The quality of today's professional footballer's.

[Leeds Fox]

And as for 'brave' - well we picked Whitlow up as he approached his peak, aged 23. Konchesky was very much at his peak, aged 30. Whitlow, from the off, was a much better player for us at this level. When Konchesky was picked for England I remarked, having watched him play, that he was one of Fulham's more mediocre players and nowhere near the standard. Whitlow was still playing Premier League football when he was a couple of years older than Konchesky (who is clearly below top level Championship standard these days) is now. If I were to be brave I'd say Konchesky didn't deserve an England debut, was a below-average Premier League player at best (which is a compliment, by the way, not an insult) and that Whitlow was never any better, but at least managed to attain reasonable longevity in his career, instead of his legs packing in at 29.

They are / were players of similar quality. Konchesky was briefly over-rated, Whitlow briefly under-rated. But one lasted much longer than the other.

And if I were to be similarly brave about the standard of football in England and Europe, I'd argue that our top flight improved considerably with great investment from 1992, and the birth of the Premiership, for the next ten years. I would argue that other leagues have since started to match it for investment and it has tailed off comparatively in recent years. I would also argue that nothing genetically has happened in the meantime which has caused more quality footballers to be produced, which some seem to believe. And I'd like to point, also, towards the oft-voiced sentiment in Spain that their first division is far weaker as a whole than it was 10-15 years ago, when sides like Athletico and Valencia also competed for the title and Real won Champions Leagues. And they are, according to the rankings that you misquoted, the best league in Europe. So, no, I still don't see where this confident notion that football as a whole is 'clearly better' has come from.

Not even going to read the rest of it... but the bold bit just highlights the point! The fact he's 'lower champ' standard is that the game has improved!

[inckley fox]

Not even going to read the rest of it... but the bold bit just highlights the point! The fact he's 'lower champ' standard is that the game has improved!

 

No it doesn't. It means he's got worse and players who are of questionable quality in the Premier League won't necessarily be much better in the Championship. Cast your mind back to Stuart Wilson, Jon Stevenson, Jon Ashton, Tommy Goodwin, Stuart Campbell, Danny Thomas, Martin Reeves and Matt Heath, all of which played for us in the Premier League, none of which made it in the second tier subsequently.

 

However, if you want to put Konchesky's poor form down to the fact that EVERYBODY else in the game has got better, and poor little Paul has been left behind, then you can. But even if that is your understanding, then the implication is that it is the Championship that has got better - and the Premier League weaker; he coped in the 2009-10 (?) season with Fulham, but suddenly struggled at Forest and Leicester a year or so later. After all, the survival rate of sides going up into the Premiership is better these days than it has ever been - this would be another indication of the Championship getting closer to the top flight in terms of standard.

 

So let's summarise. Konchesky is not very good. Is that because he's got worse due to his advancing years? Is it because he was always overrated, never good enough to play for England (selected, let's not forget, by Sven), and had been exposed as a below-par Premier League player by a move to Liverpool a good year before his transfer to Leicester? Is it because the Championship is a lot closer to the Premier League in terms of quality these days and, as Konchesky aged prematurely, his declining quality was highlighted by this? All seem like reasonable theories.

 

Or is it, as you suggest, because English football has got much better in the last few years (regardless of our sides not doing as well on the European stage and our league slipping down the Coefficients and plenty of other players in the 30+ age group continuing to play at the highest level) so Paul Konchesky - alone among all 32 year old footballers in the country - has suddenly discovered that an inability to cross or play an accurate five yard ball, while a strength of the game in the past, is now a major drawback?

[Dan LCFC]

Totally disagree with this part.

 

 

There are paid a ridiculous amount of money for a job many of us would do for less than minimum wage. However, players these days cannot do anything without the attention of the press.

 

 

Would you like to wander around any public place with constant photographs being taken, autographs being asked for, or just people coming over for a chat over and over again. People talking and pointing at you, being aggressive towards you because of who you are, what you earn etc.

 

 

You would never live a normal life again.

 

I agree with this, but I mean in the sense of coaching, facilities, pitches, the way that they've clamped down on 'tough' tackles. There's far more done to improve the quality of a player now.

 

The media is far worse, no doubt about it, but that doesn't necessarily relate to how good they are at football - if a player can be very technical on one of the old fashioned pitches, imagine what he could do on a modern one?

[inckley fox]

I agree with this, but I mean in the sense of coaching, facilities, pitches, the way that they've clamped down on 'tough' tackles. There's far more done to improve the quality of a player now.

 

The media is far worse, no doubt about it, but that doesn't necessarily relate to how good they are at football - if a player can be very technical on one of the old fashioned pitches, imagine what he could do on a modern one?

 

The ability to tackle was part of what constituted a good player - more so pre-2000 than today.

 

But yes, the standard of pitches, the athletic qualities / stamina of a player are all clearly better now. The technically gifted pre-2000 footballer would, depending on his application, benefit a great deal from that.

 

Equally, however, there are certain types of player who would quickly fall foul of the more stringent rules on contact / the spread of 'diving' etc. And quite a few players in the modern game who would have been hopelessly lost against the Walshs of the world.

[Manwell Pablo]

Yes, actually. The England side of the late 90s, when Izzet was at his peak and a target for Leeds United (then considered genuine title contenders) was a miserable failure. After Venables' brief stint we insisted on playing a number of midfielders who had consistently struggled at international level. There was Rob Lee, who was on the decline at Newcastle, David Batty who was never anything like as good as Izzet or Lennon or even Parker, Merson, who was also past his best, and McManaman who I always thought to be one of the laziest, most lightweight, overrated players in the game. We overlooked Izzet in favour of those and the likes of Wise, Barmby and Butt, and he went on to play in a World Cup semi-final for another country while other - mostly older - players in the same position failed to with England. That's a fact, you know. And I didn't get it from Wikipedia!

 

 

Just to clear things up - I was trying to imply that I DON'T get all of my information off Wikipedia because it's so often incorrect. However the sad reality is that I get a lot of my facts from the biggest, dustiest collection of Leicester City programmes you have ever seen, which is far more pathetic. As for 'staying up all night', that can be put down to travelling and spending many hours in crowded ports and airports in peculiar time zones and having nothing better to do than go to the 24 hour Locutorio and argue with you about football. But like you, I much prefer the idea of me staggering up to the computer at 4am in an unlit flat, cognac in hand, slurring something about 'that bloody Manwell Pablo' and then conjuring a response.

 

 

 

That quote does not mean that the modern game isn't as good as the game was in the 1990s. It means I am not convinced that the modern game is better. Which has been my whole point all along.

 

 

 

Okay you need to provide me with a link. I'm getting my information from Uefa.com (http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/index.html) which shows you the season-by-season rankings and the current Coefficient. We're top of neither. I've searched and searched for the 'only relevant' rankings that you refer to and I can't find them anywhere.

 

The picture presented by these rankings is, of course, one of English football deteriorating in quality. Like I said, the 90s was a time of massive improvement which ended with Manchester United as European champions. Then, after several years at our peak, we have begun to decline once more, having won only one Champions League between all of our clubs in the past five seasons.

 

Of course neither of us have really specified whether we are referring to the standard of ENGLISH football or football overall. If it's the former, then the decline is apparent for all to see. Spending huge amounts of money on players doesn't - contrary to your stated belief - guarantee success, otherwise the Turkish league would be considerably higher than the German. So yes, investment in the Premier League has continued to be immense and yet in comparison to other European leagues we are losing ground, which almost certainly owes to the comprehensive failure of our clubs to blood youth. If you need further proof, look who is number one on the season-by-season Coefficient, in the link I've provided - Germany. You should take a look at how strict the guidelines are for German clubs in terms of minimum numbers of home-grown players.

 

If you are referring to the standard of football overall, then it is impossible to say whether standards are better or worse. We can't arrange a Barcelona 2011 vs. Manchester United 1999 showdown, can we? As I keep saying, however, there are more 30+ players (i.e. players from the 1990s and early 2000s) in the game now than at any other point in the history of the game. Is that not proof that the standard has clearly not upped significantly, if players from both top level and medium level clubs can continue to be effective well beyond what is normally the end of a player's career?

 

Haaaaaahaha not even going to bother reading the rest of your post! hahahaa. 

