• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

Sports MissingNo.'s Football Blog, featuring occasional guest posts – Fútbol is Life

How should we proceed with this thread going forward?

  • Keep this thread open ad infinitum

  • New thread for new season

Results are only viewable after voting.
Reader mode
Big day ahead for Ole. He is probably out of a job if they lose tomorrow against City. But will he be allowed to stay in case of a victory? What happens if they only manage a draw?

Find out tomorrow on Dragon Ball Z.
 
0
Yesterday the match vs Union Berlin was messy, man that rain in Berlin.

Last twenty minutes was interesting lol
 
0
I'd be seriously shocked if after today ManUtd aren't looking for a new coach. This game is revelatory so far.
 
0
Woeful, and from the fans as well, nothing but city pisstaking with "ole at the wheel" towards the end even when a quick goal had time for an equalizer
 
0
I hope at least some of the injured/sick VfB players recover during the upcoming two week break, otherwise things will only look increasingly dire with every passing match.

Edit: I'm so tired.
 
Last edited:
0
Blimey, Premier League teams going through managers at a rate of knots. Not sure how it's going to help Villa here, they were always going to struggle post Grealish.

Great save by Foster in the Arsenal game. Watford have been riding their luck with a saved penalty and disallowed goal.

Edit: Just as I hit post, Foster with another great save
 
0
Based Dessers

Four goals this seasons, all of them in the 92nd minute of the match.
 
0
Ozeiyo said:
I'm really happy that Xavi is the new Barça manager. I hope he's the right one for such a complicated time.
Click to expand...

His record with Al Sadd is decent. Problem is only it doesn't tell us a whole lot since we're talking about a whole another level of football and consequent pressure. :/
 
Chaotic Neutral said:
His record with Al Sadd is decent. Problem is only it doesn't tell us a whole lot since we're talking about a whole another level of football and consequent pressure. :/
Click to expand...
He is very much a mystery. He's all we had, though. There was no way any other manager (no decent one, at least) would've wanted to sign for Barça with such a mediocre squad and (probably) no chance to sign any top players in the short term. Xavi has trained under Guardiola, knows the club and can probably get the best out of kids like Nico, Pedri, and Gavi. He might fail, but I don't think I'll be bored watching Barça as I was with Koeman.
 
It's nice to have a bit of an international break to extend our unbeaten run for a week or so before Liverpool brings us back to reality lmao.
 
0
Ozeiyo said:
He is very much a mystery. He's all we had, though. There was no way any other manager (no decent one, at least) would've wanted to sign for Barça with such a mediocre squad and (probably) no chance to sign any top players in the short term. Xavi has trained under Guardiola, knows the club and can probably get the best out of kids like Nico, Pedri, and Gavi. He might fail, but I don't think I'll be bored watching Barça as I was with Koeman.
Click to expand...

He’s not kidding around at least

 
0
German NT fucked up marking Löw's official farewell with a 7-1 over Liechtenstein, instead opting to go for the counter-historical 8-0 where Özil is a clinical finisher and Neuer doesn't rage over conceding one lousy goal.

Edit: And now 9-0. This team don't know what it's doing.
 
0
Well that England vs San Marino was officially the stopstophe'salreaddead.gif in football form. Still don't know why they don't do pre-qualifying for the European qualifiers. It would make sense both numerically and to improve the football quality.

But blimey Italy having to go through the qualifiers is a huge shock. And Scotland getting seeded pretty huge too
 
Galgavias said:
Well that England vs San Marino was officially the stopstophe'salreaddead.gif in football form. Still don't know why they don't do pre-qualifying for the European qualifiers. It would make sense both numerically and to improve the football quality.

But blimey Italy having to go through the qualifiers is a huge shock. And Scotland getting seeded pretty huge too
Click to expand...

As someone from a microstate, it’s very important for the smaller nations to get to pit themselves against the big boys and girls, even if it’s sometimes extremely difficult. Not only to get the attention and money for the local players and teams, but mostly because it helps our teams learn from the best competition and strive to become better. And it’s possible - like how we made it to Euros 2016 (even knocking out England there) and WC 2018 despite having a national population the size of the city of Coventry. We’ve gone downhill again since then but it’s important for us to know we don’t have to jump extra hoops to bounce back because the big lads can’t be bothered to play us.
 
