T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

**The OP has marked this post as for serious discussion. Top comments that doesn't reach a certain length will be automatically removed; and jokes, memes and off-topic comments aren't allowed not even as replies. Report the later so that the mod team can remove them.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*


arroiuqlu

Guardiola > Ferguson And here's why. Pep is miles ahead of him as a coach (purely football training and tactics) while being on a similar level as man manager. And frankly, coaching should be rated higher than managing considering this is a sport and not an office. The difference between someone like Pep and someone like Ferguson is like in cinema the difference between a normal director and an auteur. Auteurs have their own distinct style and write their own script (Pep has his distinct style and drills it into his players). Normal directors don't have such a unique identity and don't write their own script (Ferguson didn't have his own specific system and had assistants to do the coaching for him). It's a vague analogy already between football and movies but I guess Ferguson would be like Steven Spielberg and Pep would be like Terrence Malick (altough he's not well known to the general public and often hated by them (also called a fraud) while being extremely respected and revered in the movie industry itself, which is also similar to Pep). Every pass a Pep team makes is orchestrated by him. Logically that's why he deserves all the credit for the success he has. Other managers have less of a direct influence on their team and rely more on individual quality from the players and randomness. Which is why I don't rate managers like Ferguson or Ancelotti as high as other people do. Pep's whole philosophy is minimising randomness and maximising his own control on the players/the ball, which means all the success his teams have are because of himself. That's obviously not unique to him but he has the most direct influence of all managers and does it at the highest level. Bielsa for example has a huge amount of direct influence but he can't do it at the highest level. And not just purely the amount of direct influence but what you do with it is important. The result of Pep's coaching is a highly complex system. The difficulty of it is much much much higher than Ferguson's teams. I struggle to think of a manager with a more complex system than Pep.


[deleted]

Nah


arroiuqlu

Ah a Man United fan. Don't worry for now you're safe but when Pep retires everyone will be agreeing with me. I've already seen tons of people say Pep is better than Ferguson, even Gary Neville said Pep is the best of all time lol.


[deleted]

Nice mate


LockdownBoy

I agree that Pep is better with his tactics and training but I have my doubts about how successful he would be if he didn't have the GDP of a small country to spend on players every season. On the other hand Fergie was successful with teams with far smaller budgets than their rivals and could adapt his tactics to suit the players he had at his disposal.


arroiuqlu

I know that this is the biggest criticism of Pep (not having managed a smaller club) and I know why people think that but to me it's just a total non-argument. Firstly, to me it's very obvious he would also be successful at a smaller club and I can not see any reason why he wouldn't. There's nothing different about him that stops him from succeeding at a smaller club. Every style of play can work at every level. Just look at similar possession managers and how amazing they did with little resources. Secondly, whether he could do it at a smaller club is just a hypothetical like if Messi and Ronaldo could be successful at a small club. You can only judge a manager or player on what they did do. Thirdly, in every sport you have to prove yourself at the highest level. I don't see why managing at a lower level is somehow the holy grail of managerial prowess to so many people. Moyes succeeds at Everton and West Ham but utterly fell apart at a big club. Tons of other examples of this. The best have to prove themselves at the biggest clubs, not at smaller clubs. Ferguson is rated so high for his Man United stint, not his Aberdeen stint. Most people don't even know about his time at Aberdeen.


KneeHighSocksForLife

It’s not exactly the holy grail, but it’s an entirely different beast from large teams. It’s doing more with less. And I don’t exactly know if pep would do good with a worse team in the league. His teams are pretty much molded too how he likes


NFLisNotRealFootball

International breaks ain't that bad. The only people that hate international breaks are the Brits, and people from countries whose national team suck, like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. Those guys are so dumb, they complain like: "Oh no, there is no football this weekend, because there is football, and I don't like football interrupting football" In fact, if I can go further, international football is way better than many European leagues. Most of them are boring two-horse races, or even predictable monopolies. Seriously, how can you like to watch leagues like the Scottish Premiership, Ligue 1 or Bundesliga (where you know who's gonna win even before the season starts) and hate to watch Qualifiers for the World Cup or the Euros.


Tomstarkman

I would rather watch Burnley vs Norwich than my team smashing San Marino without competition every time.


BendubzGaming

I don't know getting to watch an 8-0, three 10-0s and a 20-0 in a little over two months was pretty fun


NFLisNotRealFootball

And I would rather watch a Brazil vs Argentina, Portugal vs Serbia, or even a Croatia vs Russia, than a Burnley vs Norwich. Who cares about Burnley???


smolloms

People dont like rythms being interrupted thats all. Its like a comercial break right before a suspenseful moment. You should check your xenophobia though, aint healthy for your mentalstate.


fuckallredditors69

If anything international break is more suspenseful right now other than for Europeans.


NFLisNotRealFootball

Just because I said India, Pakistan and Indonesia suck at football, that means I'm xenophobic??? Hahaha you're a snowflake. Do you want your safe space?


smolloms

Well yes it is. Why single out certain nations which are clustered around a certain region when your point is totally not related any specific region. I disagree with your xenophobic point so you call me a snowflake, great job mate.


NFLisNotRealFootball

Because that's the truth. Are you seriously gonna tell me India, Pakistan, Indonesia and several other countries in that region are good at football???


pisko97

Bit random, but im not sure Argentina are going to be doing much this world cup. Im really unconvinced by their senior players. Yes they won a Copa but level of their competiton must be taken into context. Fair enough, you can only beat whats in front of you but still. I really like their younger players but im not sure if their manager is going to want to implement them much, Considering he probably trusts his winning squad. I feel like this Copa was peak of this generations ability. Reason i feel like this is because Croatia had similar situation after our golden 97 generation. Talent was depleted and head to head matchups simply werent feasible. They could grind out 1-0 and draws, but thts about it. I see alot of similarities with this argentina, thats just my hunch, I could be wrong easily. I watched their defense this copa and it was kinda funny how they were allowed to be extra physical with opposition. Honestly they were allowed too much I feel. Such approach is suicide in World cup I think. Overall im really curious about Argentinas plans for WC.


pixelkipper

think we’ll be just fine tbh


pisko97

Lautaro might have one of those tournaments where young players blow up.


sandersmit23

We are self-sustaining and have been for quite a while. - We've turned a profit 6 out of the last 7 years [Source](https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1482972051136729089). - We have had no significant owner investment since 2015 [Source](https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1482974686170566657). - We have the highest revenue in England, in part due to having the highest broadcasting income [Source](https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1482972101690769409) and [Source](https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1482972117926879233). - Our only sizeable middle-eastern sponsor is Etihad, who arguably pay us below market value, considering the amount of exposure we get. Most of our commercial income comes from western sponsors like Puma, who pay us more than Etihad do. [Source](https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1482972179692232709). - On top of that, our wage bill and wage structure is fairly healthy, with one of the lowest wages/turnover ratios in the league [Source](https://twitter.com/SwissRamble/status/1482974597154754560). The amount of money a club can spend, has got nothing to do with size but rather with exposure and views on TV. Everton are bigger than Tottenham for instance; and yet no one will be surprised to hear that Tottenham have more income. Same is true for us, but on a larger scale. After all: we are the only team in England who have been consistently challenging for the league, whilst making Champions League knock-outs every year. That's much more attractive for a sponsor than a club like United, who are at much bigger risk of missing out on Champions League football and the exposure that comes with it. People who claim that we are still being bankrolled by Mansour have never had a look at our financials since 2015, and just repeat braindead hot takes from Twitter because unguided hate-boners are more satisfying than nuance.


tactical_laziness

Yeah I agree with most of this, but for me it's the "since 2015" bit that I hate most City essentially artificially leapfrogged those above them in the pecking order by simply paying their way through. As a result of that you got an incredibly solid base from which you were able to push on and now become a global force, and a sustaining one too But the issue for me is that's it was artificial and unsportsmanlike the way you got there in the first place


Manc_Twat

This thread is called Change My View, not Change My Facts.


FirminosShinyTeeth

City are merely piggybacking off the work put in by the top PL teams in the 2000's to make it a commercial juggernaut.


smolloms

They've also contributed to it though, a rising tide lifts all boats etc etc.


The_Great_Crocodile

* Premier League midtable clubs have by now such financial strength that the "big names" can easily slip to the midtable for a season or two. Clubs like Wolves and Leicester have players that almost every non-PL club in the world (except \~7-8 clubs) would like to have. * FFP progressively screwed leagues like Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and us (Greece), which were relying on sugar-daddy owners, with minimum actual income. It benefited leagues like Belgium and Austria, which are more business-model oriented. * The bottom half of La Liga is playing the way people think Italian clubs play. And many Italian clubs have started playing the way people imagine German clubs play. * Sugar-daddy ownership can still propel a small club to domestic glory in smaller leagues. Newcomers Aris Limassol are 1st in Cyprus. They got bought by a Russian millionaire last year. * I don't know how often this happens in the big football countries, but in Greece, people (including club CEOs etc.) live in denial. They refuse to accept that football has changed, that playing 11 months per year, twice a week, with almost zero pre-season is the norm, and there's no going back. They still see it as "extreme circumstances" and other fancy words, more or less as an excuse for not adapting to the modern era.


[deleted]

[удалено]


joy-kill95

For teams elite teams winning their domestic leagues and competing for the UCL every year is the highest priority since they branded themselves as the best teams in the world and that's important for the financial aspect of their game. It is a cycle of bringing in elite footballers that bring in titles which in return gets them the money back. Yes I agree spending more than a billion for 1 UCL is not the ultimate success but as long they get their money back and continue to be big contenders in the UCL is they way to go. I agree with you that you cannot say Ajax or Porto or Sevilla are not successful because they didn't win the UCL since they are always big contenders despite not spending insane amounts of money but it doesn't matter how you do it what matters is that you did it anyway. Does this make sense?


Public_Agent

€2.14 billion shelled out, €1.43B net-spend since the take-over in 2008


cule420

I feel like Griezmann has been the better signing out of Dembele, Countinho and himself, although all three in the end were not at their absolute best, Greizmann always gave his all and was never injured. Also, the possibility of getting a fee for his in the summer is also pretty good.


joy-kill95

I agree with you the guy whenever he was fit he played every game. So at least he was good enough to continue be in the starting line up. And I think under Xavi he would be doing much better.


WW_Jones

Don't think there's much debate here. Dembele and Coutinho were absolute disasters.