 

EDIT: In fact, thats going in my signature

 

EDIT EDIT: Sorry I couldn't resist reading the rest of the paragraph, believe it or not I am trying to leave this now as I know this will go on forever if I don't I honestly thought you were a fairly, well reasonable fairly intelligent poster on here until this started but this is hilarious

 

 

Yes, actually. The England side of the late 90s, when Izzet was at his peak and a target for Leeds United (then considered genuine title contenders) was a miserable failure. After Venables' brief stint we insisted on playing a number of midfielders who had consistently struggled at international level. There was Rob Lee, who was on the decline at Newcastle, David Batty who was never anything like as good as Izzet or Lennon or even Parker, Merson, who was also past his best, and McManaman who I always thought to be one of the laziest, most lightweight, overrated players in the game. We overlooked Izzet in favour of those and the likes of Wise, Barmby and Butt, and he went on to play in a World Cup semi-final for another country while other - mostly older - players in the same position failed to with England. That's a fact, you know. And I didn't get it from Wikipedia!

 

Correct! I know that's a fact you didn't get from Wikipedia, because I told you it! you didn't even know that!

[Manwell Pablo]

Izzet was good enough for England! The problem was, is that he played for Leicester, and not a more glamourous club.

 

He was better than Paul Scholes, Beckham and Paul Ince in 1998 was he? No he wasn't, so he wasn't a starter, was he better than Macca, Lee, or Batty, I love Muzzy, but he wasn't even close to their level, only a Muppet from Leicester with a thick pair of blue tinted glasses could even contemplate arguing otherwise. Izzet was a decent Premier League midfielder in the late 90's. No where near international class though. If so why was it the case that Turkey (who didn't even qualify for France 98) didn't even look at him until the turn of the decade I know this as I was at the game when he got dogs abuse from Everton fans over his decision to play for them around that time. It's laughable to even compare him to those players. Cringworthy.

[Kinowe Soorie]

David Batty? Fantastic player... not! It's not even about being biased towards Muzzy, he wasn't in the same class as Scholes, Beckham and Ince. But are you telling me that Batty, technically was a better player? Different midfield player granted. Carlton Palmer, I believe received sixteen caps?? Who, in your infinite wisdom, had the better technical ability?

[Manwell Pablo]

David Batty? Fantastic player... not! It's not even about being biased towards Muzzy, he wasn't in the same class as Scholes, Beckham and Ince. But are you telling me that Batty, technically was a better player? Different midfield player granted. Carlton Palmer, I believe received sixteen caps?? Who, in your infinite wisdom, had the better technical ability?

 

Who said anything about technical ability, your suggesting Izzet should of been playing holding midfield for England, technical ability is not high on the attribute list of a holding midfield player.

Batty was a very, very good holding midfielder player, your not going to drop David Batty for Muzzy Izzet, he wouldn't of been able to half as good a job. Muzzy was probably better than most defensive midfielders, technically, including the likes of Claude Makelele. I know which one I'd rather have in my team though!

 

You only prove my argument bringing up the likes Carlton Palmer who was able to have a decent career in the Premier League and thus get in the England team shows how far the game has come sine the mid-early 1990's so well done. If Palmer was around today he'd of played his whole career in the football league. Although what your trying to achieve with that comment I'm unsure, Circa 1992/93 when he played the national side was a state and if Izzet had been around then maybe we'd be having a different conversation but seeing as he wasn't it is totally and utterly besides the point!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Izzet was massive for our club, and a true quality player, but there is no way he should have played for England  Too many better players around, which may have been unlucky for him.

 

How many times was he actually capped by Turkey?

[inckley fox]

 

Haaaaaahaha not even going to bother reading the rest of your post! hahahaa. 

 

EDIT: In fact, thats going in my signature

 

 

It's a shame to see a Leicester fan so ecstatically putting down Muzzy Izzet, who is beyond question one of the finest players to ever put on the Leicester shirt. Not only that, but he was extremely highly rated in the Premier League in the late 90s, invited bids of 5 million+ from title-contending sides and was described by many perfectly credible commentators as a valid candidate for the England side (though clearly you knew better).

 

If you really are that convinced that his claim to a place in the national side was a joke, then you should be ashamed of yourself as a City fan. If you pay even the slightest attention to my post, you will see that I've not argued he was a better player than Scholes or Beckham - although Ince was a bad example because come 1998 he'd switched to Liverpool and his career was well and truly on the decline. I've argued that he was a better player than Batty (remember O'Neill saying 'if Batty is worth 4 million, then Lennon is worth 15' - well, he had a damn good point if you ever saw him play), Butt, Lee, Palmer and, come 1998, Wise, Ince and McManaman.

