Liverpool vs Sao Paulo

Remove all ads!

Sao Paulo has won and is the World Champion. Liverpool manages to get yet another vice championship - third one. These English teams are all hype, and no class. It is a pity Milan screwed it up; I am certain they could had put a much tougher and talented game against Sao Paulo. I am sure this will be the case with England in the World Cup.

 

Err... Svy, don't forget that Liverpool had 3 goals disallowed and basically laid siege to Sao Paulo's end for much of the 2nd half. It should also be noted that the South American teams are the ones who value the World Club Championship above anyone else (except maybe Sepp Blatter) as European Club sides (and probably most of the world) considers the Champions' League (however much a misnomer that may be) to be the premier club competition in the world; the World Club Championship is really considered just a sideshow in comparison. Not that Liverpool didn't try their upmost, I'm sure (they've lost in the final twice before and would dearly loved to have got it), but most of their fans probably wouldn't even have listed it 4th priority, trophy-wise. Especially when you consider that most people over here still haven't forgiven Man U for opting out of the FA Cup to play in the WCC a few years ago.

How you then go on to make sweeping generalisations that cover all English (or do you mean British? Don't forget that Rangers are still in the Champions' League ) is beyond me. To then stretch that to the national squad is another leap of logic that misses a few dozen intermediate steps.

By all means, call them overpaid chavs, but the English national side has managed a consistency in qualification and progression in recent tournaments to earn them the high seeding and relatively comfortable group draw that they have. And they do stand a very good chance - chance - of winning the tournament, as do a bunch of other countries, with Brazil as favourites.

Now, I'll concede that our gutter press is terrible for getting carried away on the eve of every international tournament, but there's nothing worng with wanting to win, is there? It is the point, after all. There's no need to resort to snide remarks and generalisations which some people may find offensive. Just back up your comments with more reasoning, to avoid anyone taking things the wrong way.

After all, it's only a game.

 

Wow, I thought you were thicker skinned! Are you serious that I made a potential offensive generalisation? Give me a break!
Well, take for instance the last WC. Sure, you lost to Brazil, but your performance was not that good either.
Plus, we are always hearing about the English National team, as if they were on par with Brazil or Argentina; now that is offensive. The only thing England has won so far was a rigged WC wherein the germens were ripped off. All I am saying is that English football is second class, not in the least comparable with Argentina, Brazil or Italy - which has seen better days, but whatever.
Your arrogance does not help either. That Gerard dude said before the match they were feeling themselves "invincible". In 1982 Liverpool showed the same arrogance, and in the end... Don't tell me I am generalising; I am simply stating facts.
Well, maybe I will burn my tongue, but I do think England will underperform in the coming WC.

 

Heh - relax, only hardcore England nuts would take offense at that. As for Gerrard's statement, it's just a stupid thing to say. You can bet the Sao Paulo management had a transcript up on the door before the match to get the players motivated. However, it's usually only the press who really get OTT with expectations, the players and management of clubs & country (except probably Mourinho, but... well ) usually know to stick to the "we believe we can win it" line. In fairness, if they didn't believe that, what would the point be in turning up?

As for '66 being "rigged", as you put it, that seems tremendously unfair. Are you referring to the match as a whole, or England's 3rd goal - the most infamous point of contention? Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing 100% whether the Russian linesman made the right call, as even disgital reconstructions have proved sketchy owing to a dearth of quality images. This pretty much requires us to stand by the decision as it was made, so there's really no point getting wound up about it. There's also no way to prove any kind of bias, irrespective of that. Besides, we got a 4th anyway.

I'll grant you that English football is different - it's played at a greater pace than continental or South American football, which leaves less time for players to develop good technique. The ban from European competition following Heysel (which was fair, under the circumstances) exacerbated that rift further, and hurt England's international squads immensely. It's something that took a very long time to recover from. Our greatest problem has always been the instinct to play at too great a pace and surrender the ball too easily in international matches. I believe that it's also the reason a foreign manager was appointed, to help curtail this flaw. And yes, I would rate Brazil & Argentina ahead of England - but not as far as you might . Their technical close control - as discussed - is simply phenomenal, but there are other assets that teams can possess to win games. Victory in football is not always to the team with the best technical ability. That would make the matches purely a formality, were that the case.

I'll only accuse you of generalisations if you don't back your statements up with some kind of corroboration; that's all I ask, really. Anyway, I've already said that Gerrard was an idiot for that "invincible" comment; those kind of things have a way of coming back to trip people up. Stevie should've known better.

 

I love how people judge Englands CURRENT squad on past World Cup results. That's a good one that.

