Soccer Thread 2021-2022

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why does that matter if they all play each other?

Is the thought process they don't want the best team in the group to play the 2 weaker ones in the group first so they can then coast game 3?

Seems odd to me.

As I understand it, the draw could be rigged for the stronger teams in a group to have easier games come first and leave the 3rd game comparatively meaningless, so yeah, basically...

[Lathum]

wtf is this playoff shit?

[RainMaker]

The groups seem pretty balanced. United States should have a decent chance to move on to the knockouts but there are going to be some insane political narratives coming out of that group.

For Euro fans, which nation do we want winning the playoff?

[sterlingice]

So, my uneducated read of this is that we'll have a good sense of whether the US can qualify on the first day. If they win against the Euro team, they're in good shape, needing points against Iran. If they draw, it's goal differential time. And if they lose, they're probably done unless they can magic away some points from England.

SI

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Why does that matter if they all play each other?

Is the thought process they don't want the best team in the group to play the 2 weaker ones in the group first so they can then coast game 3?

Seems odd to me.

I think the idea has been to randomize who plays who in which order. FIFA has done it that way for decades.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Lathum

wtf is this playoff shit?

Several qualification rounds have been postponed due to some mysterious virus that caused a global pandemic. The last bunch of games will be played in June, but the date for the draw of the final tournament was set and apparently not optional to be pushed back after those final matches.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I swear I've watched the draw in the past and I don't remember the Olympic-style theatrics. Maybe I just timed it right so I was only watching the draw or maybe they were only showing that part on US TV as opposed to everything this year.

SI

The theatrical part isn't new. I missed the 1994 draw (and prior), but I'm pretty sure the 1998 draw was already loaded with non ball out of bowl yanking stuff, complete with the "official" world cup song being promoted. National tv over here decided to completely skip whatever theatre there has been staged by replacing it with a discussion about how many enslaved people died to build the stadiums and hotels in Qatar, limiting the show broadcast to the actual draw.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

The theatrical part isn't new. I missed the 1994 draw (and prior), but I'm pretty sure the 1998 draw was already loaded with non ball out of bowl yanking stuff, complete with the "official" world cup song being promoted. National tv over here decided to completely skip whatever theatre there has been staged by replacing it with a discussion about how many enslaved people died to build the stadiums and hotels in Qatar, limiting the show broadcast to the actual draw.

I mean, I'm a sucker for the Olympics Opening Ceremony but it's because I like the spectacle of it. This more felt like a low budget version of that.

SI

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The groups seem pretty balanced.

Yeah, that's my perception too. It helps that the draw in this and recent times has been rankings based, especially now the FIFA ranking these days actually makes sort of sense, being transformed into an elo ratings like system.

[Solecismic]

The automatic eyeball test of using elo rankings is gone. Now the eyeball is more about recent results. The real analysts have some idea about how one squad's formations and individual strengths might work in a group - I don't have a clue myself.

My immediate reaction is that this is a very difficult draw for the US. Leading off against what's likely Wales and a superstar in Bale. But I don't even know who on the US would have that responsibility on defense and how Bale would match up against that.

Then England, with their depth and skill. Of course, you have to expect an opponent of that caliber if you're not lucky enough to get group A. And finally, Iran in a match that either means nothing to the US or the implications are heavily political in that Iran has a chance to deny the US advancement. That's a lot of pressure, and if they're in Doha, they can look across the Persian Gulf at Iran's shores just before the match begins. At least it's not in the summer.

The new system does seem to eliminate the group of death problem, since two teams advance. If it's true there will be 16 groups of 3 when the tournament goes to 48 in 2026, then the draw will be much more important.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The new system does seem to eliminate the group of death problem, since two teams advance. If it's true there will be 16 groups of 3 when the tournament goes to 48 in 2026, then the draw will be much more important.

With 16 groups of 3, All the teams that we today saw in pot 1 and 2 would all go in pot 1. All the teams in pot 3 and 4 would go together in pot 2. And all the teams that missed out recently, they'd go in pot 3. The draw will become a crapshoot, as it would be more likely to have any of the top 7 teams in the world to face another before the quarterfinals. So yeah, I agree that the draw would actually mean a lot and not quite for the first two matches, but more so for the expanded knock-out phase.