 

Don't forget - these weren't world beaters. I'm not arguing that Muzzy was better than Maradona, you know.

 

In case you've forgotten (and you either have forgotten, or simply aren't very bright, or simply aren't a Leicester fan) we're not talking about a Leicester side that were down in 17th place scraping for survival, while Batty and Lee were scooping up the trophies for Newcastle, or Ince and McManaman for Liverpool, we're talking about a Leicester side that competed with those teams, frequently beat them and, on occasions, even finished above them. It is NOT absurd to suggest that one of our best players was better than some of England's proven failures. And I do recall at least one of those seasons when Izzet had the second most assists of anybody in the Premier League. Unless I'm wrong Guppy was 2nd or 3rd on another occasion too.

 

So instead of judging a player purely by how many caps he received for an international side that never achieved anything and gained notoriety for overlooking its best young players and sticking with tired, lazy veterans, try reminding yourself - as a Leicester fan - that we were as good as Newcastle, Villa, Liverpool and Blackburn once upon a time and Muzzy Izzet was every bit as good as some of the wasters we had knocking around in the England squad.

 

If they had been one of the world's best sides, or even worthy of a semi-final slot, then you might get close to having a point.

[inckley fox]

Izzet was massive for our club, and a true quality player, but there is no way he should have played for England  Too many better players around, which may have been unlucky for him.

 

How many times was he actually capped by Turkey?

 

7 or 8 times I think. Which is 7 or 8 more times than Arthur Rowley (top scoring player ever in the English league) was capped by England. Or Arthur Chandler, Steve Bruce, Jimmy Case, Howard Kendall!

 

Seth Johnson, Michael Ricketts, Francis Jeffers, Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas all did get capped during Muzzy's career of course. Which in some people's books makes them better (not including you in that, by the way).

[Kinowe Soorie]

Jermaine Jenas and Kieron Dyer? Top class...

[Manwell Pablo]

7 or 8 times I think. Which is 7 or 8 more times than Arthur Rowley (top scoring player ever in the English league) was capped by England. Or Arthur Chandler, Steve Bruce, Jimmy Case, Howard Kendall!

 

Seth Johnson, Michael Ricketts, Francis Jeffers, Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas all did get capped during Muzzy's career of course. Which in some people's books makes them better (not including you in that, by the way).

 

It's a shame to see a Leicester fan so ecstatically putting down Muzzy Izzet, who is beyond question one of the finest players to ever put on the Leicester shirt. Not only that, but he was extremely highly rated in the Premier League in the late 90s, invited bids of 5 million+ from title-contending sides and was described by many perfectly credible commentators as a valid candidate for the England side (though clearly you knew better).

 

If you really are that convinced that his claim to a place in the national side was a joke, then you should be ashamed of yourself as a City fan. If you pay even the slightest attention to my post, you will see that I've not argued he was a better player than Scholes or Beckham - although Ince was a bad example because come 1998 he'd switched to Liverpool and his career was well and truly on the decline. I've argued that he was a better player than Batty (remember O'Neill saying 'if Batty is worth 4 million, then Lennon is worth 15' - well, he had a damn good point if you ever saw him play), Butt, Lee, Palmer and, come 1998, Wise, Ince and McManaman.

 

Don't forget - these weren't world beaters. I'm not arguing that Muzzy was better than Maradona, you know.

 

In case you've forgotten (and you either have forgotten, or simply aren't very bright, or simply aren't a Leicester fan) we're not talking about a Leicester side that were down in 17th place scraping for survival, while Batty and Lee were scooping up the trophies for Newcastle, or Ince and McManaman for Liverpool, we're talking about a Leicester side that competed with those teams, frequently beat them and, on occasions, even finished above them. It is NOT absurd to suggest that one of our best players was better than some of England's proven failures. And I do recall at least one of those seasons when Izzet had the second most assists of anybody in the Premier League. Unless I'm wrong Guppy was 2nd or 3rd on another occasion too.

