UEFA Champions League 2008-2009

Originally Posted by K77SH C

How many italians have we got in our starting lineup?

Nesta may never come back
Zambro over 30
Maldini about to retire
Bonera cant win a place in our starting lineup for long enough to count
Gatusso, I give you him
Pirlo, him too
Ambro, again over 30
Favalli, no words
Inzaghi, how long more?
Boriello, is he still alive

More importantly how many are we going to have in a couple of years?

Over 30, but they are in the team ...
Add Abbiati ...

The fact is that in most of our games, with the possible 6+5 rule, we could play ... most of the English teams couldn't, even with their benched players.
It's the same for Inter as well, even with their benched players, they couldn't play if this new rule was official.

Originally Posted by GeoTav

Over 30, but they are in the team ...
Add Abbiati ...

The fact is that in most of our games, with the possible 6+5 rule, we could play ... most of the English teams couldn't, even with their benched players.
It's the same for Inter as well, even with their benched players, they couldn't play if this new rule was official.

The point I was making about over 30 is that they wont or shouldnt be starters in a couple of years time. All our younger players who have the ability to command a starting place in our lineup are foreign.

The 6+5 rule isnt winning us any medals.

Inter have Ballotelli and Santon, which teenage Italians do we have that we would be confident to start in a derby or against Man United?

Man United have Rooney, Carrick, Ferdinand and as usual they have a couple of young players who are pretty close to the first team and yes English.

The point is, we dont really have the right to brag about our team having an Italian identity. the management has done nothing for this to continue.

What Galliani co. did in Carlo era to make Milan have italian identity were :
1. buying not-cheap but quality players like Nesta, Inzaghi, Pirlo and Gilardino
2. taking free transfer players or cheap players but experienced ones like Pancaro, Favalli, etc.
3. buying prospected and cheap players (but not very young) and growing up these players like Gattuso, Bonera, etc.
4. bringing ex. Primavera players (fresh from Primavera or loaned-out players) like Ambrosini, Antonini, etc.

Point 1 and 2 (especially 1) are difficult to do today as Milan are not ready to splash money and there are not as many as before quality players who are italian. The second point is due to our condition which needs younger and fresher players. The possible ways are to buy prospected players and utilise our youth teams. But the last one is like an impossible thing just because our young players (from youth team) especially italian ones are bad (or even very bad). The results of youth sector speak for it.

So, the most possible way is to buy prospected (U-23 or so) players and grow them up. But with this way, we won't be able to have a real italian identity by having italian players as starters as these players will be suitable as substitutes, not ready materials.

In the coming years, it will be very possible that there will be few italian players or even no one in our first-team players (starters) unless Milan change their transfer policy and/or developing youth sectors.

You know, almost all our players loaned or in co-ownership are Italian ... and they are at least 10. Of course, they are not all to the Milan level, but there are 4-5 players who could come back, as subs at start of course, and pretend to a starting spot sooner or later.

That said, to reply K77SH C, these over 30 players are not our future, of course, but they are currently in our team, and if you look at the last 10 years, we often bought players who were more than 27-28 (or even over 30), more often than U25 players ... except if we change our strategy, for 5 players who are over 30 who leave for example, the club will buy 3 players who are 30 or just over, 1 player over 25, and one player between 20 and 25. So even if the Ambrosini and co won't play anymore for us if this 6+5 rule becomes official, I'm pretty sure they will be replaced by other Italian players.

Originally Posted by Siregar

In the coming years, it will be very possible that there will be few italian players or even no one in our first-team players (starters) unless Milan change their transfer policy and/or developing youth sectors.

You can still give 2-3 years to Pirlo and Gattuso.
If Borriello stays, and if no other striker (Italian or not) comes, you also can give him 5 more years here, and probably some chances to prove himself as a starter, probably alongside Pato.
You can of course count Abbiati in the team for 2-3 more years too.
Who knows if Bonera won't explode (we thought that would happen after his last performances of last year but his injuries again wasted his season) ? If he does, he could become a starter, and we can still give him 5-6 years in Milan.

