Champions League Page 455

  • Page

    of 855 First / Last

  • nickthegun 5 Dec 2012 10:45:45 72,042 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    basically, if fergie doesnt move himself upstairs by the end of may, you will never have to clutch at straws again and will probably have won the competition by 2014.
  • The-Bodybuilder 5 Dec 2012 10:49:57 16,927 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    THFourteen wrote:
    It was also one of the toughest groups i can ever recall in the history of the champions league.
    Huge overstatement. Real yes, but City should be cruising past teams like Dortmand and Ajax. Good teams yes, but really shouldn't be a threat for City.

    Genuinely don't think it was much harder than our group a few years back - Inter (who were CL champions), Bremen (who were as good then as Dortmand are now)[n/] and Twente (who had finished about Ajax that season). We won that group.
    They really weren't. Even Twente aren't as good as the Ajax side of today, if you compare player-for-player.

    However, your point is still valid. Dortmund are 11 points behind Bayern, and Dortmund were beating by us last season, when essentially they were better. City and Madrid should've qualified.

    I don't understand the whole "they need more european experience". Virtually the whole team have european experience, with at least 2 having CL medals (Toure and Maicon). Plus they vast amount of sums should negate any kind of "inexperience" they have.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 10:55:51
    That's the point. There are no excuses for City, so people making them are annoying. City have greater resources than even Madrid do. City were the team that made every other team in that group (including Madrid) go "oh fuck". For then to come bottom is laughable.
  • kentmonkey 5 Dec 2012 10:59:50 22,369 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It is hard to compare one team to another and declare which is better, even when they play each other, let alone when you're comparing a team from one year to another. That said, Ajax were going through a massive period of decline during that time and Twente, in my opinion, won the league through others not being competitive, rather than being a decent side themselves.

    And Dortmund really are very good. Their play doesn't suit against some teams, which is where they drop points, but if their style works against a team, there are very few teams that can compete with them. Going completely against my original point, I would say that they're significantly better than Bremen were back then, individually and collectively.

    Real Madrid and Inter comparison is more difficult. Inter were on the decline that season, in fact they were on the decline the year before arguably, but still won the CL. A bit like Chelsea last year - not the best team in it by a mile, but arguably were because they won the thing. However the year after they really weren't that great. That said, individually this Real Madrid team is still extremely good, but as a team they're just not clicking at the moment. Arguably a lot like City in some regards.

    Both were tough groups, but I'd still prefer Spurs' group from that season than City's this season. And I don't think Arsenal would have done much better than they have. But then I'm a glass is half full, been dropped, smashed into a million smithereens and shat on kind of guy. Which irritates some.
  • kentmonkey 5 Dec 2012 11:03:19 22,369 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Still agree with the point that City should have done much better though.

    It's not surprising to think that Arsenal would have struggled, but City ain't Arsenal, and a good half or two against Ajax and Madrid shouldn't, and isn't, good enough.

    That was a tough group, but City are far superiour to Spurs of then and us of now (or in any time in the last seven-eight years for that matter).

    In real terms, Spurs' group was probably just as difficult due to them not being on City's level at this stage. All things considered, the challenge was perhaps the same, as while I still believe City's group is harder, they should be one of the best teams in the world with everything they've spent both on players and the coaching/development/management team.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 11:03:43
    The biggest difference between the groups being compared, is the gap between that Spurs side, and this City side.
  • nickthegun 5 Dec 2012 11:07:03 72,042 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    look at celtic. They had, arguably, a harder group and they have had a very respectable run.
  • kentmonkey 5 Dec 2012 11:16:18 22,369 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    All depends on what you mean by harder group.

    Team vs team, City's group is by far the hardest I've seen in a number of years. I'm struggling to recollect one that on paper was more difficult actually, although there may well have been. However it should have been most difficult for Ajax - they're the ones that should feel hard done by being drawn in that group.

