7 hours ago, stoneghost28 said:

Otoh, I'm certainly happier that players get a bigger piece of the pie these days than the owners as compared to the past, at least when it comes to American sports where far too many owners are legacy ---hats who haven't contributed a damn thing to society. At the end of the day it's the players themselves that have created the wealth the game generates, not the owners. They're merely hangers on with investments that until this moments with Covid (again at least in American Sports) carried zero risk, and generated ceaseless profits. 

I think perhaps you underestimate the importance of management.

He's giving me serious Hazard vibes.

He does the same thing that Hazard does though which is drift out of games, my only criticism.

Other than that, he's unreal.

16 hours ago, Brutos said:

Am gonna post this now in aticipation for 5 years down the road: Real Madrid f**k off hes not for sale.

 

Now that you've said it, I am afraid Madrid will come in 3 years....not 5.

14 hours ago, stoneghost28 said:

Otoh, I'm certainly happier that players get a bigger piece of the pie these days than the owners as compared to the past, at least when it comes to American sports where far too many owners are legacy ---hats who haven't contributed a damn thing to society. At the end of the day it's the players themselves that have created the wealth the game generates, not the owners. They're merely hangers on with investments that until this moments with Covid (again at least in American Sports) carried zero risk, and generated ceaseless profits. 

I would suggest that is an overly simplistic view and one that this club in particular, both in the now and not too far off history, disproves.

Multiple owners (or even chairman/board members) have either at their own financial risk either helped save the club from disappearing altogether, or massively turned the clubs fortunes around.

You certainly describe some I will concede...but not all.  

I would also point out that these higher wages do not mean owners get less of the pie, and players more.......it just means they will make the pie bigger by charging the fans, broadcasters, & sponsors (who charge their customers) more.  It's why so many families have been priced out of attending matches, and why it's hundreds a year just to watch on TV etc etc.

 

34 minutes ago, Barry Bridges said:

I would suggest that is an overly simplistic view and one that this club in particular,

You can tell his original comment is heavily influenced by the billionaire boys club franchise model that is American Sports.

There is literally zero risk for the owners. They pay a franchise fee in the 9 figures to the league, which is split up by the current owners, and then they sit back and rake in the money, win, lose or draw. 

The league shares revenue and includes competitive balance measures to reward failure.

The US model is pretty despicable by comparison.

Pro/Reg is such a blessing. If a team's owners don't want to compete, they get booted out of the division. One MLB franchise literally went 20 years without a winning season, and the owners just kept getting richer and richer.

So in the US, we have a different perspective on ownership, because the leagues are monopolies, the franchise owners are billionaires who buy their way into the league, not earned.

In the United States, every owner is Stan Kroenke 

 

2 minutes ago, Skinnedy said:

You can tell his original comment is heavily influenced by the billionaire boys club franchise model that is American Sports.

There is literally zero risk for the owners. They pay a franchise fee in the 9 figures to the league, which is split up by the current owners, and then they sit back and rake in the money, win, lose or draw. 

The league shares revenue and includes competitive balance measures to reward failure.

The US model is pretty despicable by comparison.

Pro/Reg is such a blessing. If a team's owners don't want to compete, they get booted out of the division. One MLB franchise literally went 20 years without a winning season, and the owners just kept getting richer and richer.

So in the US, we have a different perspective on ownership, because the leagues are monopolies, the franchise owners are billionaires who buy their way into the league, not earned.

In the United States, every owner is Stan Kroenke 

 

We also get tax payers to frequently fund or heavily subsidize the building of these owners' privately owned arenas in North America....somehow.

21 minutes ago, Barry Bridges said:

We also get tax payers to frequently fund or heavily subsidize the building of these owners' privately owned arenas in North America....somehow.

Well we will start to see the economic Impact of the disuse of stadiums soon.  I suspect the effect will be quite noticeable.

just when you thought The US was unbearable, oh it's going be on like donkey kong

 

6 minutes ago, robdog said:

just when you thought The US was unbearable, oh it's going be on like donkey kong

 

Is this satire?

If not, the lack of self awareness is painful!

1 hour ago, Skinnedy said:

You can tell his original comment is heavily influenced by the billionaire boys club franchise model that is American Sports.

There is literally zero risk for the owners. They pay a franchise fee in the 9 figures to the league, which is split up by the current owners, and then they sit back and rake in the money, win, lose or draw. 

