Which EPL teams do you most want to epic fail this season?

Lordanger wrote:

borocooper wrote:Yes but if he has only ever seen them have bad games then he's not going to say he's seen them and they're brilliant is he?

Ashley Young is so 1993 though.

you point is vaild but, in truth, any self-respecting top football manager really should have watched enough football to have seen Zlatan etc on many, many occasions.

Maybe, maybe not. Its the scouts who would be doing the watching for him these days really, he's got bigger concerns than how people are playing for the best team in ITaly..and its easier said than done even if he wanted to watch. He'd probably have to bloody fly to Italy to see much of Zlatan given the minimal coverage it gets over here.

L r dd wrote:

Allez les rouges wrote:

Lordanger wrote:you can be frustrated at Zlatan, Totti, Juan Roman etc for being lazy, egotistical show-boaters who disappear when the cloggers start jumping on their heads but to just say they are rubbish because you have a hard-on for kick and rush is stupidity. His style of football is so 1993 and this is shown by the players he buys. The likes of O'neill think that anyone born south of Dover is a ponce and more interested in their hair than playing football. Villa would be better off without him, well as long as they stayed away from o'leary and souness

This is a fucking brilliant post

Because you agree with it?

You really are a deeply stupid individual, aren't you.

One of the most infuriating things about being a football fan(atic) is watching pundits write off or make sweeping judgements about players they simply haven't seen, which is extraordinary in the case of players with the reputation of (say) Totti or Ibrahimovic. I mean, what the fuck are these people being paid grotesque amounts for? What are WE paying for? How much like hard work can it be to watch a few videos before a major tournament to get a clue about the players who one doesn't see so much of day in day out? How depressing is it that most people on this board know, and probably understand, far more about current football than the likes of Hansen or Souness? The former said at the outset of the BBC's Euro 2008 coverage that he "didn't have a clue, so he'd go for the Germans". Well get a clue you overpaid, overrated, clueless tosser.

On this board of all boards, I wouldn't have thought that was that controversial. I thought Lordanger put his point very well, well said indeed.

But then Oneil would've had to ask for some tapes of Zlatans best games to see how good he was. Which would not be balanced either.

Well said ALR.

Andy Gray is paid £1.9m per year and said something the other day along the lines of "we're told Aquilani is quite good".

He must "work" about 5 hours a week and SKY have the rights to all the CL games Aquilani has played in for Roma so how about doing some research in your spare time and actually fucking watch him.


Nearly as good as Ian Wright on the Beeb when asked what he thought of Charisteas at HT "who's he - number 9?"

Was Martin Oneill paid £1.9m to watch Zlatan and Totti?

Far as I remember, O'Neill didn't call Ibrahimovic rubbish, he called him over-rated. Which is a claim that is at least arguable. But I suppose strawmen do burn easier

Wanting to build a team of young homegrown players doesn't equate to thinking all foreigners are ponces. He does play old-fashioned tactics, but I somewhat agree with that cliche quote saying something along the lines of 'modern football is whatever wins'.

(and yes I know Villa ain't winning at the minute!)

Allez les rouges wrote:

L r dd wrote:

Allez les rouges wrote:

Lordanger wrote:you can be frustrated at Zlatan, Totti, Juan Roman etc for being lazy, egotistical show-boaters who disappear when the cloggers start jumping on their heads but to just say they are rubbish because you have a hard-on for kick and rush is stupidity. His style of football is so 1993 and this is shown by the players he buys. The likes of O'neill think that anyone born south of Dover is a ponce and more interested in their hair than playing football. Villa would be better off without him, well as long as they stayed away from o'leary and souness

This is a fucking brilliant post

Because you agree with it?

You really are a deeply stupid individual, aren't you.

One of the most infuriating things about being a football fan(atic) is watching pundits write off or make sweeping judgements about players they simply haven't seen, which is extraordinary in the case of players with the reputation of (say) Totti or Ibrahimovic. I mean, what the fuck are these people being paid grotesque amounts for? What are WE paying for? How much like hard work can it be to watch a few videos before a major tournament to get a clue about the players who one doesn't see so much of day in day out? How depressing is it that most people on this board know, and probably understand, far more about current football than the likes of Hansen or Souness? The former said at the outset of the BBC's Euro 2008 coverage that he "didn't have a clue, so he'd go for the Germans". Well get a clue you overpaid, overrated, clueless tosser.

On this board of all boards, I wouldn't have thought that was that controversial. I thought Lordanger put his point very well, well said indeed.

you made the mistake of giving a shit about what Lrd thinks. You really should know better by now.

debaser wrote:Far as I remember, O'Neill didn't call Ibrahimovic rubbish, he called him over-rated. Which is a claim that is at least arguable. But I suppose strawmen do burn easier

Wanting to build a team of young homegrown players doesn't equate to thinking all foreigners are ponces. He does play old-fashioned tactics, but I somewhat agree with that cliche quote saying something along the lines of 'modern football is whatever wins'.

(and yes I know Villa ain't winning at the minute!)

What he did was probably form an opinion based on what he'd seen. The 'orrible little c**t.

I'd rather they gave their honest opinion than all said the same thing and called every Totti or Ibrah amazing great players for the sake of it. Wenger and O'Neil probably oppisites in the type of players they prefer. O'Neil has his way of playing and Wenger has his. O'Neil was pretty successful in his past for the level and did great with Villa last season doing it his way. I don't think they'd be better without him, and i don't think people with his view should be damned while the other side who don't appeciate the type of players O'Neil does are praised.

The only thing i don't like is when they all seem to agree and completely rip into a player and talk as if their view is factual like they did for fat Ronaldo during that world cup.

But there's a difference between having a view based on things you look for in a player, which is obviously fair enough, and dismissing or generalizing WITHOUT HAVING SEEN the players concerned, which obviously isn't, and which the likes of Hansen, Souness and yes, O'Neill (in his pundit role) are all guilty of.

But perhaps Martin Oneill has seen these people play, and they have played badly. So he thinks based on what he's seen, the player is over rated.

Would you rather he just said "well, my Italian mate said he's brilliant..personally ive only seen him play badly but he's actually brilliant".?

I dont get it.

My all-time favourite one is Andy Gray's stunningly arrogant "Benfica would get relegated if they played in the Premier League" 2005)

They then went on to KO both Man Utd and Liverpool from the CL that year

Allez les rouges wrote:

L r dd wrote:

Allez les rouges wrote:

Lordanger wrote:you can be frustrated at Zlatan, Totti, Juan Roman etc for being lazy, egotistical show-boaters who disappear when the cloggers start jumping on their heads but to just say they are rubbish because you have a hard-on for kick and rush is stupidity. His style of football is so 1993 and this is shown by the players he buys. The likes of O'neill think that anyone born south of Dover is a ponce and more interested in their hair than playing football. Villa would be better off without him, well as long as they stayed away from o'leary and souness

This is a fucking brilliant post

Because you agree with it?

You really are a deeply stupid individual, aren't you.

One of the most infuriating things about being a football fan(atic) is watching pundits write off or make sweeping judgements about players they simply haven't seen, which is extraordinary in the case of players with the reputation of (say) Totti or Ibrahimovic. I mean, what the fuck are these people being paid grotesque amounts for? What are WE paying for? How much like hard work can it be to watch a few videos before a major tournament to get a clue about the players who one doesn't see so much of day in day out? How depressing is it that most people on this board know, and probably understand, far more about current football than the likes of Hansen or Souness? The former said at the outset of the BBC's Euro 2008 coverage that he "didn't have a clue, so he'd go for the Germans". Well get a clue you overpaid, overrated, clueless tosser.

On this board of all boards, I wouldn't have thought that was that controversial. I thought Lordanger put his point very well, well said indeed.

borocooper wrote:But perhaps Martin Oneill has seen these people play, and they have played badly. So he thinks based on what he's seen, the player is over rated.

Would you rather he just said "well, my Italian mate said he's brilliant..personally ive only seen him play badly but he's actually brilliant".?

I dont get it.

Boro: Do you really, but really, believe that when Souness made his comments along the lines of Totti being hopelessly overrated that he was talking from a position of informed judgement?

These people are very well remunerated supposed football "experts" who in some cases parade their wares on publicly funded television. You may very well take the view that it's OK for these people to therefore just have seen a handful of games of these world-renowned players and draw a "reasonable" conclusion from them, just as any "man in the street" would, but I sure as fuck don't. I expect a higher standard.