The real problem of that format is teams playing in matches 1 and 2 of the group being at a huge disadvantage. Just imagine a group with, for example, Germany, Austria and Algeria, with Algeria beating Germany 2-1, then losing 2-0 to Austria. In match 3, Germany and Austria could collaborate and eliminate Algeria by letting Germany win 1-0. But thankfully there are people at FIFA that are old enough to remember the 1982 World Cup. No way they'll let history repeat itself. Right?

[RainMaker]

I'm torn on the expansion. I get wanting more teams to participate and maybe hope it grows the sport. It is fun to see some of the smaller countries get a shot on the big stage. The previous expansion has helped in some regard.

At the same time, you're going to have some bad teams competing against some powerhouses. We already see some of the teams we'd put in the 26-32 range in the tournament struggle to even be competitive. Now imagine throwing in 16 more.

In a 3 team group where 2 advance, those matches become exhibitions for the top teams. You'll have Brazil in a group with Poland and Panama. And once you win your first game, you've advanced. No incentive to play your best players.

The whole thing feels like a money grab and takes away from what makes the event special.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The whole thing feels like a money grab and takes away from what makes the event special.

The FIFA way

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

At the same time, you're going to have some bad teams competing against some powerhouses. We already see some of the teams we'd put in the 26-32 range in the tournament struggle to even be competitive. Now imagine throwing in 16 more.

To put into perspective which 16 teams that would be based on the qualification results for 2022 (providing Wales, Costa Rica and Peru would win the 3 remaining playoffs) and the qualification format presented for 2026: North Macedonia, Sweden, Chile, New Zealand, Australia, UAE, Oman, Iraq, Panama, Jamaica, Mali, Algeria, Nigeria, Egypt, Congo-Kinshasa and the Scotland vs Ukraine winner.

[RainMaker]

Panama got absolutely mauled at the last World Cup. Can't imagine how bad Jamaica would do.

[RainMaker]

Not surprising considering her past and the company she keeps. Feel for the children.

Former USWNT goalkeeper Hope Solo arrested on DWI, child abuse charges

[Solecismic]

It's basically replacing the interesting and sometimes dramatic phases of qualification with an extra round of World Cup.

One thing I think CONCACAF and CONMEBOL get right and UEFA does not is the structure of qualification. Of course, the Americas have the luxury of CONMEBOL being a separate group. We'd have the same issues if they were merged to form a similarly-sized group to the others and it's possible we'd never see the US in the Cup without the bigger format as the 6-8th best squads in CONMEBOL would be tough opponents for anyone in CONCACAF.

The smaller the groups, the more important the draws. Then it all comes down to one match whether you even get to the World Cup. But with larger sub-group sizes, like CONMEBOL, all the drama is with matches between the 3rd-8th teams. Brazil and Argentina don't have to worry about Italy's fate.

This expansion takes away so much from qualification that the squads in that 3rd pot (33-48) won't contain a single one that's any threat to reach a semifinal. But if they condense the qualification process to create drama, then there's the risk in UEFA, at least, of having a major world power like Italy not even reach the 48.

I don't know what the ideal balance is between qualification and cup itself. UEFA uses the everyone starts equal approach, which requires these riskier smaller subgroups. CAF (Africa) has a two-tiered approach to get to an equal final 40, but then is so draw-dependent that half of the top-six ranked squads in the continent won't be in Qatar. CONCACAF gave five byes based on ranking and the other 30 countries played high-stakes matches to join them in the octagon. Canada had to win a five-team group, then a two-match head-to-head, before joining the octagon.

There's no perfect way to do this, so perhaps the 48-team expansion is a good idea and it's best that as much drama as possible is removed from qualification.

However... I would rather see 8 groups with 6 countries in the Cup than 16 groups with 3 countries. That would mean two extra games for the eventual winner (3 group games essentially replacing the round of 32) and a lot of those extra games would be meaningless. But the problems with groups of three (including the illustrated example where collusion is almost inevitable) are far bigger.

