Additional time

waspish said:
Tell me any game last season that an extra 8 mins would of benefited us! The way we play it benefits the opposing team 99% of the time..
Click to expand...
Not if we fo our job snd finish games off which we did do most of last season...in tight games like the 2-1 vs the rags at the swamp an extra 8 minutes means we probably get a draw at least for instance

It also gives us chance to score more goals with a better squad in tight games where teams try and sit back and defend where its 0-0....tiredness starts yo play a big part and lesser players having to cone on for yhe opposition whereas we can bring on a Bernardo or Grealish or foden or Alvarez
 
I always thought that if you added subs' time and celebration time at the end of each half it always looked to have been shaved to the minimum. These matches, following the WC games, it seems massively excessive, but not if they are 'stopping the clock' when the ball is rolling about on the other side of the lines. And do they add the time on for two minute goal kicks? I sooner have the fuckin' goalie cautioned for blatant time wasting.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
How can it possibly favour bus parking teams? That is beyond a ridiculous thing to claim - in fact we as a fanbase have been vitriolically pleading the exact opposite for literally years, complaining like fuck that we only get 2-3 minutes when we're chasing a game (see Forest last year) and complaining that bus parking teams waste time constantly with goalkeepers taking an age over every kick. Now they add more time and all of a sudden people are saying it's the other way round? So now you're saying we should be grateful that the teams were wasting time against us and that this actually benefited us? What a load of bollocks.

By its very nature parking the bus is about delaying the other team from scoring. More time = a guaranteed higher chance of them conceding.

If Luton put 11 men behind the ball have zero shots on target, and it's 0-0 in the 90th minute - the ref adds on 10 minutes. People think that now Luton are somehow magically more likely to score than the team constantly doing the attacking? Are they fuck. They are now drastically more likely to lose because they have to hang on for another 10 minutes. This is so basic I can't believe it has to be explained.
Click to expand...

The mentality of players and a game situation and if a team is likely to get fuck all the players likely to get fcuk all the crowd expect to get fuck all! 1 down 0-0 the the added time be like a cup final with rabid crowd all screaming shouting! If you watched city these last 10 years this is how it is! Now they just get those xtra mins!
 
waspish said:
The mentality of players and a game situation and if a team is likely to get fuck all the players likely to get fcuk all the crowd expect to get fuck all! 1 down 0-0 the the added time be like a cup final with rabid crowd all screaming shouting! If you watched city these last 10 years this is how it is! Now they just get those xtra mins!
Click to expand...

waspish said:
Tell me any game last season that an extra 8 mins would of benefited us! The way we play it benefits the opposing team 99% of the time..
Click to expand...

Games where it would have benefited us to have more added time last year:

Aston Villa (A) 1-1 D
Liverpool (A) 1-0 L
Fulham (H) 2-1 W (which we won with the last kick of the game)
Everton (H) 1-1 D (the most ridiculous amount of time-wasting I've seen in years)
United (A) 2-1 L
Spurs (A) 1-0 L (Tottenham went down to 10 men in the 87th minute)
Forest (A) 1-1 D (just as bad if not worse than the Everton game, we got 2 minutes and 54 seconds added on)

Arguably Newcastle (A) and Brentford (H) too, but those were more 50-50 with both sides trying to nick one.

If we had 8-10 minutes per game instead of the average of 4 in those games, 3 of which we lost, 3 we drew and 1 we won, then that would have had 30-45 minutes of extra football. On average we score once about every 30 minutes, towards the end of the games the frequency of our goals increases. It is not hard to see we would have almost certainly gotten a couple of goals across those games we were chasing which could have meant an extra 4 points.

Now here's a list of the games where it wouldn't have benefited us:
Leicester (A) 0-1 W
Chelsea (A) 0-1 W
Palace (A) 0-1 W
Fulham (A) 1-2 W

That's it. Every other game we won by a comfortable margin.

How many of these games would we have conceded a goal with an extra 4-6 minutes of added time? Most likely, none of them. Maybe Palace or Fulham could have gotten lucky, Chelsea and Leicester were both dead on their feet.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
You do realise that the other team in that situation is way way more likely to concede than to score when playing us. That's how it will benefit us. When the ball is in play we score three times as many goals as other teams in the league. More ball in play = more goals for us. When it is 0-0, 1-1 going into added time our chances of winning the game now go up astronomically. Like Forest last year.
Click to expand...

Didnt benefit us today anyway lets see how the first month of the season plays out!

Oh we won the treble



Think I'll put that on every post I post this season..
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
Games where it would have benefited us to have more added time last year:

Aston Villa (A) 1-1 D
Liverpool (A) 1-0 L
Fulham (H) 2-1 W (which we won with the last kick of the game)
Everton (H) 1-1 D (the most ridiculous amount of time-wasting I've seen in years)
United (A) 2-1 L
Spurs (A) 1-0 L (Tottenham went down to 10 men in the 87th minute)
Forest (A) 1-1 D (just as bad if not worse than the Everton game, we got 2 minutes and 54 seconds added on)

Arguably Newcastle (A) and Brentford (H) too, but those were more 50-50 with both sides trying to nick one.

If we had 8-10 minutes per game instead of the average of 4 in those games, 3 of which we lost, 3 we drew and 1 we won, then that would have had 30-45 minutes of extra football. On average we score once about every 30 minutes, towards the end of the games the frequency of our goals increases. It is not hard to see we would have almost certainly gotten a couple of goals across those games we were chasing which could have meant an extra 4 points.

Now here's a list of the games where it wouldn't have benefited us:
Leicester (A) 0-1 W
Chelsea (A) 0-1 W
Palace (A) 0-1 W
Fulham (A) 1-2 W

That's it. Every other game we won by a comfortable margin.

How many of these games would we have conceded a goal with an extra 4-6 minutes of added time? Most likely, none of them. Maybe Palace or Fulham could have gotten lucky, Chelsea and Leicester were both dead on their feet.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for doing that! Seems a lot of tight games that in a season
 
The really obvious solution is to introduce a match clock that freezes when time is being wasted. I don’t want it freezing when the ball is out of play as that is just normal. Just whenever a team is deemed to be wasting time by the official, stop the clock and resume when they decide to play football again. Then absolutely everyone can see clearly how much time is left.

But the current method allows them to manipulate matches under a cloud of ambiguity, so will of course be much preferred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.