I'm not even going to get into this - I've said nothing controversial at all here yet you are determined to be antagonised.
Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th
- Thread starter Tarrou
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
You said it was a shadow of its former self yet nothing to the actual game has changed instead from a rule change that won't have any significant impact. Such statements are just bizarre to me, but if you really really think that it's actually a shadow of what it used to be, then okay, no issues with that.
The game has literally stayed exactly the same, unless you consider more subs and no fans the heart and soul of "football as we knew it".
Or unless you're someone who actually goes to matches as opposed to being an armchair fan.
The fact some see losing fans, home and away advantage and changing the substitution rules as irrelevant and without any impact is truly mind boggling. Perhaps it's further evidence of the 'I'm alright Jack" mentality many have shown here rather than considering the rest of the league as a whole. Who knows.
Of course it has an impact, but it's still the best solution the Premier League as an institution and the clubs as a whole could have hoped for. Yet you still have people nitpicking about it, just like they would've been moaning about other stuff if another solution had prevailed instead of finishing the season. Every single one of the "it's not fair", "how is this acceptable or normal" and other arguments would be reasonable and valid if they just randomly decided to alter the rules mid-season, but given the circumstances, the changes are minor and not insurmountable, surely even you should be able to see or admit that. No solution would've been completely fair without flaws.
That's not the discussion though is it. The discussion is around accepting that it has an impact and has compromised the season. I know yourself and a number of other Liverpool fans firmly have the blinkers up on this as the suggestion somewhat taints the league win (asterix etc) but it's an undeniable fact.
I agree that the PL are doing what they can to treat everyone equally and under the circumstances. That's not up for debate really but burying your heads in the sand about the impact of the changes and telling anyone it's 'minor' and 'irrelevant' shows a total of of understanding and empathy to the rest of the league who it will clearly impact.
Again, given the circumstances and putting it all in context, I do consider no fans for a few home games and 2 extra subs as minor, yes. That's just a matter of opinion, and fine if you disagree with that.
I've already said and explained that I think the subs rule change won't have any impact on any team bar City and will only be used when games are already decided. And yes you lose your home advantage but your opponent also loses its home advantage when you play away games. So basically it comes down to "I've already played at Selhurst with fans where the atmosphere is great but now I gotta go to City without fans which will not impact the experience whatsoever, while another relegation contender goes to Selhurst without fans so they have an advantage over me". Again, I think in the grand scheme of things that is very minor, yes.
It’s only temporary. It wouldn’t have a big enough impact on fairness to argue bringing the league back is unfair. Minor and temporary impact.
Last edited:
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion but what I'm saying is fact. It has an impact and it does mean the league rules and fairness has been compromised. How much or little is again subjective but to deny it point blank is laughable.
It's the failure to grasp and understand that which baffles me.
Yes, changing any part of the rules midway through a season does compromise it in some way, however small. Nevertheless, I guess this is as close as they can get it so trust in the brand is maintained. I hate a new introduction in tennis if a final set tie breaker at 12-12 at Wimbledon, just hate it, but that’s permanent! Essentially supporters of teams who get what they want from the rest of the season will be fine with it, the others will moan, because most fans are very simple.
The damage to the PL of an incomplete season can’t be overstated, they work so hard to get fans to buy into “the narrative” that a failed season may well lose a lot of viewers long term.
I was strictly talking about finishing this season, of course.
Although the chance is quite realistic that we'll start the new season without fans and will see a (gradual) increase of fans over the course of the season. Does that mean the entire 20/21 season is already compromised before it's started then? Just accept it for what it is and move on, there's nothing you can do to change it anyway. The constant need for people to complain about something, anything, is so annoying and tiresome.
Totally agree
Yes.
I knew you hold that opinion, thanks for answering anyway. You should just give the new season a hard pass in that case then.
Thanks for the advice although unsure why you're giving it. You being so defensive about it all is really odd. I don't know why it seems to trigger you.
Most of the times it's your posts that trigger me
Seriously though Robin I'm not quite sure why you are so defensive. I think pretty much everyone agrees that's it's the best option given the circumstances, but I'm not quite sure why you're holding this stance that it's "minimal" or something. Obviously changing subs rules and the fans aspect is a massive change to football, it's not being a drama queen to say that.
I'll still watch it and will hopefully enjoy it but it simply will not be the same in it's current form and as a result I view it differently - it will lack something and winning the league next season will be viewed by myself - rightly or wrongly - as lesser than a normal league win. This is just my own view but I'm sure I'm not the only person to feel this way about it. Losing the impact that fans make on a game is pretty massive in my view - home advantage basically gone overnight which can turn certain grounds into a fortress just won't exist in the same way. It is a big deal even if you don't think it is.
I'm a bit too old to rant, but thank you. Plus, whilst a Liverpool fan for over 40 years, i'm from Grimsby originally - we tend to be a little more stoic over thereJust seen a couple of your posts here which seem quite clear, calm and balanced. People may not agree with them entirely but no rants.
Are you SURE you're a Liverpool fan?
I remain pretty confident that the season will conclude successfully. England's covid-19 experience was massively harder than we had in Australia, but we were still impacted here. Now, however, with low new infection rates, our sport is coming back. It even looks like the Aussie Rules will be permitted to have small crowds. I understand the situation is different here, but it is further evidence that the world can, and will, come out of lockdown. Even in Manchester.
As I write this I'm watching the Premier League Daily show and it is exciting to hear the host and Alan Curbishley and some other bloke (Steve Sidwell apparently) discussing the return of football.
I don't accept that the remainig games will be so far removed from what went before as to invalidate the season. Extra subs and behind closed doors really isn't a complete rewriting of the rules as some have implied. Nor are extended contracts and sponsorship deals. What we hopefully will have is a thrilling, if unusual, end to the season.
Obviously I want the title won but the chase for Europe and the battle to avoid the drop looks really tasty. The stakes are just as high as they were a few months ago, so the talk of dead rubbers and meaningless games shouldn't be any worse than the usual run-in to the season's end.
Having our NRL back hére has been good. It has thrown up some interesting results and it wouldn't surprise me if the EPL doesn't experience the same. I'm genuinely looking forward to it (bit bored of watching the constant rerunning of the goals from Watford-Liverpool on this show though) and I hope that those on here who seem genuinely apathetic to the return of football rediscover their love of the game quickly. I'm pretty sure that if your lot get a couple of early results and start looking seriously at a top 4 finish, then interest will be rekindled. Obviously that's not what I actually want (), but, still.
I don't wanna sound or come across as defensively, I'm not acting on behalf of the PL or defending Liverpool in here or anything. I think I'm just very tired (and should better just avoid this thread) about the black and white views that quite a few posters hold about the return of football. The "but this", "but that", "this is not fair" arguments are repetitive and tiresome to argue against because it will never be good for some people. Every solution would've had its flaws, and I'm in no way saying that this is the perfect one but what's the point of still going on and on about integrity, fairness and stuff?
If you think it's a massive change to football, then I'll disagree with that though. I don't think it makes that much of a difference. Bayern is still dominating and winning games, Schalke was bad before and is still bad right now, ... It makes way less of a difference than people think or argue, which is proven by a few studies already (for home advantage) if I'm not mistaken. I've also already explained why the subs rule change certainly won't be a massive change either. It will not be the reason why a team goes down or stays up, it will not be the reason why Utd does or doesn't make top 4. That's why I hold the view that the chances are "minimal", yes.
Except that it isn't. The notion that "grounds" or "fans" create a fortress is just wrong. What creates a fortress is the team playing in that home ground. Anfield was by no means considered a fortress between '10-'15, I'm not gonna look up the stats but we lost plenty of games at home. Then Klopp came around and we haven't lost at Anfield in the league in almost 3 seasons or so if I'm not mistaken. Yet we still have the same ground and the same fans. Stamford Bridge was a fortress under Mourinho and then wasn't when he was gone and replaced by a lesser manager, yet it remained Stamford Bridge. It's the team that plays in the ground that will make the difference.
The fact that you will view next season's winner as "lesser" is up to yourself, it's an opinion I can't change but I strongly disagree with that as well. The rules are the same for everyone. Whether it's Liverpool, City or United next season, to me whichever team is on top after 38 games will be deservedly champions. And that's also how I think about the relegation and top 4 battle for this year. Whoever finishes 3th or 4th will have earned it on the pitch.
If they do then it just confirms that Liverpool have won the poorest PL in years
I strongly disagree with this statement. I hold up my own national team as a great example of this - we are at best a below average ability international side but at home with the incredible atmosphere we generate as fans we are also one of the toughest sides to beat at home in Europe. A huge part of that is down to the connection the players have to the fans and they raise their game. If you lose that connection and atmosphere then we are nowhere near the same team.
So we’re agreed- null and void is funniest for all
Do you have any other examples of club football where a team consistently performs way better at home than away? Genuine question. I would think it might be the case for the likes of Burnley or Palace who are more likely to take points off the big teams at home than away, but generally I disagree that fans have a big impact on football or results of a team. I certainly don't think it will impact Liverpool's performances in the league at home.
Really? Almost all the clubs have better home record than away record and coming to Liverpool, are you downplaying Anfileld factor in the European games where the team plays at much higher level and smash most of the teams in the first 20-30 mins?
It's not about it having a big impact or not - it's about whether we agree on whether it does has an impact - I believe it does have an impact and as a result when you lose that aspect of the game then many clubs (particularly the smaller clubs) will lose out hence making the league that little bit more unfair towards the smaller sides. This is why I think it is important and does diminish the league.
I think most people would agree that their club plays better at home than away generally and at least part of that is due to the connection with the fans. Why else do we have two legged games at all if there was no difference home or away?
Re: bolded part - yes, but to the point they're looking like a completely different team at home rather than away? Balaks was talking about "fortresses", I don't think there's any team apart from Liverpool which has a home record that warrants that word at the moment. As for Liverpool, I specifically mentioned "performances in the league" because our atmosphere is average (at best, unfortunately) there. On European nights it can play a part. Or let's say the last day of the season is Chelsea-United which would decide top 4, then yes fans in attendance could make a difference. But all in all I still consider it as a minor impact in the grand scheme of things.
