The quality of today's professional footballer's.

[inckley fox]

It's STILL going!!

 

I thought 'I'm on holiday, think of all the things I can do'. Romantic dinners, paint the living room, read a couple of books, go for a walk in the sun, visit loved ones, go the pub, learn how to surf... But then this happened.

 

It's better fun than it looks, though.

[Manwell Pablo]

I thought 'I'm on holiday, think of all the things I can do'. Romantic dinners, paint the living room, read a couple of books, go for a walk in the sun, visit loved ones, go the pub, learn how to surf... But then this happened.

 

It's better fun than it looks, though.

 

That's even worse, I've at least been paid by the hour for at least half of these!

[Manwell Pablo]

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.

 

Couldn't find anything on Google but thank you, turns out that car crash of a footballer Nicky Barmby wasn't so bad after all then?

 

No, in Sport, it really does. Especially at development level, it's not comparable to anything you've bought up especially not the music business. I'm not going to argue this as I know if your any kind of fan of Sport will know you need to invest in a sport to improve it that and your just arguing to be awkward. 

 

We finished slightly above the exact mean of 1-20 which is 10. Without finishing 10th successively for four years it's about as bang average as you can get with an average position of 9.25 (if you remove the 13th to suit your argument, you've bought up other stats from Izzets career in 03/04, or 04/05 as you otherwise call it so I don't see why that or any other top flight season he's played in should be discounted when discussing his Leicester career as opposed to his England one). Slightly above the exact numerical average if your being a pedantic hair splitting Muppet about it (which you will no doubt will be) but to me that definitely falls into the bracket of average team for me even if you Dr the stats to suit your arguement. 

 

It counts as a cup win, it's cup football though not it's not proof of quality, especially not the League cup, it's nice to win, but the best team often wont do as well due to them taking it less seriously than others and there is a lot of luck involved in a straight 7 round knock out tournament. You can't say we were the best team in England because we won the League Cup.

 

You can speak for yourself with that one, that was their best XI with little debate they had a very good starting XI for a Greek team, most of the first XI we're playing top level football around Europe Karagounis was at Inter I think Charistias was somewhere in Germany at the time and obviously you had Stellios at Bolton I think they had a couple of players playing in Spain/Italy really can't be arsed to check, any but once you got down as far as the bench. You had your friend and mine Nikos Dabizas and that Papadapolous (spelling and can't remember his first name) bloke who Burnley got rid of a bit before the tournament. You find it funny that an international manager would pick his best players and your calling me strange?  And I never said it was "all about" that, I said you pick your best players and form your game plan. Alternately you can pick your game plan and pick your best players for it, either way your picking your best players for the positions you want. Obviously this is a simplistic gloss over what is a hugely complicated job but it's the crux of picking a squad.

 

You haven't numbered these very well are you your just fleeting from argument to argument. Again I never said it has improved ours (although foreign imports have improved the game and played a major part in the Premier dominating the late 00's) I was saying WORLD FOOTBALL has improved and last time I checked, all of these leagues are IN THE WORLD. Although I maintain the larger the talent pool the better the higher level footballers will be. You'll find Spanish and German leagues will do more business with foreign leagues as time goes on, and the two have less of a need to business with foreign leagues at the moment as well, as they have considerable more talent in their home nations at the moment as well they have two of the best national sides in the world and good depth. This is why you have so many Germans in Bayerns side and decent number of Spaniards in Barce's side. You'll also find whilst they did alright last season they've got a long way to go before they enjoy the kind of years English teams had where you could expect to see a English team at least make the final most years, and not even the same one, every single one of the big four featured at some point.  

 

Of course it does, how can you see the development and improving popularity of a game cannot improve the standard of it.....especially in developing countries.....

 

Yes it is, If you watched 2004 you'd know the Greeks were lucky, and if you know about Denmark 1992 you'd know they shouldn't have even been there as they failed to qualify for the tournament (which only had 8 teams in btw) and got through on a lucky technicality so if that's not a freak victory I don't know what is, they won a penalty shoot out  and went onto the final were they got BATTERED how they won that game is one of the biggest mystery's in football! Schemical was superb. Both teams weren't impressive and they failed to dominate any game they played in, things just went their way. You'll get fewer upsets in World Cups due to the 32 team format favoring the better sides, look down the winners list, you'll see genuine quality. As I say you use the exception rather than the rule to argue and therefore your argument has no weight.

 

What are you on about! If anything Fabregas proves my point that you pick your best players! They picked their best 11, even though it didn't include a single fcking striker and made a system out of it......let's not pretend he was playing up front he was wasn't, he was playing where he always does in attacking midfield...it was famously described as the 4-6-0, Jesus. 

 

What's Zagorakis got to do with it and why do you keep bringing him up? Your constant referencing of him is embarrassing, to read your own argument back to you, you are arguing that because the best defensive midfielder in Greece had a really good tackling percentage at Euro 2004 and won the tournament and player of the tournament off the back of it, in a otherwise mediocre career; His one team Leicester CIty team mate who plays the attacking role instead of the defensive one should of played for England 6 years earlier........   How is this any kind of reasonable argument it doesn't even make sense. 