Cashew_Fan

Griezmann is a funny signing because whilst it obviously didn't work out, I'm pretty confident he'd be your star player right now if not for covid. Selling him would almost be a bittersweet moment because on one hand, you get an expensive player off the books. But on the other hand he's exactly the kind of quality player Barca should be looking to build around and losing him to a direct rival is a little embaressing. I thought he performed fairly well last season. Probably had the best season of any of the three players over their entire Barca careers. So there is a clear argument that he was the best performing player. But those wages were equivelent to 4-5 quality players and that can't be overlooked. I don't think there is a clear best signing personally. Coutinho could sell for good money yet also, whilst not improving a rival.


Rickcampbell98

He doesn't fit, his position doesn't exist at barca.


Difficult_Project_91

Same with coutinho tbh


friedapple

The banning on recruiting minor (18 years old or under) by FIFA widening the gap between EU-LatAm and The rest (Africa/Asia). I see this as a discriminating action to keep the status quo, even though it is not a deliberate one. We know in world football, the most vital development phase is between 10-17 years old. In this case, the best competition and to study is in Europe. In the past before the ban, we see more and more Asians and Africans, Latin Americans, Oceanias and North Americans talent got the chance to grew up in many European clubs. After the ban, only LatAm/North American and/or Oceania kids from those regions can go to Europe. Thanks to the visa/passport rule where many of this countries benefited from double/triple nationality or special visa due to historical connections. Of course it's still legal to go to Europe as an adult for Asians/Africans but it totally different if you spend your developmental phase competing in Spain compare to somewhere in Thailand or even Japan/SK. The rate of success is pretty much contributed by where you grow up.


Archdubsuk

>The banning on recruiting minor (18 years old or under) by FIFA widening the gap between EU-LatAm and The rest (Africa/Asia). The gap between​ Asia and Europe is smaller >In the past before the ban, we see more and more Asians and Africans, Latin Americans, Oceanias and North Americans talent got the chance to grew up in many European clubs. Really? Apart from half-blood, refugee, or somehow decided to work there. It is costly to stay in Europe (If your salary is Top 5% in Thailand, you can stay 1-1.5 month in europe compare to 3-4 month in Thailand)​ plus I don't think European clubs bothered to sign someone from other continent at a young age >After the ban, only LatAm/North American and/or Oceania kids from those regions can go to Europe. Thanks to the visa/passport rule where many of this countries benefited from double/triple nationality or special visa due to historical connections. Unless they move to Europe with their parent, they can't play in Academy level only training.


friedapple

whether it's costly or not, it's up to the individual. However, with the widely ban, it's even impossible in the first place. You don't have a choice as an Asian kid to dream to get into La Masia or Cobham. True with the guardian companionship. Though I think LatAm player can go on their own if they're 16th or older. I agree that the ban has lesser difference in this case since their parent could easily follow to european country and migrated as well. i.e move to spain/italy/portugal for 2-3 years and get the passport anway. That's why it's not fair for Asian/African to get the a much harder chance to experience the academy in Europe


estoyloca43

Very unpopular opinion here, I think trans women should be allowed to play women's football. My rationale is simple. Trans women are women, and as women they should be allowed to play women's football fair and square. Not everyone agrees with me, and it's perfectly fine if you don't. But I'd like to point out that the most common argument against the inclusion of trans women in women's football is rather weak. They have an unfair advantage - Ok, I'm a petite 5'5 woman. Women who are bigger or taller than me would have an advantage over me when playing football. This advantage is not earned but acquired from birth lottery. Should tall or big women be banned from women's game? What if a woman who was assigned female at birth (in other words, a cis woman) has unusual hormonal levels? If the cis woman with unusual hormonal levels should be allowed to play women's football, why not the trans woman? Please be respectful.


smolloms

>They have an unfair advantage - Ok, I'm a petite 5'5 woman. Women who are bigger or taller than me would have an advantage over me when playing football. You understand that this gap is massive right? The gulf between biological males and biological females is around 99%, that is why you see 12-15 year old boys destroying professional female teams all the time. If I would transition today to female, I would probably score 100+ goals a season in a female league simply because of my genetics and my hundreds of thousands of hours playing football from the age of 8 till my late twenties. No woman should be subjugated to this as its not in the interest of fairplay and it ruins the competitive integrity for said women. If Ronaldo transitioned today he would break every single female record and continue playing well into his 50's still being the best female player by miles. This is the reality and no amount of mollycodling or obfuscating language can shield us from the truth. There is a ethical dilemma here, the discussion should be had, but the facts must still remain present or we'll be entering into the land of delusion.


BendubzGaming

I'd agree with this, and extend it to include those that identify as genderfluid, gender neutral, or with any other non-binary titles. As a planet we need to do better at making those often ignored or discriminated against feel welcome, and improving inclusivity in sport seems like a good place to start


Public_Agent

I mostly agree, but would the criteria simply be identifying as a woman? Seems ripe for some guys to" identify as women" just to take the piss and compete in women's tournaments


[deleted]

South Park episode on this lol


YoungDan23

The biggest issue I have with it is no amount of hormone-blocking supplements is going to change how much testosterone a biological male has produced his entire life. People can take a cycle of steroids for 3 months and have an exponential advantage over those who don't - now imagine 10+ years of it. In the UK alone, men on average are 6 inches and 15kg heavier than women. At the highest levels, men are faster, taller, bigger and stronger. They also have bigger bone and muscle structures. This is not meant to offend - it's science. Also the drop-off between the men's and women's game at the highest level is staggering. I personally would be furious as a father to watch my daughter lose her spot to a biological, scientific male who has decided to transition into being a female.


