Football stuff

laurentian

verylonglegs said:

If the women's game, or any sport for that matter, wants to appear credible and attract more spectators it's needs to avoid results like that.

Whilst I see where you're coming from, I think that would be very difficult to implementing any practical way (unless games were considered "won" at, say, 10-0)

The game in question was a world cup qualifier.

So, England played a team in their qualifying group. If this were to be re-organised so that teams of equal ability played in the same qualifying group, England may have beat, for instance, Italy 3-1 and perhaps Latvia may have beaten Estonia 1-0. If results continued through the qualifying groups like that then both England and Latvia would qulaify for the World Cup.

At some point in that world cup, a team of England's ability would play a team of Latvia's ability and a 20-0 thrashing would occur at the showpiece event of the sport. Surely qualifying is all about sorting most of the wheat from most of the chaff? Either that or don't give a team like Latvia a crack in the first place - however embarrassing, I think that they would prefer to have a go.

I'm making a huge asssumption here but there's also the amateur aspect of the Latvian game to be taken into account (do they have professional players in the same way that England do?) I would imagine that there wasn't a single member of that Latvian squad who didn't want to play against one of the worlds highest ranked teams and best known players in the women's game.- They know they had no realistic chance of winning but being able to say that you had played against England (or any other top ranked, professional footballing nation) must be a fantastic experience and a hell of a tale to tell when you've retired.

Pross

Goal difference can also have an impact on where you finish in your group and / or your seeding in a tournament.

TheBigBean

Pross said:

Goal difference can also have an impact on where you finish in your group and / or your seeding in a tournament.

Most competitions are based on head to head goal difference, so it doesn't matter.

Also, most sports are based around elite teams/players not needing to qualify whilst the worst ones need to go through rounds of qualification. Many examples of this, but the FA Cup is an obvious one.

The problem is that many governing bodies think that more matches means more money, and more money can improve the game. This leads to the mess that is the international football calendar.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Goal difference can also have an impact on where you finish in your group and / or your seeding in a tournament.

Most competitions are based on head to head goal difference, so it doesn't matter.

Also, most sports are based around elite teams/players not needing to qualify whilst the worst ones need to go through rounds of qualification. Many examples of this, but the FA Cup is an obvious one.

The problem is that many governing bodies think that more matches means more money, and more money can improve the game. This leads to the mess that is the international football calendar.

cricket did this quite well for the recent world cup with about 8 teams playing immediately before the tournament proper.

I do wonder in footballif having a separate group for Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, San Marino, Scotland and Andorra would make them happier as they would have some competitive games

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Goal difference can also have an impact on where you finish in your group and / or your seeding in a tournament.

Most competitions are based on head to head goal difference, so it doesn't matter.

Also, most sports are based around elite teams/players not needing to qualify whilst the worst ones need to go through rounds of qualification. Many examples of this, but the FA Cup is an obvious one.

The problem is that many governing bodies think that more matches means more money, and more money can improve the game. This leads to the mess that is the international football calendar.

cricket did this quite well for the recent world cup with about 8 teams playing immediately before the tournament proper.

I do wonder in footballif having a separate group for Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, San Marino, Scotland and Andorra would make them happier as they would have some competitive games

Nicely done.

On the substantive point
- only if they still get paid for it. Games like San Marino v England might not generate more money overall, but they surely do for San Marino.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

Pross said:

Goal difference can also have an impact on where you finish in your group and / or your seeding in a tournament.

Most competitions are based on head to head goal difference, so it doesn't matter.

Also, most sports are based around elite teams/players not needing to qualify whilst the worst ones need to go through rounds of qualification. Many examples of this, but the FA Cup is an obvious one.

The problem is that many governing bodies think that more matches means more money, and more money can improve the game. This leads to the mess that is the international football calendar.

cricket did this quite well for the recent world cup with about 8 teams playing immediately before the tournament proper.

I do wonder in footballif having a separate group for Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, San Marino, Scotland and Andorra would make them happier as they would have some competitive games

Nicely done.

On the substantive point
- only if they still get paid for it. Games like San Marino v England might not generate more money overall, but they surely do for San Marino.

Depends on the split. No idea how it works at international level.

Ben6899

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

surrey_commuter

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

DeVlaeminck

surrey_commuter said:

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

They would happily thrash teams - there may be times they close out a game by taking less risk but that's to increase the chances of winning.

