Well pull in the spending of the top 6 then and lets have some proper financial reforms.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Premier League 2010/11 general thread
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by abigsmurf View PostHolloway has been fined for playing a weakened side. Bet he doesn't quit...
I know lots of people dislike this rule but when you've managers like Mick McCarthy in the league who are pretty much throwing games it's needed. No one wants a league with the six or so bottom teams almost throwing games against the top 6.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Team Andromeda View PostSo why is ok for the likes of Man Utd , Arsenal to make massive changes to their side against Wigan, or Man Utd against Hull . How many of the Top teams makes changes before a Champions League match ?
* 21 Fabianski
* 03 Sagna
* 06 Koscielny
* 20 Djourou
* 22 Clichy
* 04 Fabregas yellow card (Rosicky 88)
* 08 Nasri
* 14 Walcott (Diaby 73)
* 17 A Song
* 19 Wilshere
* 10 Van Persie yellow card (Chamakh 76)
Arsenal v Wigan 3 days later:
* 21 Fabianski
* 03 Sagna
* 06 Koscielny
* 18 Squillaci
* 27 Eboue
* 02 Diaby (Wilshere 27) (Walcott 83)
* 07 Rosicky
* 15 Denilson
* 23 Arshavin (Nasri 82)
* 29 Chamakh
* 52 Bendtner
But it's okay, because teams like Man Utd, Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal and Man City can afford to have international quality players in reserve. It's basically a rule which hands another advantage to the rich, because they're the only clubs that can put out competitive reserve sides.
If the clubs at the top want to reap the financial advantages that constantly being in the Champions League and winning all the domestic trophies bring, they can't complain when teams at the bottom start thinking "what's the point?".
If the top clubs are really concerned with the "product" suffering because the small teams don't turn up, perhaps they should try and get some reforms through that help reduce the gap between the unbreakable elite at the top and the rest of the league.
Comment
-
The league isn't about the teams.
It's about the fans.
Who benefits when "avoid relegation at any cost" type managers sticks out 11 no name 20 year olds against Arsenal where they play 90 minutes in their own half at home defending the whole time and eventually lose 1-0 (or 5-0 when they fall to pieces after the first goal at 60 minutes), just so that they have a slightly better chance of winning the next game against a side 2 points above them?
That team's fans suffer, the league as a whole suffers in terms of reputation and interest.
How is it any more unfair that Man U, Chelsea etc. can afford quality throughout their 25 men squad than being able to afford quality throughout the 11 man side they fielded?
There's a 25 man squad for a reason. That reason isn't so you can have 15 decent players and the rest are bargain bucket placeholders. Is it not also unfair on the teams which try to balance out quality throughout their squad so they can rotate their squad properly when teams like Wolves put all their focus on the starting eleven and save money on the rest of the players?
Comment
-
Originally posted by abigsmurf View PostThe league isn't about the teams.
It's about the fans.
No it's all about the wealth and the thirst for it.
Also a squad would be even more poor if you averaged the spend over 25 rather than 11 better players with backups.Last edited by vanpeebles; 28-01-2011, 09:04.
Comment
-
I'd say that teams near the bottom of the league like Wolves have little choice but to concentrate on making their first eleven as good as possible. These clubs are fighting for their lives even after pumping most of their transfer budget into that area. The gap is going to be even bigger between them and the top if they spend less on the first eleven in order to improve the quality of their reserves.
(Too slow, that's what I get for rambling when the Van man says the same thing in one sentence)
I simply think we need to take the importance of money out of the game a bit. I think we are heading in a direction where the gap between the top teams and "the rest" in each country will be so big that we'll end up with some kind of European Super League which will be a closed shop of twenty or so of Europe's super rich clubs.
Comment
-
You don't have to average it out, just create a squad that can reasonably be expected to be competitive in 35 games a season. Not a team that's competitive in 30 games.
Teams around Wolves and Blackpool are certainly managing to either properly rotate their squad. It's not only the overall quality of the squad to blame, poor management comes into play too. Playing the same 14 or so players for ~8 games over a month until they're at breaking point is poor management.
Comment
-
Originally posted by abigsmurf View PostPlaying the same 14 or so players for ~8 games over a month until they're at breaking point is poor management.
Comment
-
You can be as tough as you like but muscles take time to recover, if they don't recover fully, they spasm or snap.
Look at John Terry, he's constantly in pain from various aching parts to the extent where the physios usually have to give him injections to make it bearable. Even he eventually succumbed to the strain.
Footballers have never been in better shape than they are today but there are always limits. Running 8 miles over 90 minutes isn't easy on the body, especially when lots of it is sprints.
Comment
-
I think the biggest problem for me is that just that the gap is too big between top and bottom. I've said it before but I'll say it again, even in the 80's with a dominant Liverpool side, teams like Southampton, Watford, Ipswich could be clever with their transfers, use a bit of canny management, and do well enough to challenge for a title (even if just for a season).
That can't happen now, the gap is too big for any amount of good management to make up, and I just think that's sad and a shame.
I agree that it's not a good spectacle when a small club plays reserves against a big club, it is a turn off.
However I also remember when I was a kid people saying that English football was great because lots of teams could be in with a shout of winning a big title, in Spain, Italy, Portugal, etc., it was just the same old three or four clubs winning everything each year, how boring must that be?........
Less of the latter would encourage less of the former, I think. Not exactly an easy situation to change though (that is, if you think it needs changing, of course).
Comment
-
To be fair, Man U's point lead this season doesn't represent how little there's been between the top teams in terms of form. It's just Man U have had that little bit extra fortune over Arsenal and City. Late strikes going in, penalties not being given against them etc.
Man U, Arsenal, City and Chelsea haven't impressed overall this season that's for sure.
Comment
-
NHL teams do get a decent amount of money from tv networks, and the current contracts up for tender this year ensure the league will get a huge fee.
There's a 25 man squad for a reason.
That team's fans suffer, the league as a whole suffers in terms of reputation and interest.
Already make the leagues reputation (for fairness) a bit of an JokeLast edited by Team Andromeda; 29-01-2011, 08:11.
Comment
Comment