- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,767
So 9 out of every 10 players registered in the Premier League squads (not counting the hundreds of U23s) have been available over Xmas/New Year
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Pep, Klopp, Tuchel, Conte stop whinging about festive matches
- Thread starter Doonhamer7
- Start date
So 9 out of every 10 players registered in the Premier League squads (not counting the hundreds of U23s) have been available over Xmas/New Year
Rubbish. Too many players have weeks off for a little strain or a broken hair strand.
Before you were born players would play with niggles, run through brick walls to get in the team. These days they are very wealthy cossetted tarts. How many of your 45/50 players would be playing if they were paid realistic sensible wages and got a bonus for playing?
If these jolly foreigners don't like the way our game is played **** off back to their pointless leagues.
That's a very definite statement backed up with very indefinite evidence. How long is "recent times"? The last season? Three seasons? Five? And is it 40 or 55. What's the acceptable range.
Players and coaches come to England to earn top money and play in a league where they may well have a chance of success in Europe and getting picked for their country. It's an incredibly easy country to live in and we certainly don't have gangs of ultras turning up at training and threatening everyone. The price for that is that you accept the English football calendar, English press and English social media.
I really wouldn't expect someone who lives somewhere where it's minus God Knows What and dark at 2 in the afternoon to understand though.
Well here is some, a few years old: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42556968
The reason for the hectic Christmas schedule is money. Money, money, money. That was understandable 150 years ago when Boxing Day became a holiday and club owners thought "hmm, to play on this day would bring a lot of people and a lot of money." Today? People come to watch football whenever it is played. The reason that this player health threatening tradition is still around is because Sky Sports makes money from it.
Despite massive resources, since 2000 English teams only won the CL 5 times and the UEFA Cup/Europa League 4 times, all titles won by three different teams. The numbers for Spain is 9 / 11 and six different teams. If you dont care about player health, players get injured and burned out and quality suffers. The Christmas schedule nonsense is all about putting quantity of money above quality of football. English football and the chances to compete in Europe as well as the national teams chances of competing in international tournaments would improve if it was more sensible.
Dont know why fans defend it while also saying that football shouldnt be all about the money.
Such a tough guy.. with absolutely no understanding of elite sports and how it has changed since "before I was born".
So you got "40-55 in recent times" out of a three year old BBC article containing an interview with one analyst. 40 injuries is two per each 25 man squad. We had a worse injury list than that going into Southampton at the start of December.
The Christmas fixture list is traditional. It happened WAY before the Premier League and the inception of modern football in the 'UK. In fact, teams used to play back to back on Christmas Day and Boxing Day with the same XI. And it was about money, only in the sense that it guaranteed good gates because the working man actually had two days off. Contrast that with the gates at Brighton, West Ham and Spurs on Boxing Day this year.
The "game a day for Amazon Prime" isn't traditional and is 100% about money. Same with scheduling Brentford at 8pm. But there has always been a packed festive period. You should know that and Pep, Klopp and Tuchel should damn well know it. Tuchel is, in fact, only really crying because they didn't beat little old Brighton, are now 8 points off the title and his boss has an itchy trigger finger.
FFS you do come out with some crap.
You have a very high opinion of yourself and preach often, frankly you're a bit of a bore.
More football was traditionally played around festive/bank holiday periods not for money but so more people could actually go to watch the game as they had time off work, something that doesn't much register with you.
As far as being such a tough guy, wtf are going on about? Moron
Why do you think they wanted more people to watch? Because people paid money to watch the games. Its like saying Sky Sports didnt buy the PL rights to make money, but so that more people could watch football. Pure philantropy - they wanted to do it for solely for the people, but reluctantly decided to make a bit of money from it.
Because you are doing the tough guy thing like a lot of people who have no ****ing clue. "These days they are very wealthy cossetted tarts. How many of your 45/50 players would be playing if they were paid realistic sensible wages and got a bonus for playing?" The reasons a lot of managers, even "tough old school" ones like Fergie moaned about fixtures is that they understand the physical demands and hazards. A lot of fans dont understand it because they cant be bothered to read away their ignorance. This is a decent article on it:
https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/...r-league-football-painkiller-addiction-214278
Yeah, great that back in the days when players could have a cup of coffee and a cigarette as the ball travelled from one side of the pitch to the other they could play infinite numbers of games but in modern elite sports it doesnt work that way. They are humans, not machines, but are being treated as machines because it is required in order to maximise profit. Its not about players being weak, its about unreal demands.
Thicko.
I agree.
The game may be faster, but the football is lighter and the pitches are miles ahead of yesteryear, plus the recovery facilities at their disposal. Frankly, if the players or foreign coach3s don’t like it, they can do one.
Once again you're showing your complete ignorance, mainly due to only ever theorising about things behind a University wall instead of actually applying yourself to something.
Before TV money clubs relied on their gates to generate income and that money had to pay for everything. At Christmas their fans had two days off and a little bonus in their pocket. By January it was back to work and very little money. So the clubs did what any decent business does and built up cash flow for leaner times to come. It's the same reason pubs and clubs are not ACTUALLY cashing in with expesive food or entrance fees at Christmas and New Year. That money has to pay the bills in January and February.
Since the advent of Sky money this is less the case and, in fact, the Christmas and Boxing Day back to back is no more, teams are allowed bigger squads and benches and have the wherewithal to provide exactly the right physical conditioning and recovery routines to get their enormous squads through this "difficult time".
The advent of TV money has, of course, made things relatively easier for the highly paid footballers and relatively harder for the lower paid fans.
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,233
Interesting handbags going on here from a few posters.
I think I sit somewhere in the middle of the two sides of the argument.
I do often struggle to have sympathy for elite pro footballers. It does appear they have a cosseted lifestyle. Compared to most people, in many regards, they surely do.
However, I also think that the bar is raised so high now in terms of performance in elite sports that I'm not convinced elite sports person is necessarily a healthy long-term choice for the body. They are almost treated like robots. We see this in other sports too.
Also, the tradition argument is always a bit weak, even though I use it often myself, especially when it comes to Saturday 3pm KO. The trouble with the logic of the tradition argument in anything is that it prevents change, good or bad. I mean, casual racism was a bit of a 'tradition' in football, but we're at least trying to move on.
I think I sit somewhere in the middle of the two sides of the argument.
I do often struggle to have sympathy for elite pro footballers. It does appear they have a cosseted lifestyle. Compared to most people, in many regards, they surely do.
However, I also think that the bar is raised so high now in terms of performance in elite sports that I'm not convinced elite sports person is necessarily a healthy long-term choice for the body. They are almost treated like robots. We see this in other sports too.
Also, the tradition argument is always a bit weak, even though I use it often myself, especially when it comes to Saturday 3pm KO. The trouble with the logic of the tradition argument in anything is that it prevents change, good or bad. I mean, casual racism was a bit of a 'tradition' in football, but we're at least trying to move on.
Ok lets see what the British managers has to say:
Brendan Rogers
"The game is about money now. You can’t say it’s about the welfare of players. You get that first day of recovery but it’s the second day where it’s really tough for a player,"
“If we go along that route then the second day, instead of recovering, we’re kicking off at 5.30pm at West Ham. It’s just nonsense really."
Sean Dyche
“Depending on the fixtures it can be really taxing on the players, emotionally - the physical side is taxing anyway - but you want to relax and be with your families.”
Eddie Howe
“It is difficult for the players physically. The players will be fatigued and when you’re fatigued there is a lot higher injury risk.”
GP
"The Premier League give the clubs a lot of resources so they can demand a certain type of schedule over the Christmas period, so I can understand it from a commercial point of view.”
All about the money.
Sure, most of them will also say that it is "part of the culture" and yada yada but "part of the culture" doesnt make something good. It used to be part of the culture to fight in the stands, make monkey sounds towards black players and sing homophobic things about the opposition and I'm sure there was a lot of opposition, "it's always been like this! If players and foreign coaches have something against it they can do one!" when it was no longer deemed acceptable.
The reason why people are offended by managers suggesting that players should have at least three days rest is because people a) actively decide not to understand the problem and b) wants to defend some kind of pointless tradition. Would it be the end of the world if the game between Boxing Day and the first game of the new year was just moved later or earlier into the season? It would take one or two years before people would stop moaning about it. Right now people are defending it just for the sake of defending it.
OK I'll humour you.
Football as a spectator sport only existed, before tv, by having spectators. The only way these said spectators could go was when they weren't working. Most people worked 5 1/2 day weeks, finishing 12am on a Saturday allowing them to travel down to their local team.
The clubs were all owned by local businessmen, with little or no revenue streams other than the said spectators who could only attend when again they were not working. As many companies, especially up north where the mills and foundries would be shutdown over Christmas Easter and set weeks in the summer, it became a tradition that more games were played over that period.
It's wasn't about money and greed back then but about giving working class people something to look forwards too. The players back then were all working class and earnt a simple wage, the clubs themselves didn't need huge revenue streams to exist. Perhaps look at history before you spout shit, Sheffield Wednesday for example, called as such due to the founders of the club having Wednesdays off from work.
While you diss yesteryear football you do realise a lot of these players had other jobs, yet trained, played all on muddy ploughed fields with heavy boots and a heavy football. One sub was eventually allowed and many clubs went through a whole season using just 14 or so players. Bigger leagues, cups played over two legs, replays and if at the top Europe as well. Remarkable really considering they were all pisshead, smoking, unfit tough guys, eh! They certainly had far more stamina than the present players.
Of course these days the players are fitter, monitored to within an inch of their lives. Correct diets and so on. However perhaps it can go too far. I remember one of the top managers bemoaning the fact a few years ago if his medical staff had their way they'd stop him playing any of his players ever again.
BN41Albion
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2017
- 6,828
The game maybe quicker, but it's a lot less physical, and the pitches are like snooker tables even through mid-winter. The festive fixture period on those heavy mud baths of yesteryear must've been pretty tough going, especially considering the physical nature of the game, and the fact sports science didn't really exist
Its less physical only in the sense that there's less rough tackles. In every other sense it is a lot more physical. The type of stories from the past, "I was a raging, chain-smoking alcoholic and played well week out week in in the top tiers of football" is not going to come from the current generation.
And much like in any spectator sport, the spectators believe to understand more about the profession than those carrying it out. Managers and players both say its not good, its dangerous, its difficult. Fat ****er in a TV sofa who has never been anywhere near working in elite sports calls it all bullshit. If the leading spectator sport was liver transplants and the surgeons complain that performing twice as many liver transplants in a day would be dangerous and difficult, I'd bet the fans would be saying "back in my grandpas time we used to work 24 hours a day eight days a week making liver transplants with our bare hands! Stop moaning and get to work!"
1066familyman
Radio User
- Jan 15, 2008
- 15,233
That's a spot on history of the game here, in a social context. Nothing to argue with there at all. I enjoyed reading it.
Times have changed, and while they have improved in many areas for the athletes, like sports science and recovery, the performance levels have also changed massively and the demands are just different. Yes, none of today's players are labouring down mines or on building sites, or playing on muddy pitches with heavy balls, but the demands on their bodies whilst playing I feel are just in a different League.
I remember paying particular attention to Kyle Walker right in front of us at our first Premier League game at the Amex. Watching him was like watching CGI
I found it all a bit surreal at first, especially after what I'd been used to seeing week in week out. Same when I first watched Diamond League Athletics. Middle and long distance runners sprinting faster for the entire race than I'd ever seen anyone in real life run before. Exactly the same when I saw live the speed the Tour de France riders climbed Elm Grove back in the 90's. It shocked me in all honesty.As I said before, I'm not convinced that level of sustained human performance in anything is healthy long term on the body. Although apparently, studies show that elite athletes tend to live longer than us bods and have better outcomes for things like cancer and heart disease.
Apologies, I may have gone off on a slight tangent. But my basic point is, elite sport today is certainly not what it used to be. It's changed massively. Some of it for the better for the athletes, some of it for the worse.
Perhaps it's relevant to remember in earlier times there were no floodlights and midweek games were played in the afternoon when there was less chance of a high attendance by spectators. I remember missing school to visit the Goldstone to watch a Cup match (replay?) against Rotherham who at that time were a consistent Division 2 team while Albion were in the Third South.
Dangerous?
Far less likely to have a bad injury these days since the game hardly allows any contact.
Haven't heard many players complain.
Also how the rocking hell do you know I don't have any contact with elite sports, you don't.
Vardy is a chain smoker and I'll wager you there are plenty of players addicted to booze and covering it up.
What is a dangerous injury?
I ripped my ACL when I was 15, it was a bad injury. But its the arthritis I'm likely to develop because of taking shit care of it that will cause me the most problems. Plenty of former footballers cant even play football with their kids in the backyard because they kept playing or took painkillers injections against "non-serious" injuries.