Well said Rafa....I think?

lescor · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 635

Good to see Blatter of FIFA giving the 39 game idea such a
hard time.

Good to see Rafa speaking out as well, but a bit surprised at
the reason he gave......." I don't like it, and the reason I
don't like it is the seeding idea"

Rafa misses the point. Seeding will make no great difference
one way or the other. The objection should be the introduction
of the luck of the draw into a system designed to avoid it.

'All play all twice' is what gives full league football its
integrity. It provides a deserving title winner who won it on
as level a playing field as we can get.

The FA Cup is unashamedly a bit of a lottery, and this is its
strength. It is a straight elimination contest from start to
finish and it pretends to be nothing else. It certainly does
not pretend to find the best side in the country. The luck of
the draw is all part of its attraction.

But once you mix the two, and add luck of the draw to a league
system, you lose the justification of making any claims about
the winners. You end up with the uncertainties we get in
competitions like US football or the Champions League where
any hyped up claims for the ultimate winners often have to be
taken with a pinch of salt.

It is nothing to do with seeding Rafa, old chum. Its about a
side maybe winning the league title by getting 3 points in the
extra game by drawing the weakest team in the league, whilst
its closest rivals did less well against far better sides.

Even worse maybe, a side getting relegated because it was
unlucky enough to have to play Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea for
the 3rd time and lose again, when its one point better rival
gained safety by managing a draw with Wigan.

Either or both of these would certainly happen, particularly
amongst the relegation sides where an extra game could have
changed the last three places 50% of the time since 2000.

And imagine missing out on that valuable 4th league place to a
rival who got a much softer opponent for their extra game?
What a bleedin mess, just for extra cash. Does anyone still
think the 20 agreeable clubs regard their fans as special?

LC

Archived from group: alt>sports>soccer>chelseafc

JAB · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 1733

lescor wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Good to see Blatter of FIFA giving the 39 game idea such a hard time.
>
> Good to see Rafa speaking out as well, but a bit surprised at the reason
> he gave......." I don't like it, and the reason I don't like it is the
> seeding idea"
>
> Rafa misses the point. Seeding will make no great difference one way or
> the other. The objection should be the introduction of the luck of the
> draw into a system designed to avoid it.
>
> 'All play all twice' is what gives full league football its integrity.
> It provides a deserving title winner who won it on as level a playing
> field as we can get.
>
> The FA Cup is unashamedly a bit of a lottery, and this is its strength.
> It is a straight elimination contest from start to finish and it
> pretends to be nothing else. It certainly does not pretend to find the
> best side in the country. The luck of the draw is all part of its
> attraction.
>
> But once you mix the two, and add luck of the draw to a league system,
> you lose the justification of making any claims about the winners. You
> end up with the uncertainties we get in competitions like US football or
> the Champions League where any hyped up claims for the ultimate winners
> often have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
>
> It is nothing to do with seeding Rafa, old chum. Its about a side maybe
> winning the league title by getting 3 points in the extra game by
> drawing the weakest team in the league, whilst its closest rivals did
> less well against far better sides.
>
> Even worse maybe, a side getting relegated because it was unlucky enough
> to have to play Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea for the 3rd time and lose
> again, when its one point better rival gained safety by managing a draw
> with Wigan.
>
> Either or both of these would certainly happen, particularly amongst the
> relegation sides where an extra game could have changed the last three
> places 50% of the time since 2000.
>
> And imagine missing out on that valuable 4th league place to a rival who
> got a much softer opponent for their extra game? What a bleedin mess,
> just for extra cash. Does anyone still think the 20 agreeable clubs
> regard their fans as special?
>
> LC
>

A more cynical view point is that the whole 39th game thing was just a
way to bring the subject out into the open so that the clubs can then
'back down' and agree to just having each club playing one of their 38
game abroad during the year.

lescor · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 635

JAB wrote:
> lescor wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Good to see Blatter of FIFA giving the 39 game idea such a hard time.
>>
>> Good to see Rafa speaking out as well, but a bit surprised at the
>> reason he gave......." I don't like it, and the reason I don't like it
>> is the seeding idea"
>>
>> Rafa misses the point. Seeding will make no great difference one way
>> or the other. The objection should be the introduction of the luck of
>> the draw into a system designed to avoid it.
>>
>> 'All play all twice' is what gives full league football its integrity.
>> It provides a deserving title winner who won it on as level a playing
>> field as we can get.
>>
>> The FA Cup is unashamedly a bit of a lottery, and this is its
>> strength. It is a straight elimination contest from start to finish
>> and it pretends to be nothing else. It certainly does not pretend to
>> find the best side in the country. The luck of the draw is all part of
>> its attraction.
>>
>> But once you mix the two, and add luck of the draw to a league system,
>> you lose the justification of making any claims about the winners. You
>> end up with the uncertainties we get in competitions like US football
>> or the Champions League where any hyped up claims for the ultimate
>> winners often have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
>>
>> It is nothing to do with seeding Rafa, old chum. Its about a side
>> maybe winning the league title by getting 3 points in the extra game
>> by drawing the weakest team in the league, whilst its closest rivals
>> did less well against far better sides.
>>
>> Even worse maybe, a side getting relegated because it was unlucky
>> enough to have to play Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea for the 3rd time and
>> lose again, when its one point better rival gained safety by managing
>> a draw with Wigan.
>>
>> Either or both of these would certainly happen, particularly amongst
>> the relegation sides where an extra game could have changed the last
>> three places 50% of the time since 2000.
>>
>> And imagine missing out on that valuable 4th league place to a rival
>> who got a much softer opponent for their extra game? What a bleedin
>> mess, just for extra cash. Does anyone still think the 20 agreeable
>> clubs regard their fans as special?
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> A more cynical view point is that the whole 39th game thing was just a
> way to bring the subject out into the open so that the clubs can then
> 'back down' and agree to just having each club playing one of their 38
> game abroad during the year.

LOL.....I never considered that. It would certainly remove
some of the 'extra game' objections. But it produces others.
Who gives up a home game? Would Man City, with their 4th
place riches a possibility, be happy to meet Chelsea in
America rather than at home?

LC

JAB · Joined: 17 Aug 2007 Posts: 1733

lescor wrote:
> JAB wrote:
>> lescor wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Good to see Blatter of FIFA giving the 39 game idea such a hard time.
>>>
>>> Good to see Rafa speaking out as well, but a bit surprised at the
>>> reason he gave......." I don't like it, and the reason I don't like
>>> it is the seeding idea"
>>>
>>> Rafa misses the point. Seeding will make no great difference one way
>>> or the other. The objection should be the introduction of the luck of
>>> the draw into a system designed to avoid it.
>>>
>>> 'All play all twice' is what gives full league football its
>>> integrity. It provides a deserving title winner who won it on as
>>> level a playing field as we can get.
>>>
>>> The FA Cup is unashamedly a bit of a lottery, and this is its
>>> strength. It is a straight elimination contest from start to finish
>>> and it pretends to be nothing else. It certainly does not pretend to
>>> find the best side in the country. The luck of the draw is all part
>>> of its attraction.
>>>
>>> But once you mix the two, and add luck of the draw to a league
>>> system, you lose the justification of making any claims about the
>>> winners. You end up with the uncertainties we get in competitions
>>> like US football or the Champions League where any hyped up claims
>>> for the ultimate winners often have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
>>>
>>> It is nothing to do with seeding Rafa, old chum. Its about a side
>>> maybe winning the league title by getting 3 points in the extra game
>>> by drawing the weakest team in the league, whilst its closest rivals
>>> did less well against far better sides.
>>>
>>> Even worse maybe, a side getting relegated because it was unlucky
>>> enough to have to play Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea for the 3rd time and
>>> lose again, when its one point better rival gained safety by managing
>>> a draw with Wigan.
>>>
>>> Either or both of these would certainly happen, particularly amongst
>>> the relegation sides where an extra game could have changed the last
>>> three places 50% of the time since 2000.
>>>
>>> And imagine missing out on that valuable 4th league place to a rival
>>> who got a much softer opponent for their extra game? What a bleedin
>>> mess, just for extra cash. Does anyone still think the 20 agreeable
>>> clubs regard their fans as special?
>>>
>>> LC
>>>
>>
>> A more cynical view point is that the whole 39th game thing was just a
>> way to bring the subject out into the open so that the clubs can then
>> 'back down' and agree to just having each club playing one of their 38
>> game abroad during the year.
>
> LOL.....I never considered that. It would certainly remove some of the
> 'extra game' objections. But it produces others.
> Who gives up a home game? Would Man City, with their 4th place riches a
> possibility, be happy to meet Chelsea in America rather than at home?
>
>
> LC
>

Still don't agree with it but it wouldn't be the first time that such
tactics have been used ... I do actually understand what they are trying
to say which is if the EPL doesn't become more global then someone else
will and take their 'crown' i.e. cash from new markets. They are just
looking at ways to protect the interests of their members. I do think
something will happen in the next 5-10 years along these lines but it's
difficult to predict exactly what it will be.