2017-18 Champions League
- Thread starter Titans Bastard
- Start date
I have no problem with the C word being used to describe football players, it's a common term in the UK, I actually grew up with it on the foootball field before I knew what it meant . I have avoided using the term on this football forum because I know people may be uncomfortable with it. I mean in the UK, we call people pricks, knobs etc, it's not exactly objectifying men. Besides, if we don't allow the C word, Fletcher's posts would not be as entertaining. I vote carry on..
I'll join the others and also elaborate, in the hopes of illustrating the thinking here rather than just piling on.
"If certain language is offensive, then how can anyone say anything that's non-offensive?" is one of those fallacies you commonly hear in these conversations. Established norms can be simply wrong. In this case, the way I think of it is, if I'm going to insult something by comparing it to a group, it's OK if the trait linking that group is something they are, rather than something they did. Call Alli a criminal. Say he's just another one of those shitheads. Or maybe, opt to describe his entitled, diving, selfish ass and his pouty, overly-coiffed, punchable face specifically, rather than by comparison to some group.
I used to be one of those "c'mon, context!" people. No longer. It doesn't matter how I meant it, it matters how the listeners / readers hear it. If, once advised of how my words are received, I can't be bothered to adjust my phrasing to accommodate the people I'm speaking to, then they're not the ones with an attitude problem.
Look, I welcome reading your posts and even your hot gamethread takes. Nobody is saying you're a bad person. They're asking you to stop using one particular word. A word which was a flashpoint for the first extensive soul-searching we had as a community, years ago now, as to how we could stop being so routinely and casually offensive to women. You could have replied with "right, replace that word with 'dipshit' then", and everyone would have moved on. But instead, now you're calling us "people seeking offense". You don't get to claim the moral high ground when you're the one making it personal.
"Cunt" attempts to deride its object through comparing him to a female body part. For it to have any insulting meaning, the speaker is implying that we all (of course) must have a dim view of women or their bodies. I don't care if it hasn't yet gone out of fashion in Great Britain, it is packed with the same snide and biased weight as derisively calling someone "fag" or "retard", which similarly suggest that those who are homosexual or mentally handicapped are subhuman. Brits are known for their diverse command of language, or like to think so, anyway. Surely there is another word you could draw from your deep linguistic quiver to let us know exactly how little you think of Dele Alli. I'm right there with you on Alli, but the word you chose is particularly offensive to women, and makes not a small number of men wince as well.
"If certain language is offensive, then how can anyone say anything that's non-offensive?" is one of those fallacies you commonly hear in these conversations. Established norms can be simply wrong. In this case, the way I think of it is, if I'm going to insult something by comparing it to a group, it's OK if the trait linking that group is something they are, rather than something they did. Call Alli a criminal. Say he's just another one of those shitheads. Or maybe, opt to describe his entitled, diving, selfish ass and his pouty, overly-coiffed, punchable face specifically, rather than by comparison to some group.
I used to be one of those "c'mon, context!" people. No longer. It doesn't matter how I meant it, it matters how the listeners / readers hear it. If, once advised of how my words are received, I can't be bothered to adjust my phrasing to accommodate the people I'm speaking to, then they're not the ones with an attitude problem.
Are you, in fact, sorry? Because, you just did a "i'm sorry you feel that way" / "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. Practically the dictionary definition of a non-apology apology. "I don't actually regret what I did, I wouldn't go back and change a thing, but I'm now supposed to use the word 'sorry' here in a sentence to make you all feel better... you oversensitive pansies."
Look, I welcome reading your posts and even your hot gamethread takes. Nobody is saying you're a bad person. They're asking you to stop using one particular word. A word which was a flashpoint for the first extensive soul-searching we had as a community, years ago now, as to how we could stop being so routinely and casually offensive to women. You could have replied with "right, replace that word with 'dipshit' then", and everyone would have moved on. But instead, now you're calling us "people seeking offense". You don't get to claim the moral high ground when you're the one making it personal.
