The state of Italian Football

[Guest]

There was one twonk from the Bundesliga section who tried to insult me like a child for saying that Serie A is better than the Bundesliga.

Another year, yet more proof that Serie A is much better.

[Asura]

17 minutes ago, Cicero said:

Monchi

How much of an impact he might have had? He just moved there this season and dont think he made any major changes to the team or anything upstairs within just 8 months. Or are you saying he brought in luck?

[Cicero]

16 minutes ago, Asura said:

How much of an impact he might have had? He just moved there this season and dont think he made any major changes to the team or anything upstairs within just 8 months. Or are you saying he brought in luck?

No idea, but it involves him.

They lose Salah, Rudiger, and Totti, yet they work with a poor budget and go beyond expectations. 

All too similar with Sevilla. Stars leaving yet scout and spend brilliantly.

[Dr. Gonzo]

24 minutes ago, Asura said:

How much of an impact he might have had? He just moved there this season and dont think he made any major changes to the team or anything upstairs within just 8 months. Or are you saying he brought in luck?

I'd say it's definitely a notable impact, considering all of the points @Cicero just listed above. Lost 3 key players and yet here they are, knocking out one of the favourites for the CL.

[Asura]

I get it that they knocked out Barcelona despite losing those three players but my question was did Monchi make any signings by himself to replace them or is this just a coincidence. I dont follow much of Italian Football so i dont know if he made those shrewd decisions and keep Roma ticking despite the tight budget and losing their good players. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 minutes ago, Asura said:

I get it that they knocked out Barcelona despite losing those three players but my question was did Monchi make any signings by himself to replace them or is this just a coincidence. I dont follow much of Italian Football so i dont know if he made those shrewd decisions and keep Roma ticking despite the tight budget and losing their good players. 

Roma made quite a few signings: Schick, Under, Kolarov... probably others, tbh. He's the Director of Football, so I think ultimately he must take responsibility for Roma's ins and outs. But considering they had to sell at least one big name player in the summer, and it ended up being Salah, I think he's done well to set Roma up for success on the low budget.

His tenure as DoF for Sevilla led to 11 trophies for Sevilla, so I think he's generally a pretty good DoF.

[Machado]

[Asura]

29 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Roma made quite a few signings: Schick, Under, Kolarov... probably others, tbh. He's the Director of Football, so I think ultimately he must take responsibility for Roma's ins and outs. But considering they had to sell at least one big name player in the summer, and it ended up being Salah, I think he's done well to set Roma up for success on the low budget.

His tenure as DoF for Sevilla led to 11 trophies for Sevilla, so I think he's generally a pretty good DoF.

Yeah mate that was my question and the bold explains it. I was trying to see who were the players that were signed after he took over as the director at Roma, since I dont follow Italian Football. I know about his story at Sevilla though.

[El Profesor]

7 hours ago, Asura said:

How much of an impact he might have had? He just moved there this season and dont think he made any major changes to the team or anything upstairs within just 8 months. Or are you saying he brought in luck?

Obviously, it has some of his footprint, but in my opinion this is not team his yet. Alisson, Dzeko and Nainggolan, the most important players on the team, were not his signings. I think Monchi is a great football mind and that he will take Roma to another level, but it´s still very early. 

If I had to mention someone off the pitch, it´d be James Pallotta. After Franco Sensi´s death the club was in serious financial trouble. The new americans promissed success and invested heavily initially. It didn´t work out well, with Luis Enrique and Zeman leaving the club after one season. The start wasn´t easy, but the american owners seem to have found their footing.

When their new stadium is completed, the expectation is that Roma will increase their revenues and get even stronger, like Juventus after leaving Delle Alpi. This growth in revenue coupled with Monchi´s management is very promissing.    

 

Now, if there many reasons to be optmistic about Roma, Milan´s scenario on the other hand looks a lot bleaker. I haven´t heard much recently, but their new chinese owner is apparently bankrupt. 

[Dalmore]

Roma is going for the Champions League, Lazio is going for the Europa League and this Sunday they battle for the 3rd spot in Campionato with both teams having 60 points each for the time being.

YOU CALL THIS A CRΙSIS?!

Close this idiotic topic and open a new one about Inter and Milan's current state. Those two are the ones who are having the real problems because Chinese businessmen have taken control of both clubs, and they have screwed everything up.

