Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2018-2019 Football Thread
- Thread starter Lord Blackadder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is that an objective observation (this is a suspicious and not entirely trustworthy piece of technology), or a subjective one (my team suffered when this technology was employed because the ruling went against us).
If it is implemented as intended, VAR permits a more precise enforcement of the laws that involve physical parameters. But it doesn't change the laws themselves. And even VAR still requires interpretation by a ref. VAR can show you what happened in greater detail, but it is not a mind reader.
Some infractions can be easily determined with VAR - did a keeper come off their line during a penalty? Was a player offside - even by a millimeter? BUT others are much more subjective, such as any infraction based on intent. So what VAR is doing is changing how we interpret rules, and making some things (a marginal offside) harder to get away with, while other infractions (dissent, serious foul play, violent conduct) are still just as subjective as ever.
It seem that with VAR, handballs are going to be called more often, as refs become more obsessed with whether a player handled and not whether it was intentional...
My biggest beef with VAR is when the game stops for too long - the uninterrupted flow of a football match is one of its fundamental characteristics.. The rest is just part of the evolution of the game, but VAR interventions need to be performed very quickly or it becomes very annoying.
Some infractions can be easily determined with VAR - did a keeper come off their line during a penalty? Was a player offside - even by a millimeter? BUT others are much more subjective, such as any infraction based on intent. So what VAR is doing is changing how we interpret rules, and making some things (a marginal offside) harder to get away with, while other infractions (dissent, serious foul play, violent conduct) are still just as subjective as ever.
It seem that with VAR, handballs are going to be called more often, as refs become more obsessed with whether a player handled and not whether it was intentional...
My biggest beef with VAR is when the game stops for too long - the uninterrupted flow of a football match is one of its fundamental characteristics.. The rest is just part of the evolution of the game, but VAR interventions need to be performed very quickly or it becomes very annoying.
Good players do not necessarily good managers make.
In fact, - with a few, striking exceptions - most really good managers were rather poor as players.
And in some cases it's hard to judge objectively...for example, there is no doubt Pep Guardiola is objectively a very good manager, but he has only ever managed the best teams on the planet, and his style is well-adapted to that environment. Zidane, similarly, has managed a team that has tons of talent and sort of runs itself - the only requirement is the ability to command respect among the best, most entitled players (and Zidane is, to be fair, suited for such a role).
Put either manager at Stoke, or Sporting Gijón and we'd see a very different kind of test. Would they pass? Does that make them lesser managers? What does it mean if you are world class when given the best talent, but only mediocre with mediocre talent? We'll never know, of course.
There is a case to be made that star former players may have better chance of success at the club they played at, even if it is a very high profile position, than starting with a humbler team. Lampard, for example, is a legend with Chelsea fans - they will give him far, far more leeway than any "normal" manager would receive, and he will be given respect in the dressing room from day one without having to earn it. Rafa Benitez came into the Chelsea job having won a Champions League and was treated like garbage, despite winning a Europa League with them. Lampard will be treated like a god despite not having earned any cred as a manager yet. IF he truly has managerial potential, this social capital will give him a platform to build on that few managers ever receive.
Last edited:
But given the transfer ban, the best player has just left would you say now is the time to take the job? I'd have though leave it for a while and say you'd rather get more experience with Derby.
Then if they have a bad year he could come in and see things improve.
Chelsea love living on the edge; instability and constant erratic change is written into their DNA.
It is not just the departure of their best player, their constant churning of managers, but the uncertainty surrounding the position, residence, and status, of the owner, as well.
I think there is some logic in that - though, Derby is hardly a sure bet. One bad run of games and Lampard could be out. Fans have short memories when it comes to past success.
Despite losing Hazard, Chelsea are not exactly a squad full of duds.
True on both counts, but they may lose others over the summer. Plus if they finish without a trophy or lower in the league, it won’t matter how loved as a player he was. Not with the board anyhow.
No, but they do have issues re stability, and living on (or off) adrenalin cannot be sustained indefinitely.
Agreed.
Their addition to instability may yet cost them.
I suppose as a manager though it doesn’t really matter if you get sacked by Chelsea. It’s kind of expected, and doesn’t seem to have hurt any of their careers or wallets!
At one level, yes, I tend to agree with you, but such sustained instability cannot be good for the club, addicted though they may be to the adrenalin of permanent uncertainty.
It's really interesting to see all the misplaced anger at VAR at the women's world cup...after all, if a player is a millimeter offside, they are still offside. If a keeper takes her foot one millimeter off the line, she is off the line. These are correct calls according to the laws. Now, whether the LAWS are good laws is another matter...VAR has changed how the laws are enforced, and there's probably no going back on VAR now...which means the laws need changing.
...especially when you think of the keeper having to keep their feet or a foot on the line during penalty kicks. If that law is going to be strictly enforced with VAR it pretty much means all PKs are unsaveable unless a player is foolish enough to shoot straight at the keeper. IFAB has already changed enforcement of this rule in response to the WWC, in that they are going to stop carding keepers for this infraction - otherwise we are going to see LOTS of sending offs for keepers.
What it really boils down to is that the very same people who hate VAR when rulings go against them love VAR when it decides in their favor. That is human nature.
