Islington. The big money coming in to European football, though, was in the creation and expansion of the Champions League. Under pressure from the clubs, what was originally a straight knockout cup competition exclusively for league winners (i.e. five or six good teams and then the champions of Malta) was turned into a tournament with group stages (the same format as the World Cup), and with up to four places on offer for the top leagues. The money that this draws, in terms of sponsorship and TV revenue, is not only enough to make European football the only real game in town, it's also enough to largely entrench the biggest and most successful teams at the top of the sport. There's probably something also to be said again for the end of the Cold War and more markets for players opening up as a result, but it's ultimately a function of the money on offer now, even compared to twenty years ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Sky, UEFA, FIFA, the FA, the Football league and other entities killed football and if you're a fan of: Arsenal/Chelsea/Manchester United/Manchester City/Liverpool you helped piss on its grave
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Geno posted:Is only having 3 subs to keep the pace of the game? Why not have unlimited subs when switching halves? Because you could basically have unlimited stoppages of play when you wanted to. You know how it takes a good minute or so for a sub to be announced, walk off the field, and the other sub to come on? Imagine if you were winning a game 1-0, and it was the 85th minute. Suddenly you start subbing guys every single stoppage of play. Every time, one guy comes off, another guy comes on. And then another guy comes off. And you're just burning the clock over and over and over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
I know we all hate changing the game but I think it's about time a team were allowed an extra sub if a player gets injured from a challenge that results in a red card for the offending player. I'm thinking of leg breakers and the like obviously. I'm sure it couldn't be that difficult to implement but I might be missing something obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I know we all hate changing the game but I think it's about time a team were allowed an extra sub if a player gets injured from a challenge that results in a red card for the offending player. I'm thinking of leg breakers and the like obviously. I'm sure it couldn't be that difficult to implement but I might be missing something obvious. Tired players could dive more trying to get people sent off so that they could make an extra change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Tired players could dive more trying to get people sent off so that they could make an extra change. Maybe, yeah. I'm not that invested in the idea, I've kinda stolen it from RFL rules, and I'm too tired to think it through fully but I'm sure it could be done somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
TelekineticBear! posted:Sky, UEFA, FIFA, the FA, the Football league and other entities killed football and if you're a fan of: Arsenal/Chelsea/Manchester United/Manchester City/Liverpool you helped piss on its grave If you've never seen your team relegated you shouldn't moan about them too much either imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Maybe, yeah. I'm not that invested in the idea, I've kinda stolen it from RFL rules, and I'm too tired to think it through fully but I'm sure it could be done somehow. They could maybe make it so that if the ref is absolutely 100% sure that the player is legitimately injured he could allow a substitute, so vicious leg breaks and so on, or people getting their eyes kicked out, could be substituted, but random players clutching their shins in apparent agony after innocuous challenges would not be allowed to be subbed. Who knows whether that would actually work though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:They could maybe make it so that if the ref is absolutely 100% sure that the player is legitimately injured he could allow a substitute, so vicious leg breaks and so on, or people getting their eyes kicked out, could be substituted, but random players clutching their shins in apparent agony after innocuous challenges would not be allowed to be subbed. Who knows whether that would actually work though. You'd end up with the rugby situation where players carry blood capsules onto the pitch to gain an extra substitution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Something I'd like to see is that a player going off on a stretcher isn't allowed back on the pitch. If you need a stretcher you shouldn't be allowed to risk whatever injury needed it. Mostly because of Dani loving Alves though
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Let's just keep it as it is, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
sassassin posted:You'd end up with the rugby situation where players carry blood capsules onto the pitch to gain an extra substitution. Yeah you probably would. No reason why there couldn't be a rule saying that a Ramsay or Cisse-esque leg break can be substituted though. Hard to fake that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
I think they should introduce video playback to determine if players are hurt bad enough to get a free sub.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
You should get a fourth sub if you want it but then you only get two in the next game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
You should get unlimited subs who get taken in and taken out as the game ebbs and flows. Like in the NBA. There'd be more stuff going on for the audience to watch, which would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Let's let teams bank subs per competition, that way Pellegrini can save up all year and rotate in entire squads for really important corner kicks during end of the season title-deciders (and then immediately pull them for the Spanish manlet crew once its back to open play).
