Manchester United midfielder Marouane Fellaini, 26, has hit back at reports that Louis van Gaal tried to force him out of Old Trafford, insisting he was simply told to fight for his place. (Metro) I really have no sympathy for this player. Everyone knew that he wasn't good enough to play for United, whose expectations far outweigh Fellaini's abilities. Yet he listened to his greedy agents, and, as a consequence, has had to suffer the humiliation of looking like a fish out of water. He should have stayed at Everton, where he was respected and loved. Let this be a lesson to other greedy footballers who think the grass is going to be greener on the other side... <cough>Vertonghen!<cough>
Tell me about it! I can't believe I got myself involved in this nonsense. I must be even more bored than I realised!...
I was hoping someone was going to make an entirely new thread on the subject on the premier league and Chamionship boards
There are plenty of examples in sport of where events which would normally be considered to be a disadvantage prove to be anything but. It might be an advantage to lose the wicket of a slow scoring batsman in cricket; it might be an advantage to lose a game to love when receiving in tennis to conserve energy for your service. Going against perceived wisdom is not necessarily a disadvantage. In football, it is shown time and again that having a player sent off is not a disadvantage. Whether it is perceived that should be is a different issue. There are many other changes which can occur in the course of the game which could prove to be an advantage or disadvantage. The result of any change will be unique to the particular game in question. "It is a disadvantage to have a player sent off" is a hypothesis, not a statement of fact.
Going down to 10 men in a game clearly cannot, of itself, be an advantage. That's one man less on the field to whom his playmates can use to unlock the other side's defense. What, however, does appear to happen, sometimes, is that the team going down to 10 men is usually forced to become very defensive, so that teams that like to use pace and counter-attacking football lose their primary weapon of attack, and with no Plan B can easily become frustrated. Also, if the team that goes down to 10 men is, itself, a pacey counter-attacking side, they may find (ironically) that spaces open up for them as the opposition become over-confident and push forward more often. There is no "advantage," as such, in going down to 10 men, it's more the case that managers are not as astute as they, perhaps, ought to be when re-organising the tactics of playing with or against 10 men.
It's a disadvantage just as having a shorter reach in boxing is a disadvantage. Neither means that you'll automatically lose, but both increases the chance of you getting pummeled. One of the reasons that it sometimes appears to help teams is that managers are forced to make a change that they otherwise wouldn't make. Playing on the counter, becoming compact and hard to break down, looking to soak up pressure and hoping for a slip up. It can also invite a change in tactics from the opposition, as they look to take advantage of your loss, which can lead to overconfidence or using the wrong system. The actual dismissal isn't helpful, though. A manager could choose to change his system when he has all eleven players available. He'd still be using the more effective tactics, but he'd have an extra man to do so.
Why is Wenger bleating on about Lampard? I assume that he was actually asked about it, but his comments seem a little bizarre.
Bollocks! Mousers are 1-0 against Everton. Now we have to beat Arsenal in order to re-establish our dominance over 'Pool. It's a big ask, as I think we're no better than a draw.
True. Can't see the other two being as forgiving, though all the Premier League defences look a little more open this season. Dzeko puts City 2-0 up. Might be a long day for Hull.
