2018 CL Semifinals

[Savant]

Manolas out would be devastating for Roma, he was massive against Barca.

Came off early in their Derby. Probably fine but worth monitoring I guess?

Lovren looks like he will be alright, and Gomez will be healthy by then too, which is very good news for Liverpool.

 

[Chimaera]

I know it's quite afar afield of the main subject, but one of the main reasons they still like Ronaldo is because every few weeks for the past 9 years, there's some stupid article about him making a move back there even if he'll never do it. He might have been a 'club legend', though I'd argue that he really did much more as a player for Real than he ever did for United. But I would also argue that quite a few of the United supporters are supporters because of Ronaldo (or got into it then when they arguably at their peak) and might just be closet Real fans, as that would be a logical front runner to also support. I'm not saying everyone, but it might be the old Laker, Cowboy, Yankee fan triumvirate.

On a tangent, journos have tried to do the same with Suarez (though I think that ship has sailed).

 

[Chimaera]

Came off early in their Derby. Probably fine but worth monitoring I guess?

Lovren looks like he will be alright, and Gomez will be healthy by then too, which is very good news for Liverpool.

I think Klavan would play before Gomez, but I think it's precaution. Though he is known for knicks and sores.

 

[Savant]

I think Klavan would play before Gomez, but I think it's precaution. Though he is known for knicks and sores.

I think Klopp will keep Klavan as backup for the Left Side and Gomez as backup for the Right Side. Moreno probably on the bench too, since they will only have one CM there.

Even if its just to give Trent a break against Stoke, it's great having him back.

 

[Live in the Now]

Lovren wound up not being injured.

 

[Halladay]

The other two times the Eagles were in the Super Bowl, Liverpool won this competition .

 

[Savant]

Lovren wound up not being injured.

Same with Manolas

 

[Corto]

It's definitely not personal. He is just extremely arrogant and plays for Franco's team. Those things in combination with each other are disgusting.

The "Franco's team" meme is, at best, pretty questionable, and has been mostly disproved over the years.

I recommend Sid Lowe's "Fear and Loathing in La Liga" if you cannot be bothered to read more political books.
It also contains fantastic material on the Di Stefano saga, Real becoming a powerhose with him, Paco Gento, Kopa, Puskas, etc..., Barca's teams with Kubala, Herrera going to Inter to re-invent football, Cruyff's team, Quinta del Buitre in the 1980s, Cruyff's return as manager and the final jump of Barca from "goodness" to "greatness", Galacticos, Messi, etc... All the way to (IIRC) 2014 season.
(it's a fantastic book, one of the best football book I've ever read, and you won't be sorry if you give it a shot)

In short, Franco's "team" was Atletico Madrid (renamed to Aviancion after the Civil War).
Franco "embraced" Real Madrid only once they became a European success and proven winners... He used them for political gains and show and propaganda... A Castillan team winning ECs was perfect for him to show "unified Spain" etc.
From the end of the Civil War to 1952 Real Madrid won exactly 0 (zero) La Liga titles and Franco showed no interest in them (the possible exception being the 1948 Cup Final vs Barcelona, but by all account that had more to do with a Castillan club playing a Catalan club than Real specifically).
Atletico won 4 tittles, Barca and Valencia 3 each, etc. Zero titles in 15 years doesn't sound like a regime club in a fascist state, does it...?
It started changing once Bernabeu build the stadium, got the core of his team set and brought in Di Stefano and then Kopa, Puskas, etc.- and become multiple European champions. And only then did Franco become a "regular" at Real's big home games.

Don't get me wrong, there was shady stuff in the Kubala and Di Stefano transfers (Barca getting Kubala, Real getting Di Stefano eventually), but we do know that neither was decided by Franco, not even remotely close. Bernabeu did use his influence in the Di Stefano transfer (after they felt they were robbed of Kubala, and Bernabeu even got Kubala's family to safety) but it was a mess between the government, three different FAs and four different clubs.

Anyway, again, I recommned Sid Lowe's book.

 

[Pouchkine]

Bayern are surprisingly quite favorite for the first game it seems.

 

[Deficient Mode]

Whether Real were Franco's team before the team they assembled in the 50s or not - they were still his team.

 

[Cassano]

Bayern are surprisingly quite favorite for the first game it seems.

Agreed. They looked bad vs Bilbao. They pretty much fielded their entire 1st team too.

 

[Corto]

Whether Real were Franco's team before the team they assembled in the 50s or not - they were still his team.

