Jump to content

Money & Success


E2K
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have to applaud Monaco, Porto, Arsenal, Valencia and Marseille who, for now at least, have proven once again that a shitload of money is no guarantee of success. This is no disrespect to Chelsea fans, but there's part of me thats glad they didn't win the Champions League, cos if they had it would've proved that its possible to buy instant success. I don't like that, personally.

Of course, every big club has to spend money. Arsenal have spent a lot under Wenger, but Reyes is the only big signing they made this season. What with the budget constraints he was under with the new stadium and all, he identified the one player he wanted, bided his time, then got him. In the meantime, he got on with what he had and managed the team he had built himself over time. And now they're gonna be the first english team to go undefeated through a league season.

Its like what Fergie did in building a Champions league winning side at Man U; that season he signed only two major players, Stam and Yorke, but reaped the rewards of laying the groundwork in the previous years. I think that these achievements are much greater than winning a champions league with the kind of teams that Chelsea and Real Madrid have assembled, and Wenger and Ferguson will be talked about long after guys like Del Bosque and Queiroz are forgotten about.

Which brings me on to another point; Madrid, Milan, and Chelsea must really be kicking themselves that its Porto and Monaco in the final, cos neither team is exactly top quality. But both clubs are infinitely better-run than any of those three. Madrid splash the cash on the greatest attacking talent in the world, forgetting that you also need defenders to win things. So you get a situation where the Spanish champions Valencia, a superbly-run club, win the title having conceded 24 goals all season to Real's 48 (and incidentally scoring exactly the same amount, 70, as Madrid's galacticos). Chelsea has resembled a circus at times this season; what kind of owner would put his manager in the position that Ranieri's been in and still expect him to win things? A bad one. Good luck, Mourinho. And at Milan, who HAVE a top quality coach, Burlesconi just can't stop himself from interfering and now Ancelotti might find himself out of a job.

It's been proven time and again that money alone can't buy you CONTINUED success. It's always been the case, and will continue to be, that the way to run a club is to get a good coach and let him do what he does best. Thats what Abramovich, Perez and Burlusconi don't get, and thats why they've won nothing (ok Milan won the italian league, but Burlusconi wants european cups every season)

Edited by E2K
Link to comment
Share on other sites


i was gonna start a thread there but i`ll jus put it in here - who here is starting to really hate chelsea?? i am really sick of them getting linked with every player in the world i used to like chelsea pretty well but as a united supporter it gets me really mad that united got their success and money through football and chelsea got some russian who looks like a bear who has more money in his bank than anyone in the world apart from bill gates which is pretty sick and if any team makes a bid for a player all chelsea have to do is double it and hey presto another new player. And i know its not chelseas fault that the bear bought them out but its still not gonna change my opinion on them :evil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason i wanted Chelsea to win the champs league this year was because of Ranieri. Hes a top guy. He came to England, adapted, learning the language.. remember when he came he couldnt speak english. Assembled a decent young team, keeping, and buying alot of english players, and under all the pressure from Roman, and the media.. hes done a great job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ranieri's a really good bloke, who's fared well under the pressure. I like Chelsea, just something about them. Yeah they've spent loads of money, but if your club had it to spend I'm sure you wouldn't say it wasn't fair on anybody else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt Arsenal, Monaco and Porto have proved money doesnt equal success, but it can. Chelsea have had a problem all season with getting the team to gel and work well together. No doubt the team has put in some decent performances to get to where they are, but if the team had been together a year or two i wouldnt think anyone would have stood a chance against them. Ranieri, despite all the pressure he has had to put up with from Kenyon, Roman and the press i think he has done a great job putting together a quality side. His only problem is that he can tinker around with his side too much. He makes unneccesary substitutions at innappropriate times and it costs them matches (see Monaco first leg). One thing though, i think it would be possible to buy instant success, you would have to spend the money wisely though, and not just buy expensive players for the fun of it. You would have to look at players who would fit into your side and work well with the current players you have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The weird thing about Chelsea(which was pointed out before the 2nd leg in Monaco) is that despite buying a lot of players, a big part of the first team is the same as the one they had the year before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at Chelsea's big signings, and the only one who has done the business for them week in and week out is Duff. Makele in fits and starts. Already there's talk about selling on Crespo and Mutu, and if they do it'll be at a big loss. All the cash splashed there hasn't brought the instant rewards that Abramovich wants. And you know what? I bet Arsenal finish ahead of them again next season.

