Everton (A) Pre-match Thread - POSTPONED

[Tuna]

Shit article.

Edited 11 January 2022 by Tuna

[jayfox26]

7 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

What the hell is wrong with these people? We have 17 players unavailable, only 3 of them are at the AFCON (not even including Mendy as we can't use him anyway). 

 

The annoying thing is that I reckon we could have beaten Everton even with the few players we have available, however I totally understand why the club asked for a postponement as asking the few players we do have fit to play twice in 3 days would just risk us getting further injuries. If we were to lose Tielemans or Maddison at this point we'd be absolutely fckd. 

 

Incredible really that so much us being made of this yet I've hardly seen anyone in the media talking about Liverpools false covid results. 

[WigstonWanderer]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Why wasn't it applied to southampton at old trafford last season ??

 

the rule has been introduced precisely because of covid and isolation. 

 

if there was no pandemic, we wouldn't have much chance whatsoever of getting games postponed because we have an injury crisis.  can you give me a precedent ??

Irrelevant I’d have thought.

 

To cope with Covid and knock on effects, the PL have introduced and published a new set of criteria to handle postponements. Those criteria explicitly mention injuries. This is much better than them making up the rules on the hoof.
 

I don’t have any problem with the wording I’ve seen, and it’s an understandable reaction to unprecedented times, as long as there is some effort to ensure that the underlying injury and illness issues are genuine. Us (and other clubs) playing a team of inexperienced players would make a nonsense of any integrity the PL may still have.

[UniFox21]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Damn, People actually get paid to write that utter shite. The fact the entire article seems centred at us, only deviating for the other clubs doing the same is hilarious

 

The fact he starts quoting the international debuts of players as if anyone could have planned for this scenario when we signed our Wilf/Amartey/Kel. 

[when_you're_smiling]

2 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Damn, People actually get paid to write that utter shite. The fact the entire article seems centred at us, only deviating for the other clubs doing the same is hilarious

 

The fact he starts quoting the international debuts of players as if anyone could have planned for this scenario when we signed our Wilf/Amartey/Kel. 

To be fair, we probably did for a certain extent, but this was years before Covid was even a thing.

 

It reads like a standard football Twitter weirdo rant anyway, especially the bit further down about how it was West Ham were hard done by VAR at the weekend even though they were given a goal that shouldn’t. 

[st albans fox]

20 minutes ago, when_you're_smiling said:

To be fair, we probably did for a certain extent, but this was years before Covid was even a thing.

 

It reads like a standard football Twitter weirdo rant anyway, especially the bit further down about how it was West Ham were hard done by VAR at the weekend even though they were given a goal that shouldn’t. 

Pretty sure that Samuel is a hammer ……

[crisp packet]

If we would have been beaten 4-1 by Watford with that “STRONG” team we put out and cancelled,  would we still be getting pelters left right and centre…..??

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

I can say for certain. Injuries are just as valid as Covid or anything else as a reason for enough senior players being missing to warrant postponing a game. 100%. 

Ok - if you had 20 first team squad players unavailable then you could argue your case and win - agree. There is no precedent for that level of unavailability. But that’s not what we’re debating here. we have eight outfield first team squad players fit and available and other clubs (and their supporters) don’t see why we should be allowed to cancel unless we have some covid in there. Having to stick 2 U23’s into the starting line up isn’t considered by them to be a reasonable excuse to cancel.  
 

where an ongoing covid outbreak comes into the reckoning re safety of the squad/staff members and those at hotels and the opposition- that’s where I believe the PL should have predicated their covid rule changes.  If not that then consider other factors (isolating etc) as secondary and not guaranteed to lead to a postponement.
 I think that we’ve got away with not having to play today. we have an injury crisis - that’s our problem. Other clubs have other issues to deal with. 

[CosbehFox]

The AFCON lads is a weird angle to shoot at. 
 

1) AFCON went from a planned 2021 Summer tournament to 2022 Winter. So the expectation was we’d have that player availablity ten months ago which you’d consider when it comes to signing players/extending contracts. 
 

2) The situation which arised at Liverpool the week before is in part caused by their own players being unavailable with AFCON and any game this month will have the same implication. 
 

3) There are leagues in the professional football pyramid what have a rule saying 3 or more pros being selected internationally is a valid call off reason 
 

Yeah by all means moan at the loophole where the PL put ‘injuries’ in the rule. But the AFCON thing has been a deciding factor for other clubs and will continue doing so for the rest of this month 

Edited 11 January 2022 by Cardiff_Fox

[OntarioFox]

20 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

The AFCON lads is a weird angle to shoot at.

It's the Daily Mail. Playing Devil's advocate, it rather plays to their readership to demonise AFCON, if you know what I'm saying.

[Fox1980]

Gameday

 

Looking forward to this!!

[Fox1980]

4 hours ago, UniFox21 said:

Damn, People actually get paid to write that utter shite. The fact the entire article seems centred at us, only deviating for the other clubs doing the same is hilarious

 

The fact he starts quoting the international debuts of players as if anyone could have planned for this scenario when we signed our Wilf/Amartey/Kel. 

Unless I’ve miss interpreted it does it read palace would be in their rights to use Zaha as a reason because he decided not to play for England! 🙈😂

[st albans fox]

At last, the AFCON excuse has become valid - we’ve known about it for ages !!

[Ted Maul]

8 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Well at least he's self-aware... he is talking utter nonsense.

[urban.spaceman]

Can't believe how much we've rattled the whole of ****ing Merseyside  

 

 

 

[leicesterseddon]

23 hours ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

But we don't have to have 13 outfield players. That is only the point where a club will not be allowed to force a cancellation.

