Controversial football opinions

[Dion 2,476]

  On 20/10/2014 at 21:11, zolayes said:

Ronaldo v Messi is a pointless discussion. I would have EITHER at Chelsea if Roman wasn't too tight fisted to get us us both.

Oh and Aguero for the bench

But you do realize we're talking about Brazilian Ronaldo, not Cristiano Ronaldo, right? It's not CR7 vs. Messi again.

[Nike 373]

  On 20/10/2014 at 21:38, iseah100 said:

Any team*

not the portuguese teams, barcelona and probably the spanish teams.... TO some extent the germans..

Italy as well. EPL would be affected the most.

[iseah100 5,612]

  On 20/10/2014 at 21:48, Nike said:

not the portuguese teams, barcelona and probably the spanish teams.... TO some extent the germans..

Italy as well. EPL would be affected the most.

Any team that competes in Europe*.

[zolayes 14,489]

  On 20/10/2014 at 21:47, Dion said:

But you do realize we're talking about Brazilian Ronaldo, not Cristiano Ronaldo, right? It's not CR7 vs. Messi again.

OMG I do have Dementia ,, But still brighter than FB

[Myself 793]

  On 20/10/2014 at 21:32, Yeboii said:

The home-grown rule is ridiculous

It's really not

[iseah100 5,612]

Reus> Bale

And it's not close.

[Yeboii 1,844]

  On 24/10/2014 at 19:10, Myself said:

It's really not

Well you're not meant to agree with me. That is the point of this topic. I do think the home-grown must be disassembled, or much less stricter.

[Myself 793]

  On 25/10/2014 at 04:38, Yeboii said:

Well you're not meant to agree with me. That is the point of this topic. I do think the home-grown must be disassembled, or much less stricter.

well fair enough about the thread. But what do you think is wrong with it? there is a real lack of English players in the league in general so I don't see what's really wrong with the rule. It is the English Premier League after all

[Atlas Lion 1,223]

  On 25/10/2014 at 04:38, Yeboii said:

Well you're not meant to agree with me. That is the point of this topic. I do think the home-grown must be disassembled, or much less stricter.

Okay.

Now why?

[TheOneChan95 225]

I don't think players before the 90s should be included in the "best of all time" lists. They were only great in their time. Football has really evolved with training methods and tactics etc that there is no way most of them can really be considered better than modern players.

[iseah100 5,612]

  On 25/10/2014 at 18:14, TheOneChan95 said:

I don't think players before the 90s should be included in the "best of all time" lists. They were only great in their time. Football has really evolved with training methods and tactics etc that there is no way most of them can really be considered better than modern players.

I was born in 94, but this is very narrow minded. You think the only football that should matter is from the 90's forward?

[TheOneChan95 225]

  On 25/10/2014 at 18:24, iseah100 said:

I was born in 94, but this is very narrow minded. You think the only football that should matter is from the 90's forward?

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying they don't matter, I'm saying that to claim a top player from 1950 is better than a top player today is rubbish(comparing primes ofc).

[iseah100 5,612]

  On 25/10/2014 at 18:29, TheOneChan95 said:

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying they don't matter, I'm saying that to claim a top player from 1950 is better than a top player today is rubbish(comparing primes ofc).

From the 50's I'm fine with. I'm adamant about that with several sports, it's why I don't consider Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, and Willie Pep the greatest fighters ever. But the cut off should be around the 70's IMO.

[Nike 373]

  On 25/10/2014 at 18:29, TheOneChan95 said:

I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying they don't matter, I'm saying that to claim a top player from 1950 is better than a top player today is rubbish(comparing primes ofc).

to an extent its true.....what your saying...

However, that means that players in the next generation should be better than both messi/cr7 as well.

[TheOneChan95 225]

  On 25/10/2014 at 18:31, iseah100 said:

From the 50's I'm fine with. I'm adamant about that with several sports, it's why I don't consider Sugar Ray Robinson, Jack Dempsey, and Willie Pep the greatest fighters ever. But the cut off should be around the 70's IMO.

Haha maybe we should compromise and agree at the 80s?

  On 25/10/2014 at 18:32, Nike said:

to an extent its true.....what your saying...

However, that means that players in the next generation should be better than both messi/cr7 as well.

Perhaps they might be, who knows?

But in my opinion, the reason was that up until a certain point in time, football wasn't exactly such a serious business. Today because of money we see top dollar invested in pushing players to their absolute physical limits. I believe at this point we are very much near it. So the difference in the next generation shouldn't be huge for me. They can of course, be better technically. I'm just mainly stating the physical difference would probably not increase that much.

[The_Flash 1,144]

Messi isn't all that

[Myself 793]

  On 25/10/2014 at 18:14, TheOneChan95 said:

I don't think players before the 90s should be included in the "best of all time" lists. They were only great in their time. Football has really evolved with training methods and tactics etc that there is no way most of them can really be considered better than modern players.

well I guess Maradona isn't one of the greatest ever then.

[iseah100 5,612]

  On 25/10/2014 at 22:14, The_Flash said:

Messi isn't all that

LOL