Not sure where the Sunday League comments come from...so much wrong with that I'll ignore it. Another load of what ifs which didn't happen. I've worked with people over the last 18 months who've had to completely change and adapt their business to a new environment......ok...they didn't have to suffer their feet getting wet,and,they didn't have a contract that would pay them regardless,but they looked at the new conditions and got on with it. Not for 45 minutes either.....18 ****ing months.
Premier League games would have been called off because the clubs themselves, along with the insurance companies, would have been having kittens otherwise.
So what about the teams that manage to escape playing in them type of conditions during a season, do you not think they are getting abit of an unfair advantage? Playing on a pitch like that is not even a game of football so the result is totally inaccurate. You literally can't adapt to a pitch thats got huge puddles all over it its a nothing match and just a total farce. They shouldn't even be allowed to play a friendly game nevermind a game that could potentially decide on whether a team goes up or gets relegated.
I have no idea, but the answer to that should be 0. If we were playing Bolton last night we'd have had it happen to us twice which would have been totally unfair and an advantage to our rivals. Im all for playing on moody pitches but pitches with huge puddles all over makes it impossible to play a game of football.
I have no problem playing football in really wet or muddy conditions generally . But when the ball barely travels a metre without it holding up, and when a player can put in a sliding tackle and they end up at the front of the burger van queue, then I think its time to call a halt on proceedings, for the players and spectators sake.
Yep, and the yardstick on whether a game should be played or not should be the same, whether you are Man City or Scunthorpe.
I also seem to remember the ground staff trying to clear the wing areas the home team were attacking in the second half but left the other areas under water. Would that be classed as both teams having to play under the same conditions or giving one team an advantage. Game should have been called of full stop.
A game at Roker Park in the 60s comes to mind. Pitches were no way near as good as today’s and instead of a layer of water on the surface it soaked in and became mud; the entire pitch was a field of mud. I forget who the opposition were but they played in white shirts and black shorts. Passes only travelled a couple of yards and stuck. Long balls stopped dead where they landed, causing players to over-run them or slide on their backsides if they tried to stop. The rain pelted down driven by a strong wind all game. As the teams came off at half time you couldn’t tell which was which because they were all slathered in mud. Yet it was an exciting end to end game full of incident and comedy because both sets of players gave everything to make it that way. At half time and full time both teams got a standing ovation. The game was probably the exception that proved the rule but showed that no matter how bad the conditions it is still possible to play football if the players have guts and the willpower to make it happen.
It 100% does not. I would be amazed if more than 5 games go ahead in this league this season with that level of conditions. We have been given a massively unfair disadvantage.
