General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Fitz* wrote: »

It is funny seeing some clubs doing a complete U-turn on some issues like this 5 subs rule. Even when that project big picture came out, there was massive amounts of ire thrown at the top 6 clubs, but two in particular. Whether you agreed with the proposals or not, there was a lot of universal anger towards the clubs from others.

They were accused of wanting more power etc, wanted to move the game to suit their ideas and quite simply, they were self serving in their own interests and that is what the crux of it was.. The same clubs that were very vocal against the Project Big Picture because it might not suit them, are the very same cubs that were extremely vocal on null & void 6 months ago - because it did suit them. It is extremely hypocritical. Just look at West Ham & Aston Villa for example. There was no universal ire thrown at those clubs then - instead it was all fun and games and not taken seriously.

And this type of scenario has come up again with the 5 subs issue. To finish last season, clubs were allowed to make 5 subs in games because of the condensed fixture list and to help prevent burnout and injuries in players. This was welcomed, and it was brought in across the world in all football. It has been continued in all other top European leagues and European competitions as they know how much fatigue can impact injuries, be it muscle strains but also making tired decisions.

When it came to deciding whether 5 clubs could be used this season, the top clubs in European competitions knew that 5 subs were needed as they would have an even tougher than normal schedule and that players would get burnt out playing extra games. Privately, the rest of the league knew that they could steal a march on these clubs by having the extra rest time so had the chance of picking up extra points against these clubs. Publicly, the talk at the time was that there would be an unfair advantage with the bigger clubs as they have more subs to choose from, but if those subs are tired from burnout, is there really an advantage?

Just look at the drop in quality in the Man City - Liverpool game at the weekend in the second half after both clubs played 8 games in 23 days. Aston Villa beat Arsenal well the same day and looked like they had a lot more energy in the tank. Arsenal had the same run of 8 games in 23 days. Aston Villa had 4 games in 24 days. Of course there is always going to be extra games for the top clubs in European competition but not as condensed as that. Aston Villa had a big advantage there, and they knew it.

But when the top clubs wanted 5 subs, it was only 'so they could have an advantage over the others'. The actual big picture of player welfare was not taken into account. It's funny seeing West Ham in particular now calling for the 5 subs when they were very vocal against restarting the league as it meant they avoided relegation and are highly likely to have voted against the 5 sub rule in the summer.

Just because the top clubs ask for a different rule, does not mean it has to automatically be bad and voted out.

Fitz* wrote: »

There are players dropping like flies in the international friendlies tonight. Absolutely ridiculous that they are going ahead. A worse decision to have this set of friendlies go ahead that the last set of international games on multiple levels. COVID worries aside, the players are getting burnt out.

Given the sheer number of injuries that Liverpool are having on an unprecedented scale, and quality of player that is missing for the season, it will be some achievement by Klopp if Liverpool maintain a title challenge. The condensed schedule and depth/quality of rivals are too hard to ignore.