So, for the 2-3 years coming, you have maybe 5 potential Italian starters. Of course, only if Pirlo and Gattuso can still do well, and if Borriello and Bonera show more.

Add to that some Italian players who could be bought this summer ...

PS: I don't speak about Zambrotta, I'm sure he could play 2-3 more years for us as a starter, but I would prefer thinking we will have a younger player up for the task before

Well Bayern Munich is going to win this years UCL so who cares which league is better Serie-A, EPL or La Liga

My Analysis, Why EPL is better!
EPL looks the best league mostly because of its coverage in English language and the Compact Stadia, unlike Italy and to some extent La Liga where you have Olympic type stadia which are not good for Football to be honest. The home grounds of Juve and Roma are awful imo The fans in the stadia need to have binoculars to see whats happening on the pitch, because stands are that far. On TV, a neutral fan would like to see football being played in a compact stadium like Anfield etc than the wide open stadia of Roma and Juve That along with the coverage in English are the main reasons why people worldwide like to see EPL than Serie-A. Players and money has nothing to do with it. Man City has money, but they won't achieve much. So if you want to make Serie-A popular, then change the stadiums. Juve are doing it, so good for them. Roma, Lazio etc should also do it. Bayern did it some years ago and now they are much more attractive to watch on TV for neutrals Cool

Domination Cycle
As for 4 English teams in QFs of UCL, well it happens, so what?

-ACM dominating Europe in early 90's & Juve playing 3 UCL finals in row 1996-1998. Italian Domination

- In 1997, 2 German sides were the winners of UCL and UEFA Cup and none of them was Bayern Munich. Borussia Dortmund and Shalke 04 were the teams if I am not mistaken. Then Bayern played 2 UCL finals in 1999 and 2001. All pointing towards German Domination

- Then Real Madrid won 3 UCL in 5 seasons and semi finalist in 2003. Valencia playing 2 UCL finals. All Spanish final in 2000 and 3 Spanish sides in SF the same year. & the Barca winning in 2006 later on. All pointing towards Spanish Domination

- Then 3 Italian sides is last 4 of UCL 2003. All Italian final in 2003. ACM dominating Europe till 2007. All pointing towards Italian Domination.

- Now English teams are enjoying playing in UCL, so let them enjoy. Because it won't last for long. All it takes is 3-4 years for a change. Roman Abramovic will leave Chelsea. C.Ronaldo will join Real, Agger and Vidic will join ACM. Tevez will leave. Alonso to Juve, Febragas to Barca, Van Persi to Juve, Mascherano to Inter and so on. These are the things that will happen for sure

As for ACM, well once we change Carlo and bring in W.Schnyder, Zirkov, Vidic, Agger and Huntelaar etc, then no one will stop ACM from winning UCL 2009-2010

Don't worry guys, UCL is coming to its HOME in 2010, to the Red part of San Siro

I wouldn't call EPL better but their top 4 are very strong (stronger than Italy or Spain). Their physical game (as much to everyone's disappointment) is coming out on top.

Their top teams are stronger than the top 4 anywhere else but on the down side their league is less exciting to watch, unfair, unequal etc. A blanket judgement for the entire league is wrong. Their 5th to mid-table level clubs are pretty bad compared to Serie A and La Liga. Even Germany isn't that skewed. It's not a surprise then that their teams usually suck at UEFA cup.

It's true Italian teams have failed but it's not like they were miles behind the English clubs. Juve were the better team over the two legs. Inter was bad only for the first 45 min at San Siro, they dominated the rest of the tie. Roma were bad at London but were good in Rome (in relative terms atleast). If anything, Spanish teams have been worse. Villareal barely scraped through against Panathanaikos, Real were smashed and Atletico also dropped out.

All of Inter, Roma and Juve missed many chances they shouldve put away comfortably. Things wouldve been very different then. Not to mention the injuries at both Inter and Juve.

Actually, and it's not easy to say, Inter was at the same level than MU ... they just miss a real striker, because Ibrahimovic may be the best player in the world (it's what Inter fans probably think), he misses too many chances, especially against the best teams.

