Chelsea vs Spurs: Another Rant About Gary Neville

No, this is not because I've had a bad week in FPL. I've actually been quite lucky, which I'll come to later. I'll also share how my bench boost went last week (where I had even more luck).

First I need to have my rant though.

What happened today serves as yet another illustration of the modern game being ruled to the letter of the law, not the spirit of the game.

For context, there was an incident where Cole Palmer beat his man and would've been heading towards goal, had the opposing player not grabbed the ball with his hand. Palmer, angry, reacted and did that thing that footballers do, where they square up to the other player with their chest.

It's a stupid thing to do, and you shouldn't react like that, but at the same time it's not a punch or a kick or anything serious. It's what we normally call "a bit of handbags." It's a yellow card. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's what the referee gave.

However, in commentary Gary Neville wanted a red. He was more irate than Palmer. He was talking about the incident like it was a drop kick to the head. He wasn't bothered about the deliberate handball that preceded it, that potentially stopped a goal. He even said of Palmer's reaction, "I can't understand why he's done it."

Er, Gary, he was potentially through on goal (albeit from forty odd yards out). He's desperate to score. He wants to win. It's an important game. The other guy has blatantly cheated.

It's called passion.

I then went on Twitter to give my all-important opinion, only to find that most of the other comments where just like Gary's.

"How is that not a red?!!"

Obviously it's understandable from Spurs fans, but it's crazy that the average fan is now more outraged by a bit of handbags than by a deliberate handball that's stopped an exciting chance from developing.

Ten minutes or so later, Gary got his wish. Palmer got a second yellow and went off the pitch. This time it was harder to argue against, as he stood on his opponent with his studs when going for the ball, and that generally is a certain yellow. Assuming there's intent.

Even here though there was zero benefit of the doubt given. Often it's hard to tell if such contact is deliberate. Even now watching it back I'm not totally sure it was. Again, it was a yellow by modern standards, as was his earlier reaction. So I can't fault the referee. It's just that desire to have players sent off that I find so pernicious. Wanting players punished for showing passion. Giving players yellows and potentially reds for minor infringements and accidental collisions.

Towards the very end of the game we got yet another example. Morgan Rogers was given a yellow card for a daft little kick out at a player. It was a yellow and he deserved it. He was frustrated at the end of a game where they'd been beat and he was a bit petulant. Again, Gary Neville wanted a red for it though. Like a nerdy hall monitor.

I've mentioned before that there's lots of actual cheating that goes on in games that doesn't get punished. For example, defenders dropping to the floor when they feel the slightest bit of contact to get a free kick when they're under pressure. Which nine out of ten times they get. It's deliberate diving. They're cynically cheating, but that's fine. Whereas if you genuinely try to win the ball but are a split second late you get a yellow.

It's like passion is punished, but cold cynical acts are fine. Like here where a deliberate handball isn't a big deal - Gary isn't ranting about that - but the reaction is.

It's similar when you see commentators say things like, "That was a good free kick to give away," or, "That was a good yellow," when a player deliberately fouls a player near the halfway line that's heading towards goal. That sort of cynical and deliberate foul is praised by commentators. But if you show a bit of passion and accidentally nick someone's toe when trying to genuinely win the ball back then you're deemed a violent criminal.

It really does feel like football is being ran by a HR department.

Anyway, I've decided I'm not going to tell you how my bench boost went and how lucky I've been, as I've typed too much and I have food in the oven. I'll leave that 'til the next post.

I'm Bench Boosting

It's not the most inspiring bench boost ..but beggars can't be choosers.

Leif Davis away to Man City in particular is worrisome. Conceivably that could be negative points territory. I feel I have to go now though. The next few weeks' fixtures aren't ideal, and once we get into the long grass I'll no doubt have other fires to put out.

My plan was to bench boost last week, when Davis had Fulham at home. However, he only got one point in that fixture too. So I could wait for another optimal fixture and still blank anyway. At the end of the day it's the £4.0m slot. Let's be realistic, anything higher than zero will be a bonus. Plus, who knows, in football there's always the chance of a little magic.