 

 I somewhat doubt Gary Neville would consider his international career as a success if he had a World Cup 3rd place medal having played 16 minutes of a losing semi final and 8 caps with a decent amount being off the bench, somehow. I'm sure if you offered him a swap with Muzzy he'd stick and likewise, Mr Izzet would jump at the chance of swapping, so no, wrong again. You can even tweet him and ask him if you want he's quite good at replying. 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Anyone who believes the League Cup to be unimportant, clearly is in need of medical attention. It provides financial rewards,boosts team confidence, boosts fans confidence, and can put you in the mix with the big teams. ANY side from top of the Premiership downwards would dearly love to win it, as many have top teams have, and is always a target to win. Clearly, it is not as prestigious as the FA Cup because of it's long history, but it is, nevertheless an important competition to win.

[Manwell Pablo]

Anyone who believes the League Cup to be unimportant, clearly is in need of medical attention. It provides financial rewards,boosts team confidence, boosts fans confidence, and can put you in the mix with the big teams. ANY side from top of the Premiership downwards would dearly love to win it, as many have top teams have, and is always a target to win. Clearly, it is not as prestigious as the FA Cup because of it's long history, but it is, nevertheless an important competition to win.

 

I didn't say that did I.

[Oxfordfox83]

It's STILL going!!

I can't believe that two fans on FT have kept this up for so long without it degenerating into massive slanging matches. It's BRILLIANT. And well-argued. Although, unequivocally, Muzzy rules...

[Manwell Pablo]

I can't believe that two fans on FT have kept this up for so long without it degenerating into massive slanging matches. It's BRILLIANT. And well-argued. Although, unequivocally, Muzzy rules...

 

My house rabbits named Muzzy. he's been looking at me funny ever since this kicked off.

[Manwell Pablo]

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.

 

That website looks incorrect to me as well if it's reporting on what is an actual assist, a ball played and put in with fewer than 3 touches from the scoring player. If you look at most official statistics for assists the most you can hope for from you very best players is about 15 where as some of the figures there seem ridiculous. For all players.

 

But we'll go with it though, you claim Izzet should gone to France 1998, from the link you've shown me shows Mark Draper and Graham Stuart above him in the assist charts for 1996/97 and I can't even see him as he's not in the top 50. The season later he's behind near enough ever single player you've slagged off and claimed he should have been at France 98 instead of and referred to as "ball winning defensive midfielders" in this thread........including Barmby, Ince, and Wise......all the way down in 43rd. The season after I see a certain Lee Hendrie in his first proper season in front of him as well when he earned his cap......well he's 11th.... I yet again don't see Izzet in the top 50. He has one statistical good season, where he finishes between 2-8 assists ahead of his counter parts which was as I've already was his beat season, the season after he's out of the top 50 again........

 

No wonder you were reluctant to share your source.

 

EDIT: And on further inspection, he doesn't even break into the top 50 goal scorers at any point in the 1997-2000 period, where as near enough every single player you've referred to as vastly inferior to him, and as "defensive ball winning players" barring Batty, the only actual defensive midfilder you've mentioned does so. Laughable, has someone ordered a taxi to Hinckley?

[inckley fox]

That website looks incorrect to me as well if it's reporting on what is an actual assist, a ball played and put in with fewer than 3 touches from the scoring player. If you look at most official statistics for assists the most you can hope for from you very best players is about 15 where as some of the figures there seem ridiculous. For all players.

 

But we'll go with it though, you claim Izzet should gone to France 1998, from the link you've shown me shows Mark Draper and Graham Stuart above him in the assist charts for 1996/97 and I can't even see him as he's not in the top 50. The season later he's behind near enough ever single player you've slagged off and claimed he should have been at France 98 instead of and referred to as "ball winning defensive midfielders" in this thread........including Barmby, Ince, and Wise......all the way down in 43rd. The season after I see a certain Lee Hendrie in his first proper season in front of him as well when he earned his cap......well he's 11th.... I yet again don't see Izzet in the top 50. He has one statistical good season, where he finishes between 2-8 assists ahead of his counter parts which was as I've already was his beat season, the season after he's out of the top 50 again........

 

No wonder you were reluctant to share your source.

 

EDIT: And on further inspection, he doesn't even break into the top 50 goal scorers at any point in the 1997-2000 period, where as near enough every single player you've referred to as vastly inferior to him, and as "defensive ball winning players" barring Batty, the only actual defensive midfilder you've mentioned does so. Laughable, has someone ordered a taxi to Hinckley?

 

I originally got my source from another link, it's not the same one. But it still offers up the same information: Izzet was 7th top in the assists chart in 99-2000 (and the highest placed Englishman in the same chart in 03-04). Guppy - who you seem to think was also just 'average' - was in the top ten every year from 97-98, one year of which he was second behind Beckham.

[Manwell Pablo]

I originally got my source from another link, it's not the same one. But it still offers up the same information: Izzet was 7th top in the assists chart in 99-2000 (and the highest placed Englishman in the same chart in 03-04). Guppy - who you seem to think was also just 'average' - was in the top ten every year from 97-98, one year of which he was second behind Beckham.

 

Well your point was he should of played in 1998, which you argued over and over again, when I've been reliably informed he got 1 assist. That looks pretty dead in the water to me. 7th behind Nick Barmby who placed above him every year he was playing top level football near enough, who you've slated. So if your taking an extra attacking midfieder it'd be him. Based on your purely statistics based argument.

 

If you think he should of played ahead of Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Beckham, Hargreaves, in 2004 because he could put a set piece in then we'll have a discussion.

 

In the mean time, that meter's running.

[inckley fox]

Well your point was he should of played in 1998, which you argued over and over again, when I've been reliably informed he got 1 assist. That looks pretty dead in the water to me. 7th behind Nick Barmby who placed above him every year he was playing top level football near enough, who you've slated. So if your taking an extra attacking midfieder it'd be him. Based on your purely statistics based argument.

 

If you think he should of played ahead of Gerrard, Lampard, Scholes, Beckham, Hargreaves, in 2004 because he could put a set piece in then we'll have a discussion.

 

In the mean time, that meter's running.

 

I think we've repeatedly focused on 99-2000, rather than 97-98. Or, more generally speaking, the 97-2000 period as a whole. I'm not sure why you think the whole discussion has been focused on 1998. But in 1998 Izzet was 23, looking very competent indeed in the top flight and at the start of 98-99 he really began to hit form, so I think he should have been considered as of 98, yes. It's hardly a 'purely statistics argument' because, while the stats back up what I'm saying for 2000, they don't back up what I'm saying for 1998.

 

As for Barmby, of course Izzet should have been in the squad ahead of him come 2000. Barmby had been playing for England for four or five years, picked up twenty odd caps and never reproduced anything like his club form. It hadn't happened for him. So do you persist for another two or three years, or do you give someone of a similar calibre a crack? And, thanks to hindsight, we KNOW that persisting didn't work.

[Manwell Pablo]

I think we've repeatedly focused on 99-2000, rather than 97-98. Or, more generally speaking, the 97-2000 period as a whole. I'm not sure why you think the whole discussion has been focused on 1998. But in 1998 Izzet was 23, looking very competent indeed in the top flight and at the start of 98-99 he really began to hit form, so I think he should have been considered as of 98, yes. It's hardly a 'purely statistics argument' because, while the stats back up what I'm saying for 2000, they don't back up what I'm saying for 1998.

 

As for Barmby, of course Izzet should have been in the squad ahead of him come 2000. Barmby had been playing for England for four or five years, picked up twenty odd caps and never reproduced anything like his club form. It hadn't happened for him. So do you persist for another two or three years, or do you give someone of a similar calibre a crack? And, thanks to hindsight, we KNOW that persisting didn't work.

 

You've run yourself into so many corners during this it's unbelievable, and I've purposely set you up for another one here.

 

Nick Barmby played left wing, often starting, for Engalnd so of course Izzet shouldn't have been ahead of him, and he had a fair few decent games in an England shirt for your info, lncluding the 5-1 in Munich, I could go into more but it's growing ever more evident that after starting off talking a good game your a complete waste of time. A fairly intelligent bloke with an internet search engine but little actual footballing knowledge.

 

1998 is not even an argument, and the fact you want even concede so is a little embarrassing. If you'd of taken a pole around Filbo at the end of the 1998 season I'd guess less than 5% would agree with you, does it not worry you that your arguing in favour of a club legend  and no one is even attempting to back you up as well ?

[inckley fox]

You've run yourself into so many corners during this it's unbelievable, and I've purposely set you up for another one here.

 

Nick Barmby played left wing, often starting, for Engalnd so of course Izzet shouldn't have been ahead of him, and he had a fair few decent games in an England shirt for your info, lncluding the 5-1 in Munich, I could go into more but it's growing ever more evident that after starting off talking a good game your a complete waste of time. A fairly intelligent bloke with an internet search engine but little actual footballing knowledge.

 

1998 is not even an argument, and the fact you want even concede so is a little embarrassing. If you'd of taken a pole around Filbo at the end of the 1998 season I'd guess less than 5% would agree with you, does it not worry you that your arguing in favour of a club legend  and no one is even attempting to back you up as well ?

 

Barmby also played in the capitulation to Germany at Wembley a year earlier. The Germany win was one of his last international games before he was completely discarded by the national side - and he was substituted half-way through the second half. Yes I know he played on the left at times, but on the left of a midfield diamond instead of a flat 4-4-2. And, if you look, when Barmby was out wide we quite often had Parlour and Wise in the centre. And I'd argue that neither should have been in the side ahead of Izzet come 2000.