[Solecismic]

Another point I'd like to make... let's take the distribution of the 16 top-ranked squads, assuming expected results in the remaining playoff games, that will not go to Qatar.

UEFA - 11, CONMEBOL - 3, CAF - 2.

Now, let's look at the increase in berths, minus host-country set-asides, from 2022 to 2026.

AFC - 3, CAF - 4 (plus playoff participation), CONCACAF - 2, CONMEBOL - 2, OFC - 1, UEFA - 3.

The transition from 2022 system to 2026 system for qualification will be easy for everyone but UEFA. There are probably too many international windows as there exists now - I think it harms the top leagues in England, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. But I think UEFA should consider an approach more like CONCACAF's for qualification and accept that drama like the Italy/North Macedonia/Portugal playoff - with only one team qualifying - is not good for the tournament in the end.

[GrantDawg]

USA-England is going to be 2pm EST on Black Friday. Nice.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

USA-England is going to be 2pm EST on Black Friday. Nice.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I was just complaining about nothing to watch on Black Friday afternoon. This is perfect! Have a feeling ratings will be through the roof.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But I think UEFA should consider an approach more like CONCACAF's for qualification and accept that drama like the Italy/North Macedonia/Portugal playoff - with only one team qualifying - is not good for the tournament in the end.

This is a neat summary between North American and European sports outlooks - I couldn’t disagree with this more!

For me, sport is nothing without jeopardy - IMO the NFL has been diminished by increasing the number of playoff spots, I lost interest in rugby when they set up a playoff system to determine the champion (in a single league format rather than multi-divisional).

I would argue the fact that Italy haven’t been to this or the last World Cup, and England missed two in the 70s, and other examples (Netherlands failed to make one I remember) is a positive.

Qualification should be an achievement, not a box-ticking exercise

[bronconick]

• 2022 FIFA World Cup Qatar teams by average player age | Statista

The Americans have the youngest team by far.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I would argue the fact that Italy haven’t been to this or the last World Cup, and England missed two in the 70s, and other examples (Netherlands failed to make one I remember) is a positive.

Qualification should be an achievement, not a box-ticking exercise

Exactly.

The way Italy got eliminated felt weird, because they were undefeated throughout the qualifiers until that stoppage time goal against North Macedonia. Except that the game against North Macedonia already was their second chance, they choked the group victory. The drama in Africa in the Algeria - Cameroon, Ghana - Nigeria and Senegal - Egypt clashes feel like coin flip decisions (first two decided on away goals rule after 2 matches, the last one even went to penalty kicks). More importantly, Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt didn't get a second chance like Italy did.

It's quite the contrast with the boring CONMEBOL approach. Peru lost 8 matches in this campaign and is still in the running. Ecuador qualified with 7 wins and 6 losses. Uruguay with 8 wins and 6 losses. It could have gotten even messier if FIFA had the balls to disqualify both Brazil and Argentina for their respective roles in the abandoned Brazil - Argentina match. It would have resulted in disqualification of both teams had they been ranked between 150 and 200 in the world.



I'd like to see a set up with all kinds of 4-team mini-tournaments with all FIFA members playing against their nearest fellow members in 1 international window, where the winners advance to a second 4-team group and those winners accounting for the first wave of 16ish qualifiers.

The 5-team format CONCACAF used in the first round could be a fair alternative for 4-team groups, to factor out home field advantage by giving all countries 2 home and 2 away matches, but that will require more travelling and will require at least 2 international windows.

All the teams eliminated earlier on then go into a huge knockout stage to give every country a second chance. All still regionally assigned, initially, with teams jumping in based on where they finished in the prior stages.

The end result will probably still have less matches to be played than the 19 or 20 matches the Peru - Australia - UAE winner will have played, or Canada's 20 matches.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Looking at the stats, North Macedonia clearly looked to park the bus and hope they could score on the counter when Italy got desperate, a plan which worked to perfection.

