January Transfer Window 2014

First topic message reminder :

I'm gonna open this up now as I contemplate watching the shower of poop I'm about to watch.

What strong rumours have we heard? What do teams need? Where do you think the money will be spent?

I shall start you off with rumours surrounding Lambert maybe considering West Ham and similarly West Ham going to Spurs cap in hand to request a loan of Defoe or Adebayor (sources not so tight haha)

No France is a good analogy. They had maybe the best national team in modern history. Desailly, Thuram, Zidane, Henry, Djorkaeff and they basically had Ginola and Cantona as well but were so stacked they told those priicks to stay home. But since 2000 France can not replicate that type of success, and the french league has more domestic talent in it than the EPL. France is a better footballing country than England having won 2 Euros and a world cup, but they are not a team that is going to consistently win the world cup or Euros either. They are in the second tier of footballing powers similar to England, Holland, and Uruguay. Germany, Italy, Brazil, and Argentina and now spain are the first tier the true contenders. You guys had one golden generation and one golden tournament, other than that I don't know what England has accomplished to be saddled with the expectation to beat better footballing nations. France will struggle to recreate the magic of 98 and you guys will struggle to recreate 66 very apt analogy.

You're completely missing the point, I was pointing out that you saying we fluked it in 66 is pure idiocy based on subsequent events not on what actually happened. What happened 50 years ago has no bearing on the present, Brazil aren't considered favourites because of winning in 58, 62 and 70, it's based on them being pretty good at the moment.

At least United made a signing today

Another b@stard sponsor. Lets make those money lady of loose morals yanks even richer while we continue to struggle on the pitch

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're completely missing the point, I was pointing out that you saying we fluked it in 66 is pure idiocy based on subsequent events not on what actually happened. What happened 50 years ago has no bearing on the present, Brazil aren't considered favourites because of winning in 58, 62 and 70, it's based on them being pretty good at the moment.

Is it a coincidence that basically all but 5 world cups have been won by Italy, Germany, Argentina, and Brazil? The world cup championship is rarefied air that England is not really at that level and outside of a golden generation (and an injury riddled Brazil team) has never replicated at a major tournament. Brazil have 5 world championships and pedigree of getting there in major competitions. They have always been good, and England has not that is the point. Over time they have not consistently shown in major tournaments like Germany or Brazil. They just are not at that level and never have been regardless of the passport makeup of the EPL. If it was not a fluke tell me how many major trophies did England win before or after, a fluke is not the same as being undeserving. It means it was a one off a special set of circumstances that will not be easily repeated.

66 was a fluke?

England have always been at the top tier internationally, with something missing to have more consistent success. Much like Holland, France, or, until recently, Spain.

It's a pretty safe argument to suggest that England were the second best team in 1970 (Banks gets poisoned), 1986 (Hand of God), 1990 (Penalties, should have won the semi), 1996 (Penalties, should have won the semi), and 2002 (only team to get close to Brazil).

Pretty safe to also add that England have also been contenders in 1982 (unbeaten), 1998 (playing good football), 2004 (how unlucky was the quarter?!), and possibly 2006.

Only recently have England slid off the top tier, but they're getting swiftly back on it now.

England is not a top tier footballing power, I hate to break it to you but you just aren't. A second tier footballing power for sure. Is Uruguay a first tier footballing power? No they are not. But they have a much more decorated national team history than England. They have won numerous copa America's beating both the Brazilians and the Argies in those tournaments. They have as much recent success in world cups as England has and have 2 world cups to your one. And they have been south American champs on more than one occasion. Win more than one major tournament before you call yourself a first tier footballing nation. Right now the first tier is Germany, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, and Spain (recent addition). England is in the next group which is made up of France, Holland, and Uruguay.

Uruguay have only appeared at the World Cup five times in the last forty years. Only got past the last sixteen stage once in that time.

And they've won the Copa America twice in my lifetime. Then again, South America is a weaker all-round footballing continent than Europe and it does tend to be more frequent, at least it used to be, than the European Championship.

Of course England are superior to Uruguay.

Fluke; achieve (something) by luck rather than skill

There was nothing lucky about the 66 world cup and that we've not won it since is of no relevance to that particular tournament.

I suppose putting two past Mexico, Portugal and France, beating the Argentines, and four past the West Germans was all massive luck?

.Greece in 04 was a fluke. England in 66 weren't

Funny England has not won a major tournament in my lifetime which is twice as long as yours duty, and Uruguay is the reigning South American champs. Winning euro is no doubt tougher but winning the South American title is the second most prestigious regional tournament. They have won it 15 times more than Argentina and brazil combined. The point being that if Uruguay is not a first tier power and the are not, certainly England is not either

1966 was a fluke? A ridiculous post there Socal, take a long cold shower.

