DISQUS

If it's Comolli, why? Everyone agrees that Spurs have a good set of players. Comolli can't make Bale not make that stupid tackle. I do agree that a deficiency in the squad is that Tottenham doesn't have a DMF that's tough in the tackle. Deciding to not purchase a player that fits this role is probably Comolli's fault. But, that alone can't explain why they are so horrible. I believe that diagnosing the problem isn't simple in the sense that the blame can be placed only one person's shoulders, but the players clearly do demonstrate a poor mentality. And, only the players have the ball at their feet; not the director of player personnel, not the manager, etc. Spurs' players need to look within themselves to break out of this mess.

I haven't seen MOTD before, but I enjoy the Premier League highlight show precisely because it lacks commentators. I just want an opportunity to see the highlights of the games without some expert telling me what happened. The highlight show affords me this opportunity.

2 more possible formations:

4-3-1-2

4-2-2-2

He's not kicking the Geordies. He's accurately explaining what every supporter other than those of Newcastle think of the club. Newcastle has some the best support, but the club's trials and tribulations are well known. Don't 'kick' the writer for realistically portraying the state of the club...unless you really think Keegan is the future or that the Intertoto cup counts as a respectable piece of silverware worth mentioning.

Most people picked Tottenham. My first instinct agreed. However, every year Tottenham look like they're ready to break through. The reason they haven't is their defense sucks. They've done nothing to show me that they've changed that. They always score buckets of goals, but can they defend? Top 4 finishers always have very good defenses.

I picked Portsmouth, because they are solid enough in defense, midfield, and strikers. However, I think if they sell Muntari to Inter then that will be a severe blow. When you're a team on the brink, sometimes you have to resist the urge to sell.

Keep in mind that while my belief is that Portsmouth have the best chance to crack the top 4, that chance is still small.

Hleb didn't score goals, have that many assists, etc. However, being that he was a first-team member of the squad, he contributed to the chemistry of the team. Losing him and replacing him with another player means that chemistry will need to be rebuilt. This isn't to say that it can't be done, but it is still a hurdle.

Thumbs up on a playoff for the 4th champ. league spot.

Here are three arguments. Two support the idea that our current stars are just as good if not better than the established legends. The other argument is skeptical of questions the sort the gaffer is asking.

Here is an argument that the players who dominate our era are just as good if not better than past legends. In this day and age, globalisation is the norm. Anyone who has knowledge of South American club football knows that it is a selling business. The best players are sold to European clubs. Over time, this has created a concentration of the best players that exist in a small number of leagues. This means the competition in European leagues is at an undeniably high level. So, whichever players dominates our era, he will be dominating in the era of globalisation. That player will be dominating a system whose very nature is to produce the highest concentration of quality. This bodes well for the idea that our current crop of stars really are just as good if not better than past legends, because the past legends did not compete in such a system of globalisation.

Here is a second argument that our current stars are just as good as the legends. Not only are European leagues concentrated with the best players in the world, these leagues are concentrated with teams that have extensive and systematic scientific knowledge about fitness and diet. This knowledge allows each team to get the most out of each player. In the past, knowledge about fitness and diet paled in comparison, and it is likely that many players did not reach the ceilings of their potential partially because of this reason. Players of this era do not have this problem. Thus, players that dominate this era are not only reaching their ceilings of potential, but the level of competition who they play against are also reaching the ceilings of their potential.

Finally, here is an argument that I had fun with because it is of an extreme form of skepticism and kind of out there. Value judgments that express propositions like, 'Pele is better that Cruyff' lack a truth-value (i.e. they are not true, nor are they false) because there is no objective criteria by which to evaluate the proposition expressed. On the other hand, a statement like, 'Pele is faster than Cruyff' is not problematic, because we could easily come up with an objective criterion that would settle the question (e.g. record their times as they run 100m). 'Pele is better than Cruyff' is not like this at all. What would the criteria be? Not only that, whatever criteria you come up with, I'm sure that someone will disagree with your selection. Your opinion that the best players win the most titles would be countered with someone saying the best players score the most goals. Who gets to decide which criterion is the correct one? It is certainly not implicit in the definition of 'better than' which criterion would win. Thus, the very nature the questions the gaffer is asking is problematic.

Cheers.

I agree with every point in this article.

lol good prediction

julie foudy boo

I think she was installed as an analyst around the time that the women's team won the world cup and Chastain took her shirt off. ESPN probably figured that women would be more likely to watch soccer after that and Foudy was a name and known personality from that successful team and era that females could relate to. That was so long ago, though. Time to move on, ESPN...

"Remember, starting Sunday, you can find daily recaps of the previous day’s action and brief looks ahead to the two games that day here at English Soccer Talk."

English Soccer Talk??

Figo is certainly not in Portugal's squad.

According to World Soccer magazine, the Dutch will actually be playing a 4-2-3-1, not their traditional 4-3-3. Their predicted starting lineup according to the mag:

GK: Van Der Sar

Back 4: Melchiot, Heitinga, Mathijsen/Bouma, De Cler

Midfield:
De Zeeuw and Van Bronckhorst as DMF's , Van Persie and Sneijder on the sides, and Van der Vaart in the middle.

Forwards: Van Nistelrooy

human rights abuser = villain

kudos espn...especially showing the last 8 euro finals, what a treat

I've been reading since the beginning and I'm glad EPL Talk is still around.

1. I don't like how now the blog posts go below the fold.

2. I do like the additional bloggers you have on the site. It's more interesting.

3. Some of the article are too similar to the news articles I'd read. If I come to the blog, I probably already know who won this or that game, etc. I come to the blog to supplement the straightforward news articles I get from other football sites. In other words, don't simply report what we already know.

"Further proof that the US is really a longshot to qualify the 2010 World Cup, despite the inflated expectations caused by hubris here at home."

uh, non sequitur

goodbye Didier

Oh yes, Tim Vickery!

I have a few that may be worthy of asking. I've been reading all of his columns so this is a treat.

1. Mr. Vickery continuously notes the trend of Brazil's national team to employ 'markers and runners' in its midfield as opposed to its traditional use of central midfielders who possess artistic and creative qualities.

As an analogue, what are the trends in Argentina's national team? How would you characterize their tactical history and tradition, and have they broken away from this tradition?

2. In a column Mr. Vickery wrote for the BBC, a reader asked a question where the reader noted that Africans no matter their specific nationality would root for Ghana in the 2006 World Cup. The reader wondered whether there is a similar phenomenon in South America.

Mr. Vickery said, "In South America during World Cups, there are many who will cheer for Brazil or Argentina, but there are limits. For the 2002 World Cup final there was a survey showing that more Argentines were supporting Brazil than Germany. If it had been Argentina against Germany I'm not convinced the Brazilian public would feel the same way. "

Can he explain why this asymmetry exists?

3. I know Mr. Vickery is a Tottenham supporter. Does he support a specific national team/teams?

4. If he could interview any player in South America's footballing past, who would he choose and why?

5. Brazil won the Copa America over favored Argentina using a 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield. This breaks away from their tradition. Many Brazilian fans scoffed at this non-traditional formation, but nevertheless it proved successful. What is Mr. Vickery's take on Dunga's new tactical direction?

6. From reading some of Mr. Vickery's columns, I am aware that in the past racism toward Blacks in Brazil affected their potential to appear for the national side. Does this prejudicial attitude still exist? Does a black player face a greater obstacle in his attempt to progress? And, perhaps more complex, does a player receive less respect from fans for not being a rags to riches story like Adriano? For instance, Kaka came from a family where his father was an engineer and I'm assuming he lived relatively well off. Is he not a fan-favorite because of this? Would Brazilians find more of an affinity with a player like Adriano who grew up in a slum but still reached the heights of playing for a European giant?