[Panna King]

On 4/5/2018 at 09:44, Devon Von Devon said:

 

Are Italy and Netherlands in the same boat or both have different issues ?

The problem in italy is the lack of Italian talent coming through, the Italian players do seem to peak late in their careers, but the Italian clubs are able to hold on to their youth players.  In The Netherlands there have always been talent but the problem over the number of years is that the talent is leaving The Netherlands at a ridiculas age.  There is a problem as instead of staying in Holland, playing first team football, maturing and growing as a footballer until they are good enough to leave to bigger and better things.  The youth of Netherlands are leaving to big teams in Europe to their youth teams because of money,  it is going to their head, they lose focus and are never seen again, it's happening time after time.   Its very hard for teams like PSV, Feyenoord and Ajax to develop Dutch players, there needs to be some ruling in place as the Eredivisie is going down the America/South America route now for their talent. 

[SirBalon]

42 minutes ago, VanPaddy said:

The problem in italy is the lack of Italian talent coming through, the Italian players do seem to peak late in their careers, but the Italian clubs are able to hold on to their youth players.  In The Netherlands there have always been talent but the problem over the number of years is that the talent is leaving The Netherlands at a ridiculas age.  There is a problem as instead of staying in Holland, playing first team football, maturing and growing as a footballer until they are good enough to leave to bigger and better things.  The youth of Netherlands are leaving to big teams in Europe to their youth teams because of money,  it is going to their head, they lose focus and are never seen again, it's happening time after time.   Its very hard for teams like PSV, Feyenoord and Ajax to develop Dutch players, there needs to be some ruling in place as the Eredivisie is going down the America/South America route now for their talent. 

A big part of the reason as to why Italian players peak late is because in general (I know generalisations are there to be dissected) Italian clubs (the big ones) historically haven't given them consistency in playing time. They get their major chance late on.

Another factor is the traditional manner in which Italian football has always been played which relies a lot on physical prowess and under that scenario an athlete’s strength and stamina reaches its peak in the mid twenties. 

[Panna King]

2 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

A big part of the reason as to why Italian players peak late is because in general (I know generalisations are there to be dissected) Italian clubs (the big ones) historically haven't given them consistency in playing time. They get their major chance late on.

Another factor is the traditional manner in which Italian football has always been played which relies a lot on physical prowess and under that scenario an athlete’s strength and stamina reaches its peak in the mid twenties. 

There is also a huge number of foreigners as well in Serie A, there is no restrictions apart from 2 non EU players. 

[Asura]

Speaking of Juve vs Madrid match last week, I think Allegri made a mistake by trying for the equaliser way too hard. It was only 1-0 when Ramos received an yellow and confirmed that he wont be playing the next match, also their other CB backup Nacho was already injured the weekend before. They should have been a little patient and let the match end at 0-1 and that would have been easier to chase at Bernabeu against a weaker CB pairing of Varane and someone else. It has nothing to do with the Italian Football crisis I assume but Allegri not thinking of other consequences during the match, but I could be wrong.

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

6 hours ago, SirBalon said:

A big part of the reason as to why Italian players peak late is because in general (I know generalisations are there to be dissected) Italian clubs (the big ones) historically haven't given them consistency in playing time. They get their major chance late on.

Another factor is the traditional manner in which Italian football has always been played which relies a lot on physical prowess and under that scenario an athlete’s strength and stamina reaches its peak in the mid twenties. 

The way Italians develop players is a lot differently to others. They don't have B leagues that compete in lower leagues and their youth/reserve league is much more limited - it's U19s (which really means you can play there until you're 20). If you're older than 20 but not ready for first team football in the Serie A... you're going to ply your trade in the Serie B. Or C/D. And Serie D is basically the non-league equivalent.

So you get talented young players that get first team football, but at clubs that don't have good resources compared to most championship teams. Thus, their development is a bit stunted. The practice of co-ownership of players, where promising young players would be sold to smaller clubs all around Italy, but still be owned by the club where they started, was a better system for Italian grassroots football imo. Because when players were brought back from the club that developed them, they got better compensation which they could then throw towards youth facilities, new players, etc.

