Going back to the abandonment, what i don't get, is why there is no set rule for this situation? The FA have rules for everything, surely there should be something set in stone that would take all the debate out of whether it should be repkayed, or the result standing, or to play the remaining minutes. The fact that the FA have to discuss it, amd make a decision is farcical. I'm sure plenty of games are abandoned before 90 minutes every season.
That's a fair description of what's happening, but the big question is why are these rampaging forwards creating so few chances ? Why are there so few shots being taken on ? With the one exception why are so few goals being scored ?
Lack of connections, that forward line have barely played together and many of them haven't played any consistent football for over a season.
I think we're playing this weird hybrid of possession football and the old system that got us back-to-back promotions. My feeling is that McKenna has to stamp a different, more controlled way of playing compared to the Championship promotion season. The playing squad has significantly changed after only two years and expectations as a parachute payment club has understandably got higher. This current lot can't play the system that the old guard did so well. In our promotion season, we had a lot of confidence from the League One promotion season, a settled squad with barely any new faces, and the system was designed around the strengths of several key players (Hdlaky's distribution, Davis rampaging down the left, Tuanzebe slotting in as a third centre-back, Morsy's control, Luongo's covering, Burns' pace, Chaplin's shooting on edge of the area, Hirst's hold up play etc.). That, and a never-say-die, don't know when we're beaten atmosphere from Portman Road created brilliant momentum week-to-week. Last year, the realities of high class Premier League opposition and the punishing tempo of that division (on a squad that had barely played a Premier League match beforehand) meant we were scrapping for every point. Our transfer policy was essentially to build a squad that would prepare us for likely life back in the Championship and get us straight back up. Our top flight experienced loanees - with the exception of Cajuste - all massively underperformed. The system of old was quickly abandoned when it wasn't getting us points, and then McKenna went through a succession of formations, playing styles, and personnel as the second half of the season turned into a soul-wrenching experience of seeing our team routinely outplayed and outfought. This year, the club seems to have conceded that last season's transfer splurge hasn't made us ready for an instant return and has spent big (again) to level up the team and made the squad deeper. Undoubtedly we've signed some really talented players. Players that are likely to adapt quicker to the Premier League. But we've got to get back there first. I think McKenna must identify the strengths of his players and use them in a system designed to their abilities. If we're playing Davis, keep him out wide and not this inverted full back nonsense. We may as well go the full hog and have a backline including Palmer, Furlong, O'Shea, and Kipre start - they have understanding from the West Brom years. Greaves needs time on the bench, the suspension might be a blessing in disguise. Why haven't we tried a 4-3-3 formation where Matusiwa is sitting behind Cajuste and Nunez with licence to get forwards? Two actual ball carriers waiting to be unleashed on this division. I've got no idea what McAteer's role is in the starting eleven, he's playing like a budget Burns. We should be aiming to dominate possession and mix it up with direct football when required. So get physical, hard-running players who are comfortable with the ball at their feet and willing to make things happen - like Szmodics and Egeli - in the starting eleven and drop the underperforming players like McAteer and Hirst.
Because you can’t account for every conceivable scenario. Just the same as with sentencing guidelines in courts, there is room for interpretation and common sense and precedent is taken into account.
Absolute rubbish.... "If the referee deems the pitch unplayable and unsafe for the players, and has to abandon the game before the final whistle, then the match will be replayed in its entirety/replayed with the remaining minutes/the result stands" (pick one of those three scenarios and stick it in the rulebook) You could also add "up to a certain time" (I.e if 75 minutes have been played the result stands). Come on, seriously, how many games get abandoned due to bad weather every season? It's not rocket science.
If you word the rule that way, a team can deliberately sabotage the pitch when they go 4-0 up or down by half time or they don’t want the fixture played at that time or some other reason. That is precisely why it’s up to a panel to see if there are any other factors to consider. They also can consider how far fans have to travel, whether the fixture has any bearing on the competition. So on, and so forth.