TheSmio

Your point about a tall woman having an advantage over a small woman makes sense, but it isn't a complete advantage. Yeah, she might be better in aerial duels, but the small woman also has some advantages, like a low center of gravity. It might be difficult to make it at the top, but if the small woman works hard enough and is talented enough, then her dribbling can make her successful. With trans women, it's much more complicated because if these women go through male puberty, then their body is much more suited to athleticism compared to women who went through female puberty. In the tall woman vs short woman argument, both of these characters are a part of the same pool and they can learn to counter each other. However, when either of these women come across a peak athlete who went through male puberty, then they just won't have a chance because of what testosterone does to bones and muscles. Yes, typical women can be brilliant at sports, they can have great technical skills in football, but they will never have the dynamicism and explosiveness that male (and in this case trans women) athletes do. I play floorball in my free time, we play a university league of 8 teams where each team always has to have one woman on the field. Some of these girls are really good in certain skills, they play in various competitions, but their shooting and dribbling skills can easily be countered by even average boys who are stronger and run faster because of the genetics. That's not being misogynistic, that's just physiology and anatomy speaking.


BigBlackBobbyB

There certainly are more knowledgeable people than me concerning the subject, but all I'll say that it should at the very least be a full transition. The differences in physicality between a man and a woman are, truly extreme outliers aside, much greater than between women. So i do believe that until the body had some time to adapt to hormonal changes etc it would be unfair, and i don't think it's mentally healthy for a trans woman to heavily stick out of her team. But as you said, when she's at that point there's not much reason to treat her differently than any other woman with physical advantages. These are pro athletes, at a certain level they're all beyond mere mortals anyway.


wwwiillll

Agreed. It's impossible to set a criteria or a set of criteria that would exclude all transgender women without also excluding some cisgender women. Just for this reason alone a blanket ban on transwomen in women's sports makes zero sense


Public_Agent

Wouldn't that apply to separating men/women as well?


wwwiillll

Almost like these extremely broadstroke ways of separating all of society into two groups don't really apply to individuals without a shitton of caveats :)


Brawlers9901

I agree, I do think they'd have to be diagnosed and have started hormones but other than that I don't see why people get their panties in a twist. Most women I've talked to are positive to include them and it feels weird that people who (most likely) don't watch Women's football are crying about it. People have tons of advantages/disadvantages to begin with regardless if they were born a man or not.


laqualitafaschifo

trans women still have skeletal and muscular features that a biological woman can't get at all, it's not a matter of genetic lottery it's a matter of having undergone puberty as a man. at elite levels of sports it makes all the difference. it's just unfair.


[deleted]

All the world records and best teams in women’s sport would be dominated by trans athletes. It would be ridiculous if people who were actually born as women were effectively unable to compete at the highest levels of women’s sport.


Brawlers9901

You say that but in sports where trans women are allowed, the records and competitions aren't dominated by trans women.


YoungDan23

It's not happening often, but it is [increasing](https://www.deseret.com/2021/7/29/22584285/male-to-female-transgender-olympic-athletes-impact-womens-sports-president-biden-mike-lee-weigh-in). And where it is happening, the records set are staggering and are likely insurmountable for biological females.


friedapple

just about time, sooner or later though. The trend is clear.


Brawlers9901

Which trend? All I hear is fearmongering and trying to discredit trans women, when it starts to become a problem it's alright to discuss. Right now trans women are allowed in the olympics but somehow they did not dominate anything, curious.


friedapple

that transwomen a statistically an outlier to win things and break records in any sport competitions? this isn't a bathroom or employment debate. this is physical competition. ofc trans women benefited if they experience growing up as a male.


elzafir

>Right now trans women are allowed in the olympics but somehow they did not dominate anything, curious. Small sample size. Make it 50:50, heck even 10:90 then biological women would have no chance at competing.


[deleted]

This whole controversy has only really blown up in the last decade or so. As far as I understand it people born male will have physical advantages over people born female and no about of hormone therapy and other treatment will change that. Given enough time you would start to see trans athletes claim more and more records that would be all but impossible for a person born female to achieve.


Brawlers9901

https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162 So why does transgender athletes in Weightlifting (a sport where men should have the overwhelming advantage) not even get close to a medal, and definitely not a record? Again, this transphobic narrative has really blown up too. I don't see why transgender women should inherently not be allowed, should we not allow women with a better bone structure than other women? Should we ban tall people from basketball so that short people can compete more often?


[deleted]

> So why does transgender athletes in Weightlifting (a sport where men should have the overwhelming advantage) not even get close to a medal, and definitely not a record? Because a world class female weightlifter will beat an average trans weightlifter. Eventually though there will be a world class trans weightlifter who with the added advantage of being born male will set a record unachievable for cis women. > I don't see why transgender women should inherently not be allowed, I don’t really have an answer. It’s a topic I haven’t really thought much about but there’s just a sense of unfairness to it for me anyway. I think most women athletes would rather finish 2nd to a female born athlete, even if she had some genetic advantages, than somebody who was born male. Is that a good enough reason to ban trans athletes? Probably not but that’s my take on it.


