usskyblue
Well-Known Member
From what I heard (from several people that went regularly); it was a positive atmosphere (not a electric one) Less shouty types booing our own players.
Bright Enobakhare (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cc84cov
- Start date
From what I heard (from several people that went regularly); it was a positive atmosphere (not a electric one) Less shouty types booing our own players.
SkyBlueCRJ
Well-Known Member
Probably because Burge wasn't in goal.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
All I could see was a morgue of depressed people who'd had the fight kicked out of them.
Nick
Administrator
Not what I saw at the games I saw, people were still jumping around when we scored etc.
It wasn't a massive sing song by any means but it was pretty positive towards the team etc.
It's the same as when people made out that people "snuck in embarrassed". Not the case either.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Well all I saw was a load of miserable people with the life sucked out of them... myself included.
The second sentence bears no relevance to your first.
Nick
Administrator
It does, because it's also talking about the body language.
I walked in as normal and acted the same as at any other game. I'd be miserable or happy based on the result. That's all I was bothered about
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
So, like a Tory Cabinet Meeting then m8 ?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Yes, it will and it will be affected no doubt. But having just football played on it is really very different to rugby. Much heavier players playing in much closer proximity in more concentrated areas of the pitch is much more likely to wreck it. Plus as the ball is largely kept in the air the state of the grass is of less importance to a rugby team that another football one.
Did you see the state of Wembley after ONE NFL game with it raining. Turned an almost pristine surface into a mudbath.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It's not like St Andrews is tiny and a couple of cowsheds is it. It'd still be way better than most of the stadiums players could expect to play in at a L1 level.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
That was done by the boxing. The NFL were complaining about the state of the pitch and it actually improved after a couple of weeks of them using it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
You seem to be approaching the issue thinking of what you prefer as a fan, not thinking of it as if you were a player. By your own admission the performance was good, so the stadium and lack of atmosphere as you percieve it wasn't having much of an effect on the players by the sounds of it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I was at the NFL game. I watched it becoming more brown and muddy as the game went on. You could see the lines where the players were lining up for the snap, esp around the the goallines. How would the boxing have caused that?
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Because the game was supposed to be at Spurs and only switched at the last minute they didn't have enough time to get water and lamps onto the surface that had been covered to give it enough structure. The NFL game probably did make the surface worse but that was due to its poor condition to start with. As the London series went on the pitch improved each week as they were maintaining it properly.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
If I was a player, I'd like some atmosphere at a club that's at one with its surroundings.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
So you wouldn't join City no matter where we were playing then?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
So please explain why exactly the same thing happened ten years before when I went to the NFL game in the rain? No fixture change not allowing preparation, no boxing or other events beforehand......
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
U old romantic m8. The reality is; most players want a gig and a pay packet. The home venue’s atmosphere is a side benefit/side note. They get to play at away grounds that have better atmospheres anyway.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Which game was that and why hasn’t it happened in the next decade of games. It’s about maintenance.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
2007 Giants game. Was an absolute quagmire by the end. Subsequent years the pitch has cut up quite badly but due to largely being dry it could be pieced back together after quite easily. Rain while they're playing truly wrecks it though and you can feed it, put the lamps on it and all sorts but 15-30 BIG guys all in a small area over the course of a game will do massive damage regardless, esp at a time of year when it's cold, dark and wet.
Sharing a ground with another football team is totally different to sharing with a sport like rugby.
Sharing a ground with another football team is totally different to sharing with a sport like rugby.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
And, they're more likely to have a pay packet with a club that's on a stable footing, with larger gates, and an increased possibility of seeing out the duration of your contract.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
But there should be a week between games if one team isn’t trying to throw its weight around and that should be more than enough time to fix up a pitch. Look at Reading and Swansea, always immaculate surface even though their is a rugby team on it. Look at Newport, always a state when they’re sharing. Look at Accrington, always a state and they’re the only team. The common theme isn’t rugby and football team sharing a pitch it’s how much effort goes into making the pitch playable. I’d rather we didn’t have to share with London Wasps but while we do we should have a condition that our rent is reduced if they haven’t maintained the pitch as it is perfectly possible they’re just not doing it properly.
usskyblue
Well-Known Member
Which clearly hasn’t been an issue for the majority of players that have played for us for the last fuck knows how many years of off the field clusterfuck
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Maybe they're not caring for it to the same standards we need, but the fact was during those London games at the start of the game the pitch looked in good condition, by the end of it it did not. It wasn't a matter at the end of going around replacing the divots and feeding and watering for a week till it beds back in - it was going to need totally reseeding/relaying in many areas, esp along the centre of the pitch. And you're supposed to stay off areas like that for a few weeks after to let them establish properly which just isn't going to happen with two teams sharing.
Rugby is different in that scrums are more spread out around the pitch compared to NFL snaps so the pressure is more spread out but it is still a more damaging sport for the surface than football, hence why they leave the grass a bit longer for rugby on the whole. So maybe they were doing what we asked for and cutting it shorter for the football, but then that just let the rugby churn it up more, esp when they played the day after us? Perhaps having them play first like last season is actually better as they can keep the grass longer for them then cut it after for us?
Also the ricoh pitch is in a hollow so the likelihood of frost/dew and poor growing conditions increase making it harder to look after than places like Reading and Swansea?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Yes please, even though I think it'd be bad for the development of Bayliss.
skyblueelephant76
Well-Known Member
You think it would be bad for Bayliss to play with a really good player that doesn't play in his position?
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
That game you’re talking about was the first one at Wembley so they were obviously unprepared for it. There have been games since then that have rained and the pitch has held up well. Looking at the Us reports for that game even mention how poor the pitch was and they would obviously be aware of what the sport does to it so it is obviously more of an outside event than regularity.
ccfc1234
Well-Known Member
While I agree with the sentiments that the pull of the Ricoh might be being overstated a little. I can well imagine a player having an issue with playing at a non league style stadium with the changing facilities etc being less than desirable.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Yes, because I think they do play in the same position. They just take slightly different approaches to it. Both will try and travel with the ball, but Bright does it in in a more explosive (and arguably effective) fashion. Bayliss will also try and play through balls more than Bright does. Bayliss was nowhere near as effective last year as the year before as he's been playing a bit deeper in midfield.
I think we could accommodate them both with Bayliss playing next to Kelly, but he'll need a more rounded game, esp defensively, to do that effectively IMO. He's young and can learn it, but it's not his natural game and will stifle him. That's why I think it'll be bad for his current development (although long term it could be to his benefit to his longevity).
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Standard motivational theory would disagree. Pay is a hygiene factor, if it’s crap it upsets you but it doesn’t make you love your job. That’s the “old romantic” stuff like feeling you’re a part of something or working in good surroundings. Research shows those are the things that make you want a job, pay just makes you want to leave if it’s bad.
People seriously overestimate the impact pay has on employee behaviour.
kg82
Well-Known Member
Think you’re seriously underestimating it.
Every footballer is doing what he or she loves to do. The better you are, the higher you can play. What’s the difference between going to a team like Wolves or a team like us. A few things, but mostly pay. You’ll still be playing football, even if it’s on loan somewhere.
GaryMabbuttsLeftKnee
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily true, there are many footballers who have played professionally who had no or very little interest in football. They just happened to be good at it, and can make a lot of money out of it.
hinckley cov
Well-Known Member
Very true Paul Telfer didn’t like football, he preferred cross country running.