The quality of today's professional footballer's.

[Manwell Pablo]

I might be more inclined, if I were to blame our midfield and not our defence, to look at our defensive midfielders at the time, rather than a man employed to make goals. I think Adams said 'with Izzet we're a good side, without him we're not'. You really are getting desperate if you think he was a 'luxury' player who cost us goals that season.

 

 

I am trying to get you to admit there he wasn't a very good defensive midfielder and that might be why players who could do both jobs were preferred in midfield to him

 

And look at that, mission accomplished

[inckley fox]

Can you make your mind up please? Are we talking 2008 and 2010 because you keep swapping years to suit your argument! You said Busquets instead of Raul, that was 2010. not 2008. And Busquets was getting on the pitch consistantly, not starting every game granted but I didn't say that, from 2008, and was a popular figure in Spain. I don't think you'd of found many a Spaniard saying he shouldn't of been in the 2010 squad. So you're wrong

 

No he didn't, but he was excellent in 1998, was probably one of Villas better players, played better than Izzet, showed a fantastic amount of promise, that lead to his ONLY England cap. So what's your point? He aged badly granted, I didn't see him taking Izzets place in the England squad when he was 30 so you have absolutely no point......again

 

Raul stopped playing in 2008, Senna a year or two later. Busquets made his debut in 2009. A lot of people were in disbelief (I lived in Spain at the time) that Busquets, Villa and Silva - among others - were in the team in midfield / attacking positions when Raul, still only 31, was not. So no, I'm not wrong thanks, although you are, it appears. If you go on the Marca website and they have an archive you'll be able to relive the disbelief for yourself.

 

Ultimately your argument has boiled down to three points, having conceded that Izzet was good enough to play a game or two for England and given up on finding proof for the English league being better now than it was 10-15 years ago. (a) That Lee Hendrie was better than Muzzy Izzet. (b) That a good international side consists of the eleven best individuals in the country, not the best team. © That you can only drop a player from a squad for a player who plays in exactly the same role (i.e. a DCM for a DCM, even if you already have three or four DCMs in your squad and not many creative midfielders).

 

I have been very clear and gone to the trouble of repeating god knows how many times that Muzzy Izzet should not have played ahead of Beckham and Scholes, nor should he have played a defensive midfield role or left wing or picked up thirty plus caps for his country.

 

It's a straightforward point that your brain has clearly overloaded on: In the 1997-2000 period our international side was unsuccessful and we tried out a large number of midfielders, SOME of which played in exactly the same position as Izzet, some of which didn't. I argued that if players of the quality of Ripley, Hendrie, Ince (at 32, in his Boro days), Wise (at 34, a season before he came to City), Wilcox, Batty, Butt, Sherwood, Redknapp, Parlour, Gazza (post 30), Barmby and Lee were good enough to turn out for England, then it's quite possible that Izzet could have done a job too.

 

At no point have I mentioned ANYTHING about Izzet being a defensive midfielder, nor being played in defensive midfield. That's another straw you're grasping at. I did say that at times we selected five defensively minded midfielders in the same squad, perhaps we could have done with another creative player like Izzet. I really didn't think it was such a conundrum until you put your mind to it.

 

And you have a habit of writing things like 'you haven't got a point' at precisely the moment you say something daft. From 1996-2001 Izzet was a giant for Leicester and peaked between 1998 and 2000. Hendrie showed promise but he was never in the same league as Izzet, not even back then when they were both at their peaks. Not based on what I saw, not based on assists charts, not based on goals scored. And if you look at those few years in the context of their full careers, then the picture is even clearer: One of those players was a wreck after the age of 25, won nothing and ended his career in the lower leagues; including a brief stint at Leicester (aged 30) when he was woeful and we were relegated. The other played five or six excellent PL seasons over the course of his career, won trophies, played eight times for his country (finishing 3rd in a World Cup) and retired, due to injury, at 30 while still playing at the top level.

 

If I'm honest, though, when you're arguing against someone who thinks that Lee Hendrie was a better player than Muzzy Izzet, it's easy to come up with good points.

[Oxfordfox83]

****ing loving this thread, although I can only read about 3 lines of each post. Can't believe how pissed Manwell has managed to stay for so long-good use of strategic off licences.

All international data, surely, is moot, because England 90>England96>England 04 > anything since, which is a slurry of mediocrity where Welbeck is international class. But if you want to, Muzzy in 96 dicks all over Gerrard in 13. Maybe not free kicks, maybe not twice a season stunners, but if Gerrard is anywhere near England now, Izzet in his prime was more than international class.

[seenitall]

Our players are much worse than our players of 10 - 15 years ago IMO

Man U's are probably better but only the foreign ones, they had much better UK players back then.

[Manwell Pablo]

****ing loving this thread, although I can only read about 3 lines of each post. Can't believe how pissed Manwell has managed to stay for so long-good use of strategic off licences.

All international data, surely, is moot, because England 90>England96>England 04 > anything since, which is a slurry of mediocrity where Welbeck is international class. But if you want to, Muzzy in 96 dicks all over Gerrard in 13. Maybe not free kicks, maybe not twice a season stunners, but if Gerrard is anywhere near England now, Izzet in his prime was more than international class.

 

Believe it or not I was sober for the vast majority of this thread, I think as quick as I type and don't ever check what I write. If I got him in person as most people who have met will reluctantly admit, this would of been done and dusted in about 7 minutes flat, unless he had his iphone with him.

 

But to be fair to the inckley fox, though he is wrong and gets simple shit wrong he does offer up an reasonably informed debate, if we could have more of this in the LCFC forum it would be a place worth visiting more often. 

[seenitall]

Believe it or not I was sober for the vast majority of this thread, I think as quick as I type and don't ever check what I write. If I got him in person as most people who have met will reluctantly admit, this would of been done and dusted in about 7 minutes flat, unless he had his iphone with him.

 

But to be fair to the inckley fox, though he is wrong and gets simple shit wrong he does offer up an reasonably informed debate, if we could have more of this in the LCFC forum it would be a place worth visiting more often.

More often than 22,000 times in 8 years? Thats almost 8 times a day, every single day for 8 solid years.........

[Manwell Pablo]

More often than 22,000 times in 8 years? Thats almost 8 times a day, every single day for 8 solid years.........

 

I had 20,000 by the end of 2008. What does that tell you.

[Manwell Pablo]

Raul stopped playing in 2008, Senna a year or two later. Busquets made his debut in 2009. A lot of people were in disbelief (I lived in Spain at the time) that Busquets, Villa and Silva - among others - were in the team in midfield / attacking positions when Raul, still only 31, was not. So no, I'm not wrong thanks, although you are, it appears. If you go on the Marca website and they have an archive you'll be able to relive the disbelief for yourself.

 

Ultimately your argument has boiled down to three points, having conceded that Izzet was good enough to play a game or two for England and given up on finding proof for the English league being better now than it was 10-15 years ago. (a) That Lee Hendrie was better than Muzzy Izzet. (b) That a good international side consists of the eleven best individuals in the country, not the best team. © That you can only drop a player from a squad for a player who plays in exactly the same role (i.e. a DCM for a DCM, even if you already have three or four DCMs in your squad and not many creative midfielders).

 

I have been very clear and gone to the trouble of repeating god knows how many times that Muzzy Izzet should not have played ahead of Beckham and Scholes, nor should he have played a defensive midfield role or left wing or picked up thirty plus caps for his country.

 

It's a straightforward point that your brain has clearly overloaded on: In the 1997-2000 period our international side was unsuccessful and we tried out a large number of midfielders, SOME of which played in exactly the same position as Izzet, some of which didn't. I argued that if players of the quality of Ripley, Hendrie, Ince (at 32, in his Boro days), Wise (at 34, a season before he came to City), Wilcox, Batty, Butt, Sherwood, Redknapp, Parlour, Gazza (post 30), Barmby and Lee were good enough to turn out for England, then it's quite possible that Izzet could have done a job too.

