You, this is all great about Ronaldo. But in a few years, Nottingham Forest will be the team to watch out for. Their 22yr old striker Marcus Benson has been hailed as a cross between Alan Shearer and Michael Owen.
Well, I think that the difference between the two isn't that big. Ballack isn't quite as wonderful to watch, but he is very good at defending, scores a lot of goals and provides a lot of assists. Imo, Zidane is slightly overrated. Yes, he is arguably the best midfiewlder in the world, but it's not by as much of a margin as you might think. Just look at his track record post 1998: - The French national team : WC 1998, France won. Zidane scored two goals in the final. Great performance, although you have to add that the Brazilians were completely out of order because of the Ronaldo incident and if you look at how important players like Viera, Lizarazu Deschamps etc were you can't put all the glory on Zizou. EC 2000, France won, too, but Italy was way better in the final and Zizou was soundly outplayed by Totti for the whole game. WC 2002 : Zizou injured, tournament doesn't count here. - Real Madrid : they won the Champions League and he scored a decisive goal (was wonderful to watch), but the whole game was dominated by Leverkusen and it was a very, very lucky win. With all those superstar players, I wasn't too impressed with Real's and Zidane's performance. I have to concede that the goal was beautiful, though. Real didn't win the championship and Real didn't win the Spanish cup. - At Juve, he won the Italian league in 97 and 98. That's cool, but no title between 1999-2001. Juve also never got far in the CL in these years. Two or three years ago, in a decisive match of the CL group stage agains friggin Hamburger SV, Zizou couldn't get anything done, got frustrated, commited a mean foul and saw the red card around the 30th minute. Davids followed his example and Juve lost 0-4 or so, leading to elimination in the group stage. If you look at how stacked those Juve teams were (Del Piero, Inzaghi, Edgar Davids...), you have to wonder why the best midfielder in the world couldn't win with them. Bottom line : Zidane has had many amazing moments, but he's not as dominating as people might think. Because he's wonderful to watch, people will always look at him in a different way than they would look at less spectacular and elegant midfielders, but by his track record, he wasn't all that dominating for much of the time.
Your right in that Madrid has a pretty weak defense, however the best defense in soccer/football is offense (possesion), No. If your defense is bad you are prone to counterattacks. And then, all the ball possession in the world doesn't help you. An extreme example would be the first leg of the CL semifinal 2001 between Bayern and Real. Go get the tape.
Real has five of the last six 'World Footballer of the Year' winners. That is pretty amazing. They will be tough to beat. Rio was expensive but he was the best defender on that list and his is 23! Once Venebles got settled in at Leeds there was a chance Rio could have been convinced to stay, and then ManU would have been in trouble AGAIN in the back. Now they are set for years with Rio and the emergence of O'Shea. They could partner together for the next ten years, with Blanc coming in during the Champions League where his experience will be most useful. The fact is they only NEEDED help in defense, so spending this years budget on transfers on Rio was not a bad move. The Arsenal will finally break through this year in the CL. Henry, Bergkamp, Wiltord up front. Pires, Ljungberg, Viera, Silva, in the middle (with Edu, Parlor backing up). Sol Campbell, Ashley Cole, Lauren, and KEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOWNNN in the back are tight (although Keown is looking old - I expect Cygan to take over soon). Plus they've got 3 sweet young impact players coming in this year: Kolo Toure, Jermaine Pennant, and Jeremy Aliadiere. I know, I know. They've stunk in the CL in the past, but the World Team Cup? What the hell is that? The Arsenal won the Double last year, which none of the final four in the CL did. And I think advancing deep into the CL is the natural progression. (BTW: don't give me your Seaman crap either. Kahn had blunders in the WC too, and he ain't getting too much stick for it. Seaman is a good goalie). What do the bookies think? Real - 4/1 ManU - 5/1 Arsenal, Bayern Munich, Juventus - 9/1 Inter 10/1 Liverpool 12/1 Barcelona 14/1 Deportivo La Coruna 14/1 Valencia 14/1 AC Milan 16/1 Roma 18/1 Borussia Dortmund 20/1 Bayer Leverkusen 33/1
Well, I think Nesta is at least as good. And he isn't old either (24 I think). Rio is a very good defender, but he just had his break through season which results in some overhyping (just look at the hype Nesta got after EC 2000). Btw, I think your bookies place Arsenal and Liverpool a bit too high. Why they put ManU clearly before Bayern is another mystery. But then they're probably English bookies, and some homering is in order...
Nottingham Forrest wont be a power ever. they wont be rich enough to compete. Anyway Evertons 16 year old striker is going to be the next huge thing out of england Sorry i forgot his name and dont have time to get it
Nicky Butt has been very good over the last year... I thought that Ireland wouldn't have been able to survive without Keano either... Looks like they thrived without him.
Yes, you are prone to counter attacks, but with a bad defense, you are prone to anything. If the other team doesn't have the ball, they can't score (barring own goals). I never said that Real will never give up goals. I'm just saying that Real can get away with not having a defense more than any other club, because they have guys who are skilled at possesing the ball.
The other teams WILL get some possessions and if they're able to turn them into goals, Real can be in serious trouble quickly, esp. after the group stages in the CL. Watch the game I meantioned. Real had about 85% possession and ... lost.
Well, I don't really have access to that match... Real had a pretty weak defense in 2002, and seemed to have done well in the CL.
True, but if you watch the final, you'll come to the conclusion that they were lucky. Don't misunderstand me though - I'm not saying Real is bound to lose. I'm saying they can be beat. They have unbelievable offensive firepower and that will grant them wins in most cases (and makes em fun to watch). They are the favourites. But they have a weak defense, and for that reason, other clubs do have a chance, in spite of all the offensive wonders on the team.
If that was so, wouldn't they work the odds the other way? The LONGER the odds the more punters are going to risk their wages on their English team, no?
Longer odds on English teams means greater risk for the bookies. Simple reason : Many people don't just look at long odds. A lot of the time, people will bet on the club they like, not the one that has the best chances. And even if they try to rationalize their decision, they will tend to overestimate their fav team. So you have lots of bets on English clubs in England (and lots of bets on Italian clubs in Italy etc.), no matter what the odds. In the case of the CL, you have just 3 English clubs on that list, so if the vast majority of bets are put on those three teams and one of them wins it all, that year won't be good business for the bookies (all the odds are above 3/1, assuming that every bets are distributed about evenly between the English clubs; of course this is oversimplificating it a bit). If they don't have serious money in the bank, one English club win can put them out of business in the worst case. So you skew your odds a little in order to make some people place their bets on clubs from other countries. Bayern's placement is a good example : judging by their recent track record and their aquisitions, they should be clearly before Arsenal. Because the odds are relatively long some Brits will bet on Bayern, even though they're not exactly fans of the club. And with all the ManU fans in England, they had to make ManU's odds very short, so they don't get hosed if ManU wins. If that bookie sat in Germany, he would have to give Bayern ManU's odds (and vice versa) for exactly the same reason. You see, the odds are not simply reflecting chances of winning, but they're also a tool of risk management that has to consider and steer betting as an aspect of fan behaviour.
Greater risk only if the English team wins. If you are correct and they really don't have the chance proportional to their given odds then the bookies come out ahead precisely for your reasoning - they don't have that good a chance to win. For comparison lets look at odds from Spain: Real Madrid 4/1 Manchester United 7/1 Bayern Munich 8/1 Juventus 8/1 Arsenal 10/1 Valencia 10/1 Deportivo La Coruna 12/1 Inter Milan 12/1 Liverpool 12/1 Barcelona 14/1 Roma 14/1 Borussia Dortmund 16/1 AC Milan 20/1 Here were do see Bayern ahead of Arsenal, but the margin is not as large as YOU would make it. Its only one point to either side of the English odds. I should also point out that Bayern won NOTHING last year unless like Jackie you count the World Team Cup, while the Arsenal won their domestic league (widely considered to be behind only La Liga as the best in the world) and their domestic cup. That could easily explain why the Arsenal is ahead of Bayern. Liverpool's odds are the same and ManU retains their position behind Real. In fact the top five teams are the same both in England and Spain (at least in this sampling). Of course, I don't really have insight into how they make the odds and what you say seems to make sense. Just not sure if its true in light of the odds given in other countries (as above). BTW: why is Liverpool called 'the Kop?'
Greater risk only if the English team wins. Yes, but in England most people will bet on English clubs, so you have to take care of that risk. If only 5 people bet on Roseborg Trondheim, you can give em very high odds and still have no problems in case Roseborg wins. If 35% of the bets are placed on ManU and ManU wins, you're hosed. That's what they have to care about.
Time to inject some reality : Here's the official UEFA 5 year ranking as of May 21st, 2002: Pl. Country 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 Total 1 Spain 8,428 10 18,571 16,611 14,857 68,467 2 Italy 12,285 12 12 9,812 12,571 58,668 3 England 7,785 7,437 14,5 14,166 11,571 55,459 4 Germany 11 6,357 11,071 11,062 13,5 52,99 5 France 6,8 8,642 10,285 9,5 7,125 42,352 First of all, England is behind Italy and and not that far ahead of Germany. If you look at the last season only, Germany is ranked at #2 and England at #4. So, if you base your high ranking of Arsenal on them winning the Premier league, how come your bookies didn't rate the winner of Seria A ahead of Arsenal? How come Borussia Dormund, who won the German League _and_ made it into the UEFA Cup final is ranked so far behind Arsenal?
England is as far ahead of Germany as Italy is ahead of England. Because they won the Premier League AND because they won their domestic Cup. Which Juventus didn't. Also maybe because in the only meaningful game between Juventus and Arsenal, Juventus got stomped? Arsenal also stomped eventual Finalists Leverkusen before De Portivo gave them a free pass to the quarters in an ill advised attempt to draw ManU. Because the Bundesliga is not as competitive as the Premier League. In fact I think its crazy that the Italian League is ranked higher. But then again that is a 5 year ranking, and the Italian League especially is not as competitive now.
Well, if you look at last year, the numbers tell a different story. Bundesliga 2nd, Seria A 3rd, England 4th. There goes your argument...
