The "Nothing to play for" belief.

[SirAnderson]

I see this so much and even use it in arguments myself. And its probably not confined to football only.

A part of me thinks it is more a fan belief than it is a very accurate description of what teams do and believe.
Sure, it is visible in players or teams behavior when they are well and truly buried as a team (already relegated, or losing 3-0 in a match etc) or already wrapped up the league or confirmed 40 points safe against relegation etc.
But how accurate is the statement, that they won't put their 100% effort in because they have nothing to play for? Or because it will help a rival they won't give their best since they have nothing to play for?
I think its not accurate at all.

Some of my thoughts AGAINST the idea are the follow:

1. Surely as a professional I will give my best each time I get onto the pitch, or as a manager to not let my players play with that mentality? (or is it something unavoidable?)

2 . Then there is also the extra money given getting up a position in the table per club, which is something, in the 18/19 season the so called "neither here nor there" positions were the following amounts:

9. £23.1m
10. £21.1m
11. £19.2m
12. £17.3m
13. £15.4m
14. £13.4m
15. £11.5m
16. £9.6m

That's something to play for. Sometimes there are very few points between these positions. Currently there is only 6 points between 14th and 10th place, that's a difference of about 8mill. Granted the players may not see that, unless there is like FM performance bonus on where the club finishes they players get more?

I'm sure there are other reasons for giving your best other than the 2 above that I'm missing, please share them if you have.

Then, some of my thoughts FOR the idea:

1. Protecting yourself for your next club? (This would be player not team as a whole not being arsed)
2. European games. We hear this a lot, where we give up 1 competition for the next because it is more likely we can succeed there.
3. Well, just because...there is no real motivation putting in a shift against a top 4 team for example when we are safe and secure and already thinking about which holiday destination I will go too...(maybe to arsed this one)

Would love to know peoples thoughts but from what I gather, we almost ALL believe that teams in certain situations who have nothing to play for, don't show up and get trounced and all that.
Kind of takes the integrity of the game away a bit doesn't it? Or not?

 

[giorno]

You are looking at it from the perspective that it is an intentional thing, that teams don't try their hardest on purpose

That's not the case. It's just that your hardest is significantly different when the result doesn't matter. You're naturally more relaxed and thus less likely to go the extra mile

 

[SirAnderson]

You are looking at it from the perspective that it is an intentional thing, that teams don't try their hardest on purpose

That's not the case. It's just that your hardest is significantly different when the result doesn't matter. You're naturally more relaxed and thus less likely to go the extra mile

So part of our human nature then?
I did mentioned that slightly. But in most cases there is a lot of reasons to be motivated, and while it may not matter for you, it can matter for your team, for the fans (that they so often say "without them we don't have football", my arse)
But I hear you, when it happens I don't think it is very deliberate at all, but surely there is a way to safeguard against it in order to protect your reputation as a player and a team.

 

[Amarsdd]

I suppose its more subconscious. But also I think it can work both ways. When there is something to play for there is more pressure and some thrive under pressure and some don't. Same thing, when the team has nothing to play for. Without that pressure, some tend to perform better. Similar to how Arsenal's season used to pan out in Wenger's later years; towards the end of the season whenever they were mathematically out of the running for the title, they would start getting into great form.

 

[giorno]

So part of our human nature then?
I did mentioned that slightly. But in most cases there is a lot of reasons to be motivated, and while it may not matter for you, it can matter for your team, for the fans (that they so often say "without them we don't have football", my arse)
But I hear you, when it happens I don't think it is very deliberate at all, but surely there is a way to safeguard against it in order to protect your reputation as a player and a team.

I mean, yeah, it's pretty much human nature. Also a level of self-preservation is involved - avoid injuries, ease the recovering times between games, etc -

As for keeping the players motivated, well that depends. There games for which they will always be up for it, like derbies/rivalries or wanting to send off the fans well, wanting to give them a good showing against a big club, etc.

But for the most part...well. There's a reason paying the team playing your direct rivals was a thing in Spain...

 

[Dancfc]

You see the relaxing thing more in teams/managers who have no ambition beyond staying up.

Tony Pulis sides especially were guilty of this, as soon as safety was done he turned off the tap and coasted to the end, almost as if he was reserving energy to then go and do the same again.

 

[a_devil_inside]

When there's a World Cup or European Championship you see players slacking off and not going in for full tackles in case they get injured and miss out.

 

[VeevaVee]

The thing with number 1 is a lot of footballers aren’t that professional.

I think most would like to finish in a better position though.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

1. How professional is a professional footballer?

2. Different people have different motivations and work ethics.

3. In the end, still normal human nature ~ motivations, happiness, ambition, etc etc affected by a lot of things.

4. Plenty of other things/priorities.

 

[RiqCantona]

I see this so much and even use it in arguments myself. And its probably not confined to football only.