Since Mourinho Chelsea have become an almost totally results-oriented club. All attempts to build a system or style involving attacking football have backfired. Fans have demonstrated multiple times, with Villas Boas for example, and most recently with Sarri, that they want to see (against the best opponents) robust counterattacking football that wins trophies. Nothing more, nothing less. "Systems" managers are not wanted. Chelsea are Stoke with lost of money. Or a poorer version of Real Madrid, if you prefer.
Personnel turnover at Chelsea is extreme, but that characteristic has also coincided with the club's most successful spell in its history. It is Abramovic's signature style. Success is demanded, failure (or eve modest success) is always punished.
...especially when you think of the keeper having to keep their feet or a foot on the line during penalty kicks. If that law is going to be strictly enforced with VAR it pretty much means all PKs are unsaveable unless a player is foolish enough to shoot straight at the keeper. IFAB has already changed enforcement of this rule in response to the WWC, in that they are going to stop carding keepers for this infraction - otherwise we are going to see LOTS of sending offs for keepers.
What it really boils down to is that the very same people who hate VAR when rulings go against them love VAR when it decides in their favor. That is human nature.
Since Mourinho Chelsea have become an almost totally results-oriented club. All attempts to build a system or style involving attacking football have backfired. Fans have demonstrated multiple times, with Villas Boas for example, and most recently with Sarri, that they want to see (against the best opponents) robust counterattacking football that wins trophies. Nothing more, nothing less. "Systems" managers are not wanted. Chelsea are Stoke with lost of money. Or a poorer version of Real Madrid, if you prefer.
Personnel turnover at Chelsea is extreme, but that characteristic has also coincided with the club's most successful spell in its history. It is Abramovic's signature style. Success is demanded, failure (or eve modest success) is always punished.
Agreed, especially on the offside bit, but I've seen keepers come off their line many a time and no one bats an eye.
also:
USA! USA! USA! *
*goes for both the women and the men!!
They still look very shaky. They could get truly humiliated before the tournament is over.
RE: the USMNT v T&T result...I watched the first half, which ended 1-0 to the USA, and thought "we look very much the better team...which means we're sure to draw 1-1." So I wen into the kitchen and started cooking dinner, thus missing the 5 goals USA scored in the second half.
Happy to see the Columbus Crew players making some good contributions in the national team (meanwhile, a depleted Crew squad lost 1-0 at home against The Kansas City in MLS. Ugh. This is turning out to be a dismal season on the pitch for Columbus).The USWNT v Spain match should be a somewhat sterner test than Sweden.
Yes, I cannot see Newcastle getting a better manager...or anyone near that quality, really, so that makes me kind of wonder what the smeg happened at the backroom...
Maybe those (wild) rumours about Benitez getting the Spain job is true...?
I feel for the Newcastle fans but this was inevitable. Benitez essentially demanded that Mike Ashley stop running the club like Mike Ashley. And we all knew how that would end.
It was an interesting scenario in that Benitez actually went down with the club - something top managers are rarely willing to do - and gave us glimpse of what that was be like. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Pep do that?
RE: Benitez and the Spain job...interesting proposition. I think Rafa's approach to the game is particularly well-suited to knockout football, so in that sense he would make a great international manager. On the other hand, football in Spain is 90% politics, so would he be an acceptable choice for the federation, fans, and players?
USA are essentially an all-out offensive team - which is not a good thing in a knockout tournament. I have a bad feeling about this match.
EDIT. So, VAR influences the match in a new way I hadn't anticipated...USA wins a penalty after Lavelle went down under real but light-ish contact in the box. Morgan steps up to take it...then they take a good 2 minutes to do a VAR review in addition to the usual milling about during a penalty. When the penalty finally is taken, it is buried - by Rapinoe. Without VAR, Morgan would have taken it...something happened during the review and Rapinoe took over...if their hadn't been a VAR delay, what might have happened????
USA have looked ropey in this match. Even if they win, a lot of the initial swagger will be gone after this. Morgan has been quiet by her standards today...Carli Lloyd is coming on, can she make this game safe for USA?
EDIT2: USA win 2-1. Not an emphatic win, though at this phase the result is all-important.
I was puzzled that, protecting a razor thin 2-1 lead, Ellis chose to sub in a 36 year-old striker in Lloyd. And indeed, during the rest of the match USA continued to attack, playing a lot of risky passes and resulting in a lot of turnovers. To be fair, their defense looked better in the second half, but they allowed a series of chances that could have resulted in goals. USA seem to know only one way of playing - an aggressive attacking football that is fun to watch but not what you'd necessarily want to be the only option in a knockout tournament. Are USA capable of killing a game when needed? Can they be defensive when the game requires it?
France will be a tougher opponent than Spain. With that being said, France struggled in their round of 16 match too. I just hope that, whatever happens, the next match is not decided by a VAR call.
Oh, and yes, the USA's 2nd goal was the result of a very soft foul in the box. I think the call is fair - it was certainly within the ref's discretion to call that a foul - but with a different ref I can see a very different call there. By the same token, Spain committed a few other fouls that COULD have been called and weren't. Controversy.
Last edited: