Would we ever see a player strike?

[dannyrhinos89]

Awwww my heart bleeds for them.

The average person is overworked and underpaid. Footballers are the exact opposite they're under worked and overpaid, it just shows how detached from reality they are.

Bunch of whiners should either suck it up or stop playing football.

 

[noodlehair]

Hm, there's the perception management aspect of it. It's a results business and if you rotate your best players and lose a game the manager gets blamed. Even if technically a sub could've put in a better performance than the starter because the starter wasn't fully fit.

That's the life of a football manager though isn't it. Any time amanager makes any decision theyre risking criticism if they dont get a result.

City, United, Chelsea for example have all spent lots of money on players they both still have AND almost never use, yet you have the likes of Pep whining about his players playing too many games and acting like it's someone else's problem to sort out. ETH was coming out with similar recently. Has Kalvin Phillips played too many games? Are Maguire and Eriksen playing too many games at the same time as saying they would like to play more games?

It's such a bizarre thing to complain about when literally every club in the PL has the resources to just not play their players as often.

 

[Andersonson]

I bet Konate and Gomez disagrees with VvD. They would love to play more. The managers doesnt rotate enough and the best players always play.

 

[tentan]

Dunno what Varane is on about he gets enough time off.

 

[calcio]

I’m a little surprised we haven’t seen any top players try and bin international duty. With these crazy schedules and if I weren’t in one of the top 10 or so countries I’d do what I could to avoid it as it would be a big advantage for your recovery.

 

[Wilt]

Take a break from posting mate.

 

[Trequarista10]

Clubs should rest players more, rather than there being a reduction in the number of games. Its in their own interest to reduce injuries and fatigue. Nothing obliges them to start players 50+ games a season. The best managers generally rotate anyway in recognition of this fact. Obviously there's some pressure on managers to get results and play the strongest XI but with the sports science resources clubs have they should realise its actually counter productive to play certain players 180 minutes every week. Most big clubs have the squad depth, there's always just a number of players who are out of favour and not getting many minutes.

Assuming no change to the schedule, if clubs are not able to manage player workloads independently then maybe there could be some regulations, e.g no player can play in more than, say, 45 or 50 domestic games a season so clubs are forced to provide rest periods for players. However no two players are the same, so it'd be far better if clubs manage this themselves. Players shouldn't be complaining to the governing bodies about the number of games, they need to negotiate with their clubs for agreed limits of playing time.

 

[Norman Brownbutter]

When I was in my 20s I was playing Badminton every second day of the week for 3 hours a day minimum. I was NEVER what you would call an athlete. Just young with all the benefits that comes with. So this endless moaning about games played is not something I have any time for. Two games a week is hardly anything that a top athlete should be caring about. Yes, Im sure the travel sucks, but it's not like the ones moaning the most aren't well compensated for their time and efforts.

On the other hand I do agree that there is a lot of pointless games, and it's set up only in order to squeeze as much money out of the public as possible. And since those much less well off people are also doing the travelling it's them I feel for more than millionaires who get the very best of everything on their premier league and champions league travels.

And then theres the team selection. If VVD thinks he is being played too much, thats on Klopp for not rotating the squad enough. Teams have 20+ players for a reason, and that reason is not because the camera lens is too big and they need extra bodies to fill out the space for the team photo. Most teams have at least 2 players that can play each position. This is the current Liverpool squad. They can't play two games a week using all these players??? If not, thats just bad player utilisation. And that its just not anyone else's problem but the manager.

 

[Red in STL]

Managers fault then

Nope it's the fans fault, lose a few games and the fans are calling for the managers head, the game has changed, ypu don't win you get sacked, most managers have to play their best players all the time or they lose their job

If SAF was starting today at United and had the early record he had from when he took over he'd have been sacked before Mark Robins "saved" him

 

[Red in STL]

50 years ago players were regularly playing one day then the next, including Christmas Day then Boxing Day, compared with the usual 3 days minimum between games now.

25 years ago in England there were 42 league games, FA Cup replays and 2 legged league cup ties. Now there's 38 games, FA Cup replays largely scrapped and League Cup games are 1 leg and go straight to penalties if a draw.

20 years ago there were 2 CL group stages and you had to play 17 games if you wanted to win the CL. For years now there's been just one group stage and just 13 games to win the CL.

When you then consider the advancements in scientific understanding of recovery and associated technology, the failure to acknowledge the improvements are ridiculous. You then consider how much they're getting paid...

Putting the body under immense stress is no excuse no matter how much they get paid, but it's just got better and better over many years now. Again, look at all the cases of Dementia that are popping up from ex-pros who also got paid feck all to play 42 league games with no subs and compare it to now. The modern pros are very well looked after.

You've missed out something, with all those games they were actually pretty shit games a lot of the time, the quality was often poor, I know because I went to some of them

 

[Red in STL]

How would this strike even work? Just club's above a certain level? I don't imagine a league 2 player who isn't well off (and not playing that many games to start with, relatively) being sympathetic to and joining forces with the plight of players who could retire today and never have to worry about money again.

A lot of the top players would support them financially, if I recall correctly this happened during COVID though how widespread I don't know

 

[lex talionis]

I would support stretching out the time between games, even if it meant a longer season. For us it’s great to see our club every 3-4 days but it takes too much of a toll on the players. Squad rotation helps a lot with the fringe players, but the core players are overworked. Bruno and Rashford are prime examples for United.

 

[Zarlak]

But can they do it at 80 cold rainy nights at Stoke

 

[Jippy]

Varane's smart to raise it from the angle of sustaining quality football. You'll never get any sympathy from a 'this is too hard for players and we're risking our health' angle, because of the absurd amount of money they're paid.

But fans don't actually want all these new games. Half of them are pointless. And the result is that your team rarely put in their best performance because everyone is in a constant state of managed physical fatigue. And you never get to see your proper first XI because of the volume of injuries.

Football's governing bodies know more matches = more cash. As a fan I don't want more United games, but I'm also not going to want to miss out on any if we do play more. In the long term a high volume of low quality football might start to hurt the sport. But really from a cold hard business point of view, governing bodies are doing a perfectly sensible thing.

Fans can't really change their behaviour. Too many, from all different places in the world with totally different attitudes to the sport/money/business and ultimately a loyalty to their clubs which makes it hard to simply choose not to watch games, and no capacity to organise effectively to boycott, especially now that the broadcast viewers are worth so much more than the matchgoing fan.

The only way to change this is player power.

Football does feel at saturation point and agree the more lower quality and pretty pointless matches, like expanding the World Cup and the potential new club world cup, are unwanted by many fans.
Even the 15 minutes of added time we sometimes see across a game's halves can be a slog to watch.

Players will never get widespread sympathy, understandably given the money they're on. But people do have a strange inherent distaste for footballers, excusing them being overworked, vilified, humiliated or whatever purely cos they earn a lot. No other sport has this mentality.

 

[Dorris]

To 20 years ago? It’s definitely at a higher level, but to the point where only a minor reduction in games requires strikes? Bollocks.

Well I was actually referencing 50 years ago. I get what you’re saying with regards to 20 years ago, but it was still nowhere near as competitive. I also think the players are referring to the increase in summer tournaments more than anything. The top players don’t really get summers anymore.

 

[Someone]

Why not limit the number of games per player on club level and international level as well? This would force managers to rotate, and provide plenty of opportunities for other players.

 

[IRN-BRUno]

You never seem to hear players from the lower divisions complaining. Take Leagues 1 & 2 as an example, they're playing 46 league games with potentially 3 more in play-offs and have 3 cup competitions guaranteeing at least 5 more games. Generally these sides will have smaller squads so don't have the option to rotate like the top teams do and they don't have access to the same level of facilities and equipment.

I saw Pep recently moaning that City had to return from Newcastle on the coach after their League Cup match. These clubs are doing this all the time, they don't have the luxury of flying to most games or being able to afford overnight stays in nice hotels. That means hours on the coach with very early starts/not getting back until the early hours especially for those at the ends of the country.

Where I do have some sympathy is Varane's point on the quality of football. With the amount Bruno has played over the last few years it's no surprise that his form has dipped. In some ways you could say that having a few minor injuries in that time giving him a month off here and there might actually have been beneficial to him. If Arteta continues to play Saka constantly then I expect it won't be long before his performances also start to suffer. That's down to the clubs to manage them better.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Some truly poor takes in here.

People need to realize that footballers now train harder, work harder, run harder, cover way more distance during a game, put more sprints in and generally have to maintain load for longer than footballers 20 years ago.

It's ridiculous the amount of football that they force the players to play.

To have people stating that Van Dijk should play for a lesser team if he wants to play less is quite frankly stupid and ridiculous.

Ironic.
Do you have stats to back up these claims about players trying harder now than twenty years ago?
Bearing in mind the ball is in play for less time than it’s ever been because players are constantly time wasting and lying on the floor pretending to be injured. And is this all players? So does Anthony Martial try harder then our striker of twenty years ago Ruud van Nistelrooy did?

Nobody is forcing them to do anything, the reason why they are continuing to increase games at European and international level is largely down to finance. As many have pointed out you have a large squad, use it.
Players And their agents continue to demand astonishing salaries and bonuses at the highest level and this is the consequence. There is no magic money tree. If you keep wanting more and more money. Clubs and footballing organisers are going to try and find ways to make more money for themselves and to pay you and they do that by playing more matches.

