Everton (A) Pre-match Thread - POSTPONED

[LCCFox96]

22 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

The funny thing is Durham used to absolutely love Maddison as well, then since he's joined us he thinks he's a chopper. 

 

Precisely. And the even funnier thing is that no matter whether Adrian Durham lays on positive or negative online commentary about him, James Maddison couldn't give less of a fvck.

 

Maddison is arrogant no doubt, but that stems from a self confidence, belief, serious talent and swagger that has driven him to where he is today. Fair play - you pack your six grand backpack and get down the darts boy.

Edited 10 January 2022 by LCCFox96

[st albans fox]

25 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

Wasn’t the first gave with Everton cancelled because they had injuries? When we had more players available? So how is it fair to play now when we have 17 players unavailable.

The final request which was accepted came from us because of our covid cases (after the spurs postponement)
 

53 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Covid's irrelevant isn't it? If you don't have 13 outfield players (even if all players our have injuries or international callups), then the team doesn't have to play. Covid has just affected teams recently and caused fatigue and other injuries.

No one seems able to get a 100% answer on this. Afaik, the dec rule adjustment is purely covid related. The reason we have less than 13 is because of afcon and injuries and at least one covid case. But the new ruling from December refers to covid absences/covid related absences (ie. Long covid or unable to train because of covid). 
 

i am pretty sure that if we had no covid cases then we wouldn’t have been successful but others have argued that the new rule has grey areas that can be exploited by clubs with massive injury lists without the need to have a covid case. 

[sacreblueits442]

3 hours ago, Fox92 said:

Loads of Liverpool fans were moaning on our official twitter confirmation too I couldn't get my head around why Liverpool fans cared when it was their rivals' game.

...we had just turned them over with our "baby squad"!!!

  They are not going to take too kindly to that.

[CosbehFox]

Totally bizarre isn’t the Everton/Liverpool fans or Adrian Durham, it’s the FPL social media whoppers who are crying cos their double game week choices have failed. 
 

Fcuk me, grow up 

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, The Bear said:

Sorry must have missed it. We had 4 cases, plus injuries. 

 

I'm also of the opinion that the league should have just told everyone to crack on and use the U23s if they didn't have a full first team side. I guess they thought that would advantage the bigger sides more though and would just get moaned at. 

.. the laws are in place for a reason!!!

  Without a pandemic, we do not get the congestion and subsequent injuries being added to make up the list of players being unavailable to play.

  Normally you would have had the rare sight of a game being cancelled, for instance, due to an outbreak of food poisoning, it is not something that happens too often, and the rule makers have made a contingency to cope in such situations. 

  The fact that covid is one of the "drivers" for this, does not diminish the foresight of the wisdom of the rule being in place.

[urban.spaceman]

@Dahnsouff you'll cause yourself a nosebleed arguing with those scousers mate  

[Dahnsouff]

29 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

@Dahnsouff you'll cause yourself a nosebleed arguing with those scousers mate  

I AM WINNING I TELL YOU   

[ZenPublisher]

3 hours ago, Pliskin said:

It’s talksports down to the very core. It’s all the they do, I used to listen to post match phone ins and they would try and start a full blown argument from every call unless the caller was calling in to confirm their bias. Just stopped, listening in the end because it’s just bollocks. 

“Drive Time's Adrian Durham is an expert phone-in troll, arrogantly spouting inflammatory football opinions in the hope of prompting some indignant phone rage from an uppity fan.”

The Guardian, May 2011

 

It’s worked for over a decade now, and is really really boring…

[Dahnsouff]

 

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

The funny thing is Durham used to absolutely love Maddison as well, then since he's joined us he thinks he's a chopper. 

 

Again though, there's nothing peculiar or unusual about this. 

 

He's going to praise Maddison when he's an up and coming youngster at lower levels because it makes him look in the know. 

 

He's then going to throw pelters once he's playing for a "bigger" Premier League team because its inflammatory and gets him attention. He's not going to go on the radio slagging off Bill Smith from Accrington Stanley because nobody cares. 

 

Madders is just low hanging fruit to him because of a loud social media presence combined with very Gen Z footballer aesthetics. Barry the Middle Aged Van Driver (TalkSPORT's target demographic) is going to laugh along while Leicester fans are going to phone in or retweet frothing and that's all he's after. 

 

[Raw Dykes]

40 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The final request which was accepted came from us because of our covid cases (after the spurs postponement)
 

No one seems able to get a 100% answer on this. Afaik, the dec rule adjustment is purely covid related. The reason we have less than 13 is because of afcon and injuries and at least one covid case. But the new ruling from December refers to covid absences/covid related absences (ie. Long covid or unable to train because of covid). 
 

i am pretty sure that if we had no covid cases then we wouldn’t have been successful but others have argued that the new rule has grey areas that can be exploited by clubs with massive injury lists without the need to have a covid case. 

Have you got anything to back this up, or is it just guesswork?

 

Are you sure that the final request was accepted because of Covid cases specifically, and not just because their absence took our number of available senior players below the threshold?

