telespallabob

You are few, so the gratitude is double. Always too kind.

So, Mescal. Let me be the first to respond to you since you're debuting on DeBaser by commenting on one of my reviews (by the way, one of the best I've ever done). It's not easy to combine a description of an album highlighting its key elements—I actually hate when it goes into minute details—and to add all those emotions it evokes in us. Especially because those emotions are changeable depending on the number of previous listens and the moment. Maybe you listen to the album in certain circumstances and feel particular states of mind. Or it could also be, as might be the case here, that you associate a specific feeling with a particular piece of music.

A nice movie, recently rewatched. Over the years, Ozpetek has significantly declined, but in his early films, he proved to be a good director and produced beautiful films.

Five just for the final note! P.S. With "less brit-pop and more soul," I hope the comparison was with Oasis, because I've never heard R.E.M. as brit-pop; it must be a fever effect.

I listened to them with interest, especially since I’m slightly reassessing their previous album. They continue to not fully capture my attention, and I’m not particularly passionate about them. I can’t find a connection, something that convinces me completely. I listen and think, “Okay, they’re good. The lyrics have interesting and appreciable references. Everything you say, though, feels distant to me.” Very simply, distant from me. I probably just can’t understand them, but it’s not even fair to say one has to appreciate them; it’s perfectly fine to admit that they don’t appeal to you that much. Is it a scandal? I don’t think so at all.

One who prefers the failure of their beloved team for another that resembles the former but isn't is called a fair-weather fan. I don't know any other definitions, and I've learned this lesson whether I liked it or not. Failure is the worst thing, especially from an ethical and moral perspective. You talk about coaches who are already established and mature (and those are rare cases in a football landscape no longer competitive and unable to nurture its own talent), I talk about the new school (and I see very few among B and C capable of such qualities). Guidolin is finding a way to make the most of Bojinov, who has suffered not only from known physical problems but also from having incompetent coaches. Totti was young during Zeman's time in Rome, but you wrote that he was already technically mature; I don't understand why this reasoning applies to him and not to Signori. Hold on, there’s a reason: to demonstrate Zeman's incompetence. "Totti at 15 was more intelligent on the pitch than Zeman in his entire life," am I wrong or is this your phrase?

It seems to me that you don't appreciate a great idea from Rossi. I saw Zeman coach in Salerno, and in my mind, there are different things compared to you. In my mind, there's a team that runs, fights, and never gives up. I will never again see a Salernitana that, with ten men, away, after a tough 2-2, still has the energy and desire to win (and they succeed in the '95 minute!). A normal coach would hold onto the result and go home. Zeman would never have done that. I saw a team that, despite its defensive limitations, entertained and excited the crowd. The most beautiful Salernitana of the post-Serie A (and it will be for a long time). You reason like a convenience fan; for you, results matter and nothing else. Not the identity that can be erased by a failure. Everything collapses, and we win back the cups, so we’re all happy. It’s easy to be a "football fan" that way. That kind of passion doesn’t interest me; otherwise, I would have been a Juventino! A player, even if very good, cannot make a team alone. It takes a minimum framework, and that either the club builds with big purchases, or, with cost-saving strategies, leaves this task to the coach. Zeman has always chosen the second option. With Zeman, I saw football despite people like Botticella (who was one of the most mind-blowing goalkeepers you could admire on a football field), Pierotti, and Vignaroli. Totti, at 15, had talent but couldn't have tactical intelligence. Mazzone made him understand he had potential; Zeman shaped and transformed it into a complete player! Come to terms with it: Zeman creates football players, and if he has quality material, he builds potential phenomena. Signori was a nobody before Foggia, playing in Serie C, and Casillo bought him for a pittance. He developed the first Bojinov, technically impressive but could not find capable coaches to help him make the leap in quality. He didn’t consider himself more important than the players: for him, the collective mattered. He didn't build a team around one player (as others do); he forced the individual to adapt to the team and to bring out their qualities in a group. He respected others' talent and recognized it but knew that you can't win alone, thus valuing the individual. He did this with Signori and Totti. Are they all professionals? Come on. Italian football is pathetic; there are no longer coaches who have done their time or are capable of nurturing a young player. We were fortunate to have one that has both these qualities, that is, Jose Mourinho, and we despise him because he gives journalists a hard time. Please... I stand by one idea: those who are used to watching the Champions League or seeing stars don’t understand football; it’s understood by those who spend their time watching Serie C and becoming disillusioned by incompetent footballers.

