|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE |  |
All-Spanish final didn't offend me
Posted: Thursday June 01, 2000 03:30 PM
CNN/Sports Illustrated World Sport anchor Phil Jones is going on special assignment to cover Wimbledon and Euro 2000. He will be submitting regular columns for CNNSI.com. His mailbag will return in August. More questions and comments on the Champions League format this week after my indication I preferred the old European Cup and suggested the Champions League was in fact a misnomer. Time to put the lid on this particular topic, plus a few other subjects for discussion.
I feel your problem is that you don't like a Spanish final. I'm sorry about it, but it could be that Valencia, Barcelona and R. Madrid are better than Manchester and Bayern. Any case Real Madrid won 7 cups as Liga champion...what's the matter about Valencia?
No, an all-Spanish final didn't offend me at all. Once more to the hard-of-understanding, I don't think it should be called the CHAMPIONS League when non-national champions are involved. Call it something else. Champions League is a misnomer! Nothing is wrong with Valencia. They had a fabulous season. It's the fact they were fourth the season before and still able to compete in the CHAMPIONS League which I wasn't fond of, my friend. I'd feel the same regardless of the team... Spanish, German, English or Outer Mongolian. It's the format I don't like. Too many games... too many teams.
Living in London, and seeing the Champion League final on tv, I'd agree with Zbynio from Houston; the after-match talk on the tv and newspapers was all about Mcmanaman the way they made it sound was that he single handedly won it for Real. Did they forget about the goals of Morientes and Raul? I'm so sick and tired with how the English think that they are the greatest; just saw the Brazil - England match and the press are still making out that it was a great performance, I dunno I hope they do get "trashed" at Euro2000 and shown how football should be played... oh yes funny how they stopped calling the Premier League the best in the world now... at last they have finally realized that La Liga is...
Phil, I think you're completely right! This year's European Champions League final had nothing European in it, except for the fact that Spain is in Europe. I felt like an outsider watching it, there was nothing international in it. It has, like you said, "gotten out of control". If it continues like that we'll have a World Cup with a final in which two teams (A and B) from the same country will play against each other. I think Galatasaray's win was not only spectacular, but also brought something new to the already boring European Cups which are normaly disputed between four countries: Spain, England, Germany and Italy. I think these countries should have a league just for them (in which places from 1 to 10 can take part), and the rest of Europe should have a normal league.
Phil, I understand your view's on the "Old European Cup." I remember Malmo getting into the final. Those days are gone. Big money TV does not want Malmo; they want the Man Utd, Real Madrid of this world. When the big money TV bubble bursts, believe me it will, we will have our European Cup back. Until then get out the videotape of Nottingham Forest winning back-to-back Cups in the early 80's.
According your comments about the new european "champion", I have to ask to you:
when a country can put 2 or 3 teams in the champions league, probably we will have a country championship where the teams will be happy to be place 2nd or 3rd.
don't you think that all the fantasy of football will be lost with this, with the teams playing for the champions league instead of playing to be national champions?
A lot of teams are certainly getting way too excited about finishing second, third or even fourth in their leagues.
Hi Phil,
I just wanted to remind everyone that the crown of Europe has not been given yet. Now that we have two champions, Galatasaray and Real Madrid, the true champion of Europe will be decided on August 26 in Monaco in the European Super Cup.
Excuse me, Phil Jones, but this final just shows the high level of the Spanish Primera division. Valencia and Real are actually the best team of Europe. If you don't like you could speak with UEFA, and change the rules ¿ok? But the Spanish teams are the best teams of Europe, and if you don`t think that, you could ask to Lazio, Bayern, Manchester or Barcelona trainers. They have demonstrated along more than 16 matches that they must be in Paris. The king of Europe must be the best team in present moment. Finally, sorry but the next year you will see the same, ¡the exit of Spanish football!. Vixca Valencia!!
Why don't you have any respect for the spanish teams?
La liga de estrellas is the best in the world.
I never once disparaged Spanish teams. Indeed I went out of my way to point out Valencia had a great run, beat some top teams and were deserving of their place in the final. Again -- for those of you who continually interpret things as you want to suit your own arguments -- I don't like a Champions League which has more non-champions in it than title winners. If they must do that at UEFA, call it the European League. It's masquerading under a false name right now. The Spanish League is just fine and dandy.
I absolutely disagree with your comments about Valencia. I guess you must be very jealous that your team/s are not in the final or because it disturb you that two teams from the same country are in the final and overall, Spain. Sorry maybe next time. This is the time of the life for Valencia. So sit down and enjoy Valencia victory.