There is quite a difference between the two -a fascist dictator making sure his team gets all the advantages and all the trophies... and a fascist dictator making use of a club's success to promote his own political goals.

 

[Corto]

Agreed. They looked bad vs Bilbao. They pretty much fielded their entire 1st team too.

They looked pretty low intensity for the most part. You're right, they're struggling for form a bit. And they have been since the international break (minus the Turin game).

 

[maclean]

There is a "difference", but it's not really the difference you're implying. To make a kind of hyberbolic comparison, it's like the difference between a Nazi scientist having been a lifelong devoted fascist or "just" getting into it when he started doing experiments on people.

 

[Corto]

There is a "difference", but it's not really the difference you're implying. To make a kind of hyberbolic comparison, it's like the difference between a Nazi scientist having been a lifelong devoted fascist or "just" getting into it when he started doing experiments on people.

That makes no sense... To make use of your (absolutely unnecessary) Nazi comparison, it'd be like comparing a Nazi scientist who was a part of the Hitler regime, to a German scientist who made a breakthrough in his field and his accomplishments were used by Hitler to futher his goals.

Real (obviously) didn't benefit from Franco after the Civil War, they won basically nothing from the time the Civil War ended until Bernabeu built the stadium and they got Di Stefano, Kopa, Puskas etc. to go with Paco Gento and the other homegrown players.
As mentioned, Atletico was "Franco's club", having even changed the name to Aviancion (a more military name in line with all the state-approved clubs of the era).
Only after becoming big and winning the first ECs, Real became the perfect tool for Franco to make public sport events appearances.

And as far as Real goes, I'm not sure what anyone expects they could've done... Refused Franco a seat at the stadium? Refused invitations to attend events after winning trophies? Be serious.
They whole meme is absolutely ridiculous once you put in minimal research.

It is a very complicated time in Spanish football, and don't get me wrong, there was a power struggle going on the entire time.
Once Bernabeu became president they slowly began gaining steam (and power) but what made them a world famous brand was their product on the pitch, nothing else. Even so, they lost Kubala to Barca and only got Di Stefano after a lengthy saga - both transfers were done with some shady stuff going on, but ultimately it was down to the players.

...

But again, don't take my word on it - just don't make silly comparisons with Nazis without researching either.

Like I said, without even going into political books about the Franco era in Spain, just a football book is enough to give you a (mostly non-biased) look into the rivalry and the two clubs since the Civil War (Sid Lowe's "Fear and Loathing in La Liga").

 

[maclean]

That makes no sense... To make use of your (absolutely unnecessary) Nazi comparison, it'd be like comparing a Nazi scientist who was a part of the Hitler regime, to a German scientist who made a breakthrough in his field and his accomplishments were used by Hitler to futher his goals.

Real (obviously) didn't benefit from Franco after the Civil War, they won basically nothing from the time the Civil War ended until Bernabeu built the stadium and they got Di Stefano, Kopa, Puskas etc. to go with Paco Gento and the other homegrown players.
As mentioned, Atletico was "Franco's club", having even changed the name to Aviancion (a more military name in line with all the state-approved clubs of the era).
Only after becoming big and winning the first ECs, Real became the perfect tool for Franco to make public sport events appearances.

And as far as Real goes, I'm not sure what anyone expects they could've done... Refused Franco a seat at the stadium? Refused invitations to attend events after winning trophies? Be serious.
They whole meme is absolutely ridiculous once you put in minimal research.

It is a very complicated time in Spanish football, and don't get me wrong, there was a power struggle going on the entire time.
Once Bernabeu became president they slowly began gaining steam (and power) but what made them a world famous brand was their product on the pitch, nothing else. Even so, they lost Kubala to Barca and only got Di Stefano after a lengthy saga - both transfers were done with some shady stuff going on, but ultimately it was down to the players.

...

But again, don't take my word on it - just don't make silly comparisons with Nazis without researching either.

Like I said, without even going into political books about the Franco era in Spain, just a football book is enough to give you a (mostly non-biased) look into the rivalry and the two clubs since the Civil War (Sid Lowe's "Fear and Loathing in La Liga").

OK, the book sounds intriguing and I'll look into it. If it makes you feel any better I'll admit there is definitely much I don't know about the specifics of the time. The main thing I have a problem with is your argumentation. Being the tool of a fascist regime is being the tool of a fascist regime. You don't get to say "there's nothing they could have done so they're clean".

