DDD Forum
https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/

Football (Soccer).
https://digitaldreamdoor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=133		 Page 435 of 793
Author:  Georgi [ Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
I'm pretty sure they'll use him as the wide forward to beat people and make runs infield. I can see why it might not work out, but not because of his talent and how he'd fit in, but more his mentality and what he's used to. But I'm looking forward to see what happens.
Author:  Yousha [ Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
I still think they'll make more money than they lost on Neymar.
Author:  kosherrock [ Thu Jun 06, 2013 9:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
Pretty gripping piece

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/9338962/when-beautiful-game-turns-ugly
Author:  Jose [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 5:58 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
Hang wrote:
Did you catch the Japan vs. Australia match, Jose?


Yeah. surprisingly good game! Very good performance by Australia considering their current list. Japan clearly superior but they lack a clinical finisher up front.

Japan are an exciting team tho. A bit more self belief and they could be a surprise at wc2014.
Author:  Hang [ Fri Jun 07, 2013 9:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
Jose wrote:
Hang wrote:
Did you catch the Japan vs. Australia match, Jose?


Yeah. surprisingly good game! Very good performance by Australia considering their current list. Japan clearly superior but they lack a clinical finisher up front.

Japan are an exciting team tho. A bit more self belief and they could be a surprise at wc2014.


Their defensive structure worked out really well but they just didn't know what to do with the ball when they had it. Once they got the lead it looked like they were a certainty to hang on and I know it seems obvious to say, but without that penalty I couldn't see them scoring (I only say it because the handball was so unnecessary). Japan are technically superb but I don't think they quite have the physical game to be a top contender - they're a short team. That passage of play between Honda and Kagawa just demanded you to sit back and applaud, though. It was a good game.
Author:  kosherrock [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:11 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
2012/13 final uefa coefficient

1. Bayern Munich: 36.585 (second highest in last five years. united's 36.671 in 10/11)
2. Chelsea: 30.285
3. Real Madrid: 29.542
4. Benfica: 28.350
5. Barcelona: 27.542
6. PSG: 27.350
7. Juventus: 25.883
8. Shalke 04: 22.585
9. Valenica: 22.542
10. Porto: 22.350
11. Manchester United: 21.285
12. Arsenal: 21.285
13. Milan: 19.883
14. Tottenham: 19.285
15. Shakhtar Donetsk: 18.900
16. Inter: 16.883
17. Zenit St.P: 14.950
18. Lyon: 14.350
19. Atletico Mardrid: 13.542
20. Liverpool: 12.285
21. Dynamo Kiev: 10.900
22. Manchester City: 10.285
23. Marseille: 6.350
24. Sporting CP: 6.350
25: CSKA Moscow: 3.450


...these are about as useful as fifa's world rankings. the five year sample is actually quite a bit better...

1. Barcelona: 157.605
2. Bayern Munich: 146.922
3. Chelsea: 137.592
4. Real Madrid: 136.605
5. Manchester United: 130.592
6. Arsenal: 113.592
7. Inter: 105.829
8. Porto: 104.833
9. Benfica: 102.833
10. Valencia: 102.605

..but still not a very accurate reflection. uefa would be better off taking more than 20% of league performance into account when determining scores.
Author:  Georgi [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 2:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
Pretty clear top 3 in the past 5 years is Barca, Bayern, United
Author:  pink [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
I remember a time when Roma was somewhere on that list.
Author:  Georgi [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
These points don't make any sense at all. How are this year's Bayern second to United in 2011? Bayern have absolutely destroyed every competition, breaking records. United lost in the final of the CL and 80 poitns in the league. Hell, how did United beat Barca's score that year?!
Author:  kosherrock [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 5:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
It's pretty complicated, and I don't fully understand how they're calculated either
Author:  kosherrock [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
"I don’t want people to think that I’m always attacking Mourinho, that’s not my intention, but obviously I don’t like the way his teams play on the pitch,” the 33-year-old revealed to Sport. "It annoyed me to see them play like that before they had an idea and a concept before. [Zinedine] Zidane, Roberto Carlos - they were incredible.

"They dominated every area of the pitch. You had to look at the facts and just admit they were better. It was the same with the Madrid side in the 'Quinta del Buitre' era, another amazing team with a clear and sound philosophy.

"A big club can't play like Mourinho's Madrid. We don’t let the pitch dry up so it turns into a ‘potato field’, nor do we kick the other team 30,000 times or try to turn up the heat in a game. We didn’t even do that when Madrid went above us.

"We’ve won, drawn and lost, but always according to a footballing philosophy. The result is an impostor; it goes beyond winning and losing."

-xavi
Author:  Forgotten Son [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
kosherrock wrote:
..but still not a very accurate reflection. uefa would be better off taking more than 20% of league performance into account when determining scores.


Not really as it's primarily for the European stage. It doesn't matter how good a team is in it's domestic league if they shit the bed in the Champions or Europa leagues.
Author:  kosherrock [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
i understand that they're used to determine seedings/rankings for uefa tournaments, but they're not a good reflection of the best teams. i definitely think they'd be better served taking more into account performance in a team's league (and bouncing that off of the league's coefficient...which the may already do, i don't know exactly how that works). if entry in a uefa tournament is almost solely dependent on performance within your league, league performance is certainly worth more than 20%. chelsea is clear 9 points clear of united even though united won the league and was involved in the far tougher tournament, and had an incredibly tough draw.
Author:  Forgotten Son [ Sat Jun 08, 2013 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
kosherrock wrote:
if entry in a uefa tournament is almost solely dependent on performance within your league, league performance is certainly worth more than 20%.


Then you'd have teams from much smaller leagues overrepresented in the rankings. The coefficient is a seeding system to determine how many places in the two European tournaments are awarded to each league, as well as who plays who in those tournaments. Criticising the list for not representing something it's not meant to represent is pointless.

kosherrock wrote:
chelsea is clear 9 points clear of united even though united won the league and was involved in the far tougher tournament, and had an incredibly tough draw.


Largely because Chelsea won the Champions League in the 2011/12 season and the Europa League last season. Even if this list were meant for comparing individual teams and which one is the "best", it's worth pointing out that Chelsea met Manchester United five times last season, winning three, losing one and drawing the other.
Author:  clarksided [ Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Football (Soccer).
Xavi is so comically arrogant and I love him for it.
Page 435 of 793 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/