Lets talk soccer/football in all its glory, and worry less about potentially offending those without privilege by assuming that, by my hypothetical potential use of the word implies that I use it from a position of privilege and I do so explicitly as an action to "flex" the muscle of privilege.....that's a fallacy and a hypersensitive, false morality position.....lets revel in the game, warts and all.
Just out of curiosity. If someone called Louis Suarez:
a) A prick
b) A cunt
Which one would you be more offended by? Both take a vulgar term of both female and male anatomy to describe a conteptible person. For the record, I think both are apt. I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find some posts a distraction from CL discussion.
In American English, the answer is plainly (b). That's because slurs of any variety - gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc - only gain the power to cause pain and offense because they are associated with a power imbalance that includes exploitation and unfairness.
That's why there are no blanket slurs in American English for white men. There are slurs based on class or specific ethnicities (because the poor and certain ethnic groups have faced discrimination), but nothing generic that applies to white men across the board.
The context of the slur and identity of the speaker both matter because offensive words are connected to historical and current realities. That's why it's okay when a black man calls another black man the n-word and it's not okay if I do it.
Because men as a broad group have never faced discrimination in Western society, words like prick just aren't as offensive as words used to diminish the power and status of historically more vulnerable groups like women.
I guess that's where I get lost. I think context is key. If you go to a football game in the UK, it's pretty much certain that you will hear fans shouting that so and so is a useless C---. pretty much throughout the game. In the U.S I tend not to use the word because it's regarded as being really crude . My American wife, who would normally be offended by the term if used with the same "vigour" at a baseball game found it OK when we went to a Scottish game last year. She put it down to culture, she was not offended. I don't think most fans when they use the term are consiously trying to be sexist. Maybe I'm naieve. In Scotland we also interchange C--- with Fud. It means the same thing.
My wife and her entire family are British. My sister in law has been a full time employee of Chelsea Football Club for the last three plus years.
Both would absolutely kick my ass if I used that word in any context, here or there.
If we decide that this word is OK to use in the soccer forum here because reasons, count me out of posting here again (not that I have much anyway, no big loss to the rest of you). We're not in the UK (at least the vast majority of us), and we aren't posting on a UK board. You want to flex your vulgarity over there, knock yourself out. Here you just look like an unoriginal idiot that can't come up with a different work like 'jerk' or 'asshole' to refer to Luis Suarez. I'm not going to participate in that shit because a bunch of upper middle class American dudes get pissy they can't use words they shouldn't be using.
EDIT: I apologize for the tone of the above, but it's galling that people can't just accept that particular words, even if they don't bother them on a personal level, might bother other people. I'm not offended *personally* by the particular word in question, but I know pretty well a fair number of people who are. Hence I don't use it, and I don't find it that difficult (YMMV of course). I stopped calling my friends fags and retards a while ago for the exact same reasons.
Both would absolutely kick my ass if I used that word in any context, here or there.
If we decide that this word is OK to use in the soccer forum here because reasons, count me out of posting here again (not that I have much anyway, no big loss to the rest of you). We're not in the UK (at least the vast majority of us), and we aren't posting on a UK board. You want to flex your vulgarity over there, knock yourself out. Here you just look like an unoriginal idiot that can't come up with a different work like 'jerk' or 'asshole' to refer to Luis Suarez. I'm not going to participate in that shit because a bunch of upper middle class American dudes get pissy they can't use words they shouldn't be using.
EDIT: I apologize for the tone of the above, but it's galling that people can't just accept that particular words, even if they don't bother them on a personal level, might bother other people. I'm not offended *personally* by the particular word in question, but I know pretty well a fair number of people who are. Hence I don't use it, and I don't find it that difficult (YMMV of course). I stopped calling my friends fags and retards a while ago for the exact same reasons.
Last edited:
Besides... to call Luis Suarez and Dele Alli by the same invictive is lame. They aren't remotely the same type of player or the same type of agitator.
Suarez is a cannibal.
Alli is a flopper.
There is zero reason for crude invictives other than a lack of imagination. I know everyone here does not lack imagination...
Suarez is a cannibal.
Alli is a flopper.
There is zero reason for crude invictives other than a lack of imagination. I know everyone here does not lack imagination...
