Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Well done Leicester <applause>. Keep it up (although 2-2 is OK as that's my prediction)

The Changing Man said:
He is probably right that the bigger teams get more decisions, but not for the reasons that he is alluding to. The big clubs generally have better players and more of the ball which will both increase the likelihood of them getting more game changing decisions in their favour.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to prove or disprove these theories with stats, but there are certainly a number of factors which might give that perception - such as:

i) Crowd pressure. Some officials are clearly affected by the reaction of a big crowd when making decisions. This is both the reaction to an incident initially and then the way in which any decision about that incident is likely to be received. Some officials are "bottlers". It's also more likely that if 15,000 people in a stand all yell "handball" in unison, that subconsciously, at least, an official is more likely to accept that a handball has taken place. However, there are some officials who want to be the star of the show and will go out of their way not to bow to pressure, even when they should.

ii) Stereotyping/reputation/unconscious bias. We all have preconceived ideas about the way certain teams/players play the game. Some are known as tough and physical; some are seen clever and skilful without needing to resort to physicality. The reality can often be different. It's what you all said about Paul Scholes and his tackling. How can a player with such great skill, timing and precision in possession of the ball be so lacking in these qualities without it?

iii) Reporting by the media. Controversial decisions in big games and/or involving the recognised big clubs receive far more analysis and scrutiny. They linger longer in the memory and are more likely to be revisited time and again as examples of this or that- which may include a view that official x makes poor decisions. It's human nature that officials will shy away from decisions which will result in such analysis and scrutiny, especially when there will be an inevitable backlash. Do you want be remembered as the ref who denied Utd/Chelsea/Liverpool the title by failing to send off the last defender who allegedly brought down the striker who was through on goal in a crucial match at the top of the table?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrunelGooner, vimhawk, The Changing Man and 1 other person
Even the BBC are sticking the boot in...

It's never nice to single a player out but sometimes you feel duty bound to - how have Liverpool ended up with Lucas at centre-half? Jamie Vardy left him in his wake for the first goal and on several occasions since.

I know hindsight is 20-20 but to loan a £20m defender to Palace and play a veteran Brazilian midfielder instead - it's a mind boggler.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
SpursDisciple said:
Or the players have started grafting and leaves their crocodile tears as utterly meaningless
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter even if that's the case, you can't sack all the players so if you want the best chance of staying up then you need to make the change in management. Worked for Chelsea last season.

Personally, I think pundits, journalists and fans are too quick to push clichés onto players with pretty tenuous reasoning. We're told that the Leicester players were complacent, weren't trying hard enough and were letting their manager down. No one ever speculates about managers like that though.

I said right at the start of the season that I didn't like the way Ranieri was speaking about their chances. When they won the league, talking down their chances and saying they'll just take each game as it comes and enjoy it. That worked because they didn't want to have pressure on themselves, and hardly needed to be motivated, given they were doing so well. This season they needed motivation, they needed the pressure to perform and Ranieri didn't give them that so they slacked off and when you slack off in this league you can fall very far, very quickly. It didn't help that when Ranieri tried to change tactics he just made them worse too.

Leicester's aspirations have risen, as they should, and if Ranieri wasn't showing that he's equipped to deal with that, then he had to be replaced. No one would've had this reaction if Leicester had bought a new centreback and dropped Morgan, would they? No one cares when newly promoted sides sell players that helped get them promoted so that they can buy in new players. Sentimentality is a nice thing to have in football but you can't muck about with relegation. Bolton were close to going bust last year and the EFL is filled with sides who did well in the PL, got relegated and then never recovered, many of them were bigger clubs than Leicester too.


.... 3-0 :D
 
Liverpool's next four fixtures:
Arsenal (H), Burnley (H), Man City (A), Everton (A).
I've no idea which games out of those they'll struggle with and which they'll find easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: remembercolinlee
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back