It's a perfectly logical argument. The more games you play, the harder your season is. It doesn't take a genius.
"Double your chances of injuries and fatigue" implies we only have 11 players and that we will progress as far in both cups. "No team ever does well in all three" well, actually some do, but this implies we would prioritise the cups over the league which no-one is suggesting. We have a bigger and better squad than last season, we should be able to finish in mid-table and have a cup run. Ignoring this competition in favour of the FA cup is putting all your eggs in one basket. You probably only have to play an extra two or three games in the season (probably against lesser opposition where you can use squad players) to insure yourself against an early exit in both competitions because you prioritised the wrong one. I don't think that's going to materially affect our chances in the league.
Considering the squad we put out yesterday, the risk of losing some of our strongest players is definitely there. I'm glad we won the game, but I'm pretty sure we could have done so without playing Ramirez and Rodriguez. If one of those had picked up a long injury, I know we'd all suddenly be cursing the League Cup. Had we used an entirely different XI to our last league XI last night then I'd be agreeing with you, but we didn't. Ignoring the League Cup (which I'm not suggesting anyway) is not putting all your eggs in one basket. It's putting them in two baskets. The league is the big basket.
What last night's game showed me is how strong in depth we are. No reason why we can't put out good sides for all competitions.
Obviously I meant in terms of winning something. We're not going to win the league (and again you wrongly imply that I'm suggesting we shouldn't prioritise the league).
We're not going to win the league, but I'd much rather finish in the top 10 and not win the League Cup than finish 14th and win the League Cup. I didn't imply anything of the sort. The league can be prioritised to different degrees, and obviously we'd be placing it at a higher importance if we didn't risk our strongest players against useless teams like Barnsley.
Would you rather finish 14th and win the FA cup? If so, why? The prize is basically the same. Personally I'd be happy to finish 14th and win either of the cups. That's really a false dichotomy though.
No, not really. The top half finish would make all the difference for the club's future, but I think that can be achieved alongside one good cup run. When we get to January and the fixtures start piling up, I don't think we'll be able to juggle all three competitions. It's asking too much of the squad, especially if you're going to insist on playing first team players in all three.
I would be over the friggin moon if we won the league cup, JPT is the only thing we have won in all the years I have been following the saints. We didn't even win either of the leagues when we got back to back promotions. I would definitely take a cup win and 14th in the league over no win and 10th spot. No question.
The whole thing of making the player go off was introduced in an attempt to stop players from feigning injury. At first they were made to go off on a stretcher but that did get to be ridiculous. Take that situation yesterday; was that player really hurt? No. As soon as the pushing and shoving started he was right in there. Also, can you imagine if the score had been reversed and Birmingham were a goal behind? The goalie would have hoofed the ball up the other end of the pitch without doubt. Kicking the ball out for little niggles has become endemic and something of a tactic to slow the game down. As I said before, just because the ball is off the pitch why should the referee allow the trainer to come on. Similarly, in answer to 'pass the football's' comment that you can't let a trainer on when the ball is in play, del of course you can If a player is, in the referee's opinion, seriously hurt he would just stop the game. That said, Yeovil were out of order as they know what is the done thing these days regardless of the rights and wrongs of it.
That's spectacularly missing my point. The reason the referee doesn't stop the game, except for clearly serious injuries, is that people would use it as a time-wasting tactic. If you wait for the ball to be dead and additionally penalise the player by making him leave the pitch for treatment, you prevent teams from being able to stop an attacking move for example, by feigning injury.
I think it's quite easy to understand. If you ask a player to go off the pitch, the play can get underway again quickly, and a live televised match does not therefore interfere with a TV schedule by overrunning. Of course, it may not be a live match, but you can't be seen to be making one rule for live TV and another for when the match is not televised live, or at all. However, if it is to curb feigned injury I can see the point, but it is an imperfect solution to a problem of disadvantage for the side with an honestly injured player. I would even consider removing the player who caused the injury to even up the numbers, but then one gets into potentially further complications of goalkeepers causing injuries/nominating outfield players, etc... Basically, it was easier for the rules when players were a little more honest about things. One simply stopped the game until the player received sufficient treatment or could be substituted if there was the option Good, you recognised my point that Birmingham put the ball out for one of their own players, and this is the nub of the controversy. As far as I know there has been no agreed precedent set for that. If the opposition put the ball out so that an injured player can receive attention then all well and good, the opposition get the ball back once the game restarts with a throw-in, and that is a precedent that has, by and large, been adopted. Although, as we know, there is nothing in the rules that says the teams must abide by this, and there have been several instances where this precedent has been flouted to advantage. I think Gary Johnson came in for unfair flak from the Brum players, at the time, and it was only because he is a decent bloke, in my opinion, that Birmingham eventually went through to the next round. As for Yeovil having less matches to play, I think they would rather be in charge of which matches they play and which they don't. That decision is now out of their hands. Besides, I doubt if their chairman is ecstatic today.
As a fan a good cup fa cup run would be brilliant. However i think that we are more than capable of challenging for europe and so wouldnt pick the first team until we are a couple of games from the final. Particularly players at either side of the age spectrum like rickie and shaw will struggle playing more than once a week. They could do it but it would affect their league performance and cost us points.
OK. I can see what you are saying and this is why the thing about the player going off was introduced. But its actually had the opposite affect and now teams are kicking the ball out of play to waste time. Surely the whole point is that the game shouldn't stop at all accept for serious injury. If someone has a minor knock they can go off and get treated. The Birmingham incident was used solely as a time-wasting effort. In rugby, the trainer comes on during play and the game only stops if they seriously get in the way? Could that work in football? Doubtful.