Let's get back on track shall we? Hull City have agreed a fee with Everton for striker Nikica Jelavic

I'm not disputing that England currently aren't a top tier country but i'm not sure that it's dependent on 80 years of footballing history. Were the Brazil team to be rubbish right now them having won the world cup 5 times wouldn't make them a current top tier country. Uruguay have won it twice to Spains once but we don't automatically place them higher.

GSC wrote:.Greece in 04 was a fluke. England in 66 weren't

I wouldn't even say Greece falls into the fluke category to be fair. A monumental shock but they earned that victory.

GSC wrote:.Greece in 04 was a fluke. England in 66 weren't

Thanks for reminding us that Greece has more euro titles than England, they are not a first tier power and neither is England. One major tournament win does not make you a first tier football power.

Nor does any major tournament wins make you a top tier football power, back in 2004 Portugal were one of the best teams in the world with a combined total of zero titles.

Maybe the problem is with terminology. A fluke in my book doesn't mean you don't deserve it. It just means you got a bit of good fortune and that the result is not consistent or easily recreatable. I mean you guys have no problem calling greece's euro a fluke but it does not mean they did not deserve it. It just means it probably won't happen again

England's win wasn't a fluke. Not sure how anyone can get that terminology wrong. It only means one thing. Greeces win wasn't a fluke either. But I know which team I would back to win another tourny before the other. That isn't Greece. Uruguay won two cups in a bygone era and rarely qualify for the WC these days. England are the better side over recent history there is no doubts about that. England are not a tier one country. But let's get some facts out there.

I could understand why people would call Greece a fluke. But more realistically a freak result .England at the time of the win were a top side . Calling it a fluke is ridiculous.

Pretty much spot on there Mysti   

Hull City have agreed a fee with Everton for Jelavic.

Holymiky wrote:Hull City have agreed a fee with Everton for Jelavic.

What I heard we were going for him

grrr.

Hull are a decent outfit and will only get stronger with him!

Not a bad signing.

Ok how about a one off, if you find fluke so insulting. I just don't understand the sense of expectation you guys have for the lions they don't win or get to the finals of major tournaments and except for 66 they never have. So I find it a little disingenuous to blame foriegn players in the premiership for that fact. I mean were you guys rolling to major finals when your league was all British?

And don't deny that luck and good fortune did not play a role. The Germans might dispute a certain goal and you had. The tournament on home soil. That is good luck, but it does not mean you did not deserve it you did. But it was a case of lightening striking I doubt it will happen again at least for a long time..
Hence why it was flukey, never happened before or since.

mystiroakey wrote:

Holymiky wrote:Hull City have agreed a fee with Everton for Jelavic.

What I heard we were going for him

grrr.

Hull are a decent outfit and will only get stronger with him!

Here's the link mate - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25691329

socal1976 wrote:Ok how about a one off, if you find fluke so insulting. I just don't understand the sense of expectation you guys have for the lions they don't win or get to the finals of major tournaments and except for 66 they never have. So I find it a little disingenuous to blame foriegn players in the premiership for that fact. I mean were you guys rolling to major finals when your league was all British?

And don't deny that luck and good fortune did not play  a role. The Germans might dispute a certain goal and you had. The tournament on home soil. That is good luck, but it does not mean you did not deserve it you did. But it was a case of lightening striking I doubt it will happen again at least for a long time..
Hence why it was flukey, never happened before or since.

Right so if something never happens more than once its a fluke #headsgone

Well it isn't really a one off. And it's not insulting. It's just wrong.

If England had played in the earlier cups they could have had 2 or 3 anyway.

Not saying they would have but they were a top team in the early eras (hence no fluke)You can't admit they were a top team. But they were. Today is immaterial.

socal1976 wrote:Ok how about a one off, if you find fluke so insulting. I just don't understand the sense of expectation you guys have for the lions they don't win or get to the finals of major tournaments and except for 66 they never have. So I find it a little disingenuous to blame foriegn players in the premiership for that fact. I mean were you guys rolling to major finals when your league was all British?

And don't deny that luck and good fortune did not play  a role. The Germans might dispute a certain goal and you had. The tournament on home soil. That is good luck, but it does not mean you did not deserve it you did. But it was a case of lightening striking I doubt it will happen again at least for a long time..
Hence why it was flukey, never happened before or since.