    But ability vs the group, Celtic have performed wonders. They've outperformed themselves and I really hope for them that they get through - it would be huge money for them if they make it through to the next round.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 11:16:57
    City's group is so hard because City are in it. That's the point surely.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 11:22:34
    Sorry but not winning a game in the CL despite winning the league last season IS embarrassing.
  • kentmonkey 5 Dec 2012 11:26:23 22,369 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Partially yes. But even taking them out it's a horrible group.

    For Ajax it's much harder than City, but even for City (i.e. removing them and comparing the other three)...that's not a group I'd want.

    But then I'm saying that as an Arsenal fan. As a City fan I'd have more confidence in my team to perform against those teams.

    As I've said, team vs team that's a tough group. A really tough group. However taking into account City's individual and collective ability, they should be qualifying out of that group. And therefore considering Celtic's ability versus their opponents in their group, they've done brilliantly.

    It's hard to compare though. As somebody said the other day: Celtic drew with Arbroath, which means that using playground logic, Arbroath are better than Barcelona. And in using that logic, Vitesse are better than City. And therefore that's logic I'm not going to disagree with.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 11:29:01
    It's a tough group but I still think how tough is being overstated. I think we're all agreed on City being an embarrassment anyway so it's moot really.
  • kentmonkey 5 Dec 2012 11:37:23 22,369 posts
    Seen 54 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Agreed.

    Toughness of the group is merely perception. City being an embarassment is fact.
  • imamazed 5 Dec 2012 11:40:00 6,308 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    And without any co-effecient points from the Europa League, it's all gonna happen again next year. Means even if they luck out on an easier oponent in pot 2, they'll always have to face a top, top club from pot one.
  • Kay 5 Dec 2012 11:42:57 19,413 posts
    Seen 32 minutes ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    By next year they really shouldn't be worried about who they'll face in the CL (which is the whole point of this argument anyway).
  • nickthegun 5 Dec 2012 11:44:37 72,042 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The point is that city should be able to do over anyone. With the players and resources they have you would expect them to have a shot at qualifying in a group of real, barca and bayern. So co-efficient or no, the expectation is there to at least qualify from any group they land in.

    As I said, pound for pound, celtics group was a far bigger ask for them and they havent embarassed themselves at all.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 11:48:56
    Kay wrote:
    By next year they really shouldn't be worried about who they'll face in the CL (which is the whole point of this argument anyway).
    They shouldn't have been worried this year.

    The only way they can improve any more by next year will be by getting Mourinho in, which I'm sure will happen.
  • imamazed 5 Dec 2012 11:49:10 6,308 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Of course they shouldn't struggle as much as they do, but being in pot three each year ain't helping matters either. Manchester United haven't been great in Europe in some of the previous seasons, but have still managed to get out the group stage regardless because of the quality of their group. Of course, last year they were truly awful in both CL and Europa.

    I do agree though, city should be doing a hell a lot of better. Unless the cluv changes in a major way though (I'm thinking manager I suppose) I don't think any amount of new signings or domestic success will make things easier next year. Europa League success could have helped a little...

    Edited by imamazed at 11:50:01 05-12-2012
  • nickthegun 5 Dec 2012 11:51:55 72,042 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    Kay wrote:
    By next year they really shouldn't be worried about who they'll face in the CL (which is the whole point of this argument anyway).
    They shouldn't have been worried this year.

    The only way they can improve any more by next year will be by getting Mourinho in, which I'm sure will happen.
    As I say, the only way that wont happen is if fergie shuffles himself upstairs at the end of the season.

    From his press conference and other bits and bobs, you definitely get the feeling Man u is the job he wants, so it would be crazy for Man U to let him go again.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 11:56:09
    Unless the Glazers have a change of heart about spending, I can't see Mourinho being their choice of replacement for Fergie. He's incredibly expensive in terms of fees and will want to sign hugely expensive players as well. David Moyes seems an infinitely more likely choice to me.