Look at Madrid. All the attacking talent in the world and not a proper defender in sight. In my opinion, Casillas is the best goalie in the world right now, and you know why? Cos he gets a lot of practice! And what kinda imbecile would let Morientes out on loan for a season? Even if he wasn't gonna get into the first team, you'd keep him on the bench. Have they ever heard of the concept of a squad? And then he helps knock them out. Nice one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at Chelsea's big signings' date=' and the only one who has done the business for them week in and week out is Duff.[/quote']

 

No doubt that Duff is a good player but i have doubts about him being a great signing. He is one of the most injury prone players i know and has been injured for long spells this year. What good is paying that amount of money for a player who is always injured,i don't think chelsea got value for money. There is plenty of better players in his position they could have bought and i can see his position being under threat next seaon when Robben is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? I was thinking about the same thing earlier today. Top thread!!

 

I see it in three lights:

 

1/ For all the money Chelsea have spent, it would be a shame for Ranieri if nothing came of it. They have reached the CL semi-final, finished second in the league and eclipsed Man Utd for the first time. That is real improvement. Whether you think it's fair or not, Chelsea have brought in some top players and it is good for the Premiership that they have improved.

 

2/ Chelsea, for all the money they've spent, haven't bought wisely. I remember the media circus going crazy over Chelsea when they spent £100m on 6 players in a week. They were predicting the Premier League, the Champions League, the FA Cup...EVERYTHING. They just dismissed everyone else. I remember looking at the players they had bought and thinking "they're good, but not great". I compared them to this Arsenal side and thought:

 

1. Crespo is good, but not as good as Henry

2. Mutu is good, but not as good as Bergkamp

3. Makalele is good, but not as good as Vieira

4. Bridge is good, but not as good as Ash Cole

5. Duff is good, but not as good as Pires

6. J Cole is good, but not as good as Ljungberg.

 

When Arsenal bought Reyes for £10.5m, I did the same exercise and realised that Reyes was better than Parker and at least immediately as good as anything Chelsea had, and more versatile.

 

This summer, to beat Arsenal to the league, Chelsea need to buy players who are better than Arsenal players, in each position. Cudicini, Lampard, Terry and possibly Melchiot are better than their AFC counterparts (Lehmann, Edu, Kolo and Lauren). That's 7 players Chelsea need, 5 at least. The main problem Chelsea face now is that there are no players currently better than Vieira, Henry, Pires, Sol. They can only get players AS GOOD AS, and that will be a struggle. And if they can find a striker who can match Henry (Ronaldo?), how much will they have to pay? They may be able to afford that but then you're talking about doing that 3 more times for 3 more players (arguably Nesta, Zidane and Beckham - NOT HAPPENING).

 

3/ I'm glad Chelsea improved but even more glad they won nothing. What kind of message does that send to Mourinho, Wenger and Deschamps, who have scrimped and saved and wheeled and dealed for years, only to have this financial juggernaught buy everyone in sight?

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True true.. but.. The players you compared from chelsea.. i agree, not as good as arsenal.. You gotta remember how lucky arsenal have been. No injurys this season. I mean if, henry or pires or campbell all their top names get injured.. theres noone to replace them. To put it plainly.. there screwed! And if that happened this season, or happens next year.. chelsea will win it. They have the depth and talent to field more than 11 suitable players. I dont feel arsenal have that.

 

i think makalele, duff and cole were good buys. mutu hasnt really done anything, i believe in crespo though. gotta give him chance to settle. hes show signs of class this season. example.. goal against arsenal at highbury in the prem fixture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta remember how lucky arsenal have been. No injurys this season.