And I might dispute the free-kick leading up to Germany's second goal, which should never have been given.

Tournament on home soil is luck? In the last 35 years the World Cup hosts have only won 1 World Cup.

And England will only be waiting another six months...

socal1976 wrote:Ok how about a one off, if you find fluke so insulting. I just don't understand the sense of expectation you guys have for the lions they don't win or get to the finals of major tournaments and except for 66 they never have. So I find it a little disingenuous to blame foriegn players in the premiership for that fact. I mean were you guys rolling to major finals when your league was all British?

And don't deny that luck and good fortune did not play  a role. The Germans might dispute a certain goal and you had. The tournament on home soil. That is good luck, but it does not mean you did not deserve it you did. But it was a case of lightening striking I doubt it will happen again at least for a long time..
Hence why it was flukey, never happened before or since.

Yeah pre Heysel we were making finals for fun.

Was France's 1998 World Cup triumph a fluke then bearing in mind that it was on their home soil and the best player on the planet at that time - Ronaldo - had a nervous breakdown prior to the final?

This one time I went to Liverpool. I never went before and I've never been since, what a fluke that was    

Olly wrote:This one time I went to Liverpool. I never went before and I've never been since, what a fluke that was    

Your bunch beat us in front of the Kop before it was demolished Olly. You would've been about 1 month into the womb at the time but I blame you for that fluke.

Tip please.

FreekShow wrote:

Olly wrote:This one time I went to Liverpool. I never went before and I've never been since, what a fluke that was    

Your bunch beat us in front of the Kop before it was demolished Olly. You would've been about 1 month into the womb at the time but I blame you for that fluke.

Tip please.

Draw and both teams to score. We never lose to Everton   

Olly wrote:

FreekShow wrote:

Olly wrote:This one time I went to Liverpool. I never went before and I've never been since, what a fluke that was    

Your bunch beat us in front of the Kop before it was demolished Olly. You would've been about 1 month into the womb at the time but I blame you for that fluke.

Tip please.

Draw and both teams to score. We never lose to Everton   

I'll do em both in singles.   

FreekShow wrote:

Olly wrote:This one time I went to Liverpool. I never went before and I've never been since, what a fluke that was    

Your bunch beat us in front of the Kop before it was demolished Olly. You would've been about 1 month into the womb at the time but I blame you for that fluke.

Tip please.

Although when we beat you last season, that was pure skill  

Expect the same next saturday freek my good man. 

Palace to beat tottenham tomorrow at 10/1.

We'll have about 4 new league 1 signings all 19/20 and unleash them at Anfield.

The element of surprise.

The kop wont know whats happening.

Duty281 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok how about a one off, if you find fluke so insulting. I just don't understand the sense of expectation you guys have for the lions they don't win or get to the finals of major tournaments and except for 66 they never have. So I find it a little disingenuous to blame foriegn players in the premiership for that fact. I mean were you guys rolling to major finals when your league was all British?

And don't deny that luck and good fortune did not play  a role. The Germans might dispute a certain goal and you had. The tournament on home soil. That is good luck, but it does not mean you did not deserve it you did. But it was a case of lightening striking I doubt it will happen again at least for a long time..
Hence why it was flukey, never happened before or since.

And I might dispute the free-kick leading up to Germany's second goal, which should never have been given.

Tournament on home soil is luck? In the last 35 years the World Cup hosts have only won 1 World Cup.

And England will only be waiting another six months...

Yes because the USA and Korea really should have won their home soil world cups.

socal1976 wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok how about a one off, if you find fluke so insulting. I just don't understand the sense of expectation you guys have for the lions they don't win or get to the finals of major tournaments and except for 66 they never have. So I find it a little disingenuous to blame foriegn players in the premiership for that fact. I mean were you guys rolling to major finals when your league was all British?

And don't deny that luck and good fortune did not play  a role. The Germans might dispute a certain goal and you had. The tournament on home soil. That is good luck, but it does not mean you did not deserve it you did. But it was a case of lightening striking I doubt it will happen again at least for a long time..
Hence why it was flukey, never happened before or since.

And I might dispute the free-kick leading up to Germany's second goal, which should never have been given.

Tournament on home soil is luck? In the last 35 years the World Cup hosts have only won 1 World Cup.

And England will only be waiting another six months...

Yes because the USA and Korea really should have won their home soil world cups.

Whereas poor old Germany, Italy and Spain all couldn't win World Cups on their home turf.