Nowadays, since co-ownership's been banned for a few years, Serie B and below clubs are relying very heavily on loans from bigger sides. Which ultimately leads to less money going down to the bottom of the Italian football pyramid. I think the scrapping of co-ownership in Italian football without really making real changes to how young Italian players come through the ranks is ultimately detrimental to the overall health of Italian football. As are Inter and Milan's atrocious ownership from Chinese businessmen, who have no clue how to run a successful football club.

I'm not sure I agree that Italian football has always relied on physical prowess. I think that's more true of English football, which is much more physical and much more quick. Italian football is more patient, methodical, and has more tactical chess-match style matches. Tactical organisation is key to success in Italian football. The league is just suffering from a lack of quality compared to previous eras, because the league simply isn't as financially lucrative as other big leagues. And that's also why I think you see top players that have lasted a very, very long time in Italy. Because they could play beyond their peak athletic years and still have more to give: Buffon, Maldini, Zanetti, Totti, etc. 

[SirBalon]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The way Italians develop players is a lot differently to others. They don't have B leagues that compete in lower leagues and their youth/reserve league is much more limited - it's U19s (which really means you can play there until you're 20). If you're older than 20 but not ready for first team football in the Serie A... you're going to ply your trade in the Serie B. Or C/D. And Serie D is basically the non-league equivalent.

So you get talented young players that get first team football, but at clubs that don't have good resources compared to most championship teams. Thus, their development is a bit stunted. The practice of co-ownership of players, where promising young players would be sold to smaller clubs all around Italy, but still be owned by the club where they started, was a better system for Italian grassroots football imo. Because when players were brought back from the club that developed them, they got better compensation which they could then throw towards youth facilities, new players, etc.

Nowadays, since co-ownership's been banned for a few years, Serie B and below clubs are relying very heavily on loans from bigger sides. Which ultimately leads to less money going down to the bottom of the Italian football pyramid. I think the scrapping of co-ownership in Italian football without really making real changes to how young Italian players come through the ranks is ultimately detrimental to the overall health of Italian football. As are Inter and Milan's atrocious ownership from Chinese businessmen, who have no clue how to run a successful football club.

I'm not sure I agree that Italian football has always relied on physical prowess. I think that's more true of English football, which is much more physical and much more quick. Italian football is more patient, methodical, and has more tactical chess-match style matches. Tactical organisation is key to success in Italian football. The league is just suffering from a lack of quality compared to previous eras, because the league simply isn't as financially lucrative as other big leagues. And that's also why I think you see top players that have lasted a very, very long time in Italy. Because they could play beyond their peak athletic years and still have more to give: Buffon, Maldini, Zanetti, Totti, etc. 

Excellent post, one of the best I've read in a long time. Both yourself and Cicero have had some amazing posts in recent months but this particular post is what I love to read and so informative but with one's own view on things without copying someone else's language.

Thank you!

[ScoRoss]

23 hours ago, ScoRoss said:

This aged well.

Aging like a fine Italian wine.

[Dalmore]

I feel so disgusted after what happened in Bernabeu tonight. You guys know I hate Rubentus but what I saw tonight was a massacre. Juventus was about to achieve a similar feat to Roma but the referee stopped them in the end. Not only he gave away a ridiculous penalty but after that he sent off Gigi. This was his last game in CHL and it's just sad to say goodbye like that. Even as an Inter fan who loathes Bianconeri I feel sorry for them tonight, Juventus shouldn't be out of the Semi Finals and Buffon doesn't deserve to end his career in Europe like this.

[DeadLinesman]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The way Italians develop players is a lot differently to others. They don't have B leagues that compete in lower leagues and their youth/reserve league is much more limited - it's U19s (which really means you can play there until you're 20). If you're older than 20 but not ready for first team football in the Serie A... you're going to ply your trade in the Serie B. Or C/D. And Serie D is basically the non-league equivalent.

So you get talented young players that get first team football, but at clubs that don't have good resources compared to most championship teams. Thus, their development is a bit stunted. The practice of co-ownership of players, where promising young players would be sold to smaller clubs all around Italy, but still be owned by the club where they started, was a better system for Italian grassroots football imo. Because when players were brought back from the club that developed them, they got better compensation which they could then throw towards youth facilities, new players, etc.

