Cup Replays Equal Fixture Pile-ups! - Page 3

jambutty · 19-02-2007, 14:02

Quote:

You know and I know what they meant.

Really! What you really mean is that just because you allegedly knew what they meant, I should do also.
Unlike some people I am not so presumptuous to know what someone meant when the words were quite clear. Nor do I presume to assume that everyone should think like me.

I would also point out that I have never STARTED getting personal but I reserve the right to respond in the same vein when someone gets personal with me.

If you think that is high and mighty then maybe a re-appraisal of your thinking might be called for.

mthead · 19-02-2007, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

Really! What you really mean is that just because you allegedly knew what they meant, I should do also.
Unlike some people I am not so presumptuous to know what someone meant when the words were quite clear. Nor do I presume to assume that everyone should think like me.

I would also point out that I have never STARTED getting personal but I reserve the right to respond in the same vein when someone gets personal with me.

If you think that is high and mighty then maybe a re-appraisal of your thinking might be called for.

No I'm not getting personal with anyone and I never do as other people on here including moderators will verify.But if thats how you feel its going I wasn't the one starting it.Diving Diva's thread post's #19 & #24,enough said.Accyweb is not a place for petit little childish squabbles

lancsdave · 19-02-2007, 19:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jambutty

I think that the clubs will benefit in reducing fixture congestion not to mention additional wear and tear on pitches. And not forgetting the wear and tear on players.

The FA and Football League would also benefit in not having to make allowances for possible replays so the year’s fixture list could be made more even throughout the year.

The spectators, though, might get a bit of a raw deal in that they would all have to travel for cup-ties. But that is where the FA could step in and use some of their vast reserves to easy the financial burden.

Which clubs will benefit in reducing fixture congestion ? You mean the elite 4 who have a minimum of 6 extra matches which gains them countless revenue, and revenue which is more than they will make from an away match at Torquay or Hartlepool. Heaven forbid these smaller clubs should get in the way of the money making machines.

Interesting point that there is a realisation that the spectators may get a raw deal. That will be on top of the raw deal they already get at most grounds then ?

Mancie · 19-02-2007, 19:19

That may not be the case if the 4 big clubs are in all competitions.. Man Utd played over 60 games in all competitions the season they won that treble..but it happend and no one gripes about it.. plenty of money and plenty of entertainment.

norwich stanley · 19-02-2007, 20:01

Not one of your better ideas Jambutty.If Norwich got drawn against Ipswich,where would they play? sorry i just dont get it! And as for fixture congestion 90% of teams would be happy for more games-it equals more money.

lancsdave · 19-02-2007, 20:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by norwich stanley

And as for fixture congestion 90% of teams would be happy for more games-it equals more money.

So would the FA. The more replays they have in the FA Cup the more money they make.

jambutty · 20-02-2007, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by norwich stanley

Not one of your better ideas Jambutty.If Norwich got drawn against Ipswich,where would they play? sorry i just dont get it! And as for fixture congestion 90% of teams would be happy for more games-it equals more money.

In case you haven’t noticed it wasn’t my idea. That comes courtesy of someone called Peter Scott SR2 who had his letter published on ITV’s Teletext Sports Letters Page #546 a couple of days ago where he broached the suggestion that FA cup replays should be abolished to prevent fixture congestion. He then added that all matches would need to be played on neutral grounds to prevent one team having a home advantage.

My response was that it was not an unreasonable suggestion and I thought that it was a splendid idea and then gave my reasons why I thought so.

What about Ipswich and Norwich playing at Reading?

mthead · 20-02-2007, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by norwich stanley

If Norwich got drawn against Ipswich,where would they play? sorry i just dont get it! And as for fixture congestion 90% of teams would be happy for more games-it equals more money.

I can think of a few more like that norwich stanley.For one,what would happen if Morecambe qualified and drew Carlisle Utd ?

shillelagh · 20-02-2007, 13:23

And could you imagine Accrington Stanleys ground playing host to Manchester United vs Chelsea?

jambutty · 20-02-2007, 14:57

I’m sure that you could mthead and so could I but instead of being negative about the issue try being positive as well. It’s all too easy to knock something but its not that easy solve the problem.

Norwich v Stanley – how about a midlands ground?
Morecambe and Carlisle could go over to Darlington.

No I can’t imagine Man U v Chelsea at Accrington shillelagh but it wouldn’t be very neutral, would it? About 30 miles for Man U to travel and about 200 for Chelsea. A midlands venue would be more suitable.

