Bundesliga 19/20

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,352
Location
Germany
Watzke demands season to continue

So, Watzke, the executive director of Borussia Dortmund, demands the season to continue rather sooner than later. Otherwise, the financial damages could be so significant, that clubs could go bankrupt. He's talking about an "economic necessity".

What do you guys make of this talk? A senile capitalist blabbering his irrational opinions in a completely inadaquate time? Or is he simply someone that has the interests of football and his club in hjis mind and therefor doing his job properly to save the league?

I personally think that although there could be some truth to what he says regarding the possible outcome of this crisis on the Bundesliga and the clubs themselves, his demand is of very ill timing. While the whole european population struggle to cope with the current situation, and some parts are basically collapsing ander the new virus, football interests seem very negligible. Obviously there are lots of people depending on a functiong football league, since lots of people are employed by clubs, the media, etc. etc...But still, health in this specific case should always be valued more important, than economic aspects. This idea might change in the long run, when the economic side effects affect the population so negatively, that these cause more damage, than the virus itself. Yet, there should still be time for that to come and to deal with, while the threat of health is absolute imminent and urges a much faster response, than the following economic crisis. Besides, it's very likely that the economic damage that virus causes will be much more severe, the more we wait to deal with it, at least in the long term.
Putting the players and therefor the social environment at risk, sending the wrong signal, giving people a reason to gather in pubs/stadiums etc. just is enough reason to not let the season continue anytime soon. Players will become infected, will infect more players and other people surrounding them, which leads to the very well known exponential growth of infections. Hopefully, the situation will be better come June or July, but there's certainly no guarantee for that. Might as well declare this season null and void so we can at least try (!) to plan for the next one.
Maybe you should read past the clickbait headline? He talks about how they have to finish the season, because otherwise too many clubs will be in deep financial trouble.
But he also says:
"when the authorities give us the green light, that these games are allowed to be played in a very small circle, then we will use the opportunity to do our jobs".
"but of course we can only continue when there aren't any concerns from the experts about it"
"of course we have to ensure through daily testing that these players don't infect their families, teammates or opponents"
he's also doubtful that there will be matches with crowds in 2020.

You can read the whole interview here: https://11freunde.de/artikel/wenn-wir-2020-noch-spiele-mit-zuschauern-sehen-würden-wäre-ich-sehr-glücklich/1633597
 

Zehner

Full Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
1,980
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I think he's on point, personally. If the players are monitored correctly and avoid contact to "the outside world" then the risk of them infecting each other is very low. On the flip side, there's much to lose if they don't go on with the season. The consequences for the sport as a whole could be devastating with many clubs going bankrupt and the few top clubs grabbing their top players for bargains. Of course the players would need to contain themselves even more than the average citizen but I think that's a reasonable thing to demand from them. It's actually part of their job to constrain themselves. And it's also easier for them to isolate from the rest of the society in Corona times. They don't need public transport, have people who can buy groceries for them, don't sit in overcrowded offices etc. They're already living in a bubble.

Football could also help making people's everyday life less monotonous and thus make it easier for them to stay at home. Of course it could also be the other way round if some incorrigible idiots decide to still gather autonomously but that'll always be a problem, regardless of football. I think it's a matter of communication and control.
 

kern9r

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
9
Maybe you should read past the clickbait headline? He talks about how they have to finish the season, because otherwise too many clubs will be in deep financial trouble.
But he also says:
"when the authorities give us the green light, that these games are allowed to be played in a very small circle, then we will use the opportunity to do our jobs".
"but of course we can only continue when there aren't any concerns from the experts about it"
"of course we have to ensure through daily testing that these players don't infect their families, teammates or opponents"
he's also doubtful that there will be matches with crowds in 2020.

You can read the whole interview here: https://11freunde.de/artikel/wenn-wir-2020-noch-spiele-mit-zuschauern-sehen-würden-wäre-ich-sehr-glücklich/1633597
I read the whole interview and I think I highlighted the key parts of it. Nonetheless, I still think his push is wrongly timed. Obviously, while he's still admitting that it needs the experts' opinion and the authorities', he's still trying to influence those who're listening to him towards his agenda. While he's doubtful that there will be matches with crowd in 2020, I personally think there will be no matches at all this season - for a very good and obvious reason. Our aim should be to preserve professional football in the longterm, which can only exist, if we have a healthy society, which essentially means, that we have to get this epidemic to slow down and then stop. Without a functioning society, there's no professional football, because there won't be a healthy economy. While he could be right in some way and especially in the longterm, it's just ill advised at this point in time.
Besides, what if we let them play against each other and players infect each other? It'll be crippling for the football even more. Especially since football relies on body contact.



I think he's on point, personally. If the players are monitored correctly and avoid contact to "the outside world" then the risk of them infecting each other is very low. On the flip side, there's much to lose if they don't go on with the season. The consequences for the sport as a whole could be devastating with many clubs going bankrupt and the few top clubs grabbing their top players for bargains. Of course the players would need to contain themselves even more than the average citizen but I think that's a reasonable thing to demand from them. It's actually part of their job to constrain themselves. And it's also easier for them to isolate from the rest of the society in Corona times. They don't need public transport, have people who can buy groceries for them, don't sit in overcrowded offices etc. They're already living in a bubble.

Football could also help making people's everyday life less monotonous and thus make it easier for them to stay at home. Of course it could also be the other way round if some incorrigible idiots decide to still gather autonomously but that'll always be a problem, regardless of football. I think it's a matter of communication and control.
I personally think the risk of infecting each other in training/matches is pretty high. Asymptomatic or not, they're always getting close to each other while playing. While I agree that it's a reasonable demand to let the players contain themselves even more, how realistic is that? I don't think it is at all, given the record of enfants terribles in recent years. There will always be someone that does not comply; then the whole exponential infection rate starts occuring in football, too. Which would be far more devastating in the long run. Football as a culture for a fan is all about socializing, generally speaking. I don't think that watching a football game would be benefitial for the average person in our society, since more people would have the motivation and the need to socialize with others to watch the game. Games without crowd showed that pretty drastically.

Considering the average human being is rational and responsible, this crisis would be much easier to handle. But in these situations, it's my personal opinion to leave all dogmatic ideas behind and start thinking only about the result itself. Every measure has to be taken to save lives for now; this threat is imminent and more dangerous - even in the long term - for our society.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,352
Location
Germany
I read the whole interview and I think I highlighted the key parts of it. Nonetheless, I still think his push is wrongly timed. Obviously, while he's still admitting that it needs the experts' opinion and the authorities', he's still trying to influence those who're listening to him towards his agenda. While he's doubtful that there will be matches with crowd in 2020, I personally think there will be no matches at all this season - for a very good and obvious reason. Our aim should be to preserve professional football in the longterm, which can only exist, if we have a healthy society, which essentially means, that we have to get this epidemic to slow down and then stop. Without a functioning society, there's no professional football, because there won't be a healthy economy. While he could be right in some way and especially in the longterm, it's just ill advised at this point in time.
Besides, what if we let them play against each other and players infect each other? It'll be crippling for the football even more. Especially since football relies on body contact.
I'm sorry, but you linked a click baity write up and translated the first two sentences of it. Then followed it up with "A senile capitalist blabbering his irrational opinions in a completely inadaquate time? "

What Watzke said is perfectly coherent. He's a football CEO laying out the reality for professional clubs in Germany in an interview with a football magazine. Nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't make direct demands and doesn't talk about the short term. He doesn't say "just let them play" either. He explicitly says, to wait until officials and experts permit it.

I really don't understand how someone can read that interview and come to the conclusion that it's the blabbering of a senile capitalist.



https://www.sportbuzzer.de/artikel/bundesliga-saison-fortsetzung-dfl-seifert-modelle-2-liga-meister-reaktionen/

According to this piece there are three models being considered by the league for the remaining games:

a) Euros/World Cup style schedule, DFL selects a hand full of venues, the season is finished quickly with multiple games per day. The league would block entire hotels and shuttle teams to the stadium only for matches, to completely isolate them from other people.

b) Finish the season within 16 days, each team having a match every two days, but at their regular venues.

c)Basically the same as b) but with a more normal weekend+midweek schedule. Finishing the season within four weeks.
 
Last edited:

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,352
Location
Germany
A well earned contract extension with his vastly increased form under Flick. Could (or perhaps should) be a candidate for the NT again, especially with Reus having a worse season than last year.
 

strongwalker

Full Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,945
Location
2km from Olympiastadion München
Supports
FC Bayern München
A well earned contract extension with his vastly increased form under Flick. Could (or perhaps should) be a candidate for the NT again, especially with Reus having a worse season than last year.
Badstuber once said about the time he spent with Müller in the youth teams: "he didn't look special but the team that had him in it usually won". Smart coaches notice this.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,352
Location
Germany
I know I'm falling into the old Müller cliche with this, but I think those stats above are a good example why you can't just always take xG/xA at face value. Imho there are players who create space with their dribbling and passing, who can apply their strengths in a variety of setups and situations and then there are players who use the space created for them by others or positional football in general. And I think Müller, as good as he has undeniably been this season, firmly belongs into the latter category.
 

Blackwidow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
6,270
I know I'm falling into the old Müller cliche with this, but I think those stats above are a good example why you can't just always take xG/xA at face value. Imho there are players who create space with their dribbling and passing, who can apply their strengths in a variety of setups and situations and then there are players who use the space created for them by others or positional football in general. And I think Müller, as good as he has undeniably been this season, firmly belongs into the latter category.
There was a very good interview with Müller in the Athletic some weeks ago in which Müller explained very well what conditions he needs to thrive. Bavarianfootballworks quotes some of his remarks here: https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2020/2/24/21150416/bayern-munich-thomas-muller-interview-hansi-flick-serge-gnabry-kinglsey-coman-pep-guardiola
I think that explains a lot why he now functions - and had problems with Ancelotti and Kovac.

Müller does not create space with dribblings and passing - you are right with this. But he creates it with his positioning and his runs. It is give and take with his fellow players. It is not just the numbers that show it, especially Robben but Lewy, too, emphasised often that with Müller on the pitch they perform better. Müllers numbers even got better without Robben.

The graphs, especially the first one, just show that that he is not just good in the final of the pitch but that he is already great in starting the actions from midfield even if he never will get the patient buildup player.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
7,352
Location
Germany
There was a very good interview with Müller in the Athletic some weeks ago in which Müller explained very well what conditions he needs to thrive. Bavarianfootballworks quotes some of his remarks here: https://www.bavarianfootballworks.com/2020/2/24/21150416/bayern-munich-thomas-muller-interview-hansi-flick-serge-gnabry-kinglsey-coman-pep-guardiola
I think that explains a lot why he now functions - and had problems with Ancelotti and Kovac.

Müller does not create space with dribblings and passing - you are right with this. But he creates it with his positioning and his runs. It is give and take with his fellow players. It is not just the numbers that show it, especially Robben but Lewy, too, emphasised often that with Müller on the pitch they perform better. Müllers numbers even got better without Robben.

The graphs, especially the first one, just show that that he is not just good in the final of the pitch but that he is already great in starting the actions from midfield even if he never will get the patient buildup player.
But my point is that the effectiveness of that movement only gets enabled by other players and positional football. Without them teams often just block the pass or don't give up these pockets of space in the first place. It's why his stock plummeted so drastically under Kovac, Ancelotti or under Löw (in more recent times). Don't get me wrong, what he does when things around him work is far from trivial, but I think there are player out there whose stats are more transferable to different tactical contexts. He kind of says that himself with his "For my game, structure is super important. It has to be clockwork.".