It isn't simply the effect of having only 10 players on the pitch that determines the result. There are many other factors which influence the outcome of the game. Those factors play a part irrespective whether there are 10 or 11 players in the team. Fitness, form, tactics, state of mind etc, as well as external factors such as refereeing and managerial decisions, conditions, time left in the game etc. Losing one player from a team of 11 is not such a significant change in the dynamic of the team as to consistently produce a different outcome when compared to playing with 11 players. So whether it is a disdavantage is subjective - just as it would be if there was a change in some other aspect of the game which might have a bearing on the outcome e.g if it was very hot, muddy pitch, injury to key player etc. Obviously, there are times when losing a player will clearly be demonstrated to be a disadvantage, but that depends on specific factors e.g loss of goalkeeper, sending off early on hot day etc rather than general ones. There is no pattern. There is no formula which states 11-1=diasdavantage.
I'm sure TMT is referring to our two 10 vs 11s in the 2010-11 CL. Or the WHL game against Citeh last season. No "disadvantages" there eh.
It's not subjective whether it is a disadvantage... I can't believe this conversation is even happening tbh... It is a disadvantage, end of story. Whether it is enough of a disadvantage to change the score line, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Just because the disadvantage doesn't cause an obvious effect doesn't stop it being a disadvantage, it just means it's been dealt with well. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The Question: Are teams getting better at playing with 10 men? After a host of matches in which 11 have been unable to get the better of 10, is the impact of red cards beginning to diminish? http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/feb/11/the-question-teams-better-10-men Interesting article (although a little out dated in terms of recent results) but if you asked any manager or footballer if they would choose to play with 10 men, then 95% - 100% (depending how you view it) would say NO, so that in itself shows its a disadvantage but just because your at a disadvantage doesn't mean you always lose and thats why these victories are sweeter, as afterwards players and managers will be saying " great result, hope we don't have to go through that again!" as no manager wants his team to be playing with 10 men.
But it's not if other factors come into play, which compensate for the "disadvantage." You can't view the loss of a player in isolation. If the effect is to galvanise the other 10 players - to make them run harder, focus more intently and organise themselves more effectively, then it's not a disadvantage. As we are dealing with unquantifiable variables, you can't measure the effect. You can only say that in certain circumstances, it may be a disadvantage. Just like playing away from home, on a muddy pitch, after a CL game etc. Of course, if more than one player is sent off, then there is more likely to be a disadvantage. It's common sense that there is a point at whiich the other factors cannot compensate for the loss of players because the effect is too great. But not so far as one player being sent off is concerned - there are countless examples to support the theory that it is not a disadvantage per se
If other factors are compensating for something, then that something has to be a disadvantage to start with to need to be compensated for. Which is the entire point I was making. It is always a disadvantage but it is not always a disadvantage that cannot be overcome.
So the best you could say is that there could possibly be a disadvantage because the other the other team have an extra player. But the West Indies cricket team trounced everyone with only four bowlers when everyone else had five. An example of where a deficit in numbers was anything but a disadvantage. Why? Because so many other factors determine whether a team will be successful and it is too simplistic to assume that a numerical deficit is detrimental overall. For them, it was never a disadvantage, always an advantage. You might say that it's a different sport so it's not a fair comparison, but there are a number of parallels. They had an increased workload because there were less of them, they had to organise themselves and work as unit, they had a focus on a particular way of playing that was most likely to be successful in the circumstances - all things a team with ten men have to do. Unless you can say with certainty that a team will fare less well when a man short, then the issue of a disadvantage is always speculative - a possibility
Your just trying to be clever. But failing There is no "could" about it. It is always a disadvantage to be down a man. Like I've said, it isn't a disadvantage that can't be overcome sometimes, but overcoming the disadvantage doesn't mean it wasn't a disadvantage in the first place. And this isn't cricket so your example has no relevance whatsoever. Your final line of that paragraph however about a team having to work hard to overcome the difficulty of being a man down, proves my point! If they have to work harder to make up for there disadvantage, then they have a disadvantage lol. It doesn't matter how you try to look at it and how many external factors you attempt to bring in to play, having a player less puts a team at a disadvantage. There are ways of dealing with the difficulties it raises and teams sometimes do, but it does raise difficulties that the other team are not dealing with, thus, a disadvantage. I'm not sure how to make it any clearer for you I'm afraid.
I'm not trying to be clever afcftw, but I am pulling your leg to some extent. Many teams have adapted very well to having ten men, which suggests it is not the disadvantage you would expect it to be. Undoubtedly, many teams find strength in adversity, showing it is not to a disadvantage to them to lose a player. Theory isn't always proved in practice.
I think there is a difference between it being difficult to play against 10 men - due to teams often going down a man and subsequently playing in a very defensive, conservative manner to limit damage and hold onto any points they may have from the game - and it being actually advantageous to play with 10 men, which it surely never is.
I think that most ten man teams play a narrow 4-4-1 to make themselves more solid defensively. For those teams who are better suited to this than to play a more expansive game - which they might be under pressure to do with eleven players - you can understand why they fare better. You might say the loss of a player forces them to play a more tactically astute game, in which case there may be no disadvantage. This is what tends to happen when we see teams perform better and get better results with ten men.
This debate gets sillier by the minute. It is clear that to be down to 10 men is a disadvantage. If it were not so, why not start with 10 men? Or maybe, if that's not allowed, kick an opposing player into row Z in the first minute. Yes, some teams will adapt better, minimalise the disadvantage, put in a bit more effort to compensate, maybe just get lucky. But, it's a disadvantage in any language. End of.
Spain, your argument is silly because if teams started with ten men then the discussion would be whether being down to nine men would be a disadvantage wouldn't it? Superfluous point you made there. Also I'm sure all the Palace supporters cheered thinking now we have the advantage of the extra man we are going to win, but this so called advantage as often before wasn't an advantage because they lost. I'm sure Inter thought the same when Gomes was sent off, 4-0 to 4-3. Had the match gone on another 10 minutes with us with the momentum another goal would have been scored. Some advantage.
We got back into the inter match cos even WITH the disadvavtage of being down to 10 men we played better than them in the second half. But you also need to remember gomes was sent offat 1 or 2 nil and we conceded another 2 or 3 goals...so it did disadvantage us imo. What happened when we went down to 10 men v real the same season? 10 men is a disadvantage...and a club being too **** on the day to benefit from it dont change that fact
O I meant if one team considered it an advantage - your team, for example. Then why not start with 10 vs 11 if it's so much better?
Your still not getting it even though in your own comments your agreeing with me! "Many teams have adapted very well" that line on its own shows you know it's a disadvantage otherwise they wouldn't have to be adapting to anything....
If your not trying to get reactions from people then at this point I'll bow out of the conversation as your obviously just stupid
