Congrats Luton

I agree that the playoffs need to stay, but I also agree that Luton have earned this on merit; they did finish 3rd, not squeak into the playoffs on the last day.

If 3rd were an automatic place, it changes the dynamic of the whole season. For starters, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have rested Chuba and Hackney at KR if there had been an automatic place on the line, so no guarantee Luton would still have finished 3rd in that case.
 
Ex Footy Legs said:
So pleased luton done it so we don’t need to go back to that tin pot ground and tight unfair pitch against a load of route one players

And, I can’t believe Coventry will be able to hold onto gykores so Coventry will be a tough team to beat without him but a totally different team without him and weaker.
All good for Boro
Click to expand...
they will miss him big time but with all the money they get if they invest it in a couple of players could actually become a better team and less reliant on one player
 
TeaCider said:
Awful idea that would basically end the season just after the halfway point for most teams.

There's a reason they were introduced in the first place.

The play-offs are brilliant.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn’t, it would encourage teams to develop youth players. They were introduced to make money mate, no other reason
 
Frozen Horse said:
I agree that the playoffs need to stay, but I also agree that Luton have earned this on merit; they did finish 3rd, not squeak into the playoffs on the last day.

If 3rd were an automatic place, it changes the dynamic of the whole season. For starters, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have rested Chuba and Hackney at KR if there had been an automatic place on the line, so no guarantee Luton would still have finished 3rd in that case.
Click to expand...
Exactly this, we would’ve been gunning for that spot.
 
NoloBoro said:
No it wouldn’t, it would encourage teams to develop youth players. They were introduced to make money mate, no other reason
Click to expand...

They'd develop youth players because they'd have absolutely nothing to play for and no risk or jeopardy.

They were introduced because for the majority of clubs the season was done after December and it was boring.
 
TeaCider said:
They'd develop youth players because they'd have absolutely nothing to play for and no risk or jeopardy.

They were introduced because for the majority of clubs the season was done after December and it was boring.
Click to expand...
I take your point mate, it’s a valid argument but I still don’t agree. On the point of developing your players it’s really important, especially if you don’t have a Saudi billionaire or some other despot bank rolling your club.
 
NoloBoro said:
I take your point mate, it’s a valid argument but I still don’t agree. On the point of developing your players it’s really important, especially if you don’t have a Saudi billionaire or some other despot bank rolling your club.
Click to expand...

I'd sooner watch a club fighting for promotion than be a club in 7th fielding a youth team because they have nothing better to do with the rest of their season.

The last day of the Championship season was exciting drama, with Sunderland sneaking in to the play-offs against the odds because of a Millwall collapse.

In your world, none of those games would have meant anything whatsoever.
At best, it would have been Luton and Middlesbrough fighting for 3rd and that's only if the previous results would have panned out differently without the play-offs.
If they hadn't, the last day of the season would have been a meaningless snoozefest.
 
I think young players benefit from competitive matches, not glorified friendlies. This is why they get loaned out to lower league clubs rather than playing in the u-23s. I don't see scrapping the play offs as doing much for their development.
 
Luton deserve it, third best team in the division by 5 points from us in fourth.

I don't think they'll be up there long but who knows?

You can moan all you like about their style of play, it doesn't matter. They succeeded, we didn't, they have a good young manager who may be able to model a side to compete for a few years until the inevitable happens.

Well done indeed.
 
Fattyfoggon said:
they will miss him big time but with all the money they get if they invest it in a couple of players could actually become a better team and less reliant on one player
Click to expand...
They could, but remember half of the money they get will go to Brighton.

The issue they have is trying to replace the best CF in the league with an equally good one for half the price. If they can’t get a like for like player, style-wise, then they may need to change their tactics completely, gyokeres is that important to how they play. It’s not easy to find a clinical goalscorer with the strength of a bull and pace of a young cheetah and a bit of skill too
 
TeaCider said:
I'd sooner watch a club fighting for promotion than be a club in 7th fielding a youth team because they have nothing better to do with the rest of their season.

The last day of the Championship season was exciting drama, with Sunderland sneaking in to the play-offs against the odds because of a Millwall collapse.

In your world, none of those games would have meant anything whatsoever.
At best, it would have been Luton and Middlesbrough fighting for 3rd and that's only if the previous results would have panned out differently without the play-offs.
If they hadn't, the last day of the season would have been a meaningless snoozefest.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you want me to say. I’m not going to change my mind, you make good points, I concede that. I still don’t like the play offs
 
Frozen Horse said:
So long as it's safe, it shouldn't matter a jot how big their ground is or what it looks like.

Football should be about what happens on the pitch, not what's off it.

Well done to them: first team I've known go down 4 divisions, then come all the way back up.

Only signed 1 player for over£1m in their history too, so it can't be said they've thrown money at it
Click to expand...
True but their tiny pitch and way of playing makes it difficult for footballing teams to win there and that’s down to having a minimum size pitch which should be the case if we want to encourage better and more attractive football rather than kick and run and muscle your way up the field
 
Ex Footy Legs said:
True but their tiny pitch and way of playing makes it difficult for footballing teams to win there and that’s down to having a minimum size pitch which should be the case if we want to encourage better and more attractive football rather than kick and run and muscle your way up the field
Click to expand...

I disagree.

As long as it's within the rules, it's not "anti-football", it's just football.

Physical football doesn't mean dirty football, and pretty football doesn't mean clean football. It's still a contact sport. Wenger's Arsenal were the dirtiest team the PL has seen and arguably the most attractive too.

I agree it "makes it difficult", but that's what they're supposed to do. They're not obliged to try and beat Man City at their own game: try that and they'll lose. Ok they'll probably lose that one anyway, but there will be teams who they can't out pass, but can outfight.

Football is about competition, not entertainment, and that means doing whatever gives you the best chance of winning within the rules. Trying to play prettyball when you're not good at it would be anti-football.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I disagree.

As long as it's within the rules, it's not "anti-football", it's just football.

Physical football doesn't mean dirty football, and pretty football doesn't mean clean football. It's still a contact sport. Wenger's Arsenal were the dirtiest team the PL has seen and arguably the most attractive too.

I agree it "makes it difficult", but that's what they're supposed to do. They're not obliged to try and beat Man City at their own game: try that and they'll lose. Ok they'll probably lose that one anyway, but there will be teams who they can't out pass, but can outfight.

Football is about competition, not entertainment, and that means doing whatever gives you the best chance of winning within the rules. Trying to play prettyball when you're not good at it would be anti-football.
Click to expand...
All I’m trying to say is let them have their footy style, no problem BUT on a size of pitch that is the same as the riverside and they can play any style they like and I’ll bet we can outplay them
The pitch size is incredibly important
 
Ex Footy Legs said:
All I’m trying to say is let them have their footy style, no problem BUT on a size of pitch that is the same as the riverside and they can play any style they like and I’ll bet we can outplay them
The pitch size is incredibly important
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but their pitch is in the allowed range.

I wouldn't object to a passing team having the maximum allowable sized pitch to maximise their advantage, so I won't object to a direct side having a small pitch.

I can see an argument for all pitches being a standard size, but that's a problem for FIFA, not for Luton.

A vote to get rid of smaller pitches will never happen: too many stadia around the world have running tracks round the outside, and those dimensions only allow for a small pitch
 
Last edited:
Frozen Horse said:
Fair enough, but their pitch is in the allowed range.

I wouldn't object to a passing team having the maximum allowable sized pitch to maximise their advantage, so I won't object to a direct side having a small pitch.

I can see an argument for all pitches being a standard size, but that's a problem for FIFA, not for Luton.

A vote to get rid of smaller pitches will never happen: too many stadia around the world have running tracks round the outside, and those dimensions only allow for a small pitch
Click to expand...
FIFA issue, I agree but obviously influenced by many size of existing grounds and they don’t want to be seen to be imposing a minimum size pitch with a number of clubs grounds too small to adhere to their rules and going out of business
That wouldn’t be popular
 
If the pitch is within the rules it is within the rules and that is that.

I think the bigger issue with Luton is the general state of the stadium - have they gained advantage on the pitch by, over a number of years, diverting money from the stadium?

I think there should definitely be a minimum standard so those clubs who do invest and maintain good supporter facilities are not disadvantaged by those who don’t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top