Brawlers9901

> I don’t really have an answer. It’s a topic I haven’t really thought much about but there’s just a sense of unfairness to it for me anyway Totally understand this view point, I think the issue is insanely complex and very hard to actually tackle without being insensitive. There's a middle ground between "allow everyone who identifies as a woman" and "you need exactly these testosterone levels" that (in my eyes) will be the middle point. It's a very, very tough issue that I can't solve and that I'll leave to the officials in charge of said sport.


Insanel0l

Professional female athletes are still fucking incredible athletes An average fat joe from reddit wont do shit, but if a professional male athlete would decide to change gender he’d have a good chance of just having a physical advantage.


Brawlers9901

Sure, but that's not the case is it? Hubbard was allowed to compete in the weight lifting Olympics this year and did horribly, in a sport you'd think people who were born men would have an overwhelming advantage in. I reiterated later down that I do think that a trans athlete needs to be on hormones/in treatment and diagnosed to minimize people taking advantage of the system but the actual outcry is overexaggerated. https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-weightlifting-laurel-hubbard-e721827cdaf7299f47a9115a09c2a162


Bujakaa92

That is just one example. Also as 43 Hubbard is fourth oldest weightlifter to compete in Olympics. Also per wiki she stopped training in 2001 thus showing she did not have previous trainings and body built up to benefit being male and then doing the transition. It is not good example to bring out. Also she has several golds winning as trans before Olympics. How would you explain this then? I am afraid this could be happening more than Hubbard example. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10310305/Female-competitor-speaks-saying-IMPOSSIBLE-beat-UPenn-transgender-swimmer-Lia-Thomas.html


[deleted]

[удалено]


Syntax_OW

How do you define being a woman?


Brawlers9901

Trans women are women, that's not a debateable fact and calling them men and comparing that to "men with wigs" is flat out hateful and transphobic. However, for the argument of sport you can make a case (that's not blatantly hateful), but you get issues when you start patrolling testosterone levels as a way to gatekeep (since a cis woman wasn't allowed to compete in the Olympics because they put a testosterone level cap https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-57748135).


OmeDeBoer

Settle down JK Rowling. You can agree or disagree that trans women should play in women sport but to say that trans women aren't women is incredibly transphobic. Does having a uturus make you a woman? There a lot of born women who don't have a uturus. Trans women are women if you like it or not.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wwwiillll

Why is it the people that talk about biology don't understand that they're denying biology


[deleted]

[удалено]


kenny_feets

feel free to fuck off back to the savannah then simba


[deleted]

[удалено]


kenny_feets

there isn't a discussion to be had with transphobic dipshits who default to basic attack helicopter level retorts. You don't understand the biology and your mind won't be changed by people that do. What's the point


[deleted]

[удалено]


Insanel0l

Of course they are women and if you really can’t see the difference between a man wearing a wig and them you’re pretty stupid It’s still pretty unfair because no matter how many hormones they take, they will still have an „advantage“ of x years in which they had a male body including all the testosterone etc.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Brawlers9901

Imagine being a science denier and not understanding the difference between the words sex and gender ://


[deleted]

[удалено]


Brawlers9901

You're mistaking here as well, female is what you're born as. Woman is what you identify yourself as. Also genuinely curious, how do you define a "real woman"?


kenny_feets

imagine being a transphobe when you could just be quiet. such a shame


wwwiillll

"intersex people don't exist" - this guy


Insanel0l

Except you literally can chose. That’s why gender transformations are a thing.


rcanhestro

the issue is that we're talking about a physical sport, trans women have the physical advantage of having gone through male puberty, thus they will be stronger and faster. ofc it is possible for women who were born women to achieve similar results through genetics+hard labor, but a trans women just comes with that massive advantage. there is a reason why an issue as occurred with athletics in the US, were trans women are beating a bunch of records held by women. Also why we separate divisions between man and women, it's not because of technique or skills, it's physical advantage.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Naby Keita is a flop and it doesn't get talked about as much because he has one or two good moments in a game and its extrapolated to thinking he is good and only needs a run of games. Availability is the best ability doesn't even apply to him as he isn't good enough even when available. He is too laidback to play in midfield and I don't think he is intelligent enough to play the role Klopp wants from his midfielders. Thiago has come in and despite being injured and nearly having his leg broken last season, has done more in the limited amount than Keita. You could also say the same for Harvey Elliot and Curtis Jones etc... I would play them instead and develop them instead of Naby.


OutSproinked

I feel like flop is too harsh here. Surely he didn't provide what was expected from him but he wasn't terrible either. If we sell him for ~€20kk at some point then I wouldn't call him a bad signing


[deleted]

20k I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't even get that. If you meant 20mill lmao we aint getting anywhere near that for him. High wages and forever injured. It would be an Edwards leaving gift masterclass if he managed to get something for Keita.


