Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: porto-1978
Date: 09-07-2004, 17:31

At http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2004/3866347.stm you can read the article "How Euro 2004 changed football".
I do think football is changing in the last two years. In national teams we have the example of last Euro and WC. In clubs competitions i think the way all the last season CL favourites fell down was sintomatic of something changing in football. Even in Copa Libertadores the winner was not S. Paulo or Boca Juniors but a medium team, Once Caldas. I think the diference between favourites and not favourites, big and small, seeded and unseeded is getting smaller. Is it just my preception? If it?s real is itfor long time or just a period? I think it always happens periods like this, then big clubs reflect and take the necessary steps to avoid smaller teams to beat them. Coaches with a profile such as Camacho and Mourinho leading two of the bigest clubs may help; Fergunson and other coaches are surely taking their precautions also.
Finally, the implications of this (temporary or not) change on seedings. If football is changing so much as it seems will seeding diferences between clubs have so much importance as before? I think time after time there?s less favourites and more balanced teams. So that seedings are likely to be a pure formality to put together pair of teams but not to predict the winners of a round.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 09-07-2004, 19:40

To me, there are 2 different issues:

1) Nations: the rise of "small" nations is for me a long-term trend, because of the club competitions (always more tough for so-called big players) and because of football globalization, as explained in the BBC report.

2) for clubs, it seems to be however different. I am pretty sure that Porto and Monaco (at least Monaco) would have never reached the final if they had to play the 6-game second stage as it used to exist the year before. Because these clubs are not designed to play big games every 3 days. They do not have enough good players for that, they just have 11-15 good players, whereas they would need 25 good players to play at the same time the Champions League and their domestic league. If the UEFA had kept the same formula, we would have had the same group of teams (Real, Deportivo, ManU, Arsenal, Juve, Milan, Bayern) in quarters of final as it happened to be the last 5 years.

Author: porto-1978
Date: 11-07-2004, 00:09

About yhe second topic i don?t agree at all. It?s true that last season there was no second group stage and that beneficted clubs such Monaco or Porto but they reached the finals by a lot of more reasons. Good tactical structure with a good mix of experienced and young players. Not big stars but all good players. At least in Porto no more than 25 players a season. Motivation, a lot of work and skills... and so on. Many reasons were much more important than the not existance of the second group stage. And you can never say that one or another club would be in one or another stage if there was group stage because there was not and all clubs knew about it.
From all the other reasons that helped who won and from the experience of not had won, big clubs may (or not!) change the strategy a bit. I think the lesson will be taken by the most of them, except those who don?t need it. Stop buying so many stars; having shorter but stronger squads, balanced also on age, experience and personality; paying importance to psychological and motivational factors; great discipline and hard work with no possibility of escape neither for the most famous star; stop trusting in luck, names and money and start trusting and well projected and concepted plans. I think many big clubs still trust too much on the first class of things. They have to trust more in less known but equally good players and gain some humility by the way. Am i the only to think this way?

Author: akis71
Date: 12-07-2004, 04:38

1)For nations competition it is obvious that the gap is closing. Although I think it is important that the last major competitions starts few days after the final of major clubs competitions. The players of Korea, Turkey, Greece were more fresh. Not just they played less games but also they played lower qualify games in general.
2) I do believe also that the change of the format of champions league affected a lot. Competitions that based on knock out games give more chances not to have the best team as winner. That doesnt mean Porto or Greek NT didnt deserve their trophies but I am pretty sure that if top-8 teams of CL and EURO were playing in a round robin system which is the most fair way to determine the best none of them would have been 1st.

Author: jonjon
Date: 12-07-2004, 11:42

Im not quite convinced club football is changing, however for once i agree with Porto. This year in the CL, Porto were by far the most complete team, with strong tactical leadership. Player for player they might not live up to the squads of Chelsea, Madrid, Man Utd, Deportivo, Milan etc, but as a squad they were the strongest. The major teams were unbalanced, in one way or another they all had a vulnerability and that is why IMO Porto triumphed. The emergence of an extremely talented squad from a "smaller league" occurs every few years and through strong management, together with the team spirit it produces, they can be very difficult for the larger teams to overcome. Unfortunately, like Ajax of the mid 90's, Porto will loose many of their players and have already lost their manager.