Allez les rouges wrote:Do you really, but really, believe that when Souness made his comments along the lines of Totti being hopelessly overrated about anything at all that he was talking from a position of informed judgement?

No.

Allez les rouges wrote:Boro: Do you really, but really, believe that when Souness made his comments along the lines of Totti being hopelessly overrated that he was talking from a position of informed judgement?

These people are very well remunerated supposed football "experts" who in some cases parade their wares on publicly funded television. You may very well take the view that it's OK for these people to therefore just have seen a handful of games of these world-renowned players and draw a "reasonable" conclusion from them, just as any "man in the street" would, but I sure as fuck don't. I expect a higher standard.

Well, for one..Im talking about Martin Oneill and have only been talking about Martin Oneill as that was what this discussion started off as being about. I think Martin Oneill was asked to come along with the BBC team for the world cup and asked to give his views, and was most likely paid to do so..and he gave his honest opinion. Debaser says Oneill never said Zlatan was "Rubbish" but rather "over-rated" which is fair enough IMO..if that is his genuine honest opinion given what he has actually been able to see of the player in previous games and on the game that they were giving their opinions at the time.

I think this will be the case for alot of the "temp" type pundits they bring in..and I also think alot of the criticism aimed at the way of Oneill because he buys young English players is a bit odd. If the logic is "He buys young English players rather than Ibrahimovic and Totti then he thinks Zlatan and Totti is shit" is somewhat strange, dont you?

The permanent pundits however, like Gray with his "Benfica would get relegated"..are clearly shit. Noone ever said they werent shit though, in fact..its probably one of the most commonly stated things on here.

I agree with the point in general regarding ignorant football pundits. However, I am inclined to defend O'Neill as a manager, because I think he has been criticised quite excessively here and elsewhere recently.

I never liked nor rated him as a manager at Leicester or at Celtic, but he has risen in my estimation during his time with Villa. He's only been at the club for three years, and he has overhauled their side in that time - after the departures of Barry and Laursen, Bouma and Agbonlahor are left as the only players he inherited in 2006 - and just a cursory glance at the Villa squad now suggests to me that, having inherited a squad consisting largely of diverse journeymen, he has built, reasonably quickly (albeit spending around £55-60 million net), a side with a particular style of play, containing a number of players with genuine talent and potential. I've never liked the way O'Neill's sides do play football - still, I think Villa's football is sometimes overly criticised - the likes of Petrov and Sidwell can play tidily in the centre of the pitch even if they're sometimes bypassed, but more, I think Young and Milner have a bit of quality about them; Milner makes up for a lack of blistering pace with trickery and the ability to cut inside; together, they're not just wingers who pump crosses into the penalty area. Overall, I think Villa are progressing under O'Neill. And it is fair to point out, especially as a financial consideration, that since taking over there, he has been unfortunate to lose some key players like Mellberg and Laursen for nothing.

As for O'Neill's insular nature, particularly when it comes to making signings - firstly, if O'Neill's style and favoured player is old fashioned in some respects, on the other hand the 4-3-3 he has used in the past, with hard-working, athletic wingers, is actually quite modern. I think he could be better in the transfer market; that he could increase the scope of his player searches; and that Villa could certainly benefit from a purely creative midfield player. Yet I also think it is interesting to compare O'Neill's Villa with Bobby Robson's Newcastle. Robson, given his wealth of experience abroad, could have been the opposite of an insular British manager, but in fact he tended increasingly during his time at Newcastle towards a very modern style of play, which utilised direct, long ball tactics, played increasingly by young, hard-working English players. I think this preference of Robson's undid him and us in the end - but, like with Robson, I don't think O'Neill's preference is necessarily or simply a product of an especially limited or insular manager.

My problem is that because he only buys English he's ended up spending alot on one-season wonders such as Shorey, Harewood, Sidwell, Reo-Coker & Knight.

Olé wrote:My problem is that because he only buys English he's ended up spending alot on one-season wonders such as Shorey, Harewood, Sidwell, Reo-Coker & Knight.

Yeah, some signings haven't been great - but of them, only Coker cost over £5m. The way prices are rising we'd make money back on Sidwell and Shorey. Already made slight profit on Knight.

Harewood we'll lose on, ditto Reo-Coker, if he doesn't start playing more & build his reputation back.

Also, we spent more on Cuellar than any of them!