???

 

You're kidding, right?

 

Gilberto, Edu, are injured right now.

 

Ray Parlour (4 months), Sylvain Wiltord (3 months), Jeremie Aliadiere (4 months), Ashley Cole (1 month) and Stuart Taylor (all season) have been injured.

 

Crumbs, Vieira is only managing games with painkilling injections these days - he is playing with a cracked rib. Sol Campbell has been playing with a groin strain.

 

I love it when people say "you'd be nowhere without Henry". Fair enough, except we won the league at Old Trafford without Henry, Ash Cole, Pires, Bergkamp or Campbell. It was Kanu and Wiltord upfront.

 

Oh yeah, we came from behind to beat Chelsea without Henry this season. Reyes scored twice. Remember?

 

Man Utd would be nowhere without RvD, and this has been proven this season. He's not played, you've not won. Simple as.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You havent had any major injurys. Thats a fact. Your key players have been there all season or there about. Ray Parlour.. i dont class him as anything special.. Edu and Gilberto are injured right now.. does that matter.. Arsenal wrapped the title up weeks ago. Aliadiere.. come on now, your just thinking of names to put down. I bet hes only played about 5 games, and Wiltord.. please.

 

Im talking about the key players. Not the average ones. Pires, Henry, Toure, Cole, Bergkamp, Ljunberg, Viera, Campbell.. they have all been playing.. all season. Im sayin if 2 or 3 of them was to be injured.. you would be in a little pickle as you have noone near as good as them players to fill their boots.

 

And the Ruud Van Nistelrooy comment is silly. We have had the team we have now practically for years and won lots give or take a few signings but noone major. Im taking Giggs, Keane, Scholes, Butt, Nevilles, Silvestre.. people like them were all winning stuff when Ruud wasnt here. It wasnt the fact he hasnt had as good of season as last.. even though he has still scored a fair few goals.. its the fact that Fergie is rebuilding his team AGAIN.. nothing to do with Ruud.

Edited by Vampiro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You havent had any major injurys. Thats a fact. Your key players have been there all season or there about. Ray Parlour.. i dont class him as anything special..

Funny how he's back from injury and straight back in the team...

 

Edu and Gilberto are injured right now.. does that matter.. Arsenal wrapped the title up weeks ago.

We want to go through the season undefeated, something Man Utd have never done, we need our best players

 

Aliadiere.. come on now' date=' your just thinking of names to put down. I bet hes only played about 5 games[/quote']

Why do you think he's only played 5 games sunshine? Because he's been injured..? Look at it this way, straight back from injury and starts up front vs Man Utd.

 

and Wiltord.. please.

Well...ok :)

 

Im talking about the key players. Not the average ones. Pires' date=' Henry, Toure, Cole, Bergkamp, Ljunberg, Viera, Campbell.. they have all been playing.. all season. Im sayin if 2 or 3 of them was to be injured.. you would be in a little pickle as you have noone near as good as them players to fill their boots.[/quote']

Well DUH. Take the star players out of any side and that side will struggle...

 

And the Ruud Van Nistelrooy comment is silly...he has still scored a fair few goals.. its the fact that Fergie is rebuilding his team AGAIN.. nothing to do with Ruud.

All I said was when Ruud has been injured, you've struggled to win games. When Ruud's been playing, he's scored, you've won. You rely on him too much. And talking about talent to replace your star players if they get injured: Forlan, Kleberson, Fortune...puh-leez.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.. obviously if everyones key players were injured they would struggle. Im on about 2 or 3, now and then. Chelsea have the players to put in replacenments that will do the business 3 or 4 games whilst the key player recovers. Same with united. I dont feel arsenal have that. Next year if Henry, or Pires etc got injured they wont win the title. Not much else i can say on this topic now without repeating myself. Will be an interesting year next season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? I was thinking about the same thing earlier today. Top thread!!

