Things In Football That Grind Your Gears

Ragnar Lothbrok

The hatred that Liverpool fans still have for Raheem Stirling. I just don't get it. He left Liverpool for arguably a better and more successful team (certainly at the time, anyway) and to stand a greater chance of winning medals. I imagine he was offered a bigger wage too.

The absolute joy that Liverpool fans seem to feel over his shocking miss against Lyon is strange. Why do they care so much about someone who used to play for them? The likes of Gerrard and Le Tissier, who stay with one club for life, are few and far between.

Shanotheslayer

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

The hatred that Liverpool fans still have for Raheem Stirling. I just don't get it. He left Liverpool for arguably a better and more successful team (certainly at the time, anyway) and to stand a greater chance of winning medals. I imagine he was offered a bigger wage too.

The absolute joy that Liverpool fans seem to feel over his shocking miss against Lyon is strange. Why do they care so much about someone who used to play for them? The likes of Gerrard and Le Tissier, who stay with one club for life, are few and far between.

I don't think it's much to do with him previously playing for the club. Most recently it's been when he interviewed 2 years ago and he said nobody wants that(In relation to Liverpool winning the league)

And also I think he stood on VVD off the ball on purpose? And then you have the whole Joe Gomez thing

Ragnar Lothbrok

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

I don't think it's much to do with him previously playing for the club. Most recently it's been when he interviewed 2 years ago and he said nobody wants that(In relation to Liverpool winning the league)

And also I think he stood on VVD off the ball on purpose? And then you have the whole Joe Gomez thing

Still seems a bit overboard. I get the feeling that it's definitely more to do with him leaving Liverpool, and then anything after that just added fuel to the fire.

Fitz*

Why do Man United fans hate Tevez?
Why do Spurs fans hate Sol Campbell?
Why do Barca fans hate Luis Figo?

The list could go on.

Liverpool gave Sterling his big break into football, he left them at the first sign of a poor season and didn't give them a chance to improve. At the time, Liverpool offered Sterling a massive contract to stay. He refused to enter contract negotiations and the club asked him to not go public in his contract talks/plans to leave. Sterling organised an interview and put it all out in the public.

Players leave and that is ok, but at least have some decorum about yourself. As Shano said, the comments coming from Sterling since he has left have not been very kind either.

Fitz*

Weepsie wrote: »

Liverpool plucked him from QPR the same way man city did to him from them. Nothing to do with giving him his big break. He was a much sought after, incredibly talented youth. It's not like he was some hidden gem from a backwater town in the middle of nowhere.

Why would they be kind, he was treated like a pariah and he had a manager who talks like David Brent there.

Suarez wanted out too, so maybe he felt there would be no future there. Had Klopp been set to arrive, he'd maybe still be there.

Sterling still played in the Liverpool academy, for more than 2 years. Anything can happen in a young player's career. Thousands of young players are wanted by multiple clubs but never make the grade. Liverpool gave him the right environment to develop and eventually make the grade. You had a dig at Brendan Rodgers there but fail to mention that Rodgers did an awful lot for Sterling's career. Developed him a lot, taught him a lot and had him playing some excellent football that resulted in him starting in the 10 position at the WC instead of Wayne Rooney, with Rooney moved out to the left wing instead.

One poor season and off he went to City. Didn't even give the manager that helped to develop him a chance to turn it around. Sterling was young enough to give 'one more season' and still have 10+ years of a career elsewhere.

Instead Sterling packed it in at the first opportunity, publicly went against the club that gave him his big break and so did his agent saying that he wouldn't even accept a contract offer of 900,000 a week to play. He didn't show up for training and faked an injury. He then mocked the club since. That's why he is disliked.

He left Liverpool at 20 in 2015. Klopp arrived a few months later and turned the club around. Who knows what position Sterling would be in now if he did give it one more season.

StringerBell

Do we hate Tevez?

I didn't know that, can't say I spend much time ever thinking about young carlitos tbh

Would have thought the irrational hatred guy for United fans would be...........I dunno actually, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. Maybe Heinze?

joeguevara

StringerBell wrote: »

Do we hate Tevez?

I didn't know that, can't say I spend much time ever thinking about young carlitos tbh

Would have thought the irrational hatred guy for United fans would be...........I dunno actually, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. Maybe Heinze?

Tevez and mascherano for me are definitely one of the most exciting things to happen the premiership. West Ham signing them was crazy and everything after was like a movie. Tevez was an unbelievable talent but a pure mercenary. Mascherano was a make weight for the deal and ended up world class.

ArmaniJeanss

StringerBell wrote: »

Do we hate Tevez?