It helped that the GK (5 saves on 5 Shots On Target) and the defense (16 blocked shots and 54 clearances) stood on their head, but Italy's lack of clinical lethality shows in only 5 shots on target and an xG of 1.98.

Definitely exactly the kind of results you see complaints about on Reddit from Football Manager fans. Mancini clearly should have ticked the "Work the ball into the Box" option at halftime.

By way of comparision, when Man Utd beat Southampton last year 9-0, they had 24 shots, with 14 on target for an xG of 5.23.

After I posted this, Michael Cox had a great article in The Athletic that went into much more detail, not only about Italy's WC qualification this time, but their road to the EURO win and their previous failure to qualify for the WC.

Long story short, Italy have become very good at not losing, but not very good at winning.

In this qualifying session, for instance, they managed only W/D splits with Bulgaria, Northern Ireland, and drew twice with Switzerland, the first two at least being opponents they dramatically outclass. The ended up 2 points behind Switzerland, the group winner, so, like I said above/previously, just slightly more lethality in front of goal and they probably top the group, given that across those 4 draws, a total of 4 goals were scored by all teams involved.

For 2018 they came in second in their qualifying group to Spain, who weren't as good as you remember from the early '10s, and had a pretty lackluster finals. Italy then lost the playoff to Sweden 0-1 aggregate over two legs.

For Euro 2020 qualifying, Italy topped a very weak group that included Finland, Greece, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Armenia & Liechtenstein, but even there survived on a lot of 1-goal wins though ended up with a healthy GD by running up the score against the last two. In the finals, as Cox pointed out in his article:

They weren’t overwhelmingly convincing winners of Euro 2020, if only because they didn’t actually win the semi-final or final without penalties, becoming the first World Cup or European Championship winner to rely on a shootout in their last two games. And they weren’t that bad last night, although their performances throughout the qualification process have been underwhelming.

The Euro 2020 campaign actually highlighted Italy’s weaknesses — they lacked consistent performers in the final third, aside from Federico Chiesa, who only came into the side midway through the tournament and proved their most decisive attacker. His serious knee injury meant he wasn’t able to participate here, and without him, Italy struggled.

All of which is to say that I agree with AlexB and MIJB. Yes, sometimes a strong/big country like Italy doesn't qualify while a country like Peru does, but to set up a system where this doesn't happen would rob us of watching a country like North Macedonia set up exactly correctly to beat a team like Italy, and then watching Portugal play a strong & assured game to ensure the same doesn't happen to them.

The heterogeneity of qualifying across regional conferences is a plus, much like learning about the wacky competition rules used across the globe.

[RainMaker]

I don't think it's fair to compare Peru and Italy because the qualifying in each region is so different. CONMEBOL throws everyone in a group where the best have to play the best. UEFA is a battle of who can beat bad teams by the most (or avoid a catastrophic loss).

I kind of hate the UEFA qualifying system because of this. There are too many really bad nations appearing in what is essentially the final round of qualifying. Why does a result against the Faroe Islands or San Marino play a role in who qualifies?

Looking at how CONCACAF does it seems better. They whittle out the bad teams before getting to the final round. For instance, I think this would be a better system.

- Start with 55 teams. Bottom 14 ranked in the region (basically their Pot 5 and 6) play a home-and-home to advance to the next round.

- The remaining 48 teams play a home-and-home to advance to the group stage. Also seeded based on rankings. So France would play a nation like Cyprus in this.

- The final 24 teams are broken into 4 groups of 6. Top 3 in each group advance. 4-team playoff between the 4th place teams for the final spot in the World Cup.

That way you have 10 matches against teams that are for the most part, competitive.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

Exactly.

The way Italy got eliminated felt weird, because they were undefeated throughout the qualifiers until that stoppage time goal against North Macedonia. Except that the game against North Macedonia already was their second chance, they choked the group victory. The drama in Africa in the Algeria - Cameroon, Ghana - Nigeria and Senegal - Egypt clashes feel like coin flip decisions (first two decided on away goals rule after 2 matches, the last one even went to penalty kicks). More importantly, Nigeria, Algeria and Egypt didn't get a second chance like Italy did.

