The poor atmospheres at English grounds is purely down to the restriction in place. Many places have no standing permitted and all the premier league stadiums are all seaters anyway. Plus we are living in the land of health and safety, far to dangerous having an atmosphere after all....cough Theres also the small matter of cost, its not so much the working class sort of crowd at alot of games these days. A calmer sort of fan is the norm. You still get the old school fans of course.
I think every fan is united in that we want safe standing areas introducing in England to help the dying atmospheres back to life at many grounds. Sadly Parliament seem to have made their minds up after seeing the disgraceful actions of those Scouse idiots at Hillsborough, the disaster which seems to have spoilt the party for the rest of us. It's a shame that those criminals have created a link in people's minds between standing up at football matches and health hazards being present; the Germans clearly show that safety in standing areas is comfortably possible to achieve.
West Ham? Nope, they have five: Tomkins Cole Sears Stanislas Hines Collinson and Spence haven't played a single game this season and so are not in the first team squad. And of those, only two play week in week out - Cole and Tomkins. And Tomkins has only made 13 appearances this season - less that Fletcher, Giggs and Scholes and the same as O'Shea. So, you fail. Much like your club did when they tried to buy success. Try again!
Since 1990, we've spent less money than Liverpool too Same old recycled nonsense getting mythbusted time and time again.
Yep, the most successful club in the PL with the highest number of academy products in the first team squad. And quite possibly the highest number of academy products in the first team squads at other clubs in the PL as well - Spector, Cathcart, Richardson, Campbell, Shawcross, Bardsley, Simpson, Jones and Phil Neville just off the top of my head. Ah, when I think what a debt the Premier League owes to our youth academy, it brings a tear to my eye. Proud, I tell you. Proud.
City have not impressed me one bit. With a top manager, the money they've spent, and the supposed weakness of the opposition, they should be top of the league. Chelsea won the league after 2 full seasons under Abramovic, and they had Arsenal's excellent 2003/4 team to contend with. The difference is, they had Mourinho, not that ****** Mancini
True, but like I said above when Chelsea started spending they were already in the CL and able to attract the best players. City couldn't really attract anyone decent in their first season apart from Robinho, who turned out to be a bit crap in the long run. But yeah, City should really be doing better this season given the calibre of players they managed to get in the summer...
You cannot really buy success, the team of players have to be bond not to be separated from each other every week.
Which really massive, household names did Chelsea buy though? They went for the likes of Duff, Robben, Drogba, Essien. Promising young players with growing reputations, similar to the purchases Mancini's made. The difference is, Mourinho is/was a much better manager. He made the Chelsea players believe they were good enough to win the league, Mancini's made his players believe they are good enough to hold the top teams to dull 0-0 draws and no more.
Man City will never win the Premier League. a few domestic cups is what they will be getting. You need to be the best team in the leand to win the league, something Man City arte a long way off doing. They are lucky to be anywhere near the top tbf, United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool have all been below the level you expect which is likely to change next season and teams will be back on track. Chelsea got lucky because their money came when both United and Arsenal were in transition and they took advantage. City got their money when United were Running riot, Chelsea were flying and Arsenal were coming back into the frame. If they win the league I will be surprised, very surprised. Cups I can see, season after season.
I don't even consider Man City as title contenders yet. Just because you have a squad worth 500 million (estimate) doesn't mean you'll win everything.
When Chelsea bought Essien, he's just been nominated for World Player of the Year and voted French league Player of the Year. Drogba had also been voted French league Player of the Year and scored five CL goals in six games. Robben was Dutch Young Player of the Year, and Carvalho, Ferreira and Makalele were all Champions League Winners. So there's a lot more proven quality there than City could attract in their first couple of years. Makalele is actually one of the best examples - widely accepted as being key to Real Madrid winning the CL in 2002, and perhaps the best defensive CM in the world at the time, he was willing to move from Real to Chelsea. But when City tried to go for Kaka, Terry etc they just got laughed at and dismissed out of hand. And thus got lumped with Bellamy, Jo, SWP, Bridge, Lescott and Co, with nowhere near the kind of pedigree of the players Chelsea attracted. Yes, some of them weren't world class stars, but they had all been recognised by top clubs - Utd tried to go for Robben and Drogba. Don't remember us ever even considering Bellamy or Jo... I agree that the manager made a lot of difference for Chelsea, but I think Mourinho would not have been as successful had he been in City's position as he was in Chelsea's. I think the acid test for City will be next year, particularly now they have started attracting players like Silva and Dzeko who also weren't household names but could be just as good as the likes of Lampard and Drogba next year.
You're right about City's first year or 2 under ADUG, but since summer 2010 they have been buying big names like Silva, Dzeko, Balotelli and Ya Ya Toure. I'd just expect Mancini to be doing better with the funds he's had for the last year or so.
True, but the PL now is more competitive than it was when Chelsea were under Mourinho, when Arsenal were rebuilding, we were struggling to replace Beckham and cope with the decline of Scholes and Keane, and Liverpool were still seen as a Big Four club. I think it's harder to succeed now, as reflected in the amount of points dropped by the top clubs this season - way more than from 2004 - 2007 when the champions walked away with around 90 points each season. I agree than Mancini doesn't have the pedigree of Mourinho or SAF, or even Wenger or Ancelotti. But it's harsh to judge him based on the most exceptional managers - he's probably better than most of the other managers in the PL. And remember that City will have had the same trouble attracting a top manager last season as they did attracting the top players.
It's definitely more competitive between all 20 teams, but I'm not sure it's more difficult to win. United are top of the league with the side that many say is below-par. Chelsea have been awful for 3 months, and Arsenal blow hot and cold, blowing some teams away, but getting beat at home by the likes of West Brom and Newcastle. Back in 2004, Arsenal had the 'invincibles', but Chelsea brushed them aside easily. I think the 2 situations are fairly similar, but fortunately City haven't run away with the league 2 seasons running, or we'd never hear the end of it!