    With City and PSG fairly likely to need new managers soon, I just can't see Mourinho going to United.
  • fergal_oc 5 Dec 2012 11:57:01 2,764 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    City suck against counter-attacking teams. We play too far up the pitch and don't have enough pace behind, especially when missing Clichy and Richards. All 3 teams did what most prem teams do against City and park the bus.

    The problem with the CL is that the teams doing it against us have a lot more quality going forward than Villa, Wigan, Fulham et al and they see City as a scalp and raise their game much like Celtic did against Barcelona.

    Yep I agree, City are an embarrassment.
  • nickthegun 5 Dec 2012 12:08:29 72,042 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I can. I really can. And he didnt spend *that* much when he was at inter, certainly no more than fergie is currently spending.
  • Deleted user 5 December 2012 12:22:20
    nickthegun wrote:
    I can. I really can. And he didnt spend *that* much when he was at inter, certainly no more than fergie is currently spending.
    2008:
    Hernan Crespo
    Victor Obinna
    Ricardo Quaresma
    Sulley Muntari
    Mancini

    2009:
    Diego Milito
    Samuel Eto'o
    Marko Arnautovic
    Denis Alibec
    Goran Pandev
    Kerlon
    Wesley Sneijder
    Thiago Motta
    Lucio

    I reckon wages would be in another league to the kind of signings Fergie's made in recent years, although actually yeah, in terms of fees perhaps comparable. The sheer number though. He sure likes to make a team his own.

    Besides, is the lure of United really so great these days? Of course the name is huge, but if there's the option of going to City and spending however much he likes, that has to be appealing.

    My impression of Mourinho is as good as he is, he likes to move where he knows he'll get success. Going to United today isn't like it was ten years ago. I even think a return to Chelsea is more likely than United.
  • nickthegun 5 Dec 2012 12:37:16 72,042 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think the lure of united is enough, to be honest. Im fairly sure of it, to be honest. As I say, its nothing concrete, just the impression I get from him and the way he took the piss out of mancini.

    If he gets utd, then all he needs to do is finish his career at bayern and the set is more or less complete (I know thats nothing to do with anything).

    I would be willing to stick a cheeky tenner on him being uniteds manager by the summer.

    Edited by nickthegun at 12:37:54 05-12-2012
  • oceanmotion 5 Dec 2012 12:38:04 17,269 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    I don't think Man U suits him squad and development wise. Likes the history probably.

    More likely City, considering they don't have heavy handed owners which is way more appealing than Chelsea.

    I do wonder if financial rules will stop these clubs spending another 500 million on a new squad so quickly. In that situation, Man U would be more attractive, considering the debt gets lower and their turnover allows them to spend big, whereas City and others might struggle under the rules.

    Still think Moyes has a good chance of getting the Man U job.

    Edited by oceanmotion at 12:39:05 05-12-2012
  • Orange 5 Dec 2012 12:48:46 5,170 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    City's group wasn't that tough. Ajax have been mediocre for years now, Madrid are playing by far their worst football under Jose and although Dortmund are good they still lack winning experience in the CL and finished 4th in a very weak group last season.

    Mancini just has a shockingly poor record in the CL, was the same at Inter and it's why Mourinho replaced him.
  • roz123 5 Dec 2012 16:28:52 7,112 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Free doctors excuse! :lol:

    Come on Shakhtar!

    Edited by roz123 at 16:29:21 05-12-2012
  • HisDudness 5 Dec 2012 16:42:59 1,585 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    So what is the tastiest game tonight? My colleague claims it's Benfica's push for second against an already qualified Barcelona, but he's Portuguese and clearly biased.

    The Celtic game is interesting from a results perspective, but the football promises to be terrible.

    The Juventus game I guess?
  • nickthegun 5 Dec 2012 16:47:00 72,042 posts
    Seen 38 seconds ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    It could be chelsea Vs Norhodjiflookenmooken, if only to possibly see the end of the shortest tenure in premiership history.
  • Page

    of 855 First / Last

Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.