Roddy calls for 44 game season [Archive]

pineapple stu

16/02/2005, 1:58 PM

From eleven-a-side (http://www.eleven-a-side.com/ucd/irish_soccer_detail.asp?newsid=16052). Would get rid of the arguments about playing team three times a season and would mean more money for clubs, but is 44 games a few too many, especially with the Setanta Cup coming in? Course there is a 17-week close season as things stand...

Longfordian

16/02/2005, 2:01 PM

It would be particularly hard on part time teams I think

De Town

16/02/2005, 2:04 PM

It would be particularly hard on part time teams I think
Good point. I think 38 is perfect but then you either have to have 20 teams or do what they do in Scotland which is so stupid.

adamcarr

16/02/2005, 2:19 PM

It would be miles better than any 33 game season anyway! The format for the premier at the moment is pathetic. They should have left it at a ten team league!

Bluebeard

16/02/2005, 2:25 PM

It would be miles better than any 33 game season anyway! The format for the premier at the moment is pethetic. They should have left it at a ten team league!
I'd have to agree with that - 33 is ridiculous. 10 team would be better if only to do away with this 1 home 2 away / 2 home 1 away nonsense.

tiktok

16/02/2005, 3:38 PM

The season lasts less than forty weeks.

So you automatically will have over four midweek games before you factor in
FAI Cup weekends
League Cup games
Setanata Cup games
Postponements due to European fixtures
Postponements due to U21 call-ups
Postponements due to the FAI's 'abilities'

The league has had teams playing six and seven games in two weeks at the end of the season in recent years, while only having to schedule 33 or 36 games.

44 would be ridiculous

Éanna

16/02/2005, 3:46 PM

12 teams and 33 games is ridiculous.
It should have stayed as 10 teams and 36 games, or else gone to 16 teams and 30 games.

Slash/ED

16/02/2005, 5:52 PM

12 teams and 33 games is ridiculous.
It should have stayed as 10 teams and 36 games, or else gone to 16 teams and 30 games.

Absolutley, the current set up suits nobody. 44 games would be even worse.

harps1954

17/02/2005, 8:57 AM

Absolutley, the current set up suits nobody. 44 games would be even worse.

There are 36 weekends in the season - 33 for League games and 3 FAI cup weekends.

I think the season should be stretched to 40 weekends - 37 for League games and 3 FAI Cup weekends.

That would mean 7 midweek games in the season. I would fix one midweek game in each of the months of March, April, May, June, July, October and November. This would mean that all midweeks would be free in August and September when most FAI Cup and European fixtures will be played. Also, there would still be 33 free midweek dates available throughout the season for League Cup, FAI Cup replays, etc. (League Cup this year is a knockout, so for half the team in the League, that means only one extra game).

Slash/ED

17/02/2005, 10:39 AM

Yes but the problem is players will be physically destroyed by the end of the season. Espically teams in Europe and the Setanta cup who could go on a run in the FAI cup. The part time players espically will feel the effect.

Rochey

17/02/2005, 11:25 AM

44 games is too many dont agree with the current set up though. its unfair and luck of the draw could make a difference to the title. We as a country dont have a enough clubs at the proper standard to run too large divisions. The question is do we want a large first division and small premier or vice versa. I think at present the previous set up where we played every one home and away twice was the best set up given the amount of teams in the two divisions.

trevy

17/02/2005, 12:22 PM

44 games is way too many.No country in Europe would have this many league games I'd imagine and there would be too many games towards the middle and end of season with no interest with nothing to play for except to the diehards.Playing the same team at least 4 times a season is also boring.The current system for next season is probably the best of a bad bunch as theres not enough quality clubs for anything else.

pineapple stu

17/02/2005, 12:26 PM

44 games is way too many.No country in Europe would have this many league games I'd imagine and there would be too many games towards the middle and end of season with no interest with nothing to play for except to the diehards.
England has 42 to 46 games from Division One down through non-league. I think it's too many games with a twelve-team league though, as gaps will occur much quicker between teams, leading to more dead games...

paudie

17/02/2005, 12:46 PM

44 league games too many when Euro and Setanta Cup/FAI cup games have to be accommodated.