As for my overall team things feel much more comfortable now I have Haaland. I went for Gross as well. That one feels a bit boring, but it's been offset by Manzambi. The added spice that makes the bench boost a more hopeful lottery.

Gabriel

I still have Gabriel. It should feel like a luxury, but it doesn't. I was thinking about him vs Tarkowski earlier. Last week Tarkowski got 17 defcon, lol. It's almost like his floor is three points. Those Arsenal short corners really make a difference too. I wish I'd considered that at the start of the season. They started doing it at the back end of last season, so there's no excuse really. Saying that, it is still early in the season, and Arsenal remain the premium defensive outfit.

So maybe a Gabriel haul is just around the corner.

It doesn't feel like that though.

Either way, now the bench boost is out of the way I'll be able to focus cash on the first eleven. So even if he doesn't start firing he'll provide the funds to bring in a bigger hitter elsewhere. 

If You Can't Be Good, Be Lucky

Jam.

Big Jam.

I must apologise to every other player in the game.

75 points (avg. 58)

De Cuyper came off my bench with his fifteen points. Obviously it was totally unexpected too, as we all just assumed Szoboszlai would play. So very lucky. It's comfortably the best thing he's done for me since I brought him in.

And now he's probably going.

His injury changes my transfer dynamics yet again. Meaning Gabriel gets a stay of execution.

My plan now is to bring in Haaland, Elliot Anderson and either Gross or Manzambi.

Manzambi seems like a lovely differential, but do I want to go against Gross? Of course, I could get both and forgo Anderson. The Ipswich fixture is hard to ignore though.

I'll decide on Friday.

My overall rank is 1.7m (approx.)

Not ideal, let's hope we're at least moving in the right direction now.

A Perfect Illustration

Yesterday's Liverpool vs Man City game almost perfectly illustrated the point I've been making about how overregulation is killing the game. It was almost funny.

I've written about this before here: https://cyprilocks.substack.com/p/the-handball-of-the-british-empire

For the last few weeks we've had this constant talk about unfairness and cheating.

I've been pointing out,

"Look, you can't eliminate external unfair circumstances. If Manchester United play Grimsby in the FA Cup that's always going to be unfair if you're judging by club size and resources. It's just the way it is ..but so what? Why is this bad? As long as it's eleven vs eleven on the pitch and the referee treats them all equally, what's the problem?"

No amount of regulation can make two clubs economically equal, but even if it could, why would you want to do this? It'd be horrible and boring.

I'm a Middlesbrough fan. If we play Arsenal in the FA Cup this season, or get promotion to the Premier League and play these massive teams next year, it'll be fun. I'll be very happy about that. It's literally what I'm hoping for when I turn up every game.

I'm not thinking, "Oh no, that'd be awful. We should be playing Watford every week. That way it'd be fair and even."

Yes, we'll probably get hammered, but even one season in the top flight would be exciting. I'd love to see Haaland at the Riverside. Plus, you never know, we could do alright. We could stay up. We could get a few results against bigger teams ..and it'd be all the more sweeter as we'd be the underdog.

This is the beauty with football. This is why it is fair.

If Man City play Accrington Stanley in the FA Cup it doesn't matter how many millions they've spent, if they don't show some grit and passion, there's a chance, albeit small, that they could get embarrassed. As, at the end of the day, for all the money and pizzazz, it's eleven men against eleven with a football and a referee's whistle.

It's the great leveller.

And in England we uphold this to a tee. Not only do we have a fine tradition of this sporting fairness, but it remains today. There's no match-fixing, no bribery. The very thought of such a thing is almost unthinkable in English football. The game is cleaner than a referee's whistle. This is why it's such a slander on English football when people scream "It's corrupt!"

When it really isn't. It's just not.

The Sending Off

Anyway, this brings me back to the actual game. Yesterday it wasn't eleven vs eleven. It was eleven vs ten. As Liverpool's Ryan Gravenberch was sent off for two very soft yellow cards.

So we had this ridiculous spectacle where people were outraged over Manchester City's past spending, yet the actual unfairness was right there before everyone's eyes on the pitch.

