I have to admit I've been lurking on the Newcastle board and I found what I felt was an interesting thread. What do people think? It certainly seems to be weaker at the very top (no English teams in the CL quarter finals). At the other end there seem to be so many teams who are mediocre at best and a lot of them are going to survive. Let's face it, we have been pretty awful, but then so have Stoke and Sunderland and Newcastle, and we could all be here next season. Then there's QPR. So perhaps it is the poorest Premier League ever.
In which case have we ever had a really strong PL? Yes maybe no teams in 1/4 for one reason or another. But there always teams perceived as "mediocre" who are in the bottom half of the table.
Point taken. But while they may be mediocre in terms of results, has there ever been a season when so many teams play turgid defensive football in an attempt to sneak a point?
There are so many variables. You could argue the seasons where Sunderland set the two lowest points totals, followed by Derby. The season of the lowest points for survival when we went own. Or the lowest points for winning the league. The earliest for winning the title. Maybe the season when the earliest everything was settled. Simply it could've been the first ever as it just followed on from the Football League. Probably the best qualified to answer are the clubs fans who have been in it every season.
I watched Ossie Ardiles and he was asked who was better. Maradona or Messi? He said Messi. But having said that he also said that football is easier now. He basically listed the things in their favour but one thing he felt strongly about was how you are not allowed to touch anyone now and how easy they go down when you do. And watching the Villa/Chelsea game today, it really did confirm to me what I had always suspected. It is poor quality now. Yes, there are some silky skills and tricks on show and it is hectic. But with one game left, the pitch at Villa Park looked as good as new. The equipment used is light yeras advanced. The diet is better. The wages (incentives) are higher. Travelling is easier. Training is more scientific. I could go on. The only complaint could be the amount of football played. But there again, if you played for Liverpool and England you probably played more games. There weren't so many teams allowed into Europe. And remember, there were things called replays years ago. The game is hyped up so much and we are almost told what we are watching rather than using our own eyes. Last week for instance, when Wes was taken off and Kei brought on, the crowd reacted. Tony Gale said they were all wrong because Norwich were playing better by launching it forward rather than passing it through Hoolahan!
What annoys me about this is how preventable it is. Refs do not give free-kicks or penalties unless the player goes down, even if a foul is obvious. The players all know that, so they feel forced to go down in order to win things. If the refs actually called fouls when they occurred and not if/when the player hits the deck, the spectacle would be improved, and there'd be far less incentive to go down. You'd also be more likely to get players forcing their way past bad tackles to get through, because they know that it doesn't matter if they go down, if a foul happened they'd get the decision.
Exactly. Today, two players were sent off for high foot but in reality it was the reaction of Agbonlahor and Terry that got each player booked and subsequently sent off. Neither were likely to have casue pain let alone injury but led to serious implications to the result of the match.
Pisses me off too. The rule is meant to be "deliberate" handball! They should either adhere to this or just say that any ball hitting the hand is a foul! Preferably the former.
The rule is perfectly simple..."deliberate" handball occurs when an unnatural movement of the arm/hand happens, i.e the player makes his body shape larger by moving his arms to block the path of the ball...if the arms are in a natural position when the ball strikes, it's ball to hand and not a deliberate handball. Easy, isn't it?
I was thinking the same thing, Qxcanary. Bassong chested the ball and it grazed his arm on the way down. No arm movement - no deliberate handball. Then there was the Sunderland handball which was called, but no penalty in spite of the player being 2 yards inside the area.
I know the rule, Im just saying that it is never implemented properly. Either they use the current rule as it should be or if they are so intent on giving fouls whenever the ball hits the arm, they change it. I agree there is nothing wrong with the rule
let's face it, the arms are part of players bodies and have to be somewhere. if that somewhere is natural, then it cannot be a penalty, and vice versa.
