Kaizero

The best possible set of fixtures at this stage of the season would've always been mid-table teams just waiting to go on holiday. Teams with something to play for (trying to avoid relegation/European Qualification) are all much larger potential banana skins.

VAR - NET SCORE - 2022/2023 Brentford +5 Fulham +5 Liverpool +5 Aston Villa +2 Newcastle +2 Nottm Forest +2 West Ham +2 Leicester City 0 Manchester United 0 Arsenal -1 Chelsea -1 Crystal Palace -1 Everton -1 Southampton -1 Wolves -1 Bournemouth -2 Leeds -2 Tottenham -3 Manchester City -4 Brighton & Hove Albion -6 ^ Current net total of positive/negative decisions going for/against PL teams by VAR. Doesn't take into consideration if a decision is "wrong" or not, it just shows how much VAR has "helped" a team or not.

Also, I am of the opinion that Brentford have been really good at shutting our style of play down more than we've just outright been shit. Credit where credit is due, I'm not a fan of just saying "we've been shit", when in reality, we've been made to look shit by someone else playing well.

We're third place on a ranking of the teams that have benefitted the most from VAR decisions this season IIRC, so not really. The standard of refereeing in the PL is the issue, not VAR itself. The refs in the PL couldn't unanimously agree on a set definition of rules for application of VAR, so the rule is that it's up to the individual ref in any given match to interpret how to use VAR. That's why it's so massively inconsistent in the PL and you get situations like this. The standard of refereeing needs to be higher, the quality of players in the PL is so high the current crop of referees honestly can't keep up. A top level referee is meant to be a top level athlete, this fucking lot aren't even close.

"Midfield is getting bossed, better remove a player from midfield."

I think one of the admins a while ago said the forum has been able to ever since that "massive" upgrade a while back, just that they'd been continuing "tradition" anyway and kept restarting. If I am recalling correctly, I'd assume theyr're now just not following tradition?

I'm not sure we really disagree, because I mean, over the course of a season the results you get are the results you get But it could be flipped around as well, we are the team with the third best point haul away from home this season, Brentford arethe 7th best home side going by points haul. If we are to believe the saying that away games are tougher, that fact should in theory mean that we, as a stronger side away going by results so far this season than they are as a home side, would mean we should win if applying your core concept? Just think there's a lot more relevant ways of looking at if a match will be "hard" or not than the results any given side, previously, have had either at home or away.

For some reason I absolutely hate "form" logic when applied on a seasonal basis like this. Recent form (3-4 last matches), sure, it can be somewhat of a pointer how things might turn out if one team is on fire in a good way and the opponent on fire in a bad way. However, when the ball is kicked after the first whistle, like fuck does it matter if the opponent has lost once at home before this match or not. If teams are evenly matched I'm sure it could have a minor effect mentally for the opponent to know the home side rarely loses. Even then, that comes down to the professionalism of the players if they let something like that affect them mentally. If the teams aren't evenly matched, I'm fairly certain the better side go into the match thinking they'll win regardless of whether or not the opponent has lost once at home this season or not. The home side could naturally gain more confidence from rarely losing at home, but against a better side they'll, most times, lose even if their stadium is a "fortress". I acknowledge ths is a dumb hill to choose dying on, but here we are

Until the end of the season it makes sense for the reasons you mention. Could give a much needed boost, The issue (for them) is if he does well though as he clearly should not be a permanent option and the only reason for hiring him would be the chance it gives a short term boost, is if they can't handle the heat an initial good run would bring with regards to public pressure. "He's earned a chance" et al. His qualifications aren't good enough, he's earned shit, a good run of form means nothing long term. Would be very fun if the new manager boost he'd (likely) bring managed to get him the job long term though

I will never forget you just straight up eating the snus

may or may not already be drop shipping ?

Nail on head. Play the players that are the most in-form in their preferred positions, it's not hard logic to follow. Remember when he thought the best option available to start was (I can't remember the exact player and position off the top of my head) a player that hadn't played a first team match for his club for six months, defending it with "wanting continuity in the squad" - this rather than playing a younger player that was on fire for his club? Then, at like 70 minutes, he subbed off the shit out-of-form player for the in-form player and suddenly we were dangerous on that side of the pitch instead of leaking goals? He's clinically insane.

I thought the Bayern sacking actually had more to do with the players disliking Nagelsmann for his Ted Lasso-esque antics, as well as them feeling they no longer could communicate openly given that his girlfriend is one of the leading sports journos in Germany - rather than him being sacked due "bad results"?

Solbakken is such a shit manager it's insane he's not been sacked yet after the abysmal showings in the other qualifiations. He's wasting a genuinely good generation of players by forcing them to play his shit boring style of football that went out of style in the fucking 90s.

This is per literal definition a major trophy:

The change in statistics coming immediately after the implementation of VAR - in comparison to how things were before VAR - and then continuing after VAR... It means it is a scientifically measurable direct cause of the effect of VAR being implemented. It's impossible to argue against. There was one set of statistics before VAR, those changed immediately and remained changed after VAR was introduced. It is cause and effect. There is obvious correlation between the two, jesus christ, man It is also obviously not "the game changing". It was a measurable immediate fucking effect after VAR was implemented. One day there was no VAR, the next day there was VAR. That's when the measurable statistics changed. That is what caused the change.