 

While I've been open about the information I've picked up off the internet, I'm not convinced you've been so honest. The fact that you have about 21,600 more posts than me on this forum suggests that you spend a great deal more time at a computer than I do. Obviously I'm not the geyser of footballing wisdom that you are, but if it's misinformed of me to think that Izzet and Guppy were 'above average' and worthy competitors for the likes of Lee Hendrie, Sherwood, Boro-era Ince or an ageing Dennis Wise then I think I'll settle for that.

 

And, on top of that, you are the chap who said that Hendrie was better than Izzet, that finishing 3rd in a World Cup does not represent success but 50 caps for a side that wins nothing does, that Greece winning the Euro Cup (with a player who couldn't dislodge Izzet from the Leicester team as their captain and player-of-the-tournament) was a freak occurrence (even though a third of the winners since 1990 have been minor teams), that nobody in Spain come 2010 thought that Raul should be in the team, that an international manager should select the best eleven individuals rather than try to put together a cohesive team and that the modern West Ham side is better than the one with Lampard, Sinclair, Ferdinand and Berkovic in it. You think that the English league is still top of the European rankings (which it still isn't), think there are less 30+ year old players in football now than before (when there are more) and think that anyone can win the League Cup, even though all of the winners since City have been top flight sides and Manchester Utd / Chelsea / Liverpool / Spurs have won the bulk of them.

 

Other than that, though, you've probably been right about everything.

 

As for nobody backing me up on here, well I've not seen anyone jumping on the 'Muzzy Izzet was inferior to every other midfielder in the England side between 1997 and 2000' bandwagon either. Even you have gone soft on that one and conceded that he was 'a good Premiership player' (having previously called him 'average') who probably deserved a few caps for England. Which was pretty much what I said in the first place.

 

And it's quite possible that people on this forum haven't bothered to take sides because they got bored of all our posts after the first 3000 words.

[inckley fox]

You and I could have written a book instead of doing this, you know. So long as it has nothing to do with football.

[Manwell Pablo]

Barmby also played in the capitulation to Germany at Wembley a year earlier. The Germany win was one of his last international games before he was completely discarded by the national side - and he was substituted half-way through the second half. Yes I know he played on the left at times, but on the left of a midfield diamond instead of a flat 4-4-2. And, if you look, when Barmby was out wide we quite often had Parlour and Wise in the centre. And I'd argue that neither should have been in the side ahead of Izzet come 2000.

 

While I've been open about the information I've picked up off the internet, I'm not convinced you've been so honest. The fact that you have about 21,600 more posts than me on this forum suggests that you spend a great deal more time at a computer than I do. Obviously I'm not the geyser of footballing wisdom that you are, but if it's misinformed of me to think that Izzet and Guppy were 'above average' and worthy competitors for the likes of Lee Hendrie, Sherwood, Boro-era Ince or an ageing Dennis Wise then I think I'll settle for that.

 

And, on top of that, you are the chap who said that Hendrie was better than Izzet, that finishing 3rd in a World Cup does not represent success but 50 caps for a side that wins nothing does, that Greece winning the Euro Cup (with a player who couldn't dislodge Izzet from the Leicester team as their captain and player-of-the-tournament) was a freak occurrence (even though a third of the winners since 1990 have been minor teams), that nobody in Spain come 2010 thought that Raul should be in the team, that an international manager should select the best eleven individuals rather than try to put together a cohesive team and that the modern West Ham side is better than the one with Lampard, Sinclair, Ferdinand and Berkovic in it. You think that the English league is still top of the European rankings (which it still isn't), think there are less 30+ year old players in football now than before (when there are more) and think that anyone can win the League Cup, even though all of the winners since City have been top flight sides and Manchester Utd / Chelsea / Liverpool / Spurs have won the bulk of them.

 

Other than that, though, you've probably been right about everything.

 

As for nobody backing me up on here, well I've not seen anyone jumping on the 'Muzzy Izzet was inferior to every other midfielder in the England side between 1997 and 2000' bandwagon either. Even you have gone soft on that one and conceded that he was 'a good Premiership player' (having previously called him 'average') who probably deserved a few caps for England. Which was pretty much what I said in the first place.

 

And it's quite possible that people on this forum haven't bothered to take sides because they got bored of all our posts after the first 3000 words.

 

Show me an England midfield that comprises of Wise Parlour and Barmby starting, all at the same time. Parlour is another one who deserved the few caps though playing in one of the easiest on the eye title winning sides of ever seen, nice to see we've finally abandoned in 1998 as well!

 

Correct and you've completely failed to successfully argue otherwise on near enough every single count. . 

 

People should be rushing to your side, your arguing...in favour, of a club legend, if I wasn't right there would be people rushing to your aid left right and centre! Notice there are none!

 

hilarious that you thought that joke was so good it was worthy of coming back to make a second post. 

 

I think I'm about done with now! Every single point in the highlighted bit is either true or misquoted.