It's quite the contrast with the boring CONMEBOL approach. Peru lost 8 matches in this campaign and is still in the running. Ecuador qualified with 7 wins and 6 losses. Uruguay with 8 wins and 6 losses. It could have gotten even messier if FIFA had the balls to disqualify both Brazil and Argentina for their respective roles in the abandoned Brazil - Argentina match. It would have resulted in disqualification of both teams had they been ranked between 150 and 200 in the world.



I'd like to see a set up with all kinds of 4-team mini-tournaments with all FIFA members playing against their nearest fellow members in 1 international window, where the winners advance to a second 4-team group and those winners accounting for the first wave of 16ish qualifiers.

The 5-team format CONCACAF used in the first round could be a fair alternative for 4-team groups, to factor out home field advantage by giving all countries 2 home and 2 away matches, but that will require more travelling and will require at least 2 international windows.

All the teams eliminated earlier on then go into a huge knockout stage to give every country a second chance. All still regionally assigned, initially, with teams jumping in based on where they finished in the prior stages.

The end result will probably still have less matches to be played than the 19 or 20 matches the Peru - Australia - UAE winner will have played, or Canada's 20 matches.

I think I'd like the process better if it were more closely connected with the World Cup. Like the tie-breaker discussion, in which I'm writing from the perspective of someone in the US, we're just not used to sporting events that drag out for years in the midst of the normal course of action for teams.

The world has a concept of a national team, windows, a concept of a team that plays in different leagues, relegation, promotion, tournaments that pop up every few weeks and go on for ages. We're just sort-of grasping what a national team is - like Olympics, only focused on one sport.

It's a better tournament if 13 of the 32 countries, or 16 of the 48, countries are UEFA rather than 19 of the 32 or 24 of the 48 as rankings would indicate. From what the world is used to seeing, it's a better tournament if there are high-stakes qualification single matches between good and great squads eight months before the tournament begins. From the US perspective, it's a high-profile tournament without one of the best squads in the world, a year removed from a win in the best tournament in the world that's not the World Cup.

Qualification on this side of the world is dramatic for the US because the US is not good enough to easily qualify in a format that favors the latter approach. The expansion will probably remove that drama. CONMEBOL has some drama because some talented and interesting squads the other side of Brazil and Argentina play quite a few matches against each other, but what they don't want is any realistic chance that the two big guns aren't there because of one single match.

However, even with the extra UEFA drama associated with a single match, we didn't get the interesting giant-killers with the rope-a-dope strategy that took out Italy. We got 8th in the world instead of 7th, in the end. When you have 7/8/50 playing a single-elimination mini-tournament in March for one spot in the World Cup out of 32, that's high drama, but I think the cost is far greater than the benefit of having both 7 and 8 in the World Cup. And it will feel even stranger if that mechanism is still in place when 48 teams are invited.

I see the benefit of a tournament that includes giant-killers like North Macedonia. But it feels artificial when you're already restricting UEFA slots because you want more North Macedonias from all over the world and you didn't get North Macedonia anyway.

Next time, it will be even more the case. So my complaint is that I think the balance of teams in the World Cup and the qualification slots is off. But the answer of having eight more UEFA squads would also seem off. It's an issue with no great solution. In trying to think of the ideal size of the World Cup given the challenges of a qualifying tournament, I like 32. I don't like 48, and I especially don't like the format of 16 groups of 3. But that's just personal preference. It's really not a big deal to me.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think it's fair to compare Peru and Italy because the qualifying in each region is so different. CONMEBOL throws everyone in a group where the best have to play the best. UEFA is a battle of who can beat bad teams by the most (or avoid a catastrophic loss).

Well, I'm all for that last part. Scoring more goals than your opponents should be rewarded, whether it be head-to-head, cumulative goal difference or both. The Italian way is boring and it's bittersweet to see it fail from time to time.

By the way, in the lead up to Euro 2021/2020, Italy played the Netherlands twice in the UEFA Nations League and I found them playing an offensive, dominant style, very uncharacteristic to what I was used to in the prior 25 years. It was almost like Orange and Azzurri switched jerseys.