 

At no point have I mentioned ANYTHING about Izzet being a defensive midfielder, nor being played in defensive midfield. That's another straw you're grasping at. I did say that at times we selected five defensively minded midfielders in the same squad, perhaps we could have done with another creative player like Izzet. I really didn't think it was such a conundrum until you put your mind to it.

 

And you have a habit of writing things like 'you haven't got a point' at precisely the moment you say something daft. From 1996-2001 Izzet was a giant for Leicester and peaked between 1998 and 2000. Hendrie showed promise but he was never in the same league as Izzet, not even back then when they were both at their peaks. Not based on what I saw, not based on assists charts, not based on goals scored. And if you look at those few years in the context of their full careers, then the picture is even clearer: One of those players was a wreck after the age of 25, won nothing and ended his career in the lower leagues; including a brief stint at Leicester (aged 30) when he was woeful and we were relegated. The other played five or six excellent PL seasons over the course of his career, won trophies, played eight times for his country (finishing 3rd in a World Cup) and retired, due to injury, at 30 while still playing at the top level.

 

If I'm honest, though, when you're arguing against someone who thinks that Lee Hendrie was a better player than Muzzy Izzet, it's easy to come up with good points.

 

This is so long

 

Your barking up in the wrong tree if you want to start talking Spanish Football, put simple tengo mas conocimiento que usted. You lived in Spain, fantastic, I have a house there, I have family there, I follow Spanish football as close as I do English football, I spent the entirety of every summer I had growing up there , and I can tell you don't have clue what your on about by the fact that Sergio Buscquets was your first example. Raul was injured in 2008 and I think he scored about 5, at most 8, league goals leading up to Euro 2008 and he had a pretty indifferent 2 years leading up to 2010, the Spanish hero worship him that's the only they were upset he wasn't included. The manager made the right choice however, based on form and ability to do the job, i.e best players to the job, and while your limited knowledge might make you think the likes of Silva and Villa upset them, you should perhaps be focusing on the like of De la red, Guiza, or Sergio Garcia, the players they were actually upset about being selected in the squad ahead of him. There's another one example of many of me being able to argue your own case better than yourself..

 

Besides, as I say, you look at most tournament winning sides, they contain the best players in the right positions either on international or club form. France Germany Brasil blah blah fcking blah you might find the odd exception, but it's generally the rule.

 

I will not deny, if I'm being generous, it's hard to say whether Izzet might of managed a single cap or two based on injuries, rotation, friendly token caps. If that's what your implying I'll happily meet you in the middle ground and say he could of quite possibly, got one or two caps. But I don't think that's what your arguing is it? If it is fair enough your basically admitting he wasn't good enough.

 

I've not given up on the original point in the thread, I am trying, and I admit failing, to keep each post in this thread below novel length. Given time I hope we revisit it, as I'm just getting started. 

 

You keep saying Izzet shouldn't have played a defensive role or on the wing but you keep saying he should of played ahead of players who, pretty much, played there, or players that can do a proper central midfield job, not a flair, attacking job (besides Gazza who I'd of had in that the 98 team anyway, without even considering Izzet) and you keep, incorrectly, inferring that players like Butt and ince were defensive players, they were not, they were old school proper midfield players capable of getting you a goal every now and again but at the same time, worked in the engine room, not totally defensive players! They've scored enough goals to prove otherwise. I've offered to go through the players one by one and explain why their better but obviously that would require focus and you prefer to try spray points around left right and centre in order to try and hide failings in your arguments. Wise is the most laughable one, you keep calling him a "defensive player" yet to my memory he got the vast majority of his caps on the fcking left wing!

 

Giant lol Lennon meant more to us than he ever did and that's why we looked lost without him and one of the reasons we went down, and were back to Hendrie, you have a really, really bad memory if you think hendrie was poor in the late 90's, really poor. He was electric as a youngster, one of Villas best players, he deserved the cap he got, unfortunately he went down hill from there, but then, this is another bloke who is neither here nor there, he got one cap, as I say if your saying Izzet might have skanked a cap at some point in his career that everyone forgot through luck or judgement I'm not going to say it was impossible.

 

I try to keep abuse free these days but, If your wondering why I'm focusing around 1997-2000 when discussing if Muzzy Izzet should of got an England cap, you're a fcking idiot.

 

If you want to call it a day we can just have a honest poll, on a site where he is considered a legend, to see if he was worthy of more than 10 England caps if you want. I'm confident of the outcome.

[inckley fox]

This is so long

 

Your barking up in the wrong tree if you want to start talking Spanish Football, put simple tengo mas conocimiento que usted. You lived in Spain, fantastic, I have a house there, I have family there, I follow Spanish football as close as I do English football, I spent the entirety of every summer I had growing up there , and I can tell you don't have clue what your on about by the fact that Sergio Buscquets was your first example. Raul was injured in 2008 and I think he scored about 5, at most 8, league goals leading up to Euro 2008 and he had a pretty indifferent 2 years leading up to 2010, the Spanish hero worship him that's the only they were upset he wasn't included. The manager made the right choice however, based on form and ability to do the job, i.e best players to the job, and while your limited knowledge might make you think the likes of Silva and Villa upset them, you should perhaps be focusing on the like of De la red, Guiza, or Sergio Garcia, the players they were actually upset about being selected in the squad ahead of him. There's another one example of many of me being able to argue your own case better than yourself..

 

Besides, as I say, you look at most tournament winning sides, they contain the best players in the right positions either on international or club form. France Germany Brasil blah blah fcking blah you might find the odd exception, but it's generally the rule.

 

I will not deny, if I'm being generous, it's hard to say whether Izzet might of managed a single cap or two based on injuries, rotation, friendly token caps. If that's what your implying I'll happily meet you in the middle ground and say he could of quite possibly, got one or two caps. But I don't think that's what your arguing is it? If it is fair enough your basically admitting he wasn't good enough.

 

I've not given up on the original point in the thread, I am trying, and I admit failing, to keep each post in this thread below novel length. Given time I hope we revisit it, as I'm just getting started. 

 

You keep saying Izzet shouldn't have played a defensive role or on the wing but you keep saying he should of played ahead of players who, pretty much, played there, or players that can do a proper central midfield job, not a flair, attacking job (besides Gazza who I'd of had in that the 98 team anyway, without even considering Izzet) and you keep, incorrectly, inferring that players like Butt and ince were defensive players, they were not, they were old school proper midfield players capable of getting you a goal every now and again but at the same time, worked in the engine room, not totally defensive players! They've scored enough goals to prove otherwise. I've offered to go through the players one by one and explain why their better but obviously that would require focus and you prefer to try spray points around left right and centre in order to try and hide failings in your arguments. Wise is the most laughable one, you keep calling him a "defensive player" yet to my memory he got the vast majority of his caps on the fcking left wing!

 

Giant lol Lennon meant more to us than he ever did and that's why we looked lost without him and one of the reasons we went down, and were back to Hendrie, you have a really, really bad memory if you think hendrie was poor in the late 90's, really poor. He was electric as a youngster, one of Villas best players, he deserved the cap he got, unfortunately he went down hill from there, but then, this is another bloke who is neither here nor there, he got one cap, as I say if your saying Izzet might have skanked a cap at some point in his career that everyone forgot through luck or judgement I'm not going to say it was impossible.

 

I try to keep abuse free these days but, If your wondering why I'm focusing around 1997-2000 when discussing if Muzzy Izzet should of got an England cap, you're a fcking idiot.

