Respecting your opponents by thrashing them?

[Diable Rouge]

Just a thought that arose in light of yesterday's 9-0 result, and other similar matches over the years - does it show greater respect for the opposition to maintain the same performance levels for the full 90 minutes, even if that means that the full-time margin reaches embarrassing levels, rather than when teams take it easy at half-time, and "only" decide to score one additional goal, when more were for the taking? Obviously, extremes like yesterday are very much the exception, rather than the rule, but there have been numerous games where teams find themselves three or four ahead at the break, and in many ways it rather patronises the opposition if the pace notably slackens, and young substitutes are introduced who wouldn't get an opportunity in "normal" circumstances.

[Sporting]

Happens all the time in tennis.

[Mr Delicieux]

There are levels to this, but l always like looks of delighted surprise mixed with a slight sense of embarrassment.
Germany diddling Saudi Arabia in 2002 was a great example. By the end, the German players just looked plain embarrassed, with the notable exception of Oliver Bierhoff, who looked like he was proving a point in that angry, celebratory way players do sometimes. Whether it was aimed at Rudi Voller, I'm not sure.

[caja-dglh]

Happens all the time in tennis.

There is a direct gain to the victor by limiting time, overall energy expenditure. any game with a target score for victory wouldn’t apply for this reason.

[Janik]

Tennis' scoring system is rather different, though. Even when one player is way up, the way the score accumulates in points, games and sets means even seemingly one-sided matches can turn on their head rather easier. Enough players have lost matches having served for them with a double break in hand for the risk of easing up not to be worth it. Perhaps the ultimate example of that is Yaroslava Shvedova, she of the golden set (winning all 24 points) against Sara Errani at Wimbledon. Shvedova had previously won the first 23 points of a match against Amy Frazier, only to double fault on set point. She then lost that game, broke Frazier in the next to win the opening set 6-1, then lost the next two sets 6-0 6-0 (Shvedova did beat Errani, but 6-0, 6-4 and despite being vastly on top in set one victory was by no means assured during the second)!

Getting back to the Sport in hand, the USA team got it in the neck for taking their opponents seriously in this way in the last Women's World Cup. Not only did they keep scoring against Thailand, they kept celebrating those goals. As if scoring a goal at a World Cup Finals was something to be joyous about.


Back to racquet sports, and internal club handicap tournaments. These try and make matches out of mismatches by giving players head starts, and sometimes negative points to start on as well. Fine. But not really much fun for either party as though the final score of a game starting -20 to 23 in first to 25 may be 25-24 (the target ideal), that involves the better player just playing boringly, repeatedly exploiting the biggest weakness in their opponent. Which usually means forcing some who can't play a backhand to try and retrieve the ball from the very deepest backhand corner. Which they can't do. And reprise. And reprise. And reprise. *yawn*

[Cal Alamein]

If a pro baseball game gets out of control (or goes way into extra innings), it can get even more ugly as managers are paranoid letting their hurlers throw any more than their allotted pitches. This leads to a position player usually getting drilled in order to rest pitchers arms.

Gridiron teams that are rolling over crap teams usually have the luxury of playing 2nd and 3rd team players to run out the clock and keep the score margin down. Basketball is usually the same way. Seems rare to see anything like a 9-0 rout in the NHL anymore.

Many high school sports also have "mercy" rules where the game is over after a massive score margin is reached.

[elguapo4]

In professional football leagues, goal difference can end up vitally important, so there's a reason for it.

I remember playing a match that we lost 11.2 . We were missing several players, and I arrived hungover from a 30th birthday party. There was no goal difference, so as I reminded my angry and demoralised team mates, it's only 3 points. Sure enough, we ended up finishing ahead of them in the league, and knocked them out of the cup.

[Janik]

The cultural differences are interesting. Italians would apparently strongly disagree with the concept of easing up being disrespectful. Keeping going and running up the score is deemed much worse. It's all to do with people not losing face.

[Jah Womble]

Opinions will of course differ dependent upon the individual circumstances as well. Last night, Solskjaer spoke of the potential importance of goal difference this year, while Leicester last season said that they’d become aware of a ‘record up for grabs’.

Interestingly, following United’s 8-2 drubbing of Arsenal ten years ago, SAF said in interview that, in those circumstances, ‘you don’t want to score more’ (which I took as showing a level of respect to the opposition). No idea what he said after the Ipswich game in 1995.

[Sporting]

In professional football leagues, goal difference can end up vitally important, so there's a reason for it.

In some leagues, such as in Spain, this is less important because only head-to-head results count in the event of points being equal. (Another debate in itself.)

[ursus arctos]

The cultural differences are interesting. Italians would apparently strongly disagree with the concept of easing up being disrespectful. Keeping going and running up the score is deemed much worse. It's all to do with people not losing face.

As reflected in goal difference not being the primary tie-breaker (head to head, then head to head goal difference, then overall goal difference)

[Diable Rouge]

In some leagues, such as in Spain, this is less important because only head-to-head results count in the event of points being equal. (Another debate in itself.)

Also Italy, which may explain the aforementioned cultural difference - edit, crosspost with ursus.

[delicatemoth]

in many ways it rather patronises the opposition if the pace notably slackens, and young substitutes are introduced who wouldn't get an opportunity in "normal" circumstances

But there are perfectly good reasons for both of these.

1. Conserving energy, particularly relevant this season, and lessening the risk of injury by taking the pace and heat out of a game that is almost certainly already won.
2. If you've played well enough to be in a position where you can give young or fringe players game time then it makes sense to do so. They gain experience and match sharpness, and the players substituted again conserve energy and lessen the risk of being injured. This is also true of cup matches against lower division opposition. In both instances it's up to the opposing team to make those decisions look foolish.

I also dislike the frowning on players 'over-celebrating'. Footballers love scoring goals!

[tee rex]

... in many ways it rather patronises the opposition if the pace notably slackens, and young substitutes are introduced who wouldn't get an opportunity in "normal" circumstances.

Like kids playing in the cups, it's questionable whether that really does represent easing off. If I was a knackered defender at 0-5 I might prefer to have an injury-wary star striker strolling around for 20 minutes with an eye on next week's international, than some teenager desperate to make an impression and chasing every tackle like it was his last.

(or what the moth said)

I wonder what Arbroath did against Bon Accord. No subs, of course.

[EIM]

I'm looking forward to Manchester United dishing out a few more respectings this season.

[Janik]

I wonder what Arbroath did against Bon Accord. No subs, of course.

IIRC, they lost count. And the goalie picked up a newspaper and sat in the stand. Something like that.

[Janik]

I'm looking forward to Manchester United dishing out a few more respectings this season.

They could also have a go at being respected again.

[EIM]

They could also have a go at being respected again.

Respect is a friendly see-saw, Janik. But some respecters are heavier than others.

[Nesta]

Memories coming back of Fur-Q in The Day Today... "You have to kill people... to have respect for people. Obviously you can't kill everyone... or there wouldn't be anyone left... to respect"

[Nesta]

Anyway, Southampton, right, the last three times a team lost 9-0 in the top flight, including Soton last year, they beat their tormentors in the same season, either in the return or in the cup. Both are still in the cup, just saying

[kokamoa]

Opinions will of course differ dependent upon the individual circumstances as well. Last night, Solskjaer spoke of the potential importance of goal difference this year, while Leicester last season said that they’d become aware of a ‘record up for grabs’.

Interestingly, following United’s 8-2 drubbing of Arsenal ten years ago, SAF said in interview that, in those circumstances, ‘you don’t want to score more’ (which I took as showing a level of respect to the opposition). No idea what he said after the Ipswich game in 1995.

Re: Ferguson’s take on the 9-0 win over Ipswich, this was him reflecting on it some time after it happened.: “I didn’t want them to score ten. You could have set our performance to music, but it’s unthinkable for a manager to lose 10-0. George Burley was emotional at the end. It was hard for him. I said, ‘I’m sorry about that, but you just have to do it.’ He just walked away and never came in for a drink. I didn’t blame him. I felt genuinely sorry for him. But I spoke to him after that about his team and he might have paid attention to what I said. I told him to stand by his principles and he would get there in the long run. You need patience in life and to get real quality you need to persevere. The worst thing you can be is blind to what’s wrong.”

The big rumour about that game is that it was the United players who kept going at full throttle, apparently because they felt the Ipswich players had been a bit OTT in how they celebrated the 3-2 win over United at Portman Road, six months earlier.

[Antepli Ejderha]

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but I thought Craig Forrest had a decent match and couldn't really be blamed for the goals and pulled off some decent saves.

[Paul S]

It's the win at all costs which is destroying amateur rugby. Up until ten years ago the bottom sides in every rugby club played friendlies every week. There was the occasional cup match, but by and large it was the old amateur ethos of all for one playing for fun and if were winning by 40-50 points at halftime - which does occasionally happen - our captain would suggest the opposition captain swapping around the players to make the second half more interesting. What's the point of beating someone by over 100 points, where is the fun for either side?

Then about 8 years ago they introduced merit tables and every game is a league game. But the problem with leagues is that someone then wants to win it and all of a sudden winning by a cricket score is important for the place in the table. It has destroyed the amateur game, with players even at our level bulking up, training every week, long warm ups and bringing in players for higher teams to ensure they win. A number of us want to revert to friendlies again but we can't get it through our local RFU.

[Belhaven]

Of course, not as good as Gary Bailey's performance for Man Utd at Portman Road in the late 70s when he saved three penalties to keep Ipswich's win down to 6-0.

Edit: Craig Forrest's performance that was

[Kevin S]

Craig Forrest's response to Trump's election claims was exceptional:

https://twitter.com/craigforrest1/status/1325111701092638720?s=20