The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

I'd like to applaud the comparison of F1 tyres to Man City & Liverpool by @Swango1980 . A little bit off the wall but it works

We are getting to that point of the year where F1 feels exciting again (until Red Bull start walking away with it).

No doubt in a months time I'll be comparing Liverpool to Tiger Woods (just before the Masters). Used to be very good, but now battered and bruised with injuries, considered past it, but fans still consider him to be the best

 

[Deleted member 15344]

We are getting to that point of the year where F1 feels exciting again (until Red Bull start walking away with it).

No doubt in a months time I'll be comparing Liverpool to Tiger Woods (just before the Masters). Used to be very good, but now battered and bruised with injuries, considered past it, but fans still consider him to be the best

Would have thought Woods would be the perfect analogy for Utd

Used to win a lot but not won anything significant for a decade

Or maybe Rory would be better - pick up the odd little trophy and “they are back” to then fail in the big ones

 

[Swango1980]

Would have thought Woods would be the perfect analogy for Utd

Used to win a lot but not won anything significant for a decade

Or maybe Rory would be better - pick up the odd little trophy and “they are back” to then fail in the big ones

There are a lot of analogies that could be used to compare how Man Utd have underachieved over the last decade.

 

[GB72]

This may be just my uneducated view of things but has football stopped being a squad game. Most clubs have a squad big enough to put out 2 full teams and so surely that should end the argument of there being to many games. Managers can build in as many rest periods as they like through squad rotation and it is not as if they are bringing in the under 16s to fill injury spots. This is not a comment aimed at one team but rather a general point. The need to win has meant that the game appears to have become one where a team is seen to be disadvantaged if they cannot put a first 11 plus subs out every week. It is a squad game and so, if a team suffers through injuries, unless you are unfortunate to lost 2 or 3 in one position, it is a reflection on squad deficiency and not bringing on and developing the peripheral players.

I guess much of this thinking is brought about through envy, In club rugby it is very rare that we ever see a full first 15 on the pitch and calling on 3rd, 4th or 5th choice players is common (Tigers have lost their 3 first choice tight heads to international call ups for example).

 

[Swango1980]

This may be just my uneducated view of things but has football stopped being a squad game. Most clubs have a squad big enough to put out 2 full teams and so surely that should end the argument of there being to many games. Managers can build in as many rest periods as they like through squad rotation and it is not as if they are bringing in the under 16s to fill injury spots. This is not a comment aimed at one team but rather a general point. The need to win has meant that the game appears to have become one where a team is seen to be disadvantaged if they cannot put a first 11 plus subs out every week. It is a squad game and so, if a team suffers through injuries, unless you are unfortunate to lost 2 or 3 in one position, it is a reflection on squad deficiency and not bringing on and developing the peripheral players.

I guess much of this thinking is brought about through envy, In club rugby it is very rare that we ever see a full first 15 on the pitch and calling on 3rd, 4th or 5th choice players is common (Tigers have lost their 3 first choice tight heads to international call ups for example).

It is a squad game, and if a team has more than 11 players that could realistically make the first team, then rotation is easier. Man City can probably rest the likes of Foden, Grealish, Silva, Doku, etc because they know if they rest one of them, one of the others can play at that high level. They will find it harder to replace Halaand or Rodri as they've not a direct replacement at that quality, so it is more likely they will play every or the vast majority of games they are fit.

Teams with lesser squads will find it harder to rest and rotate more and more key players, without a bigger drop down in quality. So, do they risk playing a weaker side for a game, or play their strong players and just hope they'll stay fit. Man Utd, for example, can't really rest Hojlund, Shaw, Martinez or Casemiro when fit, and now we can probably say the same with Mainoo. There are other players that you could argue that could be rested, except they can't at the moment as their replacements are either injured themselves, playing badly or shipped out due to unacceptable work rate (thinking of the wing positions mainly).

I suppose Liverpool don't feel like they can afford to rest Salah, Allison, TAA, Robertson, Van Dijk too much, unless they get injured or suspended. They could probably afford to rotate other positions, say between Diaz, Gapko and Nunez when all are fit and available. Can they rotate a bit between Gomez and Matip? A bit of flexibility there.

But then when I hear fans of other squads say how their first 11 are decent, but there is a huge drop down in quality for any player outside of that top 11, then I guess that is why a lot of clubs just can't afford to rotate as much in as many positions other clubs are able to.

 

[Liverbirdie]

The psychology of many football fans is amusing at times.

A month ago, Billyboots dared mention the injury crisis (plus players unavailable for other reasons) Man Utd have had all season. This was dampened by one Liverpool fan, by saying all clubs have to deal with injuries, and highlighting the current injury list which was much shorter than it had been (and wrong as 2 injured players did not apear).

Presumably this is so that injuries can be blissfully ignored, and the quality of players and manager can be continually criticised for most of the problems.

Fast forward to now, and we are being told about Liverpools growing injury list, and how great Liverpool are for competing on 4 fronts. Interesting interpretation. Liverpool.have been relatively lucky with injuries for most of the season, hence how they started well and built up that momentum (Robertson and Thiago being the only key players injured for a long time). Had their injuries been reversed with Man U and Newcastle their performances may well have reversed as well. Just like last season when Liverpool players were tired (never Klopps fault, even though we know it has got too much for him, hence having to step down at end of season).

Sure, they are now getting hit with a lot of injuries now. But as other fans were told, just deal with it, other clubs have to.

So one Liverpool fan represents a whole fan base?

Lets hope that 10 posts a day, 50 paragraphs of worthless filler dont represent all man U fans, eh?

 

[GB72]

It is a squad game, and if a team has more than 11 players that could realistically make the first team, then rotation is easier. Man City can probably rest the likes of Foden, Grealish, Silva, Doku, etc because they know if they rest one of them, one of the others can play at that high level. They will find it harder to replace Halaand or Rodri as they've not a direct replacement at that quality, so it is more likely they will play every or the vast majority of games they are fit.

Teams with lesser squads will find it harder to rest and rotate more and more key players, without a bigger drop down in quality. So, do they risk playing a weaker side for a game, or play their strong players and just hope they'll stay fit. Man Utd, for example, can't really rest Hojlund, Shaw, Martinez or Casemiro when fit, and now we can probably say the same with Mainoo. There are other players that you could argue that could be rested, except they can't at the moment as their replacements are either injured themselves, playing badly or shipped out due to unacceptable work rate (thinking of the wing positions mainly).

I suppose Liverpool don't feel like they can afford to rest Salah, Allison, TAA, Robertson, Van Dijk too much, unless they get injured or suspended. They could probably afford to rotate other positions, say between Diaz, Gapko and Nunez when all are fit and available. Can they rotate a bit between Gomez and Matip? A bit of flexibility there.

But then when I hear fans of other squads say how their first 11 are decent, but there is a huge drop down in quality for any player outside of that top 11, then I guess that is why a lot of clubs just can't afford to rotate as much in as many positions other clubs are able to.

All fair points but I guess what I am saying is that a club, and its results, should be judged on the squad and not the team and so injuries, suspensions etc should have no bearing on that assessment. There is a drop off in quality, perhaps you have spent too much on the first team and perhaps should spread that across the squad etc. Teams will always be able to afford more depth in their squad in the same way that some teams will be able to afford a better starting 11.

Simply making a point that, unless a team has injuries that involve bringing in the academy lads etc then the fact is that each competition is one between squads of players and how you spread your resources over that squad is as much an assessment of the quality of a team as the quality of the starting 11.

 

[Swango1980]

So one Liverpool fan represents a whole fan base?

Lets hope that 10 posts a day, 50 paragraphs of worthless filler dont represent all man U fans, eh?

I know of 4 definite Liverpool fans on this forum. I'd place at least 3 of them on a similar level albeit just one of them that posts regularly. And, my general perception of Liverpool fans over the years has been the same. So, I'm certainly not using just one fan on this forum to for my perception of Liverpool fans. And by what others have responded with, I don't think I'm alone in that.

Of course, I'm sure fans have general perceptions of Man Utd fans as well. They are welcome to that, and my own views may or may not fit in with that general feeling. I wouldn't expect anyone to form their views based on a single other persons views.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

All fair points but I guess what I am saying is that a club, and its results, should be judged on the squad and not the team and so injuries, suspensions etc should have no bearing on that assessment. There is a drop off in quality, perhaps you have spent too much on the first team and perhaps should spread that across the squad etc. Teams will always be able to afford more depth in their squad in the same way that some teams will be able to afford a better starting 11.

Simply making a point that, unless a team has injuries that involve bringing in the academy lads etc then the fact is that each competition is one between squads of players and how you spread your resources over that squad is as much an assessment of the quality of a team as the quality of the starting 11.

It is a squad game

But we have to be realistic that only the top clubs with the most amount of money can afford to bring in players that are happy to be rotated and ensure there isn’t a drop off on in quality

In fact it’s prob only City that can really afford to spend a lot of squad players

Many clubs including Liverpool and Utd rely on also bring players through their academy to develop in the squads

And clubs will spread their finances across the squad

There will always be for most a drop in quality when clubs lose their best players - even City have that issue when they lose KDB

 

[Neilds]

On the subject of muscular injuries, what are peoples thoughts on the non slip socks that players are wearing now? In previous years, when players just wore the club socks, the foot could move within the boot and there was some give when the foot is subject to twists etc. Nowadays, the foot is locked more securely, due to the grippy socks, and to some extent, a much tighter fitting boot. Could this put more strain on the muscles and knees?

 

[Swango1980]

All fair points but I guess what I am saying is that a club, and its results, should be judged on the squad and not the team and so injuries, suspensions etc should have no bearing on that assessment. There is a drop off in quality, perhaps you have spent too much on the first team and perhaps should spread that across the squad etc. Teams will always be able to afford more depth in their squad in the same way that some teams will be able to afford a better starting 11.

Simply making a point that, unless a team has injuries that involve bringing in the academy lads etc then the fact is that each competition is one between squads of players and how you spread your resources over that squad is as much an assessment of the quality of a team as the quality of the starting 11.

To a degree, yes, I agree.

But it isn't just volume of injuries, it is who is injured. Again, from my own teams point of view, we've had Martinez, Casemiro, Shaw out for long periods. These players were pretty much our top performers other than Rashford last season. If the longer term injuries were to Maguire, McTomminay and Antony, we might be having a much more comfortable season. Of course, it could be worse. We could have had injuries to Hojlund and Garnacho. And, despite how bad Utd have been, we are still siting in 6th place out of 20. Players like Maguire, Evans, Dalot, Mainoo, Garnacho and Hojlund have put in good performances, with all of those except Hojlund probably considered squad players at start of season, and some of those younger ones emerging as first team players by end of season. So, in that sense, we are lucky to have the squad we have compared to others in PL.

Newcastle have had bad injury problems. Yet, before last season I think they were a bottom half of the table side. Whereas at the moment they are 8th. So, despite their injury problems, their squad is probably stronger than it was 2 seasons ago, and therefore still a top half side. The problem is, for them, is that people seem to have short memories. They simply compare them to last season and become critical, whereas looking at the bigger picture they are probably much better than they were, and still probably on an upward curve

 

[GB72]

It is a squad game

But we have to be realistic that only the top clubs with the most amount of money can afford to bring in players that are happy to be rotated and ensure there isn’t a drop off on in quality

In fact it’s prob only City that can really afford to spend a lot of squad players

Many clubs including Liverpool and Utd rely on also bring players through their academy to develop in the squads

And clubs will spread their finances across the squad

There will always be for most a drop in quality when clubs lose their best players - even City have that issue when they lose KDB

That is true and I agree but that is only the same as saying that some teams will have better first teams because they have funding.

Clubs decide how they spend their money and spending on a star filled 1st 11 which leaves less funding for the back up players is a decision in the same way that spending less on the 1st choice player to allow back up and rotation is another option. Clubs can then be judged on those decisions and so have little argument if they lose form because the expensive players that they bought in which allowed the rise in form are injured and they have not made provision for suitable back up.

There will always be exceptions when teams lose 2 or 3 players in one position but whilst they have a squad and cover in that squad, teams are free to rotate and have no complaint should a lack of rotation cause tiredness or injury or if putting all of their eggs in one basket leaves them short of cover for injuries.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

On the subject of muscular injuries, what are peoples thoughts on the non slip socks that players are wearing now? In previous years, when players just wore the club socks, the foot could move within the boot and there was some give when the foot is subject to twists etc. Nowadays, the foot is locked more securely, due to the grippy socks, and to some extent, a much tighter fitting boot. Could this put more strain on the muscles and knees?

I find this an odd one, the grippy sock, not your post. I played hockey for years, mostly on astro, and never felt as though my foot was slipping. If it was then it would have been because I'd bought a shoe / boot size too large. If a footballers boot fits, what is it with the grippy sock thing?

Fun fact, my sister knows someone with a patent on these. He has been offered big sums by the big boys but so far he is going it alone (not literally, he has a company making them).

 

[Orikoru]

On the subject of muscular injuries, what are peoples thoughts on the non slip socks that players are wearing now? In previous years, when players just wore the club socks, the foot could move within the boot and there was some give when the foot is subject to twists etc. Nowadays, the foot is locked more securely, due to the grippy socks, and to some extent, a much tighter fitting boot. Could this put more strain on the muscles and knees?

I wear something similar when I play (https://gaintheedgeofficial.com/collections/2-0-socks) - I'd have thought they prevent as many injuries as they'd cause. A little slip could tweak a calf or a groin here and there. I think that's what it's designed to prevent - as well as blisters from movement inside the boot.

 

[Swango1980]

That is true and I agree but that is only the same as saying that some teams will have better first teams because they have funding.

Clubs decide how they spend their money and spending on a star filled 1st 11 which leaves less funding for the back up players is a decision in the same way that spending less on the 1st choice player to allow back up and rotation is another option. Clubs can then be judged on those decisions and so have little argument if they lose form because the expensive players that they bought in which allowed the rise in form are injured and they have not made provision for suitable back up.

There will always be exceptions when teams lose 2 or 3 players in one position but whilst they have a squad and cover in that squad, teams are free to rotate and have no complaint should a lack of rotation cause tiredness or injury or if putting all of their eggs in one basket leaves them short of cover for injuries.

But, it works both ways. If a club decides to sacrifice on bringing in the best quality, and then spreads the money around a bit more by bringing in more decent squad players, then they may perform worse than other teams around them that have invested in quality, and been lucky enough for their top players to stay fit. Meanwhile, you have a team of steady eddies, and maybe a solid bench that never has to be used anyway as you just so happened to have few injuries.

The tricky think is getting the balance right, and whichever way you decide to go, you'll only know if it has paid off when luck plays its part in who gets injured.

At the top of the table, anyone up there has done well. I think City have done well, as their 2 best players by most peoples thinking have had long injuries (especially De Bruyne), but we all know they have a great squad to cope. Would Liverpool do as well with longer term injuries to Salah and Van Dijk (done well enough so far with Salah missing)? How would Arsenal cope without Saka and Odegaard? We've seen Spurs struggle without Maddison and Son for a while.

And these teams are at the top, so they will still have relatively decent players on the bench compared to other sides, albeit a step down from their top players. But what happens to the lower teams, when they lose their star players? Do Crystal Palace have strong squad players than can easily cover Eze and Olise? Would Luton be able to cope seamlessly if they lost Barkley? Did Brentford miss Toney more than Arsenal would miss Jesus? I do think clubs and fans can curse their luck if key players suddenly get injured, as they are key players for a reason.

 

[GB72]

But, it works both ways. If a club decides to sacrifice on bringing in the best quality, and then spreads the money around a bit more by bringing in more decent squad players, then they may perform worse than other teams around them that have invested in quality, and been lucky enough for their top players to stay fit. Meanwhile, you have a team of steady eddies, and maybe a solid bench that never has to be used anyway as you just so happened to have few injuries.

The tricky think is getting the balance right, and whichever way you decide to go, you'll only know if it has paid off when luck plays its part in who gets injured.

At the top of the table, anyone up there has done well. I think City have done well, as their 2 best players by most peoples thinking have had long injuries (especially De Bruyne), but we all know they have a great squad to cope. Would Liverpool do as well with longer term injuries to Salah and Van Dijk (done well enough so far with Salah missing)? How would Arsenal cope without Saka and Odegaard? We've seen Spurs struggle without Maddison and Son for a while.

And these teams are at the top, so they will still have relatively decent players on the bench compared to other sides, albeit a step down from their top players. But what happens to the lower teams, when they lose their star players? Do Crystal Palace have strong squad players than can easily cover Eze and Olise? Would Luton be able to cope seamlessly if they lost Barkley? Did Brentford miss Toney more than Arsenal would miss Jesus? I do think clubs and fans can curse their luck if key players suddenly get injured, as they are key players for a reason.

I totally agree and that is my point I guess, how you spread your resources across your squad is a tactical decision for the club akin to what positions you recruit for in the transfer market. There are many ways to do it with no right or wrong answer. All i am saying is that clubs have a decision on how to resource their team be it aiming for a strong first 11 or a more even spread of talent across the club in the same way as they may, for example, recruit the best defense in the world but have had to chose lesser options up front as a result.

The point I guess i am making is that no club should complain because of injuries or tiredness in their first 11 because they have made the decision to spend heavily on that to the detriment of their options when players are not available. They are happy to take the glory when that pays off and everyone is fit and it is going well but they have to accept the downside that having that star striker for example may mean that the back up is not going to be up to the required standard.

It is not about who can cope without who etc, it is a wider point that teams should be judged on their squad not their first 11 and if the squad cannot succeed without the star players, then it is not a well balanced squad. I think fans are entitled to curse their luck but it should not necessarily be an excuse in itself for poor performance.

 

[Liverbirdie]

I know of 4 definite Liverpool fans on this forum. I'd place at least 3 of them on a similar level albeit just one of them that posts regularly. And, my general perception of Liverpool fans over the years has been the same. So, I'm certainly not using just one fan on this forum to for my perception of Liverpool fans. And by what others have responded with, I don't think I'm alone in that.

Of course, I'm sure fans have general perceptions of Man Utd fans as well. They are welcome to that, and my own views may or may not fit in with that general feeling. I wouldn't expect anyone to form their views based on a single other persons views.

Well I would expect anyone to know that we havent only had 2 main injuries up to recently.

Thiago - all season except 1 game
Bajetic - all season except 1 game
Matip - lost him a few months ago, out all season

and many 1 month ones

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I totally agree and that is my point I guess, how you spread your resources across your squad is a tactical decision for the club akin to what positions you recruit for in the transfer market. There are many ways to do it with no right or wrong answer. All i am saying is that clubs have a decision on how to resource their team be it aiming for a strong first 11 or a more even spread of talent across the club in the same way as they may, for example, recruit the best defense in the world but have had to chose lesser options up front as a result.

The point I guess i am making is that no club should complain because of injuries or tiredness in their first 11 because they have made the decision to spend heavily on that to the detriment of their options when players are not available. They are happy to take the glory when that pays off and everyone is fit and it is going well but they have to accept the downside that having that star striker for example may mean that the back up is not going to be up to the required standard.

It is not about who can cope without who etc, it is a wider point that teams should be judged on their squad not their first 11 and if the squad cannot succeed without the star players, then it is not a well balanced squad. I think fans are entitled to curse their luck but it should not necessarily be an excuse in itself for poor performance.

Most Clubs have finite budgets , its costs money both in terms of fees and wages

Teams need quality players throughout the squad but there is always a drop off when clubs lose one of their better players

It’s impossible to cover everyone to the same level

I’m going to suggest not one club has played their “best 11” in two games consecutive- it just doesn’t happen , players are always getting rotated and the drop off will be in line to what budget a club operates under

I don’t think any club ever just aims to have a strong 11 - they will always be looking for the strength in the squad as well

As an example this summer we brought in 4 midfielders- two I suspect if everyone was fit wouldn’t be in the starting 11 but it was about getting strength in across the area

City have by far the strongest squad - they spent £200 plus on four players - I suspect only one would be in their first choice and maybe even none

That sort of money clubs can’t even spent on their main players

So it’s not a surprise that when city lose a £100mil player they can play their £60mil player , it’s not a surprise to anyone that they are the strongest squad by a mile

 

[Swango1980]

Well I would expect anyone to know that we havent only had 2 main injuries up to recently.

Thiago - all season except 1 game
Bajetic - all season except 1 game
Matip - lost him a few months ago, out all season

and many 1 month ones

I mentioned Thiago, he was one of the 2 I mentioned (i.e. Robertson as well). I was picking out key players as well, not every squad player. I don't know the ins and outs of Liverpool's squad like you, but didn't think 19 year old Bajcetic was a key player for Liverpool, having made 11 league appearances since 2020. I'm sure he is an emerging talent, but he is no Salah, TAA or Van Dijk yet.

Matip was still available for the 1st part of the season (first 14 games I think), starting 9 and on the bench for 5. I'm never sure if Matip is a key player or not, or whether Gomez is the preferred option with Van Dijk, or whether both are just rotated.

So, for the players Liverpool did have injured for the first few months of the season, I certainly think they were much luckier than several other teams.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Injuries are definitely felt on a sliding scale depending on the club and their budget. Fulham have had key players out injured this season including Jimenez our best striker who is still missing. We'll also lose Paulinha now for 2 games for suspension but you can't odds player stupidity and there is no doubt in my mind we have lost games and points to sides around us that with a fully fit side we'd have won. It was the same as far back as the Europa league campaign and while we tried to play midweek side and a PL side most of these sides had a crossover and playing so many Europa games had a definite effect on the PL results

I don't know the injury situation at clubs like Luton, Forest, etc and those around the relegation zone but I am guessing a couple of key injuries now may be pivotal and there wouldn't be the quality of replacement coming in