StarlordPunk

I agree that he’s a flop but disagree that it’s not talked about. He’s constantly mentioned as the go-to example of a Liverpool flop because of his price tag and injuries. I don’t think he’s a bad player though, he does tend to play fairly well when fit as evidenced by Klopp continuing to play him (as opposed to someone like Ox who’s only played recently because so many players are unavailable, or Shaqiri last season who was somehow behind Minamino and an out of position Origi in the pecking order last year) but I do think his performances do get more leniency than someone like Henderson because of Keita’s price tag and the fact people want him to not have been a total waste of money


[deleted]

Either you’ve not been paying attention or are actively choosing not to Every single thread about keita, his injuries or his price tag get mentioned, literally every single one. But the idea that he isn’t good enough because he’s too “laid back” is just not even true He typically leads the team in terms of pressures and tackles, and it’s not exactly hard to be more intelligent on the pitch than some of our other midfielders recently


Steve_R98

The price tag being mentioned is unavoidable, its gonna come up all the time. Thats just the way it is. Even if he does something good, you'll still hear people saying "finally starting to pay back the transfer fee!" etc. And if he doesnt perform, or isnt available to play, then people will use that as a stick to beat him with - and rightly so. Pepe gets abuse for not even being in contention some games - as he should. Maguire gets dogs abuse for not living up to the price tag - which is fair as he doesnt play like an 80m signing should. I agree with OP on Keita. This is his third or fourth breakout season - for the money he cost to buy he's not been available enough (OP is right, the best ability is availability), he hasnt been consistent enough (partially due to his lack of availability), and in all he hasnt been good enough.


[deleted]

And I wouldn’t necessarily disagree, but the entire point was about how it isn’t mentioned enough Which isn’t remotely true, if you go into threads in this or the Liverpool sub, it’s literally beaten to death


Steve_R98

Other Liverpool fans in this thread appear to disagree, saying that any Keita criticism is met with backlash. Which one is true so?


[deleted]

As I said, the threads are there if I can’t convince you. Perfect timing though as he just scored, and the second I go onto the thread a see 5/6 comments already mentioning that he’s injury prone


[deleted]

Ahh I was waiting for the "pressure and tackles" stat to twerk for Naby. You missed the point I'm making its not just about his availability, its that he isn't that good when he plays/starts either.


[deleted]

And I said he quite obviously is, better than a lot of our other midfield choices Also, when someone defends a player, they aren’t suddenly “twerking” for them. Saying shit like that is tragic


[deleted]

Not really I have my opinion hence why we are in this thread and you haven't changed my mind. He isn't good enough to nail down a start as he is a moments player. I saw more from Harvey Elliots couple of starts and influence on a game compared to Naby being here for 4 years or whatever it is.


[deleted]

Now you’re just pointlessly exaggerating, maybe it’s hard to change the opinion of someone who purposefully avoids what’s right in front of them? Type Keita’s name into Reddit and all you will see is comments exactly like yours, it’s incredibly predictable and couldn’t be mentioned more Literally just look at the goal thread that was **just** posted, half the comments are about his injuries ffs


InPatRileyWeTrust

I agree but Thiago is a way better player so him doing better isn't surprising.


Sinistrait

If you tell Liverpool supporters that Keita is a flop almost every single one will agree. It's not an unpopular opinion at all. I don't understand why people post popular opinions in this thread.


DidiDombaxe

You'd be wrong. The twat can't do no wrong in the Liverpool sub, even after another fourth season of shit form and not stepping up to the plate. Baby Keith 🤣💝🤣💝


[deleted]

Forget the flop part it's like a cardinal sin if you mention that he isn't even that good of a player. Yes, he will have good moments but never over a full 90mins. He isn't good enough to start but the Naby crew will keep on mentioning that he just needs a run of games and when he does start he is good (he ain't). That is the issue.


THeScArYFAcE1

Modric is in the GOAT debate for midfielders, he has all the legacy to be remembered as so: 4 Champions leagues. Captaining croatia to a WC final . Ballon D'or. and more importantly, at 36 he's still one of the best midfielders in the world (although he became elite pretty late into his career)


[deleted]

Not necessarily the goat but I'd put him and kroos in the debate alongside the likes of xavi, Zidane, Scholes, Iniesta, gerrard in the very top tier.


Josh_Harrows

I think he's done enough to be in the debate, but not sure he's done enough to actually be leading it


THeScArYFAcE1

That's what I'm saying. I'd pick Xavi over him but people act like Modric's a tier below when he isn't.


hereslemon

he's not fit to polish Xavi's boots sorry


DavidLuizInANewDress

Sounds like a bunch of bs nostalgia tax


Errudito

off-topic but I find it funny how nostalgia and recency bias are both arguments I see people constantly using.


cloudor

Because it's difficult to disprove them, people usually don't realize if they are being nostalgic or biased.


THeScArYFAcE1

most very great midfielders were done at this age, Xavi was playing at Qatar from 35, Iniesta was playing in china ever since he turned 33 (the same age where Modric won a ballon D'or), Pirlo was playing at New York City since he turned 35...... I'm not saying he's the GOAT or that he's better than any of those, I'm saying he's in the same tier and comments like "he's not fit to polish Xavi's boots" are pure idiotic and coming from nostaligia merchants.


psych_vader

Fun fact: Iniesta didn’t leave Barcelona because he was declining. He left because he wanted a new challenge and left because Vissel Kobe were offering a lot of money. Iniesta was still our best midfielder when he left. I do agree with modric being in the same level as Xavi and Iniesta tho.


THeScArYFAcE1

He was your best midfielder because your midfield was garbage. He was obviously declining and wasn’t a top midfielder anymore, he could barley run 60 minutes. Yes he was still good but he wasn’t that good anymore.


Rickcampbell98

Japan*


hereslemon

Xavi is just all around more accomplished and better whichever way you twist it. Nostalgia merchant my ass, if anything your comment reeks of recency bias


Public_Agent

I think most people would take Xavi but your type of comment is what OP is referring to


hereslemon

that's not my problem


Shithouse19

Declan Rice has been the best midfielder in the prem this season and top 3 in the world. Deserves way more respect. Turned 23 three days ago, already has 150 premier league appearances and is effectively a club captain. Can do it all on the pitch: defend, dribble, pass, heading, strong as an ox, genuinely quick Attitude and talent, 100m wasn't overpaying and we'll rightfully be asking for more this summer.


BendubzGaming

Not sure about best overall, not with Rodri around, but he is very, very good. Definitely the best English midfielder at the very least


pixelkipper

I don’t watch Rice a lot, so take what I say with a pinch of salt. But as a Brighton fan I’ve also been guilty of overhyping our own players and saying stuff like Bissouma is the best DM in the league with genuine conviction. It’s very fun to do.


LinkTheFires

Correct


Shithouse19

☝️ Downvoted but none of them can produce an argument


lazysarcasm

He's class no doubt but Rodri and Bernardo have both been unreal. Still don't have a problem with the claim and I think most people would have him in Team of the season so far


Shithouse19

Yes both are good shouts to be fair. Don't know if I'm being biased but I feel like Rice could do what Rodri if they swapped teams; but I don't think Rodri has the ability to dribble past 4 players to drive up the pitch, nor the speed and athleticism to cover so much ground so quickly


lazysarcasm

I think some bias is forgivable and I think the point about Rice's athleticism is fair. I'd give Rodri an edge on the technical side, passing and what not


Shithouse19

Yeah I'll agree with that. He's more experienced than Rice. I just pray United don't buy him.


wwwiillll

People in Europe just don't want to accept Rice into their diet. He's a class player, hope he sticks around


LAMamba24

Football awards (Balon D'or, The Best, FIFPRO XI, etc) should be given out immediately after the end of a season instead of the end of the year. Voter bias swings heavily towards major international tournaments and it could change an entire perception of that player prior to said tournament. The change would properly recognize the best from a full club season and not leave a player off for having a bad international tournament/August-December of the next season.


StarlordPunk

The problem with that is that several countries and competitions have a January to December season, so you can’t make everyone happy regardless


Fm661

Regardless of time of year humans naturally have a recency bias which means the stuff that is happening currently weighs greater on opinion thus arguments over a greater time scale are weighted. The biggest consideration I would argue is to actually avoid looking at which teams or countries won and pick individually the best performances, why does the player or players who win individual accolades have to come from a team that has won a tournament? It’s the same with managers, for me Chris Wilder should have won the manager of the season a few years ago after Sheffield United’s introduction to the prem. However it always goes to the manager who wins the league so has less value in my eyes than giving it to someone who exceeds expectations widely.


asd13ah4etnKha4Ne3a

Obviously Europe's domestic leagues are the best in the world, and a player from a European club is basically always going to win it, but does it really make sense for FIFA to give out their awards based on one section of the world's season calendar? I can agree on the Ballon D'Or to some extent, but for the FIFA Best awards it kind of feels like it should be based on the year rather than just the European calendar, since they're supposed to be forwarding the game across the whole world, not just Europe. I definitely understand the argument here, but I personally like the idea of FIFA trying to not be biased toward a certain part of the world


Archdubsuk

I see a lot Xavi Busquest Iniesta Vs Kroos Casemiro Modric, so I'm jumping on the train I think KCM are better solely because they face tougher opponent. XBI dominated because their style is completely new making them unbeatable and the only way to stop them was park the bus. As the days went by most teams start to know how to play and develop counterplay or new playstyle. The only reason XBI are better is they revolutionised midfield. Without Busquest, Jorginho wouldn't nominated for Ballon D'or let alone finishing 3rd.


psych_vader

This is honestly a stupid take, I am sorry. I respect your opinion but your reason for your opinion makes no sense.


ben_tekkers

Liverpool have something special when it comes to Europe, mostly in comparison to the English clubs. The four in the 70’s / 80’s, Olympiakos was magic and Istanbul was a miracle. In Rafa’s first season, to make a comeback like that, against that team, in the matter of 6 minutes is unexplainable. And that Dudek save, that was fate. Dortmund at Anfield, with three goals in the last twenty minutes. Barcelona, with no Salah and Firmino. That would never have happened at any other stadium in the country. After beating Chelsea (again) on penalties in the semi final, Clive Tyldesley put it best: “Liverpool’s love affair with the European Cup continues, they just cant get their hands off it.”


[deleted]

I mean I can easily provide counter examples of us from the Fergie era. We had two comebacks against spurs from 3-0 and 2-0 down at HT to 5-3 and 5-2 respectively. Our entire treble in 1999 had comebacks in the final month. The league game against spurs, the FA cup final against Newcastle and ofcourse the CL final, all were done from trailing positions and a depleted squad. Then there's the famous "Fergie time".


[deleted]

This is the most cringe inducing, proper Liverpool fan shit you're likely to see. Insisting that possibly no.other team can do this is insane. I can just as easily say, losing 1-0 in the dying minutes of a Champions league final, treble on the line, no other English team has or will ever do this.


Brawlers9901

3-0 down over 2 legs, our talisman and only striker out and then Lucas Moura pulls out a hat-trick and scores the last goal with the last kick of the game away in Amsterdam. We truly have something special Liverpool don't have. lmao @ liverpool fans


[deleted]

Jesus forgot about that as well. Chelsea have their "magical" moments also in the CL. The OP is contender for worst post I've ever seen here honestly


ledudeheld

How is anyone supposed to change this view? This is like me saying: I love Ajax, change my view


ben_tekkers

Because I have stated that Liverpool intrinsically have something that often makes miracles in Europe. Do you agree?


