A new reason to hate Porto

Zach

I really wanted to read this article, but the link says error. Lyon vs. Porto..should be a good one.

 

You might not like it, but what exactly has he said here that isn't true ??

 

I have noticed...

...that English and Scottish clubs play alot more aggressive than other leagues, their challenges are harder and more frequent, but I don't think it makes them dirty. But you could also say that the Italian league is notorious for divers. I try and take each incident and club on a match by match basis instead of generalizing.

I still think the Porto boss is ripping on Celtic.

 

I think this is an overreaction and misinterpretation. I've read this article several times, and I can't find a single place where Mourinho "lays blame for the tunnel incident" squarely on anyone. He merely makes reference to Celtic's conduct in the tunnel in the UEFA Cup final. Perhaps there's another article in which Mourinho specifically blames Celtic players for the incident v. Barca, but this ain't it.

As for the "entire slant" of the commentary being that Mourinho thinks Celtic have nothing but brute force, that seems wrong too--Mourinho says that Celtic's tactics in the UEFA Cup final were too violent. He might be read to imply that Celtic is too violent as a general matter, but this seems like a point on which reasonable minds may disagree--but there's no implication that Celtic have nothing but violence going for them.

In my view, Celtic tend to epitomize the kind of play I've seen in the Scottish league, which places much more emphasis on tackling and physical play than most other european leagues. Do they cross the line from physical to dirty play? That's a matter of opinion. Mourinho obvioulsy thinks so. To be fair, Porto often exhibit a similarly unfortunate characteristic of the Latin style of play with the diving. Do they do it to unfair advantage? Again, matter of opinion. ONeill would say so--as he did ad nauseam after losing the UEFA Cup final.

 

I don't mind the aggressive style as long as it is not targeting one player in the aim to injur or something like that. You can go too far.

What i can't stand is divers. It is just downright cheating and i've got to say i lose respect for talented players who dive. In saying that i think it is still a matter of culture. The Scottish style is more aggressive than many other leagues and many other league have much more divers than the Scottish league.

 

Well, it's all cheating, isn't it? That's my point anyway: tackling is part of the game, but if you take it too far and go for the man not the ball that's illegal. Getting injured and knocked around is part of the game, too, but if you fake it and go to ground that's illegal.

Which is worse? Hard to say. One could argue that a violent player is worse because he threatens other players' wellbeing and even their careers. A diver is weak, no doubt--but refs can just add on injury time to account for delays. In fact, that's exactly what happened in extra time of the UEFA Cup final that Martin ONeill still complains about (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=294338&cc=5901). Baia overreacted to an injury for a few minutes to waste time, but the ref then added on five or six minutes of added time--more than enough to compensate, so it's hard for me to see the tangible harm to the other team (though I recognize the argument that such behavior is unsporting).

 

My point was basically the same. You can be aggressive without being violent. That's what celtic are (aggressive that is), i can't remember them injuring anyone (seriously anyway), i would be against that. And my point about culture; you disagree with me because you look at football in a different way. I like to see good sportsmanship and honour(i'm talkin like a buddhist monk now with all the honour stuff, sorry been studyin them all day). Another point is the way barce were playin, they were the ones more likely to inflict the injuries.

 

I've always considered antics such as diving to be less cheating than just a display of no class and lame gamesmanship. Which isn't to say it's not cheating. A guy who dives in or near the box deserves his card and if refs showed a bit more backbone and consistency -- as FIFA has urged -- with that it would end pretty quickly. This is why watching Italian and Mexican football bores me to tears. A larger percentage of diving wankers one will never find in a single league.

But I just don't put it in the same book as inept or intimidating tackles and dangerous play.

As for Porto -- I could barely decide which team I wanted to lose more last week, Man Ure or Porto -- their display of determination to stay on their feet and keep playing was pretty much the same as in the UEFA Cup final: pretty weak.

It seemed as if their players were capable of being knocked over the gentlest breeze. Granted, MU were playing hard (overly so in my opinion) but, especially in the early stages they were just flopping all over the place.

The Wanker Index is elevated by the fact that the manager even feels like he needs to bring it up AFTER HE'S BEATEN THE TEAM HE'S RAGGING ON. Jesus, you have the UEFA Cup and you sent Man U. packing from the CL! Shut the fu8k up and play Lyon!

 

Celtic do have a strong physical presence in their team, and certainly do utilise it to full effect.

As Morton says, you can apply this non-violently, and Celtic do - I know from my experiences of watching Celtic horse Aberdeen, the goals come from the big men (Sutton, Hartson etc) muscling their way in on the Dons defence leaving Larsson free to bang in yet more goals.

O'Neill himself has freely admitted to utilising the physical presence of his side when needs-be
(http://www.soccernet.com/scotland/news/2001/0223/20010223cfcsphysical.html) - "We do have a physical presence now. It's there for when we need it."

 

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand where we disagree on diving. As I said in my post, I think it's weak, and even though I support Porto I don't have any regard for their diving, though I think it's largely limited to Carlos Alberto. I've watched the last leg of Porto v. ManU a couple times and I don't really see anyone else engaging in clear simulation. Let me make clear that I'm an american football fan of portuguese descent, so while my loyalties lie with Portuguese teams, I didn't grow up in a football culture that tolerates diving as a legitimate form of strategy.

We may disagree on how we regard violence in the game of soccer. I think overdoing the violence by pushing the boundaries of what is a legal tackle, and bullying another team is weak as well, because it relies on something other than football skill to gain an advantage (and in this respect is quite similar to diving). That's equally unsporting as simulation, in my view.

As for Mourinho, he's widely considered both an excellent coach and an arrogant prick by the Portuguese press and public. He likes to hog the spotlight, and tends to intentionally say controversial things just to wind people up. Part of this is strategic (I think really got into Fergie's head before the second leg v. ManU), but part of it is pure arrogance. I can see how it would be infuriating if you weren't a Porto supporter. But I find that many excellent, top level coaches tend to be pricks in their own right--Fergie was contemptuous and condescending after losing the first leg to Porto, ONeill acted as defiant and pouty as a dumped girlfriend after losing the UEFA Cup final. Not much class there either, in my opinion. But I'd say it's not much of a coincidence--whether it's ONeill, Fergie, or Mourinho, there's something of the arrogant prick about many, if not most, top level coaches.

 

I believe this says it all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.teamtalk.com/teamtalk/News/Story_Page/0,7760,791958,00.html