 

So instead of judging a player purely by how many caps he received for an international side that never achieved anything and gained notoriety for overlooking its best young players and sticking with tired, lazy veterans, try reminding yourself - as a Leicester fan - that we were as good as Newcastle, Villa, Liverpool and Blackburn once upon a time and Muzzy Izzet was every bit as good as some of the wasters we had knocking around in the England squad.

 

If they had been one of the world's best sides, or even worthy of a semi-final slot, then you might get close to having a point.

 

 

Your posts are far too long,lets deal with this one at a time. As I notice you like to let detail wash over you in a sea of yammering cods wallop.

 

First question, your telling me Izzet should have played for England ahead of Carlton Palmer?

[inckley fox]

Your posts are far too long,lets deal with this one at a time. As I notice you like to let detail wash over you in a sea of yammering cods wallop.

 

First question, your telling me Izzet should have played for England ahead of Carlton Palmer?

 

Some of your posts are quite long too, you know. And I'm not on trial, I can respond in detail if I want. Just to annoy you, if nothing more, I will.

 

Palmer played for England in the early 90s so Izzet was only 19 or 20 back then. Yet they played in the same era (Palmer retired the same year as Izzet) in the same position, but one played half a dozen games for England while the other was a much better player. In your book, however, 10+ England caps makes Palmer good enough for England, but Izzet not.

 

And don't tell me that the England side of the late 90s was vastly better than that of the early 90s; they were both crap save for brief moments of respite in 1990 and 1996.

 

International caps are not a good measurement of quality, especially in a career as short as Izzet's (8 years vs. Palmer's 20), or with an international team as notorious as England for underachievement. If you want a comparison, look at Zagorakis. He played over 100 times for Greece, captained them to a European Cup (more than ANY England side has ever managed) and won the player-of-the-tournament (more than ANY England player has ever managed). Four years earlier he couldn't get in a Leicester side ahead of... guess who?

 

Oh and I believe that tournament was in 2004 when, according to you, the game was a much higher standard than the 1990s. I'm sure you're going to tell me it's got even better since then. Yes, England would have walked it if they'd had Adam Johnson, Glen Johnson, Osman, Rodwell, Green, Caulker, Shawcross, Huddlestone, Kyle Walker, Zamora, Warnock, Carlton Cole, Nugent, Konchesky, Henderson, Frazier Campbell, Richards, Downing, Ruddy, Livermore and all the others who have since proven to be 'good enough' available back then.

[Manwell Pablo]

Some of your posts are quite long too, you know. And I'm not on trial, I can respond in detail if I want. Just to annoy you, if nothing more, I will.

 

Palmer played for England in the early 90s so Izzet was only 19 or 20 back then.

 

Detail, yeah that's what your replying in . They're long, they have no detail at all. they're waffle! 

 

And he'd never made an appearance for any club, so clearly Izzet shouldn't have played in front of Palmer, so what a silly thing to say that he should of done.

 

Next, Stevey Macca, who was predominately a winger? You wanted Izzet on the wing for England?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

7 or 8 times I think. Which is 7 or 8 more times than Arthur Rowley (top scoring player ever in the English league) was capped by England. Or Arthur Chandler, Steve Bruce, Jimmy Case, Howard Kendall!

 

Seth Johnson, Michael Ricketts, Francis Jeffers, Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas all did get capped during Muzzy's career of course. Which in some people's books makes them better (not including you in that, by the way).

Totally meaningless. He never played for England, but had dual nationality. Were Turkey ever as good as England?. However, we are deviating off the thread somewhat.

 

Judging by last Sunday's display, it would appear that neither ourselves nor Leeds have players of improved quality,within their ranks, compared the many past sides, and eras..

[inckley fox]

Detail, yeah that's what your replying in . They're long, they have no detail at all. they're waffle! 

 

And he'd never made an appearance for any club, so clearly Izzet shouldn't have played in front of Palmer, so what a silly thing to say that he should of done.

 

Next, Stevey Macca, who was predominately a winger? You wanted Izzet on the wing for England?

 

I can see this one has confused you as well. I specifically pointed out that Izzet was too young to play for England when Palmer was in the side. He is just an example of how a player in the same position, from the same era, but nowhere near as good as Izzet could pick up 16 caps.