Is your argument England should have taken it easy for their own benefit - resting players etc - or for Latvia's to avoid humiliating them ?

No Premier League team takes pity on an opposition.

Pross

surrey_commuter said:

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

That could be costly this season with the top 3 being so close. Imagine finishing level on points at the top and missing out because you took it easy on Newcastle and settled for putting 4 past them when you could have scored 6 or 7.

seanoconn

DeVlaeminck said:

surrey_commuter said:

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

They would happily thrash teams - there may be times they close out a game by taking less risk but that's to increase the chances of winning.

Is your argument England should have taken it easy for their own benefit - resting players etc - or for Latvia's to avoid humiliating them ?

No Premier League team takes pity on an opposition.

Exactly. They don’t take their foot off the gas out of respect for their opponents.

Is that what you thought for all these years SC? Ahh, bless you 😂

Ben6899

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

That could be costly this season with the top 3 being so close. Imagine finishing level on points at the top and missing out because you took it easy on Newcastle and settled for putting 4 past them when you could have scored 6 or 7.

I’ve been in a team that finished second on goal difference. By a single goal. You rue the missed chances and it teaches a valuable lesson.

seanoconn

Ben6899 said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

That could be costly this season with the top 3 being so close. Imagine finishing level on points at the top and missing out because you took it easy on Newcastle and settled for putting 4 past them when you could have scored 6 or 7.

I’ve been in a team that finished second on goal difference. By a single goal. You rue the missed chances and it teaches a valuable lesson.

How many chances did you miss Ben??

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

That could be costly this season with the top 3 being so close. Imagine finishing level on points at the top and missing out because you took it easy on Newcastle and settled for putting 4 past them when you could have scored 6 or 7.

But he has years of top level experience and a highly trained medical team and they decide to not thrash people.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

Pross said:

surrey_commuter said:

Ben6899 said:

Fathers vs sons etc matches aside, if you’re not trying to beat your opponent by as many goals as possible, then you’re doing the whole thing a huge disservice.

Look at scorelines in Arsenal games when they were in their pomp 2002-4, they used to go 2 goals up and then take their foot of the gas.
Look at Man City results under Guardiola - they just don't thrash people

That could be costly this season with the top 3 being so close. Imagine finishing level on points at the top and missing out because you took it easy on Newcastle and settled for putting 4 past them when you could have scored 6 or 7.

But he has years of top level experience and a highly trained medical team and they decide to not thrash people.

I would have thought you are making two points:
- Resting players in the premier league is more important than winning by large margins.
- Playing lower level opposition (not the premier league) means that you don't need to go all out to humiliate them. It's more of a testimonial than a competitive game sometimes.

DeVlaeminck

I'm enjoying watching Man Utd this season - nothing against them it's just the soap opera of a big club failing to live up to expectations.

Mind you looking at the squad I'm not sure those expectations were justified - take out those well past their prime and those who are just not top 4 quality and there are huge holes.

seanoconn

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm enjoying watching Man Utd this season - nothing against them it's just the soap opera of a big club failing to live up to expectations.

Mind you looking at the squad I'm not sure those expectations were justified - take out those well past their prime and those who are just not top 4 quality and there are huge holes.

Only two players in a large squad past their prime with plenty of quality but watching a few Manu games this season the problem is why do they look so average? Too many negative influences in the dressing room? The weight of expectation too much for the younger players?

Fernandes looks a different player now he has to play second fiddle to Ronaldo.
Rashford and Greenwood have all the attributes of great strikers apart from the confidence. The former really struggling after free school meals media exposure and non existent Euro 2020 impact. 73 million for England reserve Sancho is looking every bit the poor choice it looked on paper. I’m sure most of the squad would perform much better playing for different clubs like Lingard last season.

Sell half the squad and buy Haaland would be my advice. Who they could have bought for next to nothing two years ago!

DeVlaeminck

I was thinking Ronaldo, Matic and Cavani all past their prime. Cavani still looks decent in cameos but he's 35 next month.

I think there are huge problems there - they really need the likes of Rashford, Sancho and Greenwood to come good.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck said:

I was thinking Ronaldo, Matic and Cavani all past their prime. Cavani still looks decent in cameos but he's 35 next month.

I think there are huge problems there - they really need the likes of Rashford, Sancho and Greenwood to come good.

Surely the problem is that none of their young players are developing?

rick_chasey

*Football manager head talking*

Since Ferguson there has been no tactical consistency and so you end up with a mish-mash of players who can and can't do whatever the tactic is currently.

Look at the likes of Man City, Liverpool etc and there is a clear overarching tactical plan in which most of the players fit in fairly neatly.

seanoconn

surrey_commuter said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I was thinking Ronaldo, Matic and Cavani all past their prime. Cavani still looks decent in cameos but he's 35 next month.

I think there are huge problems there - they really need the likes of Rashford, Sancho and Greenwood to come good.

Surely the problem is that none of their young players are developing?

I thought Greenwood would be a superstar by now. They’d all benefit loaned to smaller clubs but unlikely.

MattFalle

Thing is, none of them are actually that great but there was/is the standard English media hyperbole over them and yhey started to believe their own hype..

skyblueamateur

rick_chasey said:

*Football manager head talking*

Since Ferguson there has been no tactical consistency and so you end up with a mish-mash of players who can and can't do whatever the tactic is currently.

Look at the likes of Man City, Liverpool etc and there is a clear overarching tactical plan in which most of the players fit in fairly neatly.

Exactly that.

Classic case of good individuals versus a good team. Trying to accommodate too many 'names' and 'ego's'.

MattFalle

Seems the Ralph at the wheel is basically a continuation of Ole at the wheel.

But, tbh, Ralph ain't bothered as he has a 3 year contract signed up at the end of the season no matter how badly he does now.

rick_chasey

MattFalle said:

Seems the Ralph at the wheel is basically a continuation of Ole at the wheel.

But, tbh, Ralph ain't bothered as he has a 3 year contract signed up at the end of the season no matter how badly he does now.

If the issue is as i describe above it won't change overnight.

Advantage of Ralph is he's like a really extreme Klopp - he's got a very singular vision of how a team should play, collectively and individually. Sounds like the Man Utd management have bought into that style of play and so are willing to put their weight behind him on that.

The bigger question is say they move on from Ralph as he's too much of a tactician and not a well enough rounded manager, which is not that unlikely; you'd think you'd have to go after similar tactically minded managers - who else fits the bill?

The Gegenpressing stuff is quite an extreme approach and requires pretty much total commitment from the entire club to get it to work well over a long period of time. Training, conditioning, coaching, medical, and then the makeup of the squad - need more rotation to counter the exhausting nature of it, and players who can handle it (arguably a player like Ronaldo in his mid-30s probably can't, as great as he is).

MattFalle

No - the Manure mant haven't bought into it.

they've blundered from pillar to post looking for something to work and nothing has or will with this current set up that they have hocked themselves up to the eyeballs.

RR is no way as succesful, tactically intelligent, charasmatic or forward thinking as Klopp or Teuschal - theres a reason why he was in Moscow, not even coaching.

He's sold himself, the Manure management have swallowed it and RR is now laughing all the way to the bank whilst Manure blunder around pointlessly.

pblakeney

But, but, but, Rangnick is only there as an interim manager.
He doesn't have the time to build anything. His job is purely to steady the ship.

i.e. blundering from pillar to post.

DeVlaeminck

Their problem will be they've got this very tactically ideologically driven manager who unless he can make it work in the next 3 months (with a squad that don't suit his style) is going to become technical director - presumably one with some real influence. What manager is going to come and work under the previous manager - nobody with much of a reputation.

Style wise Pochettino is a reasonable fit but does he want to go there under those circumstances? Hassenhutl has worked with Rangnick before so he's a possible but again there were some tactical disagreements - there are always going to be as nobody with the strength of personality to manage a group of players is going to roll over and be told how to set up a team.

It wouldn't be a surprise if they just pay Rangnick off in the Summer and appoint as big a name as they can get - let a few players go - probably Pogba, Cavani, Lingaard - make a couple of signings and just go from there.

rick_chasey

I think we're all agreeing.

kingstonian

To be fair to RR, he has kinda steadied the ship as yesterday was I believe their first loss in the league since he took over. But no one is going to come into the Utd dressing room and turn it into a super strong side - there’s too many headstrong individuals there that just won’t listen. As others have said, they need a clear out.