[Kinowe Soorie]

The technical ability of today's professional footballer doesn't appear to me to be improving. And yes Izzet should have had the opportunity to play for England. He is the best midfielder I have seen play for Leicester since I've supported them, and to be honest I haven't seen much better for other teams!

[Brauny Fox]

Izzet was an above average Premier League Midfielder along with Guppy and Lennon. Muzzy should have been given an England call up, Guppy deserved more of a look in as well. Anyway......I'll leave you two to get back to your thread!!

[inckley fox]

The technical ability of today's professional footballer doesn't appear to me to be improving. And yes Izzet should have had the opportunity to play for England. He is the best midfielder I have seen play for Leicester since I've supported them, and to be honest I haven't seen much better for other teams!

 

I think the game is different inasmuch as stamina levels are better, players tend to be stronger and faster and pitches are better. Long ball football seems less effective to me, though I think this is because lots of sides incorporate direct football into their games, and because modern footballers are stronger they're less likely to get caught out by up-and-under football, forwards like Iwan Roberts and defenders like Gerry Taggart.

 

The game is also a lot less of a contact sport, in the 90s legislation was brought in against two footed tackles, professional fouls and tackles from behind, and there are certain sorts of player that would be less effective in the modern game as a result. Not that I think football is any better for it. Similarly the standard of crossing / corner delivery seems not to be what it once was. Sides prefer wingers who can walk the ball into the back of the net (I read an article about this sometime ago on, I think, the BBC website but I can't find it - sorry!).

 

My main point was that there is no way of measuring whether football has improved. A lot of players who were at the peak of their careers in the 90s are still in the top flight now, so clearly they didn't get left behind.

 

Izzet was an above average Premier League Midfielder along with Guppy and Lennon. Muzzy should have been given an England call up, Guppy deserved more of a look in as well. Anyway......I'll leave you two to get back to your thread!!

 

You're right. Most top managers of the time praised the strength of our midfield - to have Lennon, Izzet and Guppy in there, not to mention players like Savage and Parker - helped us to run far better sides ragged in that area of the park, even though we didn't have the most mobile of defences, or strikers that could get 15+ goals a season. But it's easy for people to forget that we were an above average side back then. We were one of just six teams to finish top half of the table for four years running, and we won two League Cups (and reached the final of another). So no, it's not our thread and it's good to see I didn't just imagine that we were pretty good once upon a time!

[inckley fox]

Show me an England midfield that comprises of Wise Parlour and Barmby starting, all at the same time. Parlour is another one who deserved the few caps though playing in one of the easiest on the eye title winning sides of ever seen, nice to see we've finally abandoned in 1998 as well!

 

Correct and you've completely failed to successfully argue otherwise on near enough every single count. . 

 

People should be rushing to your side, your arguing...in favour, of a club legend, if I wasn't right there would be people rushing to your aid left right and centre! Notice there are none!

 

hilarious that you thought that joke was so good it was worthy of coming back to make a second post. 

 

I think I'm about done with now! Every single point in the highlighted bit is either true or misquoted.

 

I'm not going to sift through every England line-up at that time, but in the game you used as an example Parlour and Wise came on and played in the centre of the park and Barmby started on the left wing. So it's hardly far-fetched to say that they played in the centre at times when he was in the squad, with him used on the left.

 

As for 'rushing to my side', do you seriously think that people +1ing you on a forum is proof that you're right? I made two points. a. That it's impossible to demonstrate that football is better now than it was in 2000, something which you stated as a fact. b. That Muzzy Izzet should have been given a debut for England, and considered a viable option ahead of several players who were, in the late 90s.

 

As far as (a) is concerned, you provided no proof apart from misquoting Coefficients as proof that the English game is better, then switching your argument to a claim that you're really talking about world football. And (b), well you yourself conceded that Izzet should have had a few games for England, so that was easily wrapped up.

 

As for that wonderful highlighted list of bizarre observations on your part - and there are some real gems in there - if the quotes are wrong then it's because they were wrong when you came up with them in the first place. You said all of those things and, even upon a second glance, you're still wrong on every single count. I sincerely hope that anybody who thinks that something which happens a third of the time is a 'freak occurrence' doesn't apply that same logic to, say, heart palpitations.

[Manwell Pablo]

I'm not going to sift through every England line-up at that time, but in the game you used as an example Parlour and Wise came on and played in the centre of the park and Barmby started on the left wing. So it's hardly far-fetched to say that they played in the centre at times when he was in the squad, with him used on the left.

 

As for 'rushing to my side', do you seriously think that people +1ing you on a forum is proof that you're right? I made two points. a. That it's impossible to demonstrate that football is better now than it was in 2000, something which you stated as a fact. b. That Muzzy Izzet should have been given a debut for England, and considered a viable option ahead of several players who were, in the late 90s.

