Premier League 2017/18

[MDK]

I don't like change 

[DavidMarrio]

I think to say having a winter break will make England better...yeh. Maybe being a better team with better coaches and tactics might make us better. 

I love the winter period of footy. It's nice being off work and having a bunch of games to watch. 

1 hour ago, Colly said:

I don't get it, surely that just means cramming more game in later? If the number of games stays the same what's the point? 

Although as long as the Christmas/New Year fixtures stay I don't give a toss. Stupid FA can do what they like. 

Do they stretch the games out so you end up with a few games twice a week? Or will the season finish at the back end of May? 

1 hour ago, 9 to 5 said:

Enjoy your winter friendly games in UAE then....

That is exactly what will happen. 

[Matt]

1 hour ago, 9 to 5 said:

Enjoy your winter friendly games in UAE then....

I wonder if the clubs that voted for this break would also vote for a rule where any player that plays in a friendly during this period will be subsequently banned go for a league game. After all the break is in place because players are getting too burnt out.

 

Not that that was ever an issue 50 years ago when there wasn't anywhere near as much science went in to diet and training regimes.

[Adam]

Clearly I'm in the minority but I don't see a problem with this. It's going to be done in January, so the Christmas schedule won't be affected, it'll add at most three more sets of games to the rest of the calendar, all of which can probably be played midweek, and it likely won't be done below the Premier League anyway so it won't bother me as a Rovers fan. Gives the January window a bit more breathing room from the actual football, and most other leagues implement one.

Plus it removes it as an excuse when/if we don't do well in major tournaments.

[The Lusophone]

Getting rid of the League Cup would be better, but I've no problem with a break. I think I'm one of the few who doesn't like the Christmas fixture list.

Edit: also interesting idea proposed by Michael Cox: a straight red card for tactical fouls

[Matt]

Just now, MadJack said:

Getting rid of the League Cup would be better, but I've no problem with a break. I think I'm one of the few who doesn't like the Christmas fixture list.

Getting rid of the league cup would be terrible. Unless the PL want to donate a couple of hundred million of their TV money to the lower leagues.

[The Lusophone]

Just now, Matt said:

Getting rid of the league cup would be terrible. Unless the PL want to donate a couple of hundred million of their TV money to the lower leagues.

I would be ok with that. Either get rid of the League Cup or just have it for teams in the Football League.

[Colly]

28 minutes ago, Los IngobernAdam de Japon said:

Clearly I'm in the minority but I don't see a problem with this. It's going to be done in January, so the Christmas schedule won't be affected, it'll add at most three more sets of games to the rest of the calendar, all of which can probably be played midweek, and it likely won't be done below the Premier League anyway so it won't bother me as a Rovers fan. Gives the January window a bit more breathing room from the actual football, and most other leagues implement one.

Plus it removes it as an excuse when/if we don't do well in major tournaments.

I don't overly see a problem with it, I just don't get the point. All it does is increase fixture congestion elsewhere, and as far as excuses go I'm sure it won't take long to come up with a new one. Probably something about the extra midweek games in March. 

[9 to 5]

15 minutes ago, Matt said:

Getting rid of the league cup would be terrible. Unless the PL want to donate a couple of hundred million of their TV money to the lower leagues.

Well the latter won't happen, so getting rid of the league cup will help see some league teams go to the wall. But as long as the PL teams play a couple of games less, who cares, eh?

[MDK]

Oh who cares about the league cup anyway :<

[Matt]

At which point you lose money from TV rights and smaller teams are pretty much relying on drawing a handful of big name championship clubs for ticket revenue.

 

You know what the best option would be? If the players just got on with it and did their job, they're not playing that many more games (as a team) than 50 years ago and that was with 1 substitution (newly introduced) and a squad of probably 16 or 17 players, not to mention all the scientific advancements since then. They're paid a 7 or 8 figure salary for having well coordinated feet, quit fucking moaning and do what the thousands of fans watching would do for fuck all.

[MDK]

Jumpers for goalposts 

[Gazz]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

I wonder if the clubs that voted for this break would also vote for a rule where any player that plays in a friendly during this period will be subsequently banned go for a league game. After all the break is in place because players are getting too burnt out.

 

Not that that was ever an issue 50 years ago when there wasn't anywhere near as much science went in to diet and training regimes.

50 years ago, they didn't run 10-12 km a game on average and perform sprints upwards of 35km/h.

[Colly]

Not to mention the fact that the likes of Man Utd are rich enough to play a squad of reserves in the early rounds anyway.

As a fan I think the League Cup is fantastic, the tickets are usually cheap (except at Man Utd) so it's a great opportunity for kids to see their first games rather than spending a small fortune in the Premier League. I've seen it plenty of times at Newcastle, plus when I went to Stamford Bridge the tube was full of families. 

[Adam]

I paid a tenner to watch my team in the Emirates this season in the League Cup, and we nearly got something from the game too. Definitely don't scrap it or change it.

[Matt]

13 minutes ago, Gazz said:

50 years ago, they didn't run 10-12 km a game on average and perform sprints upwards of 35km/h.

They didn't have state of the art training facilities and pristine pitches.

[Gazz]

I don't understand your point, increased training load is still increased training load, facilities are irrelevant to a muscle under the stress of propelling a human body at a speed it has generally not evolved to be required of it. It's not even the loads that are being experienced, it's the recovery times. Every time you use a muscle, you damage it. That damage adds up, especially when you're playing every three or four days throughout December and January.

I'll see if I can find some data regarding muscle injury frequency between leagues that have winter breaks and those that don't.

[DavidMarrio]

I hate the idea of scrapping the league cup. Cheap tickets, good memories, chance to see players may not normally see or play against teams we wouldn't normally.  Some of the better games I've been to have been in the league cup.

The argument of weakened teams I feel doesn't slide as the FA Cup had loads of teams rotating in it. 

Also I feel the sports science argument, whilst there is massive improvements in technology and techniques for recovery, it's a different game compared to decades ago. Professional footballers now are generally a lot more athletic due to the demand and quality.

I think a break is needed (not just players but I think it'll help fans as well from getting jaded) but maybe January might be the best time for it. It would fit in well with the transfer window.

[Matt]

Surely the advances in training facilities, the higher quality pitches, the knowledge about diet and nutrition, advances in physiotherapy, hell even the lighter footballs have a massive effect on the players fitness and ability to recover from injuries. At least enough to somewhat counteract the effect from running an extra 2-3km a game. 

 

And again, 3/10 outfield players won't be playing a full 90 minutes and squads are about 25 men nowadays.

 

Besides all that, how does 2 weeks off help if they then start having to play twice a week later in the season when they otherwise wouldn't. They're going to suffer from the lack of recovery time you mentioned anyway, only towards the end of the season meaning they'll be in a worse condition for the world cup or whatever.

[Gazz]

18 minutes ago, Matt said:

Surely the advances in training facilities, the higher quality pitches, the knowledge about diet and nutrition, advances in physiotherapy, hell even the lighter footballs have a massive effect on the players fitness and ability to recover from injuries. At least enough to somewhat counteract the effect from running an extra 2-3km a game.

No, that's exactly what I'm telling you. All that stuff can make a player a lot more athletic generally, but a muscle fibre is still a muscle fibre that can only change through evolution and can still only be placed under so much stress before it fails. The more you stress something, the more likely it is to fail or at least, hinder performance. Look at how shit some of the games were towards the end of December, Newcastle vs Brighton is possibly the least entertaining game of football I've ever seen, both teams were fucked, the last 30 minutes were played at walking pace. 

It's not just '2-3km' either. In the 60's and 70's, it was 6-8km a game, most of which was walking pace. Defenders defended, full backs never crossed the half way line. Midfielders stood in the middle and lumped it to the forwards or the wingers. 10-12km is nearly double the load, double the stress, defenders attack and attackers defend and that's even if they played the game at the same pace as back then. Now factor in that increased load from increased speed. Now factor in that a 'light' modern day training session would destroy a player from the 60's due to it's intensity. It's increased loads repeated more and more often, there's only so much science and technology can do to help recovery and if you're at the very top of the game, you have to find that absolute balance of intensity and recovery. That's why you end up with stuff like Moyes banning ketchup.