Jump to content

Still not worthy of a thread


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

My point is that you said 7th is difficult without a playoff when it clearly isn't when teams like West Ham can get to 7th (or higher) two seasons in a row

 

That's not a knock on West Ham they're a good team but if we can't strive to be at the same level as what West Ham are at then what's the point of all our new investment?

 

We don't need a playoff system to get a Europa Conference League spot

We don't need a play-off for anything. But I think it would make the league more exciting and it increases our chances of qualifying for Europe. 1 is an opinion and I think the other is a fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rafalove said:

Also in the question of an all star game where does the north start?

 

10 most northernly  v 10 most southernly you'd say. The likes of Villa would probably chop and change. 

 

At least the North has a degree of kinship. Cant imagine Norwich and Southampton feel even slightly in the same boat. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We don't need a play-off for anything. But I think it would make the league more exciting and it increases our chances of qualifying for Europe. 1 is an opinion and I think the other is a fact.

You said 7th is difficult when it clearly isn't with the right investment and coach

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, joeyt said:

You said 7th is difficult when it clearly isn't with the right investment and coach

Yeh it's difficult to get the right investment and coach.

 

Based on your logic - having a good manager and £200m investment in less than 12 months - we should finish 7th easily right? Anything less must be a failure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Why would it be? 

 

 

:lol: A play off for 7th, essentially? A play off to join a third tier European competition. Sounds very small time to me. And more games in already packed schedule for players tom play and people to ultimately not be arsed about. 

 

Play offs in a top league are an awful idea. 

 

 

Edited by Super Duper Branko Strupar

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Yeh it's difficult to get the right investment and coach.

 

Based on your logic - having a good manager and £200m investment in less than 12 months - we should finish 7th easily right? Anything less must be a failure.

 

This is an incredible strawman :lol: 7th easily? Where have I said that?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

 

:lol: A play off for 7th, essentially? A play off to join a third tier European competition. Sounds very small time to me. And more games in already packed schedule for players tom play and people to ultimately not be arsed about. 

 

Play offs in a top league are an awful idea. 

 

 

 

 

Turning our noses up at any European competition is the only thing that sounds mental to me. The Conference League was really good last year and the winners clearly assigned enormous weight it, as well they should have.

 

Take the point about amount of games, the calendar is obviously saturated. Probably not for those going for 7th, mind. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Edited by Super Duper Branko Strupar

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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