Anyone who knows anything about football would class England as one of around 5 or 6 favourites for the world cup. That's because our current team is very complete and has many world class players. Pretty simple stuff.

On this Liverpool thing. Who gives a crap about the world club championship? It's a complete waste of time. Even though Liverpool deserved to win by a big margin, it doesn't really matter. I'm sure they'll not be crying themselves to sleep about it. The main aim of this game was not to get injured I'd bet. The Premiership and the Champions League are Liverpools main concerns.

England may fall at the world cup, we don't know yet, anything can happen, but that doesn't take away the fact that we have the 2nd best team on paper at there. Only the Brazilians can claim to have a better side than England (although their defence is crap, that rarely holds the Brazilians back though). However, we all know good teams doesn't mean success, just look at Greece in the Euros.

 

The way things currently are should be food for thought though. I'm talking about how few English players there are on the topteams. In last week's CL matchup Arsenal-Ajax, there was only one !!! English player on Arsenal's side, and he was benched too. Chelsea, ManU, and Liverpool have also many more foreigners on their roster than English players, and the teams below them, like Spurs and Boro are heading in the same direction. What i'm trying to say is that England now has a potential golden generation, but where do you picture yourself 10 or 15 years from now ? Young English talents don't seem to get any chance at playtime anymore, since the coaches are all shopping abroad. Chelsea are even scouting in Feyenoord's and Ajax' youth trainingcamps....i mean come on... bloody usurpers, don't they put an effort in scouting young British players anymore ?

In the long run, this is going to seriously hurt the England national squad. Spain is the perfect example. Keypositions in Spanish topteams are all covered by foreigners, which reflects on Spain's national squad's poor performances over the years.

I know this is utopia, but i'm in favour of each team HAVING to field at least 9 native players, and 2 foreigners tops, the way things are now, it's all a big hoax, the richest clubs win 9 out of 10 times. The protected seeds is also crap, all teams and/or nations should all go in one big bowl and let faith decide who's paired to who. That way even the small clubs have a chance of reaching the finals every once in a while, which is as good as impossible in the current setup.

 

Barmy, I disagree. Argentina also have the better side than England, and Italy is equal.

 

Define "better".

I seem to recall England beating Argentina not too long ago. And even though Argentina was more dominant throughout 80 of the 90 minutes, it was England who won in the end, and that my friend, is the only thing people are going to remember.

And besides, i've seen Argentina play in the Intercontinental cup last summer in Germany, and with the exception of two or three players, their squad is highly overrated and over the hill, and are desperately in need of a hairdresser. What's more...they are actually capable of playing good technical football, but they prefer to play dirty, and the refs are keeping a close eye on them. They will suffer from too much yellow cards over the tournament, which will ultimately lead to their downfall.

 

Fair play Rutwhatsyername. Argentina have a great side, to be sure. But I think England has more world class players, although the degos have lots of technically gifted players. Riquelme especially. Although they have the dirtiest, nastiest cheats in the game in my honest opinion. Especially that long-haired poof Sorin, I hate that guy with such a passion.England have a better allround team though, IMO.

It will be an interesting world cup, that's for sure. The Brazilians are way out there though. Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Kaka, Robinho, Adriano and company... it's scary.

I know what you mean about the English players in the Prem, Pacman. It's worrying that the amount of English players at the top level is getting less and less. The problem is that good English players, for some reason, get priced out of the market. Take Shaun Wright-Phillips for example. A good player, but worth £23million or whatever it was? Nah. Teams can get better bargains abroad, which sucks. Limitations should be put on the amount of foriegners per team.

 

The problem with Argentina is the same always: picking those 'already-stars' for the team; they seem to be very good individual players on their teams but when it comes to the national team, they are always tired or play thinking not to take any injury. Argentinian league has lots of very talented players, hungry for glory, and for a good deal with European teams. So what Crespo needs to show? Nothing, he has already a good deal, what Albornoz needs to show? Everything, he is a very good player in a not well known Argentinian team.

 

Yeah Sydax you have a good point there. This time Denmark f***** up good - again, so I'll put my money on Brazil or Italy. Especially the Italians have a good team. Does Brazil?

 

How is the current English team better than 4 years ago? Anyway, I think the Argentinians had better teams than this one - 4 years ago it was better, Batistuta who retired for example - but they are a force to be reckoned with.
Regardless, we are going to kick everyone's asses, just you wait.

 

Rooney, J Cole, SWP and Robinson has come in for James, to name 4 changes. Also, Terry has emerged as the worlds best centre back. And Beckham might actually be properly fit for this one. Not to mentioned Lampard and Gerrard have improved massively since. Want any more changes?