I liked Erik Lamela before it was cool

[nayenezgani]

I seem to remember him being full of energy off the ball but not matching up to the opposition physically, looking very much like what he was, a young, still developing player.

On the ball he looked nervous and unsure and often caught in two minds leading to a him getting caught on the ball slot.

You don't think that the engl game is quicker and more frenetic than the Italian l he came from?

No, it's a complete myth perpetuated by the Sky Sports phalanx...

 

[Spur of the moment]

No, it's a complete myth perpetuated by the Sky Sports rude boys...

Don't know about that, don't watch Italian football, but I do know that Sky invented football and that before the Premier League there was nothing.

 

[Baleforce]

Why, how can you sell an injured player?

Lamela should be a lesson to us all not to judge to quickly, especially in the much more physical and frenetic English league.
He did look over whelmed by it at first, but his mental strength has brought him through.

West Ham seem to find plenty to buy

 

[parklane1]

No, it's a complete myth perpetuated by the Sky Sports rude boys...

I think if you look back a few years the game in England was a lot faster and frantic then most leagues ( including Italy), however over the last couple of seasons the game has become slower (to the point of sending fans to sleep) as the game here has become more about possession.

 

[Kandi1977]

I think if you look back a few years the game in England was a lot faster and frantic then most leagues ( including Italy), however over the last couple of seasons the game has become slower (to the point of sending fans to sleep) as the game here has become more about possession.

It's not purely because of posession the game has got slower. It's because the good teams are so much better, and the other teams know that they don't stand a chance unless they park the bus. This is the reason you don't really see many end to end games anymore.

 

[parklane1]

It's not because of posession the game has got slower. It's because the good teams are so much better, and the other teams know that they don't stand a chance unless they park the bus. This is the reason you don't really see many end to end games anymore.

You have a point but there is more to it then that but Stop! Hammer time. having watched the Spurs for over 50 years there is no doubt in my mind that the game is slower and less frantic then it used to be.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

You have a point but there is more to it then that but Stop! Hammer time. having watched the Spurs for over 50 years there is no doubt in my mind that the game is slower and less frantic then it used to be.

It is 100% but it’s IMo because if the tactics being employed
We have never had a league with teams so defensive in reality

 

[billyiddo]

Wonder if it's more a case that because there's more at stake financially teams choose to be more defensive rather than because there's such a difference in quality between the best teams and the worst.

 

[Kandi1977]

Probably a combination of all of the above.

 

[scaramanga]

And the influence of intelligent people.

English football has been cursed with a lack of intelligence for decades. Despite some heavy resistance (I'm looking at you Timmeh) that's starting to change. Football is much the better for it.

 

[the dza]

And the influence of intelligent people.

English football has been cursed with a lack of intelligence for decades. Despite some heavy resistance (I'm looking at you Timmeh) that's starting to change. Football is much the better for it.

You'd think we'd have more successful teams in Europe then. Because when English football was full of stupid people, English teams dominated in Europe. Since the rise of the nerds, not so much.

 

[fernadez]

You'd think we'd have more successful teams in Europe then. Because when English football was full of stupid people, English teams dominated in Europe. Since the rise of the nerds, not so much.

Those English teams were a mix of European tactics (which funnily enough had an English base) and English stupidity which was an effective combination at the time, problem was Europe kept getting more tactical and England got more stupid which swayed the balance. Once everyone realised if you keep the ball the other team was fudged problems ensued. You'd have trailblazers in the English game but as soon as they slightly failed it would be used as an excuse to say that x,y,z didn't work and what was needed was to kick the ball into the opponents box and run about a bit. Things like Position of Maximum Opportunity etc.

 

[the dza]

Those English teams were a mix of European tactics (which funnily enough had an English base) and English stupidity which was an effective combination at the time, problem was Europe kept getting more tactical and England got more stupid which swayed the balance. Once everyone realised if you keep the ball the other team was fudged problems ensued. You'd have trailblazers in the English game but as soon as they slightly failed it would be used as an excuse to say that x,y,z didn't work and what was needed was to kick the ball into the opponents box and run about a bit. Things like Position of Maximum Opportunity etc.

That doesn't change the fact that when English football was full of stupid people, it was more successful in Europe. Spurs included infact, and I don't think we were ever a club to just "kick the ball into the opposition box and run about a bit." Neither were Liverpool or Forest.

 

[scaramanga]

You'd think we'd have more successful teams in Europe then. Because when English football was full of stupid people, English teams dominated in Europe. Since the rise of the nerds, not so much.

Compared to Real and Barca? English teams have barely even been also-rans.

City will probably do it now if FFP doesn't get them

 

[the dza]

Compared to Real and Barca? English teams have barely even been also-rans.

City will probably do it now if FFP doesn't get them

You totally missed the point. You say that English football was cursed by a lack of intelligence. But when English football was full of stupid people, we were the dominant force in Europe.

Between 1974-75 and 1984-85 (after which, English clubs were banned for 5 years), English teams were involved in 9 of the 11 European Cup finals, winning 7 of them (3 different clubs being winners and Leeds making a final). During the same period, English teams won the Uefa Cup 3 times (ourselves, Ipswich and Liverpool). This was largely British managers, coaches and players.

Since the rise of the nerds, we haven't had anything like that success in European competition.

 

[scaramanga]

You totally missed the point. You say that English football was cursed by a lack of intelligence. But when English football was full of stupid people, we were the dominant force in Europe.

Between 1974-75 and 1984-85 (after which, English clubs were banned for 5 years), English teams were involved in 9 of the 11 European Cup finals, winning 7 of them (3 different clubs being winners and Leeds making a final). During the same period, English teams won the Uefa Cup 3 times (ourselves, Ipswich and Liverpool). This was largely British managers, coaches and players.

Since the rise of the nerds, we haven't had anything like that success in European competition.

At that point, the rest of Europe started bringing in intelligent people, we didn't. In the late 80s and early 90s Italy and Spain, in particular, were analysing football and thinking about tactics whilst we were still buying players for nonsense characteristics like "courage" and "heart".

Since then we've been playing catch up and still are. In that period, Liverpool and Chelsea have (hugely undeservedly) fluked one each and United have won two. That's a pathetic return from a league with as much money in it as ours.

 

[fernadez]

That doesn't change the fact that when English football was full of stupid people, it was more successful in Europe. Spurs included infact, and I don't think we were ever a club to just "kick the ball into the opposition box and run about a bit." Neither were Liverpool or Forest.

You've kind of missed my point. The stupid people weren't the ones in charge of those top teams. Us, Forest and Liverpool were tactically ahead of everyone else at various points, because of who they had in charge, begrudgingly excepted by the nation because we were winning. Our styles of football wasn't replicated throughout the English game though and as soon as a chance would present itself as a nation we always reverted back to our ideas of what sort of game football is and how it should be played.

The rest of Europe saw our top teams dominating, analysed why, and built on it. Our push and run side for example has it's fingerprints all over modern European football as players and coaches from that side went abroad and spread the gospel.

 

[the dza]

You've kind of missed my point. The stupid people weren't the ones in charge of those top teams. Us, Forest and Liverpool were tactically ahead of everyone else at various points, because of who they had in charge, begrudgingly excepted by the nation because we were winning. Our styles of football wasn't replicated throughout the English game though and as soon as a chance would present itself as a nation we always reverted back to our ideas of what sort of game football is and how it should be played.

The rest of Europe saw our top teams dominating, analysed why, and built on it. Our push and run side for example has it's fingerprints all over modern European football as players and coaches from that side went abroad and spread the gospel.

Right -- so English football was stupid, except for the teams who weren't. But it was still English/British players, managers and coaches dominating Europe for those teams. Liverpool in particular had a culture, a brand of winning football where coaches came through the club system and continued producing results. If English teams hadn't have got banned for 5 years, I think we might have kept pace, but we'll never know.

And it wasn't just Liverpool who had intelligent coaching and a great club culture, Forest had one too, with Clough and particularly Peter Taylor. For us, Burkinshaw was an excellent coach, and we had players like Perryman and Hoddle who had great footballing intelligence. Howard Kendall at Everton produced a brilliant team that may have, iirc, had European success but for the ban on English teams. Much more to all this than hoof it in the box and run around.

Now if you want to talk about the people in charge of the FA, then I'd agree. The same thick qunts who didn't want Clough in charge of England held our game back for a long time.

At that point, the rest of Europe started bringing in intelligent people, we didn't. In the late 80s and early 90s Italy and Spain, in particular, were analysing football and thinking about tactics whilst we were still buying players for nonsense characteristics like "courage" and "heart".

Since then we've been playing catch up and still are. In that period, Liverpool and Chelsea have (hugely undeservedly) fluked one each and United have won two. That's a pathetic return from a league with as much money in it as ours.

I agree, but this is the period where we've had lots of intelligent foreign coaches here yet our teams are nowhere near as successful in Europe as through the mid 70s to mid 80s.

Anyway, that Erik Lamela is alright isn't he?

 

[scaramanga]

I agree, but this is the period where we've had lots of intelligent foreign coaches here yet our teams are nowhere near as successful in Europe as through the mid 70s to mid 80s.

There was no competition in that sense back then - most of football was fairly dumb. When the rest of the world took off, we got left behind because we refused to accept that intelligent contemplation is better than gut instinct.

 

[fernadez]

Right -- so English football was stupid, except for the teams who weren't. But it was still English/British players, managers and coaches dominating Europe for those teams. Liverpool in particular had a culture, a brand of winning football where coaches came through the club system and continued producing results. If English teams hadn't have got banned for 5 years, I think we might have kept pace, but we'll never know.

And it wasn't just Liverpool who had intelligent coaching and a great club culture, Forest had one too, with Clough and particularly Peter Taylor. For us, Burkinshaw was an excellent coach, and we had players like Perryman and Hoddle who had great footballing intelligence. Howard Kendall at Everton produced a brilliant team that may have, iirc, had European success but for the ban on English teams. Much more to all this than hoof it in the box and run around.

Now if you want to talk about the people in charge of the FA, then I'd agree. The same thick qunts who didn't want Clough in charge of England held our game back for a long time.



I agree, but this is the period where we've had lots of intelligent foreign coaches here yet our teams are nowhere near as successful in Europe as through the mid 70s to mid 80s.

Anyway, that Erik Lamela is alright isn't he?

I don't understand what point you're making? You've said to me the same thing I've said to you. I don't know whether you're agreeing with me or trying to put up a counter argument.