I don't agree with the back to back penalties assessment either, it was bound to happen at some point, that's not just on Italy, it's how this game works. Most knock-out matches are won by just 1 goal, if they actually are decided in regular time. Croatia reached the WC2018 final after winning penalty shootouts in the round of 16, again in the quarterfinals and avoided them in extra time in the semifinals. At WC2014 Costa Rica beat Greece on penalties, then Netherlands beat Costa Rica on penalties and Argentina continued the chain beating the Netherlands on penalties to reach the final. Back in 1990, the actual world cup of parking the bus, Argentina needed penalties to beat Yugoslavia and Italy in the quarterfinals and semifinals, losing the final to West Germany on a regular penalty kick.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think I'd like the process better if it were more closely connected with the World Cup. Like the tie-breaker discussion, in which I'm writing from the perspective of someone in the US, we're just not used to sporting events that drag out for years in the midst of the normal course of action for teams.

That's a misinterpretation. People in Europe don't understand it either, even when you'd expect them to be kind of used to the concept of having 4 or 5 different competition formats taking turns for 9 months straight. I'm sure the average Manchester City fan has no idea who "they" play next Saturday, or Sunday, let alone the following Tuesday, or Wednesday, the following weekend and get confused when England has to play, especially considering only 5 members of their team actually play for England.

It would be so much easier to comprehend if things were more clustered.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

That's a misinterpretation. People in Europe don't understand it either, even when you'd expect them to be kind of used to the concept of having 4 or 5 different competition formats taking turns for 9 months straight. I'm sure the average Manchester City fan has no idea who "they" play next Saturday, or Sunday, let alone the following Tuesday, or Wednesday, the following weekend and get confused when England has to play, especially considering only 5 members of their team actually play for England.

It would be so much easier to comprehend if things were more clustered.

Isn't that my point - that they have four or five different competition formats taking turns? That in itself is simply not a concept US fans would experience. It's just regular season and playoffs.

The idea of a "dream team" like the US has for the NBA so that it can win the Olympic basketball competition most of the time is maybe the beginning of how US fans could understand this. But multiple team competitions - something in the early discussion stages in the NBA - will be a hard sell.

And in football, our national sport, the NFL is the only game in town for elite players. You might hear a little about the USFL reforming, but keep in mind that the top draft choice for the entire league was a quarterback with limited college success who couldn't make third string on any NFL roster. If an international football competition developed, NFL players wouldn't be allowed to play because of injury risk.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by MIJB#19

That's a misinterpretation. People in Europe don't understand it either, even when you'd expect them to be kind of used to the concept of having 4 or 5 different competition formats taking turns for 9 months straight. I'm sure the average Manchester City fan has no idea who "they" play next Saturday, or Sunday, let alone the following Tuesday, or Wednesday, the following weekend and get confused when England has to play, especially considering only 5 members of their team actually play for England.

It would be so much easier to comprehend if things were more clustered.

I disagree. It’s not that hard. Even as a Leicester fan with an extra competition thrown in most years recently

[RainMaker]

I don't think the system is that foreign to Americans. Soccer in this country has mimicked the rest of the world. An MLS team has their regular season and playoffs, a domestic cup, continental cup, and national teams.

College basketball isn't too far off. You have preseason tourneys, conference regular season, conference tournament, NCAA tournament (and the other postseason tourneys). Not to mention rivalry games that may include a trophy.

Pro sports in this country though is so heavily monopolized that the idea of outside competitions are non-starters.

[Ksyrup]

Even as I have started watching soccer regularly for the past 6+ years, I still haven't warmed to the international system at all. I only watch/care about one league, and I really don't care about the non-EPL competitions (except that I understand the more you play/win, the more money).

When Leicester won whatever cup it is they won last year, I would have gladly traded that for making top 3/4 and the money that would bring. I'm sure that opinion is shared by roughly 1% of fans.

[flere-imsaho]

IMO, international competitions used to be more fun back when styles differed pretty dramatically from country-to-country and certainly continent-to-continent. You even used to see this up through the 90s in European club competition.

