Jump to content

PauloBarnesi

Recommended Posts

On 06/11/2017 at 18:08, VillaChris said:

IOlympic stadium just looks massive compared to Upton Park where fans were practically on the pitch given how close the stands were to the ground. I do think their old players like Zabaleta and Fonte struggle to cover the ground more, particularly in a team that dosen't have possession as much as their previous clubs.

The pitch at the Olympic Stadium is exactly the same width as Upton Park was and around 4 yards longer (2 yards either side).

It makes a negligible difference.

If it's down to perception then that's just backing up that it's a myth. 

 

These days most pitches are more or less the same size. There's slight differences here and there, usually due to old stadia not being big enough to house a standard dimension pitch, but it's usually negligible.

I remember when we got to the FA Cup final and people were talking about using Gabby on the big Wembley pitch. The Wembley pitch was 3 yards (1.5 on each side) bigger than VP.

It's nothing. Makes no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some reading for you to do Steveo-o.;)

Quote

Football managers are accustomed to shifting the blame following defeats, with referees the usual target of their ire. Mauricio Pochettino, however, blamed the White Hart Lane pitch in the wake of Tottenham’s surprise 2-1 defeat against Newcastle on Sunday.

“Our style means we need a bigger space to play because we play a positional game,” the Argentinian coach said. “It’s true that White Hart Lane is a little bit tight and it’s better for the opponent when they play deep.”

Pochettino’s specific problem is against opponents who defend with a ‘low block’, sitting on the edge of the penalty box. “On Sunday there were two shots from Newcastle – it was unlucky for us. And they play deep. West Bromwich play deep, Liverpool the same, they play very deep and it was difficult for us. We need time to adapt to our new set-up and to understand better our position on the pitch

Two years ago the Premier League attempted to standardise pitch size. “Unless otherwise permitted by the board, in league matches the length of the pitch shall be 105 metres and its breadth 68 metres,” read rule K21. The next rule, however, states that exceptions are allowed “if it is impossible to comply with rule K21 due to the nature of the construction of the ground”.

Ten Premier League clubs comply perfectly with the 105m x 68m regulations – Arsenal, Aston Villa, Hull, Manchester City, Manchester United, Newcastle, Southampton, Sunderland, Swansea and West Bromwich Albion – although there are only minor differences elsewhere.

White Hart Lane is 100m x 67m, with Stoke’s Britannia Stadium and Queens Park Rangers’ Loftus Road the smallest, at 100m x 66m.

Finding space remains a key attacking concept, but the difference here is minimal. Such small variations should not have a significant impact upon play, although it’s obvious that expansive, attacking sides thrive on large pitches, and more defensive teams, and long-ball teams, favour smaller playing surfaces. It is interesting that Pochettino is so concerned about the dimensions – his coaching idol, his former Argentina manager Marcelo Bielsa, often used to pace out an opposition pitch pre-match, checking it matched the dimensions provided by the club.

Perhaps Bielsa had heard of Graeme Souness. In 1987 Souness, then Rangers manager, was scouting their upcoming European Cup opponents Dynamo Kiev, and realised the Ukrainian side had two particularly dangerous wingers. The night before the game, the Ibrox groundsman worked his magic at the manager’s command.

“The pitch didn’t have to be a fixed width as long as it was above a certain minimum, so I thought: ‘Right, I’ll make it the absolute minimum,’” Souness said. “On the Tuesday afternoon the Kiev players trained on the pitch when it was the normal size. On Wednesday night they came out for the match and must have been shocked to discover that, after 15 paces, they were on the touchline … it wasn’t purist stuff, but it was within the rules.” Having lost the first leg 1-0 in Kiev, Rangers turned the tie around, and triumphed 2-1 on aggregate

Arsène Wenger once blamed the small pitch at Highbury for Arsenal’s disciplinary problems. “There is something about the size of the pitch at home,” he said in 2002. “It’s tight and, of course, we have a dynamic way of playing, everybody defends well and we are a team who put opponents under pressure, so there is more physical contact. On a bigger pitch, you have less contact. It is certainly linked with that. Highbury is very compact.”

Stoke, considered the anti-Arsenal under their former coach Tony Pulis, are also an interesting case. They set their pitch size at the minimum possible, which meant their long-ball game was more effective. It also – literally – played into the hands of their former long-throw expert Rory Delap.