To me it boils down to the fact that we're a community of friends here with a like minded passion. Several of the people in this thread I've met personally and I consider friends. If a friend of mine asked me to stop using a particular word or turn of phrase because it bothered them, I would, even if it didn't make a ton of sense to me.
If any of you are legitimately bothered by the term prick or knob (or any other word), I'll be the first one to stop using it. I'm not going to be really all that bothered that someone asked me to choose a different noun or adjective. That's me though.
If any of you are legitimately bothered by the term prick or knob (or any other word), I'll be the first one to stop using it. I'm not going to be really all that bothered that someone asked me to choose a different noun or adjective. That's me though.
As someone with the same first name as Suarez, the only offense I take to this post is that you misspelled his name.
But seriously, I've long stopped using the c-word (like Seven, this was due to some not-so-gentle prodding by wife) and now cringe when I hear it. So put me in the camp that's in favor of retiring its use in all contexts.
I'll have to apologize for my lack of knowledge on the history and debate of C word usage on SoSH. I thought this discussion was couched in a more generic discussion of language and cussing. Moreover, this discussion has been enlightening to me and I think it's a big step forward that it's even occurring without devolving into a circlejerk (that's still ok, yeah?). If the word genuinely offends people, I will happily abstain. I know my usage of the word "retard" has gone down to almost 0 over the past 5-10 years and my usage of the C word was never nearly as common, so it's not a big change personally.
With no snark intended though, can "bitch" be used in here or on SoSH generally? It's certainly less vulgar than the C word. As I understand and use it, the term is used to describe a player that flops, shies away from contact, or is otherwise soft. While some (probably most) would view it as a derogatory allusion to women, does the fact that bitch has other meanings mitigate that at all? What about using bitch as a verb? Any different?
--
GETTING BACK TO FUTBOL, notwithstanding Spurs' collapse yesterday, English clubs are looking very up ATM. MANC look to be one of, if not the, best sides in Europe at the moment. Liverpool appear to be in that second tier just behind them, Barca, Madrid, Bayern, and Juve (IMO). Chelsea are in a competitive position heading into their second leg vs. Barca and despite all the injuries and my disdain, MANU has a great opportunity to advance. Even in defeat, Spurs acquitted themselves well and can hopefully build on this season's European campaign.
Meanwhile, German clubs look like they are very much in a down cycle aside from Bayern. Dortmund was not competitive in a group of death and Leipzig couldn't get out of the softest group. In retrospect, it's no surprise that Hoffenheim couldn't hang with Liverpool in the playoffs.
Spain continues to be led by Madrid, who dismantled PSG in the second leg after a much tighter first leg. I thought the scoreline from the first leg was very unfair to PSG, but respect must be paid to results (as yesterday showed in favor of Juve). Barca are very much in a dogfight with Chelsea in one of the bellweather matchups (along with MANU vs. Sevilla and Roma vs. Serie A ineptitude). Barca will be put to a serious test without Iniesta. There will be a lot of pressure on his replacement (likely Gomes, but Paulinho, Vidal, and Dembele are all viable options for EV). Sevilla advancing over MANU would be a big statement in favor of La Liga's quality, but I think MANU will ultimately advance. Atleti not advancing from a very difficult group points to Roma's quality.
And that leads to an interesting point - with 2 teams likely to make it into the UCL QF and 2 other teams likely to make it into the EL QF, is the tide beginning to turn for Serie A after a decade in the wilderness as a result of the Calciopoli? La Liga and the Bundesliga are also likely to have 2 clubs progress to EL QF, but even being able to compare Serie A to these other leagues seems like a big step forward, even if no club other than Juve seems prepared to challenge for Serie A and UCL glory in the same season soon.
With no snark intended though, can "bitch" be used in here or on SoSH generally? It's certainly less vulgar than the C word. As I understand and use it, the term is used to describe a player that flops, shies away from contact, or is otherwise soft. While some (probably most) would view it as a derogatory allusion to women, does the fact that bitch has other meanings mitigate that at all? What about using bitch as a verb? Any different?