 

If you want to call it a day we can just have a honest poll, on a site where he is considered a legend, to see if he was worthy of more than 10 England caps if you want. I'm confident of the outcome.

 

No, I think 1-10 caps would have been fair enough. And no, I'm not wondering why you focused on 1997-2000. I think I focused on that period, didn't I?

 

Mas conocimiento? Puede ser. But I'm not sure summer camps in Spain are geared towards expanding your knowledge of the native game. I became friends with an ex-Real manager while I was there, but I can't say that expanded my knowledge either. I learned about coffee and brandy from him, but not football. I am, however, right about Buscquets. His debut was in 2009, not 2008. And, as you concede, there were plenty of Spaniards - even in Valencia - upset at Raul being dropped.

 

Seeing as we've established that it was not unrealistic for Muzzy to pick up a few caps I'm good to leave that one. Now, Mike Whitlow...

[deanolegend1989]

I personally think the comment 'mid table teams are much much better now than in the past' is utter nonsense.

 

Nowadays, literally no team bar the top 6 or so get even 50+ points! nearly every team gets between 35-50..I.E alot of teams 'just good enough' and IMO very close in standard to championship clubs. This is shown that more teams are staying in the EPL recently(2 last year, all 3 the year before).

 

In the 90s..you got teams getting 60+ points and even lower than mid table clubs getting 50+. All the whole league was closer than now.

 

IMO the quality of the top 4 or 5 clubs has gone up, purely because the money generated from champions league football has consistently helped the top 4 get more and more powerful(look at Liverpool struggling constantly to get in the top 4 again). Its a tall order due to the top 4 constantly attracting the top talent every year..only a freak period and alot of luck will help a team dislodge one of the top 4. I think the rest of the league is incredibly equal..so to say the whole league is alot higher standard is wrong..

I just think the top foreign talent come more(due to top money in our leagues) but only really to our top clubs..since Abromovic and recently the Man City takeover the moneys been ridiculous and has made the top clubs alot stronger and more dominant, basically needing 90+ points to win the league when in the 90s even a high 70 point tally would knick the league(check the fergie treble winners team of 99). Again this suggests the mid table/lower mid table teams were probably stronger and harder to beat consistently back then compared to now when the top teams barely lose a game all season. 

 

I think since the early 2000's(maybe about 2003 ish) it has started being like this..Arsenal's unbeatables, Mourinho and Abromovich dominant 2 years at Chelsea raising the bar..then Fergie biting back with IMO his best team ever of 2006-2009 Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Carrick, Vidic, Ferdinand and co. In this era the standard was rising(hence our teams doing alot better in the CL) but it turn also left our mid table and below teams far behind, again enhancing my point that actually the rest of the league isnt stronger now.

 I personally think us in the 97-00 era would finish in the top 10 in todays game. If anything I could see us getting in the top 7..we'd match anyone and get battered by the top lot like the rest of the clubs.

[Col city fan]

I personally think the comment 'mid table teams are much much better now than in the past' is utter nonsense.

Nowadays, literally no team bar the top 6 or so get even 50+ points! nearly every team gets between 35-50..I.E alot of teams 'just good enough' and IMO very close in standard to championship clubs. This is shown that more teams are staying in the EPL recently(2 last year, all 3 the year before).

In the 90s..you got teams getting 60+ points and even lower than mid table clubs getting 50+. All the whole league was closer than now.

IMO the quality of the top 4 or 5 clubs has gone up, purely because the money generated from champions league football has consistently helped the top 4 get more and more powerful(look at Liverpool struggling constantly to get in the top 4 again). Its a tall order due to the top 4 constantly attracting the top talent every year..only a freak period and alot of luck will help a team dislodge one of the top 4. I think the rest of the league is incredibly equal..so to say the whole league is alot higher standard is wrong..

I just think the top foreign talent come more(due to top money in our leagues) but only really to our top clubs..since Abromovic and recently the Man City takeover the moneys been ridiculous and has made the top clubs alot stronger and more dominant, basically needing 90+ points to win the league when in the 90s even a high 70 point tally would knick the league(check the fergie treble winners team of 99). Again this suggests the mid table/lower mid table teams were probably stronger and harder to beat consistently back then compared to now when the top teams barely lose a game all season.

I think since the early 2000's(maybe about 2003 ish) it has started being like this..Arsenal's unbeatables, Mourinho and Abromovich dominant 2 years at Chelsea raising the bar..then Fergie biting back with IMO his best team ever of 2006-2009 Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Carrick, Vidic, Ferdinand and co. In this era the standard was rising(hence our teams doing alot better in the CL) but it turn also left our mid table and below teams far behind, again enhancing my point that actually the rest of the league isnt stronger now.

I personally think us in the 97-00 era would finish in the top 10 in todays game. If anything I could see us getting in the top 7..we'd match anyone and get battered by the top lot like the rest of the clubs.

Top post...

[Oxfordfox83]

I personally think the comment 'mid table teams are much much better now than in the past' is utter nonsense.

Nowadays, literally no team bar the top 6 or so get even 50+ points! nearly every team gets between 35-50..I.E alot of teams 'just good enough' and IMO very close in standard to championship clubs. This is shown that more teams are staying in the EPL recently(2 last year, all 3 the year before).

In the 90s..you got teams getting 60+ points and even lower than mid table clubs getting 50+. All the whole league was closer than now.

IMO the quality of the top 4 or 5 clubs has gone up, purely because the money generated from champions league football has consistently helped the top 4 get more and more powerful(look at Liverpool struggling constantly to get in the top 4 again). Its a tall order due to the top 4 constantly attracting the top talent every year..only a freak period and alot of luck will help a team dislodge one of the top 4. I think the rest of the league is incredibly equal..so to say the whole league is alot higher standard is wrong..

I just think the top foreign talent come more(due to top money in our leagues) but only really to our top clubs..since Abromovic and recently the Man City takeover the moneys been ridiculous and has made the top clubs alot stronger and more dominant, basically needing 90+ points to win the league when in the 90s even a high 70 point tally would knick the league(check the fergie treble winners team of 99). Again this suggests the mid table/lower mid table teams were probably stronger and harder to beat consistently back then compared to now when the top teams barely lose a game all season.

I think since the early 2000's(maybe about 2003 ish) it has started being like this..Arsenal's unbeatables, Mourinho and Abromovich dominant 2 years at Chelsea raising the bar..then Fergie biting back with IMO his best team ever of 2006-2009 Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Carrick, Vidic, Ferdinand and co. In this era the standard was rising(hence our teams doing alot better in the CL) but it turn also left our mid table and below teams far behind, again enhancing my point that actually the rest of the league isnt stronger now.

I personally think us in the 97-00 era would finish in the top 10 in todays game. If anything I could see us getting in the top 7..we'd match anyone and get battered by the top lot like the rest of the clubs.

I think this about nails it, and I think the answer is the Champions League. If you're in it, your resources are boundless and can attract any player you like, so Man City/Chelsea's third team now would cost more than most first teams, and hammer the equivalent reserve teams from the 90s era.

The flip side is that teams like Liverpool, Spurs, Everton, Newcastle (and even Arsenal, though there seems to be a philosophy issue rather than cash there) cannot hold onto their players after a good season. And teams not competing regularly for Top Four are pretty much doomed. Laudrup's achievement at Swansea was incredible considering the loss of Sinclair and Allen. When we were in that scenario our team was getting stronger-we kept Lennon, Guppy, Izzet, Elliott, and when we sold Heskey it was after four good seasons in the Premier League. Players now seem to achieve top 10 finishes and leave, so consistency and building is almost impossible. So I'd take the Pepsi challenge of our 98 team against current West Brom (our most natural comparison, not Stoke), Swansea, West Ham, Fulham, or anyone else below 7th.

[Manwell Pablo]

No, I think 1-10 caps would have been fair enough. And no, I'm not wondering why you focused on 1997-2000. I think I focused on that period, didn't I?

 

Mas conocimiento? Puede ser. But I'm not sure summer camps in Spain are geared towards expanding your knowledge of the native game. I became friends with an ex-Real manager while I was there, but I can't say that expanded my knowledge either. I learned about coffee and brandy from him, but not football. I am, however, right about Buscquets. His debut was in 2009, not 2008. And, as you concede, there were plenty of Spaniards - even in Valencia - upset at Raul being dropped.

 

Seeing as we've established that it was not unrealistic for Muzzy to pick up a few caps I'm good to leave that one. Now, Mike Whitlow...

 

 

Well your arguments lack consistency your on one hand claiming he was practically the third best English midfielder in the country on one hand and on the other hand he could  possibly got a handful of caps under a certain situation (which if your being reasonable you have to admit you could say about just about any English footballer playing at the top level) but whatever.

 

I don't concede they were upset I never said otherwise it was blatantly obvious what I wont concede is that Spain didn't pick their best in form players in 2008. And you wont find many of them saying Villa shouldn't of been selected given he was creaming them in that season, if I remember it rightly it was Dani Guiza they were most up in arms with, but again, whatever

[Manwell Pablo]

I personally think the comment 'mid table teams are much much better now than in the past' is utter nonsense.

 

Nowadays, literally no team bar the top 6 or so get even 50+ points! nearly every team gets between 35-50..I.E alot of teams 'just good enough' and IMO very close in standard to championship clubs. This is shown that more teams are staying in the EPL recently(2 last year, all 3 the year before).

 

In the 90s..you got teams getting 60+ points and even lower than mid table clubs getting 50+. All the whole league was closer than now.

 

IMO the quality of the top 4 or 5 clubs has gone up, purely because the money generated from champions league football has consistently helped the top 4 get more and more powerful(look at Liverpool struggling constantly to get in the top 4 again). Its a tall order due to the top 4 constantly attracting the top talent every year..only a freak period and alot of luck will help a team dislodge one of the top 4. I think the rest of the league is incredibly equal..so to say the whole league is alot higher standard is wrong..

I just think the top foreign talent come more(due to top money in our leagues) but only really to our top clubs..since Abromovic and recently the Man City takeover the moneys been ridiculous and has made the top clubs alot stronger and more dominant, basically needing 90+ points to win the league when in the 90s even a high 70 point tally would knick the league(check the fergie treble winners team of 99). Again this suggests the mid table/lower mid table teams were probably stronger and harder to beat consistently back then compared to now when the top teams barely lose a game all season. 

 

I think since the early 2000's(maybe about 2003 ish) it has started being like this..Arsenal's unbeatables, Mourinho and Abromovich dominant 2 years at Chelsea raising the bar..then Fergie biting back with IMO his best team ever of 2006-2009 Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Carrick, Vidic, Ferdinand and co. In this era the standard was rising(hence our teams doing alot better in the CL) but it turn also left our mid table and below teams far behind, again enhancing my point that actually the rest of the league isnt stronger now.

 I personally think us in the 97-00 era would finish in the top 10 in todays game. If anything I could see us getting in the top 7..we'd match anyone and get battered by the top lot like the rest of the clubs.

 

That is a decent post and you're right about the Champions League but I still disagree I'd say the gap exists because of the quality of the top 5 clubs alone and not in spite of the fact that mid table teams are able to throw around 10's of millions themselves these days due to TV money, the number of teams coming down either in the first season or via second season syndrome is still really high and even high investment doesn't save all of them. The quality flows down through the rest of the leagues, the top 4 take on the best players in the world, players that would of previously been at a top 4 club are now only good enough for on finishing 7th, pushing someone who was good enough for that team down into a team battling relegation. 

 

It transcends the Premier League anyway, it's the game as a whole is better if you ask me just down to two simple facts A) Fitness levels are better B) The talents coming from all over the world now.

[inckley fox]

Well your arguments lack consistency your on one hand claiming he was practically the third best English midfielder in the country on one hand and on the other hand he could  possibly got a handful of caps under a certain situation (which if your being reasonable you have to admit you could say about just about any English footballer playing at the top level) but whatever.

 

I don't concede they were upset I never said otherwise it was blatantly obvious what I wont concede is that Spain didn't pick their best in form players in 2008. And you wont find many of them saying Villa shouldn't of been selected given he was creaming them in that season, if I remember it rightly it was Dani Guiza they were most up in arms with, but again, whatever

 

I think I've not just been consistent; I've been entirely consistent in saying-

 

1. Muzzy deserved a chance with England. I was clear that this didn't mean 30 or 40 caps, that he shouldn't have displaced Scholes or Beckham, that he shouldn't have played left wing or DCM and I never said he was the third best in the country (you're getting desperate again)... but equally 1-10 games would have represented a fair chance. He didn't get this, but plenty of lesser players, or ageing players who no longer had it, did.

2. Muzzy Izzet was a better player than Lee Hendrie.

3. That the Turkey side he opted for instead did better than England. It did.

4. That the best team in the country won't consist of its eleven best individuals. Actually just a quote from the last manager who won anything with us, but you clearly know better.

5. It was a controversial decision to drop Raul in 2008 and many felt he could still have been playing at the age of 31, in 2010 - a good example of a manager trying to form a team rather than a group of individuals. At first you said 'no one in Spain' had a problem with this come 2010, nor with less experienced players like Buscquets being in the squad ahead of him because Busquets had been a regular 'for Barcelona and Spain' from 2008 onwards. Now you concede that the Spanish 'worship' Raul and that Buscquets wasn't a regular for Barcelona in 2008 and didn't even play for Spain until 2009.

6. That another example of a team being stronger than a bunch of individuals is Greece. Zagorakis, who couldn't dislodge Izzet from the side at Leicester, won a European Cup and was named Player of the Tournament in 2004 (when football was, according to you, tougher than in 98 when he joined City). Something England couldn't manage.

7. That Izzet was better than the average Premiership midfielder. You seem to disagree with this (conceding that he might have deserved a cap but only because 'just about any English footballer playing at the top level' deserves one, but Izzet was the Englishman with the most assists once and came third in that table on another occasion. Guppy (who you don't rate much either) was in the top ten for the PL from 1997-2000. It's not concrete proof of their creativeness - it's an indication.

8. That it's impossible to prove that football is better or worse now than it was in the 1990s. You argue it is 'a fact' that the game is better now.

9. That we have more players over 30 - who would have played in the 90s - playing now than ever before. You claimed, incorrectly, that it's the other way round. This will owe something to modern fitness regimes, but it also indicates that they have hardly been left behind by the progress of the game.

10. That sides like Sunderland and Stoke today were probably not as strong as Leicester in the late 90s. You argue against this.

11. That the West Ham of the 90s, with Sinclair, Bergovic, Ferdinand and Lampard, was better than the current West Ham team. Again, you dispute this.

12. That when you look at the careers of Whitlow and Konchesky, the career of the latter is not a great deal more impressive than that of the former.

13. The game is different rather than better now. Faster, more stamina-based, better pitches, less contact.

14. That the English league is not number one on the UEFA Coefficients anymore (you dispute this, but I'm waiting for the link to your alternative table), and only one English team has won the Champions League in five years - another indication that our league is not at its peak strength right now. In 1999 Mancester United won the Champions League, showing how far we came in the 1990s. You thought the real progress didn't come until after the 90s.

 

Not only has my argument remained unchanged (I think you're confusing this with me saying 2005 once instead of 2004) but it's also quite straightforwardly right.

