Football opinion amnesty thread

[TD_LFC]

53 minutes ago, m0e said:

I'm not arguing with your second point.

 

The fact that players are on a downward curve from the age of 30 is total and utter horseshit.

 

By practically every metric out there.

While you might not see an obvious downward curve in players between, say, 30 and 35, what you might see more often is a change in role to cover for any declining area's of the game.

 

Older players tend to start moving from the all action more mobile positions to positions where they can be more efficient and keep the production up.

 

Don't think that happens as early as 30 mind, think, depending on the player, it starts happening from 32 onwards.

 

[m0e]

46 minutes ago, Mook said:

Funnily enough, your last sentence there looks like total & utter horseshit... Unless you can back it up with these metrics you're referring to.

 

I'd imagine some players aged 31 onwards are on their way down, others will improve but ambitious clubs don't tend to sign a lot of players aged 31 and over & it's because their best years are behind them, generally speaking.

So your 'evidence' is that ambitious clubs (whatever the fuck that even means) don't sign players over 31?

 

If that's true - and it patently isn't  - then that's because they're already at said clubs and tend to remain there well past 31.

 

The only metric where players under 30 top the charts are in total minutes played and sprints with or without the ball. But that isn't a gradual build up, and that data is mostly sustained at a high level well past the age of 30.

 

When you're taking into account effectiveness with the ball and positional play, which is inversely proportional to what I described in the previous paragrpah, as well as win percentages, then those past their 30s are well ahead.

 

Particularly players in the top 1% in their positions, such as Mane and Salah.

[m0e]

53 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Don't think that happens as early as 30 mind, think, depending on the player, it starts happening from 32 onwards.

 

That's a fairer reflection.

 

Goalkeepers and centre backs have played for the most successful clubs in history well past their 30s. Midfielders and attackers too.

 

I'd argue that only traditional wingers and attacking full backs would have peaked by 31/32.

[Mook]

51 minutes ago, m0e said:

So your 'evidence' is that ambitious clubs (whatever the fuck that even means) don't sign players over 31?

I stopped reading there because you've not read my post properly. The words 'tend' & 'a lot' specifically.

 

To be honest you seemed to get upset about a fairly innocuous comment I made. I don't care about it enough to debate it any further so let's just agree that you're right and what I said was complete & utter horseshit & we can put this pish to bed.

[3 Stacks]

There's loads of players who stay at a very high level into their 30's, but sometimes you have to make choices so that you don't have too old of a squad. Especially a club like ours, which plays by the rules and needs to sell players to partially fund transfers.

[m0e]

2 hours ago, Mook said:

I stopped reading there because you've not read my post properly. The words 'tend' & 'a lot' specifically.

 

To be honest you seemed to get upset about a fairly innocuous comment I made. I don't care about it enough to debate it any further so let's just agree that you're right and what I said was complete & utter horseshit & we can put this pish to bed.

There's only one person who got upset here.

 

"Tends to happen a lot" when you have nothing to back up your claims and get called out on it.

[m0e]

2 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

There's loads of players who stay at a very high level into their 30's, but sometimes you have to make choices so that you don't have too old of a squad. Especially a club like ours, which plays by the rules and needs to sell players to partially fund transfers.

Yup.

 

Real's double winning team had 7 first team starters at 30 and over, including 34 year old Benzema and 36 year old Modric.

 

City had 4 and we had 5 - the same as Chelsea.

 

The PL and CL teams for the year had 5 players each in their 30s.

[VladimirIlyich]

6 hours ago, m0e said:

Yup.

 

Real's double winning team had 7 first team starters at 30 and over, including 34 year old Benzema and 36 year old Modric.

 

City had 4 and we had 5 - the same as Chelsea.

 

The PL and CL teams for the year had 5 players each in their 30s.

Real Madrid are the club whose blueprint Man City are now following,except with Arab oil money rather than Spanish taxpayers and their many other 'friends in high places.' Comparing us and Real Madrid is pretty much the same as comparing us to Man City in financial terms and you ruled that out earlier.

[m0e]

2 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

Real Madrid are the club whose blueprint Man City are now following,except with Arab oil money rather than Spanish taxpayers and their many other 'friends in high places.' Comparing us and Real Madrid is pretty much the same as comparing us to Man City in financial terms and you ruled that out earlier.

I'm not comparing us to anyone. I'm talking about the statement that players peak before 30. It's a nonsense.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

These suits look sharp and if we'd won the match everyone would admit it.

 

[dave u]

Looks sharp on Barnesy, as everything does.

 

The rest of them? Look like knobheads. Actually they'd look like knobheads if we'd won. Because we lost they just look like wankers.

 

Look at Digger though, what a specimen.

[Arniepie]

1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

These suits look sharp and if we'd won the match everyone would admit it.

 

absolute cunt of a day that.

[Tony Moanero]

44 minutes ago, dave u said:

Looks sharp on Barnesy, as everything does.

 

The rest of them? Look like knobheads. Actually they'd look like knobheads if we'd won. Because we lost they just look like wankers.

 

Look at Digger though, what a specimen.

Redknapp and Ruddock looked pretty good, too. Oh, and Scales.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

1 hour ago, dave u said:

Looks sharp on Barnesy, as everything does.

 

The rest of them? Look like knobheads. Actually they'd look like knobheads if we'd won. Because we lost they just look like wankers.

