• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The Official 2022/23 Premier League Thread

I'd go with a hard clock, if a team can keep the ball out of play for long enough to be a benefit that's still football, still a skill, they shouldn't be punished for it.

Defending and attacking should be equal partners in the game.

It's entertainment at the end of the day. Who wants to watch a game where the ball is out of play for the majority?
 
It's entertainment at the end of the day. Who wants to watch a game where the ball is out of play for the majority?

I want to watch a game where the better prepared and smarter team wins.

If the game is only about attacking, it could become like basketball, which I find really boring.

I want to see a well executed game plan succeed, and I appreciate defensive ones, just as much as attacking ones.
 
I want to watch a game where the better prepared and smarter team wins.

If the game is only about attacking, it could become like basketball, which I find really boring.

I want to see a well executed game plan succeed, and I appreciate defensive ones, just as much as attacking ones.

It doesn't just have to be about attacking it just should be in play. The average time the ball is in lay in the prem now is 54 minutes a game. That has dropped from 60 mins 10 years ago. It's a joke.
 
It doesn't just have to be about attacking it just should be in play. The average time the ball is in lay in the prem now is 54 minutes a game. That has dropped from 60 mins 10 years ago. It's a joke.

I think the relevance of the ball to the game is overstated, player movement matters most, space, and players still move, and the space still changes, whilst the ball is waiting to come back in.

You need the ball to score a goal, but the actions that make the goal, happen before the ball arrives.
 
It doesn't just have to be about attacking it just should be in play. The average time the ball is in lay in the prem now is 54 minutes a game. That has dropped from 60 mins 10 years ago. It's a joke.

That's why they should make it 2 x 30 mins and stop the clock when the ball isn't in play.
 
That's why they should make it 2 x 30 mins and stop the clock when the ball isn't in play.

They are meant to stop the clock now when the ball isn't in play. But they don't. They give a rough judgement of how much injury time to add on.
 
I want to watch a game where the better prepared and smarter team wins.

If the game is only about attacking, it could become like basketball, which I find really boring.

I want to see a well executed game plan succeed, and I appreciate defensive ones, just as much as attacking ones.

Id prefer to watch games where teams play with a degree of freedom, letting players express themselves, too many games are spoilt by negative game plans and players keeping it safe.
 
Id prefer to watch games where teams play with a degree of freedom, letting players express themselves, too many games are spoilt by negative game plans and players keeping it safe.

but then the teams with more money and technically better players would always win, “negative” game plans can give some teams a better chance of a result

defending is football too
 
but then the teams with more money and technically better players would always win, “negative” game plans can give some teams a better chance of a result

defending is football too

Dfending is fine. Time wasting isn't, it's against the rules.
 
If you are warned for time wasting at point of a game then there should be no added time if you are losing at the end of the game.
 
Take the time keeping off of refs. Have it done by ai. With a 5 minute sin bin for any player time wasting.

Seems fair. If a player is so keen to end the game, give them some help.

P.S. I read recently that only one PL team averaged over 60 minute with the ball-in play this season. A 60 minute clock would increase the length of games if nothing else changed, although might decrease it if certain time wasting was curtailed.
 
Seems fair. If a player is so keen to end the game, give them some help.

P.S. I read recently that only one PL team averaged over 60 minute with the ball-in play this season. A 60 minute clock would increase the length of games if nothing else changed, although might decrease it if certain time wasting was curtailed.

Added time is meant to do that already. The ref is meant to stop the clock for injuries, subs, corners, free kicks, throwins etc... Obviously they are not doing it properly as we get on average 4 mins. So who's to say if we drop it to 60 mins they do it properly then?
 
Here are some numbers (Opta via Daily Mail)

Average Time Ball in Play ________________2020-21 __________ 2021-22

Premier League ________________________56m 22s __________ 55m 7s

Championship _________________________ 51m 26s __________ 52m 39s

League One ___________________________ 51m 45s __________ 50m 23s

League Two ___________________________ 49m 57s __________ 49m 45s


Team 2021-22 ____ Ball in Play

Emirates Marketing Project 60m 45s
Liverpool 57m 12s
Tottenham Hotspur 57m 8s
Chelsea 56m 59s
West Ham United 56m 38s
Wolverhampton Wanderers 56m 32s
Manchester United 56m 11
Leicester City 55m 46s
Brighton 55m 43s
Arsenal 55m 34s
Norwich City 55m 8s
Crystal Palace 54m 5s
Watford 54m 2s
Everton 53m 41s
Leeds United 53m 10s
Brentford 53m 0s
Burnley 52m 45s
Southampton 52m 45s
Saudi Sportswashing Machine 52m 37s
Aston Villa 52m 35m
 
Seems fair. If a player is so keen to end the game, give them some help.

P.S. I read recently that only one PL team averaged over 60 minute with the ball-in play this season. A 60 minute clock would increase the length of games if nothing else changed, although might decrease it if certain time wasting was curtailed.

Would be a fcuker trying to catch the last train home from a night match.
 
Added time is meant to do that already. The ref is meant to stop the clock for injuries, subs, corners, free kicks, throwins etc... Obviously they are not doing it properly as we get on average 4 mins. So who's to say if we drop it to 60 mins they do it properly then?

Take the responsibility for time keeping away from the on pitch ref. Most team team sports I can think of do that.
 
Would be a fcuker trying to catch the last train home from a night match.

Yes, that would be a concern. Any attempt at the 60 minute clock would have to take measures to prevent the game getting longer. If well done it could even reduce the total time. Time wasting only works because it is allowed to work. A stopped clock would make it clearer who is a time wasting offender. Clubs could be fined for a pattern of slow games, with possible points deductions (like with England in the test cricket).
 
but then the teams with more money and technically better players would always win, “negative” game plans can give some teams a better chance of a result

defending is football too

As a former defender I agree, as a paying customer I want entertainment, not time wasting, park the bus stuff with robotic player following a plan slavishly, I'm a Blanchflowerist "about going out and beating the lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom"
 
Back