Just to add a few drops of petrol into the discussion on match timing. The rules of football actually state the game should be played for 1 hour -30 minutes. Consisting of two halves of 45 minutes each. (Granted not the exact words) Why should the game not be played exactly as per the rules? I cannot remember the exact text but for delays in restarting a match, isn't it if the delay is more than 30 minutes the referee can declare the match null and void and abandon the game? (Usually for some sort of emergency, such as injury or dangerous to play on etc.) Again not exact words and true a very long time ago that I read the rule book. So for me the game should be played for 45 minutes each half, with a proper time keeper. The ref adding time on at the end of each half for me, more often than not does not often equate. How many times do we say in a game, where did he get that time from? Whether more or less time should have been the case. Why shouldn't we see more consistencies where simple, technology can help, surely this would help the referee? Edit Soccer rule 7: Match duration The length of a soccer match is 90 minutes, played in two equal halves of 45 minutes. Additional minutes in a soccer game may be played at the end of each half to compensate for lost time during the game. The added minutes are called “injury period” and should not be confused with the overtime, which is played in some competition if a winner is not yet decided after regulation time.
In this day and age I see no reason why the official match timer cannot be stopped every time the referee blows his whistle. Then you play exactly 45 minutes per half. Problem solved.
If there were two 45 minute halves of open play the footballers would be knackered. The last time I saw a disgraceful display of timewasting was against Birmingham at the Dell many years ago when one or other of their players would collapse to the ground every minute or so writhing in agony and near death during the final 25 minutes of the game. I think this form of cheating is a Midlands thing. Football wise they seem the most deprived part of the country.
We could have American Football style time-outs, but that would seriously affect the rest of my life each week-end, there are only so many hours in a day!
Association Football isn't a stop-start game like American Football, so I'd imagine there would only be a few minutes added to each half. Just like now, but there would be no Fergie time. Just accurate game time. Certainly worth experimentation.
The key point with this is that teams wishing to slow down the game carry out unnecessary substitutions and try to take more than 30 seconds to do it, will no longer benefit as much as they currently do, therefore I think it will become less used. I quite like the Rugby Union way with the added excitement of the ball still live until there is a legitimate stoppage.
Mane is probably frustrated by that, adding more irony to the fact that he is apparently desperate to go to Man U, who are even slower in their build-up than us!
Everton must still benefit from the brand benefits they developed throughout last century but primarily in the 80s. For a team with no significant European honours (bar Cup Winners, I think), they have maintained that quite well. Think they are solidly mid-table as far as wages go, though I'm not a huge fan of parts of their player policy - ie. Man U rejects. But Palace, as one example, pay less than we do, and seem to have no player loyalty issues, when you consider Bolasie's name is constantly bandied about the papers. Of course, they're possibly second to us and West Ham when it comes to having lost players of genuine class whilst not in the PL, and get less credit than we do for sure. But now that they're here, their team spirit seems up there with Leicester's, and with US buy-in imminent, they look to be taking advantage of their wave crest. I always keep faith in the fact that we are run by some very shrewd people, and I assume we are playing a long game that will pay dividends down the line as well as keeping us fairly protected and well-oiled (if not perfectly fine tuned) on the pitch in the meantime.
Though they will have to sell Stones in the close season. The great will of the mass media decree it. It is no longer seen as fair or right that such immense talent is denied to the top echelon of teams. The 'statement' no-sale was allowed - for purposes of romance-enhancing life affirmability. But now it has gone too far!
I wonder how this squad would have fared if we had qualified for Europa tables? As this is what I believe the squad was designed for - to battle on both fronts. Genuinely wonder, but guess we'll never know, so I personally reckon we would have done the PL/Europa double.
No - can't develop this sort of thing. Mankind must continue to prioritise our technology resource usage in developing the good work we did putting a man on the moon. Only then can we focus on the real impossible solutions to football match timings and leaves on train tracks bringing transport networks to a grinding halt. Things like messing around with the Large Hadron Collider are just procrastination techniques for having to genuinely put our great minds to solving the tough stuff.
Late to this thread but I wasn't too disappointed on Saturday. I think coming from a background in statistics helps me to see that it's chances created that matter. If we weren't creating chances I'd be deeply concerned. However, once a chance is created, I see whether it goes in as a pure numbers game, so the fact that we only got one in is a slight statistical anomaly rather than a tragedy. Sorry if that all seems a little dispassionate but it's genuinely how I feel (not that you'd have known watching me during the game itself). We're creating chances. Some games they all go in, some they don't. Vin
Ref the timing debate. 1. I've watched Fraser take an age over a kick when it's suited us and not noted great debate on here. However, I hate it whenever and whoever does it so: 2. I don't agree about stopping the clock as the ball goes out. However, what could easily be done is a standard time for a goal kick could be allowed, based upon all games played last season. So, if the average for a goal kick is 20 seconds, the fourth official hits the "goal kick" button as the ball goes out. The clock carries on counting down for 20 seconds then stops if the ball's not back in play. That would allow Guzan to take 3m20s for a goal kick but not gain any advantage whatsoever, as 3m wouldn't count down. Equally a team chasing the game could get the ball back in play quickly and benefit from it. It'd be simple, open and obvious. So it'll never happen. Vin
I didn't analyse it in quite the same way, but came to pretty much the same conclusion; ie the result was disappointing but the way we played wasn't, really. Horrible defensive lapse for their goal though. I hope Ron forces the whole team to stay behind after school and watch that on a loop; how not to defend a corner.
It was a krap delivery though, fooled everyone and fell sweetly to the scorers feet, some things you cannot legislate for.
Maybe. Lescott was awake though. Someone should have been getting to that ball before it reached him, even at the risk of an OG.
Yep. Fonte failed to go with him (probably flat footed as he thought that would be cleared) and Pelle did some strange air shot.