Huge week(s) ahead for my Barça. Beyond excited to see Xavi's boys. Can't remember the last time I've been this eager to watch Barça play.
 
Chaotic Neutral said:
As someone from a microstate, it’s very important for the smaller nations to get to pit themselves against the big boys and girls, even if it’s sometimes extremely difficult. Not only to get the attention and money for the local players and teams, but mostly because it helps our teams learn from the best competition and strive to become better. And it’s possible - like how we made it to Euros 2016 (even knocking out England there) and WC 2018 despite having a national population the size of the city of Coventry. We’ve gone downhill again since then but it’s important for us to know we don’t have to jump extra hoops to bounce back because the big lads can’t be bothered to play us.
Click to expand...
I absolutely get that and I hope you don't think I was being disrespectful, and I totally see the argument for the importance of playing against the best in the world regularly to improve the standards of the smaller nations. And I absolutely think every nation has the right to be put on an equal footing. However, I think there's a fine line between being competitive and not. Teams like Iceland will always have a shot as they have a big enough population and sufficient infrastructure to qualify outright when the stars align. San Marino don't have that; they have only won a single game in around 180 tries. During qualifying the only impact they have is on the goal difference for the teams at the top. That can't be considered good for the health of sport in that country if their fans always expect them to be thrashed, and it's certainly not raising their standard of play.

Another example of this would be Italy in the Six Nations (Rugby Union). The idea was that putting them in a competition against the big European rugby teams would improve their standards and engagement in the country. What has happened is they get drubbed, every single time. They've only won twelve games in twenty years, and are pretty much always rock bottom of the group. Rarely they beat a big name sure, but it hasn't done the sport any favours in Italy because fans always expect them to lose.

The best way to improve standards for countries like San Marino, Andorra et al is to give them a chance to compete on a more even footing against each other, via a more healthy competition that isn't a complete mismatch. A pre-qualification against similar nations around them would mean their players would be playing for a purpose, and the chance to actually taste victory. It will give an incentive to truly raise their game and improve infrastructure if they have something worth playing for, and something they have a better chance of winning. I'm not asking for a drastic cut in the number of teams in qualifying proper, but a smallish number just to make the system more evenly balanced and competitive.

I suppose it's up to these nations themselves though. If they like the current system and don't mind being canon fodder for the higher ranked teams, then fair enough.

Another point to finish off, is that we need to consider that if FIFA get their way and we have World Cups every two years, qualification is going to have to be significantly streamlined anyways. There's no way they'll be able to schedule groups of 5-6 teams playing 10 international games every single year so it doesn't encroach on qualifying for the Euros (though I can see them trying).
 
Galgavias said:
I absolutely get that and I hope you don't think I was being disrespectful, and I totally see the argument for the importance of playing against the best in the world regularly to improve the standards of the smaller nations. And I absolutely think every nation has the right to be put on an equal footing. However, I think there's a fine line between being competitive and not. Teams like Iceland will always have a shot as they have a big enough population and sufficient infrastructure to qualify outright when the stars align. San Marino don't have that; they have only won a single game in around 180 tries. During qualifying the only impact they have is on the goal difference for the teams at the top. That can't be considered good for the health of sport in that country if their fans always expect them to be thrashed, and it's certainly not raising their standard of play.

Another example of this would be Italy in the Six Nations (Rugby Union). The idea was that putting them in a competition against the big European rugby teams would improve their standards and engagement in the country. What has happened is they get drubbed, every single time. They've only won twelve games in twenty years, and are pretty much always rock bottom of the group. Rarely they beat a big name sure, but it hasn't done the sport any favours in Italy because fans always expect them to lose.

The best way to improve standards for countries like San Marino, Andorra et al is to give them a chance to compete on a more even footing against each other, via a more healthy competition that isn't a complete mismatch. A pre-qualification against similar nations around them would mean their players would be playing for a purpose, and the chance to actually taste victory. It will give an incentive to truly raise their game and improve infrastructure if they have something worth playing for, and something they have a better chance of winning. I'm not asking for a drastic cut in the number of teams in qualifying proper, but a smallish number just to make the system more evenly balanced and competitive.

