FrazT Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Can this thread not be closed.. I think about 7 of 13 threads have been closed .. lol Not closed so far, but it is being watched closely though;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeeman27bob Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Why? You don't know what could happen. What if the FA/UEFA step in and force United to clear their debts... what if Man City get a team that gels? There'd also be no point in managing teams like Villa, Everton or Tottenham, if no matter what you did, you couldn't win the league. That was my point, it doesn't and shouldn't happen like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner86 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Not closed so far, but it is being watched closely though;) If anything this thread has had some very good and well reasoned arguments (If I do say so myself ) Best discussion I've had in ages. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeeman27bob Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 To prove money aint everything .. I personally love the challenge ..Arsenal always go to the top of the league every season remember but they arent as rated as city who have money .. ( umm Arsenal have money as well) Of course i should not say UTD ARSENAL AND CHELSEA should all win, but i think the gap between the top 3 should be at least 10 points from anyone below that for now ... So you'd chose to manage a team, where it was hardcoded into the game that you couldn't finish above fourth for the first five seasons? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welshace Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 " man city won the prem in my game :O .. this is bonkers /crazy etc" what a load of tripe... so your telling me... you only ever want man utd or chelsea to win the prem? every season? get out ..... just go... man city have a brilliant squad... huge financial backing and should/can win the league if managed right irl and certainly in game.. I wouldnt be totally shocked if the likes of Everton , Tottenham or Villa win the league in real life.. so i wouldnt be shocked if they won it in game also.. as for burnley getting 11th being totally unrealistic... think back to the start of the season... would you have thought Brum could be where they are now? no... and if you say yes.. your either a deluded fan or a football dunce.... anyway.. my point is thus.... it seems some of you arent asking for a game with many interesting outcomes.... but an actual simulation of real life events.. ie a highlights bloody engine showing whats going on in real life.. me? il be clapping my hands and jumping for joy i see burnley or someone win the prem in my game... adds to the fun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Not closed so far, but it is being watched closely though;) oH Lord .. lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 In season 1 maybe you have a point, but that depends on who you're managing. If I was managing City (which I haven't done on FM10) I would expect to be closer than 10 points if I got all the players I wanted.Arsenal have money... but no-one really knows how much. Unless Usmanov or Kroenke step up their shareholdings in the club, I don't think that they come anywhere near the financial muscle of Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea. For that reason Arsenal are probably the most challenging team to manage out of that 4. I agree with what you say about enjoynig the challenge which is why I chose to manage Villa in my current save. Where it's taken me 5 seasons to be considered a title challenger. That's because financially they aren't as strong, and while I have managed to secure the signings of Rooney, Mata, Huntelaar, Sneijder, Fabregas, Sakho and Modric. It has had to been done over years. My point with that is that with City have the financial clout to bring in those players within the first 2 summers (ie by the start of the second season) and thus could be title challengers (at the very least) for the 2010/11 season. I agree with what you are saying but it takes time to build a team , Look at city now they are good but if they finish 5th what will people say .. They can still finish 5th remember .. Liverpool are bad but they always end up 4th .. Now due to the money city have they can build a team which can compete for maybe top 4 or top 3 for now ( in the future they will challenge ) as for now they cant challenge for the title.. I just dont think Utd Chelsea even Arsenal will just sit back ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quininho09 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 bristol city are on mine, they won fa cup in first season on my save and even tho they still in championship theyve almost qualified in theyre group in europa league lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
x42bn6 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Arsenal, because the classic Arsenal mid-season collapse isn't coded in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandy Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Not closed so far, but it is being watched closely though;) Hey FratzT, over there, a flying monkey. I don’t think that Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal should be the ONLY title contenders, what if they have bad tactics? It’s a simulation, let the game play out as it happens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 So you'd chose to manage a team, where it was hardcoded into the game that you couldn't finish above fourth for the first five seasons? Ill take the challege and will finish in the top four in five seasons.. One thing i would like to say .. In this FM a team can be built without the crazy money city have .. Its just about finding good players who can jel. Not every player cost 30m .. lol Verrati cost 100k Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 bristol city are on mine, they won fa cup in first season on my save and even tho they still in championship theyve almost qualified in theyre group in europa league lol. Millwall got to the final so its kl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hey FratzT, over there, a flying monkey. I don’t think that Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal should be the ONLY title contenders, what if they have bad tactics? It’s a simulation, let the game play out as it happens. my point was if City are going to dominate like how they have been in the game then UTD Chelsea and Arsenal are underrated to an extent where they all end up mid table teams deep into the game .. Sure these 3 teams have debts but they have the money to run .. And as long as they keep winning it should not matter .. Also i hope Barnet get Bought Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner86 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I agree with what you are saying but it takes time to build a team , Look at city now they are good but if they finish 5th what will people say .. They can still finish 5th remember ..Liverpool are bad but they always end up 4th .. Now due to the money city have they can build a team which can compete for maybe top 4 or top 3 for now ( in the future they will challenge ) as for now they cant challenge for the title.. I just dont think Utd Chelsea even Arsenal will just sit back ... Ah OK. I see what you mean. I'm not saying that City instantly have rights to be winning the league in the second season... Just that I'm not surprised that it's happening. The thing is with Arsenal and Man Utd is that if you take out their key players (say v Persie and Rooney) they will struggle. Not to the extent of finishing out of the top 4 but enough that it gives City an opening. Whether or not they take this chance is obviously then down to a number of factors, form, fitness, morale etc etc. In principal I think we sort of agree on the same thing - Man City have the potential to be challengers. I think we are just disagreeing on the time scale in which they reach that potential. In this case, I don't think there can be a definite time scale that can be set and in terms or realism only time will tell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeeman27bob Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Ill take the challege and will finish in the top four in five seasons.. One thing i would like to say .. In this FM a team can be built without the crazy money city have .. Its just about finding good players who can jel. Not every player cost 30m .. lol Verrati cost 100k It wouldn't be a challenge to finish in the top four, especially after the first few seasons, but what you're actually saying is this: Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal must win the league for the first five seasons. They might go into administration, but they still have to win the league. They might sell all there players, but they still have to win the league. Why? It's clearly not the case in real life. Yes they might have won most of the titles in recent years, but that doesn't mean other teams can't win. Say for example those three teams lost every game for the rest of the season in real life, leaving Manchester City, Aston Villa and Birmingham to take the top three spots. Does that mean that in next year's game those three teams should only be the only ones allowed to win the league for the first five seasons? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skan Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I dont think theat SI need to make it that Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal only win the leauge. They just need to put an even bigger gap in quality to show they are more likely to win it, the same with teams like Spurs and Villa to show that they will probably get a top 10 place with the squads they have. Also if managers have all these attributes like players do, why is Fergie failing to bag a top 4 place in the second season. As for City, I do see them ruling the Premiership if there allowed to spend silly every year, like chelsea did (They might even get 4th place in this season). but maybe it would be natural that they should beat around 3rd and 4th places before there team gels together completely. and Fulham aren't underrated, they always get a mid table position in my game - My beloved Birmingham City are underrated, If i manage somone else but them they always get relagated in the first season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner86 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Ill take the challege and will finish in the top four in five seasons.. One thing i would like to say .. In this FM a team can be built without the crazy money city have .. Its just about finding good players who can jel. Not every player cost 30m .. lol Verrati cost 100k Even though, it appears we have been at odds for the majority of this discussion I will agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
quininho09 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Millwall got to the final so its kl yeah but they beat villa lol who fin 3rd lol. but in most of my other saves they win championship in first season and then finish in top 7 of prem every season and getting to lots of finals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Ah OK. I see what you mean.I'm not saying that City instantly have rights to be winning the league in the second season... Just that I'm not surprised that it's happening. The thing is with Arsenal and Man Utd is that if you take out their key players (say v Persie and Rooney) they will struggle. Not to the extent of finishing out of the top 4 but enough that it gives City an opening. Whether or not they take this chance is obviously then down to a number of factors, form, fitness, morale etc etc. In principal I think we sort of agree on the same thing - Man City have the potential to be challengers. I think we are just disagreeing on the time scale in which they reach that potential. In this case, I don't think there can be a definite time scale that can be set and in terms or realism only time will tell. Exactly .. Also think about it , it is the same for City , Real , Barca and all big teams .. You take out their key players they will underperform ... Imagine if you take out just these 3 players from City do you think they will finish in the top 4 ... Given , Tevez and Barry ... Key players ( im not sure they will finish in the top 5 ) Rooney , Rio , Vidic ... Key players Van Persie , Eduardo , Fabregas Key Players Essien , Terry , Drogba Key Players Torres , Gerrard Key Players .. These teams will struggle if they lose these players ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafuge Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Instead SI should make it so that only Chelsea and Manchester United (possibly Arsenal) should win the league for the first five seasons. Swap Arsenal for Spurs (which would be my answer to the OP based on what I've seen) and this did happen in my game. In fact Man Utd and Chelsea dominated for a lot longer than the first 5 seasons. Man City were a bit unlucky though Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 It wouldn't be a challenge to finish in the top four, especially after the first few seasons, but what you're actually saying is this:Manchester United, Chelsea or Arsenal must win the league for the first five seasons. They might go into administration, but they still have to win the league. They might sell all there players, but they still have to win the league. Why? It's clearly not the case in real life. Yes they might have won most of the titles in recent years, but that doesn't mean other teams can't win. Say for example those three teams lost every game for the rest of the season in real life, leaving Manchester City, Aston Villa and Birmingham to take the top three spots. Does that mean that in next year's game those three teams should only be the only ones allowed to win the league for the first five seasons? Dont put words into my mouth .. I just think City are overated to an extent they underated Chelsea Man Utd and Arsenal ... What if Sheik wateva his name is leaves city if they dont win anything in 3 years ... I meant the league should be more open than how it is .. Im just basing my facts on City dominating when they havent won anything .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 I dont think theat SI need to make it that Chelsea, Man U and Arsenal only win the leauge. They just need to put an even bigger gap in quality to show they are more likely to win it, the same with teams like Spurs and Villa to show that they will probably get a top 10 place with the squads they have. Also if managers have all these attributes like players do, why is Fergie failing to bag a top 4 place in the second season.As for City, I do see them ruling the Premiership if there allowed to spend silly every year, like chelsea did (They might even get 4th place in this season). but maybe it would be natural that they should beat around 3rd and 4th places before there team gels together completely. and Fulham aren't underrated, they always get a mid table position in my game - My beloved Birmingham City are underrated, If i manage somone else but them they always get relagated in the first season. This is what i mean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeeman27bob Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Swap Arsenal for Spurs (which would be my answer to the OP based on what I've seen) and this did happen in my game. In fact Man Utd and Chelsea dominated for a lot longer than the first 5 seasons. Man City were a bit unlucky though You're meant to be on my side in this, the side of reason! I still don't see how anyone, with a reasonable mind, can think that it's right to have it hardcoded that only three teams can win the league for the first five seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ife Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 easily man city maybe everton b4 the patch(not sure if the patch had anything to do with it), b4 the first patch i had two saves where everton one in the first season, once without losing a single game(imagine how frustrating it was chasing their asses on the table). Anyone else experienced something similar? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 You're meant to be on my side in this, the side of reason! I still don't see how anyone, with a reasonable mind, can think that it's right to have it hardcoded that only three teams can win the league for the first five seasons. i did not mean it like that , i dont want this thread to get closed .. i think the challenge of the league title should be tighter than how it is... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafuge Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Exactly .. Also think about it , it is the same for City , Real , Barca and all big teams .. You take out their key players they will underperform ... Imagine if you take out just these 3 players from City do you think they will finish in the top 4 ... Given , Tevez and Barry ... Key players ( im not sure they will finish in the top 5 ) Rooney , Rio , Vidic ... Key players Van Persie , Eduardo , Fabregas Key Players Essien , Terry , Drogba Key Players Torres , Gerrard Key Players .. These teams will struggle if they lose these players ... I'd still quite fancy Man City without those three. Hart, Vieira and Bellamy could all come in and do a job. I'd worry about Man Utd though, they didn't look the same with a makeshift defence and Rooney would be impossible to replace right now. Arsenal always seem to have done ok without the two strikers, but they would miss Fabregas. Chelsea were surprisingly good while Drogba was away, maybe if Lampard was missing there would be a bigger difference. No need to comment on Liverpool, the fact you only named two says it all I'd say removing those players would perhaps give Man City a better chance of finishing in the top four, probably at the expense of Liverpool. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 You're meant to be on my side in this, the side of reason! I still don't see how anyone, with a reasonable mind, can think that it's right to have it hardcoded that only three teams can win the league for the first five seasons. Tottenham won the league inthe first season in my newcastle game they are as overated just slightly less .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafuge Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 You're meant to be on my side in this, the side of reason! I still don't see how anyone, with a reasonable mind, can think that it's right to have it hardcoded that only three teams can win the league for the first five seasons. Yes, that is a silly opinion. You only need to look at the rise of Chelsea to see how quickly things can change. They regularly just missed out on the CL before the money came in then they instantly became top three consistently. If anyone is overated it should be because of the current squad, not the effectiveness of their spending power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner86 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Exactly .. Also think about it , it is the same for City , Real , Barca and all big teams .. You take out their key players they will underperform ... Imagine if you take out just these 3 players from City do you think they will finish in the top 4 ... Given , Tevez and Barry ... Key players ( im not sure they will finish in the top 5 ) Rooney , Rio , Vidic ... Key players Van Persie , Eduardo , Fabregas Key Players Essien , Terry , Drogba Key Players Torres , Gerrard Key Players .. These teams will struggle if they lose these players ... I think with Arsenal in particular the sqaud lacks the depth that Man City can muster. The level of cover at City IMO means that even without Barry, Tevez, etc you still have players of a sufficient quality to pick up decent results, De Jong, Ireland, Bellamy, Johnson etc. and the money they have means that they are able to constantly improve. The same thing happens at Man Utd, look at the games where they've been missin Ferdinand and Vidic. They struggle defensively, and if they lost Rooney at the other end do you think Owen is still of the required quality to fill the immense gap. I know one player doesn't make a team, but Rooney has been fantastic for United this season and has carried the team in a Thierry Henry style manner at times... Honestly the guy must have shoulders like Atlas. I think the one thing that helps Man City out more than anything else IS the money. Players on this game by and large are drawn more by money than I've seen on previous versions. That though is the sad state of affairs that has come to be though in the real world as well though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeeman27bob Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 i did not mean it like that , i dont want this thread to get closed ..i think the challenge of the league title should be tighter than how it is... That's what you've said though. Admitidly I accept you weren't necessarily serious, but I wasn't going to let you get away with that flawed view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 I think with Arsenal in particular the sqaud lacks the depth that Man City can muster.The level of cover at City IMO means that even without Barry, Tevez, etc you still have players of a sufficient quality to pick up decent results, De Jong, Ireland, Bellamy, Johnson etc. and the money they have means that they are able to constantly improve. The same thing happens at Man Utd, look at the games where they've been missin Ferdinand and Vidic. They struggle defensively, and if they lost Rooney at the other end do you think Owen is still of the required quality to fill the immense gap. I know one player doesn't make a team, but Rooney has been fantastic for United this season and has carried the team in a Thierry Henry style manner at times... Honestly the guy must have shoulders like Atlas. I think the one thing that helps Man City out more than anything else IS the money. Players on this game by and large are drawn more by money than I've seen on previous versions. That though is the sad state of affairs that has come to be though in the real world as well though. Good Post .. Also what is good about money , City will never be bigger than Real , Barca , Utd or even AC .. History wise makes these teams more appealing .. Unless you just want money .. Players who love money too much just come for the sake of it .. Robinho is a example of a talent who would have been look after more at CHELSEA , UNITED or even Arsenal .. Money buys you trophies but it cant buy you the history which makes Super Teams so appealing .... Even Veron refused to join them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongo-Bongo Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I agree with what you are saying but it takes time to build a team , Look at city now they are good but if they finish 5th what will people say .. They can still finish 5th remember ..Liverpool are bad but they always end up 4th .. Now due to the money city have they can build a team which can compete for maybe top 4 or top 3 for now ( in the future they will challenge ) as for now they cant challenge for the title.. I just dont think Utd Chelsea even Arsenal will just sit back ... Well, actually, Arsenal have finished fourth for three of the last four seasons and haven't looked like even pushing for the title in that time, so by the logic you're using, they are overachievers this season. my point was if City are going to dominate like how they have been in the game then UTD Chelsea and Arsenal are underrated to an extent where they all end up mid table teams deep into the game ..Sure these 3 teams have debts but they have the money to run .. And as long as they keep winning it should not matter .. Also i hope Barnet get Bought This is more a problem with the games transfer system then clubs being over or underrated. In my game, into the sixth season, Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal have barely bought a first team player between them throughout the game. None of them are in financial trouble yet, so pressumably there is still money to spend, yet they buy players who never play or just promising youngsters who they fail to develop properly. Even Man City, who are the second club in England now, are failing to sign players of any real note and who are more squad players then first teamers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 That's what you've said though.Admitidly I accept you weren't necessarily serious, but I wasn't going to let you get away with that flawed view. , I just think SI Loves of City too much seriously ... And if city finish in the TOP 4 Next seasons game will be interesting ... Unitd won the League twice after this table .. But look at Tottenham and City .. You would think they have the same owner ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Well, actually, Arsenal have finished fourth for three of the last four seasons and haven't looked like even pushing for the title in that time, so by the logic you're using, they are overachievers this season.This is more a problem with the games transfer system then clubs being over or underrated. In my game, into the sixth season, Chelsea, Man Utd and Arsenal have barely bought a first team player between them throughout the game. None of them are in financial trouble yet, so pressumably there is still money to spend, yet they buy players who never play or just promising youngsters who they fail to develop properly. Even Man City, who are the second club in England now, are failing to sign players of any real note and who are more squad players then first teamers. True , I have noticed City prefer to spend money on superregens when they have been looked after and are becoming quality .. CITY WILL SPEND whateva is needed trust me .. They have offered me stupid money for players ... Arsenal are the same every year ... FEB MARRCH ( sometimes JAN ) Top of the league then they slowly go down .. They need a leader in the middle and the back and an injury free striker and they can be a title side .. Arsenal i think are underrated .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafuge Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Looks like your game has panned out rather oddly, Man Utd and Chelsea almost disappearing for 10 years straight away is a bit weird. I can understand Man City joining the top clubs, but Spurs as well? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Looks like your game has panned out rather oddly, Man Utd and Chelsea almost disappearing for 10 years straight away is a bit weird.I can understand Man City joining the top clubs, but Spurs as well? I think spurs have the best dealling in the market as noone knows who they go for as they always end up winning ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner86 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Looks like your game has panned out rather oddly, Man Utd and Chelsea almost disappearing for 10 years straight away is a bit weird.I can understand Man City joining the top clubs, but Spurs as well? In my save Chelsea and Man Utd are already starting to struggle. Arsenal aren't doing great either it's only Liverpool of the 'Big 4' who remain a big threat to the title. I agree with what Anderson is saying though and the problem really isn't that City dominate it's that it happens so quickly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunner86 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I think spurs have the best dealling in the market as noone knows who they go for as they always end up winning ... That's because they've got the tax dodging wheeler