 

Steve McManaman was another example, even though he was a winger and Izzet - for the most part - wasn't (he did briefly play a wide role when we were first promoted in 1996, and then again during the Taylor reign). So no, I didn't want Izzet on the wing and at no point suggested that I did. I am simply pointing out that England's squad at the time lacked depth in quality in midfield, and there were plenty of players during Izzet's career who were not a great deal better than him, but picked up plenty of caps for a substandard England side. That DOESN'T mean all of them were called up at Izzet's expense, it DOESN'T mean that they were exactly the same sort of player as Izzet either.

 

However I would suggest that, come 1998, Steve Guppy would have been worth a shout in the England side ahead of the perpetually disappointing McManaman. Far more assists at club level; described by several pundits at the time as 'the best crosser in the game, Beckham aside'. It's also worth adding that at times McManaman played for England on the outside of a midfield diamond, in a far more central role than he was accustomed to. In that case, yes, Izzet would have been a better bet.

[inckley fox]

Totally meaningless. He never played for England, but had dual nationality. Were Turkey ever as good as England?. However, we are deviating off the thread somewhat.

 

Judging by last Sunday's display, it would appear that neither ourselves nor Leeds have players of improved quality,within their ranks, compared the many past sides, and eras..

 

No question you're right on the second point.

 

As for the first... well they were better than us when Izzet played in a World Cup semi-final for them, obviously!

[Manwell Pablo]

I can see this one has confused you as well. I specifically pointed out that Izzet was too young to play for England when Palmer was in the side. He is just an example of how a player in the same position, from the same era, but nowhere near as good as Izzet could pick up 16 caps.

 

Steve McManaman was another example, even though he was a winger and Izzet - for the most part - wasn't (he did briefly play a wide role when we were first promoted in 1996, and then again during the Taylor reign). So no, I didn't want Izzet on the wing and at no point suggested that I did

 

Well I apologise for my confusion but you did say, I think you'll find he should of been in the team instead of Mcmanaman or Palmer, or at least insinuated that. 

 

f you really are that convinced that his claim to a place in the national side was a joke, then you should be ashamed of yourself as a City fan. If you pay even the slightest attention to my post, you will see that I've not argued he was a better player than Scholes or Beckham - although Ince was a bad example because come 1998 he'd switched to Liverpool and his career was well and truly on the decline. I've argued that he was a better player than Batty (remember O'Neill saying 'if Batty is worth 4 million, then Lennon is worth 15' - well, he had a damn good point if you ever saw him play), Butt, Lee, Palmer and, come 1998, Wise, Ince and McManaman.

 

 

So.... that's two down, moving on, David Batty, extremely good holding midfielder, who wasn't just "linked" with title challenging sides he played in them for nearly his entire career and played in a Champions League semi final. So you wanted Izzet sitting just in front of the back four instead of him did you?

[Manwell Pablo]

No question you're right on the second point.

 

As for the first... well they were better than us when Izzet played in a World Cup semi-final for them, obviously!

 

No not obviously, they didn't run into Brazil in the quater finals did they, we did. 

 

Football is not black and white ffs! It's like saying Bradford are better than Arsenal because they beat them in the League Cup. 

[inckley fox]

No the fact that Konshesky was a better a player than Whitlow is oblivious  to anyone with any able to analyse football proves that Konshecky was better than Whitlow in his prime.

 

We could sit here and debate this all day, the simple fact is, the Premier League is a better standard now than it was in the 90's, and thus, so is English football.

 

As for accusing me of 'waffle', well I thought I'd bring this gem of yours up again. It's not waffle, is it? Waffle is better than this. And your second line... worth reminding you of that too, seeing as that was your point. You state it as a 'fact' that English football is better than in the 90s but still haven't provided any evidence. And it's NOT that I think 90s football is better. I just object to the notion that it's a FACT that football in 2013 is better when, for me, the game is simply different.

 

What you have done is misquote Coefficients, claim that there are less 30+ players in the game than before (when there's more than EVER) and argue that the modern West Ham team is better than the one with Lampard, Sinclair and Ferdinand in it. You claim that Leicester in 98 weren't as good as Sunderland now, dismiss Izzet as being not as good as Batty, Lee or, even after they'd hit 30, Ince and Wise; and seem to think that caps for England are an accurate measure of quality. You also ignore the City player who couldn't get into the side ahead of Izzet but who achieved things with Greece that no England player has ever managed - and did it in 04, when the game was (says you) reaching its peak.