33 isn't great but better than 44.

pete

17/02/2005, 2:17 PM

Isn't it amazing that its hard to find a fan of any club (even 1st division) who is in favour of the 12 team league yet the clubs in their wisdom voted to change back.

:rolleyes:

MariborKev

17/02/2005, 2:39 PM

I'm in favour of it

Éanna

17/02/2005, 3:01 PM

why? I'm no fan of the 10 team league, but if 12 teams means 33 games, then I'm against it

A face

17/02/2005, 5:42 PM

joeraki

17/02/2005, 5:54 PM

The only answer to this is 10 team or 16 team league ... end of really.

Sort of but 16 only leaves 30 games and a 10 ten leads to playing each other a boring 4 times.

18 is the way to go or even 20. Why not, seen as nearly every team can only scrape a 1st division licence when the UEFA licence decisions first come out

pineapple stu

17/02/2005, 7:51 PM

Isn't it amazing that its hard to find a fan of any club (even 1st division) who is in favour of the 12 team league yet the clubs in their wisdom voted to change back.

:rolleyes:
You're not looking very hard! I've been against the ten-team league since it came in.

Student Mullet

17/02/2005, 9:32 PM

I've been against the ten-team league since it came in.Only because it leaves UCD in the drop zone!

Seriously though, it's not perfect but it's the best option. Ten is too few and there aren't enough teams to make it 16.

Éanna

17/02/2005, 9:58 PM

I've been against the ten-team league since it came in.
As have I, but its absolutely insane to have clubs playing each other 3 times. Considering all the fixture congestion some clubs faced last season, I think 30 games would be plenty.

NY Hoop

18/02/2005, 12:50 PM

Absolutely ridiculous suggestion. He seems to have a very short memory. It was only a few seasons ago that we had the 12 team premier and he wasnt moaning then about 16/17 home games.

They had the ideal situation with the 10 team league 18 home and 18 away games and a very competitive league. But despite taking this progressive step forward they inexplicably go back to this stupid 12 team league again :mad:

Get back to the 10 team league quick. There is not enough quality for any more than 10 teams in the premier. It is as simple as that.

I'm sure if a poll was held for premier division fans the majority would go back to the 10 team league.

KOH

pineapple stu

20/02/2005, 11:18 PM

I'm sure if a poll was held for premier division fans the majority would go back to the 10 team league.
Anyone care to set that up? Could be interesting.

MariborKev

20/02/2005, 11:46 PM

What are you all giving out about .... we tried the 10 team for less that half the initial trial time and saw that it was working. Now that we change back before time to the 12 team format that suits no one then you all pipe up and start giving out. :eek: .... some people ... i'll never know.

The only answer to this is 10 team or 16 team league ... end of really.

The time trial was for three years, we trialled for three years.

With clubs in the First Division struggling to get a licence do you envisage amalgaming the top four into a Premier and with an expended First Division. No offence but the like of Mullingar, Fanad, Kerry League and others who have mooted as potential new entries are years away from compliance

A face

21/02/2005, 12:20 AM

The time trial was for three years, we trialled for three years.

So you are including the half year aswell !!

With clubs in the First Division struggling to get a licence do you envisage amalgaming the top four into a Premier and with an expended First Division. No offence but the like of Mullingar, Fanad, Kerry League and others who have mooted as potential new entries are years away from compliance

Agreed. But we have to do something, Having seen how even amount of home and away games works .... the two and one lark surely should only be a short term work around. It will never be fair.

Slash/ED

21/02/2005, 5:26 PM

It will never be fair.

Exactly. No matter how often it's done and how fairly they try to do it, in a close league it will always leave question marks over the champion. How can you have a league table, and award a title to the team that wins it, when the league table is clearly not a proper reflection of the strenghts of the teams over the course of the season? Like I've said, the old "the league never lies" saying goes out the window when you start giving some teams advantages over other. Only one team has won the league playing more away games than home afaik, it's a farce. Vintage bleedin' FAI.

You should go all the way or nothing, not in between. Either 10 team league with 4 games each or (minimum) 16 team league with 2 games each.