I don't want to be mistaken, but they also have something that brings them closer to Agnostic Front and early NOFX. I listened to them some time ago, but now I don't remember well; it might be that they didn't grab me, and so I dropped them quickly.

He conceded many goals because his philosophy was: whoever scores the most wins. He always believed in that and moved forward. The results? 9th place with Foggia is an extraordinary achievement; let’s remember the players he had. He achieved those results with squads that would have struggled under anyone else. Lazio? He finished second and third with a team that, apart from the attack, didn’t have these stars; it was a decent team. He was ahead of the Invincibles Milan, let’s remember that. He was ahead of the Parma of those years. All this with lineups that were weaker on paper but stronger in reality and in play (the latter being a product of the coach!). Cragnotti didn’t buy anyone for Zeman, but he bought Vieri, Nedved, Stankovic, Almeida, and the whole gang for Eriksson! The cost? 250 million in debt. You should have gone bankrupt, but politics SAVED YOU! Maybe some forget, but Lotirchio is the best you can afford; without him (set up by the center-right and Storace), you would have gone bankrupt ages ago! With Roma? Zeman had Paulo Sergio and Bartelt, Capello had Montella and Batistuta! Let’s not joke. Furthermore, Capello also got Emerson, Samuel, Chivu, and many others. Result? 400 million euros in debt, the amount that keeps Rosella from selling Roma since she would like to cover Italpetroli’s debts with its sale. It’s easy to win with debts on your back. Totti? Yes, it’s thanks to Zeman. After Mazzone, Mr. Totti was losing his way, Zeman relaunched him and turned him into the mature player that Capello found in his hands. I wonder if Don Fabio would have been able to nurture him properly. Why should I ask with whom he won? We know with whom he won. What we don’t know is what a coach is capable of providing from a human and professional perspective to a footballer. The answer comes directly from the player. You shouldn’t even be talking about Delio Rossi, considering you celebrate the life model Lotito when you sent away a great coach. One who took you to the Bernabeu with cast-offs, made you win derby after derby, and helped you progress technically. They improved to avoid ending up like their mentor, yet they are still ostracized by a society that makes you believe that coaches only cause damage, that they do their best, and that they don’t deliver results.

@Pixies, isn't Zeman a great coach? Nonsense. He was also a fine tactical thinker, starting from his first major example of football: Licata. He had ideas that had never been seen in Serie C (and barely seen in Serie A; he might have even anticipated Sacchi). In Foggia, the revolution arrived, and it's no coincidence that almost everyone in the early '90s played like him (and it’s no coincidence that we saw the peak of Italian football, with the smaller clubs conquering Europe. The Toro '91-92, Parma under Scala, and Cagliari in the UEFA Cup who went to win in Turin against the Lady.). They ran double the distance of others in the spring; his training regimens are still extraordinary today. The first two months were tough after a grueling pre-season, but then they exploded in the second half of the season (if I were Mourinho, I’d have him as a fitness coach, you’d see him win the Champions League!). There was sublime technical-tactical work, and he had a unique way of relating to players (which worked; just ask Totti what he thinks of Capello and Zeman. If Capello had arrived at Roma before, Totti would have NEVER exploded. We’d be here talking about a regret in football). Unfortunately, he also faded away partly because of his own faults, as he was unwilling to change his tactical ideas. A few adjustments would have been enough for him to remain the best of all. This benefited those who wanted him out of football. There are few improved clones of Zeman, and almost all of them are out of a job (starting from the FIRST of his students, Delio Rossi); many have denied having learned from him.