dealer Harry Redknapp at the helm. Always had a good record in the transfer market... He even convinced Sol Campbell that Portsmouth was abroad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafuge Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I think spurs have the best dealling in the market as noone knows who they go for as they always end up winning ... I'd say that in the first ten years, Man City's positions are more likely to happen in real life that Spurs'. There's almost no chance of them winning the league next year then finishing 2nd for the next three years. Man City winning the title within three years seems a much more reasonable idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chesterfan2 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 ManYoo and Chelski always come at or near the top in mine. I mean it's not even like real life is it ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlo116 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Looks like your game has panned out rather oddly, Man Utd and Chelsea almost disappearing for 10 years straight away is a bit weird.I can understand Man City joining the top clubs, but Spurs as well? Spurs have become a top four side on my liverpool save, in the first season the top four remained as it is irl but then Tottenham creeped in at the expense of Arsenal and now since Fergie retired Man City have taken Utd's spot, which i thought was pretty funny seeing as both Arsenal and Man utd were replaced by fierce rivals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corkey Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 I would have to say Tottenham are overated.... They are a good team IRL, but for me, on FM10 they seem to score about 5 pass me...... Especailly their Keeper Gomes!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Guys let me update my Danny thread ill b back on this .. This is a brilliant discussion .. lol also corkey .. Gomes is overrated Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangerpuss Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Spurs are definitely overrated. Modric is a good player but in FM2010 he's easily in the top 5 midfielders in the world. If he was that good, he wouldn't be at Spurs. Genoa are really overrated. They have a brilliant defence and are very easy to win things with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 I'd say that in the first ten years, Man City's positions are more likely to happen in real life that Spurs'. There's almost no chance of them winning the league next year then finishing 2nd for the next three years. Man City winning the title within three years seems a much more reasonable idea. And the intereting thing is we dont know who is gettin bought next .. You never know Everton can be the New City if some rich tycooon comes in for them IRL .. lol or Villa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FMAnderson Posted February 19, 2010 Author Share Posted February 19, 2010 Spurs are definitely overrated. Modric is a good player but in FM2010 he's easily in the top 5 midfielders in the world. If he was that good, he wouldn't be at Spurs. Genoa are really overrated. They have a brilliant defence and are very easy to win things with. Why not , Modric is a wonderful player ... He is always fighting Nani for the LW on my save .. He is Spur's best player by a mile .. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Edwards Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 So Liverpool were overrated despite being ranked no1 club side in Europe for most of last five years, second last year and over five years having a better record for PL points than arsenal? Bizarre! Needless to say our current issues are being reflected in the patch.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbutton Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Burnley are not overrated, they will win the league for one simple fact; they are the only club in the league with no debt apart from city but the have a pretty much an unlimited amout of money. B'ham need boosting in the new patch they are underrated but the most overrated team in the world is england, they seem to win all the tournements without fail, i think SI should code whatever they do to england into wales Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlo116 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 So Liverpool were overrated despite being ranked no1 club side in Europe formost of last five years, second last year and over five years having a better record for PL points than arsenal? Bizarre! Needless to say our current issues are being reflected in the patch.... yeah liverpool have the best points record in the epl than any other side but the OP is a utd fan and even though arsenal had a worse season than liverpool last season he still considers them much stronger than liverpool. But whatever its a good discussion, i have to say chelsea seem slightly overrated as they won the epl one season only losing one game and that was to man city on the final day of the season. They have a good team and a great manager but to do that a couple of seasons in without replacing their aging stars seemed a bit bizzare but i guess it could happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichiboy08 Posted February 19, 2010 Share Posted February 19, 2010 Tottenham. They are a good side and one of my favourite British teams but I can't see them winning the league in the next two years...which is what happens on my save game :/. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.