Is the correct answer. Kind of feel like most in the thread didn’t know this though
FL 100 percent at fault here - no need to tie these dates in stone
Is the correct answer. Kind of feel like most in the thread didn’t know this though
This competition is dead, things need to change
Said it before, and I'll say it again, and easy way forward is to exclude clubs qualifying for the Champions League to start with. Allow it to be a 'best of the rest' cup. They don't need the extra games in their schedules.
Wasn’t it the FA cup that Man United withdrew from?
Erm, didn’t we get to the semi final of the FA Cup last year?
The rest of our senior squad (Balogun, , Bernado etc were injured for Villa. We just didn’t have a side to put out
And the QF the previous year...
It’s great that we had cup runs, and reaching the semis and qf’s in successive seasons is an achievement, but having watched the games, can you really say we took those games seriously? We did once we got to the semi’s but apart from that it was a series of turgid performances against much changed lower league opponents where we somehow scraped through.
My point, is this, what if we think a bit differently about this. Accept there's risk of injury, but play our best team, play it like a league game and try to win a competition. Who knows, people might actually start attending the games if we treat them like first team fixtures
It does my head in when managers "rest" players for the weekend, as though playing Saturday-Tuesday-Saturday every once in a while is akin to running six marathons in a week. Pathetic. They are all highly tuned athletes these days - the notion that they are physically incapable of playing 3 games in a week, 90 minutes max in each is baffling. The rest of the week would see a few light training sessions each morning, with all the modern state-of-the-art recovery equipment available to them, all done by mid-day, then home to put their feet up.
Just look at the physical demands on tennis players, who can routinely play 3-4 matches in the space of a week, each one potentially an energy-sapping 3-4 hour slog. Or rugby players, who rightly play once a week because each game is pretty much a physical all-out war. Its understandable those guys would NEED a weeks recovery time.
Premier League footballers though ? Do me a favour. Especially when you're not involved in Europe, so the midweek sojourns come round about 3 times a season tops. By all means rotate to give a couple of the fringers a start, but these wholesale changes are for the birds.
If its a case of not wanting to "risk" any 1st team players in the Cups, then just be honest about it from the outset so we all know what we're paying to watch at least. At the moment I'm very much in two minds over the game vs MASSIVE, as I'm loathe to pay to go along to a glorified training session where whatever the result, everyone just shrugs at the end.
Wolverhampton has proved this, I think they've played 29 games already this season, they've taken the Europa League seriously playing pretty much full strength teams in every game and they've got the joint least number of players who to now in their squad have made a PL appearance (think it's 18 players).
Wolverhampton has proved this, I think they've played 29 games already this season, they've taken the Europa League seriously playing pretty much full strength teams in every game and they've got the joint least number of players who to now in their squad have made a PL appearance (think it's 18 players).
It does my head in when managers "rest" players for the weekend, as though playing Saturday-Tuesday-Saturday every once in a while is akin to running six marathons in a week. Pathetic. They are all highly tuned athletes these days - the notion that they are physically incapable of playing 3 games in a week, 90 minutes max in each is baffling. The rest of the week would see a few light training sessions each morning, with all the modern state-of-the-art recovery equipment available to them, all done by mid-day, then home to put their feet up.
Just look at the physical demands on tennis players, who can routinely play 3-4 matches in the space of a week, each one potentially an energy-sapping 3-4 hour slog. Or rugby players, who rightly play once a week because each game is pretty much a physical all-out war. Its understandable those guys would NEED a weeks recovery time.
Premier League footballers though ? Do me a favour. Especially when you're not involved in Europe, so the midweek sojourns come round about 3 times a season tops. By all means rotate to give a couple of the fringers a start, but these wholesale changes are for the birds.
If its a case of not wanting to "risk" any 1st team players in the Cups, then just be honest about it from the outset so we all know what we're paying to watch at least. At the moment I'm very much in two minds over the game vs MASSIVE, as I'm loathe to pay to go along to a glorified training session where whatever the result, everyone just shrugs at the end.
I dont agree with a lot here. Tennis and football is not comparable. How many 60m sprints on a wet turf do Rafael Nadal do in his average game? How often do Roger Federer kick his legs when he do? Its just not even close to the same thing.
Yeah some players can play three games a week without any real issues - players that are in their physical prime are able to do this. Young or old players are going to have issues with it though.
That said, I think the main purpose wasnt to rest the first team squad but to give young players experience and see how they coop with high level opponents. Sure, last year at Swansea he could probably have played like Luciano Narsingh (former Dutch international) and increased the chances of winning, but instead he decided to take a look at what this Dan James kid could do. Swansea lost the game but no one is going to say it wasnt worth it.
By the end of the season 3-4 of the young players starting that game were matchday squad regulars. Maybe could have happened anyway but impossible to know.
And this whole "we payed for this"... is tiresome.
You pay to watch Brighton or you pay to watch results?
First: I know most oldschool fans in here are very used to supporting a lower league team to which the League Cup matters. But welcome to the Premier League where the most clubs either dont give a shit or very little shit about this cup. If you pay for a League Cup game and expect your club to treat it like a Champions League final, no one is fooling you but yourself.
Secondly: You get to see the future Dunks, Alzates and Marchs. Its pretty damn cool even if you lose. In 20 years when he retire after making 600 league appearances for the club you can say "I saw Haydon Roberts first senior game". Its pretty neat. Watching your future stars should be a lot more interesting than advancing to the next round of the Cacao Cup that Man City or similar will eventually win anyway.
I dont think it will be much difference next year so if you dont want to "waste money" watching the future of the club, you better stay home.
I dont agree with a lot here. Tennis and football is not comparable. How many 60m sprints on a wet turf do Rafael Nadal do in his average game? How often do Roger Federer kick his legs when he do? Its just not even close to the same thing.
Yeah some players can play three games a week without any real issues - players that are in their physical prime are able to do this. Young or old players are going to have issues with it though.
That said, I think the main purpose wasnt to rest the first team squad but to give young players experience and see how they coop with high level opponents. Sure, last year at Swansea he could probably have played like Luciano Narsingh (former Dutch international) and increased the chances of winning, but instead he decided to take a look at what this Dan James kid could do. Swansea lost the game but no one is going to say it wasnt worth it.
By the end of the season 3-4 of the young players starting that game were matchday squad regulars. Maybe could have happened anyway but impossible to know.
And this whole "we payed for this"... is tiresome.
You pay to watch Brighton or you pay to watch results?
First: I know most oldschool fans in here are very used to supporting a lower league team to which the League Cup matters. But welcome to the Premier League where the most clubs either dont give a shit or very little shit about this cup. If you pay for a League Cup game and expect your club to treat it like a Champions League final, no one is fooling you but yourself.
Secondly: You get to see the future Dunks, Alzates and Marchs. Its pretty damn cool even if you lose. In 20 years when he retire after making 600 league appearances for the club you can say "I saw Haydon Roberts first senior game". Its pretty neat. Watching your future stars should be a lot more interesting than advancing to the next round of the Cacao Cup that Man City or similar will eventually win anyway.
I dont think it will be much difference next year so if you dont want to "waste money" watching the future of the club, you better stay home.
But there are u23 games for this which are advertised as such and free to season ticket holders.
And concerning young and old players struggling to play lots of games…. The great majority of our squad are between 23 and 30. If they can’t play on Tuesday then Saturday then who can?