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
my idea was: player breaks opponents leg with a bad tackle, gets sent off. opposing team can replace the broken legged player without it affecting their remaining subs. it's not as stupid as you lot are turning it into. loving idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah you probably would. No reason why there couldn't be a rule saying that a Ramsay or Cisse-esque leg break can be substituted though. Hard to fake that kind of thing. So you only get a sub if you see bone?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Part of the drama of football is knowing that in certain circumstances you're one bone-shattering tackle from being a man down for the rest of the match.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Cavenagh posted:So you only get a sub if you see bone? you dont need to see bone to know someone has broken their leg, gently caress me i wish i'd never said owt you lot are clowns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:you dont need to see bone to know someone has broken their leg, gently caress me i wish i'd never said owt you lot are clowns. If someone tackles a player and the end result is a bone sticking out or a dude getting a leg snapped, without question thassa red card. The injured player's team may not have a sub, but the other team will always go a man down. That's fair and that's the way it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
Would any new fans be interested in anything like tactical or like a good teams of the past ten years kind of thing I think itd be fun to write and others prob would too
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
tbp posted:Would any new fans be interested in anything like tactical or like a good teams of the past ten years kind of thing I think itd be fun to write and others prob would too Who's your team of the decade, mate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:my idea was: player breaks opponents leg with a bad tackle, gets sent off. opposing team can replace the broken legged player without it affecting their remaining subs. it's not as stupid as you lot are turning it into. loving idiots. stickyfngrdboy posted:you dont need to see bone to know someone has broken their leg, gently caress me i wish i'd never said owt you lot are clowns. The problem is where do you draw the line? Players break their foot without realising it and don't realise until they get taken to hospital - should that be a free sub? What about if they think they've broken something but they confirm later that they haven't? I think teams shouldn't get punished if someone gets seriously injured but it's an incredibly difficult call to make so I don think it's ever going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
tbp posted:Would any new fans be interested in anything like tactical or like a good teams of the past ten years kind of thing I think itd be fun to write and others prob would too Yeah, definitely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
it's okay i'm not that arsed about it pretend i didnt post it
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
jyrka posted:Who's your team of the decade, mate? Of the last 10 years the best team I've seen was Barcelona's CL winning team in 2011. It might have been a boring style of play but they mastered it so perfectly and had all the right pieces, seemed like they were in control of everything all the time with a tactical system that took absurd skill and (controversially high) stamina. Messi was (well, still mostly is) a god, and they so utterly put down United in the final that it seemed like an early FA Cup round or something. After that, their CL team from 09. More exciting, but I think the 2011 version would have choked the life out of them in a hypothetical matchup. Next spot is a toss up between Inter 2010 and Bayern Munich 2013. There have been a lot of really good teams over the past few years actually. But it's hard to deny that, for the last ten years, Barcelona was the defining club.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
tbp posted:Would any new fans be interested in anything like tactical or like a good teams of the past ten years kind of thing I think itd be fun to write and others prob would too I'd love it
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
Roma's 06-07 team is my favorite because of how it changed tactics in subsequent years. Spaletti did a lot of weird stuff with his unconventional personnel that has been emulated to death now (and was even largely copied by Rudi Garcia this season)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
mynameisjohn posted:Roma's 06-07 team is my favorite because of how it changed tactics in subsequent years. Spaletti did a lot of weird stuff with his unconventional personnel that has been emulated to death now (and was even largely copied by Rudi Garcia this season) Trigger Warning: False 9
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Earthy Ape Unit posted:Trigger Warning: False 9