[inckley fox]

No not obviously, they didn't run into Brazil in the quater finals did they, we did. 

 

Football is not black and white ffs! It's like saying Bradford are better than Arsenal because they beat them in the League Cup. 

 

Well, actually it is in some ways. Such as 'this team finished higher than this team and has, therefore, done better'. Or 'this team has won more trophies than this team and is, therefore, better.' Unless you're one of these people who claim that the Bloomfield Leicester team was, if I remember the Birch quote correctly, 'a champion of people's hearts', despite never finishing higher than 7th. Turkey finished 3rd in that World Cup. That means they did better than England.

 

Unlike 'players are simply better now than in the 90s', other matters are a little more black and white. Not always 100% (for instance Lineker had a better 1990 World Cup than Gianluca Vialli, obviously, even though they finished 3rd and we were 4th). But it isn't too terribly complicated either.

[Manwell Pablo]

As for accusing me of 'waffle', well I thought I'd bring this gem of yours up again. It's not waffle, is it? Waffle is better than this. And your second line... worth reminding you of that too, seeing as that was your point. You state it as a 'fact' that English football is better than in the 90s but still haven't provided any evidence. And it's NOT that I think 90s football is better. I just object to the notion that it's a FACT that football in 2013 is better when, for me, the game is simply different.

 

What you have done is misquote Coefficients, claim that there are less 30+ players in the game than before (when there's more than EVER) and argue that the modern West Ham team is better than the one with Lampard, Sinclair and Ferdinand in it. You claim that Leicester in 98 weren't as good as Sunderland now, dismiss Izzet as being not as good as Batty, Lee or, even after they'd hit 30, Ince and Wise; and seem to think that caps for England are an accurate measure of quality. You also ignore the City player who couldn't get into the side ahead of Izzet but who achieved things with Greece that no England player has ever managed - and did it in 04, when the game was (says you) reaching its peak.

 

No no no no no stop trying to change the subject.

 

Answer the above about David Batty, keep the question in hand and stop trying to deflect. Will keep this nice consice a detailed and address all of your points one by one so you can't continue to hide the fact wrong behind meaningless essays, but don't worry if you wish to continue with this we will get through them all eventually.

[inckley fox]

Well I apologise for my confusion but you did say, I think you'll find he should of been in the team instead of Mcmanaman or Palmer, or at least insinuated that. 

 

 

So.... that's two down, moving on, David Batty, extremely good holding midfielder, who wasn't just "linked" with title challenging sides he played in them for nearly his entire career and played in a Champions League semi final. So you wanted Izzet sitting just in front of the back four instead of him did you?

 

Don't apologise for your confusion, just stop being confused.

 

Again, no I didn't say Izzet should be in the team instead of McManaman or Palmer. Not only that but I repeated my point over and over again to make it clear for you, although clearly some sort of linguistic lump hammer is needed for that. I'll try again: You cannot judge a player by how many caps he wins for England because plenty of players such as x, y and z were clearly not good enough - and yet were selected. And players who we KNOW were not as good as Izzet (e.g. Zagorakis) have been more successful than him - and, indeed, more successful than ANY England players - on the international scene.

 

If the comparison is ONLY of like-for-like players, then that's yet another case of you moving the goalposts when your argument falls apart, then ignoring absolutely anything that adversely affects your argument.

 

McManaman: If we're playing him in a central role, Izzet is better. If he's out wide, Guppy is better.

 

Batty: Not all that good. He didn't win the Premier League with Blackburn - he only played five games that season which wasn't enough for a medal. His only career silverware (save promotions) was a Charity Shield medal. Not every side plays the holding midfield role, so I would argue that you may only need ONE from Wise / Batty / Butt / Ince / Sherwood in your squad, as opposed to all or nearly all of them. No, obviously I wouldn't play Izzet in a defensive midfield role, but neither would I play Batty. At all.

[inckley fox]

No no no no no stop trying to change the subject.

 

Answer the above about David Batty, keep the question in hand and stop trying to deflect. Will keep this nice consice a detailed and address all of your points one by one so you can't continue to hide the fact wrong behind meaningless essays, but don't worry if you wish to continue with this we will get through them all eventually.

 

None of that makes sense, but I answered what appears to be your question.