I didn't know that, can't say I spend much time ever thinking about young carlitos tbh

Would have thought the irrational hatred guy for United fans would be...........I dunno actually, I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. Maybe Heinze?

Paul Ince for the last few years of his career maybe? "Charlie Charlie whats the score?". Attitudes tend to soften when players eventually retire.

sligeach

Virgin Media. They're not showing any of the Champions League semi-finals on terrestrial TV. I don’t like them at all. Their sports channels are off the air 99% of the time and their coverage is no better than RTE. RTE tonight will show RB Leipzig v PSG, and that's it. Virgin Media won't even show any highlights on TV. And I can't watch Virgin Media Sports because of their dispute with Eir. I hope they go out of business.

StringerBell

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Paul Ince for the last few years of his career maybe? "Charlie Charlie whats the score?". Attitudes tend to soften when players eventually retire.

Definitely plenty of resentment toward the guvnor during his twilight years alright but as you say softened a good bit these days.

The J Stands for Jay

sligeach wrote: »

Virgin Media. They're not showing any of the Champions League semi-finals on terrestrial TV. I don’t like them at all. Their sports channels are off the air 99% of the time and their coverage is no better than RTE. RTE tonight will show RB Leipzig v PSG, and that's it. Virgin Media won't even show any highlights on TV. And I can't watch Virgin Media Sports because of their dispute with Eir. I hope they go out of business.

I have virgin broadband now and previously eir broadband. Both come with access through the app to their sports channels. Both have nothing on air 99% of the time. It's ridiculous. I have no idea why they have some many sports channels

jacool

I robbed this quote from the CL 2021 thread.

"There are 32 places in the group stage of the 2020-21 "Champions" League and 20 of them are automatically taken by the top six leagues.
If Lyon win the CL then its 21."

Disgraceful stuff altogether.
Its worse when you see that just 4 leagues make up 50% of the participation.

As I recall, with last years 4 semi-finalists in the "Champions" league there was a total of 92 years since the teams cumulatively had last won their leagues - and Barcelona were actual champions !
0+5+29+58

UEFA's favourite band - Status Quo

Guy:Incognito

The champions from all the countries are in it though, so if it would be better with just champions, you'd think theyd be doing better in the competition...........



Also, its a far better competition now and people really need to get over this "but its called the champions league" stuff. it's been nearly 30 years lads, time to move on.

adaminho

jacool wrote: »

I robbed this quote from the CL 2021 thread.

"There are 32 places in the group stage of the 2020-21 "Champions" League and 20 of them are automatically taken by the top six leagues.
If Lyon win the CL then its 21."

Disgraceful stuff altogether.
Its worse when you see that just 4 leagues make up 50% of the participation.

As I recall, with last years 4 semi-finalists in the "Champions" league there was a total of 92 years since the teams cumulatively had last won their leagues - and Barcelona were actual champions !
0+5+29+58

UEFA's favourite band - Status Quo

https://twitter.com/jonoblain/status/1295996742710820864

Hodors Appletart

do people not realise this is mostly a reaction by uefa to the threat of a breakaway euro-super-league which could permanently close off to new entrants

jacool

Irish Liverpool fans
Irish Manchester United fans

Do 87.33% of football threads have to descend into a "them against us" debate, just because their dads or uncles supported one of those two teams, and they weren't allowed make up their own minds?
The Champions League thread went off because of fighting over the best XI picks
The Premier League thread is going off over the Harry Maguire story

Same old, same old, and it gets very tedious, very fast
In the end, it will just drive more and more people away from boards

eigrod

jacool wrote: »

Irish Liverpool fans
Irish Manchester United fans

Do 87.33% of football threads have to descend into a "them against us" debate, just because their dads or uncles supported one of those two teams, and they weren't allowed make up their own minds?
The Champions League thread went off because of fighting over the best XI picks
The Premier League thread is going off over the Harry Maguire story

Same old, same old, and it gets very tedious, very fast
In the end, it will just drive more and more people away from boards

To be fair, the mods acted quickly this morning. The moderation has improved here since the new ones were introduced and the very small number of posters who were ruining the place have been broadly kept in line - in my opinion.

Agent Coulson

Micah Richards being a pundit on nearly every radio and TV show these days and he just laughs after every sentence he say.

Skylinehead

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Micah Richards being a pundit on nearly every radio and TV show these days and he just laughs after every sentence he say.

Yeah he's fairly awful, only seems to be there because he's enthusiastic.

Which I suppose is better than Michael Owen in any sense, but still awful.

Agent Coulson

Skylinehead wrote: »

Yeah he's fairly awful, only seems to be there because he's enthusiastic.

Which I suppose is better than Michael Owen in any sense, but still awful.

I could handle the enthusiasm if he was any good with his punditry but he isn't.

