Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…176177179181182…326

Comments

  • #5342
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 13,225 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    CSF wrote: »
    I don't think 'clear pen' applies here. Definitely more than 50% pen considering he does clumsily make contact, but its on the soft side by Premier League refereeing standards.


    I don't think the referee would have been heavily inclined to give it even if he'd had a clear view of it in real time (which he might well have done).


    Anything that requires a slowmo to spot, probably isn't a 'clear pen' for me.

    You see that given as a foul around the field all the time. If it's a foul outside the box, then it's a pen inside the box. Whether it's 'soft' or not is irrelevant.

    And the laws of the game are black and white. It doesn't matter if a slow mo is needed to see a foul. If its a foul, its a foul.


  • #5343
    All_in_Flynn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,638 ✭✭✭All_in_Flynn


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    I think it's happening with everyone really... we saw it with Brighton this morning. Think it's more down to the lack of pre-season for everyone, plus the crazy fixture congestion. Lots of injuries, meaning certain players have to be played even more, meaning they're then more susceptible to injuries themselves - vicious cycle.

    Take Milner for instance - he's a backup player, and at his age shouldn't be starting back to back to back games, but with Henderson, Keita, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaqiri and Thiago all injured, and Fabinho forced to play at centreback because of all the injuries there, it means Millie is being overplayed - which resulted in him getting injured today.

    Ye I just mean that it seems that Liverpool seems to be suffering more that most teams at the moment. Not all muscle injuries I know but I do wonder is it the level they were playing at having an effect on them now.


  • #5344
    Mr.Nice Guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,643 ✭✭✭✭Mr.Nice Guy


    Shanotheslayer wrote: »
    Why would you think I was even thinking they were so far above the rest if I was only talking about pretty much half their first team? Of course not. What are you looking for here?

    Do I think they win the league even with their current squad status? Yes not by as much but think they still win it. Until they start losing at Anfield that opinion won't change.

    I'm going by your own words last week here:
    Liverpool look superior to everyone by a good distance is that more precise?

    They made Leicester look like nobodies and they didn't even have 3-4 of their best players

    Last week you actually cited one of the reasons for Liverpool's greatness being their ability to make Leicester look like nobodies despite their injury toll. Now you've changed your tune to try and make out that you were only calling them great based on the idea that they have a full squad available. Don't pretend this isn't a massive flip-flop. What do I want? Honesty.
    ~Rebel~ wrote:
    Of course they're not. That seems like a kind of pointless discussion though doesn't it? Like, the status has literally changed several times since this was first brought up a week ago with Keita injured during the last league game, Milner now injured today, Shaqiri injured in training, and Matip out of the squad today.

    And yet I notice you thanked his post above where he made the above claims I quoted. Are you saying they were head and shoulders above the rest after the Leicester game, but it only changed in the last week?


  • #5345
    Carcharodon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,108 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    I know this is a bit of a cliched take but Klopps interview was a little bit infuriating.
    How about the millions of people losing their jobs, how about the millions of people working 2 jobs just to make ends meat and these very people are literally paying these players highly inflated wages, so just suck it up a little bit and stop the whining.
    I totally get the nuance of the situation but deal with it


  • #5346
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    dfx- wrote: »
    VAR can't judge intent by looking at it, so the law was mangled to what we have now to suit it making a decision. Not to suit the referee, but to suit the technology.

    In the past you could get a fussy ref for 90 minutes, a blind ref, a strict ref, a lenient ref, but at least you didn't get two refs and only for 'key' incidents.

    Pundits, commentaries, radio phone-ins and coaches have brought this on themselves.

    Intent is clear I think. The defender is pulling on the ball to clear it. Welbeck gets there first.

    Both players are playing the game trying to advantage their side. Robertson had the option of not pulling on it and trying to contain instead. Ultimately he did not get there first with the action he chose.

    Much like offside the tech can show what happened. The fact the ref could not see it in real time does not change what happened.

    If the referee gets a chance to see it again and establish in his view if Robertson kicked Welbeck and that it was careless, reckless or using excessive force then it is a benefit to the game.


  • Advertisement
  • #5347
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    I'm going by your own words last week here:



    Last week you actually cited one of the reasons for Liverpool's greatness being their ability to make Leicester look like nobodies despite their injury toll. Now you've changed your tune to try and make out that you were only calling them great based on the idea that they have a full squad available. Don't pretend this isn't a massive flip-flop. What do I want? Honesty.



    And yet I notice you thanked his post above where he made the above claims I quoted. Are you saying they were head and shoulders above the rest after the Leicester game, but it only changed in the last week?

    Yes I changed the wording for you to be more precise. I have been acknowledging all of your points so why don't you start acknowledging mine.

    Why are you constantly pushing this? What are you looking to achieve?

    Yes one of the reasons I think Liverpool are superior to the rest is that given their injury toll they made Leicester look like nobodies. Is that to be expected every week? No absolutely not. There are a multitude of reasons as to why I think Liverpool are superior. I literally listed just one.

    Would Liverpool's half first team win head and shoulders above every week? No. Would their first team win most games every week? Yes with ease imo which is why I think they are head and shoulders above the rest. Even one or two rotator's and I think they are well ahead. But given the extent of their current Injury list not so much.


    I still don't see how a team beating Leicester and drawing to Brighton with a half 1st team squad makes my opinion invalid that they are superior than the other clubs currently.

    At what point are you going to get over this?


  • #5348
    jayo26
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,779 ✭✭✭✭jayo26


    Sam Hain wrote: »
    Wow, just after watching Klopps post match interview. Fair play to BT sports Des Kelly for not entertaining his childish tantrum. Embarrassing stuff From Klopp. Wilder even got some. Crazy.

    I didnt see it i was too busy laughing.... What happened?


  • #5349
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    3-0 Mendy

    Great goal


  • #5350
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,067 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »
    And yet I notice you thanked his post above where he made the above claims I quoted. Are you saying they were head and shoulders above the rest after the Leicester game, but it only changed in the last week?

    Yup, I thanked it as I agreed with the rebuttel to your quoted statement, and the assertion that you were getting very pedantic.

    As for them being better or worse than anyone else, i'll just cite what I said to ya last week, since the conversation has gone a bit circular.
    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    Are they the best team in the league? I don't know. If the full squad was available I think yes. Even if Gomez was available, I think yes. With both out, and a slew of other injuries throughout defence and midfield it's a trickier call, we just have to see how long some of those injuries last. But as it stands, after what could probably be roundly agreed upon as the toughest batch fo fixtures of any of the current top 6 clubs, they're joint top. The other standouts so far are Spurs and Chelsea. Given Liverpool's current position, as well as being reigning champs, it's hard not to give them the nod for the moment. We'll see how things are a month from now - they'll either be much better, or much worse.

    <edit>
    Ultimately I think it's very impressive to keep putting points on the board and not fall away with things as bad as they are at the moment. Over the course of the season, the league usually comes down to how teams cope with the bad times rather than the good times. Liverpool are getting better than 2ppg, which is always my target for any top team to maintain when they're struggling, if they're going for the title. You need your bad times to get you 2ppg, so that your good times push you ahead.

    Last week was especially impressive, as it was the first game back after the international break, with Trent and Gomez both crocked in that time - coming up against a very good team, with a huge question mark hanging over the defence. Getting 3 points and a clean sheet out of that game was a landmark result. I think for a lot of people it felt like a question ("Will Liverpool missing Trent, Gomez, and Van Dijk fall apart?") answered.

    Subscribe to save Boards.ie from closing down: The Bad News

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • #5351
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,758 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    All_in_Flynn wrote: »
    Delighted it was given but it's a very soft pen.

    I do think Liverpool have come back to the chasing pack this year. They are still the best team in the league mind. There is a notable drop off in the intensity of their pressing this season. You could see some signs of it at the end of last season. It's extremely difficult to play at the level of intensity they have been for the last 2 seasons every season.

    I also wonder is it starting to creep into the physical condition of the players. They have been incredibly fortunate to have the majority of their key players constantly fit the last couple of years but there seems to be more muscle injuries starting to happen now. I could be completely wrong on that view though.

    You can see it with City too. They are not the same pressing monster they were a couple of seasons ago.

    There is little wrong with Liverpool season so far imo. One loss from 10 league games is pretty high standard. Below previous levels alright.

    Players injured on top of schedule and an inevitable drop off considering the previous two years (as seen with others like City and Barca) means the supreme form of the last two seasons was not realistic anyway. They are still a team at a very high level when the core group of players are available.

    Injuries are the most likely thing to hold them back rather than a drop in standards.


  • Advertisement
  • #5352
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 429 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Carcharodon wrote: »
    I know this is a bit of a cliched take but Klopps interview was a little bit infuriating.
    How about the millions of people losing their jobs, how about the millions of people working 2 jobs just to make ends meat and these very people are literally paying these players highly inflated wages, so just suck it up a little bit and stop the whining.
    I totally get the nuance of the situation but deal with it

    I didn't realise he was responsible for those things...


  • #5353
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,880 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Cookiemunster wrote: »
    You see that given as a foul around the field all the time. If it's a foul outside the box, then it's a pen inside the box. Whether it's 'soft' or not is irrelevant.

    And the laws of the game are black and white. It doesn't matter if a slow mo is needed to see a foul. If its a foul, its a foul.
    In terms of whether we're going to have 2 different referees review something in super slowmo, whether its soft or not is absolutely relevant in terms of whether you overturn it.


  • #5354
    klose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,301 ✭✭✭✭klose


    Pickfords challenge on van dijk essentially set klopps tone to VAR for the season, one rule one week and another rule the following week.

    As for Klopp slaghing off about the subs rule and fixture times why shouldn't he? Every other major league has 5 subs and arrange fixtures to help their teams in Europe, English teams are literally at a disadvantage this season in Europe because of it. People going lol at Klopp for getting pissed off when in reality he's only speaking his mind and I'm sure the other managers in England playing in Europe are thinking the same.

    Inb4 He ShOuLd UsE hIs SqUaD. He is, what's left of it anwyays.


  • #5355
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,880 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    klose wrote: »
    Pickfords challenge on van dijk essentially set klopps tone to VAR for the season, one rule one week and another rule the following week.

    As for Klopp slaghing off about the subs rule and fixture times why shouldn't he? Every other major league has 5 subs and arrange fixtures to help their teams in Europe, English teams are literally at a disadvantage this season in Europe because of it. People going lol at Klopp for getting pissed off when in reality he's only speaking his mind and I'm sure the other managers in England playing in Europe are thinking the same.

    Inb4 He ShOuLd UsE hIs SqUaD. He is, what's left of it anwyays.
    Klopp is entitled to whatever opinion he wants, but he also shouldn't be surprised to learn that people think he is silly to argue that the other Premier League clubs should change the rules to help them out.


    Liverpool and the other teams that are in Europe, should absolutely be pushing to have the fixture rules changed next time that this comes up for review. But you will find that in the middle of the 20/21 season alot of clubs probably won't be jumping out to help clubs with rules that don't really benefit them too much.


  • #5356
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,699 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Unpopular opinion alert!


    Sean Dyche deserves better than this. The current Burnley squad is a complete písstake. Its paper thin and possibly a weaker squad than either of the ones he had when he got them promoted.


  • #5357
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,067 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    CSF wrote: »
    Klopp is entitled to whatever opinion he wants, but he also shouldn't be surprised to learn that people think he is silly to argue that the other Premier League clubs should change the rules to help them out.


    Liverpool and the other teams that are in Europe, should absolutely be pushing to have the fixture rules changed next time that this comes up for review. But you will find that in the middle of the 20/21 season alot of clubs probably won't be jumping out to help clubs with rules that don't really benefit them too much.

    Wasn't the word of late that now 15 managers are behind it?
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-managers-to-back-five-subs-rule-fr98mptbt

    We saw with Brighton today that it's affecting everyone, losing two more players to injury. They're up to 7 players out right now, 6 injuries and 1 covid.

    Subscribe to save Boards.ie from closing down: The Bad News

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • #5358
    Bruce Bald Sweeper
    Posts: 27,583 ✭✭✭✭ Bruce Bald Sweeper


    Fair play Gary

    https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1332699585756717057?s=19


  • #5359
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,880 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    Wasn't the word of late that now 15 managers are behind it?
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/premier-league-managers-to-back-five-subs-rule-fr98mptbt

    We saw with Brighton today that it's affecting everyone, losing two more players to injury. They're up to 7 players out right now, 6 injuries and 1 covid.
    Managers aren't making the decisions though. Nor did managers make the decision around the TV scheduling. They wouldnt, because they want as much time to prepare and recover as possible.


    Ultimately, what happened was the clubs got together and agreed a deal with BT allowing them to pick whichever game they wanted with the exception of the teams that played on the Thursday night. They did that for a lot of cash. Probably would have been less cash if they couldn't have the Wednesday nights either.


    The managers would have surely preferred otherwise, but it isn't that surprising that the financial side of it prevailed.


  • #5360
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,067 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Fair play Gary

    https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1332699585756717057?s=19

    I'm never a fan of that argument... by that rationale no-one can ever complain about anything because there's always something worse happening somewhere else. it invalidates every valid experience and feeling everyone else has. It also lets those in charge of these 'lesser' injustices or mismanagements off the hook.

    Of course other industries and other communities have a tougher time than footballers, but that doesn't mean football doesn't have a responsibility to run their own house responsibly.

    Subscribe to save Boards.ie from closing down: The Bad News

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • #5361
    y0ssar1an22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 20,218 ✭✭✭✭y0ssar1an22


    Re the 5 subs, you can see why the clubs with smaller squads voted against it. It will benefit the clubs with bigger (better) squads more than it will benefit the clubs with smaller squads.

    I don't know how the decision was reached in La Liga, Serie A, etc. Do the bigger clubs have more power there or was it a straight vote?

    With the Robertson penalty, twas more of a fly hack at the ball than anything else, but a penalty all the same. Its a gripe I have with all professional footballers (well at least 99% of them), but if he was better on his right foot he would have had more control over his swinging leg and maybe the peno could have been avoided.


  • Advertisement
  • #5362
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    I'm never a fan of that argument... by that rationale no-one can ever complain about anything because there's always something worse happening somewhere else. it invalidates every valid experience and feeling everyone else has. It also lets those in charge of these 'lesser' injustices off the hook.

    Of course other industries and other communities have a tougher time than footballers, but that doesn't mean football doesn't have a responsibility to run their own house responsibly.

    I agree that it shouldn't be compared to other sacrifices but I think he's spot on saying the PL need to action not just broadcasters.


    I feel my opinion has really changed on Jesus the last year or two. I think he's just not a very good footballer.


  • #5363
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,880 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Shanotheslayer wrote: »
    I agree that it shouldn't be compared to other sacrifices but I think he's spot on saying the PL need to action not just broadcasters.


    I feel my opinion has really changed on Jesus the last year or two. I think he's just not a very good footballer.
    How do you think the Premier League would take action though without giving up a wedge of their TV cash? BT aren't going to be as keen paying all that money if they're forbidden from having 2 of Liverpool, Man City, Man United and Chelsea each week, and thats AFTER Sky picks ahead of them.


  • #5364
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    CSF wrote: »
    How do you think the Premier League would take action though without giving up a wedge of their TV cash? BT aren't going to be as keen paying all that money if they're forbidden from having 2 of Liverpool, Man City, Man United and Chelsea each week, and thats AFTER Sky picks ahead of them.

    I think you answered the question yourself CSF. If the PL are putting money ahead of player welfare then they should expect every backlash they get.

    I wouldn't have much knowledge on how it works behind the scenes etc but something has to give.


  • #5365
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,067 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    Shanotheslayer wrote: »
    I agree that it shouldn't be compared to other sacrifices but I think he's spot on saying the PL need to action not just broadcasters.

    Yeah, I mostly take issue with the second half of his tweet.