I suppose it's up to these nations themselves though. If they like the current system and don't mind being canon fodder for the higher ranked teams, then fair enough.

Another point to finish off, is that we need to consider that if FIFA get their way and we have World Cups every two years, qualification is going to have to be significantly streamlined anyways. There's no way they'll be able to schedule groups of 5-6 teams playing 10 international games every single year so it doesn't encroach on qualifying for the Euros (though I can see them trying).
Click to expand...

Oh, no, I didn't think that and I hope I didn't come off as stand-offish either - just passionate about this particular discussion. :D

And I of course see where you're coming from too. My question is mostly - how are you going to define which countries do a pre-qualifying tournament? If you do it through FIFA ranking points, I can point out re: Iceland's infrastructure that only 9 years ago, when the generation that eventually reached Euro/WC was starting their national careers, we were lower on the ranking than the Faroe Islands, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are now. We absolutely were not competitive until relatively recently. If you do it through country size, what is the cutoff?

I think the big point here is that the relevant nations themselves have not moved for a pre-qualifying tournament within UEFA or FIFA parameters AFAIK. I guess you could argue the UEFA Nations D-League already provides an even-footed competition in the manner that you are thinking about, if I understand your position correctly. If they really wanted to get that format intertwined into the Euro/WC qualifiers beyond what the NL provides, I imagine they'd move for it - and if they did, I doubt other nations' FAs would stand against it. Or if they thought the qualifiers were harming the sport in their country, they could always just send their teams to the Nations League and not register them for the qualifiers themselves - the latter of which we did e.g. in the 60's and early 70's.

But as it stands, I just think this is how they want to do it. 🤷‍♂️ I know it's certainly what we wanted even when we won 17 qualifying matches out of 104 the we did decide to participate in during the 20th century.

Re: your last point. I completely agree - I just don't want to go the handball route in football. I really hope they don't get those plans through. :p
 
Chaotic Neutral said:
Oh, no, I didn't think that and I hope I didn't come off as stand-offish either - just passionate about this particular discussion. :D

And I of course see where you're coming from too. My question is mostly - how are you going to define which countries do a pre-qualifying tournament? If you do it through FIFA ranking points, I can point out re: Iceland's infrastructure that only 9 years ago, when the generation that eventually reached Euro/WC was starting their national careers, we were lower on the ranking than the Faroe Islands, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are now. We absolutely were not competitive until relatively recently. If you do it through country size, what is the cutoff?

I think the big point here is that the relevant nations themselves have not moved for a pre-qualifying tournament within UEFA or FIFA parameters AFAIK. I guess you could argue the UEFA Nations D-League already provides an even-footed competition in the manner that you are thinking about, if I understand your position correctly. If they really wanted to get that format intertwined into the Euro/WC qualifiers beyond what the NL provides, I imagine they'd move for it - and if they did, I doubt other nations' FAs would stand against it. Or if they thought the qualifiers were harming the sport in their country, they could always just send their teams to the Nations League and not register them for the qualifiers themselves - the latter of which we did e.g. in the 60's and early 70's.

But as it stands, I just think this is how they want to do it. 🤷‍♂️ I know it's certainly what we wanted even when we won 17 qualifying matches out of 104 the we did decide to participate in during the 20th century.

Re: your last point. I completely agree - I just don't want to go the handball route in football. I really hope they don't get those plans through. :p
Click to expand...
That's quite alright, and I do like that football does its best to give all nations an even footing as possible, but I was just considering of the spirit of competition. I just don't enjoy matches where a multi-goal thrashing is a foregone conclusion because the gulf in class is too great. It's OK as a one time special event, (like an FA Cup game for instance), but when not when it keeps happening. Plus, I'm a nerd for theoretically organising competition structures in my head (I've done lots of thinking about how a 48 team World Cup would work despite not really agreeing with it).