The league shares revenue and includes competitive balance measures to reward failure.

The US model is pretty despicable by comparison.

Pro/Reg is such a blessing. If a team's owners don't want to compete, they get booted out of the division. One MLB franchise literally went 20 years without a winning season, and the owners just kept getting richer and richer.

So in the US, we have a different perspective on ownership, because the leagues are monopolies, the franchise owners are billionaires who buy their way into the league, not earned.

In the United States, every owner is Stan Kroenke 

 

 

Be careful. The American billionaires are coming for the EPL

Stan Kroenke - Arsenal

Wesley Eden - Aston Villa

Joshua Harris & David Blitzer - Crystal Palace

John Henry (FSG) - Liverpool

Glazer Family - ManU

Albert Smith - West Ham

And you got half a dozen or so US owners in the Championship as well. The list of American billionaires owners will only continue to grow as soccer/football popularity is growing at massive rate in the US; and especially with guy like Pulisic being a star in the EPL; this growth will explode.

 

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, robdog said:

just when you thought The US was unbearable, oh it's going be on like donkey kong

 

This is more cringe than Arsenal Fan TV...

1 hour ago, robdog said:

just when you thought The US was unbearable, oh it's going be on like donkey kong

 

 

 

Actually, I got some good laughs out of this. I like this guy, he's funny. 

9 minutes ago, haviet1 said:

Be careful. The American billionaires are coming for the EPL

But the difference is, there's no guarantee on your investment. Dropping down a league is catastrophic. 

As opposed to the US where failure is rewarded. 

The closest thing we have to international football in the states is College Football. 

Player recruitment depends heavily on success. Ineptitude isn't rewarded like it is in pro leagues. 

1 hour ago, jack h said:

Is this satire?

If not, the lack of self awareness is painful!

It’s a comedic sports talk show, he’s exaggerating on purpose. McAfee is hilarious.

49 minutes ago, mwblue10 said:

It’s a comedic sports talk show, he’s exaggerating on purpose. McAfee is hilarious.

 

"We got the guy" lol. That should be the new slogan for the US National team.

 

 

5 hours ago, robdog said:

just when you thought The US was unbearable, oh it's going be on like donkey kong

 

Pat McAfee is actually a former punter for my favorite American Football team the Indianapolis Colts.

As stated he is being funny on purpose.  If you punch Pat McAfee standup into YouTube he actually did a stand up comedy show that I thought was pretty good. (Not safe for work or kids though).  Although it might be less funny if you don't follow the Colts.  It was done in Indy so people understood the references.  If you don't follow American Football at all you might be scratching your head.

Actually met McAfee when I went to their training camp several years ago.  

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by Valpo

4 hours ago, Skinnedy said:

But the difference is, there's no guarantee on your investment. Dropping down a league is catastrophic. 

As opposed to the US where failure is rewarded. 

The closest thing we have to international football in the states is College Football. 

Player recruitment depends heavily on success. Ineptitude isn't rewarded like it is in pro leagues. 

I will probably get attacked for this but I prefer the American system.

Let's be honest, the top teams Europe stay on top because they have more money than everyone else and pay for better players.

Most US sports have salary caps so everyone has the same resources.  So it's not always the same teams on top.  The Patriots won the Superbowl 6 times in the last 20 years which is huge.  The 90's bulls also won I think like 6 times.

EPL has been around 28 years and Man U is only one title shy of winning half of them. 

Trust me I get the things that relegation adds to it, it makes all the games more interesting.  But going over the last 28 years of the NFL or the NBA or even probably MLB I can guarantee that the title has been won by more than 7 clubs.

I admit there are some teams in the US that are very poorly managed.  But most teams are not that incompetent.  On the other hand, half the EPL teams know they have no chance of pulling in the kind of cash necessary to bring in the players to win.

 

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by Valpo

I think we need to update the Thread title to: Christian Pulisic - "The Guy" 

Valpo, you are forgetting an important difference , that being in the US, the regular season means jack squat (is that a phrase you Brits know?), whereas in the UK the regular season is the end all, be all.  Just look at the NBA, where teams rest their star players during the regular season to be fresh for the playoffs.  I like the UK system better, since playoffs skew to the best team at the end of the season being the champ, which just seems unfair to me.    All games should be of equal weight in my view.