Clinton Morrison is nearly to enthusiastic and gets tripped up over his words however if you strip down what he is talking about he is actually a really good pundit he just needs to slow down and not get so excitable.

polarbearhead

I think I've posted about him here before but Martin Tyler. His pen-demic joke and his clumsy comment about Willian moving to Arsenal for a UK passport! Surely he can't have long left to retirement

Mr.Nice Guy

Getting tired of the tendency nowadays for teams defending free-kicks to stick another player behind the wall, blocking the potential of a low shot underneath. It's essentially a double form of defence.

I've seen players crouching behind the wall before, but Douglas Costa in Bayern's game at the weekend actually lies down flat behind it. See here from 2:27:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWKU_440Xx0

To me this practice is too kind to the defending team. After all, a free-kick is supposed to be a punishment against a team for an offence. I don't get the logic in the game allowing a defending team to effectively negate outright a potential route to goal.

I'd like to see all forms of this type of low block banned by the lawmakers. If the Costa tactic above catches on, then it will effectively stop goals from under the wall and compel all players to shoot over it. If a 'second wall' is to continue to be allowed then I'd like a ruling where a player can only be permitted to crouch - no lying down - and that they must be directly behind no more than one player. Having said that, the simplest solution would be for the authorities to say there can only be one wall, and thus one type of defence.

Salvation Tambourine

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

After all, a free-kick is supposed to be a punishment against a team for an offence. I don't get the logic in the game allowing a defending team to effectively negate outright a potential route to goal.

They get a free kick of the ball, that's the punishment.

GavRedKing

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Getting tired of the tendency nowadays for teams defending free-kicks to stick another player behind the wall, blocking the potential of a low shot underneath. It's essentially a double form of defence.

I've seen players crouching behind the wall before, but Douglas Costa in Bayern's game at the weekend actually lies down flat behind it. See here from 2:27:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWKU_440Xx0

To me this practice is too kind to the defending team. After all, a free-kick is supposed to be a punishment against a team for an offence. I don't get the logic in the game allowing a defending team to effectively negate outright a potential route to goal.

I'd like to see all forms of this type of low block banned by the lawmakers. If the Costa tactic above catches on, then it will effectively stop goals from under the wall and compel all players to shoot over it. If a 'second wall' is to continue to be allowed then I'd like a ruling where a player can only be permitted to crouch - no lying down - and that they must be directly behind no more than one player. Having said that, the simplest solution would be for the authorities to say there can only be one wall, and thus one type of defence.

Its taking a player out of defence too.

It wont take teams long to catch on to a potential ball down the side, to a player to shot or pull back while the defending player is laying down like a fish out of water, keeping everyone onside.

I've no issue with some laying behind the wall, the attacking team should stand in line with him as hes not going to get up from that position for at least 2 or 3 seconds after the ball is struck.

The other side of it is, teams wont give away too many free kicks circa 21 yards from goal so how often will you need someone to lay down and how often as the attacking team will you need to plan for it by setting an alternative drill up to get around it.

I would have thought there's one obvious downside, if it goes under the wall and hits a player lying out, assuming he's lying parallel to the wall there's a good chance it will hit his arm...

764dak

I dislike when commentators, writers, analysts, etc focus on the number of goals the winning team scored instead of the margin of victory. You hear "hit for five," "hit for six" and then you find out they won by 2 or 3 goals. They make it seem like 5-3 is better than 3-0.

breezy1985

Teams wearing change strips when theres no need. Like when the famous Rossoneri show up to Tallaght wearing swamp green or the Manchester Zebras Vs PSG.

Was so much nicer tonight watching Milan and Celtic face off in 2 iconic European kits

Mitch Connor

breezy1985 wrote: »

Teams wearing change strips when theres no need. Like when the famous Rossoneri show up to Tallaght wearing swamp green or the Manchester Zebras Vs PSG.

Was so much nicer tonight watching Milan and Celtic face off in 2 iconic European kits

I think UNited had to wear an away kit, and as the second kit is also dark it may have been needed to wear the third.

The J Stands for Jay

breezy1985 wrote: »

Teams wearing change strips when theres no need. Like when the famous Rossoneri show up to Tallaght wearing swamp green or the Manchester Zebras Vs PSG.

Was so much nicer tonight watching Milan and Celtic face off in 2 iconic European kits

There's a fair amount of red in the PSG kit.

breezy1985

McGaggs wrote: »

There's a fair amount of red in the PSG kit.

Ya true I was getting it confused with the older kit.
But I stick by my point and ide love if teams had to wear home kits unless instructed otherwise. Serie A is almost like the American sports now with teams wearing the change strip all the time when away