I dont think this is going to set a trend, a few major clubs outside the big leagues will continue to challenge, but im afraid that the major European honours will still continue to be dominated by the heavyweights.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 12-07-2004, 11:58

Actually it shows that football is NOT changing. The last 10-15 years we have seen the money getting more important and with that money, a few countries getting more of it and thus attracting the better players and within each country the same: a few teams getting most of the money and getting most of the good players.
This season shows that despite that, it doesn't meant that the top teams from the top countries are all there is.
Not having the best players is important, but also have the right mentality is important. That can not be bought!!

Author: anita
Date: 12-07-2004, 14:37

Yes, Ricardo, thats a vital point. Taking two examples: Norway in the nineties with their purified "kick and run" football and hardly any players of international quality worth mentioning. Won their WCQ-group ahead of Holland, England and Poland without losing to any of them). And qualifying for WC98 and Euro2000. The reason for this success? The players believed in the tactics from the coach.

Other example: Cameroon in WC-1990. Brilliant individual players and made England dizzy in the 1/8-final. Then after 2-0 starting to play Copacabana-football (holding ball alone and dribbling as many as possible until you lose the ball). And lost 2-3. Coach Milutinovic became almost racistic. He told after the match that he had tried for two years emphasizing the importance of defensive formation and team play blabla, but the players seemed to forget it when entering the turf.

My point: It's the coach' job to get all the players to understand and BELIEVE in his coaching. Milutinovic didn't achieve that with Cameroon. Rehhagel (and the Norwegian coach in nineties) managed that. Literally.

Reason why Norway has done poorly later years: Players don't believe in the coach and his tactics any more. Example from Denmark. Their coach in early nineties wanted to play more defensively. Laudrup brothers didn't want that. Well, Laudrup brothers out of the team.

To sum it up, when competition get stronger, margins get smaller. And coaching become more important. And proved in Euro04 and CL. The (functionable) team is always more important than the individual player(s).

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 12-07-2004, 16:10

You'r basically saying that to win a competition, you have to have skilled players, good tactics, good team spirit and so on. Of course I agree with that, otherwise you have absolutely no chance to win.

But I'm pretty sure that Porto or Monaco say 2-3 years ago basically had the same quality (and if not, other teams coming outside the Top 3 Leagues had these fixtures at that time.).
Why Porto and Monaco managed to get to the final this year and not previous years, is just because of the knock-out stages that replaced the second qualifying round.
As said by Atkis, it's not necessarily the best team who is champion anymore, but the other side, it provides some refresh in European hierarchy.

At last, I fully agree that Porto is a very strong team and so on, but please do not "theorize" too much. If Costinha had not scored at the very last minute of the ManU game, Porto would have not been to the quarters and nobody would have spoken of the huge quality of this team. All teams that went to the Champions League last 16 are strong; afterwards, it is a matter of opportunism, details and ... luck sometimes. And this is why we like football I presume. Because Porto or Greece are able to win major competitions.

Author: anita
Date: 12-07-2004, 16:33

Just adding, Lyonnais. Maybe with a second group stage small squads as Monacos would have been eliminated. But you mention the big teams. ManU on third in PL, and showing rusty form. RealM with defense problems the whole season (from first match in Spa PL)and also 3rd place in league, Milan just stumbling through to 1/8-final in CL with 1-0 victories, and losing 0-4 to Depo is not championlike. BayernM reaching 1/8-final in CL with last match 1-0 win vs. Anderlecht, but though should have eliminated RealM in 1/8-final. Chelsea with a rather new-composed team, but strong and lucky enough to eliminate Arsenal.

I think one reason for those small teams success also lies on the unstable form and shape of the giants this season.

Author: Michele
Date: 12-07-2004, 21:36

No no no, Anita. Where were you in the summer of 1990? You can't possibly have been in front of the TV with that amount of factual errors.

Cameroon met England in the quarterfinal, not the 1/8-final.
Cameroon were 2-1 up, but they were also trailing 1-0 at halftime. Cameroon only had the lead for 17 minutes in that game.
Of course, Bora Milutinovic managed one of the teams at WC90, but it was Costa Rica who enjoyed his managing skills - and his sharp tongue. Cameroon's manager in 1990 was the almost unknown Turkmen (then Soviet) Valeri Nepomniatjij. However, he couldn't communicate with his players and had 3 assistants to help him and translate.

I don't know when Milutinovic has become "racist" in his comments, but my best guess is that it might be after Nigeria lost 1-4 to Denmark in the 1998 1/8-final.

Apart from these mistakes, you're probably right

Mikael

Author: porto-1978
Date: 13-07-2004, 05:03

For me is easier to think that football is changing than thinking that is stoped, as it have to be dynamic as any other complex "thing". Football deals with market, society, politics and many other areas. When something happen outside football there?s some reflect, bigger or smaller. I?m not pretending to say that football may be changing now so radicaly than in the early 90?s, midlle 70?s or early 60?s. We are still in what i could call "Berlusconi?s" period. In european club football, since he was president of ACMilan and specially after Bosman rule, the tendence is the show up of ultra-millionaires looking for profit, fame, recreation or sometimes just nonsense. And the system (competition format, rules...)changed in a way that helped football to turn into a big money sport. I think we all agree that specially since the 90?s money is making the diference.
About this particular moment i think it may be important but no more than Ajax in the 90?s. I?m not so sure because it passed time but i remember Ajax as a superb squad very well oriented in tactical and psychological skills (trainer was van Gaal?). The squad was young and talanted, almost unkown but shaped stars that moved on big clubs afterwards. But maybe that was just the first lesson to big clubs presidents (in general) and was not completly learned as contained maybe more than they thought was important... If the time was likely to be descripted with "Money is victory" maybe Ajax win meant no more than "OK, money is almost victory but is also important to invest in formation of young talanted players or else buy the entire Ajax squad and some more stars"... something like that, for those who thought on the subject (was Ajax?s 4th title).
Maybe is my impression, it seems that this could be a second wage and presidents of big clubs (and managers and coaches too) may be thinking (or not) about another more deep issues that make "Money is victory" a complete falsity. Maybe only in the third or fourth cicle we can say we are in a diferent stage for football. It?s a permanent process, Ajax or Porto are only landmarks.
Today still is money the most important and business will be made. But in order to keep on winning big big clubs have to re-adapt their strategies. To buy expensive players is not all and we are in a time that to sell a star as Beckham may be good for a club. Not only for that, Fergunson shows to be paying atention to the right type of stuff in order to win and not only spending money on players by their name. The tendence is to have each time more presidents as Abramovic that want the best players and coaches. But each time the managers and coaches those presidents choose to contract pay more and more atention to all the important things of the game that made the "fortune" of the game before the money boom. So big clubs will keep winning and nothing seems to be changing. But who/what is stoped?
Lyonnays, i don?t know Monaco 3 years ago, but i assure you that FC Porto 3 years ago was maybe the worst i remember. 3 years ago Porto wouldn?t win no CL neither with luck and no group stages! C?mon, i don?t know all the reasons that made Monaco to be in the final but i assure you Porto was not there by mistake. To say that Porto wouldn?t be EC with 2nd group stage is the same thing that i say with total conviction that even with 2nd Group Stage Porto would be EC. I don?t know why that rule was changed as now it?s too late for that, it?s being used.
Anita, you can turn a coin one way and another and observe both faces, still is the same coin. The success of one is always one side of the other, the failure of another. But Porto and Monaco success lays on themselves and the others failure lays on their own too. Double faced, but one. Now, what you mean by Depor is not championlike? I don?t know that expression in high competition, really. For me Depor is perfectly championlike as have at least the same chances as the other teams. As is a club that spends a lot of money sometimes have even a theoric advantage. The slogan of Depor "afiction" is exactly "Deportivo campeon". It hapened only once in fact, domestic champions of Spain, but another time Depor was not champion only because of a missed penalty. It can happen one day to be champion of another thing to Depor, every club is more or less championlike. By the way is Chelsea championlike? Could have been or still be CL winner without winning the domestic title for long years. I think both (or Monaco) are perfectly championlike, but have to show it and win. No club is natural born looser, specially those in CL, as no club is natural born winner, specially some amatuers.

Re: Is football changing?
Author: anita Date: 13-07-2004, 15:00	Ooooops, Mikael. Yeah, something like that. Next time talking about "ol' times" I will not trust my memory. And porto1978, I am not taking away the glory for Monaco or Depo or Porto, just explaining that many of the so-called giants had problems in their own domestic league as well. anita

Re: Is football changing?
Author: anita Date: 13-07-2004, 15:15	And porto1978, I wrote (or meant) that losing 0-4 TO Deportivo was not very championlike OF MILAN. And yes, I remember the times when Rosenborg and Porto were "equals". Though doubt that Rosenborg will ever win CL regards