Football (Soccer) Thread

[The Larch]

Just checked out of curiosity, in the NBA out of 30 head coaches, 9 of them have been in their current position for 5 years or longer, and out of those 9, 3 have been there for 10 years or more (23 years for Popovich at the Spurs!  )

[Sheilbh]

And in all of English league football there are four managers who've been in place for more than 5 years and well over half are under 2 years.

[dps]

Yanks! A query.

With Guardiola's time at City (maybe) coming to an end this season, and Pochettino getting fired from Spurs there's been a lot of talk in England about the time limit on managers.

Basically that after 4-5 years they stop having the same effect on a group of players, it runs out, things get stale and either you need to restructure the squad or replace the manager. A few of the old-school managers (Fergie especially) were defined by their ability to constantly refresh and restructure their squad so they never got tired of him and his management. But generally now few clubs would trust a manager to do that and it's cheaper to replace them than it is to restructure the team.

But it got me thinking. My impression is that isn't the case in NFL (and maybe other US sports) with, I assume, head coaches - is that right? Or am I wrong and there is the same thing? I just feel like there's lots of head coaches around who've been in place for like a decade and in England there's no-one left like that and, I think, a general perception that it won't happen again.

This is just a guess, but I'd say that the influx of really big money is what is driving that.  There's not only more pressure to win, but to win NOW! when the monetary stakes go up.  But in the long term, there is a good bit of value in stability, too, and eventually successful managers and coaches get to stick around until they leave more-or-less on their own terms.  I think that managerial/coaching stability is probably cyclical in the long term.

[Sheilbh]

I think that's definitely part of it - and the lack of jeopardy also probably helps American coaches. Missing out on Champions League or relegation has serious financial consequences so owners are likely to gamble on replacing a manager in trouble. But what's interesting with Guardiola and Pochettino is they've both been very successful (and Guardiola has his own reasons), but part of the theory of why they're faltering or faltered now is that they've reached the limit of what they can do with broadly the same team.

And this trend goes beyond the top division, so those examples I was giving covers all 72 teams in four tiers of English football, which is partly just churn. If anything it's even more febrile in the lower leagues - which I don't fully understand.

[Josquius]

It is weird though how much fans have bought into the commercial sides push to finish a space higher in the league rather than win a tournament

That's just normal hope though; "if we finish even one place higher we'll have the money to buy that one special player, or hire that one manager, that will lift our team from mediocrity to glory". Despite being a team sport football is also one of the last places where "the great man of history" theory holds sway.

Even if only due to the self-promotion of those involved - for example Jose "the special one" Mourinho.

I don't think many fans see it that way.. There's not too much awareness of how money is shared out in the Premier league.  If I was supporting a mid table Premier league team ( this decade.... Promised so much on all fronts.... ) I'd take a cup over half a dozen places higher up the league.

Finishing higher than rivals is a fair point.

[Liep]

VAR woes #3109. Clear elbow to the face and an obvious red card, the ref misses it but VAR does nothing even though there are several angles showing the incident.

They really need to have an info screen on TV direct from the VAR room explaining calls and no calls.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think many fans see it that way.. There's not too much awareness of how money is shared out in the Premier league.  If I was supporting a mid table Premier league team ( this decade.... Promised so much on all fronts.... ) I'd take a cup over half a dozen places higher up the league.

Agree. It varies a little bit so newly promoted teams want to be secure for the first few seasons, I imagine Leicester and Wolves would care more about the league too - same for any other club that could get a European place.

Finishing higher than rivals is a fair point.

Agreed. It's been a long time

[dps]

So, apparently we are going to get a MLS team in North Carolina, but it's going to be in Charlotte instead of Raleigh.  Supposedly it will be officially announced on the 17th.

[Grey Fox]

And in all of English league football there are four managers who've been in place for more than 5 years and well over half are under 2 years.

It varies widely on a per organisation basis, especially in pro sports.

The Pittsburgh Steelers have had 3 coaches in 50 years. (NFL)
The Edmonton Oilers have had 7 coaches in 10 years. (NHL)

[Valmy]

So, apparently we are going to get a MLS team in North Carolina, but it's going to be in Charlotte instead of Raleigh.  Supposedly it will be officially announced on the 17th.

Lame. Charlotte gets everything as it is.

We also are getting a MLS team, the Austin Anthem. Maybe they will crush your team at some future date.

[dps]

So, apparently we are going to get a MLS team in North Carolina, but it's going to be in Charlotte instead of Raleigh.  Supposedly it will be officially announced on the 17th.

Lame. Charlotte gets everything as it is.

Apparently, part of the reason for the expansion team going to Charlotte is because how well Raleigh has supported its NASL club.  So why not give the MLS franchise to Raleigh, instead of Charlotte.  Well, actually, we know why--David Tepper's money,

[Admiral Yi]

Apparently, part of the reason for the expansion team going to Charlotte is because how well Raleigh has supported its NASL club.  So why not give the MLS franchise to Raleigh, instead of Charlotte.  Well, actually, we know why--David Tepper's money,

I was going to call you a wuss, but i checked and the two are much further apart than I thought.   I thought maybe an hour drive.

[Duque de Bragança]

Draws of European Cups :

Champions' League


Dortmund (GER) v Paris (FRA)

Real Madrid (ESP) v Man. City (ENG)

Atalanta (ITA) v Valencia (ESP)

Atlético Madrid (ESP) v Liverpool (ENG)

Chelsea (ENG) v Bayern (GER)

Lyon (FRA) v Juventus (ITA)

Tottenham (ENG) v Leipzig (GER)

Napoli (ITA) v Barcelona (ESP)

Juventus should have no problem with Lyon being the weakest and losing Depay for the remainder of the season. PSG may reach quarters this time. Atalanta-Valencia brings some novelty. Seems tough for Atlético. Bayern favourite. Lipsians have a decent draw though far from easy. Barça favourite, though Napoli could resist if the mess there gets sorted out.



Europa League (in Portuguese but you will recognise all teams) 

Wolverhampton-Espanhol Barcelona
Sporting-Basaksehir
Getafe-Ajax Amesterdão
Bayer Leverkusen-FC Porto
Copenhaga-Celtic
APOEL-Basileia
Cluj-Sevilha
Olympiacos-Arsenal
AZ Alkmaar-LASK Linz
Club Bruges-Manchester United
Ludogorets-Inter
Eintracht Francoforte-Salzburgo
Shakhtar Donetsk-Benfica
Wolfsburgo-Malmö
Roma-Gent
Rangers-Braga

Not the best draw for Porto.  Sporting will get my support against Herr Dogan's team.  Perhaps Benfica will field an A-team this time.  Braga can make it.

[Josephus]

Some pretty good matches there:

Especially:

Real Madrid (ESP) v Man. City (ENG)

Atlético Madrid (ESP) v Liverpool (ENG)

Chelsea (ENG) v Bayern (GER)

[FunkMonk]

Looks like Everton snagged Ancelotti. 

Arsenal must be in for Arteta.