Varane publicly challenges the FA over rule changes and number of games

He is right, in a year we played 62 games not including preseason.

That doesn't include international games and/or preseason fixtures.

If we get knocked out of every tournament first round, it's already 45 this season. FIFA and UEFA keep adding games to tournaments, it's insane.

The league cup and that nationals league bollicks need scrapped, also international mid season friendlies are a waste of time and need binned, but they won't be.
 
Woodzy said:
Have they even give a reason behind the idea of longer games? I just don't understand it.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is because the ball is in continuously lower amount of minutes on average.

This is from SkySports:

"Officials have become increasingly concerned with statistics that show how little the ball has been in play in professional matches in England, with averages last season of just 48 minutes in League Two, 50 minutes in League One, 52 minutes in the Championship and just under 55 minutes in the Premier League."
 
Thanks for the reply @sullydnl. The increase in congestion seems to correlate with covid-19 and the world cup messing up schedules. In those years, the cups should've probably been binned off. More rotation would've naturally helped too.
 
Too many games is totally correct and I wonder how adding more CL group games will shake out. Maybe teams playing back ups in 2/3 matches instead of maybe just the last one if you're already though.

Maybe Uefa wants all domestic leagues to go to 18 teams and this will try to force FAs hand.
 
MancunianAngels said:
Forest and Southampton reached the semi finals last season. Southampton even beat City.

If they put it as a priority, Brentford and Villa could go beyond that. They could easily beat a slightly weakened United/ City/ Arsenal/ Liverpool etc side on their day.

You could even apply the wider logic to Arsenal. They have won only five major trophies (all FA Cups) in the last 20 seasons. Why on earth aren't they going for it? For the sake of a few extra games, it could give the club a huge lift. Quite interesting that before United's biggest spells of dominance, (93 - 2001) and (2006 - 2013) we won the League Cup in the season before.



And ultimately, this is the issue. An expanded Club World Cup isn't going to go down well once its started and gains a regular spot in the calendar.
Click to expand...
Forest's draw = Grimsby, Spurs, Blackburn, Wolves, United
Soton's draw = Cambridge, Weds, Lincoln, City, Newcastle.

Soton beating City is the only result here that would really raise eyebrows, Forest beat a poor Spurs team I guess but issue is the top 4-5 teams operate n a different playing field to everyone else (and within that you now have 2, maybe soon 3 countries owning football clubs). If you get to a semi or a final as a mid table team, the big teams won't rotate (like City did when they lost to Soton) and you'll face their full strength team and 99 times out of 100 lose. It's basically a top 4 comp dressed up as a domestic cup (the non European qualifying PL teams even have to play more games!). Look at the winners past 10 years (City, Chelsea, City, United, City, City, City, City, Pool, United) versus the 10 before (Boro, Chelsea, United, Chelsea, Spurs, United, United, Birmingham, Pool, Swansea) and if you keep going back it's competitive. It just isn't now and hasn't been for a while.

Arsenal went for the FA cup under Wenger because they didn't have the money to compete for the PL with the stadium debt +it was the only realistic trophy of significance. They were also unlucky in the CL (Pep's Barca dodgey red & Lehmann madness versus Rikjaard's Barca in the final).
 
So instead of just, you know, penalising players/teams that conveniently waste time, they inflict a punishment for everyone in the game alltogether, which will most likely get scrapped withing a few weeks. I guess FA can say they tried.

I mean, the rules are already in place - just use them. Give goalies that waste time in the first five minutes an early booking, and give them a subsequent red card for doing it again in the 37th minute - I promise they'll promptly stop wasting time. The same goes for throw ins, free kicks etc. Just blow the whistle and give the ball to the opposition (not a rule per se, but a damn good one if I may say so)
 
NieThePiet said:
I don't understand the problem really?

The players are still allowed to show emotions, nothing has changed? Kicking the ball away has nothing to do with emotions? Protesting with the full team against refs is showing emotions too? So all other sports I known are playing without emotions?

And I don't think around 5 minutes more every game will change the health from players, that shouldn't be a big difference. Don't wast much time and it will be like always.
Click to expand...

