Unpopular football opinions

[... 3,420]

Do you think that it's time we introduced sin-bins? Do you think that Karl Oyston might actually have a point?

Post your un-popular football opinions in here without fear of a meltdown from the rest of us*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*probably

[Danny 816]

Leicester weren't in the wrong when they sacked Ranieri. People forget that Pearson had only just finished a fantastic end of season great escape to keep Leicester up and was then sacked, just for Ranieri to come in, in a similarly eerie atmosphere. Obviously both managers achieved two separate things when they got sacked, but both done well. If Leicester appoint someone decent and go on to have a good season next year everyone will put their emotions aside and applaud the board.

Similar happened at Southampton, Nigel Adkins was sacked after back to back promotions and Premiership survival, the board and club were slated, Poch came in and everyone wanted them down and before you know it the board made the right decision for the good of the club. Now no one will remember Adkins but everyone will remember Poch.

[Dan 993]

On 3/3/2017 at 11:39 PM, Danny said:

Leicester weren't in the wrong when they sacked Ranieri. People forget that Pearson had only just finished a fantastic end of season great escape to keep Leicester up and was then sacked, just for Ranieri to come in, in a similarly eerie atmosphere. Obviously both managers achieved two separate things when they got sacked, but both done well. If Leicester appoint someone decent and go on to have a good season next year everyone will put their emotions aside and applaud the board.

Similar happened at Southampton, Nigel Adkins was sacked after back to back promotions and Premiership survival, the board and club were slated, Poch came in and everyone wanted them down and before you know it the board made the right decision for the good of the club. Now no one will remember Adkins but everyone will remember Poch.

This is completely spot on coming from someone who has followed the whole thing very closely. The majority of the outcry has come from neutrals rather than fans of the club.

Another regarding us - referring to everything that happened last year as a fairytale is quite condescending and totally overlooks logical reasons as to why what happened, happened.

[Asura 297]

Clock should be stopped when the ball goes out of play or during an inury

Penalties should be taken in the way it used to be in MLS during the mid 90s or whenever that was.... Right now there is almost zero excitement in a penalty because the conversion rate is so so high

[Dan 993]

Derby were too quick to sack Nigel Pearson.

Now, it may have been to do with something internal - you get the impression his departure at Leicester was for something that's happened behind the scenes, and should it be for something where you simply cannot keep the bloke on (for example, he's twatted the chairman) then fair enough, I can see it.

But if it was for footballing reasons - as in, they were so unimpressed by how he started there that they pulled the trigger and reverted to McClaren, then for me, they have made a mistake.

I have seen years of what Pearson does. He isn't really a quick-fix. I think back to when he took us over the second time - we were about 10th at the time, finished around there and spent 6 months floating around making up the numbers, often being turned over by rubbish away from home. We were painfully inconsistent.

But the number one fundamental with Pearson is the kind of character he brings in. Pearson was always absolutely brilliant at identifying who really did have that determination to succeed. I'm not talking about someone who just runs around like a headless chicken - I'm talking players with winning mentalities, players who have something to prove, players who hold their nerve.

He didn't get it right every time. But the core of our squad that won the league was built by Pearson. That to me is as much proof as I need that he knows how to pick a player. The way we held our nerve last season despite it being all so new to us was quite incredible.

This isn't me trying to discredit Ranieri for last year either. He's obviously played a big part.

But the players did as well, and Pearson was here when nearly all of them joined the club.

Derby, tonight, have been thumped. They have been woefully beaten yet again - in yet another second half of the season capitulation where they gave themselves a shot, but ultimately blew it largely in very winnable games.

I have seen disgust from their fans tonight. They are calling out their players and they want something to change.

For me, Pearson would have eventually implemented that change. I believe that with him, you have to take a bit of a step back to go forward. He would bin off anyone who wasn't up for it - it's a long term process with him. I always believed in it at Leicester and he never let us down in the end.

I firmly believe that in three years time, Derby will not be as high in the table or as nicely improved behind the scenes in terms of coaches, scouts etc... as they would've been under Pearson, and for me, getting rid of him was a rash move.

[EvertonGirl 14]

I know I am well in the minority here but I kind of like not having video technology and I'm really skeptical about bringing it in. I think some decisions are still so opinion based, you only have to look at some people saying it is a penalty and others say it isn't on some decisions. I didn't really want goal line technology either at the time, but at least that is definite, it either is over or it isn't. I guess I'm just a sucker for tradition.

I understand why people want it, as time and the game have moved on and it means a lot more now, but it still isn't enough to make me want it.

[Batard 1,225]

Video technology is essential in the modern game, with so much money involved and so much at stake allowing decisions to be compromised by human error just strikes me as an absurdity. To me it's akin to saying "I'd rather set a fire in my kitchen than use the oven to cook".

I understand the romance and sense of tradition football evokes but the game has just changed so much and in the cold light of day, it's actually the referees who benefit from it the most. 

[... 3,420]

2 hours ago, EvertonGirl said:

I know I am well in the minority here but I kind of like not having video technology and I'm really skeptical about bringing it in. I think some decisions are still so opinion based, you only have to look at some people saying it is a penalty and others say it isn't on some decisions. I didn't really want goal line technology either at the time, but at least that is definite, it either is over or it isn't. I guess I'm just a sucker for tradition.

I understand why people want it, as time and the game have moved on and it means a lot more now, but it still isn't enough to make me want it.

I was all for goal-line technology but I agree that we have to be careful about how to implement ''video-refs''. If the game is stopped every time a player is pushed off the ball so that the official can consult his big-screen then it's going to really jeopardise the fluidity of the game. 

I actually heard about a system a few years ago that I liked the sound of, basically each dug-outs gets three ''appeals'' and this is where an incident happens and they disagree with the out-come, the manager or coach can appeal to the 4th official and the incident is replayed using video technology. If the referee changes his mind and agrees with the camera, the decision is reversed and the bench keep their appeal. If he still disagrees then they lose an appeal (now only having two for the rest of the game) and the match continues. 

[Batard 1,225]

I think until Video Technology is properly trialled it's hard to know what it's impact will be. I do think some decisions are so bad, simply because the refs are subject to human error like all of us, that it's worthy of a shot.

It works in other sports and I remember people equally feeling that goal line tech would affect the flow of the game and it hasn't. I'd rather Video technology supporting a referee than more goal line referees, who have largely been abysmal 

[Burning Gold 326]

4 hours ago, Cannabis said:

I was all for goal-line technology but I agree that we have to be careful about how to implement ''video-refs''. If the game is stopped every time a player is pushed off the ball so that the official can consult his big-screen then it's going to really jeopardise the fluidity of the game. 

I actually heard about a system a few years ago that I liked the sound of, basically each dug-outs gets three ''appeals'' and this is where an incident happens and they disagree with the out-come, the manager or coach can appeal to the 4th official and the incident is replayed using video technology. If the referee changes his mind and agrees with the camera, the decision is reversed and the bench keep their appeal. If he still disagrees then they lose an appeal (now only having two for the rest of the game) and the match continues. 

You have the same problem with 'appeals': the referee would have to stop the game to investigate every time a decision gets challenged. Except it's worse because putting that power in the hands of the teams would lead to it being abused for tactical purposes. Using an appeal to halt a dangerous counter attack, for example.

I'd give the manager one challenge with three possible outcomes: decision overturned, decision confirmed, or decision upheld due to lack of evidence either way (like they have in the NFL). They'd only lose their challenge if the referee's decision was proven correct, keeping it in the event of either of the other two outcomes. Then in the last 10-15 minutes only an official can initiate a review.

[... 3,420]

Obviously an appeal would only be used when the ball is out of play to stop tactical disruption.

Also, by limiting each team to three appeals it reduces the amount of time wasted for such calls.

[Stan 5,311]

On 10/03/2017 at 5:37 AM, Asura said:

Clock should be stopped when the ball goes out of play or during an inury

Penalties should be taken in the way it used to be in MLS during the mid 90s or whenever that was.... Right now there is almost zero excitement in a penalty because the conversion rate is so so high

definitely disagree on the penalties MLS style. Think it's tacky and amateurish.

 

[... 3,420]

4 minutes ago, StanLCFC said:

definitely disagree on the penalties MLS style. Think it's tacky and amateurish.

 

Even the Americans look back on them with horror, it's a feature that would work in Ice Hockey but falls flat on its face in football.

[Spike 1,725]

Video technology ruined rugby league.

[Dan 993]

14 hours ago, EvertonGirl said:

I know I am well in the minority here but I kind of like not having video technology and I'm really skeptical about bringing it in. I think some decisions are still so opinion based, you only have to look at some people saying it is a penalty and others say it isn't on some decisions. I didn't really want goal line technology either at the time, but at least that is definite, it either is over or it isn't. I guess I'm just a sucker for tradition.

I understand why people want it, as time and the game have moved on and it means a lot more now, but it still isn't enough to make me want it.

Technology won't solve a lot of things until the rules are made more black and white. Said it many a time now but the fact qualified referees can disagree on things after seeing replays worries me. Certainly makes me question the integrity of the sport.

[Asura 297]

11 hours ago, StanLCFC said:

definitely disagree on the penalties MLS style. Think it's tacky and amateurish.

 

If not that style then maybe something else. The current penalty system has absolutely no help for the keepers. One can almost count it as a goal when the referee awards a penalty. The conversion rate is so high

[... 3,420]

4 hours ago, Asura said:

If not that style then maybe something else. The current penalty system has absolutely no help for the keepers. One can almost count it as a goal when the referee awards a penalty. The conversion rate is so high

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way but it's ridiculous to say that the penalty system is no ''help'' for the keepers.

For starters, the goalkeeper's team is being punished so there shouldn't be any ''help'' given, that would defeat the object of punishing him in the first place. Second, the goalkeeper does home-work before every game on the penalties that the opposition has taken and has a few tools in his locker to try to make a save. The goalkeeper will study the striker's body language before the shot is taken and do anything possible to work out which way he is going to go, it's hardly as if it's a lottery.

 

[Stan 5,311]

4 hours ago, Asura said:

If not that style then maybe something else. The current penalty system has absolutely no help for the keepers. One can almost count it as a goal when the referee awards a penalty. The conversion rate is so high

they get a lot of help already by not being penalised for jumping off their line at penalties .

Adrian at West Ham is absolutely terrible for this.

 

[Burning Gold 326]

16 hours ago, Cannabis said:

Obviously an appeal would only be used when the ball is out of play to stop tactical disruption.

Also, by limiting each team to three appeals it reduces the amount of time wasted for such calls.

Then you're playing a lot of moot football which causes problems. There would be uproar as soon as a player suffered an injury in 'dead time'.

I believe rugby union has a TV official who can review decisions while the game's going on, instructing the referee to call it back if he sees something. That could work, wouldn't slow the game too much.

[Burning Gold 326]

10 hours ago, Dan said:

Technology won't solve a lot of things until the rules are made more black and white. Said it many a time now but the fact qualified referees can disagree on things after seeing replays worries me. Certainly makes me question the integrity of the sport.

I think this needs to happen anyway to be honest. I'm sick of hearing people like Michael Owen say that any contact at all entitles a player to go down.

Unfortunately, that would have to come from FIFA and they're probably too busy to worry about the actual game of football.

[Smiley Culture 1,003]

I'd have Celtic and Rangers in the Premier League. 

[Asura 297]

8 hours ago, Cannabis said:

I don't mean this in a disrespectful way but it's ridiculous to say that the penalty system is no ''help'' for the keepers.

For starters, the goalkeeper's team is being punished so there shouldn't be any ''help'' given, that would defeat the object of punishing him in the first place. Second, the goalkeeper does home-work before every game on the penalties that the opposition has taken and has a few tools in his locker to try to make a save. The goalkeeper will study the striker's body language before the shot is taken and do anything possible to work out which way he is going to go, it's hardly as if it's a lottery.

 

 

8 hours ago, StanLCFC said:

they get a lot of help already by not being penalised for jumping off their line at penalties .

Adrian at West Ham is absolutely terrible for this.

 

Maybe this indeed is an unpopular opinion. But I would love to see penalties become a little more harder to score... in other words it would be better if the conversion rate is somewhat lower. 

[Dan 993]

Alex Ferguson knew David Moyes would be out of his depth and got him in to strengthen his own legacy even more.

[Grizzly21 1,387]

On 11/3/2017 at 6:50 AM, Batard said:

I think until Video Technology is properly trialled it's hard to know what it's impact will be. I do think some decisions are so bad, simply because the refs are subject to human error like all of us, that it's worthy of a shot.

It works in other sports and I remember people equally feeling that goal line tech would affect the flow of the game and it hasn't. I'd rather Video technology supporting a referee than more goal line referees, who have largely been abysmal 

It has already been tried. In the Club World Cup. It was just an example of even more human error. Video Technology will absolutely kill the game.

