Maradona

[hd1]

Of course not every foul is deliberate cheating. A mistimed tackle for example. But EVERY intentional foul is, by definition, cheating. It is impossible to commit a foul as you put it within the laws of the game.

It is not a question of condoning cheating it is merely an acceptance that it happens. For heaven‘s sake many pundits even refer to the practice of taking one for the team as it is called as professionalism.

I'll try and put it another way ...

IMHO a deliberate attempt at deceiving the referee is cheating. A deliberate foul in plain sight isn't cheating, but is against the laws of the game (thereby covered within the laws of the game) which is what they are there for.

I get the argument that if you break the rules you are cheating, but my view is it is only cheating if you try and hide the fact you did it. It is unsportsmanlike at best.

[Whiskyman]

Of course not every foul is deliberate cheating. A mistimed tackle for example. But EVERY intentional foul is, by definition, cheating. It is impossible to commit a foul as you put it within the laws of the game.

It is not a question of condoning cheating it is merely an acceptance that it happens. For heaven‘s sake many pundits even refer to the practice of taking one for the team as it is called as professionalism.

I'll try and put it another way ...

IMHO a deliberate attempt at deceiving the referee is cheating. A deliberate foul in plain sight isn't cheating, but is against the laws of the game (thereby covered within the laws of the game) which is what they are there for.

I get the argument that if you break the rules you are cheating, but my view is it is only cheating if you try and hide the fact you did it. It is unsportsmanlike at best.

I guess it's interpretation. I take your point about deception but I would suggest any foul is an attempt at deception , getting away with it in other words. Just as the player who appeals for a throw in or corner for his side when he knows he was the last player to make contact with the ball.

For me the worst type of cheating is the deliberate feigning of injury by pretending to have been struck a mortal blow. In a West Ham context I would cite the example of the infamous James Tomkins incident a few years back when he was pushed in the chest and fell to the ground rolling around clutching his face. Not only is that seeking to gain an advantage, in numerical terms, but it is also an attempt to get a fellow professional in trouble.

[coburn]

The Greatest of all times for me. I´ve seen him playing. He was my idol.

RIP EL DIEGO

[h69]

For me Messi shades it in the best of all time stakes. Critics will say he's never won a World Cup but for me the Champions League in today's football is a bigger prize. Maradona was a great player, as was Cruyff and, for that matter, so was George Best who had the disadvantage internationally of being Irish. But I think those of us who have enjoyed watching football in the 80s and onwards have been very fortunate to have seen a number of really great players during that time.

The Champion's League is NOT a bigger prize than the World Cup.

Ask yourself?..If Man United(our biggest club in England)win the CL and England win the World Cup..How many fans would turn up to see the trophy return and what would have the biggest effect on our economy?There is NO competition.Go to any European country in the world with their top domestic team and their country.It will be exactly the same.

Ask any player,what he would rather win?I don't think it would be the CL.

To win the World Cup is the pinnacle of any players career.

I think Whiskyman is mixing up the standard of football with the prize itself though in my opinion the standard in the CL is not always that great anyway until the semis and final. He's fallen for all the marketing around the CL, a tournament that has only been around for a few years to suit the TV companies.

Of course the World Cup is the pinnacle of any players career and remains the most prestigious medal you can have as a player.

Teams can buy a Champions League but a country can't buy a team to win a World Cup. The World Cup is only every four years, The Champions League is every year.

I can't believe any player on this planet would swap a World Cup winners medal for a CL medal.

Most players are not playing for the clubs they support but most have more of an attachment to their country than their club. Club for money, Country for glory

Players are often revered for years in their country for winning a World Cup. I dont see that much in the Champions League really.

You only have to look at Maradona being compared to Messi. I personally think Messi is a better player but not winning a World Cup is always thrown at him as why he can't be the best and maybe rightly since Maradona won theirs almost on his own. It shows what people think of the WC.

Every country can enter the World Cup so it is an open tournament but not every team play in the CL.

[Whiskyman]

The Champion's League is NOT a bigger prize than the World Cup.

Ask yourself?..If Man United(our biggest club in England)win the CL and England win the World Cup..How many fans would turn up to see the trophy return and what would have the biggest effect on our economy?There is NO competition.Go to any European country in the world with their top domestic team and their country.It will be exactly the same.

Ask any player,what he would rather win?I don't think it would be the CL.

To win the World Cup is the pinnacle of any players career.

I think Whiskyman is mixing up the standard of football with the prize itself though in my opinion the standard in the CL is not always that great anyway until the semis and final. He's fallen for all the marketing around the CL, a tournament that has only been around for a few years to suit the TV companies.

Of course the World Cup is the pinnacle of any players career and remains the most prestigious medal you can have as a player.
Teams can buy a Champions League but a country can't buy a team to win a World Cup. The World Cup is only every four years, The Champions League is every year.