I suppose what I'd propose is you take the 12 lowest ranked European teams by the FIFA ranking at the start of each qualifying period (or based on their average rating over a four year period), then have 3 groups of 4 teams playing 6 games (home and away). 7 teams qualify from this pre-tournament, the two top teams from each group with a final one going to the team with the best fair play/nations league record. That means for the main European qualifying you have 10 groups of 5 teams, with the winning team of each group automatically qualifying and then the second place teams + two more (either third place finishers with best qualifying/nations league record) going into playoffs for the remaining three places...so similar to now really.

That way it's not too exclusive and the micro-states will still have a decent chance of moving to the main qualifiers, while also participating in matches where they have a fair shot of getting a competitive result. I appreciate this is why UEFA created the nations league, a system where teams of a similar level play more often which improves competition, but that will die if FIFA win out.

If FIFA do get their way I can only realistically see qualifying working if they shrink groups down to 4 teams, with games played over two set international breaks annually. With the tournament expanding to 48 teams Europe now gets 16 qualifying spots, so you could have 13 groups of 4, with the winners automatically qualifying and the best second place finishers going into playoffs. If they re-allocate teams like Kazakhstan to the Asian Federation you could shrink the UEFA pool to 52 teams which would make this work without forcing the likes of San Marino to pre-qualify...or you create a new European team to give us 56 teams for 14 groups of 4...

...do the Channel Islands want to participate perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Galgavias said:
That's quite alright, and I do like that football does its best to give all nations an even footing as possible, but I was just considering of the spirit of competition. I just don't enjoy matches where a multi-goal thrashing is a foregone conclusion because the gulf in class is too great. It's OK as a one time special event, (like an FA Cup game for instance), but when not when it keeps happening. Plus, I'm a nerd for theoretically organising competition structures in my head (I've done lots of thinking about how a 48 team World Cup would work despite not really agreeing with it).

I suppose what I'd propose is you take the 12 lowest ranked European teams by the FIFA ranking at the start of each qualifying period (or based on their average rating over a four year period), then have 3 groups of 4 teams playing 6 games (home and away). 7 teams qualify from this pre-tournament, the two top teams from each group with a final one going to the team with the best fair play/nations league record. That means for the main European qualifying you have 10 groups of 5 teams, with the winning team of each group automatically qualifying and then the second place teams + two more (either third place finishers with best qualifying/nations league record) going into playoffs for the remaining three places...so similar to now really.

That way it's not too exclusive and the micro-states will still have a decent chance of moving to the main qualifiers, while also participating in matches where they have a fair shot of getting a competitive result. I appreciate this is why UEFA created the nations league, a system where teams of a similar level play more often which improves competition, but that will die if FIFA win out.

If FIFA do get their way I can only realistically see qualifying working if they shrink groups down to 4 teams, with games played over two set international breaks annually. With the tournament expanding to 48 teams Europe now gets 16 qualifying spots, so you could have 13 groups of 4, with the winners automatically qualifying and the best second place finishers going into playoffs. If they re-allocate teams like Khazakstan to the Asian Federation you could shrink the UEFA pool to 52 teams which would make this work without forcing the likes of San Marino to pre-qualify...or you create a new European team to give us 56 teams for 14 groups of 4...

...do the Channel Islands want to participate perhaps?
Click to expand...

No, I get the quality gulf perspective. But then again we get some cup upsets somewhere almost every season and those are often the best fairytale stories in football!

Except when my local team being reigning champions lost to a literal farmer's league club in the quarter-finals this summer - perspectives :p

If FIFA gets their idea through, I can see your proposal working (with all the previous caveats). I just really hope they don't. My concern would be when to fit in the two international windows for prequalifying - the last two friendly slots before a qualifier would happen?