[inckley fox]

That is a decent post and you're right about the Champions League but I still disagree I'd say the gap exists because of the quality of the top 5 clubs alone and not in spite of the fact that mid table teams are able to throw around 10's of millions themselves these days due to TV money, the number of teams coming down either in the first season or via second season syndrome is still really high and even high investment doesn't save all of them. The quality flows down through the rest of the leagues, the top 4 take on the best players in the world, players that would of previously been at a top 4 club are now only good enough for on finishing 7th, pushing someone who was good enough for that team down into a team battling relegation. 

 

It transcends the Premier League anyway, it's the game as a whole is better if you ask me just down to two simple facts A) Fitness levels are better B) The talents coming from all over the world now.

 

If the improvement in all of football 'transcends' the Premier League and we're stronger because of 'talent coming from all over the world', then do you think that our whole football league is stronger than that of other countries because it benefits from bringing in their talent? Lower league clubs going bust would argue with that, and the vast majority of sides who still have almost entirely British squads would argue with that too. I'm confused as to how you think the PL sending their money overseas leads to investment in our lower leagues.

 

More sides from the second tier survive their first and second season than 15 years ago, that's true, but that could as easily owe to the bottom end of the PL getting weaker as to the top end of the Championship getting stronger.

 

And, of course, we know that our top flight is not getting comparatively stronger. One Champions League in five years. Slipping from 1st in the Coefficients to 2nd below Spain, and finishing below Germany for 2012-13 too. And I go back to that line of yours - 'talent coming from all over the world'. So is the Premier League better off now because of 'talents coming from all over the world' than it was in the 1990s with Cantona, Klinsmann, Henry, Viera, Petit, Poyet, Zola, Weah, Solano, Ginola, Bergkamp, Di Canio, Desailly, Vialli, Overmars, Schmeichel etc.?

 

Or are you talking about world football getting better? But if English football is poaching the best of the foreign talent, how can foreign football be improving? The players have to come from somewhere! It's not the case that, up until 2000, 50% of the world's footballers were in Limbo, until the Premiership came along and rescued them from foreign wastelands and turned them into stars. If we are signing every other league's best players then their leagues must be getting weaker...

 

The problem here is that we AREN'T actually getting the best foreign players. We buy them aged 18-23 because it is easier than nurturing native players through academies from the age of 10 upwards and then taking the risk of putting them into our first teams. The difference between a run-of-the-mill English player at 20 and a German player is that the latter will have played regular football at a high level, whereas the former will have had a fortnight at Brentford if he's lucky. And the German academy system, at club level, must be properly maintained as a condition of their top flight status, with minimum squad quotas of German players. As a result, not only does their national side wipe the floor with ours, but their league is heading that way too.

 

So perhaps world football is better now than 15 years ago, after all. It's literally impossible to say. Not many Real Madrid or Valencia fans would agree, but if you speak to a Barca fan, or a Bayern fan, then I'm sure they'd be with you. But the argument for a significant improvement in the English league, either comparative or otherwise, is a very shaky one. Especially if your argument is rooted in our league getting better at the expense of others. Because it isn't.

[Manwell Pablo]

I think I've not just been consistent; I've been entirely consistent in saying-

 

1. Muzzy deserved a chance with England. I was clear that this didn't mean 30 or 40 caps, that he shouldn't have displaced Scholes or Beckham, that he shouldn't have played left wing or DCM and I never said he was the third best in the country (you're getting desperate again)... but equally 1-10 games would have represented a fair chance. He didn't get this, but plenty of lesser players, or ageing players who no longer had it, did.

2. Muzzy Izzet was a better player than Lee Hendrie.

3. That the Turkey side he opted for instead did better than England. It did.

4. That the best team in the country won't consist of its eleven best individuals. Actually just a quote from the last manager who won anything with us, but you clearly know better.

5. It was a controversial decision to drop Raul in 2008 and many felt he could still have been playing at the age of 31, in 2010 - a good example of a manager trying to form a team rather than a group of individuals. At first you said 'no one in Spain' had a problem with this come 2010, nor with less experienced players like Buscquets being in the squad ahead of him because Busquets had been a regular 'for Barcelona and Spain' from 2008 onwards. Now you concede that the Spanish 'worship' Raul and that Buscquets wasn't a regular for Barcelona in 2008 and didn't even play for Spain until 2009.

6. That another example of a team being stronger than a bunch of individuals is Greece. Zagorakis, who couldn't dislodge Izzet from the side at Leicester, won a European Cup and was named Player of the Tournament in 2004 (when football was, according to you, tougher than in 98 when he joined City). Something England couldn't manage.

7. That Izzet was better than the average Premiership midfielder. You seem to disagree with this (conceding that he might have deserved a cap but only because 'just about any English footballer playing at the top level' deserves one, but Izzet was the Englishman with the most assists once and came third in that table on another occasion. Guppy (who you don't rate much either) was in the top ten for the PL from 1997-2000. It's not concrete proof of their creativeness - it's an indication.

8. That it's impossible to prove that football is better or worse now than it was in the 1990s. You argue it is 'a fact' that the game is better now.

9. That we have more players over 30 - who would have played in the 90s - playing now than ever before. You claimed, incorrectly, that it's the other way round. This will owe something to modern fitness regimes, but it also indicates that they have hardly been left behind by the progress of the game.

10. That sides like Sunderland and Stoke today were probably not as strong as Leicester in the late 90s. You argue against this.

11. That the West Ham of the 90s, with Sinclair, Bergovic, Ferdinand and Lampard, was better than the current West Ham team. Again, you dispute this.

12. That when you look at the careers of Whitlow and Konchesky, the career of the latter is not a great deal more impressive than that of the former.

13. The game is different rather than better now. Faster, more stamina-based, better pitches, less contact.

14. That the English league is not number one on the UEFA Coefficients anymore (you dispute this, but I'm waiting for the link to your alternative table), and only one English team has won the Champions League in five years - another indication that our league is not at its peak strength right now. In 1999 Mancester United won the Champions League, showing how far we came in the 1990s. You thought the real progress didn't come until after the 90s.

 

Not only has my argument remained unchanged (I think you're confusing this with me saying 2005 once instead of 2004) but it's also quite straightforwardly right.

 

1. But your only admitting Scholes and Beckham were better and are refusing to admit anyone else was, so you are, really.

2. But you keep saying he should of played ahead of players who play there.

3. But he couldn't get in that Turkey side..

4. But that was 60 years ago, now every international side consists of the eleven best individuals in each position. Your Spain Example flopped.

5. But in 2010 he'd already not kicked a ball for Spain in 2 years, and they'd won a majot tournament, the ones I know, thought fair enough. 

6. But that's the only, freak, example. Every major tournament post 92 besides that backs my argument. So I have about 8 examples to your 1.

7. Izzet was an average Premiership midfielder, and Guppy was an average Premier League winger, like we were an average Premier League team, no argument.

8. It's called having a debate and having an opinion if you want to sit their and say "It's impossible to say" and "there is no cast iron evidence well then your wasting your time here as it can apply to most topics! Sit on that fence if you want though.

9. Their part of the regime, therefore they will be fitter and wont get left behind it is simple. No link though, again. Like the 15 Izzet assists actually. 

10. I do dispute that

11. Oh is this "my example" again . The fact they had 10 more points does indeed show they were a better side as I've already told you, I don't think that side was 10 points better than the current one though, again pointing to a better league. You seem to forgot, this is Ferdinand and Lampard when they were young. 