When Stoke qualified for the Europa League in 2011-12, Uefa’s pitch regulations were larger than that of the Premier League, which meant the Britannia briefly had two separate pitch markings visible throughout games, which confused their right-back Ryan Shotton, who took a quick throw from the wrong touchline in a league game.

Ultimately, Premier League pitches are all roughly the same size. However, the Laws of the Game state pitches can be between 90 and 120 metres long, and drastically different in width – between 50 and 100 metres, although they must be longer than they are wide. With such variations allowed at amateur level, it is Sunday League sides, rather than Premier League teams, who can be particularly tactical with the dimensions of their pitch.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/oct/29/pochettino-pitch-size-does-matter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, in general the pitches are a standard size with some exceptions.

I don't buy that 2 yards extra at either end is causing West Ham any serious issues. 

That article even says the difference is minimal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sne said:

Absolutely brilliant piece of motivational talk by Moyes

"If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then I’ll see the East End of London for seven months, then I’ll go elsewhere"

:crylaugh:

He is such an inspirational genius.

The dour **** word removed.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sne said:

Absolutely brilliant piece of motivational talk by Moyes

"If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then I’ll see the East End of London for seven months, then I’ll go elsewhere"

:crylaugh:

Wow. I bet the fans are fuming...

Imagine that coming from a Villa manager...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sne said:

Absolutely brilliant piece of motivational talk by Moyes

"If it works, great. If it doesn’t, then I’ll see the East End of London for seven months, then I’ll go elsewhere"

:crylaugh:

Honestly I'd want him sacked off the back of those comments alone.

Edited by Dr_Pangloss
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really respected Moyes at Everton but since his year at Man. United he seems to have become bitter and pretty unlikeable.

Stuff with the female journalist last year and generally the entitlement he seems to have about him. When he went to Spain he lived in a hotel for over a year which was pretty poor I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rodders0223 said:

A good read. West Ham fans turning their noses up at the potential of signing Fellaini and West Ham fans believing they are a big enough club to attract Fellaini.

http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=170021&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1220

- 3 FA Cups in their entire century plus history.

- Highest ever placing in the top flight - 3rd...and only happened once in over 100 years.

Who the ***** do they think they are? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Keyblade said:

- 3 FA Cups in their entire century plus history.

- Highest ever placing in the top flight - 3rd...and only happened once in over 100 years.

Who the ***** do they think they are? 

Tinpot club with loudmouth media darling arsehole fans. To be fair he's past it but I'd be pissed off with Man U if I was him, Van Gaal spent like 200 mil to get 5-6 more points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rodders0223 said:

A good read. West Ham fans turning their noses up at the potential of signing Fellaini and West Ham fans believing they are a big enough club to attract Fellaini.

http://www.kumb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=170021&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=1220

Love or hate him but he’s an important player at United, zero chance he’ll leave them now for West Ham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Keyblade said:

- 3 FA Cups in their entire century plus history.

- Highest ever placing in the top flight - 3rd...and only happened once in over 100 years.

Who the ***** do they think they are? 

I don’t really get this. Not every football club can be successful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bobzy said:

I don’t really get this. Not every football club can be successful. 

I think it’s more about their success relative to the club’s stature.

If Scunthorpe had won three FA cups over the years then that would be considered impressive. West Ham are a relatively high profile club, yet the amount of silverware/success doesn’t correlate with the club’s supposed stature and place amongst the great clubs.

I think that’s the gist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Keyblade said:

- 3 FA Cups in their entire century plus history.

- Highest ever placing in the top flight - 3rd...and only happened once in over 100 years.

Who the ***** do they think they are? 

Ah, but they won the World Cup in ‘66, don’t ya know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shropshire Lad said:

I think it’s more about their success relative to the club’s stature.

If Scunthorpe had won three FA cups over the years then that would be considered impressive. West Ham are a relatively high profile club, yet the amount of silverware/success doesn’t correlate with the club’s supposed stature and place amongst the great clubs.

I think that’s the gist.

I don’t really see them as that? I don’t know where these feelings come from. They’re a solid, long-standing high profile English team - is there really a view that they’re something better?

I know this World Cup thing gets brought up a lot. I’ve never heard about us winning the European Cup either...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â