EDIT: come to think of it, it might be a bit simplistic for me to say that it doesn't have an impact on Liverpool since I consider the title as a formality and it doesn't really matter anymore from there on out. Maybe if we still had City to play at home and they'd be just ahead or behind us, I'd be talking differently. Probably would, to be honest, cos Anfield would play its part in that case.
I don't think I've denied that it could have an impact (but could be wrong)? I just defended my opinion that the subs rule change and no fans in attendance will have a minor/minimal impact on the top 4 race and relegation battle.
Yes, Jose went around 8 years without losing at home. There was a time when Fulham getting a point away from home was a miracle and at home they were completely different team.
Home and away makes a big difference in football, Liverpool might be too strong this season but for every club the home game matters as they have more chance of winning that than away game.
Maybe first time I'm seeing these arguments, that home or away shouldn't matter. One of the mysteries, why Pep had such a poor away record in CL compared to his home record.
But isn't it just Mourinho who has an extremely impressive home record throughout his entire career? So was that streak due to Mourinho and his team/set-up at home games, or due to the fans? I don't consider Chelsea as an extremely good home team or anything.
This article is the first Google search result and indicates that it plays less of a factor than people would like to think, although it still exists. But even in the hypothesis that the home team has a better chance of winning a game, that's (at least to a certain extent) cancelled out by the higher chance to win away games, isn't it? E.g. Norwich loses its advantage as the home team vs Villa but has a higher chance to win their next game at Bournemouth? In that case it would basically come down to remaining strength of schedule to see who (and to what extent) ultimately gains or loses out by having no fans in attendance.
As for Pep, if it is something like that streak, I put that down more to the fact that he gets his tactics wrong in big CL away games or cannot adapt to the circumstances rather than a particular set of fans/stadia that happened to be a factor in those games.
You don't think Liverpool's famous European nights have anything to do with the atmosphere created by the crowd? Where do you think the crowd being the 12th man comes from.
See my previous post, I specifically mentioned "Liverpool's performances in the league at home". Our home crowd in the league has been average at best in the last decade.
@RobinLFC I can't really speak for any other teams but Everton get by on our home form. We have had numerous seasons in the last decade where we only have like 1 to 3 defeats at home each season and then lose the majority of our away games. I think the way Goodison Park is with how close the fans are to the pitch plays a part in that.
As recently as a few days ago Andy Hinchcliffe was still pushing the null and void narrative. He said "if the league can't be finished it should be null and void. I'm not saying that because I'm an ex-Everton and Man City player". We believe you Andy - you're totally impartial.
Fair enough. Maybe you'll be less convincing at home but a bit stronger in away games due to no home fans attending in both cases though?
1 I'm not sure you can judge the level of unfairness from the front end of the project.
2 They ought to just about get through. They have put footy in a bubble and infection levels won't, in theory, increase so rapidly over the next 8 weeks to make it look untenable.
3 If it gets inside the bubble though...
4 What are they gonna do if 1 team has an outbreak of virus or odd games get cancelled, maybe even just affected - hope it's nothing too crucial?
5 the optimists might be having the best of the debate atm, but we haven't actually started yet have we?
2 They ought to just about get through. They have put footy in a bubble and infection levels won't, in theory, increase so rapidly over the next 8 weeks to make it look untenable.
3 If it gets inside the bubble though...
4 What are they gonna do if 1 team has an outbreak of virus or odd games get cancelled, maybe even just affected - hope it's nothing too crucial?
5 the optimists might be having the best of the debate atm, but we haven't actually started yet have we?
There is no plan b. If someone gets sick, tough cheese
I can't get away from the fact that this last 1/4 of the season is NOT going to be the same as the preceding 3 x 1/4s, and pretending that it is and possesses lots of integrity is bonkers.
As I said before, if I was running footy and do a 2nd phase project of resolving the issues - play offs for teams deserving to play off for want of a better description. On a that was then, this is now, basis of justification and (more) integrity. Less interdependence between fixtures, have whatever rules you like, every one knows they start level and they know the endpoint and there aren't 50 % of irrelevant games threatening to crash the resolving process.
But that isn't 'the product' and it isn't enough games for the TV. Its also fairly ridiculous.
But don't try and claim what we are getting isn't a dogs dinner.
As I said before, if I was running footy and do a 2nd phase project of resolving the issues - play offs for teams deserving to play off for want of a better description. On a that was then, this is now, basis of justification and (more) integrity. Less interdependence between fixtures, have whatever rules you like, every one knows they start level and they know the endpoint and there aren't 50 % of irrelevant games threatening to crash the resolving process.
But that isn't 'the product' and it isn't enough games for the TV. Its also fairly ridiculous.
But don't try and claim what we are getting isn't a dogs dinner.
Remove Chelsea, add Sheffield (if don't want United), and it'll be great.