Cheers Valencia!!!
Visca Valencia!!
Oh dear, someone else thinking I was having a direct dig at Valencia. Yes, they did do superbly well to reach the final... but no, you interpreted the column all wrong. That comes with being passionate about your team, I suppose, so I'll forgive you.
This is not a question but a comment. I too believe it should be for champions ONLY, thus the name Champions League. My two favorite teams would be in the UEFA Cup or at home but that is where the also-rans belong. Sorry to vent my spleen in your mailbag but this really pisses me off.
Hello Phil, I can't believe what you have written, and I'm here thinking that maybe you don't know all the soccer that you should. Do you remember the old format when you found yourself with a semifinal in which two or three teams came from leagues that didn't measure up? Do you remember PSV, and Steau Buccarest winning the tournament when they wouldn't win in more than 1 out of 1mn times if it had to be played again and again? Do you remember most of the intelligent soccer fans of the world saying that the UEFA Cup winner was the true winner because they had matched up against better teams? Do you remember a quarterfinal between maybe Barcelona and Grasshoppers, of all teams? I'm sorry but Valencia and Real Madrid deserve to be where they are because they have played the best soccer this year against teams like ManU, Lazio, Barcelona, B Munich, etc. Don't you agree that maybe a league champion from one year can be a very bad team the next, and that maybe the runner up really is the best team and deserves to win the whole thing. I'm sorry but what you have written proves to me that you don't enjoy watching good soccer. Please let me know what you think. Alberto
PS: Do you remember Milan's victory in the 1990 European Cup? Except for Madrid they played really, really, really bad teams. Now is that a true Champion?
I do enjoy watching good soccer, just to clear that one up for starters. I appreciate the idea of the big teams going head-to-head on a more regular basis. I like to watch those games too -- I really do. But there are a lot of double standards in some of the comments I've received on this subject. The Champions League is so diluted already that it didn't really start to catch fire this season until the latter stages of the second group phase and then the knockout stages. You call PSV's Dutch league a league that doesn't measure up. Yet next season, Heerenveen -- who finished second in the Netherlands -- will be joining PSV in the Champions League. Tiny Heerenveen. Surely they are not fit to lace the boots of those "mighty" teams from Spain, Italy, Germany and England. What poor minnows (do I sound sarcastic enough?). I take it having such a club involved with those leagues that do "measure up" offends you. We might even get a third Dutch team coming through the qualifiers. Now that would really get to you. Three teams from a league that, in your eyes at least, doesn't "measure up". Oh yes, this Champions League is a great format...I don't think. Suddenly you seem to think fans of Swiss, Dutch, Belgian, Romanian and heaven knows what other leagues don't deserve to see their teams have a fair crack at the European title. They were worthy enough for almost the first four decades or so of the European Cup and should not be discarded like dirt now.
I agree absolutely 100% about all you said.
Do you think Italian soccer has lost its magic a little bit?
Now they are signing people like Josemari and Gerard, not too great players as years ago.
Thank you.
I think Serie A is still right up there with the Spanish League as the best in Europe. There are so many world-class players there. They didn't have a magical season in Europe, but I'm sure that was a temporary blip. Less famous players come and go in teams in Italy and beyond, so we shouldn't read too much into that.
Hi and congratulations for your great column and your very on target views about soccer. I just want to say that i absolutely agree with you that is a shame 2 non champions team will be playing the final of the Champions. And really who believes that Valencia and Real Madrid are the two best teams in Europe... please c'mon. The two best teams in Europe without a doubt are Man U and Bayern, two real champions not second or thirds in their leagues. I won't be watching the final, because to me they are mediocre teams. Thanks Phil
Hi Phil, It seems that the Turkish national team will consist of at least 8-9 Galatasaray players in Euro 2000. 11 are already in the 25 players selected for the national team. A kind of pressure has been started on Mr. Denizli by the Turkish media to basicly field Galatasaray in Euro 2000 with 1 or 2 reinforcements. This would definately be an advantage for the Turkish side over the other national teams since such a Turkish team would be more of a team. They are not used to be beaten in Europe and it would be very difficult for the Spanish team for example rather than Barcelona. What do you think their chances would be.
I know other nations have tried this before to varying degrees of success. I think the Turkish coach has to play the loyalty card to some degree and will most likely stick with the players who got Turkey to the finals. But it will be difficult to ignore Galatasaray's tremendous success this season and, if the pressure mounts on him from fans and media, we may yet see Galatasaray's super seven or elite eight (from the 11 of their squad members) take the field at one time. Their confidence couldn't be much higher. It could just work in Turkey's favor.