A part of me thinks it is more a fan belief than it is a very accurate description of what teams do and believe.
Sure, it is visible in players or teams behavior when they are well and truly buried as a team (already relegated, or losing 3-0 in a match etc) or already wrapped up the league or confirmed 40 points safe against relegation etc.
But how accurate is the statement, that they won't put their 100% effort in because they have nothing to play for? Or because it will help a rival they won't give their best since they have nothing to play for?
I think its not accurate at all.

Some of my thoughts AGAINST the idea are the follow:

1. Surely as a professional I will give my best each time I get onto the pitch, or as a manager to not let my players play with that mentality? (or is it something unavoidable?)

2 . Then there is also the extra money given getting up a position in the table per club, which is something, in the 18/19 season the so called "neither here nor there" positions were the following amounts:

9. £23.1m
10. £21.1m
11. £19.2m
12. £17.3m
13. £15.4m
14. £13.4m
15. £11.5m
16. £9.6m

That's something to play for. Sometimes there are very few points between these positions. Currently there is only 6 points between 14th and 10th place, that's a difference of about 8mill. Granted the players may not see that, unless there is like FM performance bonus on where the club finishes they players get more?

I'm sure there are other reasons for giving your best other than the 2 above that I'm missing, please share them if you have.

Then, some of my thoughts FOR the idea:

1. Protecting yourself for your next club? (This would be player not team as a whole not being arsed)
2. European games. We hear this a lot, where we give up 1 competition for the next because it is more likely we can succeed there.
3. Well, just because...there is no real motivation putting in a shift against a top 4 team for example when we are safe and secure and already thinking about which holiday destination I will go too...(maybe to arsed this one)

Would love to know peoples thoughts but from what I gather, we almost ALL believe that teams in certain situations who have nothing to play for, don't show up and get trounced and all that.
Kind of takes the integrity of the game away a bit doesn't it? Or not?

Interesting debate. This is entirely my own observation and deduction of watching football (and cricket) for over 2 decades.

The difference between having nothing to play for and having everything to play for is quite subtle imo. I think every team goes out there to try and win every game, be it a friendly or a dead-rubber. But the one noticeable difference (what you are referring to) that we can see is that players would often lack the intensity and commitment that you would normally get. They don't give that extra yard, that extra effort to try and win the little battles. They don't give their 100%, because they don't need to, one, and two, because they don't want to get injured or booked.

But I think there is always something to play for. If you are a professional player you are required to function consistently whichever competitive game you play. Its that you are paid to do. Suppose a player plays in a dead-rubber and gives a very nonchalant performance - it would certainly show in the body language, and once that starts to show... what do you think would be the reactions of the supporters and the team itself? I think there is nothing worse than "not caring' about a game. And it certainly will never bode well for that player's future in the team.

Secondly, I think managers have a huge role to play in this. Dead rubbers are the opportune moments for manager/coaches to rotate players. Quite regularly, you will see that young players or fringe players make the team and the big and in-form players are rested. This works very well because young players can use this opportunity to make a case for themselves for the future - hence they are often expected to give it their all to play well. And a good performance works both ways, as it creates a healthy competition in the long run and at the same time brings back the intensity of a regular game. Coaches understand it very well, and use this as a motivation. They also experiment with the formation and line-up as well - trying out new things. It becomes a sort of win-win situation if it works out.

Lastly, even if there is nothing left to play for... there is always pride. Human beings are proud and nobody likes to lose. If its an already relegated team, they want to show the world that they aren't as bad as the season they had. They want to take something away from it. If its a team which is neither top nor bottom, its about building confidence for the next season. I think its also about showing people how good a team or an individual is, despite the competition being over. They want to take something away from the season.

However, I think what you said actually doesn't apply to teams which are relegated or safe. But rather, it applies to teams which are already champions (like Liverpool is now). They have already won, they are proud winners already. After a long hard season, they literally have nothing to play for - but its just one team. I can only think of one argument for this. Since everyone else apart from the winners have something to play for, so the opposing team will bring their A-game. For pride or building confidence, there is nothing better than beating the current Champions. And the Champions will know this as well, and ultimately try and win the game as well.

I recall reading about the game between W. Germany and Austria in the 1982 World Cup. Germany needed to win by a solitary goal, to ensure both team qualify. After scoring the goal, both teams passed the ball around in their own half. Look it up if you haven't already. Its a big (read controversial) part of football history. It will help gain a little perspective.

In the end, its very rare that teams do not have anything to play for in a tournament/league. I think human nature is competitive and we have a lot of pride - which stops us from giving it away.

 

[Berbasbullet]

I suppose its more subconscious. But also I think it can work both ways. When there is something to play for there is more pressure and some thrive under pressure and some don't. Same thing, when the team has nothing to play for. Without that pressure, some tend to perform better. Similar to how Arsenal's season used to pan out in Wenger's later years; towards the end of the season whenever they were mathematically out of the running for the title, they would start getting into great form.

Exactly, the team can relax and play their game with no consequences. The same way that sometimes already relegated teams start performing quite well sometimes.