News: Nah, I think I'll stay on - The Other Teams Thread [R]

If they expand the competition then I can fully agree.

 

This is the first time since 2008 that 4 english teams are in last 8. No doubt English teams are improving with Klopp Poch Pep team's having more experience in CL but to give PL clubs more slot is not justified unless they crammed up last 8 for next few seasons or if there is furrhur expansion then im with you.

 

German Media Slams Neuer, Bayern and German Football as whole.

https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/bayern-munich-liverpool-reaction-223489

 

Eder Militao to Real looks to be already confirmed for 50mil Euros. That's Ramos's long term replacement secured.

 

I have a feeling Zidane is going to struggle at Real this time around. Not because I think he's a bad coach, but because of the situation there and I'm sure the promises that were made to him. If he thinks Perez is going to let him make all the decisions with the team and transfers he's kidding himself. Perez has never and will never be that guy.

I'm sure they have money to spend but I do't see any players available that fill the Ronaldo gap. They have an ageing (albeit world class) midfield, no real goalscorers, and a very average front line. It's going to take more than Hazard to fix that attack. I expect Real to throw a lot of money around this summer but I don't see what combo of payers will actually fill the CR7 void unless they land Hazard and one of Neymar/Mbappe.

At the very least, this will show if ZZ is the real deal or just benefited from walking into having one of the greatest squads of all time.

Side Note: European football is starting to be fun again. For a while it was a 2-3 horse race and now it's much more wide open again.

 

This. Very much looking forward to the CL quarterfinals, lots of different teams to choose from.

 

The biggest interest I have is whether or not Zidane can actually build a team. He's got to make purchases for a ton of key positions, including some for phasing out current stars. People are crazy for saying Modric is done, he's just hampered with a shit attack.

 

Agreed. I'd be more worried about Kroos.

 

Kroos is two years younger and has a playing style that's more conducive with aging. What makes you think he's a bigger risk of an early decline?

 

The way he's playing. He's been pretty average for a couple seasons now for club and country.

 

He's a much worse athlete. And him and Modric have the same passing range.

 

Modric has a semi-dynamic style of play whereas Kroos has been a shit athlete his entire career, like Scholes and Carrick were shit athletes their entire careers.

My concern with Kroos has always been that he doesn't always seem to have his entire eye and dedication on the game.

 

Modric's engine doesn't look to have slowed to me. Give him a summer off, retire from the national team, and he'll be good to go for a few more years.

 

Zidane appears up to the challenge of rebuilding though, given that he reportedly has demanded to have a big say in personnel issues. It's no guarantee of course that he'll be successful in building his own team, but I'm intrigued to see how he does. I will not bet against him, but we'll see how it goes.
Getting Militao in defense is a good start: I'd venture that Ramos will still be player a relatively significant part until Militao gets up to speed and takes over full time at CB. Eder can play RB as well, meaning he should see significant time.
In midfield, whether they keep Modric or not (he was close to joining Inter last summer), it's an area of the pitch that needs to be tended to one way or another. Casemiro in the holding role is no worry at all. Kroos is kind of an unknown in the sense of whether he's done (or close to it) or is just having a bad year (I'm betting on the latter personally). Either way, they need an injection of talent there and whether Eriksen would be enough remains to be seen (they've got some interesting prospects coming up, like Ceballos).
Upfront, Hazard is practically a lock to come in, but they still need a CF to replace Benzema (Icardi perhaps?). Would just love it personally, just to see how the dynamic would unfold with Icardi, Wanda and the big wigs/old heads at that club: that alone has so much potential for entertainment.

 

Scholes was a shit athlete? Get real.

 

.

He was. What was athletic about Paul Scholes?

 

Scholesy was definitely not known for his athleticism. Intelligence, grit, good technical ability and cannon of a right leg, yes, but he no top athlete.
Would actually say that his relative lack of athleticism highlights how much of a great midfielder/player he was back then.

 

He wasn't a thoroughbred but he got up and down the field just fine. He was very much a box to box for most of his career and had a decent engine. It was until the end of his career when his legs started to go that he became more of a DLP.

I think the term "athlete" is being used too highly around here. If it takes someone like Kante to be considered an athlete in midfield than theres only about 10-15 athletic CMs in the world.

Anyone that was a box to box CM in the premier league in a 442 and routinely played 90 minutes is an athlete. That's takes a pretty good engine. I wouldn't argue against people calling Carrick or Kroos static because they are. Scholes, especially during his peak years, was not a static player.

 

I think he's just wumming. Right, surely?

 

My issue is more with the use of the term athlete and who's being associated with it. Plus, I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Scholes of his last 3-4 years in the league was very different from the one earlier on.

 

Even from early in his career, he simply never known as this uber athletic guy. Just looking at his contemporaries, guys like Vieira or Davids just to name those 2 were real, superb athletes. Scholes was nowhere near that level and was quite average actually athletically.
What he was known for early in his career as a ACM was his intelligence of movement and great timing in terms of making run into the box, which often put him in great scoring position and was part of the reason he scored so much. Having a great engine is different from being athletic.

 

This is a stupid argument, I shouldn't have brought it up. It's more just a disagreement on how one defines athletic.

I think I'm just bored today.

 

I get you. But id rather say Scholes was fit, but not at athlete.

 

He was quick though, maybe not an athlete but he covered ground quite fast.

 

Scholes would struggle to win a 50m race against 12 and 13 year olds.

What is going on? Has time deluded and distorted reality this much?