Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
That would be me? Total apathy up here I'm afraid. Reading your comment was the first I'd heard of it because it didn't even make the front page of the BBC Scotland section!

Obviously the SFA in their wisdom are judging him on his last 1.5 games rather than the initial 10.5. But they couldn't afford to replace him and there is nobody stepping up to replace him.

Interesting. I know that, in the USA, we have trouble attracting any good foreign coaches...plus there are no high profile American managers out there and there is pressure within US Soccer to field an American manager anyways. After the last World Cup, there was a very real chance at getting Jurgen Klinsman, but US Soccer balked at his wage demands. I dream of having a Guus Hiddink or Fabio Capello, and wonder what it would do for us though I think our current manager (Bob Bradley) is good, if not spectacular.

BBC news article here

Jumping ship before the transfer ban and teenage signings issues increase?

I don't think too many fans will be sorry to see him go.
 
...I think our current manager (Bob Bradley) is good, if not spectacular.

Yeah, I can't recall him making any genius moves that swung games, but he hasn't made many mistakes either. At this point I think he just needs to find a way to test them against tougher competition before next summer, which is not something he has much control over.
 
Kenyon - "I am certain I have at least one major challenge left in me."

Will his slime trail lead to Manchester City?

Quota - an article yesterday mentioned that Cesc Fabregas qualifies, but Owen Hargreaves doesn't.

Cheers,
OW
 
Yeah, I can't recall him making any genius moves that swung games, but he hasn't made many mistakes either. At this point I think he just needs to find a way to test them against tougher competition before next summer, which is not something he has much control over.

My biggest complaint against Bradley is that if his chosen tactical formation doesn't pan out in a game, he doesn't seem to be able to always make substitutions that successfully change things. He has a more conservative management style, and he sticks with players a little much sometimes. Capello, for example, is quicker to drop players who are off-form.

But he has proven that he can be competitive against good opposition, and besides maybe Sigi Schmidt I can't think of a another American manager I'd like to see in the job. He's earned the right to go to South Africa.
 
EDIT: 2-0 down now – would you believe it, a penalty.
No, not until I see the replay, my initial reaction was that it was a dive.
EDIT: I've seen the replay, and while there was the slightest of touches from Galas, I still think the guy threw himself on the floor
 
Rubin Kazan are the team to watch this year, walking away with the Russian league after winning it last season at a canter too.

Shame they've been drawn with Braca and Inter really.
 
Well, Arsenal pulled themselves together and came back with three unanswered goals...hooo boy, that would have been a contentious one had Arsenal lost 2-1 on a dodgy penalty...

Debrecen looked better than I expected, but it was a pretty boring match at Anfield. Missed chances on both sides.

And who would have predicted Inter 0-0 Barca (still waiting for Zlatan to produce the goods)?
 
That's one step in the right direction...now to move to a singe table...
Out of interest, are there any major sports in the US that aren't regionalised? Obviously the NFL has its regional conferences, I think the same is true of baseball, ice hockey and basketball?

Given the size of the US, and the fact that so many major sports are divided up based on geography, how feasible would a single national league actually be?
 
Regional conferences are the norm here, it's a big country. But whether you have two conferences or one table, the teams all still have to travel, so I don't see the advantage. More dyed-in-the-wool American sports fans might be able to present an argument for them, but I can't.

I don't mind keeping the playoff system, since we will never have promotion/relegation (well, I highly doubt it anyway). As the league expands the playoffs will be tougher to get into, so the regular season games will be more important.

But last season we had the silliness of New York going to the final as the Western Conference champion (they were a wild card). That should be a clue that the conferences serve little purpose other than to make the league more "American".
 
Out of interest, are there any major sports in the US that aren't regionalised? Obviously the NFL has its regional conferences, I think the same is true of baseball, ice hockey and basketball?

Baseball is regionalized in the sense that the leagues have divisions that are mostly based on geography. But major league baseball is still split into two separate leagues: the National League has been around since 1876 (the oldest pro sports league in the world, I think), and the American League since 1901. Both leagues are nationwide because they developed first as rivals and then cooperatively, with most major cities have a team in each league. So the NL has a western division that includes the LA Dodgers and the AL has a western division that includes the LA Angels. Until interleague play was introduced during the 1995 season, teams from different leagues never played each other except in the World Series.
 
Phew! We're loving a bit of Arsenal talk at the moment.. I'll reply to everything I have seen and get you all straight ;)

"He is a professional - he is meant to take the abuse, that's one of the reasons he's paid so much." - What a bizarre view. A professional footballer is not paid to take the abuse, nor does paying money entitle a supporter to hurl any form of abuse or object that takes his/her fancy.

View - sorry to disappoint you but I am not alone in thinking the VP tackle was worth a red card and that a ban for the celebration is over the top. Perhaps we need Arsenal tinted glasses? You are correct that it is the FA's view that counts - weather conditions could play as much a part as reason. On a similar charge, Gary Neville got a GBP 5,000 fine.

Cheers,
OW

Pfft. Red card for that van Persie tackle - it is briefly mentioned in papers that it was a bad tackle, but I think even just having a vote of people here, most would say it was a yellow, not a red. Personally I would call it a strikers tackle. Like I said - if you red carded every challenge like that, you wouldn't end many games without a player off. As we are so often reminded by stupid microphone wearing gum chewing imbecile Alladyce (I don't care how it's spelt) it's a physical game.

Adebayor's challenge is completely different, surely you can see. At least van Persie is somewhat trying to play the ball, feet on the ground, albeit rashly.. Adebayor rakes his face totally off the ball and intentionally, and rightfully, is being punished.

The professional: what I mean, is they are paid a lot of money to play football, often in front of hostile crowds. That is a part of football, and I'm sure it used to be a lot more hostile than it was now. They are the role models, they are the professionals - they are the ones carrying out their jobs, with the eyes of the world on them - the onus is on them to behave. Whilst what the fans did was unacceptable, Adebayor shouldn't have provoked them - he is a professional, and should be able to deal with fans. Again, the result is going to be the people who employ him are not going to be impressed - as as a result of his childish unprofessional behaviour, he will miss matches for them.

While I don't agree with what Adebayor did, although certain levels of abuse are tolerated, I don't believe he's paid extra £££ to take it. Just as I don't agree that throwing a chair and hospitalising a steward (or anyone for that matter) is an acceptable reaction to what Adebayor did. Let's hope everyone gets what's coming to them.

He's not paid extra to take it.. all professional footballers get abuse, really. Usually it's just in the form of fans taking the piss, but Sol Campbell from Spurs? Is an example. He didn't react to it. Because he was being professional, realised that as a professional footballer he is a role model and must rise above it and not react to it.

I don't know how to make my point really, it's not clear reading through really.

I believe Arsenal argued the fact that Eduardo went to ground, not to win a penalty, but to avoid contact with Boruc, worried by the horrific injury he sustained previously. The fact that he didn't appeal for a penalty was also used to substantiate this claim.

This. Arsene said - it wasn't a penalty, but you are accusing him of deliberately cheating. We believe he wasn't deliberately cheating, but he went down anticipating contact/to avoid contact. It's almost impossible to prove the intent to deceive the referee, so the charge was dropped. That's how I see it. That and UEFA realised that it wasn't a great can of worms to open.

Finally a couple of brilliant quotes from Arsene about Adebayor:

"Adebayor's challenge on Van Persie looks very bad. You ask 100 people, 99 will say it's very bad and the 100th will be Mark Hughes."

and about van Persie's critical statement towards Adebayor:

"If somebody stamps on your head in that way, you wouldn't say, 'thank you very much' and turn the other cheek. Only Jesus Christ did that."
 
Adebayor's challenge is completely different, surely you can see. At least van Persie is somewhat trying to play the ball, feet on the ground, albeit rashly.. Adebayor rakes his face totally off the ball and intentionally, and rightfully, is being punished.

I basically agree - RVP should get a yellow, Adebayor should get a red. It was a bad tackle from the Dutchman, but not malicious. But in the slo-mo you can see that Adebayor makes a clear effort to take a chunk out of RVP's face with his boot. He probably got more face than he intended, but that's his problem.

Finally a couple of brilliant quotes from Arsene about Adebayor:

THAT is hilarity on an EPIC scale! :eek::D
 
As soon as Wenger raised the issue of 'intent' regarding the Eduardo incident, you knew Uefa were going to have problems. It certainly seems to be a favoured defence of his when one of his players is accused of a questionable action. Yes, it certainly looks like Player X did what he was accused of, but can you prove he intended to do what he's accused of? In such instances, proving there was a clear intent to cheat is incredibly difficult, Wenger knows this and as such places the onus on it.

It was interesting therefore to hear him speaking on the Adebayor situation the other day, he brought the matter of 'intent' up a couple of times.

It was also interesting to hear him criticise Mark Hughes - although the Manchester City manager may be misguided in doing so, at the end of the day he's defending his player, as most managers would. Given Wenger's recent admission that he's not adverse to telling the odd fib himself to protect his charges, I think his moral high ground is a little shakey. I wonder if the roles were reversed would Wenger condem one of his own players for such a stamp, or would he be asking us to prove the player in question 'intended' to injure his opponent?
 
As soon as Wenger raised the issue of 'intent' regarding the Eduardo incident, you knew Uefa were going to have problems. It certainly seems to be a favoured defence of his when one of his players is accused of a questionable action. Yes, it certainly looks like Player X did what he was accused of, but can you prove he intended to do what he's accused of? In such instances, proving there was a clear intent to cheat is incredibly difficult, Wenger knows this and as such places the onus on it.

It was interesting therefore to hear him speaking on the Adebayor situation the other day, he brought the matter of 'intent' up a couple of times.

It was also interesting to hear him criticise Mark Hughes - although the Manchester City manager may be misguided in doing so, at the end of the day he's defending his player, as most managers would. Given Wenger's recent admission that he's not adverse to telling the odd fib himself to protect his charges, I think his moral high ground is a little shakey. I wonder if the roles were reversed would Wenger condem one of his own players for such a stamp, or would he be asking us to prove the player in question 'intended' to injure his opponent?

Good point, I don't know. Yes, managers try and get behind their players, and I'm sure Arsene has when he has actually felt they were in the wrong. The thing is, it is a lot easier to show intent in an incident like Adebayor's - he moved his foot out of it's natural movement to rake van Persie's face, I think most people can see that that is a clear action. Why else would he be doing that, if not to injure his opponent? The ball was well gone, and he knew that. Diving is slightly different, as there is the issue of avoiding contact, or whether he got a very slight touch.

I'm not saying both didn't show intent, I obviously believe it wasn't a penalty on Eduardo, and probably believe he dived for it. What I don't believe was fair was the scapegoating of him, thus I think it's fair that the ban has been overturned - however Arsenal achieved that.
 
I dream of having a Guus Hiddink or Fabio Capello, and wonder what it would do for us though I think our current manager (Bob Bradley) is good, if not spectacular.

Ah young Skywalker, you have much to learn.

Your team is getting better and the fans expectations are growing. You will decide that your home-grown coach no longer meets your expectations since he doesn't have experience of major championships. So you'll bring in a foreigner, but that won't work as the dressing room won't like his different methods, the media won't take to him and even if he starts to turn things around his days had already been numbered. So then you'll go back to a home-grown coach, a big name, and enter yet another period of transition, not really sure if you are progressing or just putting things back to the way they were. He'll then get offered more money by a MLS team and so then go back to the idea of a foreign coach and this time you'll pick the right one.

Or am I just old and cynical?;)
(btw, Scotland are at stage #3 of the above, England are at stage #4)

Decent result for Rangers last night, I was hoping for a win before the game and after the first half delighted with a draw!
 
The thing is, it is a lot easier to show intent in an incident like Adebayor's - he moved his foot out of it's natural movement to rake van Persie's face, I think most people can see that that is a clear action. Why else would he be doing that, if not to injure his opponent?
I don't think there's any doubt Adebayor intended to do what he did – granted, it might have been a heat of the moment thing and he simply lashed out, but he shouldn't have done it and deserves his punishment.

And Fuzzy – you're no more older or cynical than most of us. Well, maybe older. ;)

EDIT: As expected, that naughty lad Adebayor has been handed a three match ban for violent conduct.

Note that this is just for the stamp on Van Persie, he may very well still face further sanction on the second charge relating to his goal celebration.
 
A critical 1-0 away win for Columbus in the CONCACAF Champions League, scoring in the fifth minute against Costa-Rican champions Saprissa and then holding on for a painful 88 minutes for the win on one of the crappiest astro-turf pitches I've ever seen. The best part is we did it with a B+ team since we go to Chicago on Saturday and need to be tip-top. The game started at 2am ET, and I stayed up to watch. :D

The best part about the match is that no American team (including the US national squad) has ever won there before...Well done boys!

Yes, it certainly looks like Player X did what he was accused of, but can you prove he intended to do what he's accused of?

That's a good point. It is very hard to prove intent during a match like that...unless there is crystal clear evidence that there was NEVER contact at all, it's always going to be a vexed question.

Or am I just old and cynical?;)
(btw, Scotland are at stage #3 of the above, England are at stage #4)

:D

As long as it's not Sven! England and Mexico went that route, and look what happened...

The USA is a big consumer of football (Americans have, for example, have purchased the most tickets for South Africa so far), but not a big consumer of it's own football (i.e. USA national team, MLS, USL etc.). What that means is that coaching the USA national team is nowhere near the glamor job of, oh, say, Russia.

I heard that when Jurgen Klinsmann spoke to US Soccer about taking the job, he made huge wage demands and wanted his entire entourage moved over with him, arguing all the while that the concessions were only fair given the small market he was being asked to move to. Had he come over we would have demanded more from him (such as an away win in Mexico) and I'm not convinced he could have done that.

So I think we are years away from attracting a big foreign coach. Bradley is not a top level manager, but he's probably the best available and he's proven competitive so I'm content till at least after the WC. I think most USA fans will judge him on whether he makes it out of the group stage in South Africa.
 
As long as it's not Sven! England and Mexico went that route, and look what happened...
To be fair to Sven, I think much of the criticism levelled at his record (from an England point of view at least) is a tad unjustified.

He qualified for and reached the quarter finals of three consecutive tournaments, a feat only matched during his reign by Brazil, and during his five year tenure he only lost three competitive matches. Granted, he never won a major tournament with England but then again only Sir Alf Ramsey can claim that.

Criticism of some of his off-the-field antics is justified though, and if one criticism can be made of his managerial style it's that he had a tendency to freeze tactically during big matches. There were occasions when a bit of boldness was required by Eriksson, but he seemed to prefer a more cautious approach and avoided taking risks that could have swung the match in his favour.

In the end though, there are quite a few former England managers who I'm sure wouldn't have minded his competitive record. For one thing, his successor Steve McClaren proved how difficult a job it can be...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.