A mental, stupid third international competition no one gives a shit about. Same with the ECL as well.

It's just an unimaginable greed from the top, just lumping on more games and more competitions to generate nothing more than more ad revenue.

Now they're trying to extend games to try and square the raising cost for each fan to watch football. Instead of reducing prices they instead give you four more minutes in games as "value for money".

Corruption, greed and zero concern for players.

Actually a lot of teams wanted the Conference League. Smaller clubs in Europe were tired of never getting far enough in European competition and wanted a more level playing field European competition. Clubs outside of Man Utd do exist…

Most clubs spend their money on wages, the more matches the more money. Again if players and their agents continue to rise the average wage of top tier footballers this is the consequence. They are equally as greedy.

You've missed out something, with all those games they were actually pretty shit games a lot of the time, the quality was often poor, I know because I went to some of them

You mean like most United games over the last decade? I love how in these debates United fans tripe on about better quality football and players working harder than ever before with no hint of irony. The concept of football cycles completely lost on these people. You’d think as United fans we would have the awareness. It is patently obvious in our case that our team from 20 years ago shits all over our current team in terms of quality of football and effort put into games. It’s the same with all the shite about how everyone plays high pressing football now when in reality it’s only a select few clubs. These blanket statements are completely daft.
Twenty years ago you had the likes of Keane, Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard and Vieira at the top level of the PL and what we’re saying is that that generation of footballer do not work as hard and are more rubbish at playing football than the modern day ones…
It’s almost as if in the history of footbal at different points some players and teams are good and some players and teams are shit.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Ironic.
Do you have stats to back up these claims about players trying harder now than twenty years ago?
Bearing in mind the ball is in play for less time than it’s ever been because players are constantly time wasting and lying on the floor pretending to be injured.

Nobody is forcing them to do anything, the reason why they are continuing to increase games at European and international level is largely down to finance. As many have pointed out you have a large squad, use it.
Players And their agents continue to demand astonishing salaries and bonuses at the highest level and this is the consequence. There is no magic money tree. If you keep wanting more and more money. Clubs and footballing organisers are going to try and find ways to make more money for themselves and to pay you and they do that by playing more matches.



Actually a lot of teams wanted the Conference League. Smaller clubs in Europe were tired of never getting far enough in European competition and wanted a more level playing field European competition. Clubs outside of Man Utd do exist…

Most clubs spend their money on wages, the more matches the more money. Again if players and their agents continue to rise the average wage of top tier footballers this is the consequence. They are equally as greedy.


You mean like most United games over the last decade? I love how in these debates United fans tripe on about better quality football and players working harder than ever before with no hint of irony. The concept of football cycles completely lost on these people. You’d think as United fans we would have the awareness. It is patently obvious in our case that our team from 20 years ago shits all over our current team in terms of quality of football and effort put into games. It’s the same with all the shite about how everyone plays high pressing football now when in reality it’s only a select few clubs. These blanket statements are completely daft.

You talk about money but it's a symptom of the game generating more and more money.

Without the players, there is no product, they are the product and it's only right they are the ones who get the money.

Players are so much more physical now than ever before.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

I think safety wise they might have too

 

[Ludens the Red]

You talk about money but it's a symptom of the game generating more and more money.

Without the players, there is no product, they are the product and it's only right they are the ones who get the money.

Players are so much more physical now than ever before.

Actually without fans there is no football. They pay the players wages. Players are replaceable hence why football has been running for hundreds of years. And who’s saying they can’t get paid well and get the money. But if you keep wanting more and more the money needs to be extracted from somewhere. Hence more games. Don’t know how much easier this needs to be spelt out for people and the players themselves. I mean it’s just such a basic concept.

Players are so much more physical now then ever before? What does that even mean?

 

[Taribo's Gap]

Football does feel at saturation point and agree the more lower quality and pretty pointless matches, like expanding the World Cup and the potential new club world cup, are unwanted by many fans.
Even the 15 minutes of added time we sometimes see across a game's halves can be a slog to watch.

Players will never get widespread sympathy, understandably given the money they're on. But people do have a strange inherent distaste for footballers, excusing them being overworked, vilified, humiliated or whatever purely cos they earn a lot. No other sport has this mentality.

I'm not really sure that this sentiment is unique to football. Unfortunately, I think the prospect of facing such treatment is just part of the package of being a public/semi-public figure these days, and it's no different for athletes. You definitely see this sentiment in the NFL, where with every rule change fans complain about how soft and spoiled the player's have become, even though some of these guys have very, very short career lifespans and face the prospect of serious, debilitating post-career injuries from accumulated damage.

There is also a flip side to player power (I am definitely a shill for capital ). In the NBA this year, the complaints about load management were such that the league has taken an open stance against the practice this year and implemented a new Player Participation Policy. Admittedly, there were a few notable examples of very highly-played players resting that pushed the practice into wider scrutiny. I think from a league perspective the "product" was suffering because fans would go to a game expecting to see certain players play and then would catch a load management day. The NBA is a more star-driven game though, so perhaps the same product implications would not apply here, unless it's a situation like Messi in Miami where prices are inflated and he is the main attraction, both for in-person fans and for viewing/TV/streaming purposes. The commercial considerations did come up for the NBA though and the lack of star player visibility was being contemplated when they implemented this policy, given some pending broadcast rights negotiations.

This, to me, is what counteracts Varane's point on quality a bit; a distinction between quality of football vs. quality of "product". Do casual fans want to see certain players more or a certain standard of football? Is Bruno's play suffering from fatigue, or has he just been found out after the league has adjusted to him? The note below from the article I linked also got me thinking about if there is a broader basis for Varane's claims other than knowing his own body really well. This is a league mouthpiece, so take it for what it is:

“Before, it was a given conclusion that the data showed that you had to rest players a certain amount, and that justified them sitting out,” said Dumars. “We’ve gotten more data, and it just doesn’t show that resting, sitting guys out correlates with lack of injuries, or fatigue, or anything like that. What it does show is maybe guys aren’t as efficient on the second night of a back-to-back.”

 

[Vidyoyo]

I'm not really sure that this sentiment is unique to football. Unfortunately, I think the prospect of facing such treatment is just part of the package of being a public/semi-public figure these days, and it's no different for athletes. You definitely see this sentiment in the NFL, where with every rule change fans complain about how soft and spoiled the player's have become, even though some of these guys have very, very short career lifespans and face the prospect of serious, debilitating post-career injuries from accumulated damage.

There is also a flip side to player power (I am definitely a shill for capital ). In the NBA this year, the complaints about load management were such that the league has taken an open stance against the practice this year and implemented a new Player Participation Policy. Admittedly, there were a few notable examples of very highly-played players resting that pushed the practice into wider scrutiny. I think from a league perspective the "product" was suffering because fans would go to a game expecting to see certain players play and then would catch a load management day. The NBA is a more star-driven game though, so perhaps the same product implications would not apply here, unless it's a situation like Messi in Miami where prices are inflated and he is the main attraction, both for in-person fans and for viewing/TV/streaming purposes. The commercial considerations did come up for the NBA though and the lack of star player visibility was being contemplated when they implemented this policy, given some pending broadcast rights negotiations.

This, to me, is what counteracts Varane's point on quality a bit; a distinction between quality of football vs. quality of "product". Do casual fans want to see certain players more or a certain standard of football? Is Bruno's play suffering from fatigue, or has he just been found out after the league has adjusted to him? The note below from the article I linked also got me thinking about if there is a broader basis for Varane's claims other than knowing his own body really well. This is a league mouthpiece, so take it for what it is:

“Before, it was a given conclusion that the data showed that you had to rest players a certain amount, and that justified them sitting out,” said Dumars. “We’ve gotten more data, and it just doesn’t show that resting, sitting guys out correlates with lack of injuries, or fatigue, or anything like that. What it does show is maybe guys aren’t as efficient on the second night of a back-to-back.”

Good post. Bold seems to justify the idea that it's less about physical injury and more about mental fatigue, which is understandable given the demands at the top level.

 

[kaku06]

- Scrap international football friendlies
- Scrap that pathetic Nations league
- Scrap conference league
- Start the season in the first week of august and give a 3 week break/rest after Boxing Day to recover/recharge players for the second part of the season.

 

[Rnd898]

I remember reading a report a few years ago that said professional players have a top limit of about 36,000 / 45,000 minutes before their bodies physically start to work against them, this roughly equates to about 400/500+ games.

We've only ever seen a few freak athletes and players break that kind of threshold and continue to perform to their highest levels beyond that kind of range. But even if you look at exmaples players who had a drop off in terms of their top level, their physical decline came around this point.

400-500 games seems very low and there are definitely more players than only the 'freak athletes' who can easily go past that amount and still be at their best.

Just off the top of my head I could probably name you dozens of players who played 700-800+ games in their careers for club and country and still kept a high level. Apart from a select few I wouldn't consider most of them freak athletes by any means, just good professionals. Hell, even a player often slated for his unprofessionality like Eden Hazard still played 650+ games before decline started.

The threshold you mentioned may have ringed more true in the 20th century when sports science, tranining methods and recovery weren't anywhere near as developed as they currently are.

I think you're definitely on to something there and the amount of minutes/games played often plays a part in how long the players can keep up their best level as they get older but I just think the threshold is too low. It's no surprise players who start playing regular first team football at 16-18 tend to gas out earlier compared to those who only really start playing at the top level at 20-21, let alone those who start blossoming even later.

