• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Football Thread 13/14 |OT15| smoking Top of the League cigars may cause Liver failure

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

confuziz

Banned
UTG9zMF.jpg
Click to expand...

Some crazy ass code shit.
 
B

bud

Member
Blablurn said:
Rummenigge "The intensity on the training ground, which I regularly see from the window of my office, is a marker."[FCB] #Pep
Click to expand...

there's intensity and then there's idiocy.

that's a red card and a three-game suspension or something if that happens in an official match.
 
LabouredSubterfuge

LabouredSubterfuge

Member
Really good article on the quest for 'stability' in football and what a load of utter shite it is.

Perhaps uniquely in this country, stability is much vaunted by the football cognoscenti as a route to success despite all the evidence that in the modern era, stability is irrelevant to success. Stability is usually thought to be expressed through not having a high churn of managers and playing staff, but most of the clubs that have done well in the Champions League this week don't traditionally care for it at all. European clubs rarely have. They've always operated on a far more unstable model. No 26-year tenures, no six-year contracts for new managers. Rather, the likes of Real Madrid, PSG and others just get a man in to manage and if he's rubbish, they get rid. In fact even if he does well, they tend to assume it won't happen again and get rid anyway. Unstable, yes, but it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

In the Premier League, the least stable, Chelsea, a club that goes through managers and playing staff like a voracious carnivore goes through mince, has won everything in its least-ever stable period. By contrast, Arsenal, often said to be the most stable, haven't won anything for eight years.
Click to expand...

Manchester United point to Sir Alex Ferguson's long reign as proof of stability working, but that is to misunderstand what Ferguson did. He knew the stability of his constancy could actually be a problem, so at the peak of his powers he would shake up the playing squad by undermining and getting rid of the biggest players. It kept a flame under everyone. If he could get rid of Mark Hughes, Paul Ince, Jaap Stam or David Beckham, then he could get rid of you. There was no safety. Be worried was Ferguson's message, not be stable. He knew not changing meant going backwards.
Click to expand...

Stability is the enemy of success because stability quickly leads to stagnation and complacency. This is why the talk of replacing Ferguson with David Moyes on a long contract almost as a moral act designed to encourage stability was so wrong-headed. Gary Neville can say 'United stand against the immediacy of modern life' as much as he likes; it's a lovely, well-crafted phrase worthy of a political philosopher, but its sadly utter rubbish, partly because United don't stand for any such thing and never did. They were in the forefront of progressive change going back to how the club was funded through a privately operated share ownership scheme back in the 60s, and it ignores the fact that they have a history of spending big money to achieve big success quickly. But even if it as true, to say this like it's a good thing in modern football is a big mistake.
Click to expand...

Now more than ever, in a fast-moving culture, not changing means getting left behind whether you like it or not. You soon drown by the tidal wave of the now. Moyes is the embodiment of what being safe, being negative, being defensive, being unprogressive brings to modern football. It brings failure. It makes you look leaden and inflexible. Just standing there trying to hold back the tide while boasting of some sort of moral superiority because of this belief in stability is delusion.
Click to expand...
 
B

bud

Member
ferguson didn't sign a 26-year contract.
wenger didn't sign a 17-year contract.

those things either happen or they don't.

offering any manager a 6-year contract is stupid and meaningless.
 
B

bjaelke

Member
Premier League @premierleague
GOAL RULING Swansea's 2nd goal against Liverpool on 23 February was a Martin Skrtel own goal and has not been credited to Wilfried Bony

Skrtel has now netted 4 times in each end this season
KuGsj.gif
 
F

Feorax

Member
bjaelke said:
Premier League @premierleague
GOAL RULING Swansea's 2nd goal against Liverpool on 23 February was a Martin Skrtel own goal and has not been credited to Wilfried Bony

Skrtel has now netted 4 times in each end this season
KuGsj.gif
Click to expand...

I like Skrtel, but I hope we don't see him this weekend. He'll shit himself against a physical player like Lambert.

My back 4 would be Cissokho, Agger, Toure and Flanagan.
 
A

Arnie

Member
Rodgers got three years.

Now he's entering his final of the three I'd give him six.

That's the way to do it. Not offer an unproven slug six years in the sun.
 
S

sohois

Member
LabouredSubterfuge said:
Really good article on the quest for 'stability' in football and what a load of utter shite it is.
Click to expand...

Well that's kind of a stupid article. The writer doesn't seem to understand the chains of basic causality. It is a fully irrational approach to decision making, in this case, regardless of the cost/benefit of removing David Moyes from his position.

That the likes of Chelsea or Real Madrid sack managers often has nothing to do with their success. They are successful because they spend huge amounts of money and can attract the best players. Similarly, Arsenal have not been unsuccessful because of keeping the same manager for the past 17 years, they haven't won anything because of a combination of very low spending, some bad luck and much bigger spending rivals. Indeed, many would argue that the only reason Arsenal are doing as well as they are is because they have kept things stable and kept Wenger.

It seems like the author of this piece reached a conclusion (Moyes=Bad, keeping things same will not change) and tried to argue it backwards, inventing stories to fit the facts so it would seem like he has some coherent argument leading to his conclusion.
 
B

Broder Salsa

Banned
sohois said:
Well that's kind of a stupid article. The writer doesn't seem to understand the chains of basic causality. It is a fully irrational approach to decision making, in this case, regardless of the cost/benefit of removing David Moyes from his position.

That the likes of Chelsea or Real Madrid sack managers often has nothing to do with their success. They are successful because they spend huge amounts of money and can attract the best players. Similarly, Arsenal have not been unsuccessful because of keeping the same manager for the past 17 years, they haven't won anything because of a combination of very low spending, some bad luck and much bigger spending rivals. Indeed, many would argue that the only reason Arsenal are doing as well as they are is because they have kept things stable and kept Wenger.

It seems like the author of this piece reached a conclusion (Moyes=Bad, keeping things same will not change) and tried to argue it backwards, inventing stories to fit the facts so it would seem like he has some coherent argument leading to his conclusion.
Click to expand...

Hey Palermo was very successful for a while, all while barely spending any money compared to the other clubs on players. All the money went to sacking the manager every 3 month.

Then last season happened.
 
LabouredSubterfuge

LabouredSubterfuge

Member
sohois said:
Well that's kind of a stupid article. The writer doesn't seem to understand the chains of basic causality. It is a fully irrational approach to decision making, in this case, regardless of the cost/benefit of removing David Moyes from his position.

That the likes of Chelsea or Real Madrid sack managers often has nothing to do with their success. They are successful because they spend huge amounts of money and can attract the best players. Similarly, Arsenal have not been unsuccessful because of keeping the same manager for the past 17 years, they haven't won anything because of a combination of very low spending, some bad luck and much bigger spending rivals. Indeed, many would argue that the only reason Arsenal are doing as well as they are is because they have kept things stable and kept Wenger.

It seems like the author of this piece reached a conclusion (Moyes=Bad, keeping things same will not change) and tried to argue it backwards, inventing stories to fit the facts so it would seem like he has some coherent argument leading to his conclusion.
Click to expand...

Some of the points re Arsenal and Chelsea are not strictly causally correct as you say but that doesn't detrimentally damage the point the article is trying to make.
 
S

Salazar

Member
It seems like the author of this piece reached a conclusion (Moyes=Bad
Click to expand...

Anyone not in this boat, as of half-time in the Olympiakos debacle, can drown.

He's a plank. Phil Neville is a plank too. We have a more gormless technical area than whoever is bottom of the SPL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Football 2014/15 |OT14| The one where Europa&Champions League are sensationally back
97 98 99 100 101
5K
280K
EviLore replied
Football Thread 2014/15 |OT9| - How the Snitch stole all the banter
393 394 395 396 397
20K
744K
Broder Salsa replied
  • Locked
Football Thread 2014/2015 |OT12| Old Man Looking For 17 year olds. Contact Arsene
393 394 395 396 397
20K
789K
Jarnet87 replied
  • Locked
Football 2014/2015 |OT13| Lightning returns, check your PMs, there is no kick
396 397 398 399 400
20K
778K
Infernostew replied
  • Locked
Football Thread 2013/14 |OT23| Goal-Line Technology Saving Football In Brazil
396 397 398 399 400
20K
725K
Hixx replied
Top Bottom