Maybe one off matches with no replays for all cup-ties would be beyond the FA’s ability to cope but fixture congestion doesn’t start to take effect until after Xmas. Maybe starting with the fourth round?

shillelagh · 20-02-2007, 16:33

By the way didnt they try this a few years ago and it went down like a lead balloon so they changed it back?

jambutty · 20-02-2007, 17:06

I know that my recent memory isn’t quite what it used to be but I don’t remember the FA trying out a one off cup-tie with no replays scheme during the last 40 years.

It may well have happened but I can’t remember when it was.

Perhaps you would like to produce some evidence just so you can prove me wrong?

Or is your claim just a red herring?

jambutty · 21-02-2007, 15:58

An interesting development in the National debate on the “no replays in the FA Cup” issue.

Neil Babs of Enfield writes on BBC Ceefax Sports letters page 359 to suggest that if after 90 minutes the match is a draw then the lower-placed team goes through.

I assume he means by league positions.

Not the best idea that has come forward but at least the guy is trying to be positive. I wonder what reaction he would have got if he had posted his comments on this forum? I think that words like ‘stupid’, ‘silly’, ‘crackpot’ and the like would have prominence in the responses.

However a Chris Weston from London comes up with the suggestion that each pair of teams due to play an FA cup-tie decide between themselves if the match is to go to a replay or not.

This suggestion is again a positive contribution to the debate and does have some merit in my view. Although I can foresee problems if both teams cannot agree. I guess that they would to agree to disagree and replays would be played because that is the norm.

accymel · 21-02-2007, 16:18

They did it last season:

The FA Cup 2005-06 was the 125th staging of the world's oldest football competition, the Football Association Challenge Cup, or FA Cup.
The competition began on August 20, 2005, with the lowest-ranked of the 674 entrants competing in the Extra Preliminary round. For England's top 44 clubs, the FA Cup began in the Third Round in January.

Ties are all single-legged and take place at the stadium of the club drawn first. If scores are level at the end of a match, it is replayed at the away club's stadium, usually 10 days later. If the scores are still level, extra-time and penalties (if necessary) are used to determine a winner. However, from the semi-finals onwards, the ties take place at a neutral stadium, and there are no replays. That is to say, extra-time and penalties are played if necessary to determine a winner in a single match.

At the special request of England national football team manager Sven-Göran Eriksson, the quarter-finals (i.e. 6th Round Proper) were held on weeknights (they would normally take place at weekends). This action was made to ensure that the season finishes as early as possible, allowing players a full month's rest before the 2006 World Cup finals.

The semi-finals were staged at neutral venues and, like the final, would not be replayed in the event of a draw.

The Football Association had hoped to stage the final at the newly rebuilt Wembley Stadium, London on May 13, 2006, but due to the uncertainty of the new stadium being completed in time, the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff hosted the final, which was contested between Liverpool and West Ham United.

jambutty · 21-02-2007, 17:19

In fact one off semi’s and finals has been the norm since the 1999 – 2000 season so that is not ‘going down like a lead balloon’ as shillelagh asked. All previous rounds were to be replayed if a draw was the result.

The last time that a semi was replayed was on the 11th April 1999 when Man U played Arsenal in the semi-final and drew 0 – 0. The replay was on the 14th where Man U won 2 – 1. Prior to then all semis were replayed if there were a draw.

Since then on the 2nd April 2000 Aston V drew 0 – 0 with Bolton and Aston V ended up playing Chelsea in the final. The stats do not show that there was a replay so I can only assume that some other method was used to decide the issue. I doubt if it was a toss of the coin so it must have been extra time and then penalties or maybe just penalties, although this is not indicated.

The last replayed final was on the 20th May 1993 where Arsenal and Sheffield Wednesday drew 1 – 1. The match was replayed on the 20th May 1993 where Arsenal won 2 – 1, but the stats do not state where, although it was probably at Old Trafford. In the not too distant past a drawn final at Wembley would be replayed at another stadium.

So from that we can conclude that the FA ruled that the final would be a one off affair from some date after 1994 and the semi finals would also be one off affairs from 2000 onwards. Whether the ruling applied to both the final and the semi’s in the same year is unknown by me but it is probable that the year 2000 was the starting point for one off semi’s and finals.. As far as I can remember semi finals have always been on a neutral ground or at least in the last 30 years or so.

So what is the problem with also having the quarter finals as one off affairs on neutral grounds?