I can't believe any player on this planet would swap a World Cup winners medal for a CL medal.

Most players are not playing for the clubs they support but most have more of an attachment to their country than their club. Club for money, Country for glory

Players are often revered for years in their country for winning a World Cup. I dont see that much in the Champions League really.

You only have to look at Maradona being compared to Messi. I personally think Messi is a better player but not winning a World Cup is always thrown at him as why he can't be the best and maybe rightly since Maradona won theirs almost on his own. It shows what people think of the WC.

Every country can enter the World Cup so it is an open tournament but not every team play in the CL.

I don't think I'm mixing anything up but I am placing a bigger emphasis on the standard of football. And when I refer to the Champions League I'm including it's predecessor, the European Cup, although because it was by definition a smaller competition it was easier to win, comparatively, back then.

I agree with you the standard of CL matches isn't always great. But neither does the standard of football in the world cup always equal the Brazil v Italy game back in 1982. There are dog matches in every competition and both the world cup and CL suffer because to make up the numbers both competitions start off featuring a whole host of no hopers, there to simply make up the numbers.

And it's becoming, because of the criteria now being used to allow players to qualify for a country other than that of their birth getting a little bit like the transfer cattle market we see in club football. Declan Rice decided he didn't want to be Irish any more. Possibly because he wasn't Irish in the first place of course but I'm sure you agree that is a stupid situation and one of the reasons international sport is becoming less relevant, at least in my eyes. Maybe my view is outdated but for me if you are born in England you are English and the only other way you should qualify for any country internationally is if you were born there, or as I believe is still the case if you were born elsewhere and your parents were serving in the forces or the Diplomatic Corps to use two examples.

Maybe players would prefer to have a World Cup winners medal than a Champions League one. I don't know any players who I can ask that question. But I will stand by my view the Champions League is harder to win and that, in my book, makes it a more prestigious trophy. Unfortunately we will never be able to ask the question of West Ham fans but the fans of Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool who I do know personally wouldn't swap their clubs' champions league successes for an England world cup win. And if ever I was given the choice between a West Ham Champions League win or England wining the World Cup it would be club first. Every time. In fact I'd even take a Europa League place for my club over the national team's success.

[h69]

I think Whiskyman is mixing up the standard of football with the prize itself though in my opinion the standard in the CL is not always that great anyway until the semis and final. He's fallen for all the marketing around the CL, a tournament that has only been around for a few years to suit the TV companies.

Of course the World Cup is the pinnacle of any players career and remains the most prestigious medal you can have as a player.
Teams can buy a Champions League but a country can't buy a team to win a World Cup. The World Cup is only every four years, The Champions League is every year.

I can't believe any player on this planet would swap a World Cup winners medal for a CL medal.

Most players are not playing for the clubs they support but most have more of an attachment to their country than their club. Club for money, Country for glory

Players are often revered for years in their country for winning a World Cup. I dont see that much in the Champions League really.

You only have to look at Maradona being compared to Messi. I personally think Messi is a better player but not winning a World Cup is always thrown at him as why he can't be the best and maybe rightly since Maradona won theirs almost on his own. It shows what people think of the WC.

Every country can enter the World Cup so it is an open tournament but not every team play in the CL.

I don't think I'm mixing anything up but I am placing a bigger emphasis on the standard of football. And when I refer to the Champions League I'm including it's predecessor, the European Cup, although because it was by definition a smaller competition it was easier to win, comparatively, back then.

I agree with you the standard of CL matches isn't always great. But neither does the standard of football in the world cup always equal the Brazil v Italy game back in 1982. There are dog matches in every competition and both the world cup and CL suffer because to make up the numbers both competitions start off featuring a whole host of no hopers, there to simply make up the numbers.

And it's becoming, because of the criteria now being used to allow players to qualify for a country other than that of their birth getting a little bit like the transfer cattle market we see in club football. Declan Rice decided he didn't want to be Irish any more. Possibly because he wasn't Irish in the first place of course but I'm sure you agree that is a stupid situation and one of the reasons international sport is becoming less relevant, at least in my eyes. Maybe my view is outdated but for me if you are born in England you are English and the only other way you should qualify for any country internationally is if you were born there, or as I believe is still the case if you were born elsewhere and your parents were serving in the forces or the Diplomatic Corps to use two examples.

Maybe players would prefer to have a World Cup winners medal than a Champions League one. I don't know any players who I can ask that question. But I will stand by my view the Champions League is harder to win and that, in my book, makes it a more prestigious trophy. Unfortunately we will never be able to ask the question of West Ham fans but the fans of Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool who I do know personally wouldn't swap their clubs' champions league successes for an England world cup win. And if ever I was given the choice between a West Ham Champions League win or England wining the World Cup it would be club first. Every time. In fact I'd even take a Europa League place for my club over the national team's success.

Nothing really to do with the standard....just the prestige. I think both tournaments have good and bad games.

It is far easier to win a CL. You can just buy a team to do it and if you dont quite get there you can just try again the following year. A World Cup needs to be earned with the players you happen to have that qualify for your country. It is far harder to win that and often a far more difficult job for a manager.

It has nothing to do with what fans want, players are mercenaries, they will move from club to club but most are pretty patriotic from what I have seen and a WC medal is just more prestigious than a CL medal.

As far as fans go, their view does not influence how prestigious a medal is. I guess we will have to see if there are 3 million people on the streets the next time someone wins the CL like there was when the French won both their world cups.

Let me ask you if you think the country was as excited about the CL final a couple of years ago with two English finalists or when England got to the semi in 1990 and 2018 ? I'd even chuck in the 1996 Euro semi when the whole country went crazy. The fans of spurs and Liverpool might have been excited two years ago but I don't think there was much in the way of prestige there.

I know what I would want to win if I were a player.

[Whiskyman]

I don't think I'm mixing anything up but I am placing a bigger emphasis on the standard of football. And when I refer to the Champions League I'm including it's predecessor, the European Cup, although because it was by definition a smaller competition it was easier to win, comparatively, back then.

I agree with you the standard of CL matches isn't always great. But neither does the standard of football in the world cup always equal the Brazil v Italy game back in 1982. There are dog matches in every competition and both the world cup and CL suffer because to make up the numbers both competitions start off featuring a whole host of no hopers, there to simply make up the numbers.

And it's becoming, because of the criteria now being used to allow players to qualify for a country other than that of their birth getting a little bit like the transfer cattle market we see in club football. Declan Rice decided he didn't want to be Irish any more. Possibly because he wasn't Irish in the first place of course but I'm sure you agree that is a stupid situation and one of the reasons international sport is becoming less relevant, at least in my eyes. Maybe my view is outdated but for me if you are born in England you are English and the only other way you should qualify for any country internationally is if you were born there, or as I believe is still the case if you were born elsewhere and your parents were serving in the forces or the Diplomatic Corps to use two examples.

Maybe players would prefer to have a World Cup winners medal than a Champions League one. I don't know any players who I can ask that question. But I will stand by my view the Champions League is harder to win and that, in my book, makes it a more prestigious trophy. Unfortunately we will never be able to ask the question of West Ham fans but the fans of Manchester United, Chelsea and Liverpool who I do know personally wouldn't swap their clubs' champions league successes for an England world cup win. And if ever I was given the choice between a West Ham Champions League win or England wining the World Cup it would be club first. Every time. In fact I'd even take a Europa League place for my club over the national team's success.

Nothing really to do with the standard....just the prestige. I think both tournaments have good and bad games.

It is far easier to win a CL. You can just buy a team to do it and if you dont quite get there you can just try again the following year. A World Cup needs to be earned with the players you happen to have that qualify for your country. It is far harder to win that and often a far more difficult job for a manager.

It has nothing to do with what fans want, players are mercenaries, they will move from club to club but most are pretty patriotic from what I have seen and a WC medal is just more prestigious than a CL medal.

As far as fans go, their view does not influence how prestigious a medal is. I guess we will have to see if there are 3 million people on the streets the next time someone wins the CL like there was when the French won both their world cups.

Let me ask you if you think the country was as excited about the CL final a couple of years ago with two English finalists or when England got to the semi in 1990 and 2018 ? I'd even chuck in the 1996 Euro semi when the whole country went crazy. The fans of spurs and Liverpool might have been excited two years ago but I don't think there was much in the way of prestige there.

I know what I would want to win if I were a player.

All about opinions I guess. I consider the CL a greater achievement precisely because it is harder to win. At least in my opinion. Of course only the wealthiest clubs can win the CL because those clubs attract the best players. Clearly you feel the World Cup is more prestigious because of the sense of national pride involved. I get that. But I would regard the overall standard of a competition, and the opposition that needs to be overcome as the yardstick.

No right or wrong answer really. Just a different perception of what makes one achievement more satisfying than another.

[Newmarket]

7 reasons why Pele will always be the greatest

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/02/23/7 ... ill-stand/

[Whiskyman]

7 reasons why Pele will always be the greatest

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/02/23/7 ... ill-stand/

These comparisons are always a bit pointless imo. Pele played in an era when South American players were nowhere nearly as prevalent in Europe as they are today. Would he have been a success in Europe? Undoubtedly, because he was a great player. Greatest of his time, yes, But the greatest ever? Fuck knows.

[OZHAMMER]

7 reasons why Pele will always be the greatest

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/02/23/7 ... ill-stand/