-A-

Yup, it is.

Yeah, it's 0-0 in the second leg. Hasn't been a great game, City are soaking up most of the pressure and then every now and then Ireland or Wright-Phillips makes a good run that leads nowhere. Marseille, Bremen and City are probably the favourites but could easily see anyone left winning it. EDIT: Now City have conceded a goal and a couple of minutes later a penalty. 2-0.

I hear he's got a Realgation release clause. I'll get my coat

What about the one that had Kaka Tattooed On His Chest?

w/ Richie Sambora?

As far as I know, the courts haven't actually ruled that 'West Ham should have been docked points' because that's a purely in-sport punishment and they don't really have the right to make that kind of statement as legal professionals. The CAS and the original appeal panel ruled that, but not the courts. The reason the courts have been able to rule against West Ham for non-sporting reasons (they can't directly punish a club for fielding an ineligible player because it's not a criminal offence) is that both clubs were ruled to have a contractual relationship through the Premier League rules they signed up to. West Ham and Sheffield United are two businesses who agreed to abide by the Premiership regulations, including accepting promotion/relegation and PL rulings on illegal players. Because West Ham broke those rules, they were in breach of a contract with Sheffield United and the courts were able to rule against them. Then in deciding on the compensation figures they decided (or were about to decide) that Tevez was almost 100% of the reason we stayed up, so the compensation would be almost 100% of the difference between PL and Championship football for a year. The problem with the claims of the players and Warnock is that they have at no point had any kind of legal contract with West Ham. They aren't signatories to whatever PL documents Sheffield United used and they have a vastly reduced chance of being able to make a legal claim of wrongdoing on West Ham's part. It's the same reason the average punter who bet against Sheffield United getting relegated can't sue West Ham - they have no contract with the club and they've committed no crime, so there's no basis for a claim.

I'm possibly the only West Ham fan with a Frank Lampard top that was happy to wear it even after he moved to Chelsea. Also have a mid-90s Milan top with Albertini on the back which is getting a bit worn now. Haven't bought any in 10+ years though, would never really wear one. Don't really have a problem with having your own name on a shirt, though I have the (possibly wrong) impression that kids are more likely to do it than adults. If you actually use your top when playing the sport in question it's probably more justified.

I don't know, but I really like this show. The death of The Wire has been partially replaced by the likes of this, Mad Men and Skins (UK programme.) The first season was (I think) totally butchered because of the writer's strike. I might actually have missed the finale, because I never got the sense that the series was over and assumed it was just on hiatus.

Don't gamble at all, not really my kind of thing. I bet £1 on West Ham to win the Premiership at 500/1, but that's it. Doesn't really interest me, I don't like the fact that I'm reliant on something that's out of my hands. I love playing poker, which is more of an attraction then betting on someone else's success.

No, I don't. I think that stuff which is purely based on the game in question (professional foul, time wasting etc.) should be a one game ban and something which transcends the actual match (violent conduct) should be a 3 game ban.

You don't think violent conduct is worse than a nothing foul when you're the last man?

No, only violent conduct gets a three game ban. A straight red is a one game ban.

My list almost picks itself, really: Mark Noble Dean Ashton Robert Green Valon Behrami They're absolutely without question, which is why I didn't put in a 5th because no-one really jumps out at me. I love Noble just because he loves the club and puts in 100% effort in every game he plays. Ashton is probably the best player at the club, he's just permanently crocked. Scoring that goal at Old Trafford last season was enough to seal the choice, though. Robert Green is also one of the best players we've got and I like his attitude to the (very few) errors he's made. Signing Behrami almost made me wet myself when it happened purely because he's so amazing in FM (and because we got him for £5m, a steal) and he's been ridiculously consistent this season, getting on with his job quietly. I can't really think of any other players at the club I like as much as these guys. Collison has come through amazingly this season but I dislike him just for his stupid hair. Scott Parker is one of our key players but he seems like a bit of violent thug every now and then. Cole, Upson, Gabbidon and Collins just seem to get on with their jobs without that much personality. Freddie Sears will probably make his way into the top 5 because he really seems to have his head on his shoulders, but he's hardly played at all so far.