12. But it's still more impressive. 

13. And 3/4 leads to a better game and a higher standard 

14. I have spent the afternoon trying to find you this and unfortunately I have to use your favorite website as it's literally the only place I can get the table they did base this seasons draw off.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Champions_League    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Europa_League   --- I am not disputing it's not currently at it's peak however it was very recently and it's still better than the 1900's. It's a proper international league these days with some of the best players in the world,

[Manwell Pablo]

If the improvement in all of football 'transcends' the Premier League and we're stronger because of 'talent coming from all over the world', then do you think that our whole football league is stronger than that of other countries because it benefits from bringing in their talent? Lower league clubs going bust would argue with that, and the vast majority of sides who still have almost entirely British squads would argue with that too. I'm confused as to how you think the PL sending their money overseas leads to investment in our lower leagues.

 

More sides from the second tier survive their first and second season than 15 years ago, that's true, but that could as easily owe to the bottom end of the PL getting weaker as to the top end of the Championship getting stronger.

 

And, of course, we know that our top flight is not getting comparatively stronger. One Champions League in five years. Slipping from 1st in the Coefficients to 2nd below Spain, and finishing below Germany for 2012-13 too. And I go back to that line of yours - 'talent coming from all over the world'. So is the Premier League better off now because of 'talents coming from all over the world' than it was in the 1990s with Cantona, Klinsmann, Henry, Viera, Petit, Poyet, Zola, Weah, Solano, Ginola, Bergkamp, Di Canio, Desailly, Vialli, Overmars, Schmeichel etc.?

 

Or are you talking about world football getting better? But if English football is poaching the best of the foreign talent, how can foreign football be improving? The players have to come from somewhere! It's not the case that, up until 2000, 50% of the world's footballers were in Limbo, until the Premiership came along and rescued them from foreign wastelands and turned them into stars. If we are signing every other league's best players then their leagues must be getting weaker...

 

The problem here is that we AREN'T actually getting the best foreign players. We buy them aged 18-23 because it is easier than nurturing native players through academies from the age of 10 upwards and then taking the risk of putting them into our first teams. The difference between a run-of-the-mill English player at 20 and a German player is that the latter will have played regular football at a high level, whereas the former will have had a fortnight at Brentford if he's lucky. And the German academy system, at club level, must be properly maintained as a condition of their top flight status, with minimum squad quotas of German players. As a result, not only does their national side wipe the floor with ours, but their league is heading that way too.

 

So perhaps world football is better now than 15 years ago, after all. It's literally impossible to say. Not many Real Madrid or Valencia fans would agree, but if you speak to a Barca fan, or a Bayern fan, then I'm sure they'd be with you. But the argument for a significant improvement in the English league, either comparative or otherwise, is a very shaky one. Especially if your argument is rooted in our league getting better at the expense of others. Because it isn't.

 

Actually not that hard to reply to thank god. 

 

I wasn't talking about the football league but it's certainly made the Championship much stronger and more competitive, as is evident by some of the teams disappearing down the trap door (ourselves included) since 1999. I don't think teams going bust has anything to do with this, it's just poor management. It's not a new thing either, see Maidestone United.

 

Anyway I was talking World Football, and as a whole, not specific leagues. The Fitness is better, and there are more players emerging as money is ploughed into the game in different countries, unfashionable national sides in Africa and Asia are starting to emerge and qualify for World Cups the game has never stopped growing, and so more people play it, and so the talent pool gets bigger, and so on and so forth. The game continues to evolve as it has done since about 1925. And I think a fan of any team would agree with that even if their own side is doing a little worse than they were 10-15-20 years ago. 

 

Although in the interest of continuing to argue you will no doubt disagree that continued growth and development has had no effect at all. 

[inckley fox]

1. But your only admitting Scholes and Beckham were better and are refusing to admit anyone else was, so you are, really.

2. But you keep saying he should of played ahead of players who play there.

3. But he couldn't get in that Turkey side..

4. But that was 60 years ago, now every international side consists of the eleven best individuals in each position. Your Spain Example flopped.

5. But in 2010 he'd already not kicked a ball for Spain in 2 years, and they'd won a majot tournament, the ones I know, thought fair enough. 

6. But that's the only, freak, example. Every major tournament post 92 besides that backs my argument. So I have about 8 examples to your 1.

7. Izzet was an average Premiership midfielder, and Guppy was an average Premier League winger, like we were an average Premier League team, no argument.

8. It's called having a debate and having an opinion if you want to sit their and say "It's impossible to say" and "there is no cast iron evidence well then your wasting your time here as it can apply to most topics! Sit on that fence if you want though.

9. Their part of the regime, therefore they will be fitter and wont get left behind it is simple. No link though, again. Like the 15 Izzet assists actually. 

10. I do dispute that

11. Oh is this "my example" again . The fact they had 10 more points does indeed show they were a better side as I've already told you, I don't think that side was 10 points better than the current one though, again pointing to a better league. You seem to forgot, this is Ferdinand and Lampard when they were young. 

12. But it's still more impressive. 

13. And 3/4 leads to a better game and a higher standard 

14. I have spent the afternoon trying to find you this and unfortunately I have to use your favorite website as it's literally the only place I can get the table they did base this seasons draw off.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Champions_League    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Europa_League   --- I am not disputing it's not currently at it's peak however it was very recently and it's still better than the 1900's. It's a proper international league these days with some of the best players in the world,

 

Izzet and Guppy 'average'? Just because we finished mid-table doesn't mean that all of our players were average! That would mean that Phil Gilchrist and Spencer Prior were of roughly the same standard as Izzet and Guppy. At times your understanding of the game is so black-and-white it is staggering. Izzet and Guppy were - as acknowledged by many at the time - exceptionally gifted players in a side which finished in the top half of the table AND won trophies from 1997-2000. On top of that they were, statistically, two of the most creative English players in the game in the second half of the 90s.

 

For the record we weren't just 'average'. Over those four seasons only five other teams finished in the top half of the Premier League in each of them and only five other teams won any silverware at all.

 

As for Turkey - well as we've long since established, he did get in their side on eight occasions and played in a World Cup (Semi Final) for them. It's still a more successful international career than any England player of the era enjoyed. This despite the fact that he didn't speak Turkish and made his debut for them as O'Neill was leaving and Leicester were starting out on their downwards trajectory. And, you know, these are facts.

 

Then you said I was picking on 'the one freak example' with Greece. Well, it's understandable when you consider that this tournament was in 2004, when the game was - according to you - at its peak and their star man, and indeed the whole European Cup's star man, was an ex-Leicester man who hadn't been able to shift Izzet from the side from 97-2000. And, as it happens, I don't think it is such a freak. There were six winners in the 90s and 2000s. The fact that Denmark and Greece constitute a third of them attests to that.

 

And finally, West Ham getting ten more points this season is perhaps the best evidence there has ever been that the PL is weaker now than it was 15 years ago, when they had players who were not only vastly superior then - but in many cases are still vastly superior now - in their side.

 

I was talking World Football, and as a whole, not specific leagues. The Fitness is better, and there are more players emerging as money is ploughed into the game in different countries, unfashionable national sides in Africa and Asia are starting to emerge and qualify for World Cups

 

So you're saying there are more footballers now than there were before? Are you sure you're not confusing 'more players' with 'more players coming to England from countries you'd never heard of'.

 

Your argument, from what I can fathom, is that major European leagues pump more money into poorer leagues, who in turn have to quickly go about producing even MORE players because we keep buying all of the ones they've got, and therefore the standard of football as a whole has improved. Very capitalist. It's a bit like saying that more countries eat baked beans today than forty years ago, so therefore the quality of the product is much better.

 

And yet the vast bulk of English transfer money still goes to the Spanish, Italian, French and German leagues, instead of the Mauritian or Samoan leagues. I doubt very much that the standard of those leagues has been hugely improved, and if it has, then there has been very little impact on the game at its highest level. Indeed, the German league sees relatively little transfer activity with foreign leagues, and yet it is the most-improved league in Europe right now - which sort of blows your argument that increased overseas trading automatically improves your league.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

If every player had to play for a club within their own country, things might be quite interesting. Would Man U still be top dogs? The standard of club football would drop, and quite possibly our national game would improve.