--
GETTING BACK TO FUTBOL, notwithstanding Spurs' collapse yesterday, English clubs are looking very up ATM. MANC look to be one of, if not the, best sides in Europe at the moment. Liverpool appear to be in that second tier just behind them, Barca, Madrid, Bayern, and Juve (IMO). Chelsea are in a competitive position heading into their second leg vs. Barca and despite all the injuries and my disdain, MANU has a great opportunity to advance. Even in defeat, Spurs acquitted themselves well and can hopefully build on this season's European campaign.
Meanwhile, German clubs look like they are very much in a down cycle aside from Bayern. Dortmund was not competitive in a group of death and Leipzig couldn't get out of the softest group. In retrospect, it's no surprise that Hoffenheim couldn't hang with Liverpool in the playoffs.
Spain continues to be led by Madrid, who dismantled PSG in the second leg after a much tighter first leg. I thought the scoreline from the first leg was very unfair to PSG, but respect must be paid to results (as yesterday showed in favor of Juve). Barca are very much in a dogfight with Chelsea in one of the bellweather matchups (along with MANU vs. Sevilla and Roma vs. Serie A ineptitude). Barca will be put to a serious test without Iniesta. There will be a lot of pressure on his replacement (likely Gomes, but Paulinho, Vidal, and Dembele are all viable options for EV). Sevilla advancing over MANU would be a big statement in favor of La Liga's quality, but I think MANU will ultimately advance. Atleti not advancing from a very difficult group points to Roma's quality.
And that leads to an interesting point - with 2 teams likely to make it into the UCL QF and 2 other teams likely to make it into the EL QF, is the tide beginning to turn for Serie A after a decade in the wilderness as a result of the Calciopoli? La Liga and the Bundesliga are also likely to have 2 clubs progress to EL QF, but even being able to compare Serie A to these other leagues seems like a big step forward, even if no club other than Juve seems prepared to challenge for Serie A and UCL glory in the same season soon.
Two more words on the subject:
1) The mid-2014 discussion in backwash on the subject of sexism, word choice, and being a hostile environment towards women, was debated here, in case anyone wants to know more about where this board is coming from. While several dozen of the onetime frequent female posters on this board have not returned, anecdotally I think we're in a better place since that discussion.
2) While the terms "bitch" or "pussy" don't quite inspire the same level of visceral reaction from women (and feminist men) as the c-word, I've personally tried to refrain from those two, on the same line of thinking. The user of "bitch" never intends to demean its target by comparison to a female dog, but rather to an uncompliant or otherwise hostile woman (or the group thereof), and by suggesting they have all the negative traits of such a woman.
The English language just affords so many damn ways to call the likes of Alli a useless jizzstain or tosser or dickweasel or fucknugget... y'know?
-----
As regards a German fall from grace, you might be interested to know that they have fallen to 4th in the UEFA coefficient rankings, dropping below England and Italy, with Spain remaining #1 of course.
England is still alive to put 4 teams in the QFs, with 2 through (City & Liverpool), and 2 going into the second leg currently tied (Sevilla @ ManU on Tues, Chelsea @ Barca on Weds).
I just hope the Buffon revenge tour makes its next stop in Madrid.
I don't see Calciopoli as the impetus for Italy's down period. Both major clubs implicated in the scandal have appeared in the Champions League final since then and Milan has won it. The biggest reason is likely the failure of the Milan sides to field competitive teams for Europe, which has occurred mostly in this decade. In fact, Italy's two best teams in recent history, Napoli and Juventus, were both promoted from Serie B in 2006 so I don't think those old penalties still carry much weight.
I think next year will be very telling for Serie A clubs in Europe as they'll have 4 teams qualify directly to the Group Stage. (If 4th place Atalanta had qualified for Champions League this season and done poorly, I think that would have changed the perception for this season.) Milan is playing great recently, but its disastrous start will likely keep them out of Champions League. Inter basically tanked to avoid Europe, but is still in a fight for fourth despite to having to worry about fixture congestion.