 

[CallyRed]

I'll join them on the picket lines. I bet Maguire would be a scab.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

Actually without fans there is no football. They pay the players wages. Players are replaceable hence why football has been running for hundreds of years. And who’s saying they can’t get paid well and get the money. But if you keep wanting more and more the money needs to be extracted from somewhere. Hence more games. Don’t know how much easier this needs to be spelt out for people and the players themselves. I mean it’s just such a basic concept.

Players are so much more physical now then ever before? What does that even mean?

Yeah, hence why Sunday league is so popular. I'm sure 50,000 want to watch fat Keith and Barry spooning clearances out every four seconds.

Players run more, sprint more, play more games, have less recovery than ever before.

 

[Dave Smith]

Personally, the problem with the amount of games is international football, that is the area of football with the most dull and dead rubber games. On top of that it also picks up the most air miles.

As someone outlines above, club football used to have more games than now. 42 game league fixtures, 17 Champions League games, more replays etc.

One thing that gets forgetton about was how the two group stage CL got rowed back. This was due to arguments about the amount of games. However, what happened is that when it went back to one, a number of additional international fixtures were added.

For me, qualifying for a WC and EC is pointless. 48 teams are going to 2026 out of about 200. In SA 7 from 10 will go. Do they really need to play 18 games to make this decision? In Europe you have 24 teams qualifying from about 52. Why do we need all those group games to decide San Marino, Gibraltar, Liechtenstein etc aren't going to go? As for Friendlies there is absolutely no purpose for those outside of 1-2 before a tournament. For me, cut the qualifying to a straight KO, that would then add some jepody and may actually get people interested again.

For me, the club season should be moved to Sept-April and the international season should be May-June. That will give the plays July-Aug off. Additionally, if you did that, the players on international duty can set themselves up on the correct continent for May-June and wouldn't have to fly back and forth so much.

 

[Champ]

Ironic.
Do you have stats to back up these claims about players trying harder now than twenty years ago?
Bearing in mind the ball is in play for less time than it’s ever been because players are constantly time wasting and lying on the floor pretending to be injured. And is this all players? So does Anthony Martial try harder then our striker of twenty years ago Ruud van Nistelrooy did?

Nobody is forcing them to do anything, the reason why they are continuing to increase games at European and international level is largely down to finance. As many have pointed out you have a large squad, use it.
Players And their agents continue to demand astonishing salaries and bonuses at the highest level and this is the consequence. There is no magic money tree. If you keep wanting more and more money. Clubs and footballing organisers are going to try and find ways to make more money for themselves and to pay you and they do that by playing more matches.



Actually a lot of teams wanted the Conference League. Smaller clubs in Europe were tired of never getting far enough in European competition and wanted a more level playing field European competition. Clubs outside of Man Utd do exist…

Most clubs spend their money on wages, the more matches the more money. Again if players and their agents continue to rise the average wage of top tier footballers this is the consequence. They are equally as greedy.


You mean like most United games over the last decade? I love how in these debates United fans tripe on about better quality football and players working harder than ever before with no hint of irony. The concept of football cycles completely lost on these people. You’d think as United fans we would have the awareness. It is patently obvious in our case that our team from 20 years ago shits all over our current team in terms of quality of football and effort put into games. It’s the same with all the shite about how everyone plays high pressing football now when in reality it’s only a select few clubs. These blanket statements are completely daft.
Twenty years ago you had the likes of Keane, Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard and Vieira at the top level of the PL and what we’re saying is that that generation of footballer do not work as hard and are more rubbish at playing football than the modern day ones…
It’s almost as if in the history of footbal at different points some players and teams are good and some players and teams are shit.

A quick Google search will give you all the stats you need regarding how much harder a footballer has to train, play and work today then twenty years ago.

There have been several studies about this in recent years, and all came to same conclusion.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Yeah, hence why Sunday league is so popular. I'm sure 50,000 want to watch fat Keith and Barry spooning clearances out every four seconds.

Players run more, sprint more, play more games, have less recovery than ever before.

What? Football fans pay tickets and subscriptions. If they’re not willing to pay the prices they do to watch premier league football. The players don’t get the salaries they do:

Some teams are running and sprinting more which explains the very minimal overall increase. It isn’t the same for every team.
The difference in Pl terms can be attributed to basically three managers. Poch, pep and Klopp.

A quick Google search will give you all the stats you need regarding how much harder a footballer has to train, play and work today then twenty years ago.

There have been several studies about this in recent years, and all came to same conclusion.

I’ve seen studies and the difference was negligible, barely even worth mentioning unless you can show me a study showing a dramatic increase in any of these areas it’s meh . A lot of data is also inconclusive because certain things weren’t being recorded twenty years ago. It was a poxy difference and someone on here tore it apart a few months back in a thread. Nobody can sit here and tell me Manchester United footballers in 2023 are training more, working harder and running more than Manchester United players of twenty years ago.

