Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Other Forums
Off Topic
Am I the only one?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="weasel" data-source="post: 400132" data-attributes="member: 14"><p>I take your point.</p><p></p><p>I suspect most people who are hoping Leicester win are sick and tired of the same 2/3/4* sides being involved in the title chase. TBF I can totally see where they are coming from. I support one of the 'bigger' sides in the league but even I am sick of it always being the same few sides at the top. Variety is the spice of life and all that gubbins. I think as well, the fact Leicester have done it on a relative shoe-string is what appeals to a lot of people. Let's be fair, City and Chelsea only ever challenged because they had a rich owner. Without them they would be ****ed. Literally in Chelsea's case, they were weeks away from doing a Leeds or Portsmouth. I don't mean that as sour grapes, it's merely a statement of fact, that those clubs have been bank rolled to title Challenges. A title is still a title, don't get me wrong. Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have as well, but to different degrees, the first two have their traditional support levels and the first and last two have the massive stadiums and fantastic merchandising departments.</p><p>Leicester ehhh, well they are in a different league in that respect.</p><p>Yes the increased PL money will help them, but it helps all the other sides as well. People are happy to see them do well as 15 months ago they were bottom and looked to be down. It's a fairy tale.</p><p></p><p>I do agree that they are poor to watch, it's not pretty but it's effective. But then, have you EVER enjoyed a game where one side has been managed by Jose Mourinho? Ever? Bar maybe the time Barca took his Real Madrid side apart (was it 4-0, 4-1, 5-0?) most of the games are horrible attritional affairs. Simeone's Atletico Madrid are the same. Not every side can play free flowing attacking football like Spurs have tried to this year, like City (in their pomp) did, like Liverpool with Suarez and Sturridge, or like Utd under auld **** face, or even Keegan's Newcastle.</p><p></p><p>I guess people think it's "good" because some one else wins it, someone without the billionaire owner who has out spent everyone else/bought the title (cough Chelsea and City), and a because of the fairy tale element. That alone may well rekindle some people's love of football or at least delay their boredom with the same old same old sides challenging. That is probably a good thing. It gives the smaller sides hope. Is it "good" that a side playing very basic and quite physical football wins the league? Probably not from the point of view of getting teams to play a style that won't be penalised and picked apart if/when they make the CL. Although even at that, will Leicester be any worse in the CL this year than Utd were? Or than Liverpool were two years ago!?</p><p></p><p>I think it all depends on what you mean by "good" for English football. If it's only for one year and it encourages the big sides to stop just spunking money on the latest flavour of the month show pony and to do some proper scouting than maybe in a few years it could work out well if we get back to 2 or 3 English sides regularly making the last four of the CL. </p><p></p><p></p><p>* It depends how you define "involved" as to whether you include Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="weasel, post: 400132, member: 14"] I take your point. I suspect most people who are hoping Leicester win are sick and tired of the same 2/3/4* sides being involved in the title chase. TBF I can totally see where they are coming from. I support one of the 'bigger' sides in the league but even I am sick of it always being the same few sides at the top. Variety is the spice of life and all that gubbins. I think as well, the fact Leicester have done it on a relative shoe-string is what appeals to a lot of people. Let's be fair, City and Chelsea only ever challenged because they had a rich owner. Without them they would be ****ed. Literally in Chelsea's case, they were weeks away from doing a Leeds or Portsmouth. I don't mean that as sour grapes, it's merely a statement of fact, that those clubs have been bank rolled to title Challenges. A title is still a title, don't get me wrong. Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have as well, but to different degrees, the first two have their traditional support levels and the first and last two have the massive stadiums and fantastic merchandising departments. Leicester ehhh, well they are in a different league in that respect. Yes the increased PL money will help them, but it helps all the other sides as well. People are happy to see them do well as 15 months ago they were bottom and looked to be down. It's a fairy tale. I do agree that they are poor to watch, it's not pretty but it's effective. But then, have you EVER enjoyed a game where one side has been managed by Jose Mourinho? Ever? Bar maybe the time Barca took his Real Madrid side apart (was it 4-0, 4-1, 5-0?) most of the games are horrible attritional affairs. Simeone's Atletico Madrid are the same. Not every side can play free flowing attacking football like Spurs have tried to this year, like City (in their pomp) did, like Liverpool with Suarez and Sturridge, or like Utd under auld **** face, or even Keegan's Newcastle. I guess people think it's "good" because some one else wins it, someone without the billionaire owner who has out spent everyone else/bought the title (cough Chelsea and City), and a because of the fairy tale element. That alone may well rekindle some people's love of football or at least delay their boredom with the same old same old sides challenging. That is probably a good thing. It gives the smaller sides hope. Is it "good" that a side playing very basic and quite physical football wins the league? Probably not from the point of view of getting teams to play a style that won't be penalised and picked apart if/when they make the CL. Although even at that, will Leicester be any worse in the CL this year than Utd were? Or than Liverpool were two years ago!? I think it all depends on what you mean by "good" for English football. If it's only for one year and it encourages the big sides to stop just spunking money on the latest flavour of the month show pony and to do some proper scouting than maybe in a few years it could work out well if we get back to 2 or 3 English sides regularly making the last four of the CL. * It depends how you define "involved" as to whether you include Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Forums
Off Topic
Am I the only one?
Top
Bottom