The English Football Thread

[Tomo 21,736]

38 minutes ago, Jason said:

The Premier League:

We want to maintain the integrity of the competition.

Also the Premier League:

Let's reduce each half of football.

Let's play at neutral grounds.

Let's dump VAR for the rest of the season.

I wish all these clubs/players/executives/fans would all stop the bullshit and just admit they want what best suits their club.

Everytime we hear about people wanting voids they bang on about integrity/morality being the reason behind why it's their preference yet the one thing all these people seem to have in common is they support or are employed by a club who would benefit.

The only exception to that rule are United fans but we all know exactly why that is.

[Jase 43,479]

5 minutes ago, Tomo said:

I wish all these clubs/players/executives/fans would all stop the bullshit and just admit they want what best suits their club.

Everytime we hear about people wanting voids they bang on about integrity/morality being the reason behind why it's their preference yet the one thing all these people seem to have in common is they support or are employed by a club who would benefit.

The only exception to that rule are United fans but we all know exactly why that is.

I would love to be in one of their meetings to be honest because I swear they have had like 100 of them by now and they look no closer to agreeing on anything or forming a cohesive plan on how to restart the season. Almost every day you see news of stupid suggestions being mentioned or that some stakeholders are not being consulted over a return etc. It's not exactly safe to return yet in England and yet, they are finding stupid ways to try and force the resumption. 

[Vesper 29,202]

Friday May 8 2020 Football Nerd

Why we must use our eyes as well as stats to judge goalkeepers By Daniel Zeqiri Where does David de Gea stand in the pantheon of great goalkeepers? CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES Through football's coronavirus hiatus, we are committed to providing a weekly newsletter of facts, analysis and retrospectives. If there is a topic you want us to cover please email [email protected].uk. Above all, stay safe.     The subject for this week's newsletter comes from one of our readers, so thanks to Neil H who asks: "There is lots of speculation and argument over who has been or is the best goalkeeper to grace the Premier League. What do you guys think and what do the stats say?" Evaluating goalkeepers and defenders using statistics is a really interesting subject, and a troublesome one for scouting teams within the game. It is no coincidence that Arsene Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson, two of the greatest managers from the Premier League era, made several boo-boos in this department. Attacking players produce quantifiable output - shots, key passes, assists, expected goals and so on - that can be used to analyse their quality in a relatively straightforward way. This is not true of defenders and goalkeepers. Goals, assists, and key passes have universal value and a clear outcome in a way tackles, clearances or saves do not. Often these rudimentary measures are simply a reflection of how much work a defender or goalkeeper gets through. For instance, you might recall a young Ben Foster thriving on loan at relegated Watford in 2006-7 when he was peppered with shots, but struggling at Manchester United when his concentration was tested due to long spells of inactivity. Goalkeepers in poor teams will make plenty of saves. Petr Cech holds the record for Premier League clean sheets with 202, while Pepe Reina holds the record for clean sheet ratio with 134 in 291 appearances: 46.05 per cent. Both were fantastic goalkeepers at their peak, but also played for well-drilled Jose Mourinho and Rafael Benitez defences in an era of conservative tactics. How much should that influence our judgement? If we go on save percentage, the top 10 goalkeepers in Premier League history are as follows (based on those with 100 appearances or more):     Cech stands out again, as does Edwin van der Sar. But do we really believe Marcus Hahnemann and Manuel Almunia are in the best 10 goalkeepers in Premier League history? Of course not, which demonstrates the difficulty of evaluating goalkeepers using stats alone. Readers will surely be shouting the name Peter Schmeichel at their phone or laptop - the goalkeeper you would expect to win a public poll on this subject - but his time at Manchester United came before Opta started collecting stats like save percentages. Schmeichel was an integral part of several title wins and his style influenced a generation of goalkeepers, so I would not object to those who argue he was the best. Today, there are more sophisticated metrics for measuring goalkeeper performance such as Opta's Expected Goals on Target metric. XGoT, unlike plain old Expected Goals, is a post-shot model. That means it takes into account not just the location and quality of the shot, but the goalmouth location where the shot finishes. XGoT throws out all the attempts that end up off target regardless of their xG value. That makes it a useful metric for assessing goalkeepers, because counting all the shots that do not test them could prove misleading. Moreover, it paints a more accurate picture of goalkeepers' performances on long-range efforts. A shot from 30 yards might have an xG value of 0.03, meaning any goal from that range reflects badly on a goalkeeper statistically. As we all know however, there are occasional shots from distance that leave goalkeepers with little chance, and XGoT takes that into account. For example, Daniel Sturridge's goal at Stamford Bridge last season had an xG value of 0.03, but registered 0.58 on XGoT because it was so perfectly placed into the top corner. According to this measure, the top five goalkeepers in the Premier League currently are: Vicente Guaita, Martin Dubravka, Dean Henderson, Hugo Lloris and Ben Foster. Crystal Palace goalkeeper Guaita has kept out 9.6 more goals than you would expect. But surely they are not better goalkeepers than Alisson or Ederson, I hear you ask? In short, assessing goalkeepers is difficult and remains quite subjective. Maybe we just need to use our eyes.

[Laylabelle 9,406]

16 hours ago, Jason said:

I would love to be in one of their meetings to be honest because I swear they have had like 100 of them by now and they look no closer to agreeing on anything or forming a cohesive plan on how to restart the season. Almost every day you see news of stupid suggestions being mentioned or that some stakeholders are not being consulted over a return etc. It's not exactly safe to return yet in England and yet, they are finding stupid ways to try and force the resumption. 

A 3rd Brighton player has been tested postive. Been training individually but still..had they not been then what then? Theyd have no team. 

And same for any other team in the retstat. Player tests postive surely the rest have to isolate. Happened in Germany already 

It's silly. And talks if testing players and whatever. Use those for the people who are close contact first! Like Lampard himself said it's silly to use tests on players when others need them more.

Even in empty grounds they'll still be people around. No getting past that especially if they want these games aired.

 

[Jase 43,479]

1 hour ago, Laylabelle said:

A 3rd Brighton player has been tested postive. Been training individually but still..had they not been then what then? Theyd have no team. 

And same for any other team in the retstat. Player tests postive surely the rest have to isolate. Happened in Germany already 

It's silly. And talks if testing players and whatever. Use those for the people who are close contact first! Like Lampard himself said it's silly to use tests on players when others need them more.

Even in empty grounds they'll still be people around. No getting past that especially if they want these games aired.

Just like the government, they don't have a fucking clue. 

[MoroccanBlue 5,320]

I can’t see anything other than a PPG verdict ( if the season has to end) being the fairest determinant. 
 

We are 80% through the season and clubs are where they are for a reason. 

[Laylabelle 9,406]

If the season ends where it is and teams positions are taking into accounting the Villa would have a case on their hand if they want to still relegate.

They have a game in hand which with a win would take them out the bottom

Same with Sheffield. Win their game and they'd be in 5th place

Probably be so much easier to get void if anything. There has to be a cut off point to starting and its bound to be a disaster if all it takes is one player testing postive.. 

[Atomiswave 6,072]

Null and void the damn season, enough already. What kind of state will the players be in, and you want neutral grounds too? Void that shit, no one wins atitle, no one gets relegated or demoted etc. Delete the season.

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

Driven by money. They want to play it out or they owe billions to TV companies.

[Jase 43,479]

45 minutes ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Driven by money. They want to play it out or they owe billions to TV companies.

I find that the Premier League's lack of cohesive planning is the stupidest part in all of this. They are desperate to make sure the season is completed, fine but they don't have a freaking clue on how to go about it. They have had so many meetings with the clubs and gone nowhere, we hear stupid suggestions every few days to somehow force an early resumption and they don't even have a proper medical procedure on ensuring the safety of the players, staff etc involved for when the season resumes.

[MoroccanBlue 5,320]

2 hours ago, Laylabelle said:

If the season ends where it is and teams positions are taking into accounting the Villa would have a case on their hand if they want to still relegate.

They have a game in hand which with a win would take them out the bottom

Same with Sheffield. Win their game and they'd be in 5th place

Probably be so much easier to get void if anything. There has to be a cut off point to starting and its bound to be a disaster if all it takes is one player testing postive.. 

 

2 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

Null and void the damn season, enough already. What kind of state will the players be in, and you want neutral grounds too? Void that shit, no one wins atitle, no one gets relegated or demoted etc. Delete the season.

I genuinely can’t take you seriously if you think a PPG determinate has more legal ramifications than a null and void season. 

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

5 hours ago, Jason said:

I find that the Premier League's lack of cohesive planning is the stupidest part in all of this. They are desperate to make sure the season is completed, fine but they don't have a freaking clue on how to go about it. They have had so many meetings with the clubs and gone nowhere, we hear stupid suggestions every few days to somehow force an early resumption and they don't even have a proper medical procedure on ensuring the safety of the players, staff etc involved for when the season resumes.

Bottom line the two organisations that matter cant do diddly squat without the government green light though. This is becoming less likely when up to 18 000 new infections were being  reported daily.  According to Eva Carneiro -yes her, 'Professional players have been shown to be regularly immunosuppressed' and there are real fears that black footballers face an increased risk of death if the season was resumed amid the coronavirus crisis. 

[Jase 43,479]

7 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Bottom line the two organisations that matter cant do diddly squat without the government green light though. This is becoming less likely when up to 18 000 new infections were being  reported daily.  According to Eva Carneiro -yes her, 'Professional players have been shown to be regularly immunosuppressed' and there are real fears that black footballers face an increased risk of death if the season was resumed amid the coronavirus crisis. 

Still doesn't excuse their haphazard planning. Say if the government allow football to resume this week behind closed doors, what plans/procedures/arrangements/agreements do they even have in place now to make sure that will go ahead?

[Fulham Broadway 16,977]

48 minutes ago, Jason said:

Still doesn't excuse their haphazard planning. Say if the government allow football to resume this week behind closed doors, what plans/procedures/arrangements/agreements do they even have in place now to make sure that will go ahead?

The clubs were all disagreeing with each other, and still are neutral grounds, etc PL cant force them into doing things that contracts explicitly say something but contradicts the status quo without lawyers rewriting it all, which takes time. Unprecedented times, especially when our government has a shambolic approach to the whole thing. 

[Atomiswave 6,072]

13 hours ago, MoroccanBlue said:

16 hours ago, Atomiswave said:

 

I genuinely can’t take you seriously if you think a PPG determinate has more legal ramifications than a null and void season.

I dont get your point. My point is delete the season and start fresh again after summer. Let all this settle down, plan well. To start playing now or very soon will only bring negatives with it.

[Atomiswave 6,072]

22 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Driven by money. They want to play it out or they owe billions to TV companies.

Which is horse shit....all around its a crap idea.

[Vesper 29,202]

Cox: Five subs mean more advantages for top sides – they must remain temporary

https://theathletic.com/1805019/2020/05/11/michael-cox-five-substitutes-premier-league/

When football resumes after its coronavirus-enforced break, some aspects of the game will almost inevitably be different.

Some of the changes could be as minor as scrapping pre-match handshakes, some may be as significant as completely changing football’s economic model. Some modifications will be temporary, some will be permanent.

More intriguingly, some will be intended to be temporary, but end up permanent.

Such changes tend to happen in times of national crisis. During the costly Napoleonic Wars, the concept of income tax was introduced throughout Britain as a temporary way to raise revenue. The country came to depend on these monies, and income tax became a fundamental part of Britain’s economy.

During the First World War, in order to save energy and help the war effort, the Summer Time Act declared that Britain would put its clocks forward for an hour between May and October. With some revisions to the precise timings, the practice of British Summer Time is still in operation today.

Anything involving football is unlikely to have a comparable impact. But history demonstrates that temporary measures in times of emergency are often never scrapped.

This brings us to the decision of the International Football Association Board (IFAB) to change the laws regarding substitutions. When football returns — this coming weekend in the Bundesliga, possibly at some point in June for the Premier League — managers will no longer be restricted to making three substitutions. They will, for the first time, be allowed to make a fourth and fifth change within 90 minutes, too.

Furthermore, for the past couple of seasons, managers have been allowed to make an additional substitution in extra time — previously, that was a fourth change. Now, it will be a sixth.

And in a sport involving 11 starting players — one of whom is almost never substituted for reasons of strategy or fatigue — this feels like a fundamental change to the game. In Champions League matches, for example, 60 per cent of an outfield side might change between kick-off and the end of extra time. An entire midfield and attack can be replaced.

Until now, changes to the number of permitted substitutions have generally been incremental. The first substitute in the English league came as recently as 1965. A second substitute was allowed in 1987, a third in 1994 and a fourth (in extra time) from 2018. Expanding the number of permitted players by two is unprecedented, and a game-changer for managers who want to, well, change the game.

“It seems to me a positive change, and the right thing to do in a moment like this,” the president of the Italian coaches’ association, Renzo Ulivieri, said last week. “It gives coaches the chance to make the most of the whole squad. There could also be more physical problems during games in this scenario, so it’s a solution that certainly lends a helping hand.”

Managers won’t be allowed to use all five substitutions to break up play — they will still only be allowed three substitution “slots”, which might cause minor controversy if a player goes down injured after a manager has made three or four substitutions at three different times. We’re considerably more likely to witness the previously rarely sighted triple substitution — or perhaps even quadruple or quintuple changes.

These measures are, of course, designed to cope with the fact that footballers will be asked to play a huge number of games in a short period of time, without a traditional pre-season. It will, in theory, prevent injuries but also allow a manager to cope if injuries arise.

It will, however, inevitably benefit the bigger clubs. They have greater strength in depth compared to smaller clubs, so the ability to make more changes means their resources will become more evident than ever.