In your last mailbag you had a letter from Jim in Taunton. He said that fans who travel to away matches should stay away from the bars and other areas where there might be trouble. But as a travelling football fan, sometimes you only feel safe when you are in a large group of your own team's supporters. If I am not in my hotel room, I would rather be in a bar with fellow football fans. This isn't because I am a hooligan, but if you are walking around a city by yourself, and you stumble across a group of opposition supporters, you may be in trouble. But if you are with a group of your supporters, then 9 times out of 10, there will be no trouble. If trouble does start, then 98% of the fans will leave the area, leaving the bad element to create trouble and give us all a bad name.
A point well made, Jack.
The Australian cricket team after winning the most consecutive amount of one day games in succession, are now looking to equalize the best record in tests when they confront the West Indies in Brisbane in November. Reports especially in Australia have debated whether this current group of players make up the best team of all time, ranking up there with the Australian team of the 1930/40s ( The Invinceables) and the great West Indian teams led by Clive Lloyd and co. It would be impossible to know if they are the best of all time, but facts are facts that when you look at it, this talk has really only came about in the last six months. The aussies defeated the Paks 3 nil in an entertaining series. Pakistan being a good team and all, really were never expected of toppling the aussies in Australia. They then thrashed India who never threatened them except for Tendulkar and then they beat New Zealand who although played some good cricket and will be a contender in years to come, they were never gonna stop the rampaging aussies. There is no doubt that the aussies are the best in the world at the moment by a country mile with daylight second. Sure they are not as dominant when playing away from home especially in the Sub Continent. But with only South Africa possibly the one team at the moment and maybe Sri Lanka who could give them a run for their money, there is no doubt that they are the number 1 cricket nation but to say they are the best of all time is misleading.
Paul, it is always difficult comparing eras, you are right. They are one of the best teams of all-time, but to categorically say they are THE best is tough. All we can say for sure is that they have some great players, with great determination and resilience. They are a cut above the rest right now. If they continue in this winning vein, though, and we look back in years to come at their achievements, they might just be worthy of the tag of "best of all-time." Achievements like theirs grow in folklore status with each passing generation. In most mailbags I see most people saying that ladies tennis is more exciting that the men's, well I beg to differ. a)We all know that you won't find a champion of 4-6 Slams before 20 yrs on the men's side (Miss Hingis), it takes more that being a sensation to win slams on the men's side. b)In other sport like athletics women cover the same distances as the men,they may not match the time but they are being stretched to the same limit, so I think we should have 3 sets played on the ladies side as well. I still wonder what would have happened in last year US Open final if it went to a third(Hingis vs Williams), I think we would probably not talking the same results, I may be wrong,but you'll notice that in most cases the winner of the 1st set wins the match but in the men's side it sometimes takes 5 to secure a title.
c)Davenport and Hingis will probably win every major between the maybe Serena can come in here if she can focus and wake up on the right side of her bed. In men's tennis it is remarkable to reach 4 Slam final in a row (Agassi) in the womans it has become somewhat expected.
Your View?
I suspect most people say "more exciting" where the women are concerned because of the more regular face-to-face match-ups of the top stars. Fans like the best players to meet -- and usually get their wish. There are generally fewer upsets in early rounds. Thus we'll see more Hingis-Davenport finals than we will Agassi-Sampras finals. The top female players do provide us with a good deal of exciting action and have produced some of the best Grand Slam finals in the last decade. Graf-Hingis at the French Open last year was a classic and, to me, more exciting than a five-set US Open final between Agassi and Martin. You make some interesting and well-observed points. As a tennis fan, I embrace both sides of the game but also view them as separate entities in many ways. I appreciate the different qualities both have to offer.
Pete's injuries and seeming drop in mental concentration has me concerned about his attempt to break the grand slam record; has the beginning of 2000 signified the beginning of the end for pete?
He's been written off before and rebounded. Clearly, he's nearer 30 than 20 and cannot reach the heights every week of the year. But he is still able to peak for Wimbledon or the Davis Cup and can still break that record of 13 Slams. The beginning of the end for tennis players is the moment they are no longer at their absolute peak all the time, when they lose that air of invincibility and the injuries start to creep in. That isn't to say they can't peak for major one-off challenges. Sampras can still do that for several more years to come.
That's it for this week and for the next couple of months, because I'm on Euro
2000 and Wimbledon duty, so will be writing regular columns from each
tournament instead. The mailbag will return in August. Until then, thanks for
all your input.
| ||||||||||||||||||||