Like, let's see if Brazil's wide-open attacking play can score enough goals against a German "oh we scored a goal let's replace a striker with a defender" mentality. Or watching England's direct style try to break through an Italian catenaccio looking to pass the ball around the back 6 for 90 minutes.

Nowadays, unless you're a team that's hopelessly outclassed, you're probably playing some flavor of what most top clubs are trying to achieve, be it tiki taka, gegenpress, etc....

So, for the top teams it boils down to whether your players are rounding into form at the right moment and whether your coach can maximize where you have riches and minimize where you don't, while still staying in some system that's already well-understood by your players at club level.

For the next group of teams it's really all about how many players you have playing in a top European league and whether you can survive the gratuitous errors you're going to get from those who don't.

There's fun, to be sure, but IMO it's mostly tied to passionately-held support for or grudges against particular national teams. The actual football is much, much more interesting at club level.

[Lathum]

Going to England next week. We are going to go see a QPR game. The process for buying tickets online is literally the worst fucking cluster I have ever experienced in my life. They couldn't make it more convoluted if they tried.

[miami_fan]

What do you expect when you choose to go to Loftus Road as opposed to Craven Cottage when you are in West London.

[Lathum]

I’m excited to see QPR! Really curious what the atmosphere will be like. Been to a crystal palace gane and that was amazing.

[bhlloy]

I’m trying to think if I’ve ever seen a striker playing as well as Benzema has been the last 18 months. Maybe prime Shearer? Bergkamp in the Arsenal days as well but a completely different type of player.

[flere-imsaho]

Lewandowski last year?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Lewandowski last year?

And the year before last year. And the year after last year.

[flere-imsaho]

[Ksyrup]

Southampton has lost 9-0 games a couple times in the past few years right? There might be a third today judging by the first 20 minutes against Chelsea.

[miami_fan]

I was just in the middle of typing that Chelsea probably doesn't care that much due to the CL tie against Real Madrid but now that they got five... maybe?

[miami_fan]

Come on Unai! Use all of your sideline shouts to pull this one out!

[miami_fan]

I know why they decided to show the Liverpool v Benfica match on CBS as opposed to Atlético Madrid v Manchester City. I just hate that the competitiveness of the match/tie was not taken into account during the decision making.

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

I know why they decided to show the Liverpool v Benfica match on CBS as opposed to Atlético Madrid v Manchester City. I just hate that the competitiveness of the match/tie was not taken into account during the decision making.

Ouch. That's a horrible decision if they had a choice. Manchester City has the potential to play fun to watch football, while Atletico Madrid always plays hideously, which can make for a very interesting matchup. A lot more than what was most likely a blowout victory for Liverpool vs Benfica.

[flere-imsaho]

If you have a subscription to The Athletic, there's a fantastic article about the Man City - Atletico match, specifically all the shithousery involved: Hair pulling, headbutting and fighting in the tunnel – how Atletico vs Man City exploded – The Athletic

[Critch]

Sean Dyche fired by Burnley, the EPL's longest term manager until this morning.

Eight years punching above their weight, but fired with 8 games to go.

[flere-imsaho]

They've got 8 games to make up 4 points on Everton to escape relegation. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong, but it seems a little naive to think they'll be able to parachute in some sort of magic manager to keep them up if Dyche couldn't.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Critch

Sean Dyche fired by Burnley, the EPL's longest term manager until this morning.

Eight years punching above their weight, but fired with 8 games to go.

That has to be Dyche giving the new owners an ultimatum for guarantees for next year and them telling them to kick rocks, right? This feels similar to Chris Wilder.


On a different note, despite being a casual fan of Barcelona, I found it hilarious that 38,000 Eintracht Frankfurt fans took over the Camp Nou.

[Critch]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

That has to be Dyche giving the new owners an ultimatum for guarantees for next year and them telling them to kick rocks, right? This feels similar to Chris Wilder.

New owners leveraged the purchase of the club, they went from debt free and 40mil pounds in the bank to no cash and 40mil debt overnight.

They've got the look of the next Derby County if the EPL money stops.