Re: the last bit, you can never count on every single UEFA member turning up to a qualifier. They can always withdraw, so I think it's best not to put it at the forefront when organising groups but rather as a theoretical max. Personally I've never liked the playoffs for final spots. I'd say just keep the 10 groups with winners progressing, and then send the best six runner-ups through. Eliminating the play-offs would even free up international windows ;)
 
0
Gashead said:
Is it finally time for Ole out?
Click to expand...

alfred-never.gif
 
0
Just noticed because of Norwich's 2 recent wins Newcastle are bottom.

I'm not going to laugh as I don't want to get invited to an embassy
 
0
That Spurs vs Man U match was a real sliding doors moment I feel. Had the result gone the other way you feel Conte would be at Old Trafford right now, and Spurs would be at panic stations.

Definitely can't see Man U doing anything significant this season now, they moved too late and there aren't any decent managerial alternatives available right now. I've seen the Zidane rumours but honestly not sure he'll be capable of turning the ship around.
 
0
Hopefully the addition of a subtitle will alleviate further confusion from now on.
 
0
I like Solskjaer as a person a lot but I've never been convinced by his mangerial chops. I think he'd do a decent job at a Championship level club but for a team with Champions League aspirations, nope...well, at least not yet.

The issue lies with Man U's board and owners. They just aren't organised or, dare I say, ruthless enough. They should have had contingencies in place for all scenarios and have them ready to go when needed. Looking for an interim until the end of the season is putting a plaster on a gaping wound.

For a club with Utd's aspirations, history and wealth, they absolutely should have moved on Conte when they had the chance. As a Spurs fan, I'm glad they didn't, but they really should have. And is Poch going to leave PSG at this stage of the season when they're still in Champions League contention (moreso than Utd)?
 
0
MissingNo. said:
Are Barça fans happy with Xavi being the new head coach?
Click to expand...
This is late but here are my thoughts. I'm not unhappy with it. Xavi is probably the best manager Barca can find at this moment. He's a club legend and beloved at Barca but that doesn't mean he'll be a great coach like Pep. Part of me feels like LaPorta hired Xavi to placate the fans. Ever since Valverde was hired (and sacked), people have wanted Xavi to become the manager, and now he has. I haven't watched his Qatar games but coaching at Barca is very different than coaching at Al-Sadd. Xavi seems to be doing things properly though (like not playing favorites). Time will tell if he's a good manager but he's not coming into a very good situation. I wouldn't be surprised if he fails (because of the high wages and limited transfers) and LaPorta blames Xavi as the reason, instead of listening to him and changing the squad. His first game was ok, but Barca is heavily injured (no Pedri, Dest, Fati, etc.) so Xavi is working with what he has.
 
MissingNo. said:
Well, they finally sacked Ole.
Click to expand...
Surprised he lasted this long honestly.

So: today is the most important game of the season for Barça. First time in a while that I've been excited to watch my team play in the Champions League, even if beating Benfica with the team we have now sounds almost impossible. Let's hope the Xavi effect lasts for a bit.
dpt120 said:
This is late but here are my thoughts. I'm not unhappy with it. Xavi is probably the best manager Barca can find at this moment. He's a club legend and beloved at Barca but that doesn't mean he'll be a great coach like Pep. Part of me feels like LaPorta hired Xavi to placate the fans. Ever since Valverde was hired (and sacked), people have wanted Xavi to become the manager, and now he has. I haven't watched his Qatar games but coaching at Barca is very different than coaching at Al-Sadd. Xavi seems to be doing things properly though (like not playing favorites). Time will tell if he's a good manager but he's not coming into a very good situation. I wouldn't be surprised if he fails (because of the high wages and limited transfers) and LaPorta blames Xavi as the reason, instead of listening to him and changing the squad. His first game was ok, but Barca is heavily injured (no Pedri, Dest, Fati, etc.) so Xavi is working with what he has.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I fully agree with this analysis. I don't think Laporta hired Xavi to placate the fans but rather because there are very few world-class managers (aka no-one) who would take charge of Barça as it is now. Xavi was his only choice, even if he doesn't really trust him due to his previous association with Font. I'm also not sure if Laporta would blame the manager in this situation. Laporta already "burnt" that bridge with Koeman and he is known for being indulgent with managers (Koeman should've left earlier, and Rijkaard should've been sacked at least a year earlier). It's in his best interest (not to mention the club's) to keep Xavi happy. He won't get a third manager. Not after how his mandate has started.
 
0
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom