Things In Football That Grind Your Gears

OwaynOTT · 18-11-2019 06:05PM

Infernum wrote: »

The fact supporters of Club A think taunting supporters of Club B by bringing up the fact that their ailing side has won more major trophies than the other side proves anything.

There's a difference between being a team that has won major honours over a course of one hundred and something years, and being a team that can win major honours in modern conditions.

Looks like soccer was invented in 1992.

18-11-2019 07:07PM

ozzy jr wrote: »

But would you regard Sheffield United v Burnley in a play off final more important than Denmark v Ireland in the first game on a qualifying group?

No. I would regard it as more important than an international friendly, but don't think they can enforce the release requirement for friendlies.

Guy:Incognito · 18-11-2019 08:21PM

the whole year inn wrote: »

If you selected by your country to play you should play. Its an honor and any attempt to fraud that you should be not be allowed to play for your country again .

Yeah, see heres the thing. Thats YOUR opinion. Other people, most importantly some of the actual players concerned, dont feel that way.

Theres no grounds to justify forcing someone to play a match they dont want to , imo. The country isnt their employer.

Guy:Incognito · 18-11-2019 08:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You could then have a situation where clubs could just pay players to skip matches, and it would devalue competitions like the World Cup which is still the premier football tournament.

.

and? Thats up to the player and what they want to do.

The football association of a country doesnt own the players, they should be free to do as they want.

diusmr8a504cvk · 18-11-2019 08:35PM

Mark Goldbridge

Mushy · 18-11-2019 09:45PM

The non existent punishment for time wasting

18-11-2019 11:27PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah, see heres the thing. Thats YOUR opinion. Other people, most importantly some of the actual players concerned, dont feel that way.

Theres no grounds to justify forcing someone to play a match they dont want to , imo. The country isnt their employer.

But when did employers trump selection for your country?

There are loads of employers out there with employees In GAA, in athletics etc who happily say if you're selected for your county or country they'll give you some break at work. When did we all become so concerned about productivity at work that we say this should be curtailed as the employer comes first, most of all in football, the greatest international sport of all?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

and? Thats up to the player and what they want to do.

The football association of a country doesnt own the players, they should be free to do as they want.

Bit your employer doesn't "own" you either. In any event, clubs sign up to UEFA and FIFA and accept the rules. If they want to play in some sport where they own the players like cattle and think they should only play when the club wants, they can always pull out and play ball against a wall.

Salvation Tambourine · 18-11-2019 11:41PM

Mushy wrote: »

The non existent punishment for time wasting

Here's a booking for time wasting...but I'll blow up on 94 regardless.

Guy:Incognito · 18-11-2019 11:46PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But when did employers trump selection for your country?

There are loads of employers out there with employees In GAA, in athletics etc who happily say if you're selected for your county or country they'll give you some break at work. When did we all become so concerned about productivity at work that we say this should be curtailed as the employer comes first, most of all in football, the greatest international sport of all?

No one said the employer comes first. The player chooses is my point. They should in no way be forced to play international football of they don't want too.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Bit your employer doesn't "own" you either. In any event, clubs sign up to UEFA and FIFA and accept the rules. If they want to play in some sport where they own the players like cattle and think they should only play when the club wants, they can always pull out and play ball against a wall.

I was going to clarify that because I knew someone would take it up that way. I meant in the sense they are their own people and not owned by anyone, least of all the country who isn't even their employer. The decision on whether to play international games should rest with the player (assuming the international manager wants to pick them)

hots · 19-11-2019 09:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely that depends...I regard tonight's game as a lot more important than, say, Sheffield United v Burnley.

Oh sure, tonight's game had something on the line, but say the first qualifier, or group games of the euro's if we do get there... not so much until there's something on the line.

ArmaniJeanss · 19-11-2019 10:03AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No one said the employer comes first. The player chooses is my point. They should in no way be forced to play international football of they don't want too.

I was going to clarify that because I knew someone would take it up that way. I meant in the sense they are their own people and not owned by anyone, least of all the country who isn't even their employer. The decision on whether to play international games should rest with the player (assuming the international manager wants to pick them)

The mid-tier/lower-tier international player would come under huge pressure to reject international call-ups. Yer Ronaldo's and Kane's are in a position to tell the clubs to eff off, but for Pedro Panama rejecting those 8 long international trips each season could be the difference between getting a £2K a week contract in Division 3 or just being released.

So the rule basically protects 100s of players from having this situation ever arise.

Salvation Tambourine · 19-11-2019 10:09AM

Azalea White Shin wrote: »

Mark Goldbridge

He's incredibly entertaining. He's just a fictional character really.

the whole year inn · 19-11-2019 10:12AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

No one said the employer comes first. The player chooses is my point. They should in no way be forced to play international football of they don't want too.

I was going to clarify that because I knew someone would take it up that way. I meant in the sense they are their own people and not owned by anyone, least of all the country who isn't even their employer. The decision on whether to play international games should rest with the player (assuming the international manager wants to pick them)

Yea I agree no one is forced to play but you can't have it both ways and turn up when you feel like it. Either show up when requested or don't show up at all.

Shanotheslayer · 19-11-2019 10:14AM

the whole year inn wrote: »

Yea I agree no one is forced to play but you can't have it both ways and turn up when you feel like it. Either show up when requested or don't show up at all.

Why? If the player shows up the manager doesn't have to pick him

inforfun · 19-11-2019 10:15AM

And then there are the players who really want to play for a country.

Bunch of Dutch from Suriname decent have jumped on the opportunity to play for Suriname recently and it has proven to be a succes already with qualification the for Gold cup.
In the past they would have had to give up their Dutch citizenship (Suriname law) but not anymore.

Quite a few of them played for the Dutch youth teams but wouldnt be getting a call up now.
Hell, with the world cup becoming a participation trofee when it get 48 countries at the end tournament, they probably fancy their chances to go there as well.

There might be players who couldnt give a **** about their national team but the absolute majority still does.

the whole year inn · 19-11-2019 10:16AM

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Why? If the player shows up the manager doesn't have to pick him

Yes, the manager doesn't have to pick the player but if requested by the country then make them self's present .

Shanotheslayer · 19-11-2019 10:19AM

the whole year inn wrote: »

Yes, the manager doesn't have to pick the player but if requested by the country then make them self's present .

With all this patriotism running through you what was your time like in the army?

It's 100% acceptable for seasoned pros not to want to play in a Mickey mouse game against the likes of Gibraltar etc where the risk of injury is greater than the risk reward.

the whole year inn · 19-11-2019 10:22AM

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

With all this patriotism running through you what was your time like in the army?

It's 100% acceptable for seasoned pros not to want to play in a Mickey mouse game against the likes of Gibraltar etc where the risk of injury is greater than the risk reward.

It's nothing to do with me and the army !

19-11-2019 10:50AM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I meant in the sense they are their own people and not owned by anyone, least of all the country who isn't even their employer. The decision on whether to play international games should rest with the player (assuming the international manager wants to pick them)

But they sign up for these obligations.

The clubs are subject to UEFA and FIFA rules, and so the players assume the obligations that go with it, media appearances, international duty etc. A singer who signs with a label may find that that involves touring obligations because of an arrangement with another company, they can't say "I'd like to stay in my bedroom and write songs". Players and clubs enter these arrangements and get the huge benefits that go with being a member of UEFA and FIFA, entry into national and international competitions to access lucrative sponsorship. They can't cherry pick and renege on the obligations they take on.

gimli2112 · 19-11-2019 11:35AM

It kind of brings to mind Sepp Blatter's cries of dismay when Utd were treating Ronaldo as a slave. FIFA is a minefield of hypocrisy.

Guy:Incognito · 23-11-2019 03:25PM

" your Bayern Munichs , your Barcelonas , your Shearers, your Salahs........."

Theres only one of each and you're naming them all anyway, no need to pluralise at all.

POKERKING · 24-11-2019 05:45PM

Sheffield Utd been called “sheffield” by fans.

Someone possibly giles used to do in the 90/00’s with man united referring to them as “manchester”....as a city fan this wound me up no end.

DeanAustin · 24-11-2019 06:08PM

Martin Tyler's "And it's live" before every game.

Quite like Tyler but I find it annoying and cringeworthy.

ozzy jr · 24-11-2019 07:56PM

POKERKING wrote: »

Sheffield Utd been called “sheffield” by fans.

Someone possibly giles used to do in the 90/00’s with man united referring to them as “manchester”....as a city fan this wound me up no end.

Manchester United are known all around the World as Manchester, always have been.

24-11-2019 09:03PM

ozzy jr wrote: »

Manchester United are known all around the World as Manchester, always have been.

Hands up, I've never heard anyone say they support "Manchester". Ever. I've heard every other variant, just "United" being the most popular, "Man U" (for some reason that seems to annoy some Man U fans), "Man United"...but never just "Manchester".

ozzy jr · 24-11-2019 09:36PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hands up, I've never heard anyone say they support "Manchester". Ever. I've heard every other variant, just "United" being the most popular, "Man U" (for some reason that seems to annoy some Man U fans), "Man United"...but never just "Manchester".

I should have said outside of UK and Ireland.

Mr.Crinklewood · 24-11-2019 09:40PM

Players (after being fouled) that fall to the ground and grab the football.

Should be a drop ball.

niallo27 · 24-11-2019 09:41PM

When there is an appeal for handball by the away fans and then every touch after is greeted with a "Handball" by home fans. Wrecks my head.

callaway92 · 25-11-2019 12:50AM

niallo27 wrote: »

When there is an appeal for handball by the away fans and then every touch after is greeted with a "Handball" by home fans. Wrecks my head.

I think that’s actually kinda funny, especially when there in-person

hots · 25-11-2019 10:14AM

Mr.Crinklewood wrote: »

Players (after being fouled) that fall to the ground and grab the football.

Should be a drop ball.

Should either be a free for them (it was a free kick and doesn't matter what they do after it) or a free against them for handball. Unfortunately it often seems refs see a player pick it up and give a free before thinking if it was a foul or not.

Things In Football That Grind Your Gears

Comments