Now, you could criticise the referee, but in truth it's not really the referee's fault. The referee is trying to ref the game fairly to the best of his ability. (As above, our referees are honest. Some might be idiots, but they're honest, and I won't hear anyone say otherwise.)

The wider reason why Gravenberch was sent off was because of the modern rules.

As with the financial regulations, in the quest to make the game fairer and eradicate fouls and cheating, they've made the game more unfair.

In today's game all fouls are severely punished, regardless of intent. In the past a yellow or red card was for something serious or deliberate. Today they get given for technical breaches. A player makes an honest attempt to win the ball back for his team and because he fails he gets a yellow card.

So, Gravenberch was sent off yesterday not because he tried to cheat, but because he was competitive. (The very thing we supposedly want the game to be.) He stuck his foot out to try to win the ball back for his team, and because his opponent was a fraction quicker he's sent off the pitch.

This is unfair.

(Again, imagine if Accrington Stanley do play Man City at some point. Would it be fair if they go down to ten men for half the game because one of their players accidentally trips the much faster Haaland?

It's the underdog's right to compete and make things difficult that levels the game.)

After the red card Gary Neville said in commentary that Gravenberch knew he was on a yellow, so should've been more careful, which shows how ridiculous it all is. Yes, if you're on a yellow card you obviously shouldn't do something stupid like drag someone's shirt or go flying into a crazy slide tackle, but the idea that you should go the entire game without trying to win the ball back is just insane.

Yeah, the ball's there to be won, you could win it, but no, better just let the opponent have it.

Don't do your job and actually try to compete in a football match, whatever you do.

Of course, if Gravenberch didn't show passion and try to win the ball back, Gary Neville and all the other pundits would be criticising him for that too. So all these talking heads don't really know what they want. It was a competitive game up until the sending off, but they're more annoyed that fifteen years ago Man City signed Aguero and a bunch of other superstars.

They're all very confused, and they're confused because they're lost in a maze of rules and regulations. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it's the rules themselves that are the problem.

Failure.

Well, GW6 and the results are in: my plan to go against Haaland has failed.

(Ignore the fifteen points from De Cuyper on my bench ..I'm trying to. Obviously it was a mistake not to play him. Though I don't regret it, as I genuinely thought Davis had the better fixture. I thought Sunderland away would be a difficult tie. This is one of the problems with relying too much on the eye test. Sunderland impressed me a lot against Arsenal, and that one game probably weighed more heavily on my judgement than it should've done. So it was a mistake, but it was my own call. Ipswich won and Sunderland weren't exactly a walkover. Meaning it wasn't that bad of a mistake. Plus, I am an eye test guy, and that's how I play. So I can live with it.)

What I can't live with is the wider failure.

Having Fernandes, Isak and Gabriel instead of Haaland just hasn't paid off.

Isak: Unlucky, as it's an injury. Though, saying that, he had injury problems last season so it's not hugely surprising.

Gabriel: So far he just hasn't offered any of the extras that he offered last season to justify the price.

Fernandes: Manchester United look terrible.

I caught the second half of yesterday's game. They looked like relegation contenders. In fact, I missed the first half as I was on my way home from the Riverside. It was my club's - Middlesbrough's - 150 year anniversary. Our history isn't quite as illustrious as United's, but the football was certainly better. I wouldn't trade a single United player for Will Lankshear.

Anyway, back to my team..

It'll be a relief to finally bring Haaland in. I was tempted to do it last night, but with today's (Sunday's) games to go, plus midweek fixtures, I need to wait. I'm also not sure whether to use two transfers or all three. If I make three I'll be able to ditch Gabriel to use the cash to get a more expensive midfielder. However, if I do that I'll have a benching headache.

I could bench boost, the problem is Davis would be playing Man City. So I haven't quite found the right solution yet. It might be wiser to get a cheap mid and save the transfer.

We'll see where we are.

Bench Boosting ..without the chip

Don't worry, this isn't about Man City.

It's just regular ol' fpl content.

Here's my team..

I was planning to bench boost in GW6, but instead my bench is being boosted into the first team. With Davis and Szoboszlai coming in for the flagged Isak and Konsa.

Isak is definitely out. Konsa could possibly start, but as his upside isn't huge it's a nice opportunity to play Davis.