[Grizzly21 1,387]

Some of mine.

 

- Marek Hamsik is the best player in his position in the world right now

- Universitario de Deportes are a bigger club than Leicester City (keep the term in mind. Bigger, not better)

- Mario Mandzukic is one of the most useful strikers on the planet. Lacks goals but his strength, hold up play and aerial ability is extremely useful to any side in any league.

- Panama will qualify for the next World Cup automatically. (more of an unpopular prediction)

- Franco Armani is the best South American keeper.

[Smiley Culture 1,003]

11 minutes ago, LaSambadeStGermain said:

- Universitario de Deportes are a bigger club than Leicester City (keep the term in mind. Bigger, not better)

What's your definition of 'bigger' though?

[Grizzly21 1,387]

Just now, Smiley Culture said:

What's your definition of 'bigger' though?

Well for most people it depends.

Lots of people just use fanbases to prove their points and I disagree on that. I think there needs to be a mix. Fanbases, the quality of player in the past, and achievements domestically and internationally.

 

It will definitely sound ludicrous at first, but keep in mind that we are based in Lima which is one of the biggest and most populated cities in the America's (8M-10M population) and the whole fanbase goes around 15 million. That is definitely more than Leicester. I'm talking about real fans mind, not those plastic fans that Leicester got temporarly in the USA and Canada. I mean based in a nation, so in this case the UK.

 

We've also had more quality players than Leicester. Not in the last 5 years and most definitely not now. You could debate we had more talent when Leicester were in League 1 for example although I have no comment on that as I didn't have a clue how Leicester were like in league 1. In the 70's we had historic players. In 1972 we had Percy Rojas, Juan Carlos Oblitas who were both part of the Peru national team (in our golden generation) as well as Hector Chumpitaz who was regarded as the third best South American central defender ever. Leicester has had good players in the past (Lineker the main example) and they have good players now, but no one will remember this generation for being world class. People might remember Vardy or Mahrez for being key players in the fairy tale story of last season but they aren't world class or players that will be remembered as greats.

 

As for our achievements, I'm just going to ignore our 26 titles won as it would be unfair to compare quality of league's but we've reached the Copa Libertadores final in 1972. Some people usually forget how prestigious the Libertadores is because its been devalued in recent years due to the money in Europe and the best youngsters always leaving quickly. Its a historic cup though and the only one I'd use in this example alongside the UEFA Champions League.

Leicester are definitely more famous worldwide, but that doesn't mean anything to me. In a few years Guangzhou Evergrande will be more famous than Boca Juniors and River Plate but marketing doesn't make a team bigger. 

Keep in mind that I have nothing but respect for Leicester City but I see us as a bigger club for these reasons. Its not as crazy as it first sounds but it definitely matters on how you view a club as big. If you count all that out and just look at fanbases we're still a bigger club.

[Stan 5,311]

1 hour ago, LaSambadeStGermain said:

It has already been tried. In the Club World Cup. It was just an example of even more human error. Video Technology will absolutely kill the game.

no it won't.

it hasn't killed rugby. it hasn't killed tennis. it hasn't killed cricket. 3 big sports that it helps out and 3 big sports that have profited from having video technology within the game. 

[Batard 1,225]

1 hour ago, LaSambadeStGermain said:

It has already been tried. In the Club World Cup. It was just an example of even more human error. Video Technology will absolutely kill the game.

It won't. Unless you can see into the future 

[Grizzly21 1,387]

14 minutes ago, Romesh said:

no it won't.

it hasn't killed rugby. it hasn't killed tennis. it hasn't killed cricket. 3 big sports that it helps out and 3 big sports that have profited from having video technology within the game. 

Maybe it won't kill the game but it will damage it. Since the beginning of time we've had to deal with bad referee's. It could profit all it can in other sports all it wants but I am pretty certain that it will just hurt the game.

 

It was used at the club world cup, and the main example was the Atletico Nacional vs Kashima Antlers game. They used video technology to give Kashima a penalty for a player who was clearly offside but yet they did not see that and only saw the foul so it won't perfect referee errors, if improve it at all. Would also be a massive waste of time in a sport where the clock doesn't stop and the officials decide the added time at the end.

From my point of view, video technology isn't necessary and would just make the sport worse. I don't mind goal line technology as that actually guarantees to correct a referee error, video technology won't guarantee that.