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
My cousin (bless him) feels that ET+/penos should be replaced with ET but no offside rule. Not sure if he's wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
DEAD MAN'S SHOE posted:My cousin (bless him) feels that ET+/penos should be replaced with ET but no offside rule. Not sure if he's wrong He's wrong
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Get this guys: multiball mode in extra time. e: Anyway no offside wouldn't work because teams would probably just have their defense sit way back in their own half and that would be that. hopterque fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jun 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
DEAD MAN'S SHOE posted:My cousin (bless him) feels that ET+/penos should be replaced with ET but no offside rule. Not sure if he's wrong Slap your cousin across the fuckin face
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
Warning: effort post ahead As a new fan of soccer/football you might be confused seeing a lot of people talk about a tactic called tiki-taka and its death recently. Because I like talking about this stuff and am at work at 1130 AM on a saturday I will waste time writing a little overview of this tactic and the two teams most closely associated with it, Barcelona FC (a club team) and Spain (the national side recently eliminated from the World Cup). There are other clubs that use this tactic, Bayern Munich being the most important of them, but as I don't watch the Bundesliga a lot I don't want to talk about something I haven't seen very much. However, Bayern Munich are important to the "death" of tiki-taka which I'll get to. The tactics Tiki-taka I think mean tic tock or something like that. Think like a clock. The tactic at its purest form is obsessive about keeping control of the ball, and ultimately the game. By refusing to give the other team a chance to get into a rhythm, Barcelona and Spain both choked the life out of many matches. To effectively implement this style you need two things, 1. a doped up team with a ton of stamina and 2. incredibly technically skilled midfielders 1 is controversial, there's definitely something weird going on with both Barca and Spain and how they dropped off just when the heat was coming onto them with regards to their perhaps illicit practices but I don't know a lot about that stuff so someone else can talk about it. But point being, the team has to have great stamina because when they lose the ball they must put pressure on the other team immediately to win it back. Tiki taka teams are defensive, but not in the sense that they have center-backs that destroy attacks. They're defensive because the other team can barely loving kick the ball in the direction they want. So stamina is important because if they lose the ball higher up the field or in the center, they want to press immediately and win it back rather than dropping back like a traditionally defensive team. 2 is the part you'll realize pretty immediately. The core of both Barcelona and Spain were made up of players that had both been blessed with absurd technical skill (think ball control, passing, vision on the field) and had been playing at the same club with one another for ages (many came through Barcelona's youth team, and played together since they were like 11). The tactic simply wouldn't work if you didn't know where your teammates were or would be, and if you couldn't pass there effectively and extremely consistently. This is also why Spain failed this world cup, their passes loving sucked and they didn't have the stamina to win the ball back immediately against more energetic teams (especially Chile) The combination of these two allow skilled midfielders to have many options at all times. Triangles (like the suqit post) are important, meaning you have someone to tap the ball whenever there is pressure on you. This is also why you see retarded stats like Xavi with 7000 passes a season or something insane, they're not flashy ("hollywood") or risky, they're typically timed impeccably and simple. It's effective, and often boring (though that varies) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGuaQ1khn2k Spain The Spanish National team used this style of play for four tournaments. They had an extraordinary run of success at the international level, winning Euro 2008, World Cup 2010, and Euro 2012. These teams were loving boring to watch. 2008 wasn't so bad, because I still liked Fernando Torres then, and the novelty hadn't worn off yet. But the other two were miserable. Spain epitomized the "choke the life out of the game" style. Many viewers were often frustrated because the Spanish team would do poo poo like pass backwards in a 3 v 2 situation, or other retarded stuff because it wasn't necessarily the best idea to go right for goal. The 2008 team won their group with 3 wins, 8 goals scored and 3 conceded. The game against Russia was the only impressive one, it had a David Villa hat trick. This was also the last time Spain had supposedly good strikers, both Villa and Torres were considered two of the best in the world. In the knockout stage, they won on penalties against Italy after a 0-0 game, with Italy's defense enough to stop tepid Spanish play and ponderous passing, they beat Russia convincigly but Russia blows, and they beat Germany in a 1-0 zzz final with Torres getting the goal. In all games, even ones with 1 goal margins of victory, or against Italy where they couldn't even score they never looked like losing (as far as I remember) but they never seemed incredibly dangerous either. 2010 was more of the same, but they lost to Switzerland in the groups and Chile I remember giving them a hard time. The strikers were fully poo poo by this point but Xavi and Iniesta and Busquets tapping the ball two yards to one another was enough to win. For more proof of the fact that this style of play can be boring take alook at the fact that they won all four knockout games 1-0. Still, only against the Netherlands in the final do I remember them really being outplayed, and if Arjen Robben (a dutch winger) could use his right foot better than Eric LeGrande they would have probably lost the final. Not the case though 2012 was again more of the same, though Spain were probably better than in 2010. They loving ran over Italy in the final, which I attribute to Italians being fatigued and hurt by injuries or something because I seem to remember putting a mental asterisk next to the vicotry in the final but forgetting why I did. In 2014 the current World Cup everyone looked old, poo poo and slow and they got run over by teams that weren't dealing with this any more. Thank god Barcelona Barcelona were by far the more exciting team using this tactic. They won the Champions League in 2009 (part of a treble, which is winning the big three trophies a club is up for) and in 2011, and they won the Spanish league in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2013, coming second in 2012 and 2014. I'll just talk about the two CL victories as I think they illustrate more than enough. In 2009 Pep Guardiola (the manager of Barcelona for most of this run of success) had a team filled with amazing players. What he did was impressive though, turning the team of great individuals into a loving exciting system. Notably, he presided over Lionel Messi's first amazing season for which he eventually won the World Player of the Year. The 09 CL Final was against Manchester United, and while it was billed as a matchup between Ronaldo and Messi, it really turned into the Messi show. Barcelona of this time was much more attacking than they would become, more exciting to watch and spread the field wider than they would in the next few years. They were aided by the fact that the starting front three was Thierry Henry, Samuel Eto'o and Lionel Messi. All three are and were incredible players, with Messi definitely in contention for greatest of all time and Henry in the conversation a lot. They were aided by Puyol and Pique, the two center backs, having great seasons and Xavi and Iniesta (and Yaya Toure) dominating the midfield. Guardiola's main accomplishment was implementing a coherent style to get such great players to succeed with. It would then be refined further To 2011, when they won the CL against Manchester United again. Though the 2009 team was more exciting, I thought the 2011 one was better. This team never hosed up, kept the ball perfectly in almost any situation, and combined Spain's "choke the life out of the game" tip tap passing routines with the genius of Lionel Messi (who scored some stupidly high amount of goals like 60 or something). This team was noticably narrower than the 2009, Messi dropped deeper more toward the midfield and he played in the center (he was a winger in 2009). David Villa and Pedro were the two main players that flanked him, and Pedro especially would fall back to provide outlets for passes. He had a really good understanding with Messi too that combined for a lot of attacking movement. Okay so that's a quick overview, as I said at the beginning I am at work and probably don't want to be here all day so I kind of want to do a part II where I just go over the main players of the system (prob just Xavi, MEssi, Busquets) and then a "why it died" kind of thing (Spain 2014 and Barcelona 1314) if anyone would want to read it if not thanks for letting me write all these autistic words.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
The most important fact about Tiki taka is that it sucks and has been put to death for the crime of the attempted murder of football.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
hopterque posted:The most important fact about Tiki taka is that it sucks and has been put to death for the crime of the attempted murder of football. It didn't always though which is a shame I shudder to think what we would have been subjected to if more teams tried to do the Mourinho at Inter Ultra Defense thing
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
cool post tbp
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 17:17
|
|