Most people in favour of No Deal - The FA Cup 2019-20 thread

[DCI Harry Batt]

It's probably the most delicate balancing act of all.

[Jumbo McGinnis]

Bloody hell, there’s some proper miserable middle aged blokes on here. Arsenal v Chelsea is a fine final.

[Jah Womble]

Well you know get your fucking act together. If Arsenal reach 10 (ten) fa cup finals since Tottenham Hotspur last won it some of the blame must lie with said Tottenham Hotspur. I was quite gutted for my Spurs acquaintances when they lost to Chelsea the other year and they have had plenty of semi-final appearances in the years since 1991.

I agree entirely. Been saying it for years. More chokers here at Spurs than the average neckwear outlet - and nobody ever addresses the issue.

Both sides have good players, both sides are capable of putting in a performance on their day - but it doesn't make yet another Arsenal/Chelsea final any less uninteresting to the rest of us.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

It must be terrible having to run a squad of *checks notes* 25 players on a budget higher than *checks notes again* 95% of the rest of the division.

RIght, but they weren't playing against a relative minnow though were the? They were playing against team with similar resources, engaged in the same race of two league games a week. The only difference really is that one team had five days to recover and prepare, and the other had 3 days to recover and prepare. which might have gone a long way to explaining why chelsea were first to every loose ball.

There should be no excuses, Manchester United managed to haul themselves back into Champions league contention thanks to Covid, if they don't make it it's because they don't deserve it .

But man utd were only three points behind chelsea before the covid break and had a much easier run of fixtures to the end of the season because they had already played nearly everyone in the top half twice/ It's possible to overstate the effect of the break on teams performance. Chelsea's form is basically the same. Leicester were about as dead in the water as they have been since halfway through december, man city and liverpool look remarkably similar to how they were before the break. wolves and sheffield utd have fallen back a bit, but that's something that seemed likely to happen at some point. Wolves if anything benefited from the break because they had been playing twice a week since july. . Burnley have 15 points in their 8 games since lockdown, and got 18 points in the 8 games before lock down. I would be very interested to see

The team that has really benefited from the covid break were Spurs, who were missing seven first team players when the season stopped. It would have been a challenging couple of months for spurs

[Snake Plissken]

Manchester United have played Spurs, Sheffield United, Brighton, Bournemouth, Villa, Southampton and Palace and got 16 points.

Burnley have played Man City, Watford, Palace, Sheffield United, West Ham, Liverpool, Wolves, and Norwich since the restart and got 15 out of that. They've also lost Charlie Taylor, Ben Mee and Jack Cork to season ending, possibly longer term injuries. We've been starting a 31 year old leftt back who we got on a free at right midfield for four games

So, you can spare me the "oh, they're tired" excuse.

[Satchmo Distel]

As Rogin posted elsewhere, a lot of sides are going to treat this tournament like the League Cup and field the kids next season because of fixture congestion.

[Jah Womble]

The team that has really benefited from the covid break were Spurs, who were missing seven first team players when the season stopped. It would have been a challenging couple of months for spurs

In that respect, I can't deny that we've been fortunate - Kane and Son's recoveries in particular have been crucial. (Even so, we've still managed to play like blind mares in at least three of these restart fixtures.)

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Manchester United have played Spurs, Sheffield United, Brighton, Bournemouth, Villa, Southampton and Palace and got 16 points.

Burnley have played Man City, Watford, Palace, Sheffield United, West Ham, Liverpool, Wolves, and Norwich since the restart and got 15 out of that. They've also lost Charlie Taylor, Ben Mee and Jack Cork to season ending, possibly longer term injuries. We've been starting a 31 year old leftt back who we got on a free at right midfield for four games

So, you can spare me the "oh, they're tired" excuse.

Right. but man utd weren't playing burnley. I don't know what burnley have to do with it. I'm only talking about man utd and Chelsea, which firstly has the benefit of excluding all other teams from the comparison, but also makes things easier, because in most other relevant respects they're more or less xactly the same, in terms of games played, squad strength and workload, but with one key difference, recovery time since the last game. which given the circumstances of this season is pretty crucial.. I don't care that man utd lost for the first time in six months, or that this is just one of those things that happens if you have fixture congestion. The thing that annoys me is that Frank Lampard was personally getting all the credit for this.

If Lampard wins a game, he gets the credit as the great leader, if they lose a game, it's on the players. If they concede the same goal for the umpteenth time, then the call is to find the right players, rather than address the obvious tactical and coaching failure, of this Kevin Keegan if his dad had been someone. It's the other way around with solksjaer. When they were losing games at the same rate as chelsea, it was either he wasn't up to it, or they had failed to spend 200 million on harry kane, then when they started winning nearly all their games for months on end, it was down to bruno fernandes, largely ignoring that the upturn in form had more to do with having two weeks off to rest the players, and do a bit of coaching for the first time since preseason. Bruno Fernandes didn't make man utd go from conceding 13 goals from set pieces in the first 24 league games, to conceding one in the next 12, and while he was an important part of man utd beginning to press from the front in a coherent way, that also has as much to do with the mere presence of odion ighalo, and the opportunity to do work on it.

As Rogin posted elsewhere, a lot of sides are going to treat this tournament like the League Cup and field the kids next season because of fixture congestion

Tbh, I would have made 9 or 10 changes, on the basis that man utd had to play 5 games in 13 days, and that their last two opponents would otherwise have the same recovery advantage that chelsea had in this game. The problem with this is that everyone would lose their shit if they didn't win, unaware that this approach used ended in a 3-0 defeat.

[Nocturnal Submission]

Right. but man utd weren't playing burnley. I don't know what burnley have to do with it. I'm only talking about man utd and Chelsea, which firstly has the benefit of excluding all other teams from the comparison, but also makes things easier, because in most other relevant respects they're more or less xactly the same, in terms of games played, squad strength and workload, but with one key difference, recovery time since the last game. which given the circumstances of this season is pretty crucial.. I don't care that man utd lost for the first time in six months, or that this is just one of those things that happens if you have fixture congestion. The thing that annoys me is that Frank Lampard was personally getting all the credit for this.

If Lampard wins a game, he gets the credit as the great leader, if they lose a game, it's on the players. If they concede the same goal for the umpteenth time, then the call is to find the right players, rather than address the obvious tactical and coaching failure, of this Kevin Keegan if his dad had been someone. It's the other way around with solksjaer. When they were losing games at the same rate as chelsea, it was either he wasn't up to it, or they had failed to spend 200 million on harry kane, then when they started winning nearly all their games for months on end, it was down to bruno fernandes, largely ignoring that the upturn in form had more to do with having two weeks off to rest the players, and do a bit of coaching for the first time since preseason. Bruno Fernandes didn't make man utd go from conceding 13 goals from set pieces in the first 24 league games, to conceding one in the next 12, and while he was an important part of man utd beginning to press from the front in a coherent way, that also has as much to do with the mere presence of odion ighalo, and the opportunity to do work on it.



Tbh, I would have made 9 or 10 changes, on the basis that man utd had to play 5 games in 13 days, and that their last two opponents would otherwise have the same recovery advantage that chelsea had in this game. The problem with this is that everyone would lose their shit if they didn't win, unaware that this approach used ended in a 3-0 defeat.

You need to get over the result, TAB.

Given that your side had beaten us on the three other occasions that we'd played each other this season and that you were the post-pause form side, I wasn't expecting much out of the game, so the result was a hugely pleasant surprise. You're usually quite quick to mention injuries (almost always when they are to Man. Utd. players, though) so I'll just point out that Kante and our best player at present, Pulisic, weren't able to start and that a number of others are still working their way back to full match fitness. Both sides have also played the same number of games since the re-start and have large squads so I'm not really having the tiredness excuse. The result was as much down to Ole's team selection and shape.

And the reason that Lampard is being cut a bit more slack than OGS is because he hasn't been as long in his current job as Ole has, hasn't been managing for so long and has had to cope with a transfer ban and the loss of his side's best player. He's also been trying to integrate a large number of younger players and has had quite a lot of squad injuries to cope with.

Move on.

[Satchmo Distel]

When was the last time the Cup Final was the last game of the English domestic season, as it will be on Saturday?

[Sporting]

When was the last time the Cup Final was the last game of the English domestic season, as it will be on Saturday?

Championship play-off?

[Satchmo Distel]

Oops. Ignore, sorry.

[Ray de Galles]

"Even before a ball has been kicked it is reasonably safe to assume that Saturday’s FA Cup final will be the worst of all time.

Top-level football without fans is not nothing but it has become abundantly clear in recent weeks it is little more than a pale imitation of itself. The fact that this faded, facsimile, fan-free football is a sterile, anodyne and largely pointless pursuit will not have gone unnoticed by the grasping clubs, governing bodies and broadcasting companies who rely on the sport and those who watch it for their billions. Never before have football fans enjoyed such influence, although they will almost inevitably choose not to use it."

[Jumbo McGinnis]

Are we still going with the “football without fans is nothing” nonsense from journalists? How very boring. More than happy to write about it and earn from it though, the dullard.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

As implausible and preposterous as it may be, let’s imagine a post Covid-19 world where football fans are finally allowed back into Premier League grounds but elect en masse not to go. Not because home drinking, tedious family Zoom quizzes and banana bread baking have eclipsed the sport in popularity, but because after months spent locked out of stadiums match-going supporters have realised the importance of their role cannot be overstated and unilaterally opt to stay away until certain conditions are met.

Says man who then proceeds to fundamentally overstate the importance of the role of match going fans.

That's awful jumpers-for-goalposts gammon nonsense by Barry there. The easiest way to always lose, is to mislead yourself about your relative strengths and weaknesses. The players clearly don't care very much if there are or aren't fans there. They largely tune them out entirely. The Television audience, which makes up more than 99% percent of the people watching an FA cup final doesn't particularly care. If you watch it with the fake noise on, at worst it sounds like a game of fifa. The clubs care because they don't have matchday income, but they will be able to get by. with adjustments. And football fans aren't a coherent discilplined monopsony capable of acting in union and bringing football to their knees. They're more like addicts than a closed shop.

[Sporting]

BG is entertaining enough on the odd podcast but he really has no particular depth of knowledge of football. Nor do I, but I'm not getting paid for it.

[Ray de Galles]

BG is entertaining enough on the odd podcast but he really has no particular depth of knowledge of football. Nor do I, but I'm not getting paid for it.

I don't listen to the podcast or generally read much of his stuff, the last of which I did see was the "not missing football" nonsense that someone posted here.

A lot of the article above is a load of tosh, to be honest, but the sections I quoted struck home for me.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

It's true that if fans vote with their wallets and refuse to pay either exorbitant matchday prices or inflated tv subscriptions - I do neither, except indirectly when I watch games in the pub - prices of both will fall. But let's not be naive about the impact of that. The money won't stay in the game. Not just from Sky, but from Sheikh Mansour, Roman Abramovich, J W Henry, any of them. The Premier League would rapidly go back to like it was in about 1995, where some clubs still had bigger budgets, but were spending them on ex-French or German internationals, or picking up players from Colombia, Denmark and the Czech Republic. Even the top English players would be off to Real Madrid or Lazio as soon as those clubs came knocking.

Now, that isn't to say that would be a bad thing. That's another argument. But it is what would happen.

[DCI Harry Batt]

It'd be great.

[Satchmo Distel]

The recession is going to have a huge effect. Imagine the EPL trying to survive on this business model in the 1930s.

[Jumbo McGinnis]

I have never got why Glendenning continues to play the Jack Dee role, it wasn’t funny when Dee did it and has long since had its day, or why people continue to employ him to talk in the way he does. I occasionally listen to him on an Italian Football podcast and he very much spoils it by slating absolutely everything about Italy and Serie A in his typical “look at me, I’m moody and negative about everything” approach.

[Snake Plissken]

The players clearly don't care very much if there are or aren't fans there. They largely tune them out entirely.

I rather think they are quite enjoying being able to, as an example, take a corner in a competitive game of football without having to hear the voice of someone screaming obscenities at them.

[Kevin S]

So whichever team wins this, either Arteta or Lampard will become a winner both as a player and a manager. Is that a long list?

[ursus arctos]

Seventeen men have won the tournament both as a player and as a manager: John Cameron as player-manager in 1901, Peter McWilliam, Billy Walker, Jimmy Seed, Matt Busby, Stan Seymour, Joe Smith, Bill Shankly, Joe Mercer, Don Revie, Bob Stokoe, Kenny Dalglish, Bobby Gould, Terry Venables, George Graham, Gianluca Vialli and Roberto Di Matteo. Cameron and Dalglish are the only two people who have guided their clubs to the title as player-managers, in 1901 and 1986, respectively

[Jimski]

Championship play-off?

And the National League play-off final tomorrow too.