This Tuesday/Wednesday thing.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




Not sure there's much of an issue with in this, the fixtures themselves are spread evenly with 2 home Tuesdays, 2 home Wednesdays, 2 away Tuesdays and 2 away Wednesdays. There's a third home Wednesday and third away Tuesday, but they're the Boxing Day/New Year games, so 3.00 kick-offs and the same gaps for everyone.

For the 8 midweek night games, as it was originally scheduled, the only games after them we got a day less to prepare for than our opponents were the Hull game as they play Tuesday this week, and the Preston game which we've already won, so no big deal. Moving the week the Boro game was played in meant we played Tuesday before QPR while they had a full week to prepare, but again we won there, so who cares.

What would have happened if Boro away had been held on the proper day was we'd have had a day extra to prepare for Bolton. Instead we had a whole week, while they played on Wednesday. Advantage to us on that one either way and again we won.

While it doesn't balance itself out, it should only have affected 3 games (2-1 against us). It did end up affecting 4* (3-1 against us), but we've already played 3 of them and won all three. It's another sad case of people looking for paranoid reasons of the world being against Sheffield United. If Wendy fans we moaning about stuff like this they'd be rightly mocked for it.


*Birmingham had an extra day before playing us in midweek as they played the Friday before, but that's down to TV rather than the midweek scheduling, and TV is far more likely to affect the gaps between games for the rest of the season than these midweeks.
 
Is it me that's being thick but if we play Wednesday we have an extra days rest over the teams that play Tuesday. This cancels out the disadvantage of having one days less rest between Wednesday and Saturday.

Still don't like playing Wednesdays for other reasons but that's not the argument being presented here.


not really as the team we play wednesday will have had the same rest as us, the team we play saturday will have had an extra days rest after their last match
 
3 things to ponder..

1. Today's footballers are more like athletes than the footballers of 30 years ago or more. The footballers of 40 years ago were in teams of 11 with 1 sub. They could play 3 times a week without anyone even suggesting, for one moment, that they might be "tired" and needing a rest - and blaming a poor result on that.
2. Go back further than 40 years and you don't have to go much further to find "professional" footballers who worked all week in another job, then turned up (on public transport) on a Saturday and played out of the skins for the team. They never complained of being "tired". In some cases these blokes had done a week in a steelmill or coalmine.
3. Things "do not" necessarily, or even likely, "even themselves out over a season". There is no evidence for that. It is far more likely that, at any given point in time, one team has more of a "rub of the green" than another. But even so, that is not an excuse, or a reason, for the ultimate results from a season for any team.

If we can just put these totally ridiculous notions to one side for a moment, we might be able to just accept that "tiredness" is a total cop out and has no bearing on the results of a match whatsoever. Even less so thesedays, with huge squads available to choose from and multiple subs.

I've pondered "all" that and it's "bollocks". It's not about whether you're "tired" or not, it's about "whether" you are more or less tired than your "opponent".

And point 3, fuck me.
 
Between Blackburn next week and 27th of November we only have to go to Derby, Nottingham and Rotherham. That may be an advantage in itself in terms of travelling / tiredness.
 
In the mid to late 1960's we used to play on Easter Saturday / Easter Monday and then on the Tuesday night. 3 games in 4 days.

I'm sure in those days Sheffield didn't have Good Friday as a bank holiday.

Proper hard core 'business end of the season' of which managers and players never publicly complained about.
 
I've pondered "all" that and it's "bollocks". It's not about whether you're "tired" or not, it's about "whether" you are more or less tired than your "opponent".

And point 3, fuck me.
I’m sensing that you don’t agree then?:D

You’re entitled to your opinion. Mine is that tiredness plays little or no part in it. Being not fully recovered from an injury may do, but then that’s a decision for the manager and fitness coaches.

Skill, Effort, luck. These things are what determines results imo, not tiredness.
 
Agree with the sentiment but there is a logic.

Sky tv are now televising EVERY Champiomship mid week match on the red button.
They’ve copied the Champions League format by randomly splitting the matches in 2, so half the matches are played Tuesday night and half are played Wednesday night, so there’s a bigger chance for viewers to watch more games.

Most clubs traditionally play on a Tuesday night but Sky are offering cash and clubs are more then happy to accept, so of course Sky want a return on their huge investment. So tradition goes out of the window.
Sky want to show a massive choice of matches 7 days a week.

I think there should be a more even split though.

I was referring to the logic of why playing Wednesday instead of Tuesday should have a negative effect on our performance and the negative sentiment we feel towards playing on Wednesday when in reality there should be no difference at all.

Thanks for the lecture about Sky though.
 
In the mid to late 1960's we used to play on Easter Saturday / Easter Monday and then on the Tuesday night. 3 games in 4 days.

I'm sure in those days Sheffield didn't have Good Friday as a bank holiday.

Proper hard core 'business end of the season' of which managers and players never publicly complained about.
In the mid-1960s, full-backs never went over the half-way line, wingers never tracked back, defenders never went up for corners, and attackers never went back to defend corners. The pace of the game now means that the players are like top-class athletes, pushing their bodies to the limit, and risking muscle and hamstring injuries without proper rest and preparation.
On the other hand, players in the 1960s played on boggy pitches with a ball that weighed a ton when wet, and wore heavy boots. And they had limited medical back-up when injured.
Playing professional sport carries considerable risk. It makes sense in any era for management to try to limit the risks as much as possible.
 
In the mid-1960s, full-backs never went over the half-way line, wingers never tracked back, defenders never went up for corners, and attackers never went back to defend corners. The pace of the game now means that the players are like top-class athletes, pushing their bodies to the limit, and risking muscle and hamstring injuries without proper rest and preparation.
On the other hand, players in the 1960s played on boggy pitches with a ball that weighed a ton when wet, and wore heavy boots. And they had limited medical back-up when injured.
Playing professional sport carries considerable risk. It makes sense in any era for management to try to limit the risks as much as possible.

There’s also other teams rotating, so if you don’t, you will suffer relatively.
 
Last edited:
The best teams will finish at the top, the shit teams will be at the bottom.

All this Tuesday/Wednesday bollocks will make very little, if any difference.
 

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom