General Premier League Thread 2020-21 [Mod notes in OP - Updated 29.01.21]

yourdeadwright

DM_7 wrote: »

Super impressed with Villa this season.

https://twitter.com/SkySportsStatto/status/1353099644683825153?s=19

They really upped their levels in every way, recruitment over the summer was fantastic and has added to the existing base of Grealish, McGinn, Douglas Luiz, Konsa, Mings and brought great energy to the side. Well coached in attack and decence also.

They have been great but this season os mental god knows where everyone will stand after a summer break and fans back

DM_7

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It was very very close whether he was behind the ball or not - but what was interesting was that VAR didn't check the offside because of the touch by Schaar. Meaning that they considered it a goal whether he was on or off because of the defenders lunge, which is what raises the debate over what is or isn't interfering with play, or is interfering with play by your positioning even a thing anymore..

Sky confirmed at halftime that the offside was not checked.

It looked clear he was onside so I didn't think a detailed check was required.

If the reason it was not checked was actually because the defender tried to clear it to stop Watkins getting it then I think that is how the law is written and Watkins position has not impacted on the opponents ability to play the ball - so it is the Harry Kane scenario again.

~Rebel~

DM_7 wrote: »

It looked clear he was onside so I didn't think a detailed check was required.

If the reason it was not checked was actually because the defender tried to clear it to stop Watkins getting it then I think that is how the law is written and Watkins position has not impacted on the opponents ability to play the ball - so it is the Harry Kane scenario again.

It's so odd though, and feels so counter intuitive. Watkins of course doesn't physically impact on Schaar's ability to play the ball - as in he doesn't physically get in his way - but he does 100% impact on how/if Schaar plays the ball. His presence is the sole reason Schaar goes to ground with a last ditch challenge.

It feels like a bit of a logic flaw on cause/effect.

It's especially confusing when you see C Ronaldo being ruled offside the other week for seemingly the same thing. A defender takes a poor touch, Ronaldo runs in from an offside position and steals it. I'd love to know the distinction that makes that offside, but these ones not.

fyfe79

citytillidie wrote: »

I seen others have tried to post this

The inference being that you wouldn't post this table considering Liverpool's current plight, of course. But you have been posting it consistently, so said people should really just wait for the master.

DM_7

~Rebel~ wrote: »

It's so odd though, and feels so counter intuitive. Watkins of course doesn't physically impact on Schaar's ability to play the ball - as in he doesn't physically get in his way - but he does 100% impact on how/if Schaar plays the ball. His presence is the sole reason Schaar goes to ground with a last ditch challenge.

It feels like a bit of a logic flaw on cause/effect.

It's especially confusing when you see C Ronaldo being ruled offside the other week for seemingly the same thing. A defender takes a poor touch, Ronaldo runs in from an offside position and steals it. I'd love to know the distinction that makes that offside, but these ones not.

I suppose the rules can't include a method of establishing why the player plays the ball therefore if only asks the ref to determine if the player in the offside postion has impacted on the players ability to play the ball.

When Liverpool win 3-1 one v Arsenal, Roberston makes a mess of a clearance and passes it to Lacazette who scores.

While Robertson did not try to play the ball to stop it reaching Lacazette, in the eyes of the law it is the same as the Kane one or Watkins (who was onside anyway).

The Italy one is the one that appears incorrect in terms of the law.

Where in the law does it set a standard of time or touches before a player can get on the ball again?

~Rebel~

DM_7 wrote: »

I suppose the rules can't include a method of establishing why the player plays the ball therefore if only asks the ref to determine if the player in the offside postion has impacted on the players ability to play the ball.

Yeah, I guess this is a big part of the problem - even if it 'feels' like the attacker gains an advantage, it's going to be very hard to argue if he impacted the defender or not, in lots of cases. And I suppose they're trying to avoid subjectivity where they can, so are using 'interfering' in the strictest sense of physically impeding or blocking a players eyeline. Even if we know instinctively that their presence can interfere just as much in an indirect way.

When Liverpool win 3-1 one v Arsenal, Roberston makes a mess of a clearance and passes it to Lacazette who scores.

While Robertson did not try to play the ball to stop it reaching Lacazette, in the eyes of the law it is the same as the Kane one or Watkins (who was onside anyway).

The Italy one is the one that appears incorrect in terms of the law.

Where in the law does it set a standard of time or touches before a player can get on the ball again?

True enough, and I actually have less of an issue where a player comes back onside from an offside position and wins the ball back - like the Rodri/Ronaldo cases. I can totally see the argument that once the defender takes his touch, he's entitled to be challenged. It's the ones more like the Kane one where the attacker is offside, their presence causes the unsure defender to make a rash desperate move for the ball, and the ball falls for the attacker, who remains offside throughout.

DM_7

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yeah, I guess this is a big part of the problem - even if it 'feels' like the attacker gains an advantage, it's going to be very hard to argue if he impacted the defender or not, in lots of cases. And I suppose they're trying to avoid subjectivity where they can, so are using 'interfering' in the strictest sense of physically impeding or blocking a players eyeline. Even if we know instinctively that their presence can interfere just as much in an indirect way.



True enough, and I actually have less of an issue where a player comes back onside from an offside position and wins the ball back - like the Rodri/Ronaldo cases. I can totally see the argument that once the defender takes his touch, he's entitled to be challenged. It's the ones more like the Kane one where the attacker is offside, their presence causes the unsure defender to make a rash desperate move for the ball, and the ball falls for the attacker, who remains offside throughout.

I would prefer if there was a common sense idea like you say, where it is clear a defender is trying to play because the opponent is free - so offside would apply where the ref can determine the player gained an advantage from offside.

The offside rule has tried to remove such interpretation which leads to the frustration.

In the FA cup Jesus is offside for City's first goal. It could be argued his position influences the rest of the defensive line which then makes Foden onside.

Mid-week I read criticism of Pogba for doing the opposite and not staying close to the player he was marking. Pogba covered Lookman to a point, until Pogba was in line with the last defender he could see but he did not know what was behind him. In theory is Pogba tracks Lookman tight he could be causing a free player out of his line of sight to to be onside (as it went others were keeping Lookman onside and he was the free player).

The old sayings, if they are not interfering with play, they shouldn't be on the pitch or they shouldn't be paid come to mind. When they amended the rules in 05 it was supposed to benefit the game and it probably has overall but can lead to a lot of frustration and confusion.

CSF

DM_7 wrote: »

I would prefer if there was a common sense idea like you say, where it is clear a defender is trying to play because the opponent is free - so offside would apply where the ref can determine the player gained an advantage from offside.

The offside rule has tried to remove such interpretation which leads to the frustration.

In the FA cup Jesus is offside for City's first goal. It could be argued his position influences the rest of the defensive line which then makes Foden onside.

Mid-week I read criticism of Pogba for doing the opposite and not staying close to the player he was marking. Pogba covered Lookman to a point, until Pogba was in line with the last defender he could see but he did not know what was behind him. In theory is Pogba tracks Lookman tight he could be causing a free player out of his line of sight to to be onside (as it went others were keeping Lookman onside and he was the free player).

The old sayings, if they are not interfering with play, they shouldn't be on the pitch or they shouldn't be paid come to mind. When they amended the rules in 05 it was supposed to benefit the game and it probably has overall but can lead to a lot of frustration and confusion.

Definitely agree. If Watkins was in an offside position when the original ball was played (to be honest I think he might have been just on, but it would have been a lines job) then we’ve been given a nonsense goal due to stupid rules.

brinty

fyfe79 wrote:

The inference being that you wouldn't post this table considering Liverpool's current plight, of course. But you have been posting it consistently, so said people should really just wait for the master.

Interesting it wasn't updated after Thursday night?

retalivity

brinty wrote: »

Interesting it wasn't updated after Thursday night?

End of gameweeks, generally

brinty

retalivity wrote:

End of gameweeks, generally

Thursday was the end of the game week

Mitch Connor

https://twitter.com/TeleFootball/status/1353640433574928384

Lampard gone it seems.

Chelsea really does hold its managers to a high standard. Fair play to them on that I suppose.

Agent Coulson

Who next for Chelsea?

Rodgers, Tuchel, Hasenhuttl, Allegri

Quazzie

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Who next for Chelsea?

Rodgers, Tuchel, Hasenhuttl, Allegri

Rafa to go back for another run at it?

bangkok

wouldnt be surprised to see Avram Grant go back there

Agent Coulson

Quazzie wrote: »

Rafa to go back for another run at it?

I'd say he would rather go back to the Toon.

Ashley might bring him back to appease the fans.

Fitz*

It will be interesting to see if the new manager will be a attacking (maybe German) style coach to get the most out of Ziyech, Werner, Havertz, Pulisic etc or a more defensive style coach that Chelsea seem to do better under. With ll the money spent on attacking players over the last few years, it will have to be the attacking style really.

Throwing players under the bus and attacking the media was the beginning of the end for Lampard really.

Father Hernandez

Mitch Connor wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TeleFootball/status/1353640433574928384

Lampard gone it seems.

Chelsea really does hold its managers to a high standard. Fair play to them on that I suppose.

Good news for Chelsea, bad news for the rest.

They've quality players who Lampard couldn't get the best out of.

A better manager will.

TitianGerm

Quazzie wrote: »

Rafa to go back for another run at it?

Rafa or Grant to the end of the season and then go for Nagelsman or someone like him?

Unearthly

Athletic saying Tuchel as replacement

Raphael Honigstein the source

Harry Palmr

https://twitter.com/honigstein/status/1353647831165399040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1353647831165399040%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

Well it's no shock, Chelsea don't piss about with wait and see and hope. Fair play to them.

Obviously Tuchel hisself doesn't need to worry about buying a house or anything

Lucas Hood

Harry Palmr wrote: »

https://twitter.com/honigstein/status/1353647831165399040?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1353647831165399040%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

Well it's no shock, Chelsea don't piss about with wait and see and hope. Fair play to them.

Obviously Tuchel hisself doesn't need to worry about buying a house or anything

Would be great if Lampard found out by reading the athletic seen as he subscribes already.

citytillidie

fyfe79 wrote: »

The inference being that you wouldn't post this table considering Liverpool's current plight, of course. But you have been posting it consistently, so said people should really just wait for the master.

Why post it on Thursday when there was a single game to be played two days later, why duplicate posts for a single game when one big post could have done it

doc_17

That job came too soon for him

Fitz*

18 month deal for Tuchel. Seems short. Will only continue the short-termism at Chelsea.

Lucas Hood

Uncle Harry Redknapp defending Frank on talksport now.

Lucas Hood

Confirmed by Chelsea now.

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/2021/01/25/statement-on-frank-lampard?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=orgsoc&utm_campaign=none

Chelsea Football Club have today parted company with Head Coach Frank Lampard.
This has been a very difficult decision, and not one that the owner and the Board have taken lightly.

We are grateful to Frank for what he has achieved in his time as Head Coach of the Club. However, recent results and performances have not met the Club’s expectations, leaving the Club mid-table without any clear path to sustained improvement.

There can never be a good time to part ways with a club legend such as Frank, but after lengthy deliberation and consideration it was decided a change is needed now to give the Club time to improve performances and results this season.

Roman Abramovich said,
“This was a very difficult decision for the Club, not least because I have an excellent personal relationship with Frank and I have the utmost respect for him’.

“He is a man of great integrity and has the highest of work ethics. However, under current circumstances we believe it is best to change managers.

“On behalf of everyone at the Club, the Board and personally, I would like to thank Frank for his work as Head Coach and wish him every success in the future. He is an important icon of this great club and his status here remains undiminished. He will always be warmly welcomed back at Stamford Bridge.”

The Club will be making no further comment until such time as a new Head Coach is appointed.

jacool

citytillidie wrote: »

Why post it on Thursday when there was a single game to be played two days later, why duplicate posts for a single game when one big post could have done it

I like the table that citytillidie posts.
I don't think he's contractually obliged to do it, and that the table "has" to be posted under specific conditions.
So can people just lay off him, so that he keeps doing it?

Lucas Hood

https://twitter.com/sistoney67/status/1353723511785861127?s=20

Covid numbers still down in PL

Fitz*

Won't be seeing offside goals like Man City's last week again.

As expected, only Man City will benefit from it.

https://twitter.com/MikeKeegan_DM/status/1354061213416775682?s=19

~Rebel~

Fitz* wrote: »

Won't be seeing offside goals like Man City's last week again.

As expected, only Man City will benefit from it.

https://twitter.com/MikeKeegan_DM/status/1354061213416775682?s=19

They really don’t proof read those things at all do they? A few paragraphs repeated back to back, with only one or two words changed - looks like the journo wrote one, then tweaked, but both were just left in.

In any case, they’ve fixed the less annoying problem and left the more annoying problem in place - of offside attackers that force defenders to make rash moves purely because of the attackers presence. If they get any touch, the offside player is now onside and clean through.

thelad95

Fitz* wrote: »

Won't be seeing offside goals like Man City's last week again.

As expected, only Man City will benefit from it.

https://twitter.com/MikeKeegan_DM/status/1354061213416775682?s=19

I'm not sure there was any law change needed, player coming back from an offside position and interfering with play has always been offside.

rob316

Tuchel is a pretty poor appointment vastly overrated, you'd imagine the long term goal is luring Rodgers there.

Harry Palmr

Remember when offside was simple?

Quazzie

rob316 wrote: »

Tuchel is a pretty poor appointment vastly overrated, you'd imagine the long term goal is luring Rodgers there.

He done a good job of cleaning up Klopp's mess at Dortmund didn't he?

rob316

Quazzie wrote: »

He done a good job of cleaning up Klopp's mess at Dortmund didn't he?

I can remember him been 3-1 up at anfield with 30 mins to go and losing 4-3 to Klopp anyway.

This is it

Quazzie wrote: »

He done a good job of cleaning up Klopp's mess at Dortmund didn't he?

Your hate is as entertaining as ever

Harry Palmr

Quazzie wrote: »

He done a good job of cleaning up Klopp's mess at Dortmund didn't he?

Anyone who knows anything about that season will tell you about how the stats and the results were in two different universes. Basically Dortmund hit the bar constantly in the first half of the season allied to a couple of rum purchases up top (Ramos, Immobile) as Bayern took their best - Lewandowski. After the winter break Klopp took them on a title winning type charge but as they were starting from bottom they merely finished in a EL place.

https://ie.soccerway.com/teams/germany/bv-borussia-09-dortmund/964/matches/

davycc

Zaha put palace one up in one of the early kick off v hammer

davycc

Leeds lead at Newcastle all over them

Sanity_Saviour

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Anyone who knows anything about that season will tell you about how the stats and the results were in two different universes. Basically Dortmund hit the bar constantly in the first half of the season allied to a couple of rum purchases up top (Ramos, Immobile) as Bayern took their best - Lewandowski. After the winter break Klopp took them on a title winning type charge but as they were starting from bottom they merely finished in a EL place.

https://ie.soccerway.com/teams/germany/bv-borussia-09-dortmund/964/matches/

Very true, if you forget about goals scored, goals conceded, position in the table, points gained and any sense of reality, Klopp was in a title race the year he had Dortmund in the relegation zone for half the season

TitianGerm

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Very true, if you forget about goals scored, goals conceded, position in the table, points gained and any sense of reality, Klopp was in a title race the year he had Dortmund in the relegation zone for half the season

He didn't say they were in a title race. He clearly says Klopp "took them on a title winning type charge".

Same as Uniteds form from February or March last year was title challenging form.

brinty

Sanity_Saviour wrote:

Very true, if you forget about goals scored, goals conceded, position in the table, points gained and any sense of reality, Klopp was in a title race the year he had Dortmund in the relegation zone for half the season

Hush now, don't you know you're not allowed throw shade on Saint Klopp, no matter what.

brinty

TitianGerm wrote:

He didn't say they were in a title race. He clearly says Klopp "took them on a title winning type charge".

Same as Uniteds form from February or March last year was title challenging form.

Doesn't matter, what went before was relegation form. You have to be judged on the bad as much as the good.

Same as Manchester United fans would say about periods of time under Ole.

Taking a team on a run of good results doesn't matter a whit. A season is and should be reviewed in totality.

Look at lampard, bad run of games and he was gone from Chelsea. It's a results based business.

fyfe79

brinty wrote: »

Doesn't matter, what went before was relegation form. You have to be judged on the bad as much as the good.

Same as Manchester United fans would say about periods of time under Ole.

Taking a team on a run of good results doesn't matter a whit. A season is and should be reviewed in totality.

Look at lampard, bad run of games and he was gone from Chelsea. It's a results based business.

Wasn't the original dig that Tuchel cleaned up Klopp's mess?

Are ye saying that the second half of his last season should be ignored, but the first half of that season is what he left behind for Tuchel?

Sanity_Saviour

TitianGerm wrote: »

He didn't say they were in a title race. He clearly says Klopp "took them on a title winning type charge".

Same as Uniteds form from February or March last year was title challenging form.

Sorry you are dead right.

What is the prize for title winning form? Maybe we should give team points for praise from journalists

West Ham are on course to win 6 in a row. Are they in title winning form?

fyfe79

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Sorry you are dead right.

What is the prize for title winning form? Maybe we should give team points for praise from journalists

West Ham are on course to win 6 in a row. Are they in title winning form?

No prizes, of course, but you wouldn't accuse a manager finishing a season on title-winning form as leaving behind a mess for his successor. That's the other side of it.

Sanity_Saviour

fyfe79 wrote: »

No prizes, of course, but you wouldn't accuse a manager finishing a season on title-winning form as leaving behind a mess for his successor. That's the other side of it.

Did they not come 7th tho

fyfe79

Sanity_Saviour wrote: »

Did they not come 7th tho

Yep. Is that a mess? I'd consider it a disappointing season, sure, but it is important to judge the season by how it developed. If they had started fantastically before slipping into relegation form in the 2nd half of the season, that would be more damning alright. They had a terrible start but Klopp was able to rescue it and turn it around (ie. still had the dressing room).

brinty

Sanity_Saviour wrote:

What is the prize for title winning form? Maybe we should give team points for praise from journalists

Yep, it's called the next year is our year trophy