 

[Champ]

What? Football fans pay tickets and subscriptions. If they’re not willing to pay the prices they do to watch premier league football. The players don’t get the salaries they do:

Some teams are running and sprinting more which explains the very minimal overall increase. It isn’t the same for every team.
The difference in Pl terms can be attributed to basically three managers. Poch, pep and Klopp.

I’ve seen studies and the difference was negligible, barely even worth mentioning unless you can show me a study showing a dramatic increase in any of these areas it’s meh . A lot of data is also inconclusive because certain things weren’t being recorded twenty years ago. It was a poxy difference and someone on here tore it apart a few months back in a thread. Nobody can sit here and tell me Manchester United footballers in 2023 are training more, working harder and running more than Manchester United players of twenty years ago.

7 year old study

Physical study

You could easily find loads more, but the two listed above are interesting for me.
The first is quite a few years old, which only shows how things have progressed even further since then

The second is very very interesting. It even states the physical differences in successful footballers is because *gasps* they are running faster and working harder than they were previously!

 

[RedUnited86]

Bit rich of Varane, the fecker is never fit to play anyway.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

When I was in my 20s I was playing Badminton every second day of the week for 3 hours a day minimum. I was NEVER what you would call an athlete. Just young with all the benefits that comes with. So this endless moaning about games played is not something I have any time for. Two games a week is hardly anything that a top athlete should be caring about. Yes, Im sure the travel sucks, but it's not like the ones moaning the most aren't well compensated for their time and efforts.

On the other hand I do agree that there is a lot of pointless games, and it's set up only in order to squeeze as much money out of the public as possible. And since those much less well off people are also doing the travelling it's them I feel for more than millionaires who get the very best of everything on their premier league and champions league travels.

And then theres the team selection. If VVD thinks he is being played too much, thats on Klopp for not rotating the squad enough. Teams have 20+ players for a reason, and that reason is not because the camera lens is too big and they need extra bodies to fill out the space for the team photo. Most teams have at least 2 players that can play each position. This is the current Liverpool squad. They can't play two games a week using all these players??? If not, thats just bad player utilisation. And that its just not anyone else's problem but the manager.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't really matter. These are players that span the ages of teens all the way up to late 30's. Those in their 30's can't recover like people in their 20's. They're also doing far more than just playing two games a week, there's travel, training, conditioning, etc.

Totally agree with your second paragraph.

Perhaps this speaks to a broader point of how results driven management is for the majority of managers. Very few have the leeway to field a second team unless it's in the domestic cups. So that's potentially only 2 games that you can safely rotate, assuming you lose them both.

 

[jasT1981]

reduce the pointless International breaks, qualifiers sure but silly friendlies in the middle of the season are no good and stage some of the qualifiers in the Summer. It will eat into pre-season sure for clubs, but most clubs use reserves etc anyway.

 

[Red in STL]

Ironic.
Do you have stats to back up these claims about players trying harder now than twenty years ago?
Bearing in mind the ball is in play for less time than it’s ever been because players are constantly time wasting and lying on the floor pretending to be injured. And is this all players? So does Anthony Martial try harder then our striker of twenty years ago Ruud van Nistelrooy did?

Nobody is forcing them to do anything, the reason why they are continuing to increase games at European and international level is largely down to finance. As many have pointed out you have a large squad, use it.
Players And their agents continue to demand astonishing salaries and bonuses at the highest level and this is the consequence. There is no magic money tree. If you keep wanting more and more money. Clubs and footballing organisers are going to try and find ways to make more money for themselves and to pay you and they do that by playing more matches.



Actually a lot of teams wanted the Conference League. Smaller clubs in Europe were tired of never getting far enough in European competition and wanted a more level playing field European competition. Clubs outside of Man Utd do exist…

Most clubs spend their money on wages, the more matches the more money. Again if players and their agents continue to rise the average wage of top tier footballers this is the consequence. They are equally as greedy.


You mean like most United games over the last decade? I love how in these debates United fans tripe on about better quality football and players working harder than ever before with no hint of irony. The concept of football cycles completely lost on these people. You’d think as United fans we would have the awareness. It is patently obvious in our case that our team from 20 years ago shits all over our current team in terms of quality of football and effort put into games. It’s the same with all the shite about how everyone plays high pressing football now when in reality it’s only a select few clubs. These blanket statements are completely daft.
Twenty years ago you had the likes of Keane, Beckham, Lampard, Gerrard and Vieira at the top level of the PL and what we’re saying is that that generation of footballer do not work as hard and are more rubbish at playing football than the modern day ones…
It’s almost as if in the history of footbal at different points some players and teams are good and some players and teams are shit.

Nothing to do with workrate or ability or mentality, the game has changed and expectations are different today, we view the quality of football in the last decade as shit, but it's nowhere near as shit as a lot of the games dished up in the 60's, 70's and 80's

One thing I've learned is that tiredness comes in different forms, in my teens and 20's I worked in a physical labour kind of job, I was tired from the physical aspect of it and used to scoff at one of my mates who worked in an office when he claimed he was tired, since those days I have worked in an office and still found it tiring, not physically but mentally, the result is basically the same
than physically but the result
Players today, IMO, are more mentally tiredthan [hysically tired but the end result is the same

 

[Ludens the Red]

7 year old study

Physical study

You could easily find loads more, but the two listed above are interesting for me.
The first is quite a few years old, which only shows how things have progressed even further since then

The second is very very interesting. It even states the physical differences in successful footballers is because *gasps* they are running faster and working harder than they were previously!

So the first study states that “the amount of sprinting in the English Premier League has increased by 50 per cent in ten years.” But does not produce a graph or anything backing up that claim.
Secondly “The general pacing of football has increased dramatically and it seems as if the nearly constant intensity of the game, which was characteristic of the sport a couple of years back, has been replaced with a lot of high intensity sprinting periods followed by resting periods,” says co-author Magni Mohr from the University of the Faroe Islands.

The study shows that a mere minute of repeated sprinting at the onset of the game will cause the players to temporarily tire.”

So this actual article mentions high intensity sprints. Which if iirc is exactly the criticism that stemmed when people were pushing against this myth that players nowadays work harder and run more. More high intensity sprints does not automatically mean more running and working harder.
That article is basically saying the constant high intensity sprints (makes sense with the push in pressing football) actually can have a detrimental effect. And you know this is true because you see it at United with Bruno and Mount. Yeah great you’re sprinting more but then tiring yourself out and then getting pushed off the ball and not having the energy to track runners back. Does this automatically mean you’re running more and working harder? No it doesn’t. Again I’ll ask, show me some hard data showing a tangible difference in how much players are running.

As for the second article well that’s a given. Of course footballers will be in better shape now than they were twenty years ago. They have stricter diets and better gym access etc. this doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll run more or work harder though. We’re talking twenty years ago footballers not 50 years ago. Drinking and bad diet culture was abandoned in the mid 90’s and footballers since then have generally been in fantastic shape physically. see Giggs, Lampard, Barry etc. Also I did chuckle at that article talking about players being leaner and faster and then putting mentioning Harry Kane who isn’t particularly fast or lean.

 

[Champ]

So the first study states that “the amount of sprinting in the English Premier League has increased by 50 per cent in ten years.” But does not produce a graph or anything backing up that claim.
Secondly “The general pacing of football has increased dramatically and it seems as if the nearly constant intensity of the game, which was characteristic of the sport a couple of years back, has been replaced with a lot of high intensity sprinting periods followed by resting periods,” says co-author Magni Mohr from the University of the Faroe Islands.

The study shows that a mere minute of repeated sprinting at the onset of the game will cause the players to temporarily tire.”

So this actual article mentions high intensity sprints. Which if iirc is exactly the criticism that stemmed when people were pushing against this myth that players nowadays work harder and run more. More high intensity sprints does not automatically mean more running and working harder.
That article is basically saying the constant high intensity sprints (makes sense with the push in pressing football) actually can have a detrimental effect. And you know this is true because you see it at United with Bruno and Mount. Yeah great you’re sprinting more but then tiring yourself out and then getting pushed off the ball and not having the energy to track runners back. Does this automatically mean you’re running more and working harder? No it doesn’t. Again I’ll ask, show me some hard data showing a tangible difference in how much players are running.

As for the second article well that’s a given. Of course footballers will be in better shape now than they were twenty years ago. They have stricter diets and better gym access etc. this doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll run more or work harder though. We’re talking twenty years ago footballers not 50 years ago. Drinking and bad diet culture was abandoned in the mid 90’s and footballers since then have generally been in fantastic shape physically. see Giggs, Lampard, Barry etc. Also I did chuckle at that article talking about players being leaner and faster and then putting mentioning Harry Kane who isn’t particularly fast or lean.

Honestly, I think you're having a bit of a hard time here.
You mention a drinking culture in football, yet find it hard to comprehend that footballers work harder today!!!?


The first study for me shows that that footballers are running harder then they were years ago, and bear in mind that was 7 years ago, things will only have been amplified now.
This doesn't just apply to matches by the way, this applies to training as well.

Footballers have to work hard to maintain their physique, maintain their fitness, maintain their stamina, a small percentage of body fat gain can have a massive effect on their game, hence the second linked study mentioning Lukaku.

Yet you've even mentioned yourself that there was a drinking culture in football, and having known a fair few footballers in my time, I know a few stories, especially during the late 90s and early 2000s.

Would you believe that Harry Kane has clocked a faster speed then Lucas Moura and is level with Son? He is deceptively quick.

 

[Ludens the Red]

Honestly, I think you're having a bit of a hard time here.
You mention a drinking culture in football, yet find it hard to comprehend that footballers work harder today!!!?


The first study for me shows that that footballers are running harder then they were years ago, and bear in mind that was 7 years ago, things will only have been amplified now.
This doesn't just apply to matches by the way, this applies to training as well.

Footballers have to work hard to maintain their physique, maintain their fitness, maintain their stamina, a small percentage of body fat gain can have a massive effect on their game, hence the second linked study mentioning Lukaku.

Yet you've even mentioned yourself that there was a drinking culture in football, and having known a fair few footballers in my time, I know a few stories, especially during the late 90s and early 2000s.

Would you believe that Harry Kane has clocked a faster speed then Lucas Moura and is level with Son? He is deceptively quick.

Not having a hard time with anything. You’ve posted an article claiming it’s proved something but it contains zero actual raw data and even points out the negative effects of constant high intensity style pressing.
Drinking culture was from back in the 80’s,90’s. I’m not talking about that era, I’m talking specifically twenty years ago.

Footballers were working hard, maintaining stamina and fitness twenty years ago. All that’s changed is how it’s done and recorded with people recording data like they’ve never done before. It does not automatically conduce to producing better results for ALL footballers. Some footballers now still don’t run as much as footballers from twenty years ago. Some footballers still don’t work as hard and have as good as stamina as footballers from twenty years ago. Everyone is different. There is no hard and fast rule to it no matter what these modern day ‘sports scientists’ at the big clubs tell you. The amount of work and running you do also depends on your mental make up which cannot be taught or trained or drilled into you. It doesn’t matter how fancy your fitness training sessions are, Paul Pogba and Anthony martial still aren’t going to run.

And there’s also drinking stories about modern day players . I mean Jack Grealish won the treble and is a known piss head.
what speed Harry Kane clocks is irrelevant to the eye test. He’s clearly not a particularly fast player on the pitch. And he was placed in a list with Vardy and Rashford. Not for a minute do I think Lucas moura or son can hit the speeds those players can on the pitch.

 

[Champ]

Not having a hard time with anything. You’ve posted an article claiming it’s proved something but it contains zero actual raw data and even points out the negative effects of constant high intensity style pressing.
Drinking culture was from back in the 80’s,90’s. I’m not talking about that era, I’m talking specifically twenty years ago.

Footballers were working hard, maintaining stamina and fitness twenty years ago. All that’s changed is how it’s done and recorded with people recording data like they’ve never done before. It does not automatically conduce to producing better results for ALL footballers. Some footballers now still don’t run as much as footballers from twenty years ago. Some footballers still don’t work as hard and have as good as stamina as footballers from twenty years ago. Everyone is different. There is no hard and fast rule to it no matter what these modern day ‘sports scientists’ at the big clubs tell you.

And there’s also drinking stories about modern day players . I mean Jack Grealish won the treble and is a known piss head.
what speed Harry Kane clocks is irrelevant to the eye test. He’s clearly not a particularly fast player on the pitch. And he was placed in a list with Vardy and Rashford. Not for a minute do I think Lucas moura or son can hit the speeds those players can on the pitch.

To the bolded part, Good job we are comparing footballers today with twenty years ago then dear oh dear!!

You talk about the 'eye test', yet can't see a difference between football being played today and twenty years ago?! You need your eyes checked!

In addition, you state there's no graphs, data or information in the first link, despite their being a graph, data and a statement about the data being based on 473 premiership players, again, you may need your eyes checked!!

Anyhow, I'm going no further with this, as it's clear you either are so entrenched in your view that you can't see past it, or are just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Murder on Zidane's Floor]

What? Football fans pay tickets and subscriptions. If they’re not willing to pay the prices they do to watch premier league football. The players don’t get the salaries they do:

Some teams are running and sprinting more which explains the very minimal overall increase. It isn’t the same for every team.
The difference in Pl terms can be attributed to basically three managers. Poch, pep and Klopp.

I’ve seen studies and the difference was negligible, barely even worth mentioning unless you can show me a study showing a dramatic increase in any of these areas it’s meh . A lot of data is also inconclusive because certain things weren’t being recorded twenty years ago. It was a poxy difference and someone on here tore it apart a few months back in a thread. Nobody can sit here and tell me Manchester United footballers in 2023 are training more, working harder and running more than Manchester United players of twenty years ago.

They pay tickets to see the best players.