 

I see it in three lights:

 

1/ For all the money Chelsea have spent, it would be a shame for Ranieri if nothing came of it. They have reached the CL semi-final, finished second in the league and eclipsed Man Utd for the first time. That is real improvement. Whether you think it's fair or not, Chelsea have brought in some top players and it is good for the Premiership that they have improved.

 

2/ Chelsea, for all the money they've spent, haven't bought wisely. I remember the media circus going crazy over Chelsea when they spent £100m on 6 players in a week. They were predicting the Premier League, the Champions League, the FA Cup...EVERYTHING. They just dismissed everyone else. I remember looking at the players they had bought and thinking "they're good, but not great". I compared them to this Arsenal side and thought:

 

1. Crespo is good, but not as good as Henry

2. Mutu is good, but not as good as Bergkamp

3. Makalele is good, but not as good as Vieira

4. Bridge is good, but not as good as Ash Cole

5. Duff is good, but not as good as Pires

6. J Cole is good, but not as good as Ljungberg.

 

When Arsenal bought Reyes for £10.5m, I did the same exercise and realised that Reyes was better than Parker and at least immediately as good as anything Chelsea had, and more versatile.

 

This summer, to beat Arsenal to the league, Chelsea need to buy players who are better than Arsenal players, in each position. Cudicini, Lampard, Terry and possibly Melchiot are better than their AFC counterparts (Lehmann, Edu, Kolo and Lauren). That's 7 players Chelsea need, 5 at least. The main problem Chelsea face now is that there are no players currently better than Vieira, Henry, Pires, Sol. They can only get players AS GOOD AS, and that will be a struggle. And if they can find a striker who can match Henry (Ronaldo?), how much will they have to pay? They may be able to afford that but then you're talking about doing that 3 more times for 3 more players (arguably Nesta, Zidane and Beckham - NOT HAPPENING).

 

3/ I'm glad Chelsea improved but even more glad they won nothing. What kind of message does that send to Mourinho, Wenger and Deschamps, who have scrimped and saved and wheeled and dealed for years, only to have this financial juggernaught buy everyone in sight?

 

Cheers!

 

i would agree with you on MOST of that apart from pires being better than duff, theres no way he is its jus duff has been injured for most of this season he and david dunn ran the whole blackburn team thats why they did so good las season and why their so bad this season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah man.. Robert Pires is a world apart from Duff. Pires is one of the best players in the world at the moment, hes amazing. This coming from a united fan! Also, i dont see the big attraction in Duff. Yer, ok.. hes not a bad player.. nothing special though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah man.. Robert Pires is a world apart from Duff. Pires is one of the best players in the world at the moment' date=' hes amazing. This coming from a united fan! Also, i dont see the big attraction in Duff. Yer, ok.. hes not a bad player.. nothing special though.[/quote']

 

I wouldn't say he's a WORLD apart. Duff, on his day, is a superb player who most teams, incuding I suspect Arsenal and Man. U, would be delighted to have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duff hasnt proved anything. Pires is a World Cup, and Euro Winner with France. Won the FA Cup with Arsenal, and Premiership.. as a key player for both Arsenal and France. Enough said i think. You cant compare a player like Duff to that im afraid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me just play devil's advocate here for a second ok? Guys like Karanka and Helguera at Real have a pocketful of european cup medals; does that make them better than Tony Adams who never won one? Maldini and Roy Keane have never won a world cup; does that make them not as good as Branco or Dunga, who have won one?

I agree with you that Duff isn't as good as Pires . . . yet. But you can't base your verdict on how many medals he has. Alan Shearer, for example, never had to prove himself by winning trophies; he's won very few. Besides which, Duff is a young guy. Pires is what, late 20's? Playing for a quality club side (who are probably gonna make history today) and a quality international side who are the best of their generation; Duff has played most of his career with Blackburn and Ireland. No comparison.

I will say that Pires is the finished article, an absolutely wonderful player who, in a previous thread made it into my best ever team, so I obviously rate him highly. But as far as him being WORLDS APART from Duff, have to disagree. Both are top quality, the only difference being that Duff isn't the finished article yet.

Edited by E2K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...