Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

I wouldnt turn my nose up at the Conference League, I just cant see an argument for having play offs for it. These European places are historically assigned on merit over the course of the season by placing in the league. Having however many play offs for which ever coemptions just debases the league, imo. Not to mention if we got fucking 7th but had to go in to a play of with 8th and fucking lost. 

 

That's fair enough. Part of my motivation for having play-offs at the top end is the prospect of denying someone like Man Utd or Spurs a European place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 13/06/2022 at 15:20, number37 said:

Back in the olden days, there were a variety of match-ups for the Charity Shield (and predecessors) before it settled on the League Champion v FA Cup winner format we all know and love.

 

If the game was instead a match between a Premier League North v Premier League South all-star type affair, who would you have in your teams/squads? 

 

For the purpose of this, based on the season just gone, this is how North/South would be defined:

 

North

Aston Villa
Burnley 
Everton 
Leeds United
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United 
Wolverhampton Wanderers

 

South 

Arsenal 
Brentford
Brighton and Hove Albion
Chelsea
Crystal Palace 
Norwich City
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United

 

What starting elevens would you have and maybe, say, five subs?

 

No restrictions on the amount of players you can have from a single team. 

:okay:

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 54 said:

Theoretically if there was a north vs south game, using the club's below, with each team having to have 1 representative in the starting line-up, what would the two squads be?

 

 

 

 

Maybe this is why y'all wouldn't want an All Star game? I think the way y'all are thinking about it is wrong, even just saying one person from each team in the starting XI is not the way to look at it.

 

Most definitely there would be at least one player from each team in the squad, but with it being a charity match you'd easily see three/four different people in each position over the course of the match. There's no need to play it at some ridiculous pace or anything. It's just something players would take pride in being called up for and be a fun charity match for the kids to enjoy along with raising money for the pyramid. Maybe you could put something on the line to make sure it's not like the Harlem Globetrotters (for instance, in the MLB the league that wins the All Star Game gets homefield advantage in the World Series) but in the end it's just a way to see a bunch of people play together that will never have the chance to play together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just becomes a combined Arsenal, Chelsea & Spurs XI v a combined Man City, Man Utd & Liverpool XI with the odd 1 or 2 players who've probably had a stormer of a season thrown in as a token gesture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 54 said:

Theoretically if there was a north vs south game, using the club's below, with each team having to have 1 representative in the starting line-up, what would the two squads be?

 

 

 

They meant a north vs south team based on clubs rather than where players are from? :lol:

 

I understand it like, everyone needs to be included, but it just makes it even more utterly pointless like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cubaricho said:

Who said anything about cheering on?

 

The games are just to show off talent there’s no real rooting for anyone. All Star weeks are more about the other skills-based stuff. 

 

Bet managers are going to delighted to watch their players risk injury in a glorified charity game

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ponsaelius said:

 

To be honest that is kind of akin to saying Go is a worldwide global game because over a billion people in China know it and tens of millions play it.

 

I like cricket but it's not a fundamentally global sport in terms of appeal IMO - its participation is basically a direct overlay of former British colonisation. There just happens to be over a billion people in those 4 countries that resulted from the Raj.

 

Basketball has a more global spread, and even when it's not the most popular sport there is a lot of cases where it is in the top 3-4 sports played in that country or at least has some footing. Cricket by comparison has no footing whatsoever in lots of countries outside of small expat communities. This is similar to football's appeal - although again a distant 2nd place.

Football’s appeals extends well beyond the borders of the former empire.

 

And regardless of how a sport spreads, writing off the national sport of a quarter of the planet is a bit rum.  I never said it had global appeal - but in terms of simple numbers it’s one of the most popular sports on the planet. 
 

edit: basketball would kill for cricket’s viewing figures.  A game being played isn’t the same as people watching and attending 

 

 

Edited by TheBrownBottle

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joeyt said:

 

Bet managers are going to delighted to watch their players risk injury in a glorified charity game

 

Shouldn't ever let footballer play then, they can get injured turning the TV on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure when the promotion play-offs were first introduced they were 3 from Div 1 and one from PL. 

Have to remember the reason was to reduce numbers in the PL, and I think it was bottom 3 got relegated, 19th/18th played the playoffs with 3rd, 4th and 5th in 1st div.

I think that's right.

 

 

Edited by Happinesstan

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kanji said:

 

Shouldn't ever let footballer play then, they can get injured turning the TV on

 

:lol: they hate their players going away for international duties how are they going to feel about an all star game

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

:lol: they hate their players going away for international duties how are they going to feel about an all star game

That would change. 

With all of the talk about US influences on the game, when you look at Chelsea's squad he must be fuming that he can't play a defensive XI, an offensive XI, and a Jorginho XI for the field goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, loki679 said:

Wouldn't mind bottom 3 going down and 17th playing for their place in the PL against the losing champo playoff finalist.

Kind of. I get that the play offs are to keep interest going for longer and give more teams something to play for but I still can't agree with them. The idea that a team can finish 3rd, 20points ahead of the team that finishes 6th but the team that finishes 6th goes up makes a farce of the league season for me. At best have the team that finishes 3rd bottom in the higher division play off against the team finishes 3rd top in the lower division.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

:lol: they hate their players going away for international duties how are they going to feel about an all star game

 

It's a game that neither managers, players or the fans want really :lol:

 

You can watch the best players like De Bruyne 60 times a season playing for City, where's the demand to see him strolling around in a kickabout with Henderson and McTominay? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The All-Star NBA game is just a joke, no defence, no actual competitive element, just players going for shots uncontested. It’s the kind of thing that non-sports fans love as you get to see all the big names in one place. Even the dunk contest has gone to shit 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...