 

If we have 10 outfield players on Saturday and we want to play, we will. We are allowed to use youth players, but we cannot make a case for a cancellation unless we have less than 13 "seniors".

Yes sorry that’s what I meant - it will be interesting to see if we don’t ask for a cancellation even if we have fewer than 13 senior players available 

 

If we say we’re happy to play on with 11/12 against Burnley, might it not set a precedent for the rest of the season? 

[ALC Fox]

14 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

I could sympathise with anyone that this kind of thing was happening to a few weeks ago but booking flights and hotels knowing what the current situation is like is just moronic. 

Booking a hotel without a refundable deposit in the current climate is doubly so. Then doing it twice. If true, I think they need a lobotomy.

[KrefelderFox666]

1 hour ago, leicesterseddon said:

Yes sorry that’s what I meant - it will be interesting to see if we don’t ask for a cancellation even if we have fewer than 13 senior players available 

 

If we say we’re happy to play on with 11/12 against Burnley, might it not set a precedent for the rest of the season? 

Agreed. I think it is clear that Rodgers was mostly annoyed with the rescheduling of games so early on (Everton and Spurs in January). He is comfortable playing the scheduled games with who we have available and this game will be on unless there is a dramatic turn of events in ours or their squad.

[surrifox]

1 hour ago, ALC Fox said:

Booking a hotel without a refundable deposit in the current climate to watch Everton play is doubly so. Then doing it twice. If true, I think they need a lobotomy.

Just tweaked that for you 

[filbertway]

I do smile every time I see people sharing an article and getting irate about it. The article has achieved exactly what it intended to

 

Makes me wonder if we'll ever adapt and stop feeding the gutter journalists. Especially the seemingly infinite "journalists" on social media, who's article writing amounts to "here's a collection of tweets about an incident.

[Out Foxed]

3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Can't believe how much we've rattled the whole of ****ing Merseyside  

 

 

 

 

[ALC Fox]

The thing is, fans of different clubs all still want to beast each other about postponements and what have you. But where's the clear guidance from the league or the FA (or even the government for that matter)?

 

In my book, too many people (fans and media) are blaming clubs and players when it's those who administer and organise the league that need to be put under a lot more scrutiny.

 

It's a shitshow, the whole damn thing.

[Raw Dykes]

5 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Ok - if you had 20 first team squad players unavailable then you could argue your case and win - agree. There is no precedent for that level of unavailability. But that’s not what we’re debating here. we have eight outfield first team squad players fit and available and other clubs (and their supporters) don’t see why we should be allowed to cancel unless we have some covid in there. Having to stick 2 U23’s into the starting line up isn’t considered by them to be a reasonable excuse to cancel.  
 

where an ongoing covid outbreak comes into the reckoning re safety of the squad/staff members and those at hotels and the opposition- that’s where I believe the PL should have predicated their covid rule changes.  If not that then consider other factors (isolating etc) as secondary and not guaranteed to lead to a postponement.
 I think that we’ve got away with not having to play today. we have an injury crisis - that’s our problem. Other clubs have other issues to deal with. 

Right. So, 16 players unavailable and you should play, but 20 is enough to postpone?

 

I'm not really interested in what other clubs think. Doesn't make any difference. The point is that, according to their own rules, we're just as entitled, with no Covid cases, to have a match postponed by the PL as another club who do have a Covid case is.

 

I thought we were debating whether a club had to have at least one Covid case for a game to be postponed. The rules don't state that is the case.

 

I think the rule is more to do with the integrity of the competition than preventing the spread of the virus. We haven't got away with anything at all. We're just as depleted as a club with 16 Covid cases would be, and I think that's all that really matters.

[reynard]

47 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

Right. So, 16 players unavailable and you should play, but 20 is enough to postpone?

 

I'm not really interested in what other clubs think. Doesn't make any difference. The point is that, according to their own rules, we're just as entitled, with no Covid cases, to have a match postponed by the PL as another club who do have a Covid case is.

 

I thought we were debating whether a club had to have at least one Covid case for a game to be postponed. The rules don't state that is the case.

 

I think the rule is more to do with the integrity of the competition than preventing the spread of the virus. We haven't got away with anything at all. We're just as depleted as a club with 16 Covid cases would be, and I think that's all that really matters.

This 100 times over.

The integrity of the competition as a whole is threatened by the pandemic, the fact that squads can't train together properly or even at all and the rules have been made and agreed to by all clubs to try to ensure that sides do not gain an unfair advantage by playing other teams with too few players to compete properly. Otherwise you risk ending up with farcical situations like the Benfica vs Belenenses match at the end of last year.

We live in unusual times it really isn't that hard to understand. 

Do spectators, journalists,TV companies, or sponsors want to see a competition where games are ridiculously one sided because of teams not having enough players to play or do they want one of the quality that reflects the money they pay to watch it, sponsor it or film it or would they prefer some kind of weird sporting circus.

[CosbehFox]

13 minutes ago, reynard said:

This 100 times over.

The integrity of the competition as a whole is threatened by the pandemic, the fact that squads can't train together properly or even at all and the rules have been made and agreed to by all clubs to try to ensure that sides do not gain an unfair advantage by playing other teams with too few players to compete properly. Otherwise you risk ending up with farcical situations like the Benfica vs Belenenses match at the end of last year.

We live in unusual times it really isn't that hard to understand. 

Do spectators, journalists,TV companies, or sponsors want to see a competition where games are ridiculously one sided because of teams not having enough players to play or do they want one of the quality that reflects the money they pay to watch it, sponsor it or film it or would they prefer some kind of weird sporting circus.

Also examples in Italy where clubs have turned up to play despite fully well knowing they won’t play. They have turn up, get changed and warm up all as per normal.