 

Look at Digger though, what a specimen.

Some people look good in anything.

[JohnnyH]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

These suits look sharp and if we'd won the match everyone would admit it.

 

People never talk about the Man Utd suits that day which were awful too. 

[redrosetints]

2 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

These suits look sharp and if we'd won the match everyone would admit it.

 

Is there a ‘I need to have a lie down’ thread ?

 

was supposed to get a ticket off Stephen McGann, but one of his brothers pulled rank on the Friday, ended up watching in a pub with a load of Mancs. Shit day, shit suits.

[Harry's Lad]

1 hour ago, Arniepie said:

absolute cunt of a day that.

I was in the pub on a caravan site on my own surrounded by Mancs watching that.

 

 

 

 

[TD_LFC]

Not really amnesty material for this audience but Salah is a far bigger PL legend than Cristiano Ronaldo ever was and it's not even close.

[Razoray]

38 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Not really amnesty material for this audience but Salah is a far bigger PL legend than Cristiano Ronaldo ever was and it's not even close.

This should not be amnesty at all. Ronaldo became a pure goal machine at Madrid. He was never the best team player but his goal output outweighed that. Salah is more than a goalscorer. Salah has been a top goalscorer across six seasons here. 

The first time, Ronaldo was at Old Trafford for 6 seasons, arriving at 18 years old. Leaving aside the first 3 seasons when he scored a total of 27 goals, he scored 91 goals in 155 games. He scored 42 goals in 07/08 but his highest besides that was 26 goals in 08/09.

 

Salah scored 44 in his best season and only once (23 in 19/20) scored less than 27 goals. 

 

Salah's goal output is higher on average, has a better best season, has a better worst sseason and was a better team player. 

[redrosetints]

LFC under Roy Evans was like the Mancs under OGS.
 

IRoy Evans signed Phil Babb on Sept 1st 1994 for a British record fee for a defender of £3.5m, on the 2nd of Sept he signed John Scales for £3.4m. In June 95, he spent £8.5 on Stanley Victor Collymore a then British record fee. That’s two Harry Maguires and an Enzo Fernandez or £265m.

 

love Evomfor his service to the club and it pains me to think it, but that era provided being successful was more than just spending the money and about all the little things , those marginal gains, the intangibles, that make one club successful and another not.

 

wasnt Roy sfault, there were a lot of outside factors too, as we were a club in decline off the pitch too. 
 

love you Roy if you read this, 

[TD_LFC]

Phil Foden - Meh, not as good as the hype around him.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3 hours ago, redrosetints said:

LFC under Roy Evans was like the Mancs under OGS.
 

IRoy Evans signed Phil Babb on Sept 1st 1994 for a British record fee for a defender of £3.5m, on the 2nd of Sept he signed John Scales for £3.4m. In June 95, he spent £8.5 on Stanley Victor Collymore a then British record fee. That’s two Harry Maguires and an Enzo Fernandez or £265m.

 

love Evomfor his service to the club and it pains me to think it, but that era provided being successful was more than just spending the money and about all the little things , those marginal gains, the intangibles, that make one club successful and another not.

 

wasnt Roy sfault, there were a lot of outside factors too, as we were a club in decline off the pitch too. 
 

love you Roy if you read this, 

I don't think that comparison works. Evans's Liverpool were talented, but flawed.  Solksjaer's United were just shit.

[sir roger]

8 hours ago, redrosetints said:

LFC under Roy Evans was like the Mancs under OGS.
 

IRoy Evans signed Phil Babb on Sept 1st 1994 for a British record fee for a defender of £3.5m, on the 2nd of Sept he signed John Scales for £3.4m. In June 95, he spent £8.5 on Stanley Victor Collymore a then British record fee. That’s two Harry Maguires and an Enzo Fernandez or £265m.

 

love Evomfor his service to the club and it pains me to think it, but that era provided being successful was more than just spending the money and about all the little things , those marginal gains, the intangibles, that make one club successful and another not.

 

wasnt Roy sfault, there were a lot of outside factors too, as we were a club in decline off the pitch too. 
 

love you Roy if you read this, 

 

I thought Collymore was good here.

[redrosetints]

2 minutes ago, sir roger said:

 

I thought Collymore was good here.

He scored goals, but as a British record transfer fee at the time only stayed 2 seasons after Owen emerged. He was a bit like Nunez (his goals output was great) but he didn’t seem to get it and work out how to fit the team philosophy and style. 
 

to AngryOfTuebrook, that might be a bit red rose tinted memory. The p,Ayers and club were out of sorts then, after Smith left, Hillsborough, Dalgkish leaving etc we always thought we were one player away from success, like United, but it’s never that simple it’s about the manager the back room staff, the chairman. Club philosophy as a whole. In the same way United were getting their shit together as a club we were losing our way. The reverse of the last 7 years now for me. 

[TD_LFC]

The playoffs are an unfair way to decide promotion and should be changed to the top three being promoted.

 

6th place Sunderland could eliminate 3rd place Luton despite Sunderland finishing the season 11 points behind them in the championship.

 

6th placed Peterborough could eliminate 3rd placed Sheff Wednesday despite finishing 19 points behind them in league one.

 

If points don't matter then lets just have a playoff at the end of the season for promotion and relegation open to every team in the league.