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by Phillip

32 minutes ago, Phillip said:

Valpo, you are forgetting an important difference , that being in the US, the regular season means jack squat (is that a phrase you Brits know?), whereas in the UK the regular season is the end all, be all.  Just look at the NBA, where teams rest their star players during the regular season to be fresh for the playoffs.  I like the UK system better, since playoffs skew to the best team at the end of the season being the champ, which just seems unfair to me.    All games should be of equal weight in my view.

I do like the European system of best record wins essentially although it helps to have 3 possible results as opposed to 2.  (Less ties that way)

While the regular season can end up having some meaningfulness games at the end, one has to remember that the vast majority of the regular is meaningful in terms of playoff positioning.  And you have to do well enough in the beginning of the season to get there in the first place.

I would be cool with regular season winners being the champs.  I just am not fond of only the 5 or 6 richest clubs ever having any chance.

Like I see some advantages of the European system don't get me wrong.  I just feel like it is worse that in the EPL you can rule out 15 of 20 teams for the championship before the first match.

On the other hand if we have an NFL season probably at least half the teams have a legit shot to win... Some more than others of course.  And it's not always going to be the same team.

Like 5 years ago the Chiefs were a terrible team at the bottom of the NFL.

Look at the EPL table from 5 years ago and I will bet the top 5 teams are all top 10 this year.  Odds are 4 of them are in the top 5 this year as well.

I haven't even looked but you know it's likely the case or close to it.

How much does the Champions league slate change from year to year?  

10 hours ago, jack h said:

Is this satire?

If not, the lack of self awareness is painful!

Unfortunately, with respect to the American posters here, many Americans really are that ignorant and blindly patriotic. 

A few observations about Pulisic:

- He does cut inside at times, but he then tends to drift outside and attack from the left (sometimes he does switch wings though). By doing this, he either acts as a dummy runner (drawing defenders onto him), or leaves defenders out of position so he is free to run into the box.

- Speaking of running into the box, he is certainly far more direct than Hazard. Hazard is obviously a Chelsea legend and still superior on paper, but one thing Hazard was criticised for at times (not necessarily by yours truly) was being a little too unselfish, namely by passing the ball to a teammate when maybe he should have made a bombing run into the box.

- Pulisic is the opposite. While he does have the vision to pass the ball to teammates at times (leading to goals early in the season), he prefers going on mazy runs and weaving through defences. This looks great when it comes off, but can lead to him hogging the ball and going for glory when passing to a teammate would have been a better option.

- He definitely likes placing his shots into either corner. A lot of his finishes have been neat corner shots.

- Technically (in terms of passing, crossing and ball control), I think he's fine, but not brilliant. Where he really shines is on the counter and against higher defensive lines (as seen against Man City). He takes off like a rocket and once he gets going he is very hard to stop. He's IMO at least as good as a younger Hazard in that regard. 

- He's surprisingly decent in the air. His headers are off at times, but he has a really good jump on him. Sort of like a cut-rate version of Tim Cahill. 

- He's not astonishingly weak, but he is still IMO a bit too readily knocked off the ball. Maybe more strength training is needed.

- Prior to the restart, I thought he was fine until his injury, but rather up-and-down. He's really been consistently dangerous since the restart though. His finishing seems to have improved immensely, and it makes him that much more valuable given the shortage of goals elsewhere in the side. Besides being a natural dummy runner, it also forces defenders to man-mark him more so it gives Giroud/Abraham/Willian more space to do their thing. Given Abraham's mediocre technique, Giroud's lack of legs and Willian's mediocre decision-making when pressured, that can only be a good thing. Indeed, Giroud and Willian have contributed a great deal since the restart and that's not a coincidence. One can only imagine what players with legs and decent technique/finishing (Havertz/Werner) could do when given space. Defenders will have a hell of a time deciding whom to mark. I assume they'll mark Werner more given that he'll be the CF, which will IMO make Pulisic more damaging next season, injury permitting. 

I have to admit that I wasn't enthused by Pulisic's transfer, but I'm glad to say that he's proven me wrong. He's been more successful this season than I could have anticipated. Well done Christian. 

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by DaRick

Good observations.

He's still 21, we could see a much improved and better Pulisic when he's 23/24. Can you even imagine that? A better version of today's Pulisic? Scrary! 

 

8 hours ago, DaRick said:

Unfortunately, with respect to the American posters here, many Americans really are that ignorant and blindly patriotic. 

A few observations about Pulisic:

- He does cut inside at times, but he then tends to drift outside and attack from the left (sometimes he does switch wings though). By doing this, he either acts as a dummy runner (drawing defenders onto him), or leaves defenders out of position so he is free to run into the box.

- Speaking of running into the box, he is certainly far more direct than Hazard. Hazard is obviously a Chelsea legend and still superior on paper, but one thing Hazard was criticised for at times (not necessarily by yours truly) was being a little too unselfish, namely by passing the ball to a teammate when maybe he should have made a bombing run into the box.

- Pulisic is the opposite. While he does have the vision to pass the ball to teammates at times (leading to goals early in the season), he prefers going on mazy runs and weaving through defences. This looks great when it comes off, but can lead to him hogging the ball and going for glory when passing to a teammate would have been a better option.

- He definitely likes placing his shots into either corner. A lot of his finishes have been neat corner shots.

- Technically (in terms of passing, crossing and ball control), I think he's fine, but not brilliant. Where he really shines is on the counter and against higher defensive lines (as seen against Man City). He takes off like a rocket and once he gets going he is very hard to stop. He's IMO at least as good as a younger Hazard in that regard. 

- He's surprisingly decent in the air. His headers are off at times, but he has a really good jump on him. Sort of like a cut-rate version of Tim Cahill. 

- He's not astonishingly weak, but he is still IMO a bit too readily knocked off the ball. Maybe more strength training is needed.

- Prior to the restart, I thought he was fine until his injury, but rather up-and-down. He's really been consistently dangerous since the restart though. His finishing seems to have improved immensely, and it makes him that much more valuable given the shortage of goals elsewhere in the side. Besides being a natural dummy runner, it also forces defenders to man-mark him more so it gives Giroud/Abraham/Willian more space to do their thing. Given Abraham's mediocre technique, Giroud's lack of legs and Willian's mediocre decision-making when pressured, that can only be a good thing. Indeed, Giroud and Willian have contributed a great deal since the restart and that's not a coincidence. One can only imagine what players with legs and decent technique/finishing (Havertz/Werner) could do when given space. Defenders will have a hell of a time deciding whom to mark. I assume they'll mark Werner more given that he'll be the CF, which will IMO make Pulisic more damaging next season, injury permitting. 

I have to admit that I wasn't enthused by Pulisic's transfer, but I'm glad to say that he's proven me wrong. He's been more successful this season than I could have anticipated. Well done Christian. 

I think I agree robustly with just about everything you said with the exception of I think he needs to shoot more.  I think he’s too unselfish going forward at times.  I bet if you look at his shot attempts compared to the times he’s in a position to shoot, the rate of shooting is too low.  What the hell do I know though I’m a dumb yank.

i think he pushes forward too much sometimes when he needs to turn the ball around and get it back to the defensive MFs.  I would suspect this is common with young attacking players.

i have watched soccer longer than the average Americans.  I’ve watched WC quite closely since 1990.  I started watching club about 10 years ago.  I played pickup soccer over here until I was about 42, but I and was a casual fan Without much technical knowledge.

 

ive watched 90% of Chelsea’s matches this year and have really enjoyed following the team and learning stuff that you would miss out on unless you followed a team.  
 

Pulisic looks like he belongs to me, and quite honestly (if healthy and he looks like he might be fragile), I think his assist production is less because of the lack of quality finishers in there primes on Chelsea.  I think you will see his assists skyrocket next year with the new talent.

 

Pat mcafee is poking fun at us DumbYanks with that satirical American attitude about CP and all things American.  My guess is he knows more about soccer than he let on there.

 

 would you be shocked though if in 4 or 5 years his name is there with the top players?  I’ve watched a lot of soccer During COVID and he’s been pretty effective since the restart.

Weirdly he may lose his place in the team if Werner can’t play on his own up front. It’s most likely going to be Pulisic or Tammy who miss out. Lots of options for Frank though. 

What has most impressed me is his mentality, early part of the season he was dropped and made a lot of his appearances off the bench. He could have easily dropped his shoulders and gone through the motions however every time he came on he played as if he had a point to prove. Even against Villa you could tell how much that goal meant to him, he clearly had put in time during lock down and has improved drastically & now he is the first name on the team sheet.

He has only been with us for a short period of time but its clear as day at how much he has improved, he is getting back and providing defensive cover & he is better at shielding the ball in tight areas hence the penalties he has won. I hope Hudson-Odoi takes a leaf out of his book and gets his head down and utilise the opportunities he will be getting.