Would you seriously say that Accrington Stanley were the best team in Europe if they won the Champions League having 5% possession in every match, having 100 shots against them, and only having one chance through a very dodgy penalty every single time? Just wondering.
This is a fantastic idea and something I personally would love to see, think it would greatly improve everyone's interest in international football as its gotten a bit stale. No matter how important a game, I can't get excited by the prospects of England playing Montenegro. The only thing I would do is maybe have less groups and have more teams in the league. Unfortunately, I can't see this getting off the ground though, its far too good an idea for anyone who matters in football to go with it.
it could be argued that Accrington Stanleys tactics , forced on them during the competition or pre planned won them the games .
Yes. You really do seem to be forgetting that the aim of football is to score more goals than the opposition. Nothing more nothing less. Therefore whoever does that is better at the aims of the game. At no point in football is the aim of the game to have 100 shots that don't go in or to have 95% of possession. By definition, the best team achieves the aim of the game better. And wasn't it about 15 of your posts ago that you said you were stopping participating in this discussion?
I like this post from you Bummy. I'd take slow, boring and a win over entertaining, exciting and losing any day.
I'd like to think that if I was being sarky, you'd know. I wasn't, I meant it, points and wins are more important than tikka takka and losing or whatever the hell they call it in Spain to me. Grinding out results is good. Results are the be all and end all in this game. How can anyone be happy to see their team play pretty football but lose every week? Entertaining and winning, sure, but we're miles off that at the moment so I'd take hard work and winning or drawing.
It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other though. Away at Montenegro we should have gone for it, we were the better team yet we decided to stay in our own half and defend a 1-0 lead for eighty minutes. Had we got the win that night, we wouldn't have left ourselves needing a win against Poland tomorrow, it was a piss poor approach to take.
The thing might happen because the TV companies would pay more to show it as they'd expect bigger audiences. Sky would be up for it. The article talks about loss of income from friendlies with Brazil and Argentina but that could be dwarfed by greater income from a European league.
No new injury worries, everyone who was expected to train has done so... please log in to view this image
Agreed, and in an ideal world it would be entertaining and winning every time. Sometimes the other team can affect that, sometimes its the players, at the end of the day I just want 3 points, however its achieved. Playing boring and crappy football for half a dozen games, but winning them all could win you a trophy, and I sure as hell wouldn't look back on that and say "I wish we'd played with more flair".
I agree to a point Happy but when England get through the group stage without playing beautiful football and then lose narrowly to a good side in the quarter finals everyone goes mental and says we should have won our group games by more, so it clearly doesn't please enough people.
when you were a whippersnapper back in 1902, although the only film is in black and white, their 8-6 win over Milan in the San Siro, with only 5% possession was a tactical masterstroke by their young manager Ron Atkinson..