Man United is 30 minutes from a double scoreless draw with Sevilla which would send the matchup to PKs. To their credit, both sides have been aggressively going for broke and it's only thanks to De Gea that this isn't at least 2-0 to Sevilla. This is one of the least boring ManU matches I've seen in a while.
aaaaaaaand a huge hole in DM lets Banega thread one to Sarabia in huge space, who runs 20 yards down the middle of the field with it. He puts it to Ben Yedder, who just came on and is the freshest person on the field, at the 18. And Ben Yedder slots it away on what really should be De Gea's side. Likely game over for Mourinho United.
Shame you guys dont have BT Sport, cos RIo Ferdinand and Paul Scholes are on pundit duty, alongside Stevie G...should be a fun post match.
My dad's fuckin beelin.
My dad's fuckin beelin.
Best team over two legs won. This is not a particularly good Sevilla club either, fifth in La Liga but with a negative goal differential and really not far from midtable.
I want to see Stevie strike a pose like Macca after the Liverpool-Man United Europa League tie a couple years back.
I can't get over just how much Jose got it right against Liverpool and so wrong tonight. He had all his players available, he had Rashford in good form, they were coming off a run of very good results with some come from behind performances, and then this...
It's hard to fathom. Sevilla played some decent stuff but looked pretty toothless in the final third and way below Man U's level. You pay all that money for Pogba to sit on the bench for most of the match? Very strange.
It's hard to fathom. Sevilla played some decent stuff but looked pretty toothless in the final third and way below Man U's level. You pay all that money for Pogba to sit on the bench for most of the match? Very strange.
I *think* Pogba isn’t fully fit and couldn’t play the 90 minutes. I hope so anyways because I’m starting to worry about him.
I’m with you on the performance. I did not see this coming. 3 wins on the bounce, 1 against Chelsea and 1 against Liverpool...I thought they’d win in a comfortable manner. It’s 100% on Jose.
I’m with you on the performance. I did not see this coming. 3 wins on the bounce, 1 against Chelsea and 1 against Liverpool...I thought they’d win in a comfortable manner. It’s 100% on Jose.
Sevilla were actually a fairly easy draw. They could have drawn Real Madrid or Juventus or Bayern Munich.
I did think Mou's selection of Lingaard was really strange and to a lesser extent, Fellaini too. MANU looked very threatening in the first 10-15 minutes, but looked real bad after that, especially at the beginning of the second half. Sevilla are a pretty solid team though and they've given up on the table in La Liga and are going for it as much as possible in UCL. Montella is doing a pretty good job in the post-Emery era. For whatever reason Sevilla have a ton of Argentines (Banega, Correa, Mercado, Pareja, and Pizzaro) and they are getting plenty of run there, so I'm a [totally biased] fan. Correa in particular looks like he may be able to offer something different and useful to the albiceleste. If that team had a better striker they could really do some damage (I thought Muriel was wasteful yesterday).
Nothing can top Mourinho trashing MANU in his post-match remarks yesterday though. As someone posted on Reddit yesterday (paraphrasing): "Mourinho knows that he's addressing Man United fans, not Jose Mourinho fans, right?"
Nothing can top Mourinho trashing MANU in his post-match remarks yesterday though. As someone posted on Reddit yesterday (paraphrasing): "Mourinho knows that he's addressing Man United fans, not Jose Mourinho fans, right?"
A midfield of Fellaini-Matic at home against a mediocre Sevilla side was terrible on one level but the side actually got worse after Pogba came onto the pitch: He was flat out awful and disinterested.
Mourinho has built a side that has no idea how to play in possession. I'm not sure whether its due to his training approach or the set of players that he has assembled (without any possession-oriented midfielders, center backs that aren't particularly good passers, and weak fullbacks) or both, but this club cannot boss matches against anybody good. They are hard to beat because he sets themselves up that way and because De Gea is playing on God Mode but they are fucking terrible with the ball. Sometimes it works out, like in the Liverpool match, where they score twice off route 1 long balls from the keeper and otherwise do very little in possession, and people call it a Mourinho masterclass. Sometimes it doesn't, like in this Sevilla tie, and you look end up getting dominated over two legs by a pretty average side. Either way, this approach has a low ceiling that is unbefitting one of the richest and most storied clubs in the world. Mourinho's past teams have always been defensive and oriented toward being hard to break down but they haven't been so utterly clueless when possessing the ball.