Roma was at the same level than Arsenal, I think we can't say anything else when the game ends by 7-6 in penalties ... lol

Juventus wasn't as good as Chelsea, they actually lacked one thing: experience. Except Buffon-Chiellini-Del Piero (and Nedved but he only played 5 minutes and spent the 5 other minutes falling each time he touched the ball lol), most of the other players don't really know CL.

I don't know Geotav, I watched both legs of Juve-Chelsea and Inter-ManYoo, i thought the Italians were better. The only thing missing really is the killer punch, which English teams have in plenty through players like Cronaldo. Inter created a lot of pressure but failed inside the penalty area. Juve actually dominated the Stamford Bridge leg but were, as you said, lacking the ability to create something because of experience. Roma-Arsenal was a balanced tie. You have to accept, Arsenal were sh*t in the away tie.

Originally Posted by GeoTav

Actually, and it's not easy to say, Inter was at the same level than MU ... they just miss a real striker, because Ibrahimovic may be the best player in the world (it's what Inter fans probably think), he misses too many chances, especially against the best teams.

Roma was at the same level than Arsenal, I think we can't say anything else when the game ends by 7-6 in penalties ... lol

Juventus wasn't as good as Chelsea, they actually lacked one thing: experience. Except Buffon-Chiellini-Del Piero (and Nedved but he only played 5 minutes and spent the 5 other minutes falling each time he touched the ball lol), most of the other players don't really know CL.

I agree with you and the dude, the difference between Juve/Chelsea, and Inter/Man Utdwas clearly that the Italian teams weren't as clinical. Inter missed loads of sitters, Cambiasso got the ball basicly on the goal line in the first game, messing it up and Ibrahimovic missed an absolute sitter of a header in the second game. Juventus were pretty much dominating both games, but then Chelsea all of the sudden scores on half a chance.

Zlatan is usually a very good finisher though, and he usually scores on chances like that. He just looked nervous in both games against Manchester United. Was like there was to much pressure on him, to many expactations, so he kept trying stuff beyond his abilities, like dribling the entire defence alone, and missed chances he'd usually put away. His record speaks for itself though, think the commentator said that he'd played 18(?) CL playoff games and never scored. That's a terrible record, even for a target man like him, who's job is more about laying off the ball, rather than poaching.

Originally Posted by Christian

Zlatan is usually a very good finisher though, and he usually scores on chances like that. He just looked nervous in both games against Manchester United. Was like there was to much pressure on him, to many expactations, so he kept trying stuff beyond his abilities, like dribling the entire defence alone, and missed chances he'd usually put away. His record speaks for itself though, think the commentator said that he'd played 18(?) CL playoff games and never scored. That's a terrible record, even for a target man like him, who's job is more about laying off the ball, rather than poaching.

I just noticed that he often fails to do anything against excellent teams (so often against an excellent defence). But it's sure, once he has a little space to play, this player can do miracles.

About his record, that adds some weight to what I said: he isn't at his best in important games ...

So if he doesn't solve this problem, he will never get any individual trophy !!

^^ He has zero support though...Inter has no set playmaker or anything. If they can solve that problem then Zlatan will be a beast.

Originally Posted by Mystik

^^ He has zero support though...Inter has no set playmaker or anything. If they can solve that problem then Zlatan will be a beast.

Ibra has a poor record against all the big teams, just like C.Ronaldo had prior to CL final 2008. I was shocked to hear that Ibra has no goal in the knockout stages of CL. Its a humiliating stat to have and the worst thing about it is he is 27. I wouldn't put him among the very best players of the world. As for being a 'Beast', well I would prefare to call Adriano a beast if he regain his form of 2004-2005, when he could have scored from any where on the pitch. He was scary, only to be over shadowed by ACM's 76.

Boring draw in my opinion, Liverpool vs Chelsea again

Villarreal v Arsenal
Manchester United v FC Porto
Liverpool v Chelsea
Barcelona v Bayern Munich

They must be sick of each other, 5 seasons in a row now.

Anyway Liverpool are looking immense ATM and I personally think it'll be a United vs Pool final.