You keep saying it but you still haven't provided any proof. It happened in one game last night, that is all. There are plenty of examples of the reverse.
I'll keep you informed Spurm every time it happens. Isn't last night's match proof enough? Didn't it happen at Stoke when their opponents were down to 10 men and held a lead for a long time before Stoke only drew.
Only keep me informed if you are doing the same for teams winning when 11 vs 10. In fact, just keep a record and let us know the end result over the whole season
Your point is invalid Spurm because yes 11 do go on to beat 10 but 11 also go on to beat 11 so it's nullified. My point is that it's OFTEN not a disadvantage to have a man sent off because 10 OFTEN go on to draw with or beat 11.
Just using this season in the prem: Player sent off - Result for their team Zabeleta (Chelsea go ahead soon after dismissal but City get it back late) - Draw Williamson (sent off in 90th min) - Draw Puncheon (sent off 89th min, concede 90th) - Lost Naughton (only a win once opp went down to 10) - Win Collins (concede after dismissal to lose) - Lost Chester (all goals after dismissal) - Draw Bony - Lost Blackett (already losing but conceded again from resulting penalty) - Lost Not looking like it supports your theory much In that case your point is also invalid
Of course your at a disadvantage having less players on the pitch... Wtf kind of ridiculous discussion is that...
Ok. Occasionally, 10 will beat 11. But, in the large majority of cases it will be the other way around. To claim that being down to 10 men is somehow an advantage, is just daft.
The answer is that it is obviously a disadvantage - an extra player is at least no effect, can't be minus effect and if he's no effect at all should be taken off - but sometimes not enough of a disadvantage to change the result. I think we can all agree on that?
I did not say it was an advantage to be down to 10 men, I said it's often not a disadvantage,yes SD has it right. Sigh. Er afc, Newcastle found it no disadvantage last night did they?
i'm sure when you brought it up before you thought that more often that not a team would win not lose when down a man, but with no evidence. What SD said is spot on.
It's clearly a disadvantage. It's not always enough of a disadvantage to change a result or even stop the momentum a team has but it is always a disadvantage to have less players on the field. It means the remaining players have to watch more space, cover more ground and limits a managers tactical/substitute choices. There is no point trying to argue it isn't a disadvantage.
Oscar Pistorius will often run faster than many able bodied athletes, so it's not a disadvantage to have parts of your limbs amputated. Certainly doesn't affect your aim, anyway...
Strange sort of disadvantage when you win with only 10 men or draw. You'd think that a team down to 10 men would lose every time and if that was the case then you'd be right but..........well I won't repeat it.
Teams with worse players are at a disadvantage, yet they still win or draw some of those games. Disadvantages aren't immediately and eternally fatal.
Every team who goes down to ten men doesn't have to lose to prove its a disadvantage, don't be so ridiculous.
Can't. Stop. Slapping. Forehead. You know what else is a disadvantage in football? Have worse players, but that doesn't stop teams with worse players beating teams with better players does it. Sport would be pretty boring if all disadvantages played out