This is all true, but I'll add that they aren't that good without the ball either. Their defending has been very mediocre by Mourinho standards all year, and they've relied way too much on De Gea bailing them out. There's a case that their attack has been better than their defending this year.
We've played once ever in Europe. 2 years ago.
Best I can tell, the last time Manchester United beat a team from England, Spain, or Germany in a knockout tie in Europe was Chelsea and Schalke in 2011. Lost to Barca, Bilbao, Real, Bayern, Liverpool, and Sevilla since.
Last edited:
Actually, I missed one. You did manage to sneak by Celta Vigo in the Europa League last year. But yeah, disappointing performances in Europe aren't rare lately.
I never used to buy into this line of thinking, but as I've gotten older I've done a complete 180. The biggest richest clubs do have an "obligation" to play attacking-minded and innovative ball. However, I do think Mourinho was a good choice for MANU as they tried to reestablish some basic level of competency after their romp in the wilderness led by Moyes and LVG. That approach only makes sense if they ditch Mou at the end of the season or perhaps at the end of next season though.
On another note, EV and Conte are bringing the THUNDER in Barca-Chelsea today. EV selected Iniesta and Dembele and will likely have Barca resembling more of a 4-3-3 (although I think Dembele will be tracking back to help in MF, so a 4-4-2 of sorts), while Conte selected Giroud to pair with Willian and Hazard up front. This should be a fun tactical battle.
I agree about Mourinho. They were in a tough spot where they really needed to be relevant again. My strong suspicion, however, is that he will leave there this summer or next, having never really come close to winning either the league or the UCL. For a club of United's history and ambition, that has to be seen as a failure.
Yup, this match should be really fun, as long as Barca don't just blow their doors off in the first 30 minutes. Although I'm sure you'd be OK with that
.
Just wondering if there's any stats to back this up. they said last night that in the two legs against Sevilla, Man U had 4 shots on target. That's borderline criminal. Without De Gea, Man U's goal difference in the prem would be much worse than it is, we all know that, but I'd like to know how many shots on target they've allowed, and how many shots on target they've taken, and how that compares with the other more attack minded teams, and Chelsea.
I wonder if Jose will see out his contract. I've never been a Man U fan, or much liked rooting for them ever, but I can see that there is a tradition of playing exciting attack minded football. And, a tradition of a strong nucleus of home grown talent bolstered by some fine ROW players who fit into the squad and buy into the ethos of the club. The fans and several ex player pundits seem to be missing the Fergie style of play; the intensity of performance as much as the attacking flair.
Love em or hate em, there was always something intoxicating and enjoyable about the inevitable Man U all hands to the pump attack, attack with everything, when they were down a goal or needed a goal in the last ten to fifteen minutes of a match. The number of times we'd watch them and say, you knew they'd score, or, you saw it coming. It was always with a bang not a whimper.
You can find a lot of this data here: https://theshortfuse.sbnation.com/2017/11/21/16687422/arsenal-premier-league-advanced-statistics-xg-expected-goals-league-wide. It's mostly not good for United.
Chelsea haven't had a kick of the ball and they're down to a goal from Messi, from a tight angle. Nutmegs the Chelsea keeper...ouch.
That should have been a penalty. He went down easily but Pique clearly grabbed his arm from behind beforehand to slow him down. That's a clear cut situation. It doesn't matter if he goes down easily once you commit the foul and there is no way to argue that the contact was incidental or that the offensive player created the contact.
Oh well.
Chelsea have had a fair bit of the ball in the Barca final third, but they just could never carve out a great chance, could never get the killer pass. And then Barca who are not playing lights out, have Messi, who is basically superhuman.
Edit: Barca have some other decent players an aw. But Messi...good god.
Chelsea have had a fair bit of the ball in the Barca final third, but they just could never carve out a great chance, could never get the killer pass. And then Barca who are not playing lights out, have Messi, who is basically superhuman.
Edit: Barca have some other decent players an aw. But Messi...good god.