Nowadays, since co-ownership's been banned for a few years, Serie B and below clubs are relying very heavily on loans from bigger sides. Which ultimately leads to less money going down to the bottom of the Italian football pyramid. I think the scrapping of co-ownership in Italian football without really making real changes to how young Italian players come through the ranks is ultimately detrimental to the overall health of Italian football. As are Inter and Milan's atrocious ownership from Chinese businessmen, who have no clue how to run a successful football club.

I'm not sure I agree that Italian football has always relied on physical prowess. I think that's more true of English football, which is much more physical and much more quick. Italian football is more patient, methodical, and has more tactical chess-match style matches. Tactical organisation is key to success in Italian football. The league is just suffering from a lack of quality compared to previous eras, because the league simply isn't as financially lucrative as other big leagues. And that's also why I think you see top players that have lasted a very, very long time in Italy. Because they could play beyond their peak athletic years and still have more to give: Buffon, Maldini, Zanetti, Totti, etc. 

TL;DR

[Dr. Gonzo]

22 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

TL;DR

Development of young players in Italy is way different (and scrapping co-ownership of players in Italy while trying to keep development the same, means the Serie B clubs and below that do the bulk of young player development aren't compensated the same - and will probably impact the number of quality Italian players coming through). Also saying that Italian football relies on physical prowess is pretty inaccurate imo.

*edit* Oh I just saw the other notification that you upvoted the post and this TL;DR is probably just taking the piss. Dammit, lol 

[Smiley Culture]

Over the past ten Group Stages, Italian sides have a 79% (22/28) qualification rate, which I think is pretty reasonable. Over the past ten Finals, they’ve had two winners and two losing finalists (England has one of each, Germany has one winner and three losing finalists). 

I don’t think Italian clubs are doing as poorly as being made out in the opening post. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

The league's looking pretty interesting now.

1 point is separating Juve and Napoli after Napoli's dramatic win (also the first team to go to Juve's new stadium and have them Juve fail to make a single shot on target). Just below them, the Rome sides are fighting it out for 3rd place and CL qualification. They're level on points. And Inter Milan is one point behind them.

It's less interesting at the bottom of the table. Particularly when you've got one of the worst Serie A sides I think I've ever seen ever in my life rooted to the bottom of the table. But there's still quite a few sides in the relegation battle fighting for their lives.

So as for the state of the Serie A... I actually think it's the best it's been in years.

[Dalmore]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The league's looking pretty interesting now.

1 point is separating Juve and Napoli after Napoli's dramatic win (also the first team to go to Juve's new stadium and have them Juve fail to make a single shot on target). Just below them, the Rome sides are fighting it out for 3rd place and CL qualification. They're level on points. And Inter Milan is one point behind them.

It's less interesting at the bottom of the table. Particularly when you've got one of the worst Serie A sides I think I've ever seen ever in my life rooted to the bottom of the table. But there's still quite a few sides in the relegation battle fighting for their lives.

So as for the state of the Serie A... I actually think it's the best it's been in years.

 

I second that. screw the starter of this topic 

[Guest]

On 4/11/2018 at 18:06, Smiley Culture said:

Over the past ten Group Stages, Italian sides have a 79% (22/28) qualification rate, which I think is pretty reasonable. Over the past ten Finals, they’ve had two winners and two losing finalists (England has one of each, Germany has one winner and three losing finalists). 

I don’t think Italian clubs are doing as poorly as being made out in the opening post. 

Exactly! but you know: saying that Serie A > Bundesliga is OuTlAnDiSh 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The league's looking pretty interesting now.

1 point is separating Juve and Napoli after Napoli's dramatic win (also the first team to go to Juve's new stadium and have them Juve fail to make a single shot on target). Just below them, the Rome sides are fighting it out for 3rd place and CL qualification. They're level on points. And Inter Milan is one point behind them.

It's less interesting at the bottom of the table. Particularly when you've got one of the worst Serie A sides I think I've ever seen ever in my life rooted to the bottom of the table. But there's still quite a few sides in the relegation battle fighting for their lives.

So as for the state of the Serie A... I actually think it's the best it's been in years.

5 years ago it was a lot worse, I agree. Overall the standard of the league is better than it was, but you well know the league will still have its doubters because they have 3 CL spots and the stadiums don't fill up as much as other European leagues, when in reality it's a close call between Serie A and the Premier League for the second best league.