 

Here's the rule:

"Premier League Rules and factors taken into account by the Board

Premier League rules provide a framework and discretion to the Board to assess whether a postponement application should be accepted.

As the guidance shows, the Board will consider the following principal factors when making a decision:

1) The impact of COVID-19 infections on a club’s squad, as well as injuries, illness and those isolating, and the number of players available on the squad list and any Under-21 players with appropriate experience. Where a club cannot field 13 outfield players and a goalkeeper either from its squad list or its appropriately experienced Under-21 players, the match will be postponed.
2) The status of any COVID-19 outbreak within a club, including the number of individuals affected, the sequence and source of infections and their proximity to the match in question.
3) A club’s ability to safely prepare its players in the lead-up to a match.
4) Medical advice as to whether there is any unacceptable risk to the health and safety of players and staff by playing the match.
5) Any advice from UK Health Security Agency and other public bodies.
6) Any other exceptional circumstances.

The Board has applied these factors in recent postponements, with examples including:

- Where a club has been unable to field 13 outfield players and a goalkeeper for a match due to COVID-19 infections, injuries, illness and/or those isolating."

 

 

 

Nowhere does it say that only Covid cases count as absentees, and why should it? Let's say one club has only 4 senior outfield players available, but no Covid cases, and another has their best 12 players available, but has one Covid case and 9 injuries. How would it be fair to force the former to play and let the latter postpone?

 

The point of the rule is to prevent a situation where club A has to play a full-strength club B, while club C gets to play club B's kids team. Why should it matter if this happens due to Covid or injuries or any other reason? It's also not what the fans pay to watch. The rule may have been brought in because Covid has drastically added to the number of absent players, but that doesn't mean that absentees will only be considered such if they have Covid. Besides, injuries can be a result of Covid cases forcing a club to overplay the same few players in a congested fixture list.

 

Have we even got any Covid cases? I don't think it makes any difference whether a player is out due to having Covid or a hamstring injury. The end result is the same - the player can't play.

 

What makes you so sure that we wouldn't get a game postponed if we had no Covid cases? We've got 8 senior outfield players available.

[Dames]

People like Durham will be the first to shout rules are rules when it suits their narrative.

 

All we are doing is playing to the rules of the competition. All the clubs signed up to them. 

I imagine we’ll be seeing a change in the off season. 

[Dames]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Everton fans are up there as some of the weirdest around. 

Scouse football fans in general are a very strange bunch.

[HesNotGudjonsonn2]

The funniest thing about it all is it doesn’t really have anything to do with Covid or AFCON, it is just normal football injuries. Albeit an abnormal amount.

 

Did they injure themselves? Most injuries occur due to the opponents so all these people in uproar should blame all our opponents! 

[urban.spaceman]

I really don't like the Feed the Scousers chant but I ****ing love how much it's wound them up

 

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

I really don't like the Feed the Scousers chant but I ****ing love how much it's wound them up

 

 

elsaletitgo.gif

[jayfox26]

4 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I really don't like the Feed the Scousers chant but I ****ing love how much it's wound them up

 

We've been chanting it for years and nothing has ever been said. They don't actually give 2 shits about the chant, they are just pissed that our depleted team pretty much ended their title challenge. They are a horrible football club with a horrible fan base. Always the victims! 

[David Hankey]

2 minutes ago, jayfox26 said:

We've been chanting it for years and nothing has ever been said. They don't actually give 2 shits about the chant, they are just pissed that our depleted team pretty much ended their title challenge. They are a horrible football club with a horrible fan base. Always the victims! 

And they were the "victims" at Hillsborough. A chapter in British football history that has still not brought about a satisfactory resolution in terms of prosecutions.

[urban.spaceman]

5 minutes ago, HesNotGudjonsonn2 said:

The funniest thing about it all is it doesn’t really have anything to do with Covid or AFCON, it is just normal football injuries. Albeit an abnormal amount.

 

Did they injure themselves? Most injuries occur due to the opponents so all these people in uproar should blame all our opponents! 

Which most clubs are suffering from, and the reason for that is the Premier League's scheduling. The 4 month COVID break was followed by a rushed 8 week Project Restart, 3 week break, a full month shorter and busier season AND the Euros in the summer; one or two injuries means a smaller pool of players having to do more and the smaller the pool of players gets the more likely muscle injuries are to occur. Rearranging this game for the middle of January was ****ing idiotic. 

[KFS]

I’m going to vote Tory next election just because of these Everton fans

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, ZenPublisher said:

“Drive Time's Adrian Durham is an expert phone-in troll, arrogantly spouting inflammatory football opinions in the hope of prompting some indignant phone rage from an uppity fan.”

The Guardian, May 2011

 

It’s worked for over a decade now, and is really really boring…

He doesnt do a drive time show any more - maybe talksport realised it had passed its sell buy date

 

 

1 hour ago, Raw Dykes said:

Have you got anything to back this up, or is it just guesswork?

 

Are you sure that the final request was accepted because of Covid cases specifically, and not just because their absence took our number of available senior players below the threshold?

 

Here's the rule:

"Premier League Rules and factors taken into account by the Board

Premier League rules provide a framework and discretion to the Board to assess whether a postponement application should be accepted.

As the guidance shows, the Board will consider the following principal factors when making a decision:

1) The impact of COVID-19 infections on a club’s squad, as well as injuries, illness and those isolating, and the number of players available on the squad list and any Under-21 players with appropriate experience. Where a club cannot field 13 outfield players and a goalkeeper either from its squad list or its appropriately experienced Under-21 players, the match will be postponed.
2) The status of any COVID-19 outbreak within a club, including the number of individuals affected, the sequence and source of infections and their proximity to the match in question.
3) A club’s ability to safely prepare its players in the lead-up to a match.
4) Medical advice as to whether there is any unacceptable risk to the health and safety of players and staff by playing the match.
5) Any advice from UK Health Security Agency and other public bodies.
6) Any other exceptional circumstances.

The Board has applied these factors in recent postponements, with examples including:

- Where a club has been unable to field 13 outfield players and a goalkeeper for a match due to COVID-19 infections, injuries, illness and/or those isolating."

 

 

 

Nowhere does it say that only Covid cases count as absentees, and why should it? Let's say one club has only 4 senior outfield players available, but no Covid cases, and another has their best 12 players available, but has one Covid case and 9 injuries. How would it be fair to force the former to play and let the latter postpone?

 

The point of the rule is to prevent a situation where club A has to play a full-strength club B, while club C gets to play club B's kids team. Why should it matter if this happens due to Covid or injuries or any other reason? It's also not what the fans pay to watch. The rule may have been brought in because Covid has drastically added to the number of absent players, but that doesn't mean that absentees will only be considered such if they have Covid. Besides, injuries can be a result of Covid cases forcing a club to overplay the same few players in a congested fixture list.

 

Have we even got any Covid cases? I don't think it makes any difference whether a player is out due to having Covid or a hamstring injury. The end result is the same - the player can't play.

 

What makes you so sure that we wouldn't get a game postponed if we had no Covid cases? We've got 8 senior outfield players available.

i never mentioned covid absentees only ???  my point was that if our lack of players had no covid input at all then we may well struggle to argue for a postponement. we would have to make the case that some of the current injuries were a consequence of covid with players having to play with minor injuries becasue covid had caused our options to be non existent. i think that would be a difficult call. cags played CH at liverpool and aggravated his hamstring. that was our choice to risk him. we could have played vestergaard. vards didn't have to play against them in the league. we weren't quite down to the bare bones at that point. 

 

the whole rule list you posted is predicated on covid. the only clause that isn't is clause 6. this is clearly the get out clause for the PL board and provides for inconsistencies. 

[FLAN]

Website still has a countdown to the game …

[Raw Dykes]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

i never mentioned covid absentees only ???  my point was that if our lack of players had no covid input at all then we may well struggle to argue for a postponement. we would have to make the case that some of the current injuries were a consequence of covid with players having to play with minor injuries becasue covid had caused our options to be non existent. i think that would be a difficult call. cags played CH at liverpool and aggravated his hamstring. that was our choice to risk him. we could have played vestergaard. vards didn't have to play against them in the league. we weren't quite down to the bare bones at that point. 

 

the whole rule list you posted is predicated on covid. the only clause that isn't is clause 6. this is clearly the get out clause for the PL board and provides for inconsistencies. 

 

On 08/01/2022 at 20:45, st albans fox said:

It’s covid mate , not injuries 

we may be able to make an argument but the fact we originally called it off and it’s a sky game won’t help our case. 

I think you might just be guessing that Covid has to have played a part in the absences. The number of absentees is the problem. The reason they are absent isn't. Yes, Covid has caused the problem in most cases - it's not the problem itself.

 

No club has to make a case that their number of absentees is as a result of Covid. It's irrelevant.

 

Clause 1 states that injuries can be a reason for a postponement. According to what I quoted, there does not have to be any Covid cases for a game to be postponed.

[Corky]

17 hours ago, Babylon said:

The rules are stupid, but they are right if you are going to let people call games off with Covid. 
 

They should have just said everyone has to crack on. 

And then it would be apparent that the clubs would not. Everton would want the game off if the situation was reversed (as the Burnley fan outlined).

 

If I'm honest, I'd rather we were playing and getting the game done. But if we'd have deliberately put the team out and rested key players we'd be slaughtered for it. Man United put out a stronger team against us last season when resting lots of players and pundits called for punishments!

[NaijaFox]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

No one seems able to get a 100% answer on this. Afaik, the dec rule adjustment is purely covid related. The reason we have less than 13 is because of afcon and injuries and at least one covid case. But the new ruling from December refers to covid absences/covid related absences (ie. Long covid or unable to train because of covid). 
 

i am pretty sure that if we had no covid cases then we wouldn’t have been successful but others have argued that the new rule has grey areas that can be exploited by clubs with massive injury lists without the need to have a covid case. 

That the 13-player availability rule was applied when there were a suffuse of Covid cases should not mean it is only applicable to Covid cases.