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Ok how about a one off, if you find fluke so insulting. I just don't understand the sense of expectation you guys have for the lions they don't win or get to the finals of major tournaments and except for 66 they never have. So I find it a little disingenuous to blame foriegn players in the premiership for that fact. I mean were you guys rolling to major finals when your league was all British?

And don't deny that luck and good fortune did not play  a role. The Germans might dispute a certain goal and you had. The tournament on home soil. That is good luck, but it does not mean you did not deserve it you did. But it was a case of lightening striking I doubt it will happen again at least for a long time..
Hence why it was flukey, never happened before or since.

Yeah pre Heysel we were making finals for fun.

Was France's 1998 World Cup triumph a fluke then bearing in mind that it was on their home soil and the best player on the planet at that time - Ronaldo - had a nervous breakdown prior to the final?

I actually covered this point earlier. France 98 was one of the best national teams ever, just like France has struggled to recreate the golden generation of 98 the same can be said of England and 66. By the way France has 3 major tournament wins to England's 1, and league chalked full of domestic talent.

This conversation came about because Hammersmith claimed that the influx of foreign players to the EPL was a key reason England's national team did not do well. Like I said I find this argument specious in that England has never been that successful internationally even when your league was all british. The 66 team deserved their title no dispute there, but it was a one off. Hence why it never happened before or since and is unlikely to happen in the near future. A golden generation coinciding with a home soil world cup and some breaks along the way.

England of 66 deserved their victory yet it was a fluke?

Duty281 wrote:England of 66 deserved their victory yet it was a fluke?

I am sorry but a fluke does not mean that it was undeserving. Hell blackpool can beat City or Chelsea in a cup competition, it is a longshot probably won't happen often but it doesn't mean they didn't deserve it on that day. Just like Greece and the Euros, a longshot, a fluke, but not undeserving.

Duty281 wrote:England of 66 deserved their victory yet it was a fluke?

I am similarly confused Duty. Somewhere in the world right now is a dog chasing it's tail.

You compare England winning in 66 to Blackpool beating citeh.

Please listen to this and repeat it until it sinks in.

England were a top team at the time and one of the favs. They didn't compete in the early world cups where teams like Uruguay and Italy increased they tally.

There is no fluke in winning when you are one of the best teams.

England were never an underdog at the time.

So England fully deserved their win in 66, on skill and/or merit. They were better than the opposition, and proved it time and again.

At the same time - England totally fluked it. What a jammy win. Fortune really favoured England this time around.

You guys are confused because you think I said England didn't deserve their 66 title, never said such a thing. But if it was not a fluke name another major tournament before or since they have done that well in? That is not England's normal level, never has been, even when top flight English football was all British. So it is pretty silly to blame lack of national team success to the influx of foreign players which is where this argument started. Fine if it was not a fluke lets call it a one off, a golden generation that is not reflective of what the three lions generally produce.

Duty281 wrote:So England fully deserved their win in 66, on skill and/or merit. They were better than the opposition, and proved it time and again.

At the same time - England totally fluked it. What a jammy win. Fortune really favoured England this time around.

No they didn't prove time and again, they proved once, ever hence the term fluke. If they routinely got into major tournament finals then maybe I wouldn't consider the one and only tournament they won a fluke.

Annoyed about Jelavic, West Ham fans turned their nose up at him but I reckon there is a real clinical player still in there and he'll score more goals in a crap team than would be expected.

socal1976 wrote:You guys are confused because you think I said England didn't deserve their 66 title, never said such a thing. But if it was not a fluke name another major tournament before or since they have done that well in?

So you are calling it a fluke again now?

Was Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson a fluke? By your logic it was....

FreekShow wrote:

socal1976 wrote:You guys are confused because you think I said England didn't deserve their 66 title, never said such a thing. But if it was not a fluke name another major tournament before or since they have done that well in?

So you are calling it a fluke again now?

Was Buster Douglas beating Mike Tyson a fluke? By your logic it was....

Yes absolutely that was a fluke win but he fully deserved it. Just like that win was not Buster douglas' normal level in his career, but on that night it was a performance he produced and deserved. Same point with England 66 was a one off, never happened since or before and won't happen for a long time; and that has nothing to do with foreign players in the premier league.

socal1976 wrote:You guys are confused because you think I said England didn't deserve their 66 title, never said such a thing. But if it was not a fluke name another major tournament before or since they have done that well in? That is not England's normal level, never has been, even when top flight English football was all British. So it is pretty silly to blame lack of national team success to the influx of foreign players which is where this argument started. Fine if it was not a fluke lets call it a one off, a golden generation that is not reflective of what the three lions generally produce.

England and Britain are not the same thing, dear boy.