Isak being out makes next week's decision a little easier. I was toying with keeping Isak and going with him, Haaland and Joao Pedro up front. Now it looks like it'll be a straight swap for Haaland, with just Fernandes dropping down to free up the cash. Though with three free transfers I could drop Gabriel and Palmer instead.

I have no idea when the bench boost will be used.

Manchester City: Smashing A Beautiful Blue Sportscar

Life is unfair, but if there's some guy who's better looking than me (unfair though that may be), I can't go to the government and say, "Please, can you ban this man from spending money on getting new clothes and a haircut? It's not fair! How can I compete with him when getting a job or a girlfriend?!"

You can't restrict everyone else's freedom to make things "fair", and even if you could it would never be fair anyway. As every arbitrary restriction would be an unfairness in of itself.

In fact, part of competition lies in the desire to overcome unfairness. The other guy may be better looking than me, but if I work harder, or smarter, or show some creativity, perhaps I'll overcome that. Of course, you could argue that it's unfair that I'm smarter and more creative than the good-looking guy. That maybe the government should restrict or limit my use of that in the interests of fairness. Life is complex though, and who decides these things? What god gets to weigh them up and say, "Yes, I'll decide what's fair."

It's unfair that Manchester United has a history of success and your side doesn't. It's unfair that Arsenal sit at the heart of a capital city with a huge catchment area, whereas your club sits in a small, unknown town. There are so many differences such as these that are accidents of chance and history. And no two clubs, just as no two people, will ever be exactly level in all things.

This is life.

Now what am I getting at here? Of course, it's the recent Manchester City furore.

The two questions people are asking are:

Did City break the rules?

What should their punishment be?

However, I would argue that the more important question is:

Should we have these rules in the first place?

Rules that effectively limit how much owners can invest in their football clubs.

As above, where I was complaining about the good-looking guy, the argument is, "It's not fair that other clubs can spend more money! They should be banned from doing it!"

Now firstly, it's bad in general wanting to ban things, and wanting to stop other clubs from investing money and effort into being the best they can be. Essentially stopping the pursuit of excellence. Just as it would be pretty spiteful for me to want to ban another man from getting an expensive haircut and being the best he can be.

Secondly, the way the rules work aren't fair anyway. As clubs are allowed to spend in proportion to the revenue they generate. Meaning bigger clubs are allowed to spend and invest more money than smaller clubs. So it entrenches unfairness. It actively stops investors coming into the game and shaking things up.

Imagine you run a corner shop. You inherit some money and want to invest it in your shop to make it more successful. But then the authorities come along and say, "No, you can't invest that money, it wouldn't be fair on the other corner shops!" So you can't improve your business. Meanwhile Sainsbury's and Tesco are investing millions. When you raise that point though the reply comes back, "Ah, but they're much bigger, they can afford to invest that sort of money."

Of course, you can afford to invest it too. The money is sat in your bank. But you're not allowed to, as it wouldn't be "fair."

If corner shops and other businesses had to be ran like this it would just be silly, but that's how football is run now.

And it wasn't even originally about fairness

Everyone talks about "fairness" now, however the rules came in to stop clubs from going out of business. That was the aim. It wasn't to impose fairness, which, as we've noted, is an impossible task.

The argument was that clubs were borrowing too much money and taking too many risks in order to compete with other clubs. Resulting in some clubs going into administration. So that's what the rules were (understandably) aiming to stop.

Even here though it's foolish to think you can have a system where the threat of going out of business is removed. It's economically illiterate.

If I spend money I don't have to buy a sportscar, to compete with the good-looking rich guy who's just bought a sportscar, then I'm going to go bankrupt ..and it would be my own fault. You can't just ban everyone from buying a sportscar because of idiots like me.

Yes, it might be unfair that some people don't have a sportscar, but banning just creates a world where no one has a sportscar and no one ever can have one.

Anyway, this is what these rules are doing to the Premier League. In the pursuit of rosy-eyed fairness they're going to kill the golden goose.

They're going to smash a beautiful blue sportscar, one of their most cherished possessions, because some silly rules that were brought into being barely ten years ago say they have to.