But you can find examples of anything. Inter have won Serie A 3 times in a row and look like getting a 4th and they've done absolutely nothing in Europe. Yes, Ajax couldn't win the Eredivisie 3 times in a row simultaneously with winning 3 European Cups, but why does that matter? They've won more domestic titles than CL titles, as has almost every team in the history of European football except Forest (I think.) EDIT: Arsenal went unbeaten in the league, but they couldn't get past the quarter finals of the CL. Or get to either domestic cup final. It's flawed logic.

http://www.ewbattleground.com/forum/index....showtopic=67684

I dunno, I reckon even Lineker's dreams are censored. He probably doesn't even talk dirty in the bedroom.

Tonight on MOTD2 Alan Pardew said of an Essien tackle 'he absolutely raped him.'

Yeah, it is a matter of opinion because I like talking about things otherwise I wouldn't bother posting. Other people's opinions are interesting and if you don't want to discuss things with other people then you don't have to.

The differences with strategy and how you treat success I can easily accept as a matter of preference. In the NFL, I think the coaches play a far greater part in the strategy - most of the players are far better drilled and the entire team has a clearer idea of what's going to happen at any given moment. In soccer, the players are slightly more uncontrolled in what they do - the strategy is left a lot more with the players. That's a matter of preference, really. If you take something like Aussie rules, the managers can't even communicate with the players because the pitch is so fucking massive so they have to rely on runners to get onto the pitch and shout instructions at people. It's a matter of what kind of play you prefer, I think. Same with relegation issue. I can see benefits of both. In American football every team has a much better chance of success and with good management you can turn around a poor team in a much shorter space of time. In the English leagues it's nice to know that there is a direct hierarchy linking the professionals with the Sunday league footballer, and you can have true fallen greats like Nottingham Forest and crazy stories like Wimbledon or Wigan coming from nowhere and making it with the pros.

Well, admittedly I know nothing about the Santos or Benfica teams, but I'm pretty sure that doron's including two years when it's two seasons. Bayern, Juventus and Ajax being one year implies that's his interpretation (one season success he uses one year, two seasons he uses two years.) The Liverpool and Milan teams had success over the course of many, many seasons despite what he's chosen to describe them as. The Ajax team went unbeaten in their league (as Arsenal did) AND won the European Cup. So they can make a good claim for achieving more than Arsenal. Added to that ... I don't really care about his nominees. We've already talked about how arbitrary they are and we've moved on from them. Benfica, Juventus and Bayern. You've picked out the three most baffling inclusions on the list and used them as justification for one season of Arsenal success getting them on the list. Isn't that justification for those nominees being flawed? What does one CL victory tell us about a team? That they aren't worthy of being in the top 5 teams in history. I agree. Nowhere have I said that a single CL victory makes you eligible for that, so why do you bring it up? I haven't said Liverpool of 2004 should be considered because I don't think they should, so what point are you proving? Yes, you have found one example of a team who could win the CL but not the league, but there are hundreds of examples of teams who could win their domestic league but not the CL. What can we prove here? It's not simply a case of CL winners are ALWAYS better than league winners and it's not a case of league winners ALWAYS being better than CL winners. Is that surprising? If you want to discredit multiple CL-winning teams then the only real example is Nottingham Forest, who won the league in '78, then the European Cup in the next two years and never won a league title after that. They are the weakest team to defend the European Cup and they were still an excellent, excellent team.

This thread is about the top 5 teams in history, the only person talking about best single season is you. If you want to have that discussion, then I think it merits its own thread because it's a clearly different discussion than this one. My point is simple - I think winning back-to-back European Cups is a bigger achievement than winning a domestic league unbeaten (particularly because the back-to-back winners tended to win their league as well.) Arsenal went undefeated against the weakest United team of the last 10 years, the weakest Liverpool team of the last 30 years and the league had yet to see the full force of Abrahmovic's Chelsea. Am I? I must have missed that post. I'm saying that I believe the CL is a better indicator of a good team than a domestic league. There have been upset winners of the league. There have been upset winner of the CL. There have been upset winners of every sports competition in the history of time, what point are you trying to prove? I say that the European Cup is better than a domestic league in determining a better team, barring exceptional circumstances like the current situation where 4 of the 5 best teams in Europe play in England. Oh shit, Blackburn won the Premiership, suddenly the league is worthless! Where has this come from? I say that multiple-time winners of the Champions League are better than a team that won their domestic league unbeaten and lost in the 3 other competitions and you think you can disprove this by saying that a one-off winner of the competition is worse than someone? I do not care about single season performance when judging the top 5 teams in history, how many times do you have to be told this? How so ? They had just as much silverware as Arsenal did, and their silverware came against the teams that were playing the best during that season. Because I'm not saying that one trophy is exactly the same in importance as every other trophy and I'm baffled as to where you think I implied that the League Cup was an indicator of success. In fact, haven't I consistently said that I think the European Cup is more important than a domestic league? Doesn't that strongly suggest I don't think that one trophy is exactly as important as any another? Middlesbrough won one trophy and performed poorly in the league, they are not in the best 5 teams in the history of football. Arsenal dominated the league, didn't make it to the final of either domestic cup and lost in the quarter final of the CL. They didn't even make it to the quarter finals of the competition in the season before or after. I DON'T CARE ABOUT A SINGLE SEASON. That is not what this thread is about. Milan won 3 European Cups in a row and went unbeaten in Serie A during that period. Real Madrid won FIVE European Cups in a row. Ajax won 3 European Cups in a row and 2 domestic titles in those years in the early 70s. They went unbeaten in the Eredivisie AND won the European cup in 1995. Liverpool won 7 league titles in 9 years and 4 European Cups in that time. No single season can possibly put a team in the top 5 in the history of the sport (especially when it only featured one trophy out of 4.) How can you argue that a team is better without some kind of proof?

Single season performance? Yes. Top 5 teams of all time? No. There are many teams that have equally good seasons and they've won consecutive European Cups which is a far better indicator a good team than an unbeaten season in a domestic league. Let's be honest, if a team wins the European cup but loses a couple of matches in the league, are they better than a team that makes it to the quarters of the CL, loses in both cup competitions and goes unbeaten? To win the league unbeaten involves a vast number of matches against weaker opponents than matches in the CL. There are multiple teams that have won consecutive European Cups, I judge that to be an inherently more impressive achievement than an unbeaten season domestically. No, Middlesbrough were much worse, that is a terrible point. But this isn't a single season performance. And if we're judging single season performances, remember that Arsenal were thrashed at home to Inter as part of the 'unbeaten season' and lost in both cup competitions. If you're saying that their football was prettier, that's really pretty pointless. They didn't win as many competitions as any of the teams on this list, so they shouldn't be included.

This doesn't really prove much, but I was looking for other unbeaten season in domestic leagues and found this really interesting: Unbeaten Seasons Find it hilarious that Perugia managed to draw 19 games out of 30 in the league as part of an unbeaten season (and they didn't even win the title.) Those crazy defensive Italians Also, the Egyptian league has seen 4 unbeaten seasons in the last 7 years in a 26 game season. From 3 different teams as well. EDIT: Though the bits actually relevant to this discussion - the mid-90s Ajax team and the early 90s Milan team both had undefeated seasons and won multiple European Cups as well.

No, because that's one season of success. I'm pretty much entirely discounting domestic cups and domestic leagues aren't nearly as significant as the European Cup/CL. Yes, United won 3 Premierships in a row, but the league simply wasn't as good as it is now. Liverpool were worse (relatively speaking) than they are now, Arsenal were miles away from becoming the Invincibles and Chelsea weren't remotely the force they are now. Compare the 1999 Premier League to the present one - until 1999, United struggled to achieve anything in Europe despite being the dominant force in English football. Nowadays, the 5th places team in the Premier League can win the Champions League. That's because English football was far, far worse back then. We've pretty much entirely discounted the Torino team that won 5 scudettos in a row and only faltered after that because almost all of their players were killed in a plane crash. We're ignoring a Nottingham Forest team that retained the European Cup. We're ignoring the Bayern team that won 3 European Cups in a row. We're ignoring every team in the history of South America. EDIT: No, you're right, the Invincibles were the better team despite losing cup matches and European matches over the 3 year period. They were the better side, they just lost more meaningful matches.