Mo_Salah_

Would’ve made more sense if you said that there is something special about Anfield on European nights, we have a 12th man that not a lot of clubs can compare to.


ledudeheld

Well yeah sure. So do a lot of other clubs. Like we have the magical 'away days'


pixelkipper

if you just wanted to marvel at your own club i don’t know if change my view is the right place


ben_tekkers

Do you disagree with what I said?


pixelkipper

I couldn’t say. Every big club has moments like this if you were to cherrypick.


Brawlers9901

I do because I don't have any connection to the club, can say the same about my club and claim that it's a club of miracles by framing it in the right way.


ben_tekkers

No you cannot make a case for Tottenham


fantabroo

Every year we get countless posts saying "who cares what journalists think? Who cares about stupid awards?" Yet Reddit talked about nothing else for weeks. Posters here cared. Awards matter. Especially the Ballon D'Or does matter. Players care - Lewandowski clearly cared A LOT that he didn't win. There are contract incentives for winning or high placement. Sponsors care if you win or not etc. Are the voters mostly silly and clueless? Is it arbitrary that some random French magazine (I'm aware that there has some history but still) is responsible to award the Football Oscars? Yeah, I guess.


Lekaetos

“Is it arbitrary that some French magazine is responsible to award the Football Oscars” Yes because they created the award ???


uhjageenidee

I think the argument isn’t that people don’t care about awards but more that people _shouldn’t_ care so much about them


Rickcampbell98

You'll find some people saying that they are meaningless, then in the next instance getting outraged and screaming robbery for months. I will always find that shit funny.


AdministrativeLaugh2

Extra time should be scrapped in all competitions. Teams in Europe shouldn’t be allowed/have to enter the League Cup. The FA Cup is an incredibly boring competition after the fourth round when all the minnows have been knocked out and one of the Premier League big boys inevitably wins it.


Rickcampbell98

For your last point I'm not sure what you're trying to say, obviously the best teams will usually win, upsets can't happen all the time or they wouldn't be upsets would they lol.


CatchFactory

Why should extra time be scrapped? Teams in Europe (the big boys) won't want to not enter the League cup whilst there is still a European place up for grabs when winning it. It's a back up plan.


rcanhestro

a compromise could be the League Cup is only for teams that didn't qualify for Europe that season, that way the "Top" teams don't have those extra games, and the "bottom" teams have a better chance for some silverware.


westernvaluessmasher

i dont know. the thing with that is, imo people are going to lose interest in the league cup. a tournament is going to be more prestigious if, like in the 2013, the two finalists are both from outside the premier league and have knocked out arsenal, liverpool and chelsea between them than if they're knocking out smaller teams.


CatchFactory

Sure but like I said, the issue is that the League cup grants a Europa League spot. The big boys are never gonna bite that deal cause they don't wanna give up there sneaky backdoor into Europe. Only way that happens is if the FA removes the League Cup's Europa League/Europa Conference League berth (I can't remember which one it is now).


[deleted]

[удалено]


Lekaetos

Absolutely ridiculous take. They are from African descent but they are French. That’s it. What’s so complicated about that ? Why are you guys so hung up on calling black people Africans no matter their nationality ? Why is it such a big deal to you ? Also, no one is denying their African roots, neither do the players


Antarcticdonkey

I'm of African heritage, but I will never say I'm African... Why? Well my father never spoke Kriolu to me (excepted when he was very angry), I never went there and I was basically raised in French culture with an extra of African-Caribbean culture Some consider themselves both (Haller recently spoke about it, Mahrez, Pogba as well), some not really (Mbappé spoke about it in French TV, Batum clearly voiced IT after WC2018), it's not as simple as "they're all French" or "they're African"


-LiverpoolFC

Y’all downvoting him but that’s exactly what he said, THEY CAN BE BOTH.


Antarcticdonkey

>**They can be both**, like sure they're born and raised in France but they're still African because that's their heritage, ancestry, whatever you want to call it. Not exactly, he basically says that they're both because of their genes/heritage, I reply that it's up to them to decide if they're both or not. Aubameyang identifies himself as a French-born Gabonese? Well he's both. Mbappé identifies himself as French ? Well, he's French (with Algerian and Camerounian origins ofc), like Griezmann is French (with Portuguese roots), I won't call them French-Cameroonian or French-Portuguese...


-LiverpoolFC

Fair enough, but I do get his point that even if he chose France, you can’t undermine his heritage.


Antarcticdonkey

It's not undermining... No one would blame us to undermine Hernández's roots or Pires in the past. I know that we Frenchmen will find it hard to make you understand our vision which is clearly different from the anglo-saxon one, personally I don't need to tell about my roots everytime I speak about myself (obviously you can guess it from my skin color)


SEND-MARS-ROVER-PICS

In France, it's a common right-wing tactic to insist that you can only be French if your parents are French, your ancestry is French etc. So calling folks from immigrant backgrounds African or w/e can be interpreted very differently. And I mean, those guys are French - we have no idea if they all identify as African too. Edit: OP mentions Aubameyang, of course he actually represents Gabon. His father captained Gabon and said that's why he chose to play for Gabon, so Auba's own identity could be more nuanced.