Numero Uno Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 Josh Brownhill at Cardiff.....anyone remember that daisy cutter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The turtle Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 56 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Like you I find them a fascinating case study. Their rise from possible Financial issues and on pitch failings and mass fan discontent, to Champions and a CL final in about 30 months was remarkable. They made a net Transfer Profit too. (Plus a Europa League and European Super Cup win, think there was a Copa Del Rey too). I look at their 2013-14 season and see two or three different elements.. *First half of the season mix of clinical and intent. Think they had 50 pts from 19 Games and 47 Goals. That is pushing towards top 2 La Liga numbers at that time. Also 15 Goals and 16 Pts in Group Stage of CL..that again is pushing towards elite levels. That aside, they became more defensive post Christmas, perhaps couldn't keep up or remain as clinical. Albeit I did watch some of their games and.. *Barcelona 2nd leg CL- they scored within 4 mins and hit the woodwork 3 more times in the first 10 mins. Blitz, high press. Trying to end the game early with a partisan crowd at Home. More interesting was two Away games... *Chelsea Away, both cautious to varying levels. After they went behind they suddenly swarmed all over Chelsea in the 2nd leg. Good fake but theu stepped up dimsindnrly and while it wasn't constant it was for a good period before and after HT. *Barcelona Away title decider, even moreso. Barcelona certainly are not and were not defensive but they came and started pressing high after falling behind in the Nou Camp, despite iirc Costa and Turan going off injured. Brilliant spirit. Got their equaliser and could easily have scored a goal or 2 more in that period. Pragmatism- Yet shown their worth in high scoring games too..La Liga and CL. *7 vs Getafe *5 vs Real Betis *5 vs Rayo Vallecano *4 vs Almeria *4 vs Rayo Vallecano *4 vs Real Sociedad *4 vs AC Milan *4 vs Rapid Vienna *3 vs Zenit St Petersburg *3 vs Rapid Vienna *3 vs Sevilla *3 vs Valencia *3 vs Levante *3 vs Chelsea *3 vs Valladolid 10 of these were by the end of December though and 12 by late Janaury which does show a certain drop off! Agree with your wider po8nt, they try to walk the line between pragmatism and becoming more attacking. They look to have a strong balance and age range thst this point. As a complete tangent that 2014 champions league final was one of two occasions where I've been at the bottom of a pile on with limited skin in the game: First was west ham v Liverpool cup final. Me and @elhombrecitodecided to treat the game as all in west ham fans, in a bar full of Liverpool fans. And when Gerrard's goal went in, we were the target And in 14: in a bar in Madrid, majority were real fans decided to do a loud minute by minute reminder of the last 10 mins, plus injury. I don't know how many people jumped on when Ramos scored, but they certainly made me pay! .......... And then there the 2016 champions run. The quarter v Barca was first live champion league game. That was something else. But the semi v Bayern. An absolute defensive masterclass in controlling the game without the ball. Something they could never do v Ronaldo's real, as he beat them in the air. Strange isn't it .. how a team so defensively sound, could be so susceptible to crosses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Billy Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 I blame the ball! I think back to the amount of free kicks that used to be scored and now the ball either doesn’t get over the wall or goes into orbit. (I think they should change the rule and the wall should be further back). I’d imagine someone will have the answer to this but it seems the ball is almost too heavy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 4 hours ago, Red Billy said: I blame the ball! I think back to the amount of free kicks that used to be scored and now the ball either doesn’t get over the wall or goes into orbit. (I think they should change the rule and the wall should be further back). I’d imagine someone will have the answer to this but it seems the ball is almost too heavy? My playing days finished in the late 80s, but feeling footballs in sports shops( even if they are not exactly the same as those used in the pro leagues) I get the impression that modern balls are lighter - and would be much much lighter in wet conditions. The combination of modern footballs, modern boots and far better pitches makes a big difference. Watching the likes of Ronaldo, Beckham etc it also seems that modern balls spin a lot more and move about through the air than did the old leather balls. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 8 hours ago, downendcity said: My playing days finished in the late 80s, but feeling footballs in sports shops( even if they are not exactly the same as those used in the pro leagues) I get the impression that modern balls are lighter - and would be much much lighter in wet conditions. The combination of modern footballs, modern boots and far better pitches makes a big difference. Watching the likes of Ronaldo, Beckham etc it also seems that modern balls spin a lot more and move about through the air than did the old leather balls. I looked this up a few years back... It is a myth that the modern ball is lighter than the balls used in the past. Since 1937, the dry weight of the ball has been specified by Law 2: 14-16oz. Prior to that, the rules governing the ball’s dry weight specified something lighter – 13-15oz. Whenever you read a comment along the lines of “I’d like to see modern players heading the leather pudding the ’66 boys had to put up with” you can assume that they don’t know what they’re talking about. What has changed are (1) the material from which the ball is made, and thus the ability of the ball to avoid weight gain during the game through water absorption, and (2) the aerodynamics of the ball i.e. the smoothness of the surface. The new ball isn’t lighter in of itself, which is what many people seem to assume... but the new ball won’t get so wet in play. So in the broad sunshine of the ’66 World Cup Final, the famous orange balls were the same weight as the ones we see today. And so it has been on every dry day, on every dry pitch, since the balls were first standardized in the early 1870s. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowshed Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 13 hours ago, Red Billy said: I blame the ball! I think back to the amount of free kicks that used to be scored and now the ball either doesn’t get over the wall or goes into orbit. (I think they should change the rule and the wall should be further back). I’d imagine someone will have the answer to this but it seems the ball is almost too heavy? Modern footballs have got lighter but only marginally. Modern footballs are less stable in the air, and they will do something known as knuckling where the ball swings without rotation, this is due to the ball having less panels. A modern football has less than twenty panels dependant on design, a ball in the seventies as many as thirty two. The actual footballs have led to differing techniques in how we strike them and attempt to save them. Less shots on target? I don't know but there is variance between makes of balls from Adidas, to Mitre to Nike, ball to ball some do fly high after striking. I would use Mitres balls in favour to Nikes for football, they don't do as much in the air when you drive them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 2 hours ago, spudski said: I looked this up a few years back... It is a myth that the modern ball is lighter than the balls used in the past. Since 1937, the dry weight of the ball has been specified by Law 2: 14-16oz. Prior to that, the rules governing the ball’s dry weight specified something lighter – 13-15oz. Whenever you read a comment along the lines of “I’d like to see modern players heading the leather pudding the ’66 boys had to put up with” you can assume that they don’t know what they’re talking about. What has changed are (1) the material from which the ball is made, and thus the ability of the ball to avoid weight gain during the game through water absorption, and (2) the aerodynamics of the ball i.e. the smoothness of the surface. The new ball isn’t lighter in of itself, which is what many people seem to assume... but the new ball won’t get so wet in play. So in the broad sunshine of the ’66 World Cup Final, the famous orange balls were the same weight as the ones we see today. And so it has been on every dry day, on every dry pitch, since the balls were first standardized in the early 1870s. The huge difference these days is that in wet conditions the ball doesn’t absorb moisture whereas as laced footballs gained significant weight in wet conditions and led to many retired footballers developing dementia in later life. Nobby Stiles, Bobby and Jack Charlton, Jeff Astle all suffered from it. Back in the 60s at Senior school we had laced footballs but fortunately I rarely headed them! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 2 minutes ago, Robbored said: The huge difference these days is that in wet conditions the ball doesn’t absorb moisture whereas as laced footballs gained significant weight in wet conditions and led to many retired footballers developing dementia in later life. Nobby Stiles, Bobby and Jack Charlton, Jeff Astle all suffered from it. Back in the 60s at Senior school we had laced footballs but fortunately I rarely headed them! You sure you never headed them RR ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 38 minutes ago, spudski said: You sure you never headed them RR ? It was always “to my feet” in those days Spudski……….. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheddarReds Posted September 13 Share Posted September 13 I work with data day to day and have worked as a performance analyst at academy level in the EFL so absolutely get why players have been encouraged not to shoot from distance, but I do think sometimes we can be a bit extreme in our criticism of long shots. - Last time I looked at the data, players who took more long shots hit the target more often and there's value resulting from that e.g. we know many goals are scored from set pieces and corners. Especially for ourselves, we have an above average shooter from long range in Scott Twine and Rob Dickie was fairly successful last year in scoring headers fro corners and set pieces. I like to think we're trying to manufacture opportunities to use Twine's talent for these reasons. - semi-frequent long shots prevent the opposition from sitting so deep into their box, creating space for teams to get in behind - sometimes you aren't good enough to play round your opponent and need to rely on a bit of talent or luck - as everyone has said, they're fun. And there's a benefit to that - e.g. raising the mood in the crowd, making the opposition more on edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjmcity Posted September 14 Share Posted September 14 (edited) On 12/09/2024 at 13:09, Numero Uno said: David Noble v Palace..............pea roller. Good shout, stand corrected - best city goal I’ve seen live! Movement was unreal and the significance of it. Wow - mad in the away end Edited September 14 by Fjmcity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.