 

As far as (a) is concerned, you provided no proof apart from misquoting Coefficients as proof that the English game is better, then switching your argument to a claim that you're really talking about world football. And (b), well you yourself conceded that Izzet should have had a few games for England, so that was easily wrapped up.

 

As for that wonderful highlighted list of bizarre observations on your part - and there are some real gems in there - if the quotes are wrong then it's because they were wrong when you came up with them in the first place. You said all of those things and, even upon a second glance, you're still wrong on every single count. I sincerely hope that anybody who thinks that something which happens a third of the time is a 'freak occurrence' doesn't apply that same logic to, say, heart palpitations.

 

 

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but, Germany 5-1? No they didn't! . Are we just lying now ? and you have the cheek to say i'm inaccurate . I have to correct you on something in nearly every post you make!

 

And as I say, nothing wrong with Parlour he was playing for a top Arsenal side at the time and he can hardly be lambasted for being a poor England player when he did alright in the few fleeting sub appearances he made, if a player like him was struggling to establish himself in that side then it's just another good reason Izzet should of never of got a cap. 

 

My opinion is one that would not normally sit well with Leicester fans if it weren't true, and whilst it is not cast iron proof (it is very difficult to prove many things in life to be 100% full proof this is why criminals are sent down when things are proven to be "beyond reasonable doubt") the fact that you've only got two people, one of whom is so blinkered he's claiming Izzet was one of the best midfielders he's ever seen, backs this up. As I say you take this discussion out of a Leicester City forum to a neutral and you'll probably just get stared at like you're mad, and rightly so. 

 

For the last time, I haven't misquoted anything, there the ones used to make the draws for the tournaments for this season and they show us at the top, you do know the live table means nothing it is the snap shot of it they take every year that decides tournament draws? Even if you're right we're still 2nd which is better than we were.

 

I have, unlike your extremly stubborn self, have attempted to be a bit open minded and in the interest of having a discussion over internet slagging match, said it was a possibility  Izzet may have picked up a cap or two if injuries squad withdrawals went his way that is not quite saying he should of played a game is it, there's a rather big difference there, there are plenty of players who shouldn't have played for England but did (although you're doing an excellent job of bringing up the ones that deserved what little involvement they got) 

 

There are only a few that have been misquoted most of them are bang on and you have totally failed to offer any kind of argument that's not been rebuffed and then ignored by your good self to say otherwise and now all your doing is shouting "you're wrong" at me really loudly , The West Ham you have continually misquoted, unless I've gone mad and it's slipped out I've not once said the current side is actually a better side than the current one I don't think (although, there's a debate to be had there) if I have then fair enough it would be hard to say that for certain. I have said the 1990's side finished higher and with more points so comparing them like for like is not a fair comparison and that the current side is definitely not 10 points worse than the 90's side!

[Kinowe Soorie]

I think you'll find that you misquoted me Manwell...

[inckley fox]

Excuse me if I'm reading this wrong but, Germany 5-1? No they didn't! . Are we just lying now ? and you have the cheek to say i'm inaccurate . I have to correct you on something in nearly every post you make!

 

And as I say, nothing wrong with Parlour he was playing for a top Arsenal side at the time and he can hardly be lambasted for being a poor England player when he did alright in the few fleeting sub appearances he made, if a player like him was struggling to establish himself in that side then it's just another good reason Izzet should of never of got a cap. 

 

My opinion is one that would not normally sit well with Leicester fans if it weren't true, and whilst it is not cast iron proof (it is very difficult to prove many things in life to be 100% full proof this is why criminals are sent down when things are proven to be "beyond reasonable doubt") the fact that you've only got two people, one of whom is so blinkered he's claiming Izzet was one of the best midfielders he's ever seen, backs this up. As I say you take this discussion out of a Leicester City forum to a neutral and you'll probably just get stared at like you're mad, and rightly so. 

 

For the last time, I haven't misquoted anything, there the ones used to make the draws for the tournaments for this season and they show us at the top, you do know the live table means nothing it is the snap shot of it they take every year that decides tournament draws? Even if you're right we're still 2nd which is better than we were.

 

I have, unlike your extremly stubborn self, have attempted to be a bit open minded and in the interest of having a discussion over internet slagging match, said it was a possibility  Izzet may have picked up a cap or two if injuries squad withdrawals went his way that is not quite saying he should of played a game is it, there's a rather big difference there, there are plenty of players who shouldn't have played for England but did (although you're doing an excellent job of bringing up the ones that deserved what little involvement they got) 

 

There are only a few that have been misquoted most of them are bang on and you have totally failed to offer any kind of argument that's not been rebuffed and then ignored by your good self to say otherwise and now all your doing is shouting "you're wrong" at me really loudly , The West Ham you have continually misquoted, unless I've gone mad and it's slipped out I've not once said the current side is actually a better side than the current one I don't think (although, there's a debate to be had there) if I have then fair enough it would be hard to say that for certain. I have said the 1990's side finished higher and with more points so comparing them like for like is not a fair comparison and that the current side is definitely not 10 points worse than the 90's side!

 

How very pedantic of you! Okay, Parlour came on in the other England-Germany game that we were talking about (0-1), wherein Barmby played on the left. Wise and Parlour also played alongside one another in the centre on occasions, like I said. The first example I can find of this is when Parlour came on as a sub in a 2000 friendly with Argentina. We can sift through England line-ups if you want, and I can pick fault with your facts and you can pick fault with mine, but if they don't actually have any impact on the argument then surely it's a waste of time.

 

The end result, in spite of the hypocrisy of calling me a 'Wikipedia warrior' or a guy who 'knows nothing about football' but does 'have a search engine', is exactly the same: Parlour and Wise did play for England in 2000, so did Nicky Barmby and - at 33 and well past it - Paul Ince. Izzet at that point in his career was a better option than all of them. You say 'you'd get laughed at' for thinking this, but I've lived most of my adult life outside of Leicestershire and have found most people to be far more positive than you about the Leicester side of the late 90s.

 

And your words, by the way, were 'I grant you he probably deserved a few caps'. So don't try to back out of it now.

 

Now let's go back to your catalogue of nonsense:

 

(a) Greece winning the European Cup was a 'freak occurrence'. You did state this, clearly. And yet, as minor teams have won a third of European Cups since 1990 it clearly isn't a freak occurrence, unless all other things which happen a third of the time are freak occurrences.

 

(b) Mid-table sides now are better than they were in the late 1990s. That included, in your words not mine, sides like Sunderland now being better than we were then. And, by insinuation, West Ham now being better than West Ham then. I'm sure you get plenty of support for these opinions in day-to-day life. Even Sunderland fans would laugh at you.

 

© That England is top of the European league rankings. This was quite a key claim of yours - and quite central to the argument. It was also wrong.

 

(d) That 'anyone' can win a League Cup. Well, its only winners since we last picked it up have been Premier League sides. And nine of the thirteen winners have come from the usual suspects - Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs. So once again, it's not so much a matter of opinion as you being straightforwardly wrong.

 

(e) Izzet, in 2000, did not deserve to be above Dennis Wise at 34, Ince at 33, Barmby or Parlour (among many, many others including Lee Hendrie) in contention for a place in the England squad. You seem to have forgotten that Ince was a spent force and Wise was a year off signing for us. He wasn't, needless to say, anywhere near as good as Izzet at that point in time.

 

(f) That Izzet was an 'average' top flight player and we were an 'average' Premier League side. Even though we were one of six teams to finish top half of the table for those four seasons, won two League Cups (and made the final of another). By the very definition of average, we were above it back then. It's not that ridiculous that Izzet, as one of our best players, should also be above average.

 

So which of these points (a) to (f) have I got wrong? Now I can see that you're the type of person who confuses winning an argument with getting the last word, or repeatedly saying you've won an argument, but I don't think you have come anywhere near establishing yourself as right on these six points. Yes, okay, Ray Parlour played in THIS 2000 international friendly and not THAT international friendly - well done - but you've come up with nothing to seriously support the backbone of your argument. And you're definitely no closer to establishing that football, least of all English football, is factually better than it was in the late 1990s.

[inckley fox]

As for Raul in 2010 - I asked my old next door neighbour yesterday whether Real fans thought Raul should have been at the World Cup. He laughed. "Where is he playing now?" he asked me. I don't know, out in the Middle East somewhere I think. "How old is he?" Not sure. 35? 36? "Still young enough," he said.

 

Much like you I didn't agree with him. But back in 2010 the Real Madrid half of Spain did, even after he'd made the switch to Schalke. And in 2008, back when he was was 31, Spain captain and dropped despite hitting 20+ goals for Real, they were in uproar.

[Manwell Pablo]

How very pedantic of you! Okay, Parlour came on in the other England-Germany game that we were talking about (0-1), wherein Barmby played on the left. Wise and Parlour also played alongside one another in the centre on occasions, like I said. The first example I can find of this is when Parlour came on as a sub in a 2000 friendly with Argentina. We can sift through England line-ups if you want, and I can pick fault with your facts and you can pick fault with mine, but if they don't actually have any impact on the argument then surely it's a waste of time.

 

The end result, in spite of the hypocrisy of calling me a 'Wikipedia warrior' or a guy who 'knows nothing about football' but does 'have a search engine', is exactly the same: Parlour and Wise did play for England in 2000, so did Nicky Barmby and - at 33 and well past it - Paul Ince. Izzet at that point in his career was a better option than all of them. You say 'you'd get laughed at' for thinking this, but I've lived most of my adult life outside of Leicestershire and have found most people to be far more positive than you about the Leicester side of the late 90s.

 

And your words, by the way, were 'I grant you he probably deserved a few caps'. So don't try to back out of it now.

 

Now let's go back to your catalogue of nonsense:

 

(a) Greece winning the European Cup was a 'freak occurrence'. You did state this, clearly. And yet, as minor teams have won a third of European Cups since 1990 it clearly isn't a freak occurrence, unless all other things which happen a third of the time are freak occurrences.

 

(b) Mid-table sides now are better than they were in the late 1990s. That included, in your words not mine, sides like Sunderland now being better than we were then. And, by insinuation, West Ham now being better than West Ham then. I'm sure you get plenty of support for these opinions in day-to-day life. Even Sunderland fans would laugh at you.

 

© That England is top of the European league rankings. This was quite a key claim of yours - and quite central to the argument. It was also wrong.

 

(d) That 'anyone' can win a League Cup. Well, its only winners since we last picked it up have been Premier League sides. And nine of the thirteen winners have come from the usual suspects - Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs. So once again, it's not so much a matter of opinion as you being straightforwardly wrong.

 

(e) Izzet, in 2000, did not deserve to be above Dennis Wise at 34, Ince at 33, Barmby or Parlour (among many, many others including Lee Hendrie) in contention for a place in the England squad. You seem to have forgotten that Ince was a spent force and Wise was a year off signing for us. He wasn't, needless to say, anywhere near as good as Izzet at that point in time.

 

(f) That Izzet was an 'average' top flight player and we were an 'average' Premier League side. Even though we were one of six teams to finish top half of the table for those four seasons, won two League Cups (and made the final of another). By the very definition of average, we were above it back then. It's not that ridiculous that Izzet, as one of our best players, should also be above average.

 

So which of these points (a) to (f) have I got wrong? Now I can see that you're the type of person who confuses winning an argument with getting the last word, or repeatedly saying you've won an argument, but I don't think you have come anywhere near establishing yourself as right on these six points. Yes, okay, Ray Parlour played in THIS 2000 international friendly and not THAT international friendly - well done - but you've come up with nothing to seriously support the backbone of your argument. And you're definitely no closer to establishing that football, least of all English football, is factually better than it was in the late 1990s.

 

Whoops, did we leave the wrong England Germany page open on Wikipedia

 

I started this again and I'm just saying the same things over and over again with the England thing, clearly we have differing opinions and we've been going round in circles days and it's quite clear that neither of us are going to budge, and I think we're the only ones that care now, so it's a bit pointless and it's probably time to agree to disagree for the benefit of our spare (and in my case working) time. I was saying that to try and get you to say he should of played 20 games unfortunately you didn't go for it . To clarify my hand on heart opinion of Muzzy Izzet playing for England, I don't think he deserved to play for England, he's undoubtedly better than some that have or will but unfortunatley he wasn't quite there in 1998 and there were better, younger, players who should of gone ahead of him in 2000.

 

The catalogue of "nonsense"

 

a) I maintain Greece was a freak occurrence, a sporting upset, the under dogs won, this is not nonsense. The fact that the feat was achieved 12 years before in even more freakish circumtsances is a little irrelevant. and it's 1992, not 1990

 

b) I maintain there are sides throughout mid table in the 00's than we were better than us, Sunderland we're certainly one at a point, Swansea are now, that is a matter of opinion but certainly not one that can be proved as factual as with most things in football. I have certainly not said West Hams side were better now than in the 1990's I have said they aren't 10 points better, this is the one you've misquoted the most, all the way back to when you said I bought it up .

 

c) Please see Champions League and Europa cup seeding. Official coefficient table of the 2013-14 season.

 

d) as I've told you the fact that bigger teams win it does not change the fact that two relegated sides in the past 10 years 2 relegated sides have won it, and there have been a catalogue of Football League finalists since the competitions endorsement. So anyone most certainly can win a League Cup, you certainly don't have to be above average Premier League standard. 

 

e) Not once have I said Hendrie deserved to play in 2000, but in 1998 he undeniable deserved his cap and was most certainly playing better football than Muzzy Izzet who had his best season in 99-00 and Hendrie began a long downward sprial at this juncture, which was a crying shame really, Wise played wide left most of the time, where Izzet could never of played. Barmby also was left sided and was still at Liverpool doing well (better than Izzet according to your charts) and again was playing wide left and Ince was still capable of doing defensive jobs Izzet wasn't. That's why they went ahead of him. This is forgetting Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard were both beginning to come into their own at this point if you want to make cases for England players pulling on a jersey instead of the old guardin 2000 it would of been those players not Izzet.

 

f) We were mid table at for entirety of our stay in the top flight, we even finished 10th two seasons in a row, averaging a position of less than 10 before the relegation season. Izzet was a good player for us but wasn't even the best midfielder we had.

 

As I said before though this is going round in circles, now so I am getting inclined to leave it, I speak when I have something to say which has been the case throughout this but it's getting repetitive now so I am more than happy to leave it and agree to disagree. You starting to get a little frustrated and personal as well which is a little disappointing a done my cap you make some points and I'm quite sure there are people out there that agree with a lot of what you've said.

[inckley fox]

I enjoyed it. You argued well, even if you're still fundamentally wrong(!)