Don't remember how it was seen at the time other than a failure. In hindsight it absolutely was our best league performance at least since the Capello's title in '97, and I'd say it was indeed our best ever to that point. Though that doesn't mean it was our best team
Nordic Ghost Yeti (Scandi Carroll) | Haaland at City
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Your theory is that injuries are more prevalent because football has become more scientific? Sounds outright weird.
Increased number of games seems a more obvious explanation. And more onus from players to protect their own health and livelihood, you could see that play a part.
The idea that increased use of scientific methods in sports will reduce the level of the teams and lead to more, not less injuries, no I don’t buy that. I think that’s the laughable idea here.
City are better without him? Stats with and without from this season?
Did I misunderstand the exchange you were in?
Someone claims Liverpool and City showed an impressive level by getting close to a hundred points from games vs the Englis PL.
Someone retorts it’s not so impressive because it could just mean that the other 18 English PL teams were worse than usual.
Someone points out that it doesn’t seem like that’s a good explanation, because City and Liverpool frequently were among the best two or four teams also in Europe.
Someone retorts that that doesn’t mean much either because all the European teams are gash, pointing to how much better the English PL teams are.
Either one of these two retorts are false, and Liverpool and City have been delivering some fantastic results in total, or it must be that the Brazilian and Saudi league is were all the quality is at these days.
One of these two
Nah that isn’t my theory and I’m not suggesting anything either way. I just always find it funny when in these debates people start throwing around the “sports science” stuff like it’s something concrete. It’s a better idea than is reality and in terms of reducing actual injuries there is clearly no correlation.
I also don’t believe there’s a negligible increase in number of games now to that of late 90’s/00’s that has somehow caused for more injuries.
There used to be two Champions League groups. In England the Fa Cup had replays every round. There was also less subs and less ability to rotate then than there is now. The ball is also out of play a lot more now than it used to be. I’m sure if you took the most minutes played by our players in the 98-99 season you will see more minutes on the clock for that of city’s last season.
People need to start realising footballers are not fitter than they’ve ever been and are actually carrying more injuries than they ever have because all these ‘sports science and fitness programmes they are on are clearly causing issues. It’s the big elephant in the room but nobody seems to want to join the dots. The only significant improvement is that of recovery from injuries. Far less players careers are being affected by ligament tears etc. and that’s actually more down to the general improvement in health and surgery than “sports science”.
Well yeah I guess but that’d be the case in every league throughout history really. 100 points will always win you the title because nobody ever gets it.
Pellegrini's side was an odd one though, the team was great against most league sides, but got pummeled by Barca, crashed out in CDR to some team i don't know, and got dunked on by Lyon in R16.
One of the few examples were having a high points tally doesn't equate to quality, the team was incredibly soft.
But City got 100. That's my point, it moved from pure theory to reality. Which had never happened before.
Do you have any literature/evidence of this? Would be quite interested if so. I would also be interested in the physical expectations of players now vs previous eras, especially with the focus on systems and positioning: whether players fitness is indeed improving but not at the same rate as the demands/expectations
The rest of English league not being that great compared to it's past levels and still being better the league still being better than the other European leagues is actually a valid possibility, they're not mutually exclusive.
No I don’t but I’m sure someone someday will produce the numbers. There’s articles about this seasons injury numbers but that’s about it.
But I don’t think it takes a study to be able to see players are getting injured at an alarming rate at the minute. Especially muscular injuries.
The argument about more minutes doesn’t wash when the players we’re talking about spend about half their time on the treatment table and not actually playing any games (take Mount and Martinez for example) and also there isn’t actually that many more games and when you factor in larger squads and 5 substitutes, players should be getting in lesser minutes. To me from a speculative viewpoint I would be looking at what players are doing in training and outside of match day. On the pitch football hasn’t actually changed that much. The most changes are off the pitch, on the training ground, in the gym, dietary etc.
Pl stats only. With Haaland:
43-11-7 149-56 65,1% possession
Without Haaland
8-1-1 25-9 69,8% possession
Games he has missed:
1-0 win vs Leicster
4-1 win vs Liverpool
0-1 loss vs Brentford
2-1 win vs Luton
2-2 draw vs Crystal Palace
3-1 win vs Everton
2-0 win vs Sheffield UTD
3-2 win vs Newcastle
4-1 win vs Aston Villa
4-0 win vs Brighton
43-11-7 149-56 65,1% possession
Without Haaland
8-1-1 25-9 69,8% possession
Games he has missed:
1-0 win vs Leicster
4-1 win vs Liverpool
0-1 loss vs Brentford
2-1 win vs Luton
2-2 draw vs Crystal Palace
3-1 win vs Everton
2-0 win vs Sheffield UTD
3-2 win vs Newcastle
4-1 win vs Aston Villa
4-0 win vs Brighton
Unless you either believe the overall talent level has significantly dropped compared to the past, or you believe the saudi and brazilian leagues are indeed were most of the talent is, then; No. They are in fact mutually exclusive
Firstly, if you start with an 'unless' you're kinda agreeing with the point.
Secondly, they are not the only reasons, for instance a concentration of the better players at fewer clubs provides an explanation as well.
I wasn't refuting so much as contextualizing what you were saying
Bolded still implies the best teams are better now than ever
It only requires the gap between the best and the rest to be bigger than previously, you don't really need a significant drop off in quality to achieve that, or a drop off at all in some positions.
I said most of Europe is gash now, and it is.
It still implies either the best got better or the rest got worse.
No. Either global talent pool overall has gotten worse, or a significant % of it isn't playing in Europe. If neither of those is true, than the PL can't both be weaker than previous eras but better than other leagues relative to previous eras
Which is fine for this discussion.
Why are you changing from significantly worse to worse by the way?
Because i don't feel like typing all that all the time. That the difference is significant is implied, it's the basis for the argument
If the rest got worse, then either someone else got better, or there is less talent to go around
City don't miss a beat whenever one of their players are injured. Our centre back gets injured and the team falls apart defensively, in midfield and attack.
Not really, the original argument was something different.
2nd part is fine. You don't need a significant drop off for that.
Sorry if I seem crass, but when answer a post that actually is about something else, where ‘science’ is one of many things mentioned as things that have gone into improving the level of football, it comes across to me as unnecessary arrogant, uninterested and derisive to answer with ‘Hehe, I was waiting for someone to through about the word ‘sports science’. And then go on a general rant about how stupid ‘everybody’ are. If you are tired of people who are too easily swayed by impressive surfaces, fine, but you don’t need to paint me in that picture to have an excuse to laugh at people. That’s how it comes across to me.
My post was about reasons to think that the level of the best teams in football now are better than they were in the 90’s, not worse (as someone implied). If you find that laughable too, fine, but maybe you could give arguments to why not. I don’t think mine is a ridiculous position, nor that it in itself is evidence that I am necessarily a gullible fool falling for any catch phrase that trends. Neither is the idea that science (or ‘sports science’ if that is a term you prefer) has contributed to higher levels of football, wether in game analysis, optimizing anaerobe or aerobe capacities, patterns of play, nourishment, restitution, effects of alcohol or nikotine or PEDs, I don’t think the idea is ridiculous. Maybe PED’s where more broadly and effectively used in football in the 80’s and 90’s, like in sprint and cycling, but I’m not so sure that goes for football. I think you’d need a lot of evidence to say that either position is laughable just on that aspect alone.
Your point about minutes played is an interesting and good one.I checked a few players just for fun, and found that Denis Irwin played about the same amount of matches from 90-95 as Marcus Rashford did the years Solskjær and others were accused of running him into the ground. Maybe he played more minutes then, probably. I think there are also stats showing that there are more intensive runs per player per game now than back then (can’t dig it up) so maybe there is also a question wether still those minutes might be more taxing now. It’s a fair discussion to have at least, even if it wasn’t the point I was making in the post you answered.
My mistake, I thought you were relating to the post you were answering, and the context it was made in.
Only if the context was based on the premise A) Liverpool and City’s point records seasons were worse than the winning seasons of Liverpool in the 80’s or United in the 90’s and B) football in general have evolved since the 80’s and 90’s.
Then they are mutually exclusive. If you disagree with the premises of the discussion the post was an answer to, they are not.
I wasn't replying to the original argument, I was replying to your assertion that the PL can both be weaker than it was in the past, and stronger relative to other leagues.
So how did they drop off? What happened to that "lost" talent?
This is just the latest false narrative to try and deflect any criticism away from Haaland.
If you look at Rodri, every single league game he has missed this season except Luton, City lost.
Every single game he has played in all competitions this season, City won or drew. Not counting penalties.
Yeah, because the money in the game led to stronger squads, not because the teams are better
English teams were banned from Europe for 5 years and it took them a long time to get back up to speed in the 90s. Also, these teams with the massive point totals today have billion dollar squads and the ability to replace one top player with another in virtually every position, I'm sure that helps with the 'not dropping points in a title race' that everyone seems to be so enamoured with.
Basically, as time has gone on, the gap between the big teams and the small teams has widened across Europe, and it is a game for very expensive squads, not very good first elevens. Aside from the point totals, look at how often you get doubles and trebles these days compared with the 70s, 80 and 90s (across Europe). It used to be a rare and prized thing, because you had to achieve it basically with about 13 players. Now they are ten a penny because you can achieve it with 25 quality players.
Last edited:
But your post was actually agreeing with mine? I'm not saying it is by the way, just that the discussion taking place didn't have to mean all the talent was then hiding outside of Europe.
It's not something that has to vanish, these are different players in different systems with different rules.
It's not really a false narrative. Rodri is pretty much the only City player you can say this for and, Rodri's quality notwithstanding, the underperformance in his absence also has a good bit to do with the drop-off in quality of his replacement players and the importance of the position for Pep's system. In specific situations (i.e. against Madrid), you can also say that Kyle Walker's injuries have been untimely, but I don't think it holds generally true for Walker. City knows how to play and score without a striker, as they've demonstrated when they failed to land Kane and just went with the false 9.
I did think Haaland would be a goal getter or difference maker to get City out of tough situations when it wasn't clicking for them or when their possession game was getting sterile, and I don't think he's quite met that mark here.
How many games has Rodri actually missed? I'm pretty sure if they had to go a whole season without him, they'd figure it out. He's not Pele FFS....
So a coaching issue then. Ok
So let me put it this way:
If 2000 PL is 10, serie A is 10, la liga is 10, and bundesliga is 9 and 2024 PL is 9
Then ->
2024 Serie A <10, La liga <10, Bundesliga <8
For that to be possible then the total talent pool across leagues must have dropped OR coaching is worse
So basically....you are saying the best teams nowadays are better than they were in the past
No I'm not. I'm saying the squads have more depth. That's not the same thing at all.
The first elevens are pretty comparable.
To be fair, I would argue the talent pool is a lot weaker in modern day football. Squads are bigger, more expensive, and more structured, but players at an individual level are generally more limited IMO.
Yes it is. If the starting XI are comparable, then superior depth implies a better team. And even if they are not, in practical terms, a better squad means stronger rotations, means better fitness, means better mean performance over the season, which means better team.
Semantics re 'team' and 'squad'. Plus you are giving reasons why clubs now get more points, which is nothing to do with actually having better first elevens, or better key players. Which is what the debate about teams then and now is supposed to be about. Because it is illogical to acknowledge the easy advantages that modern teams have and then in the same breath say that their achievements are better (or they are better) than teams who were achieving similar things with one hand tied behind their back in comparison. Degree of difficulty always has to be factored in as a part of such discussions
He heard you all
They clearly are, but the major talent all being condensed into fewer teams makes it much easier to put dominant seasons together.
They are better but the level of achievement is lower and it is much less interesting.
His cameo today made it pretty visibly obvious that he hasn't been himself since the injury pre-christmas. Looked a lot livelier than he has been recently, braver on the ball and took his chance well.
His rest after Madrid has done him remarkably well. Looking back to his best