WE ARE MOVING - GO TO http://peoplewhohatepeople.freeforums.org/
true, but.....
by sam hancock (no login)
there are different types of competition, and in america i beleive it's a league game until the top sides from each of four areas play each other in a play-off? is that right?
i beleive most in england would say that the league is the truest indicator of a teams worth, as it is played over a whole season, august to may, and is a measure of consistency, that is, playing consistantly as a good team. with the chelsea teams of old we'd beat the big teams and loose in the gritty away fixtures, those 'orrible trips up north, the grim cold nights etc. in a knockout competition a fluke can occur, as they say, there are those occasions when players have a bad night and the underdogs are on a high. form is temporary, class is permanent. in the england manager we don't seem to have the type of man who can unite the players, get them up for big games, in short; the manager that can meld our good individuals into a team. compare that with the chelsea manager who has every one of our players fighting for one another, beleiving they can acheive. semis in europe, league cup champions and english premiership champions (top flite winners for the first time in fifty years).
the greek manager knew the limitations of his squad but got them playing as a team and to their strengths, and did what bookies were giving massive odds against. we underacheive because we're not a team but i disagree that the best team always wins. england have been knocked out of competitions in penalty shoot-outs, a hand ball goal (which is my first football memory and still upsets me now), gloriously near but so far away. under the last two managers we have fizzled out, lost but without the heroic defeat, and that's what really hurts.
Posted on Sep 4, 2005, 7:34 AM from IP address 172.202.240.235