    The PL and PFA needed to be stronger in ensuring responsible choices were being made. It seems like they just gave up whatever was asked for.

    It looks like the 5 subs thing will come in sooner or later at least with 15 managers behind it now, which should help a bit.

    I feel my opinion has really changed on Jesus the last year or two. I think he's just not a very good footballer.

    I think he's one of those strikers that's often better the less time he has. He works very hard, but the responsibility of knitting together City's attackers is too much for him.

    Did well there though to pick out Torres.

    Subscribe to save Boards.ie from closing down: The Bad News

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • #5366
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,880 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    Shanotheslayer wrote: »
    I think you answered the question yourself CSF. If the PL are putting money ahead of player welfare then they should expect every backlash they get.

    I wouldn't have much knowledge on how it works behind the scenes etc but something has to give.
    But like, it was already agreed. The clubs agreed to it. 4 clubs are affected now. The other 16 likely have no real interest in losing the financial deal that was made.


  • #5367
    jayo26
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,779 ✭✭✭✭jayo26


    City easily the best team in the league to watch on their day.

    Pep rebuilding with a new young and hungry team they be hard to beat when they settle.


  • #5368
    ~Rebel~
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 35,067 ✭✭✭✭~Rebel~


    CSF wrote: »
    But like, it was already agreed. The clubs agreed to it. 4 clubs are affected now. The other 16 likely have no real interest in losing the financial deal that was made.

    Isn't that the point though? That it shouldn't have been agreed?

    I don't know how the decision is made - is it a vote that was put to clubs? or do the PL chiefs have the authority to just make that decision themselves? If the former, you could understand why the smaller teams outvoted the bigger ones. but if it's the latter, then the PL has a responsibility to all their clubs, and shouldn't agree something that's only potentially detrimental to 4 teams.

    Subscribe to save Boards.ie from closing down: The Bad News

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • #5369
    Shanotheslayer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,191 ✭✭✭✭Shanotheslayer


    CSF wrote: »
    But like, it was already agreed. The clubs agreed to it. 4 clubs are affected now. The other 16 likely have no real interest in losing the financial deal that was made.

    Yes and opinion's change after seeing the effect. Hasn't that already been stated? I'm not saying it needs to be changed this season either. But definitely next season, fixture congestion has been an issue for a long time, and covid on top of it was never going to be made easier.


  • #5370
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,798 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    DM_7 wrote: »
    Intent is clear I think. The defender is pulling on the ball to clear it. Welbeck gets there first.

    Both players are playing the game trying to advantage their side. Robertson had the option of not pulling on it and trying to contain instead. Ultimately he did not get there first with the action he chose.

    Much like offside the tech can show what happened. The fact the ref could not see it in real time does not change what happened.

    If the referee gets a chance to see it again and establish in his view if Robertson kicked Welbeck and that it was careless, reckless or using excessive force then it is a benefit to the game.

    My intent point was more geared towards the butchered handball law - freeze frame any cross blocked by a hand and it is impossible to determine intent so that any contact is handball. Changed because it didn't overturn Llorente's handball at City in the CL under the old law.

    If you have to slow it down and the referee had a clear view of it, then that's it. Even then, they suggest looking at some and not others without the referee establishing anything.


  • Advertisement
  • #5371
    CSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,880 ✭✭✭✭CSF


    ~Rebel~ wrote: »
    Isn't that the point though? That it shouldn't have been agreed?

    I don't know how the decision is made - is it a vote that was put to clubs? or do the PL chiefs have the authority to just make that decision themselves? If the former, you could understand why the smaller teams outvoted the bigger ones. but if it's the latter, then the PL has a responsibility to all their clubs, and shouldn't agree something that's only potentially detrimental to 4 teams.
    I'm fine with that argument. But Klopp fuming at the broadcasters who haven't got that much reason for loyalty towards him, rather than calling out the people who actually made that decision is bizarre.


    To answer your other question, two thirds of the league would have to vote for any change in the TV situation. Given that Klopp acknowledged in his interview, that the business people in the club appears to have signed this, Liverpool would appear to be one of the two thirds minimum that were in favour of this deal.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement