The Championship Thread 2023/2024

[Muzzy_no7]

16 hours ago, Koke said:

 

This is what these clubs cling on to.  Sheffield Wednesday have become so tinpot. 

Cov still have, to this day, not once sold that stadium out. 

[Lillehamring]

5 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

I understand that, but in cricket the ball is dead after every ball, ditto tennis. Both sports are highscoring so points, runs,wickets etc. Don't usually get the eruption that a goal does in football. My biggest issue with VAR is that it robs us of that feeling, especially when the checks are taking minutes. 

Checks should definitely have a time limit - if it takes longer than 30-60 seconds it, by definition, isn't a clear and obvious error.  The reason it takes so long is that VAR isn't 'checking', it's 'deciding' and therein lies the flaw.

By law the ref adds on x amount of time after a goal (not to mention the delay if the conceding side believe something is wrong and start haranguing the ref), this should be amble time for a VAR check.  But, as i say, VAR has been instructed to look for issues rather than to confirm the ref's decision.  Before VAR we still had delays when the ref might go over and talk to a linesman, time shouldn't be an issue if VAR is done sensibly.

[Heathrow fox]

11 minutes ago, MattFox said:

Wednesday probably the biggest underachievers in English football when you compare fanbase size/ potential too reality

 

They haven’t averaged more than 30k a season since 1961 for anyone interested either…

That is interesting.Although I think it was 1966 that they last averaged over 30000.It surprised me as they faired really well during the eighties and got decent 20000 + gates which was pretty good going for that decade and probably explains why they always seemed to have funds.Always traveled in numbers.

[Heathrow fox]

4 hours ago, murphy said:

Well that's not true.  In the 80s they were a good top flight side.  When Howard Wilkinson  took them up in 84 they stayed for all but one of the next 16 years in the top flight.

 

One of my earliest memories was a 0-5 pumping at Filbert St.

Brian Little said in that book he wrote that the club’s long term aim was to get to the same level as Wednesday and Sheff U.Wednesday being the far more established.I honestly didn’t think it was remotely possible

[iancognito]

12 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

VAR has not improved football at all, we can all accept referees having a bit of human error. It was only when we started over analysing games and looking for something to fill the thousands of minutes of reporting time, so Sky could have something to talk about 24/7 that it became a problem.

For the most part, we understand a human can make an error. We don’t expect strikers to score every chance, or keepers to save every shot, so to expect referees to get it right every time is unrealistic.

Football cannot be compared to either tennis or cricket as their is a natural pause in play and their are far less subjective decisions in play.

Allow the game to be played and refereed without tinkering with the rules all the time, losing the spontaneous celebrations and having ridiculously long breaks in play.

My other takeaway from this that I forgot to mention before was that we have VAR because clubs- especially the top clubs - refused to accept the referee's authority and errors were not accepted because, to quote several pundits "too much is riding on these games to have them ruined by human error". We're now in a situation where people still won't accept human error, won't accept interpretation and won't accept something being subjective not absolute. They won't accept humans make mistakes WITH VAR so it's pie in the sky to think they'll go back to basics and accept them with no VAR.

[Super_horns]

54 minutes ago, iancognito said:

My other takeaway from this that I forgot to mention before was that we have VAR because clubs- especially the top clubs - refused to accept the referee's authority and errors were not accepted because, to quote several pundits "too much is riding on these games to have them ruined by human error". We're now in a situation where people still won't accept human error, won't accept interpretation and won't accept something being subjective not absolute. They won't accept humans make mistakes WITH VAR so it's pie in the sky to think they'll go back to basics and accept them with no VAR.

They all thought it would be perfect and be right all the time.

 

In their favour ofcourse !

[Lillehamring]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

They all thought it would be perfect and be right all the time.

 

In their favour ofcourse !

We have to remember that VAR is still very much in it's infancy, to expect it to be 'perfect' from the off is lunacy.

Other sports that are using video review have been doing so since the 70s, hawkeye has been around since 2006.

 

Given the nature of this sport it is probably going to take a decade before they work out how best to run the programme.

[MGLCFC]

The technical side of VAR is not the main problem, it's those setting and interpreting the rules.

[Super_horns]

11 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

We have to remember that VAR is still very much in it's infancy, to expect it to be 'perfect' from the off is lunacy.

Other sports that are using video review have been doing so since the 70s, hawkeye has been around since 2006.

 

Given the nature of this sport it is probably going to take a decade before they work out how best to run the programme.

And many decisions are subjective like fouls and handballs - always been a lottery .

 

Except now we have officials second guessing each other .

[murphy]

16 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

We have to remember that VAR is still very much in it's infancy, to expect it to be 'perfect' from the off is lunacy.

Other sports that are using video review have been doing so since the 70s, hawkeye has been around since 2006.

 

Given the nature of this sport it is probably going to take a decade before they work out how best to run the programme.

That's a nonsense argument.  If it is not fit for purpose it should not be used.  

 

Soon we will be seeing driver less cars and AI surgeons for instance....

[Chelmofox]

14 minutes ago, MGLCFC said:

The technical side of VAR is not the main problem, it's those setting and interpreting the rules.

In 2023 they have to manually draw these lines on freeze framed grainy images to determine if a player is offside, and then manually step forward / backward to determine was was where when the ball was kicked. The process can take minutes, and we are sometimes told they still can't get the view needed to accurate determine if other players impede the view. And the technology can't adequately let the fans at the game have a clue what is going on.  The technology cannot accurate detect if its handball (remember the West Ham game a few seasons ago). 

 

The technology is b0ll0cks. The only tech that is fit for purpose is the goaline stuff.

[CosbehFox]

Palace want rid of Roy supposedly. Steve Cooper and Kieran McKenna under consideration…….

[Chelmofox]

Just now, CosbehFox said:

Palace want rid of Roy supposedly. Steve Cooper and Kieran McKenna under consideration…….

Roy and the club should have called it quits at the end of last season. He's now ironically left things in a worse position than Vierra did, who i had a lot of time for.

[Sly]

The issue with VAR is not the technology to be honest.

 

The rules are ambiguous.

 

Offside - change it back to daylight, much easier to determine.

 

Red card - anything above the ankle, leaving the ground, or GBH. 
 

Simulation, make it a yellow that is determined by VAR. 

 

Handball, if it’s outside the whilst standing, below the elbow, it’s a foul. Jumping, sliding etc, just make a decision on be consistent on what it is. 
 

….. and please can be bring in instant yellows for surrounding the referee. 

[Lillehamring]

26 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

And many decisions are subjective like fouls and handballs - always been a lottery .

 

Except now we have officials second guessing each other .

But even subjective calls, it should still be down to the ref - i assume you mean in the context of penalties? - in which case: the ref makes a call on the pitch, VAR has x amount of time to look at it - if there's no contact or it's ball to hand or for whatever reason it's wrong - they overturn it - if they can't make a decision in the time or they agree with the ref, the decision stands - it's that easy.  The problem comes from VAR taking 4 minutes to make up it's own mind regardless of what the ref called on the pitch. 

[Lillehamring]

19 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

In 2023 they have to manually draw these lines on freeze framed grainy images to determine if a player is offside, and then manually step forward / backward to determine was was where when the ball was kicked. The process can take minutes, and we are sometimes told they still can't get the view needed to accurate determine if other players impede the view. And the technology can't adequately let the fans at the game have a clue what is going on.  The technology cannot accurate detect if its handball (remember the West Ham game a few seasons ago). 

 

The technology is b0ll0cks. The only tech that is fit for purpose is the goaline stuff.

Yeah, i think VAR would have been much better received if they'd never committed to trying to use the lines.  Linesman calls it, VAR has 30 seconds to look at it and overturns it if it is clearly visibly wrong - that way you eliminate the openly bad calls without creating new problems by trying to be perfect.  Hopefully that's what we'll get to, when FIFA et al decide it was a mistake to try to be so precise.

[MGLCFC]

38 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

In 2023 they have to manually draw these lines on freeze framed grainy images to determine if a player is offside, and then manually step forward / backward to determine was was where when the ball was kicked. The process can take minutes, and we are sometimes told they still can't get the view needed to accurate determine if other players impede the view. And the technology can't adequately let the fans at the game have a clue what is going on.  The technology cannot accurate detect if its handball (remember the West Ham game a few seasons ago). 

 

The technology is b0ll0cks. The only tech that is fit for purpose is the goaline stuff.

Fair enough. I still would argue that the people interpreting what's in front of them is so inconsistent and the main cause of frustration amongst fans, players and managers. Personally, I'm enjoying this season far more without VAR. Yes, mistakes are still made, but having a quick look at a lino to check if there's an offside, is far better than waiting 4 minutes or more to celebrate a goal, or any other decision. 

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, Lillehamring said:

But even subjective calls, it should still be down to the ref - i assume you mean in the context of penalties? - in which case: the ref makes a call on the pitch, VAR has x amount of time to look at it - if there's no contact or it's ball to hand or for whatever reason it's wrong - they overturn it - if they can't make a decision in the time or they agree with the ref, the decision stands - it's that easy.  The problem comes from VAR taking 4 minutes to make up it's own mind regardless of what the ref called on the pitch. 

Yes timing is an issue.

 

I sometimes wonder how quick the communication is at times between ref and the VAR tbh .

[Lillehamring]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

Yes timing is an issue.

 

I sometimes wonder how quick the communication is at times between ref and the VAR tbh .

My feeling with the introduction of VAR is that they went in as hard and extreme as possible - hopefully this was the intention that they could then pull back the areas/processes that went too far.  As such the process is far too involved and drawn out - hopefully they'll see this/have seen this and will gradually find a balance that helps prevent the shit decisions whilst allowing minimal disruption.

[Stinkenzo]

The Rooney is a fraud bandwagon is a bit tiring. While his record with the club so far is obviously poor, this whole "they were 5th when the took over" is so wide of the mark. They have been near-relegation fodder but atleast a handful of years now. They have slipped to where they should be. Eustace started the season well but more than likely wouldn't have maintained it. Not arguing their decision to get rid was madness though. 

[Fear Of The Fox]

16 minutes ago, Stinkenzo said:

The Rooney is a fraud bandwagon is a bit tiring. While his record with the club so far is obviously poor, this whole "they were 5th when the took over" is so wide of the mark. They have been near-relegation fodder but atleast a handful of years now. They have slipped to where they should be. Eustace started the season well but more than likely wouldn't have maintained it. Not arguing their decision to get rid was madness though. 

How is it tiring when it's based on facts, results and team performance? You're assuming their former manager wouldn't have maintained the form, a Birmingham fan might claim they would have been now in a playoff spot with Eustace. Based on previous results earlier this season should this fan agree with your point? 

[Stinkenzo]

10 minutes ago, Fear Of The Fox said:

How is it tiring when it's based on facts, results and team performance? You're assuming their former manager wouldn't have maintained the form, a Birmingham fan might claim they would have been now in a playoff spot with Eustace. Based on previous results earlier this season should this fan agree with your point? 

Find me a few then It's tiring because if it was most other managers doing this, it wouldn't be as big a deal. Nothing about their squad screams top six potential. I've pretty much said in my other post he's doing a poor job there, my issue is with the rhetoric that he's taken a side bound for the play offs to the brink of the drop zone. They've been top of the queue for a visit to League One for as long as I can remember, one of those "one step back to go two steps forwards" kind of situations. 

[LCFCJohn]

5 hours ago, Stinkenzo said:

Find me a few then It's tiring because if it was most other managers doing this, it wouldn't be as big a deal. Nothing about their squad screams top six potential. I've pretty much said in my other post he's doing a poor job there, my issue is with the rhetoric that he's taken a side bound for the play offs to the brink of the drop zone. They've been top of the queue for a visit to League One for as long as I can remember, one of those "one step back to go two steps forwards" kind of situations. 

They are one step forwards and two steps back because whenever they have found a formula that could work, they self destruct (see removing Rowett for Zola when they were in the play off positions a few years back).

 

Sorry but Rooney taking them from in the play off positions to close to the relegation positions is fact. Eustace not maintaining what he started is pure speculation. The likelihood is probably somewhere between. Yes they may have dropped off somewhat from their start but almost certainly nowhere near to the extent they have done. Which circles back to the point of Rooney being an awful appointment.

 

Does it mean Rooney will never make a successful manager anywhere? Not necessarily. But clearly it was an awful call from Birmingham which they have form for.

[Dan LCFC]

The timing of that sacking was always going to add pressure onto Rooney. They'd just beaten West Brom 3-1 to go into the playoffs and had a pretty crap run of fixtures coming up.

 

It's an obviously stupid move regardless though so no real sympathy.

[Dan LCFC]

14 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

Palace want rid of Roy supposedly. Steve Cooper and Kieran McKenna under consideration…….

Why they kept him on in the summer I'll never know. They've been spooked ever since De Boer and become probably the dullest club in the division. This was a good year to gamble as well as the three who came up looked pretty obviously bad (bar Burnley who've totally tanked anyway), they've played 'safe' and are still in the most trouble they've been in for a while.