The accuracy rate (following the rules of football) at the 2018 WC was 99.35%. The average time for a VAR review at the 2018 WC was 15 seconds. 100% of all offside decisions at the 2018 WC was correct. The amount of fouls committed went down 30% from the 2014 WC (no-VAR) to the 2018 WC (VAR). Zhang Y, Li D, Gómez-Ruano M-Á, Memmert D, Li C and Fu M (2022) The effect of the video assistant referee (VAR) on referees' decisions at FIFA World Cups. Front. Psychol. 13:984367. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.984367 -- In the Italian Serie A, there was a statistical bias for the home team from referees before the introduction of VAR. After the introduction of VAR, that home team bias went away. Holder, U., Ehrmann, T. & König, A. Monitoring experts: insights from the introduction of video assistant referee (VAR) in elite football. J Bus Econ 92, 285–308 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-021-01058-5 It has significantly decreased the amount of "diving" across all top divisions in Europe. Holder, U., Ehrmann, T. & König, A. Monitoring experts: insights from the introduction of video assistant referee (VAR) in elite football. J Bus Econ 92, 285–308 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-021-01058-5 -- It seems apparent it is the PL that are lagging behind and utilizing VAR wrong, rather than VAR itself being an issue.

I would assume you start celebrataing a goal long before you see "VAR review", you don't wait until you see if "VAR review" pops up or not? The crux of my argument is that it works a lot better in other leagues than the PL, which points to there being an issue with how VAR is applied. It now, to me, seems blatantly obvious that the issue is that the VAR refs don't have a set of rules that they all follow. Yes, it'll still be human subjectiveness applying decisions - but it'd be a lot less "random" if all the ref's followed the same set of rules for how and when to apply VAR. I can't fathom how VAR could have been introduced into the PL without all the ref's having a unanimous agreement on how to utilize it. Essentially, I am defending VAR as a concept as I genuinely believe it 100% improves the game when used properly. I am also saying I understand why English supporters are as up in arms as they are about VAR compared to other countries. This due to how it's against the very core purpose of VAR (ensuring the correct rules are being enforced so "errors" don't have as big an effect on the outcome of games as they used to) that there's not a unanimous agreement on how VAR is to be utilized. If the FA set a clear set of rules that all VAR referees HAD to follow, I have no doubt there'd be less controversy in the PL as what would be a "clear and obvious error" would be something set in stone, not up to the subjectiveness of each individual VAR referee. This is what it's like in other countries (can't say it's like that in all countries, but in the ones I am aware of at least) and you don't see the massive fan outrage in those places as you do in England.

It hasn't and it doesn't, though. We'd discuss horrid referee decisons in a much higher quantity of pages on N-O than we ever discuss VAR decisions. Plus the average delay from a VAR review is 50 seconds, just because some reviews take ages doesn't mean they all do. One just really, really notices and gets annoyed by the ones that do. My entire argument is that the game, as a whole (not every specific instance of VAR use), has improved. That said, discovering there's no unanimously agreed rules on how to use VAR amongst the referees in the PL was a horrid discovery It makes no sense, the entire purpose of VAR is to ensure the literal definition of the rules are applied. There's no room for dissent and varying use of VAR depending on who is the VAR ref. The PL is, to my knowledge, the only league using VAR that doesn't have a unanimously agreed set of rules for how to apply and use VAR during a match.

I've never said it wasn't correct?

It's correct, though. Just because 99% of people are wrong doesn't make it any less correct. Just as even if all Republicans are adamant the election was stolen from Trump, it wasn't stolen from Trump. Facts are facts, even if you disagree with them.

I've cited sources for my argument after being asked for them, so no. I checked, it was classed as a correct decision. I stand corrected on my assumption.

To be fair, most people watching football aren't 100% aware of all the rules of the game. I know far too many people that don't realise the offside rule requires at least two players ahead of the player being passed the ball, not one.

IIRC they've been classed as incorrect decisions, hence me stating that. I can't be arsed spending the time it'll take to look it up though, so no worries if you won't take my word for that at face value. As I pointed out in my post earlier, the fact there is no unanimous rulebook for how to apply VAR amongst the PL refs make PL VAR shit and I am no longer defending its use in the PL because you're doing it 100% wrong No wonder you all hate VAR. The entire purpose of VAR is these are the actual rules and we apply them, not hurdy-gurdy-I-Like-Liverpool, this is a goal!!1. Jesus fucking christ, man How can your REFEREES not manage to reach a unanimous agreement on what the fucking rules of football are?!

It's not that hard to understand, I mean, really. Come on Pre-VAR: Post-game review of all referee decisions, which ones were wrong (by the book) and which ones were correct (by the book)? The average was that 18% were incorrect and 82% were correct. Post-VAR: Post-game review of all referee and VAR decisions, which ones were wrong (by the book) and which ones were correct (by the book)? The average was that 6% were incorrect and 94% were correct. A philosophical debate about who is "interpreting the laws of the game" when making a final call on if a decision was correct or incorrect is another matter entirely.