Football (Soccer) Thread

[Sheilbh]

And apparently Niko Kovac was at the game sat in the director's box 

Yes, well done. Nice to see Chelsea drop a little further off of the leading group, and I really don't want to see Everton relegated.

It was also just nice to see an "Everton" performance which has been a long time coming. Plus I felt quite emotional seeing Ferguson running up and down the touchline

[Liep]

United wins.

Excellent game.

[Liep]

Plus I felt quite emotional seeing Ferguson running up and down the touchline

He has one of those English dialects that is almost impossible to understand. It sounds lovely.

[Liep]

Messi.

[Sheilbh]

Plus I felt quite emotional seeing Ferguson running up and down the touchline

He has one of those English dialects that is almost impossible to understand. It sounds lovely.

The dulcet tones of Stirling

[Liep]

Barca is playing on another level tonight. That one-two ending in a heel goal by Suarez.

[Liep]

Salzburg is playing great football. I don't think they have any Austrians on the field.

[Liep]

Salzburg is playing great football. I don't think they have any Austrians on the field.

Jinxed

[Sheilbh]

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.

[Duque de Bragança]

Salzburg is playing great football. I don't think they have any Austrians on the field.

Jinxed

I wonder who jinxed Zenit St-Petersburg too. 
Guess somebody woke up Lyon at half-time.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

My impression is that in college ball there are still de facto lifetime appointments, though they are less common than they were in the 70s and 80s.  This could in fact fit with your thesis since there is 100% turnover in personnel every five years in college.

[The Larch]

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.

It is much easier to reestructure teams in American style leagues, though. In the NBA sometimes you get reestructuring on the fly during the season itself, in some extreme cases, and player turnover can be quite high in some teams.

[Sheilbh]

That could be the difference and with college teams there's no need to restructure. It happens automatically so you can stay in place forever.

[Admiral Yi]

 

[Sheilbh]

Sorry

You said some are still basically lifetime, right?