Djokovic smashed his tennis racket into into a pole and they just got on with it. God forbid someone kicks a water bottle and it's a red card.
 
Rossa said:
So instead of just, you know, penalising players/teams that conveniently waste time, they inflict a punishment for everyone in the game alltogether, which will most likely get scrapped withing a few weeks. I guess FA can say they tried.

I mean, the rules are already in place - just use them. Give goalies that waste time in the first five minutes an early booking, and give them a subsequent red card for doing it again in the 37th minute - I promise they'll promptly stop wasting time. The same goes for throw ins, free kicks etc. Just blow the whistle and give the ball to the opposition (not a rule per se, but a damn good one if I may say so)
Click to expand...

I'm with the increased stoppage time but I agree with this too. It's like the 6 seconds rule which is never applied. We need one for the throw-ins and goal kicks but this time apply them all.
 
Kag said:
There will be almost ten minutes of stoppage time whether teams are time-wasting or not. It’s a load of bollocks, where time-wasting teams aren’t actually punished at all.
Click to expand...

If it’s standardised added time then it’s long overdue. I doubt it is though. They should just stop the clock, the worst is when there’s a lengthy stoppage in extra time and the ref adds no time on - now that’s bollocks!
 
Baxquux said:
He might have a point in terms of policing player 'emotions' (although I see the other side of this, which is partly about protecting the refs and attracting potential refs to the sport via less tolerance for current ones being harangued) but the games thing doesn't entirely stand up.

Yes, the games might be more intense in certain regards than before, but there's less ('aggressive') fouling and, more importantly, the sports science has advanced to ensure that players are if anything better able to play the same number of games as in the past. Also, the squads are larger, and more games in principle should give opportunity to use more players, particularly with the five subs rule. It's not the FA's fault if some managers don't want to 'risk' rotating and risk burn-out instead. With the league cup in particular teams have the chance to use the depth of their squad, which should in principle make it a more egalitarian competition (in practice, not so much with City's squad depth in recent years) as well as chance for young players to stake their claim.
Click to expand...
For what it’s worth, more aggressive tackles will see some leniency this season:

Rule changes for new football season: Officials to crackdown on dissent, be more lenient on physical challenges and add on wasted time

https://www.skysports.com/amp/footb...on-physical-challenges-and-add-on-wasted-time
 
Probably already been said but, these forriners always coming over and telling us how to play our game...
 
I was at my local league 1 club over the weekend and we had 8 mins 1st half and 14 mins in the 2nd. I barely saw a stoppage of any description during the entire game, it was a bit farce.

Tbf I'm generally in favour of this as time wasting is getting out of control but I fear at present it's just an arbitrary decision by the ref on the day. I'd like to see how this is worked out but as everyone else says its far better to punish the act than to make allowances for it. I don't agree with those that think this will lead to less time wasting, I fear the contrary actually.

The biggest time issues for me are goalkeepers holding on to ball too long (there used to be a time limit they scrapped but it was never enforced anyway) and oppo teams stopping quick throws and freekicks. Any player blocking a freekick or running away with the ball has to be immediately carded and if need be sent off. It's an absolute piss take and every single team does it. It stops any momentum building in the game. This was formally something lesser sides did to get a breather but now it's a key tactic for the better teams to give away a soft tactical foul immediately after a turnover then delay the free to allow everyone to get back into shape. It allows them to over commit up front knowing they can cheat their way back
 
I can see us letting in a few goal in the 'extra added time' and this tweet becoming a meme template. That just how the football script works nowadays. Lazy writing i say
 
While I see what Varane is saying on number of games, I don't see those rules that Henry Winter posted as unreasonable. A football match is 90 minutes by law and as such, 90 minutes of football should be played. Also, the coach is the leader of the team and only him should stand in the technical area. That is not unreasonable at all. These are not the rules to contest when talking about number of games. The fact that there is a League cup and FA Cup which are 99% identical and in-season, non-qualifier related internationals are the main reason footballers in England are playing so many games. Those should be what is tackled. Not 90 minute games and non-managers abusing the ref from the sidelines.
 
UnitedSofa said:
For what it’s worth, more aggressive tackles will see some leniency this season:

Rule changes for new football season: Officials to crackdown on dissent, be more lenient on physical challenges and add on wasted time

https://www.skysports.com/amp/footb...on-physical-challenges-and-add-on-wasted-time
Click to expand...
You'll probably see someone like Garnacho be clattered repeatedly and ref will play on, then Bruno will receive a yellow for protesting. It will also probably manifests itself in that City can do their small cynical fouls with no problem all game and never be punished.
 
Idxomer said:
Are the top footballers really playing much more than in previous decades?
Click to expand...

Beckham (just an arbitrary choice who I can't remember missing too many games through injury or suspension) played:

96/97: 59 games
97/98: 60 games
98/99: 66 games
99/00: 57 games

242 games total.

Compared to somebody like Bruno who's also famous for missing very few games:

19/20: 58 games
20/21: 64 games
21/22: 61 games
22/23: 70 games

253 games total.

Bruno's a freak though. Somebody more normal like Shaw has played 34, 55, 31, 54 (174 games) in the same time period.

Obviously this is just comparing random players at random periods. It'd be interesting to see an actual detailed breakdown of how many minutes the average Champions League squad play now vs then, the average non-European qualifying teams etc.
 
Not sure how else we are going to stop the things we as fans really hate - fake injuries, goal kicks taking 2-3 minutes, abuse of officials, a throw in towards the end of the game taking 45 seconds which also results in the player edging 10-20 yards closer to a safer position. It's all frustrating to watch and constitutes cheating.

It isn't going to be fixed in a single season, but if you don't like the added time, then don't purposely do things that cause it.

I don't agree with Varane here, if players really care, then eventually the amount of added time should reduce as the cheating stops.

The only thing I'd introduce is a stopped clock to take much of the added time decision off the hands of the officials, because I see that being extremely contentious.
 
Martial'sEmergingSmile said:
Beckham (just an arbitrary choice who I can't remember missing too many games through injury or suspension) played:

96/97: 59 games
97/98: 60 games
98/99: 66 games
99/00: 57 games

242 games total.

Compared to somebody like Bruno who's also famous for missing very few games:

19/20: 58 games
20/21: 64 games
21/22: 61 games
22/23: 70 games

253 games total.

Bruno's a freak though. Somebody more normal like Shaw has played 34, 55, 31, 54 (174 games) in the same time period.

Obviously this is just comparing random players at random periods. It'd be interesting to see an actual detailed breakdown of how many minutes the average Champions League squad play now vs then, the average non-European qualifying teams etc.
Click to expand...
Plus Fergie didn’t play Becks in league cup/other unimportant 2nd leg games especially when we had already a good lead from the first leg.
I kept saying last season Bruno should have been given more rest (even if he didn’t want it).
 
They should change the rules so that each player is allowed to play a maximum of 50-55 club games and a maximum of 10 international games in a 12 month period.

I'm sure if we tallied it the likes of Bruno, Kane, and so on are hitting above 70 games year in year out.

It'll also mean managers need to be a bit more tactical when selecting and also start getting better at squad management.
 
The time has also come to ditch the league cup - it's rather pointless. You win it, it's a cup run you could really do without, and its an expensive trip to Wembley, and oppo fans take the piss because its a Mickey Mouse cup.

No players, managers or fans really care that much about the League Cup, and the FA cup is going the same way. I like the facts lower leagues have their own competitions because it gives them a chance and they actually do really value it as clubs and fans.
 
Yeah the obvious solution to the pushback on this is to ditch the pointless games. The League Cup was originally devised partially as a consolation prize for teams knocked out of the FA Cup and was eventually brought in to give teams a way to raise additional gate revenue at a time when the number of games was quite low. Nowadays it's a 2nd-rate piece of a silverware which is almost always scooped up by a big club with a big squad. Teams who are already playing in Europe shouldn't take part, or maybe they should enter their under-23 team instead. That would receive some of the fixture overload.

Unfortunately we all know that it'll never happen because "the product" won't be as valuable if you're not getting clashes between big teams and that's what the people in charge care about. It's the same as the Nations League which was designed to harness the international break to create and sell a more valuable product than your average international friendly.
 
acnumber9 said:
What time is the last bus home?
Click to expand...

Edgy question. I’d have to consult the bus timetable in Manchester as I don’t know.

Do you think major city centres offer lots of routes home via bus and train when games run past 10:15?
 
Adding a stop clock would fix these issues without all the issues that will arise from the ref having to much influence.
 
SirSean said:
Yes, it is because the ball is in continuously lower amount of minutes on average.

This is from SkySports:

"Officials have become increasingly concerned with statistics that show how little the ball has been in play in professional matches in England, with averages last season of just 48 minutes in League Two, 50 minutes in League One, 52 minutes in the Championship and just under 55 minutes in the Premier League."
Click to expand...
They could play 100 minute matches and the ball could still end up in play for the 55 minutes as it currently does. Adding more time does increase the chance the ball will be in play more, but it doesn't mean that it conclusively will. As others have said, if you wanted to up the time the ball is in play in absolute terms, the way to do it would be a stop-clock.
 
sullydnl said:


This is really what needs to be resolved. Cut some games.
Click to expand...

As true as it is, footballers themselves are half to blame for it as the likes of FIFA, Uefa are. They’ve driven up wages over the years and the consequence of that is everyone wants a piece. Clubs need to do these money spinning tours in the summer to give themselves a financial boost. Uefa have to offer more money and more games to clubs because the clubs are whining about not getting an equal share of the money. All because football players at the highest level earn obscene amounts of money.
I have little sympathy. Loads of footballers have fecked off to play in Saudi Arabia because of their incessant greed. Give it a few months before some of the European players start complaining about how it’s too hot to play football there.
 
Just dont make yourself available for selection if you dont want to play, its a chance for another player and most of them will be happy to take it. I'm pretty sure thats what Varane has already been doing so its a weird thing to come from him. Leave it to someone like Bruno who tries to play every minute of every game even when he's exhausted.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
There's nothing unreasonable about expecting to see 90 minutes of actual football in a game.

But, it's also the case that clubs, tactics, fitness/recovery strategies and squad management have been operating for a long time on the basis that matches generally involve 75-80 minutes of actual play. Teams will have to adapt to the new reality and if they don't they will suffer for it, particularly those teams whose styles involves a lot of pressing etc.
Click to expand...
Baxquux said:
We're lucky to see 75m of play in a lot of matches. Even with a 100m game, it'll barely crack 80 half the time....
Click to expand...

It's much much worse than that. It's less than a hour on average as part the below:

SirSean said:
Yes, it is because the ball is in continuously lower amount of minutes on average.

This is from SkySports:

"Officials have become increasingly concerned with statistics that show how little the ball has been in play in professional matches in England, with averages last season of just 48 minutes in League Two, 50 minutes in League One, 52 minutes in the Championship and just under 55 minutes in the Premier League."
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out adding on 10 mins won't make much difference if you can just too waste time in the added time too. Stopping the clock removes this and means it can be applied consistently.
 
Are the FA wanting the players to be emotionless robots?

"Players most not invade the personal space of the match officials "

The hell is this? Cowards
 
Also I saw the Terminator films (1 and 2) and some of those robots were all about getting in your face.
 
Idxomer said:
Are the top footballers really playing much more than in previous decades?
Click to expand...

What you mean when clubs had about 17-18 first team players and on one sub was allowed?

Managers / coaches should be aware of the physical and mental state of a player and rotate accordingly.
 
Kag said:
Edgy question. I’d have to consult the bus timetable in Manchester as I don’t know.

Do you think major city centres offer lots of routes home via bus and train when games run past 10:15?
Click to expand...
So you just made a comment without knowing what you’re talking about? As if the extra 6 minutes is going to be the problem. As far as I know the issue of people leaving early is more to do with overcrowding on the tram and traffic. That won’t change.
 
terraloo said:
What you mean when clubs had about 17-18 first team players and on one sub was allowed?

Managers / coaches should be aware of the physical and mental state of a player and rotate accordingly.
Click to expand...

They played at a much lower intensity in decades gone by as well. It's something ex players tend not to understand. You hear ex pros giving out about players and they don't take into account they use to stroll about the place in the 70s/80s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.