Leaving aside injuries and contractual situations for a minute, Pep Guardiola could, for example, start with a front five of Raheem Sterling, Kevin De Bruyne, Sergio Aguero, David Silva and Leroy Sane. He could then introduce Riyad Mahrez, Bernardo Silva, Gabriel Jesus, Ilkay Gundogan and Phil Foden in their places. Then in extra time, Rodri could replace Fernandinho. There’s a drop-off in quality, but it’s a smaller drop-off than the likes of Aston Villa or Bournemouth would face. Those teams might benefit from introducing fresh legs to help chase down City, but they would be doing so with players of a lower calibre.

It’s not unrealistic to think that this change could become permanent. It’s likely to be popular with managers, who would feel more capable of influencing the game with tactical changes, and with players, who would be more likely to get some form of run-out on a match day.

Intriguingly, some coronavirus-related changes in other sports are also being considered on a more permanent basis. In Australian rules football, the AFL decided to introduce shorter quarters (going from 20 minutes to 16) for the start of the 2020 season in March, hoping that shorter games would reduce fatigue and facilitate more frequent games until the inevitable suspension of the league.

In the end, only one round was possible — but various pundits have suggested the change is likely to be made permanent.

When the idea of shorter halves for Premier League matches was briefly floated by PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor last week — in something of a thinking-out-loud exercise about how to reduce player fatigue rather than as a particularly serious suggestion — he was widely ridiculed by supporters. Unlike the AFL, the Premier League is resuming its campaign, not starting a new one. It would be impossible to change the concept of a 90-minute match three-quarters of the way through a season.

But — and it’s a small but — shorter matches would mean less chance of the stronger team coming out on top. It would mean more shocks, more upsets, more unpredictability. It could slightly redress the balance in top-level sports, where the difference between top and bottom has become increasingly stretched in recent years.

Extra substitutions would also benefit bigger clubs in a wider sense. The stockpiling of players at Europe’s elite clubs has been (slightly) tempered because managers know they can only use 14 in any individual game. The more players are denied playing time, the more they’ll kick up a fuss and want to leave in search of more regular football.

Similarly, being omitted from an 18-man squad entirely is an obvious sign of disrespect, a sign that it’s time to move on. If other leagues follow Spain’s decision to expand match-day squads to 23 (something that had already happened in Italy, incidentally), then there’s more opportunity to keep top players relatively happy on the fringes of the squad.

However, football benefits from good players playing on a more regular basis. Spectators want to see the best players on the pitch, not on the bench, and that necessitates talent being spread throughout a club, not concentrated at half a dozen clubs.

The past couple of decades have seen a lamentable increase in inequality throughout top-flight leagues. To prevent the big clubs becoming even more dominant, and football becoming more predictable, IFAB must ensure its policy of five substitutes and 23-man squads remains a brief measure brought in to help combat a specific, and hopefully short-term, health problem.

---

The other notable revelation from the IFAB statement was its decision to allow leagues to suspend the use of VAR midway through the campaign, should they consider this necessary. This is to prevent the spread of the virus in the VAR booths — and, more generally, to reduce the number of people required for matches to take place.

This is a hugely intriguing possibility for those who want VAR scrapped — full disclosure: I am very much one of those people — yet, in actual fact, this could be the perfect time for VAR to prosper.

An obvious flaw in VAR is that it’s essentially made for television — little effort has been made to communicate the nature of decisions to people in the stadium. The worst thing is the increasingly familiar muted goal celebrations in the stands. Supporters are no longer sure goals will be allowed to stand.

But, of course, absolutely none of this will matter for the remainder of this campaign, because matches will be played behind closed doors. Therefore, the major issue with VAR is no longer an issue, and the authorities who show such little consideration for match-going supporters no longer have to work out how to placate them.

What’s more, even those of us who abhor VAR are so utterly desperate for football that we would, right now, probably accept any kind of ludicrous amendment to the sport if it meant we could watch a live match.

After two months of no football, I would probably watch a game where the referee wasn’t allowed to whistle, or where goalkeepers couldn’t use their hands, or where left-backs were forced to play with their boots tied together.

Or — even more ludicrous than that — if matches were temporarily halted after every goal while a team of officials at a business park miles from the stadium rewound the tape, watched an incident several times without being able to obviously prove a particular offence, before then choosing to disallow the goal, with the on-pitch referee sometimes unable to even explain to the players why the decision has been changed.

In the current climate, football with VAR will no longer be compared to football without VAR. Instead, football will be compared to no football at all. And, for all its considerable problems, that’s a fight even VAR surely isn’t capable of losing.

[NikkiCFC 8,081]

Yes money is all that matters now. Pretty sure even from Chelsea POV we would rather finish this season without CL spot than null and void now and get CL for next season.

Because we are losing more money with not finishing this season than we would if we do not play CL next season.