Tonight's League 2 games.

[For Us All]

Even the Stoke thread is a Norman thread now.

 

Pathetic.

 

The Brexit thread will be next!!😂

[SFBT]

We’re safe, day 5.

After months of dread, I’m starting to relax.

The similarities between Vale and Chesterfield over the last two years are remarkable.

My heart goes out to them, as it could so easily have been Vale going down with them.

An incredibly narrow escape in my view.

I think the difference was the manager.

Two ‘legends’ returned, one with an impressive coaching pedigree, the other with 600 non-league games as manager under his belt.

Typical of Aspo to go down that route.

He used his hard-won experience to build not one, but two teams in 6 months.

One that was winning games, and then a weaker side that was hard to beat.

Utterly brilliant.

He has completed phase one of the ‘rebuilding Vale’ job.

If he continues in the same vein, then good times might actually return.

[Danish Valiant]

Even the Stoke thread is a Norman thread now.

 

 

Pathetic.

 

It’s Godwin’s Law of Vale.

And yes, absolutely pathetic!

[CambridgeDon]

‘Style of play’ on artificial turf? What do you mean? Actually having to play on the ground and not just hoofing it? How is that a bad thing?

 

Yes, at first sight you'd think that football would be played better on an artificial surface with no divots or worn areas but, on examination, the opposite seems to be true. This is because players fear losing their footing on the less adhesive artificial surface and get rid of the ball more quickly than on grass. Indeed, in 1995 when artificial surfaces were banned the reasons given were ball roll (ie the ball not moving true or moving too quickly) and injuries (players losing their footing). Both the EFL, after a ballot of clubs, and the PFA, after a ballot of players all refused to change the rule. It's interesting that no premier or championship club has sought permission to have an artificial surface because the best pitches to play good football on are grass pitches, not artificial.

 

The only reason non-league clubs want them is because they're cheaper to maintain and can be used more often, bringing in more revenue. Nothing to do with the quality of football.

 

The other issue is that artificial pitches are now under scrutiny because the materials used are so toxic but that's a separate debate!

[Mario]

Do you prefer Askey to Aspo then?

 

Smurthwaite did.................

[RailwayRowdy]

Yes, at first sight you'd think that football would be played better on an artificial surface with no divots or worn areas but, on examination, the opposite seems to be true. This is because players fear losing their footing on the less adhesive artificial surface and get rid of the ball more quickly than on grass. Indeed, in 1995 when artificial surfaces were banned the reasons given were ball roll (ie the ball not moving true or moving too quickly) and injuries (players losing their footing). Both the EFL, after a ballot of clubs, and the PFA, after a ballot of players all refused to change the rule. It's interesting that no premier or championship club has sought permission to have an artificial surface because the best pitches to play good football on are grass pitches, not artificial.

 

The only reason non-league clubs want them is because they're cheaper to maintain and can be used more often, bringing in more revenue. Nothing to do with the quality of football.

 

The other issue is that artificial pitches are now under scrutiny because the materials used are so toxic but that's a separate debate!

 

I think that the 3G pitch issue is an interesting point.

 

Mention artificial pitches to people of a certain age and we all conjure images of high bouncing balls, players losing their footing etc etc.

 

However, I have seen a few games in the WPL on these pitches and I have to say that they actually “play” really well.

 

They are a million miles from their predecessors and actually encourage good football. Yes, we would all rather play on a good grass surface, but if it’s a choice between a modern day 3G pitch or Vale Park in the winter months, I would choose the former everyday of the week.

 

I suspect that myself and DV may be a lone voice on this viewpoint, but due to the considerable improvements in the artificial variety I do think that it is something worth considering.

[elav trop 1876]

The Brexit thread will be next!!😂

 

Think you miss the original points made,, the chesterfield relegation and slide down the leagues mirrors ours right to the point that debt has been announced whilst having transfer money, record gates, managers being got rid of and not being backed with cut backs after cut backs and owner who bought the ground to make money out of and not for the benefit of the club as their fans see the football as an additional side not the main part of the business.

 

Teams like Morecombe,accy,burton who punch above their weight have owners who care more about the team than themselves whilst working within a budget that doesn't put the club at risk bt gives the manager the flexibility to perform.

 

scary how clubs can easily be taken down to lows because of their owners and not because of footballing reasons.

[CambridgeDon]

I think that the 3G pitch issue is an interesting point.

 

Mention artificial pitches to people of a certain age and we all conjure images of high bouncing balls, players losing their footing etc etc.

 

However, I have seen a few games in the WPL on these pitches and I have to say that they actually “play” really well.

 

They are a million miles from their predecessors and actually encourage good football. Yes, we would all rather play on a good grass surface, but if it’s a choice between a modern day 3G pitch or Vale Park in the winter months, I would choose the former everyday of the week.

 

I suspect that myself and DV may be a lone voice on this viewpoint, but due to the considerable improvements in the artificial variety I do think that it is something worth considering.

 

I take your point about the Vale pitch but if it hadn't been a quagmire we might not have beaten Spurs or Luton!

 

More seriously, I've just caught up with the debate about the safety of artificial pitches not in regards to player injuries but the suspicion that the rubber crumb is so toxic it's not safe to use. There are quite a few recorded cases of serious illness and some fatalities related to artificial pitches because the compound used is cancer-causing. It's so bad, the Irish Times reported recently that the EU is considering banning them. here are a few links:

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/father-blames-footballer-sons-cancer-12218416

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fears-over-toxic-crumb-scotlands-9641111

 

Where do I find this stuff? At least it keeps me out of trouble, according to the missus!

[JRC]

Yes, it's a graveyard down there and it's like trying to raise the dead getting back into the league. As you say, there are some big clubs in communities with great football support that may never see the inside of a league ground for a very long time, if ever. At the moment, I think there are 12 teams formerly in L2 now in the National and some below.

 

One of the main reasons for this is the mismanagement of these clubs over the years. But the other, more worrying, reason is that some very small clubs, in towns with little or no tradition of football, are being propelled into the league by their rich owners (like FGR, Salford, Fylde, Billericay, and Ebbsfleet). What happens then is that they contribute very little to League football, bringing little or no support to away games (ruining the atmosphere and reducing the gate money) while they pocket much more in the return fixture from League 2 clubs with good away followings (like us). They will also change the way the game is played with several now campaigning for artificial pitches to be allowed in the League. These pitches are much more lucrative but are not only contrary to League rules (for good reason) but also the wishes of the players themselves and most league clubs because of the impact on injuries and the style of play. At least one national league club has said it will take the EFL to court over it if they're denied promotion. Not the kind of change you'd like to see.

 

There's a good article on this here: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/non-leagues-biggest-spenders-semi-11300824

 

All this will be damaging for league football with the result that, potentially, we could end up with more and more league clubs in the National with better grounds and attendances than those in League 2, and all because of one poor season. The risk is the League would then eventually become filled with former non-league clubs (like Morecambe with an appalling attendance of less than a thousand last night at a game they had to win to be sure of staying up). It wouldn't be so bad if this was all done on merit but, mostly, it's simply money.

 

It's a stark warning to us - we need to be out of League 2 as fast as we can and stay out!

 

Generally there has been a shift South and East with new clubs joining the league. There are exceptions but over time the league has been changing to reflect the population changes in the country, Morecombe being one of a number of exceptions. Clubs which have established themselves have developed reasonable home support, the ones which don't have generally slipped out of the league after a period. It is sad when a club goes and overall it's not been good for away travel as Chester, Wrexham, Stockport etc were all easy away games. Wider geographic coverage may not be so bad for the country as a whole as over time football is starting to reflect where most people live.

[Regal Beagle]

Think you miss the original points made,, the chesterfield relegation and slide down the leagues mirrors ours right to the point that debt has been announced whilst having transfer money, record gates, managers being got rid of and not being backed with cut backs after cut backs and owner who bought the ground to make money out of and not for the benefit of the club as their fans see the football as an additional side not the main part of the business.

 

Teams like Morecombe,accy,burton who punch above their weight have owners who care more about the team than themselves whilst working within a budget that doesn't put the club at risk bt gives the manager the flexibility to perform.

 

scary how clubs can easily be taken down to lows because of their owners and not because of footballing reasons.

 

The only mirror image of Chesterfield is that we both went down last season and both struggled this season.

 

The amount of money they have received in transfers is enormous compared to us. Their managerial appoints have been disastrous compared to ours.

 

They're going down again because their problems are far greater than ours.

 

Why is this "Smurf doesn't back managers" myth still getting used?

 

We sign 30 players every single year. I'd suggest that Smurf should back managers a little less. Give them the budget and if they can't do the job within it, they are sacked. In January it was widely accepted that we had not replaced Gunning or Anderson despite the 600 centre backs we signed. It turns out not only did we replace them, we did better in my opinion.

 

If you tell me that we've not spent efficiently, I'll agree, it would be a massive understatement. We don't need to constantly try and mould Smurf into something he isn't, it dilutes the actual argument.

[Danish Valiant]

My point exactly!!!

We need to pay a bit bigger wages to get more quality through the door, but sign less players overall! Spend the same, but sign fewer but better players.

We don’t need 35 players, not even close!

[Aussie Rules]

Time to say goodbye to this topic...