 

[Deficient Mode]

OK, the book sounds intriguing and I'll look into it. If it makes you feel any better I'll admit there is definitely much I don't know about the specifics of the time. The main thing I have a problem with is your argumentation. Being the tool of a fascist regime is being the tool of a fascist regime. You don't get to say "there's nothing they could have done so they're clean".

Yeah. The point of the association with Franco isn't really that any of their success - or at least the success in the 50s - was due to Franco. It's that they embraced Franco and his terrible politics to stay ahead.

 

[koyvoo]

If most posters on this sub forum would post with logic rather than emotion...

 

[les Habs]

@Corto revising history yet again I see.

The fact of the matter is that Madrid very clearly benefitted from Franco. Madrid's stature and the bulk of their success is something I would argue came from that as a result of the di Stefano transfer, which thanks to a Franco appointee and acolyte by the name of Moscardo who headed the Spanish Federation at the time even happened at all. To somehow equate the Kubala deal with that of di Stefano is bad enough, but to say it was ultimately down to the player is ridiculous. And while the transfers had some "shady stuff" going on, as Phil Ball (a self professed "fan" of Real Madrid per his own words in White Storm) states in Morbo (see below) the Spanish Federation blocked the transfer of di Stefano to Barcelona despite FIFA's blessing given for the deal. That's more than just "shady stuff".

I've read a few books on La Liga and Spanish football over the years. A pair from Phil Ball, White Storm: 100 Years of Real Madrid and Morbo: The Story of Spanish Football, as well as Jimmy Burns' Barça: A People's Passion. If you not only read the material, but also put it into context, it's very clear the relationship between Franco and Madrid and the fact that Madrid benefitted. There's a paragraph from the Burns book which I will cite here because it no only debunks most of the revisionism being posted above, but because it also uses primary source material:

"Such was the political intrigue surrounding the negotiations, once FC Barcelona had reached an initial memorandum of understanding with River Plate, Trias Fargas used a secret code when communicating with his father by telegram. As he explained to him, in a letter, 'As you know, FC Barcelona has come to an understanding with di Stefano and the Argentinian club River Plate. It would seem that Real Madrid was trying to get in on the act, but Barça has managed to get in first. Football in our country has become a very important issue, as it is the only way we can collectively convey our regional aspirations. Therefore the di Stefano question is a national problem. That is why the telegrams are being sent in code form. We know for a fact that our telephones are being bugged by the government of Madrid, which claims to be defending the integrity of the Spanish state.'"

I'd be remiss if I didn't also point out that line about how football had become an important issue and the only way they could convey their regional aspirations. So for those who have displayed their ignorance in the past as to the meaning of "more than a club", this tells you why that statement exists and it's from a primary source from the 1950s.

Going back to Madrid not benefitting immediately after the war, my response would be "well of course they didn't." Of course they didn't benefit immediately after the Civil War because Franco had his hands full in the immediate aftermath. Also, while there is a difference between a fascist dictator making sure his team gets all the advantages and all the trophies and a fascist dictator making use of a club's success to promote his own political goals, that difference doesn't really doesn't matter if both are true.

I'll finish by saying that Santiago Bernabeu fought in the Spanish Civil War. Guess which side he was on.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Yup the Di Stefano "transfer" was one of the main reasons why they have so many CL... and they all should be taken away. It's pure robbery. Also f*** Spain in general. He's Argentinian.

 

[Live in the Now]

This was a very classy touch. Hopefully the CL winner is playing tomorrow either way.

 

[Corto]

Gonna be an interesting match tonight.

I've said for a long time now that Klopp's Liverpool has the game to hurt big teams, including the biggest, in the CL; but I'm not sure Roma will play like a "big" team.
If they choose to clamp down on defense, set the line close to their 25m line, and wait for counterattacks, that's the only way I see Liverpool having issues.

Rooting for Liverpool, but Roma's story is pretty good this season, so as long as the match is good, I'm happy.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

I'm not gonna be mad if Liverpool wins this tie, but holy shit I want Roma here.

 

[Incubajerks]

Gonna be an interesting match tonight.

I've said for a long time now that Klopp's Liverpool has the game to hurt big teams, including the biggest, in the CL; but I'm not sure Roma will play like a "big" team.
If they choose to clamp down on defense, set the line close to their 25m line, and wait for counterattacks, that's the only way I see Liverpool having issues.

Rooting for Liverpool, but Roma's story is pretty good this season, so as long as the match is good, I'm happy.

Rooting for Liverpool here too watching the game with friends who are Lazio fans. For me, Rome will play tight and with high defense.

 

[Savant]

Wish both teams were going to the final, but there can be only one. My coworkers are going to be miserable.