General Premier League Thread 2019-20

.G.

Use of five subs has been approved by IFAB for all competitions between now and December 31st and may be extended into 2021. Teams will only have three opportunities to make the five subs though, not including half time.

They also given all leagues who use VAR the option not to use it between now and then.

Guy:Incognito

.G. wrote: »

They also given all leagues who use VAR the option not to use it between now and then.

PL not expected to drop it and I cant see why they would. Wherever games go ahead it looks to be in PL grounds, so no need to change anything.

jacool

~Rebel~ wrote: »

More than this i'd imagine it would just be about bringing City's name negative media coverage again. As much as players, they're used by their clubs as ambassadors for the brand.

Agreed with others though, that in this particular instance, there's really not much of an issue... I mean, I can understand it, especially if both parties have been isolating/social distancing for 2 weeks. (how longs it been since he got the hookers round?)

Could see him being fined internally or whatever for the first instance as it genuinely could be considered to have made them look bad, but not so much this one.

This is from the BBC
"The defender apologised and urged people to "stay home, stay safe" during the coronavirus pandemic. On Thursday, the Sun reported Walker broke lockdown three times in 24 hours this week with visits to his sister, his parents and a cycle ride with a friend."

So, he's in the public eye, and gives the public advice, but then goes against it himself. That's where the issue is.
He adds ""At what stage do my feelings get taken into consideration?""
and "However, I now feel as though I am being harassed. This is no longer solely affecting me, but affecting the health of my family and my young children too."

I wonder was he thinking about the kids when he broke the lockdown?

Back then he said "I want to take this opportunity to issue a public apology for the choices I made last week which have resulted in a story today about my private life in a tabloid newspaper.
"I understand that my position as a professional footballer brings the responsibility of being a role model. As such, I want to apologise to my family, friends, football club, supporters and the public for letting them down.
"There are heroes out there making a vital difference to society at the moment, and I have been keen to help support and highlight their amazing sacrifices and life-saving work over the past week.
"My actions in this matter are in direct contrast to what I should have been doing regarding the lockdown. And I want to re-iterate the message: stay home, stay safe."

Loafing Oaf

Former police commander says there's no rationale for neutral venues:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/08/neutral-venue-plan-has-no-rationale-says-former-football-police-commander-premier-league-fans

8-10

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I cant see why they would

Because it's awful?

Guy:Incognito

8-10 wrote: »

Because it's awful?

disagree. But either way, its half way through a season.

~Rebel~

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Former police commander says there's no rationale for neutral venues:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/08/neutral-venue-plan-has-no-rationale-says-former-football-police-commander-premier-league-fans

Somewhat odd comments, in that he only speaks in terms of the gatherings of fans, and not all the other (and imo more important) benefits, like reducing distance traveled meaning overnight stays or air travel would not be needed, and massively reducing the amount of support staff needed if multiple games could be played in a stadium on gameday.

Collie D

jacool wrote: »

This is from the BBC
"The defender apologised and urged people to "stay home, stay safe" during the coronavirus pandemic. On Thursday, the Sun reported Walker broke lockdown three times in 24 hours this week with visits to his sister, his parents and a cycle ride with a friend."

So, he's in the public eye, and gives the public advice, but then goes against it himself. That's where the issue is.
He adds ""At what stage do my feelings get taken into consideration?""
and "However, I now feel as though I am being harassed. This is no longer solely affecting me, but affecting the health of my family and my young children too."

I wonder was he thinking about the kids when he broke the lockdown?

Back then he said "I want to take this opportunity to issue a public apology for the choices I made last week which have resulted in a story today about my private life in a tabloid newspaper.
"I understand that my position as a professional footballer brings the responsibility of being a role model. As such, I want to apologise to my family, friends, football club, supporters and the public for letting them down.
"There are heroes out there making a vital difference to society at the moment, and I have been keen to help support and highlight their amazing sacrifices and life-saving work over the past week.
"My actions in this matter are in direct contrast to what I should have been doing regarding the lockdown. And I want to re-iterate the message: stay home, stay safe."

While I’d agree with him in that the media shouldn’t stick their noses into players’ personal lives but by breaking travel restrictions he has made it a public problem. Usually I’d have a bit of sympathy with him but it’s hard to accept his “Woe is me” attitude.

Loafing Oaf

~Rebel~ wrote: »

massively reducing the amount of support staff needed if multiple games could be played in a stadium on gameday.

Didn't know this was the plan. Certainly makes sense...

.G.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Former police commander says there's no rationale for neutral venues:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/08/neutral-venue-plan-has-no-rationale-says-former-football-police-commander-premier-league-fans

While another police chief says those complaining about neutral grounds need to "get a grip"

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-project-restart-season-start-date-police-coronavirus-a9504981.html

Id be in favour of following the Bundesliga lead and playing games at clubs own grounds but its apparently been a police decision not to allow them to do that so the premier league have no choice.

Mushy

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Former police commander says there's no rationale for neutral venues:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/08/neutral-venue-plan-has-no-rationale-says-former-football-police-commander-premier-league-fans

All the while the lead policeman for football in england says home venues is unrealistic.

https://theathletic.com/1799701/2020/05/08/neutral-stadiums-premier-league-police-coronavirus?source=user-shared-article

Goes to show it's a nightmare decision to have to make

Tom Mann Centuria

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Somewhat odd comments, in that he only speaks in terms of the gatherings of fans, and not all the other (and imo more important) benefits, like reducing distance traveled meaning overnight stays or air travel would not be needed, and massively reducing the amount of support staff needed if multiple games could be played in a stadium on gameday.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Didn't know this was the plan. Certainly makes sense...

Also massively increase the chance of spreading the virus. No way you could do a thorough deep clean between the games and next teams arriving in dressing rooms/other facilities.

Mitch Connor

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Also massively increase the chance of spreading the virus. No way you could do a thorough deep clean between the games and next teams arriving in dressing rooms/other facilities.

Can;t think they'd use the same pitch/stadium 2 or 3 times a day.

But if you are using 10 stadiums, rather than 20, you still have half the stadiums in use, reducing policing etc.

10 stadiums can cover all matches in a match day - just as it would now. But you would now have a scenario where the same 10 stadiums are covering every match day, not just every other one.

If you reduce to 8 stadiums, then 2 would need to be used twice a match day. But that still doesn't mean using it twice a day. If everything is being televised you are looking at a match day spread over 3 to 5 days, in reality. 2 or 3 games a day. So you can used Stadium 1 on the first day of a match day, and on the last day of a match day - with a day or two for cleaning.

8-10

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

disagree. But either way, its half way through a season.

They only brought it into certain competitions halfway through, e.g. Champions League. I don't see the fact that it was used in other games as meaning it must continue to be used.

Girly Gal

Why are the premier league being forced to use neutral grounds when the Bundesliga are using their home pitches. Surely neutral grounds should only be an option at this stage unless it's proven in the Bundesliga that home venues are a problem.
Also should some teams be able to play some games at homes so that all teams have played equal number of home and away and neutral venue matches.

Drumpot

Girly Gal wrote: »

Why are the premier league being forced to use neutral grounds when the Bundesliga are using their home pitches. Surely neutral grounds should only be an option at this stage unless it's proven in the Bundesliga that home venues are a problem.
Also should some teams be able to play some games at homes so that all teams have played equal number of home and away and neutral venue matches.

UK has been one of the worst countries to handle the crisis, Germany certainly one of the best European countries. UK would be waiting until September or later if they wanted to be opening up in relatively similar Environment. The Uk are not just one month behind Germany, that’s for sure.

Part of it will be optics, doing strategic mental gymnastics to make it look like they give a crap about player or fan welfare so they can sell their plans to the public. Government will only be delighted for any distraction that takes the focus off their mismanagement so they won’t take much persuasion.

Tom Mann Centuria

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Can;t think they'd use the same pitch/stadium 2 or 3 times a day.

But if you are using 10 stadiums, rather than 20, you still have half the stadiums in use, reducing policing etc.

10 stadiums can cover all matches in a match day - just as it would now. But you would now have a scenario where the same 10 stadiums are covering every match day, not just every other one.

If you reduce to 8 stadiums, then 2 would need to be used twice a match day. But that still doesn't mean using it twice a day. If everything is being televised you are looking at a match day spread over 3 to 5 days, in reality. 2 or 3 games a day. So you can used Stadium 1 on the first day of a match day, and on the last day of a match day - with a day or two for cleaning.

You've explained that very well. I was being dense.

y0ssar1an22

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11985355/premier-league-to-warn-clubs-over-voting-against-neutral-venues

'The six bottom clubs - Brighton, West Ham, Watford, Bournemouth, Aston Villa and Norwich - have reservations about proposals to finish the season by playing at neutral grounds without fans.
They believe giving up home advantage could affect their chances of staying up and compromise the integrity of the competition.

However, they will be warned that the protocols for games restarting could be in place for the start of next season, so they need to think about the long-term consequences of voting against playing at neutral grounds.'

anyone any idea what that means?

.G.

It means wise up I'd say. The conditions that this season ends in are unlikely to be much different to the conditions next season will be held in. If they want to wait until games can be held as they always where a lot of them might not be in existence by then. Normal is gone, the new normal needs adapting to and accepting.

A good article I read today on the split between the 6 and the rest and how those 6 themselves may end up splitting.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/project-restart-sabotage-bottom-six-neutral-grounds-a9505261.html

Tom Mann Centuria

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11985355/premier-league-to-warn-clubs-over-voting-against-neutral-venues

'The six bottom clubs - Brighton, West Ham, Watford, Bournemouth, Aston Villa and Norwich - have reservations about proposals to finish the season by playing at neutral grounds without fans.
They believe giving up home advantage could affect their chances of staying up and compromise the integrity of the competition.

However, they will be warned that the protocols for games restarting could be in place for the start of next season, so they need to think about the long-term consequences of voting against playing at neutral grounds.'

anyone any idea what that means?

A not particularly veiled threat.

Corholio

If it was the top 6 that was in the position of supposedly disagreeing with proposed changes there'd never be this weird media hunt that is currently going on. This weird 'Do this or you'll be punished' stuff, that seems to be led by the media and influencing fans. Clubs have the right to defend their positions in imbalanced circumstances. The Brighton chairman also suggested it's more than just the bottom 6 that wouldn't be happy about the plans.

It'll no doubt get to the stage where the top 6 teams will accuse the bottom 6 of being 'greedy', which would be hilarious in so many ways. I think a lot of fans can't separate their antsy to see some football on TV and the genuine concerns and reasons some clubs would have to not just roll over and accept terms JUST to get football back again.

y0ssar1an22

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

A not particularly veiled threat.

not really. i was along the lines that they are being 'blackmailed' to continue on, for fear of financial repercussions. something i have pointed out before in this thread

ETA: the bit highlighted above, that a direct quote from the article.

ETA: i read toms reply as thread rather than threat. i thought he was implying i was wum'ing or something!

8-10

Yep as The Athletic suggested the option seems to be neutral venue or nothing in order to 'encourage' teams to accept the neutral venue option

adaminho

I'd love to hear the argument for BCD vs Neutral ground? Is there any difference? If you play at home with no crowd isn't that the same as playing at Wembley with no crowd?

LuckyLloyd

There seems to be a lot of fantasy hanging around about how next season will be back to normal and this is merely a choice between finishing this season in less than ideal conditions or just cancelling and moving back to normality a few weeks later. It's madness.

I highly doubt Brighton can weather it out waiting for football to start in ideal conditions post vaccine. I'd say the amount of clubs who could do that is a very short list indeed.

Mitch Connor

adaminho wrote: »

I'd love to hear the argument for BCD vs Neutral ground? Is there any difference? If you play at home with no crowd isn't that the same as playing at Wembley with no crowd?

read back through the thread a couple of pages and it has been discussed.

Essentially - concentration of resources.

Agent Coulson

I can see a Premier League 1 & 2 coming out of this once this season is finished off and the TV rights re written and sold off to cover more games across more platforms.


The longer it goes without crowds the more TV revenue will be needed so instead of just SKY, BT and Amazon, maybe one or both of the BBC and ITV also getting games with every game being screened.


Or the PreFlix idea actually gets started a lot earlier than they wanted.

y0ssar1an22

adaminho wrote: »

I'd love to hear the argument for BCD vs Neutral ground? Is there any difference? If you play at home with no crowd isn't that the same as playing at Wembley with no crowd?

Not really the same. knowing the whole pre match schedule, from home to kickoff, without traveinning.

by your own rational, highlighted above, replace wembley with thailand. why is that any different?

adaminho

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Not really the same. knowing the whole pre match schedule, from home to kickoff, without traveinning.

by your own rational, highlighted above, replace wembley with thailand. why is that any different?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. What's the difference with say Villa vs Watford at Villa park against the same game at Brighton if both have no fans at them?

Arghus

I have zero sympathy for Kyle Walker. Maybe don't repeatedly break the lockdown if you don't want to be harassed.

y0ssar1an22

Arghus wrote: »

I have zero sympathy for Kyle Walker. Maybe don't repeatedly break the lockdown if you don't want to be harassed.

what were the repercussions?

~Rebel~

adaminho wrote: »

That's what I'm trying to figure out. What's the difference with say Villa vs Watford at Villa park against the same game at Brighton if both have no fans at them?

From Villa's point of view, I would guess the upheavel and discomfort of having a 4 hour drive to Brighton on the morning of what they feel should be a home game.

It's definitely a bit unfair, but this is a situation of entirely unfair options, so they kinda just have to be pragmatic about it I think.

y0ssar1an22

adaminho wrote: »

That's what I'm trying to figure out. What's the difference with say Villa vs Watford at Villa park against the same game at Brighton if both have no fans at them?

aside from the crowd on your side, what do you think the advantages (if any) of playing at home?

do the stats backup home advantage? i don't know, just presume that's the case.

MD1990

Arghus wrote: »

I have zero sympathy for Kyle Walker. Maybe don't repeatedly break the lockdown if you don't want to be harassed.

It was pathetic.

Would he have brought up mental health if he wasn't caught? I don't think so.

Harry Palmr

With League 1 and 2 done and now the Championship apparently edging towards a non playing solution (bar playoffs) the PL might well sue for peace as do the same

https://twitter.com/martynziegler/status/1258810558125674497

Home advantage in an empty stadium is marginal to say the least and the teams at the bottom are there for a reason, home or away.

TitianGerm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

what were the repercussions?

Think he was fined by City for the first breach.

y0ssar1an22

MD1990 wrote: »

It was pathetic.

Would he have brought up mental health if he wasn't caught? I don't think so.

i haven't read into it KW's actions.

but my gripe in general; football aside, people use mental health as a get out/excuse for so much these days. takes away from genuine cases.

Its actually disgraceful. People flippantly throwing out how they are suffering from anxiety, while on the other hand you have someone suicidal getting no supports whatsoever.

anyway, that was an aside. back on topic....

is jordan henderson the worst POTY in the history of the PL?

TitianGerm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i haven't read into it KW's actions.

but my gripe in general; football aside, people use mental health as a get out/excuse for so much these days. takes away from genuine cases.

Its actually disgraceful. People flippantly throwing out how they are suffering from anxiety, while on the other hand you have someone suicidal getting no supports whatsoever.

anyway, that was an aside. back on topic....

is jordan henderson the worst POTY in the history of the PL?

No in fairness Henderson has been immense this season. Dragged the team through rough patches in games by sheer will but I think what got him on the radar for POTY was a four or five game spell where he scored and assisted goals in tight games.

I would have given it to KDB though.

Giggs is the most underwhelming choice for POTY when he got his token award.

5starpool

Scott Parker won player of the year when his team (West ham) were relegated that season. Now that's weird.

y0ssar1an22

TitianGerm wrote: »

No in fairness Henderson has been immense this season. Dragged the team through rough patches in games by sheer will but I think what got him on the radar for POTY was a four or five game spell where he scored and assisted goals in tight games.

I would have given it to KDB though.

Giggs is the most underwhelming choice for POTY when he got his token award.

i'm not sure if was giggs or ginola that took away the prestige. 20 years ago now.

as for henderson, i asked this in the liverpool thread (i think, one of the threads)....

is there anything anyone can point to as to why he was the best player? even a pass map? let's be honest, objectively he was (is, is it still the current season?), not the best player in the league.

Arghus

Ah, there's been worse ones.

Scott Parker was ridiculous; the team got relegated!

fyfe79

Arghus wrote: »

Ah, there's been worse ones.

Scott Parker was ridiculous; the team got relegated!

True. Henderson is the captain of the team who are/were top by 25 points. That's gotta mean something. It's not exactly Mark Kinsella and Charlton!

y0ssar1an22

Arghus wrote: »

Ah, there's been worse ones.

Scott Parker was ridiculous; the team got relegated!

of course.

ginola for a goal, and being the PL's wet dream for selling the brand in france.

giggs, once they realised he was retiring and had never won it, the obvious choice.

scott parker. just to show grit, determination, and sheer force of will can save a club from relegation. :pac:

it lost credibility a long tome ago

ETA: that season giggs started 15 games! (all comps stared 28 with 4 goals). nearly as bad a decision as canceling the leaving cert!.

TitianGerm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i'm not sure if was giggs or ginola that took away the prestige. 20 years ago now.

as for henderson, i asked this in the liverpool thread (i think, one of the threads)....

is there anything anyone can point to as to why he was the best player? even a pass map? let's be honest, objectively he was (is, is it still the current season?), not the best player in the league.

If you watch a lot of Liverpool you'll see the difference between the teams performances and intensity with and without Henderson. He dictates the pace of the game and is usually the one that initiates the press (even though that's toned down compared to year one of Klopp). For me the team doesn't perform to the same level without him.

The Giggs one was a joke. It was probably his worst season as a United player but I do think Ginola had a very good season as far as I can remember in 99.

Look at Liverpool as an example, last year VVD was head and shoulders Liverpool's best player, the year before Salah. This year there's a lot of players performing at a similar level so it's harder to split them and I think that's what might have happened in 99 with United, Keane was brilliant that year but so was Scholes, Beckam, Stam and Cole so it would have split the vote and allowed Ginola to sneak in.

Have to say I loved Ginola as a player though. Himself Di Caneo and Zola were some of my favorites to watch.

y0ssar1an22

TitianGerm wrote: »

If you watch a lot of Liverpool you'll see the difference between the teams performances and intensity with and without Henderson. He dictates the pace of the game and is usually the one that initiates the press (even though that's toned down compared to year one of Klopp). For me the team doesn't perform to the same level without him.

The Giggs one was a joke. It was probably his worst season as a United player but I do think Ginola had a very good season as far as I can remember in 99.

Look at Liverpool as an example, last year VVD was head and shoulders Liverpool's best player, the year before Salah. This year there's a lot of players performing at a similar level so it's harder to split them and I think that's what might have happened in 99 with United, Keane was brilliant that year but so was Scholes, Beckam, Stam and Cole so it would have split the vote and allowed Ginola to sneak in.

Have to say I loved Ginola as a player though. Himself Di Caneo and Zola were some of my favorites to watch.

i dunno, that shouldn't be a thing. just isolating liverpool; TAA, Robertson, Mane, VDD, fun bobby, Mo Salah all better playrs in the time in question.

its a weird one, in that i'd live a psychologist to explain why we vote for someone who is objectively not the best player. Media hype i guess is a lot to do with it.

y0ssar1an22

TitianGerm wrote: »

If you watch a lot of Liverpool you'll see the difference between the teams performances and intensity with and without Henderson. He dictates the pace of the game and is usually the one that initiates the press (even though that's toned down compared to year one of Klopp). For me the team doesn't perform to the same level without him.

The Giggs one was a joke. It was probably his worst season as a United player but I do think Ginola had a very good season as far as I can remember in 99.

Look at Liverpool as an example, last year VVD was head and shoulders Liverpool's best player, the year before Salah. This year there's a lot of players performing at a similar level so it's harder to split them and I think that's what might have happened in 99 with United, Keane was brilliant that year but so was Scholes, Beckam, Stam and Cole so it would have split the vote and allowed Ginola to sneak in.

Have to say I loved Ginola as a player though. Himself Di Caneo and Zola were some of my favorites to watch.

how does his passing map look, or even his heat map?

if he initiates the press, then his stats for interceptions and tackles should be relevant? what are they like?

TitianGerm

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

i dunno, that shouldn't be a thing. just isolating liverpool; TAA, Robertson, Mane, VDD, fun bobby, Mo Salah all better playrs in the time in question.

its a weird one, in that i'd live a psychologist to explain why we vote for someone who is objectively not the best player. Media hype i guess is a lot to do with it.

But Henderson is the one that links it all together. That's why I think KDB will get the main award because he's been the stand out in the City team where as Liverpool have had a few players splitting the vote.

The football writers might give it to Henderson with him being English though.

Edit: I assume we're talking about the BBC fan vote here?

y0ssar1an22

TitianGerm wrote: »

But Henderson is the one that links it all together. That's why I think KDB will get the main award because he's been the stand out in the City team where as Liverpool have had a few players splitting the vote.

The football writers might give it to Henderson with him being English though.

Edit: I assume we're talking about the BBC fan vote here?

whichever the main one is! i'm not sure, the player of the year.

as above, bolded, is there a pass map that shows that, him linking it all together?


leader? questionable given his hand grab while harry is captain. I thought that was disgraceful.

but the best player? not even in his own team in my view

8-10

Henderson won the BBC POTY, that's different to the one Giggs and Ginola won.

I think Henderson, de Bruyne and van Dijk have been the best 3 players in the league this season so far as I've seen it.

Mané, Aubameyang, Pukki, Ings, Soyuncu, Henderson (gk), Grealish, Bruno F, Alisson, Cantwell all had good spells but either didn't play enough or weren't consistent throughout at the level of the above 3 to be in the conversation. But all have been having good seasons and those are the players that stand out off the top of my head.

Thought Spurs have been disappointing and Chelsea's most notable players have been the likes of James, Abraham and Mount coming through. Jorginho was playing well enough but mostly disappointed in their keeper and a couple of the older players. Bournemouth, Brighton, West Ham all awful. Everton lacking cohesion across the individual talent they have, I think they'll be a different beast in their first full season under Ancelotti. City need a centre half and I'd bet on them re-signing Sancho to replace Sane. Newcastle will be a wildcard.

ArmaniJeanss

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Home advantage in an empty stadium is marginal to say the least and the teams at the bottom are there for a reason, home or away.

I played about 300 games in effectively empty stadiums (admittedly county council and corporation 'stadiums' dotted around Leinster) but it was always noticeable at the end of a season how we'd be a decent amount of points better off from our home games.
If we were on a good season (rare for me) then any losses would usually be away. If we were a W4 D2 L24 cannon fodder outfit then the few good results were always at home.
It's possible though that the variety of pitch sizes and ground conditions at lowly 'sunday level' exacerbates the advantage regardless of the lack of a watching crowd.

Also, I always think 'away disadvantage' is a more explanatory term than 'home advantage'.