[inckley fox]

14. I have spent the afternoon trying to find you this and unfortunately I have to use your favorite website as it's literally the only place I can get the table they did base this seasons draw off.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Champions_League    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_UEFA_Europa_League   --- I am not disputing it's not currently at it's peak however it was very recently and it's still better than the 1900's. It's a proper international league these days with some of the best players in the world,

 

You said that these were the rankings. But they are based on the 2012, not the 2013, Coefficients. Spain are top, England second and Germany a very close third right now, which is what I said in the first place.

[Manwell Pablo]

You said that these were the rankings. But they are based on the 2012, not the 2013, Coefficients. Spain are top, England second and Germany a very close third right now, which is what I said in the first place.

 

It doesn't matter, they're the ones in use.

[Manwell Pablo]

Izzet and Guppy 'average'? Just because we finished mid-table doesn't mean that all of our players were average! That would mean that Phil Gilchrist and Spencer Prior were of roughly the same standard as Izzet and Guppy. At times your understanding of the game is so black-and-white it is staggering. Izzet and Guppy were - as acknowledged by many at the time - exceptionally gifted players in a side which finished in the top half of the table AND won trophies from 1997-2000. On top of that they were, statistically, two of the most creative English players in the game in the second half of the 90s.

 

For the record we weren't just 'average'. Over those four seasons only five other teams finished in the top half of the Premier League in each of them and only five other teams won any silverware at all.

 

As for Turkey - well as we've long since established, he did get in their side on eight occasions and played in a World Cup (Semi Final) for them. It's still a more successful international career than any England player of the era enjoyed. This despite the fact that he didn't speak Turkish and made his debut for them as O'Neill was leaving and Leicester were starting out on their downwards trajectory. And, you know, these are facts.

 

Then you said I was picking on 'the one freak example' with Greece. Well, it's understandable when you consider that this tournament was in 2004, when the game was - according to you - at its peak and their star man, and indeed the whole European Cup's star man, was an ex-Leicester man who hadn't been able to shift Izzet from the side from 97-2000. And, as it happens, I don't think it is such a freak. There were six winners in the 90s and 2000s. The fact that Denmark and Greece constitute a third of them attests to that.

 

And finally, West Ham getting ten more points this season is perhaps the best evidence there has ever been that the PL is weaker now than it was 15 years ago, when they had players who were not only vastly superior then - but in many cases are still vastly superior now - in their side.

 

 

So you're saying there are more footballers now than there were before? Are you sure you're not confusing 'more players' with 'more players coming to England from countries you'd never heard of'.

 

Your argument, from what I can fathom, is that major European leagues pump more money into poorer leagues, who in turn have to quickly go about producing even MORE players because we keep buying all of the ones they've got, and therefore the standard of football as a whole has improved. Very capitalist. It's a bit like saying that more countries eat baked beans today than forty years ago, so therefore the quality of the product is much better.

 

And yet the vast bulk of English transfer money still goes to the Spanish, Italian, French and German leagues, instead of the Mauritian or Samoan leagues. I doubt very much that the standard of those leagues has been hugely improved, and if it has, then there has been very little impact on the game at its highest level. Indeed, the German league sees relatively little transfer activity with foreign leagues, and yet it is the most-improved league in Europe right now - which sort of blows your argument that increased overseas trading automatically improves your league.

 

 

Oh dear, look at all the points you've missed! 

 

I've asked you three times now to show me these assist charts and I think if you’re going to keep quoting statistics I think you need to provide them. Speaking of statistics though, we were, statistically, average, League cup put to one side as you don't have to be a brilliant side to win that as you know. 9th, 10th, 10th, 8th (Izzets beast season if you ask me not 1998 as you falsely claim, this is why Turkey finally came knocking at the end of this season) 13th, there are 20 teams in the Premier League, and they are ranked in order from 1-20, and 10 would be the average, It's fair to say from 1996 - 2001, we were dictionary definition of consistently average! I personally don't think it's a slight on somebody to call them an average Premier League but then I forget you think he was the third best English midfielder at the time so I can see why our opinions would differ. There was nothing wrong with Prior btw, decent defender, average Premier League infact! I'm not saying for a second we didn't have any good Premier League players so it's not "black and white" and how you dare accuse anyone of being black and white given some of the rubbish statistical arguments you come out with I don't know, but back to the point I'd call Elliott, Lennon and Heskey (despite his lack of goals) "Good Premier League players" ahead of Izzet

 

I established he played in a semi-final, you didn't even know that. I have also established he wasn't very good for them, and he did nothing to get them to that semi-final, so it’s no achievement, he doesn't even regard is as a achievement himself. If you think that's a bigger achievement than gaining 50 caps for England, which I'm sure he wouldn't forget live on Television, then sorry I disagree, and I'm betting he would as well. 

 

2004 wasn't the peak of anything, I've never said that, and you accuse me of getting desperate! The game has continuously got better on a global scale since it was invented, for the Premier League, the peak was circa 2008 where we were totally dominating the Champions League.

 

I am not going to take anything away from Theo he had a great tournament as did Gergios Karagounis, Charisteas and Stellios (excuse my Greek spelling) however they weren't the best side, got outplayed in some games and still somehow managed to skank the goal they needed and they only got out of the group on goal difference or some something stupid like head to head if I remember, and for some reason France completely failed to turn up against them if I remember as well. Let’s not pretend they were brilliant they were a tight unit but they were also very, very lucky, same with Denmark in 1992, they were lucky to even be at the tournament, it’s just one of those sporting upsets that happen from time to time, nothing more. And to say the fact Theo picked up a winners medal in 2004 but yet was kept out of the team by Izzet (it was Lennon anyway) is a sign the Premier League is better now is just wrong, his club and international career besides those 4 weeks in the summer of 04 is nothing to write home about, he was no fantastic player, he certainly wasn't bad but he played at a fairly modest level in the Greek Prem . And to say Greece shows you don't have to play your best team to win things, well no, as they also played the best team they could put out at that tournament , so that's a stupid argument as well! 

 

And you dress it up anyway you want, the other 8 tournaments we're won by top sides whether they happened to be the same country more than once is totally irrelevant. Your whole argument is based on exceptions as opposed to the rules and therefore it has no weight.

 

 

Back to "My example" of West Ham, FFS     the 1997 team got 10 more points, not the current one, read what I said again. As I say, you’re looking at the names of the players who played for West Ham not how good they were at the time your repeated misquoting of players ability in the 90's shows you’re just making things up as you go. Lampard and Sinclair were really not that good in the late 90's, although I admit I'd sooner of seen either involved in the England setup before Izzet, another two reasons he should never of been capped. So no, no evidence there I'm afraid!

 

Finally, the denial of the obvious improving worldwide game (and my geography is decent enough thank you) transfer activity has little to do with it, and the Premier League is only fractionally involved as well in that it helps spread popularity. Smaller leagues are getting bigger there has been much more interest in the J-league, K-league, African leagues, and the MLS over the past 10 years (aided by Becks, Eastern Asian/South African world cups, and improving form these teams at tournaments)  the game is getting more popular, funding is being increased right through from grass roots to Premier League levels in Africa, Asia and even in unfashionable areas of Northe America like Honduras where they actually have a tidy national side now (some of which, play in the Premier League) And they are getting more and more players into top European leagues (not just the Premier League) the game is and will continue to grow, and more people watch, resulting in more money, and more people play, resulting in more talent, I find the fact that you have compared more people playing football to more people eating baked beans if is one of the most laughable analogy's I've read on here . If you get a pool of 100 people playing football in under funded environments and under unqualified coaches, and a pool of 2000 people playing football in decently funded conditions and under good quality coaches, in which pool are you more likely to a) find the raw talent required, and b) be able to develop a professional footballer. it's very simple.

 

If you honestly don't think that the improving funding and global exposure the game is continuing to receive is comparable to Baked Beans being exported to more countries then I'm done with this discussion, tbh

[inckley fox]

Oh dear, look at all the points you've missed! 

 

I've asked you three times now to show me these assist charts and I think if you’re going to keep quoting statistics I think you need to provide them. Speaking of statistics though, we were, statistically, average, League cup put to one side as you don't have to be a brilliant side to win that as you know. 9th, 10th, 10th, 8th (Izzets beast season if you ask me not 1998 as you falsely claim, this is why Turkey finally came knocking at the end of this season) 13th, there are 20 teams in the Premier League, and they are ranked in order from 1-20, and 10 would be the average, It's fair to say from 1996 - 2001, we were dictionary definition of consistently average! I personally don't think it's a slight on somebody to call them an average Premier League but then I forget you think he was the third best English midfielder at the time so I can see why our opinions would differ. There was nothing wrong with Prior btw, decent defender, average Premier League infact! I'm not saying for a second we didn't have any good Premier League players so it's not "black and white" and how you dare accuse anyone of being black and white given some of the rubbish statistical arguments you come out with I don't know, but back to the point I'd call Elliott, Lennon and Heskey (despite his lack of goals) "Good Premier League players" ahead of Izzet

 

I established he played in a semi-final, you didn't even know that. I have also established he wasn't very good for them, and he did nothing to get them to that semi-final, so it’s no achievement, he doesn't even regard is as a achievement himself. If you think that's a bigger achievement than gaining 50 caps for England, which I'm sure he wouldn't forget live on Television, then sorry I disagree, and I'm betting he would as well. 

 

2004 wasn't the peak of anything, I've never said that, and you accuse me of getting desperate! The game has continuously got better on a global scale since it was invented, for the Premier League, the peak was circa 2008 where we were totally dominating the Champions League.

 

I am not going to take anything away from Theo he had a great tournament as did Gergios Karagounis, Charisteas and Stellios (excuse my Greek spelling) however they weren't the best side, got outplayed in some games and still somehow managed to skank the goal they needed and they only got out of the group on goal difference or some something stupid like head to head if I remember, and for some reason France completely failed to turn up against them if I remember as well. Let’s not pretend they were brilliant they were a tight unit but they were also very, very lucky, same with Denmark in 1992, they were lucky to even be at the tournament, it’s just one of those sporting upsets that happen from time to time, nothing more. And to say the fact Theo picked up a winners medal in 2004 but yet was kept out of the team by Izzet (it was Lennon anyway) is a sign the Premier League is better now is just wrong, his club and international career besides those 4 weeks in the summer of 04 is nothing to write home about, he was no fantastic player, he certainly wasn't bad but he played at a fairly modest level in the Greek Prem . And to say Greece shows you don't have to play your best team to win things, well no, as they also played the best team they could put out at that tournament , so that's a stupid argument as well! 

 

And you dress it up anyway you want, the other 8 tournaments we're won by top sides whether they happened to be the same country more than once is totally irrelevant. Your whole argument is based on exceptions as opposed to the rules and therefore it has no weight.

 

 

Back to "My example" of West Ham, FFS     the 1997 team got 10 more points, not the current one, read what I said again. As I say, you’re looking at the names of the players who played for West Ham not how good they were at the time your repeated misquoting of players ability in the 90's shows you’re just making things up as you go. Lampard and Sinclair were really not that good in the late 90's, although I admit I'd sooner of seen either involved in the England setup before Izzet, another two reasons he should never of been capped. So no, no evidence there I'm afraid!

 

Finally, the denial of the obvious improving worldwide game (and my geography is decent enough thank you) transfer activity has little to do with it, and the Premier League is only fractionally involved as well in that it helps spread popularity. Smaller leagues are getting bigger there has been much more interest in the J-league, K-league, African leagues, and the MLS over the past 10 years (aided by Becks, Eastern Asian/South African world cups, and improving form these teams at tournaments)  the game is getting more popular, funding is being increased right through from grass roots to Premier League levels in Africa, Asia and even in unfashionable areas of Northe America like Honduras where they actually have a tidy national side now (some of which, play in the Premier League) And they are getting more and more players into top European leagues (not just the Premier League) the game is and will continue to grow, and more people watch, resulting in more money, and more people play, resulting in more talent, I find the fact that you have compared more people playing football to more people eating baked beans if is one of the most laughable analogy's I've read on here . If you get a pool of 100 people playing football in under funded environments and under unqualified coaches, and a pool of 2000 people playing football in decently funded conditions and under good quality coaches, in which pool are you more likely to a) find the raw talent required, and b) be able to develop a professional footballer. it's very simple.

 

If you honestly don't think that the improving funding and global exposure the game is continuing to receive is comparable to Baked Beans being exported to more countries then I'm done with this discussion, tbh

 

1. http://www.premiersoccerstats.com/Records.cfm?DOrderby=Ass&DYearby=1999/00

I didn't provide a link because it's so easy to find. Like providing a link for Google.

 

2. The point is that more money doesn't necessarily mean an improvement in the product, which is what you kept saying on page one. Heinz make more money these days and produce more cans of beans, but that doesn't mean that they are of a better standard than they were a decade ago. You can apply the same logic to the construction industry (we produce a lot more buildings these days, and much quicker, but does modern architecture stand up to 18th / 19th century architecture?) or to the music industry (there are more bands than there were in the 60s, there's more money in the industry, but are One Direction better than the Stones or The Beatles? Or even Blur, Radiohead and Oasis?)

 

3. We were talking repeatedly about 1997-2000. Over that period we finished 9th, 10th, 10th, 8th. Above average.

 

4. So League Cups don't count because they're too easy. Since we won it Man U have won three, Liverpool three, Chelsea two and Spurs one. The other four winners were all Premier League sides. But of course, 'anyone can win it'.

 

5. The point re: Greece is that THEY weren't the best eleven individuals in one team in that tournament; they were the best TEAM. The same applies to Denmark. Neither you nor I are well-versed enough on Greek football ten years ago to be sure that it was their highest profile XI, but we can be sure that it wasn't the highest profile eleven players in that tournament. And I still maintain that any football manager would be astonished that a serious fan of the game could think that international management is all about picking the best player in each position and making the best of it.

 

6. As I keep saying, an improvement in the Honduran league doesn't necessarily mean an improvement in ours! Yes we've got two or three of their best players in the Prem, but we signed them because it is less of a risk bringing in mature professionals than it is nurturing and blooding your own professionals. That doesn't mean that, when they reach their peak, they are better players than the English lads would have been. Like I said, the Spanish and German leagues do less business with foreign nations than we do, and it didn't hurt them last season.

 

7. Development and improvement are two different things.

 

8. A third of European Cups since the 1990s have been won by smaller teams. That's not a freak occurrence. Of course the biggest teams normally win it, when they have a team and not just a bunch of incongruously assembled star men. Spain are the world's biggest team right now, but they played much of the last tournament with Fabregas as their most attacking player. Do you really think that he was the best Spanish attacking option in the world at that time? Of course not, but the manager selected a team rather than just the best players in each position.

 

9. Didn't Gary Neville describe his England career as 'pointless' because he never won anything? He never finished 3rd place in a World Cup like Izzet, or won a European Cup as captain and got named player-of-the-tournament like Izzet's deputy as Leicester did, in spite of his three million caps. He may be a better player and his number of caps more impressive, but he'd have sacrificed the bulk of them to have what Zagorakis and, perhaps, even Izzet had.

[Col city fan]

It's STILL going!!