Darlo Uncovered

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:00 pm**

Just a thought but it might not be as daft as it sounds. Given the fixture congestion, which could easily worsen, a game of 80 minutes could address the problems of fatigue and consequent injury and maybe even some incentive for shot-shy teams to through caution to the winds. Basically the amount of football teams in our league are expected to play in a season that seems to me to becoming a bit meaningless, is too much. Shorter games could mean better games. If they have to slog all the way through to May without some adjustment

the players will be worn out and not best placed for next season. I can't see crowds coming back for some time so there's no loss of revenue involved and the price of watching Darlo on local broadcasts isn't an issue.
Really, I just think expecting teams at our level to somehow plough on in a situation which gets worse by the week is unreasonable, are the players and staff safe enough? It would be a shame to void the season but I think that unless we look more creatively at how to keep it going it might happen.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:06 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:17 pm**

Wiseacre wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 7:00 pm
Just a thought but it might not be as daft as it sounds. Given the fixture congestion, which could easily worsen, a game of 80 minutes could address the problems of fatigue and consequent injury and maybe even some incentive for shot-shy teams to through caution to the winds. Basically the amount of football teams in our league are expected to play in a season that seems to me to becoming a bit meaningless, is too much. Shorter games could mean better games. If they have to slog all the way through to May without some adjustment the players will be worn out and not best placed for next season. I can't see crowds coming back for some time so there's no loss of revenue involved and the price of watching Darlo on local broadcasts isn't an issue.
Really, I just think expecting teams at our level to somehow plough on in a situation which gets worse by the week is unreasonable, are the players and staff safe enough? It would be a shame to void the season but I think that unless we look more creatively at how to keep it going it might happen.

It happened in Women's Premier rugby 15s before their season was halted. I think instead of playing 40 mins they played 30 minutes each half in order to protect the players. Yes it's unlikely National League would agree to this but with the current situation all options should at least be explored even if they are then subsequently ruled out.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:17 pm**

Have I just woken from winter hibernation on April 1st ?

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:19 pm**

Could the National League be in a position to agree?

The Laws of the game require 2 x 45 minute halves. I think it may need approval from the games law makers & so not be something the National League or the FA alone could sanction

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:23 pm**

Nope dead against that proposal, a game should last 90mins plus extra time.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:25 pm**

Old Git wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:17 pm
Have I just woken from winter hibernation on April 1st ?

No that was as I said a few months ago when women's rugby went ahead with this. Feel free to ridicule the idea but at least agree that all options should be considered to protect players and staff?

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:27 pm**

Darlo_Pete wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:23 pm
Nope dead against that proposal, a game should last 90mins plus extra time.

That really addresses the issue of player burnout Pete and a real possibility of another incomplete season!

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:34 pm**

Recently we played an 87 minute game against Boston and have been ordered to replay it.
Shortening games really would be a nail in the coffin for the integrity of the league. This idea is absolute nonsense.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:50 pm**

Old Git wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:34 pm
Recently we played an 87 minute game against Boston and have been ordered to replay it.
Shortening games really would be a nail in the coffin for the integrity of the league. This idea is absolute nonsense.

I think the "integrity of the league" is already in doubt based on their current stance of not be prepared to extend the season. You do seem to have blinkered views on the idea without any alternative suggestions as to how to avoid teams like us potentially playing 3x90 mins a week later in the season?

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:27 pm**

If the season is not extended it is very likely we and others will have to play 3 games per week. Personally I am not convinced that the season should be completed at all costs. Using PPG is not an ideal solution but perhaps the National League should draw up some contingency plans. It could perhaps come into play if all clubs have completed a certain number of games say 30 as a minimum.
If the League were to state how they would resolve this then at least all clubs would be aware of the rules and there would at least be some clarity.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:45 pm**

Old Git wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:27 pm
If the season is not extended it is very likely we and others will have to play 3 games per week. Personally I am not convinced that the season should be completed at all costs. Using PPG is not an ideal solution but perhaps the National League should draw up some contingency plans. It could perhaps come into play if all clubs have completed a certain number of games say 30 as a minimum.
If the League were to state how they would resolve this then at least all clubs would be aware of the rules and there would at least be some clarity.

I think we all agree the League should "re-assure" Clubs and Fans that it is actively considering a number of potential scenarios!

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:16 pm**

Twenty minute games. That’s the answer.

Or straight to penalty shoot outs, with no football played.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:31 pm**

First to score wins. If there is no goal after 30 minutes the outcome is determined via a game of scrabble.

Posted: **Thu Jan 07, 2021 11:12 pm**

CrazyDarlo wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:31 pm
First to score wins. If there is no goal after 30 minutes the outcome is determined via a game of scrabble.

Or a punch up - memo/resign Liam Hughes.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:45 am**

As Darlo continue to leak goals at the start of matches, what about missing the first 10 mins?
Or would that mean we don't play at all

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 7:48 am**

theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 11:12 pm

CrazyDarlo wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:31 pm
First to score wins. If there is no goal after 30 minutes the outcome is determined via a game of scrabble.
Or a punch up - memo/resign Liam Hughes.

Hopefully doesn't come in by the time we play Kettering in two weeks then...

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 8:53 am**

CrazyDarlo wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 10:31 pm
First to score wins. If there is no goal after 30 minutes the outcome is determined via a game of scrabble.

Watching a socially distanced game of Scrabble, with the board and pieces being constantly sanitised, might take more time than the season allows.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 9:38 am**

Old Git wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:27 pm
If the season is not extended it is very likely we and others will have to play 3 games per week. Personally I am not convinced that the season should be completed at all costs. Using PPG is not an ideal solution but perhaps the National League should draw up some contingency plans. It could perhaps come into play if all clubs have completed a certain number of games say 30 as a minimum.
If the League were to state how they would resolve this then at least all clubs would be aware of the rules and there would at least be some clarity.

Old git you no doubt will recall the winter of 62/63.
After an appalling winter with no football between boxing day and February 23rd we ended up having to play 13 games in little over a month
including 6 in 9 days, and 3 in 4 days between the 12th and 15th April.
Don't remember any squealing then.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:23 pm**

banktopp wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 9:38 am

Old Git wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:27 pm
If the season is not extended it is very likely we and others will have to play 3 games per week. Personally I am not convinced that the season should be completed at all costs. Using PPG is not an ideal solution but perhaps the National League should draw up some contingency plans. It could perhaps come into play if all clubs have completed a certain number of games say 30 as a minimum.
If the League were to state how they would resolve this then at least all clubs would be aware of the rules and there would at least be some clarity.
Old git you no doubt will recall the winter of 62/63.
After an appalling winter with no football between boxing day and February 23rd we ended up having to play 13 games in little over a month
including 6 in 9 days, and 3 in 4 days between the 12th and 15th April.
Don't remember any squealing then.

They were very different times when footballers were much tougher. In fact we were all tougher then. Of course the players then were full time professionals.
More recently in 2015/16 when we won the Evostik Premier League we had to play 3 times a week if memory is correct.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:38 pm**

The 'trident leagues' have made a motion to null and void.

If it were agree that would mean no relegation from our level. They are to consult clubs on it.

This is consistent with the perspective of many Step 5 & 6 leagues as well.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:19 pm**

Just don’t see this as a solution I’m afraid. In fact, it would make travelling long distances for a shorter game feel even dafter. It’s not a recreational league. Extend the season. It’s the only sensible thing to do.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:32 pm**

Old Git wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 12:23 pm

banktopp wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 9:38 am

Old Git wrote: ↑
Thu Jan 07, 2021 9:27 pm
If the season is not extended it is very likely we and others will have to play 3 games per week. Personally I am not convinced that the season should be completed at all costs. Using PPG is not an ideal solution but perhaps the National League should draw up some contingency plans. It could perhaps come into play if all clubs have completed a certain number of games say 30 as a minimum.
If the League were to state how they would resolve this then at least all clubs would be aware of the rules and there would at least be some clarity.
Old git you no doubt will recall the winter of 62/63.
After an appalling winter with no football between boxing day and February 23rd we ended up having to play 13 games in little over a month
including 6 in 9 days, and 3 in 4 days between the 12th and 15th April.
Don't remember any squealing then.
They were very different times when footballers were much tougher. In fact we were all tougher then. Of course the players then were full time professionals.
More recently in 2015/16 when we won the Evostik Premier League we had to play 3 times a week if memory is correct.

Not all our players were full time professionals back in 1962. Certainly they were tougher, didn't wear gloves and couldn't be called snowflakes.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:43 pm**

banktopp wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:32 pm
Not all our players were full time professionals back in 1962. Certainly they were tougher, didn't wear gloves and couldn't be called snowflakes.

Also the standard was considerably worse, games were played at a snails pace and players were neither as fit nor technically as skilled as those today.

Not to say they didn't have the potential but sports science has come on in 60 years.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:09 pm**

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:43 pm

Also the standard was considerably worse, games were played at a snails pace and players were neither as fit nor technically as skilled as those today.

Pele, Puskas, Eusebio, Best...going back a bit further - Stanley Matthews?

You telling me that none of those players were as technically skilled as players today?

These sorts of players honed their skills dribbling with oranges and tennis balls.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:11 pm**

Don't agree,there have always been technically gifted players but they are, I'm sure fitter now. Some of us will remember the dreadful surfaces they played on, so energy draining and only one substitute. Gerry Byrne played the 65 cup final with a broken collar bone. Real tough players abounded and they played through all sorts of injuries. Tackling was ferocious!

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:33 pm**

don'tbuythesun wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:11 pm
Don't agree,there have always been technically gifted players but they are, I'm sure fitter now. Some of us will remember the dreadful surfaces they played on, so energy draining and only one substitute. Gerry Byrne played the 65 cup final with a broken collar bone. Real tough players abounded and they played through all sorts of injuries. Tackling was ferocious!

Only one substitute came in 1965. Only one stretcher at Feethams, when Henderson was dragged off with broken leg. Whitehead also broke his leg
in the same game and was occupying the stretcher. Can still remember the awful crack when he broke it.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:40 pm**

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:09 pm

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:43 pm

Also the standard was considerably worse, games were played at a snails pace and players were neither as fit nor technically as skilled as those today.

Pele, Puskas, Eusebio, Best...going back a bit further - Stanley Matthews?

You telling me that none of those players were as technically skilled as players today?

These sorts of players honed their skills dribbling with oranges and tennis balls.

Nearer to home George McGeachie every bit as skillful as modern day wingers, wide players.
He was another of our part time players back in 1963.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:43 pm**

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:09 pm

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:43 pm

Also the standard was considerably worse, games were played at a snails pace and players were neither as fit nor technically as skilled as those today.

Pele, Puskas, Eusebio, Best...going back a bit further - Stanley Matthews?

You telling me that none of those players were as technically skilled as players today?

These sorts of players honed their skills dribbling with oranges and tennis balls.

Nope. I was talking very generally not about individual players.

Posted: **Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:46 pm**

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 4:43 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 3:09 pm

lo36789 wrote: ↑
Fri Jan 08, 2021 2:43 pm

Also the standard was considerably worse, games were played at a snails pace and players were neither as fit nor technically as skilled as those today.

Pele, Puskas, Eusebio, Best...going back a bit further - Stanley Matthews?

You telling me that none of those players were as technically skilled as players today?

These sorts of players honed their skills dribbling with oranges and tennis balls.
Nope. I was talking very generally not about individual players.

Eh? Talking bollox if you ask me.

Darlo Uncovered

Shorter games ?

Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?

Re: Shorter games ?