Bad news

[paul moy 235]

Cardiff are out of the Cup and can now concentrate on the League.... [:''(]

[Graham Humphrey 13]

You still on about this tiresome "Cup run equals no promotion" rubbish then?

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"]You still on about this tiresome "Cup run equals no promotion" rubbish then?
[/quote]

Regardless of promotion, it makes it harder by virtue of extra games(fixture congestion), injuries, suspensions, fatigue etc. I know I still won''t convince you though Graham..... LOL

[jed exodous 0]

Cup runs can be looked on either way, its a nothing subject mate, thread closed, nothing to here guys and girls, move on...

[Branston Pickle 4,150]

Spot on, Jed (and sorry to carry on the thread!) - it can go either way: if you form a habit of winning it doesn''t matter that much how often you play, it keeps you going: Lambert said this only the other day, and all ex-pros have said as much. Yes it can mean that you pick up injuries and suspensions, but you do that anyway.

[paul moy 235]

The cup run of 2004 effectively cost us our Prem status through the resulting injuries to three key players at West Ham, and the Cup run of 1985 when we won the Milk Cup resulted in our relegation also. The case rests.... LOL

[Bill 1,788]

Both Lambert and Jewell stated that their players were knackered after playing extra games.

Previously it was 42 games a year. By adding three or four extra cup games (inc replays), plus possible extra times to a congested final months of the season is bound to cause stress. Some clubs are still to fit in postponed games.

With Championship clubs already having midweek games scheduled for this period you will have a situation where a team could be facing Saturday and mid week games for virtually every week until the end of April. That presumes only getting to the 5th round !

Anyone who thinks that having such a concentration of fixtures will not have a negative effect on performance (promotion push/relegation fight) is a fool.

Given that most managers are not fools it might explain why so many clubs went out fairly easily at the first hurdle.

[jed exodous 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]The cup run of 2004 effectively cost us our Prem status through the resulting injuries to three key players at West Ham, and the Cup run of 1985 when we won the Milk Cup resulted in our relegation also. The case rests.... LOL[/quote]

 

We had no cup run in 2004, we lost to West Ham in the first game we played in the competition.  Unless we were to do a Manchester United and withdraw from the FA Cup, that was a game we HAD to play. 

 

Your point about the 1985 season, what do you mean we got relegated cos we didn''t pick up enough points and we won the cup cos we went on a 6 or 7 game winning run.  Doesn''t look like the 2 are connected because the form in both was completely different.

 

Like i say, if you go a cup run and your league form suffers, people will point to the cup as a distraction, if your knocked out the cup at the first opportunity, and do well in the league then thats acceptable in my eyes, if your knocked out the cup and do poorly in the league after, well the team is clearly not as good as you think.

 

Our cup hangover lasted all of 7 minutes, after Cardiff took the lead on Saturday, we woke up, played some excellent football and could''ve won...

 

As i said, you can look on it whichever way you want...

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="jed exodous"]

[quote user="paul moy"]The cup run of 2004 effectively cost us our Prem status through the resulting injuries to three key players at West Ham, and the Cup run of 1985 when we won the Milk Cup resulted in our relegation also. The case rests.... LOL[/quote]

 

We had no cup run in 2004, we lost to West Ham in the first game we played in the competition.  Unless we were to do a Manchester United and withdraw from the FA Cup, that was a game we HAD to play. 

 

Your point about the 1985 season, what do you mean we got relegated cos we didn''t pick up enough points and we won the cup cos we went on a 6 or 7 game winning run.  Doesn''t look like the 2 are connected because the form in both was completely different.

 

Like i say, if you go a cup run and your league form suffers, people will point to the cup as a distraction, if your knocked out the cup at the first opportunity, and do well in the league then thats acceptable in my eyes, if your knocked out the cup and do poorly in the league after, well the team is clearly not as good as you think.

 

Our cup hangover lasted all of 7 minutes, after Cardiff took the lead on Saturday, we woke up, played some excellent football and could''ve won...

 

As i said, you can look on it whichever way you want...

[/quote]

We lost Huckerby, Bentley and the Danish International(whose name escapes me) for a number of games due to this one Cup match on Jan 8th 2005 and were relegated by a mere two points. Who knows, but it could be that without that game we could have remained in the Prem. Apologies for yet again repeating this detail, but this really was a key match that crippled our league performance for a number of games and probably aided our relegation. 

[Bill 1,788]

"what do you mean we got relegated cos we didn''t pick up enough points and we won the cup cos we went on a 6 or 7 game winning run"

I''m not quite sure whether you mean after the Final as in that case our results were

March 30th onward -

Coventry win

Sheff Weds draw

Arsenal loss

Ipswich loss

Watford loss

Luton loss

Leicester loss

Soke win

Everton loss

Man U loss

West Ham loss

Newcastle draw

Prior to the final from Sept 84 - March 85 we only had one time when we won two games consecutively ... and that was over Xmas. So if you are going to disagree then at least have to curtesy to stick to what is accurate in your defence.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="paul moy"]Apologies for yet again repeating this detail[/quote]Shame it''s not entirely accurate.Huckerby played in the very next game so presumably wasn''t that badly injured.  I think Helveg did get injured but wasn''t out for that long, just that Worthy decided not to play him again until quite late on for some reason.  And yes Bentley got a bit of a whack.  But so what?  It''s one of those things, could have happened anytime and ultimately we simply weren''t good enough.And did Burnley ever get that memo about cup runs preventing promotion, by the way?

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="paul moy"]Apologies for yet again repeating this detail[/quote]
Shame it''s not entirely accurate.

Huckerby played in the very next game so presumably wasn''t that badly injured.  I think Helveg did get injured but wasn''t out for that long, just that Worthy decided not to play him again until quite late on for some reason.  And yes Bentley got a bit of a whack.  But so what?  It''s one of those things, could have happened anytime and ultimately we simply weren''t good enough.

And did Burnley ever get that memo about cup runs preventing promotion, by the way?
[/quote]

You''re absolutely right Graham!

Pity Paul Moy doesn''t get his facts right. Re Huckerby ''injury'', I went to Villa Park which was the match immeditaely after the West Ham game. It was Dean Ashton''s debut and the boy Hucks played in that game. (as you rightly point out). We did NOT lose key players in the West Ham game other than Bentley (who was not an automatic first team choice anyway).

I just find it deeply embarrasing to even think of our shambles of a cup record for the past 15, 16 years or so. How refreshing to listen to people like Malky and Mick McCarthy who are clearly treating the competition seriously and want to progress. You won''t get any of this ..........''glad to get that out of the way, concentrate on staying / going up'' rubbish from these boys!. 

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="paul moy"]Apologies for yet again repeating this detail[/quote]
Shame it''s not entirely accurate.

Huckerby played in the very next game so presumably wasn''t that badly injured.  I think Helveg did get injured but wasn''t out for that long, just that Worthy decided not to play him again until quite late on for some reason.  And yes Bentley got a bit of a whack.  But so what?  It''s one of those things, could have happened anytime and ultimately we simply weren''t good enough.

And did Burnley ever get that memo about cup runs preventing promotion, by the way?
[/quote]

Do you have the write-up on the game ?  My recollection is that Bentley sustained an injury that kept him out for a few weeks. That''s a bit more than a bit of a whack and it would appear to me that you are playing down the extent of the resultant injuries from this game for some strange reason.... LOL

[The Fish Seller 0]

Can this winning mentality theory be substantiated by the citation of teams who have won either the F.A. cup or League cup AND have been promoted in the same year anyone?There are plenty of examples of a teams league performance dropping off (I give you Ipswich this year, Leeds last year and Colins infamous nose dive at Sheff Utd a few years back) as a cup run progresses but I really can''t think of any significant examples the other way round

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Yellow Rider"]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="paul moy"]Apologies for yet again repeating this detail[/quote]
Shame it''s not entirely accurate.

Huckerby played in the very next game so presumably wasn''t that badly injured.  I think Helveg did get injured but wasn''t out for that long, just that Worthy decided not to play him again until quite late on for some reason.  And yes Bentley got a bit of a whack.  But so what?  It''s one of those things, could have happened anytime and ultimately we simply weren''t good enough.

And did Burnley ever get that memo about cup runs preventing promotion, by the way?
[/quote]

You''re absolutely right Graham!

Pity Paul Moy doesn''t get his facts right. Re Huckerby ''injury'', I went to Villa Park which was the match immeditaely after the West Ham game. It was Dean Ashton''s debut and the boy Hucks played in that game. (as you rightly point out). We did NOT lose key players in the West Ham game other than Bentley (who was not an automatic first team choice anyway).

I just find it deeply embarrasing to even think of our shambles of a cup record for the past 15, 16 years or so. How refreshing to listen to people like Malky and Mick McCarthy who are clearly treating the competition seriously and want to progress. You won''t get any of this ..........''glad to get that out of the way, concentrate on staying / going up'' rubbish from these boys!. 

[/quote]

Can you substantiate that with a link bearing in mind your blind certainty ? My recollection is that Huckerby sustained a calf injury and missed at least one game.  Not that I don''t believe you.... LOL

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Buckethead"]Can this winning mentality theory be substantiated by the citation of teams who have won either the F.A. cup or League cup AND have been promoted in the same year anyone?
There are plenty of examples of a teams league performance dropping off (I give you Ipswich this year, Leeds last year and Colins infamous nose dive at Sheff Utd a few years back) as a cup run progresses but I really can''t think of any significant examples the other way round
[/quote]

They can''t give you many examples of smaller clubs, that''s for sure, and is the reason IMO why so few teams have won the double. Only in recent years have more teams achieved it, but due mainly to their massive resources in the cases of Chelsea, Man Utd etc. Smaller clubs simply don''t have the resources to win multiple trophies in one season. Another example of failure is Millwall when they lost out on promotion and also lost the Cup final to Man Utd about 7 years ago under Wise and Wilkins. Without that cup run they may well have achieved promotion, but instead ended up selling Tim Cahill to Everton and sinking to Div 1 within a few seasons.

[jed exodous 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"what do you mean we got relegated cos we didn''t pick up enough points and we won the cup cos we went on a 6 or 7 game winning run" I''m not quite sure whether you mean after the Final as in that case our results were March 30th onward - Coventry win Sheff Weds draw Arsenal loss Ipswich loss Watford loss Luton loss Leicester loss Soke win Everton loss Man U loss West Ham loss Newcastle draw Prior to the final from Sept 84 - March 85 we only had one time when we won two games consecutively ... and that was over Xmas. So if you are going to disagree then at least have to curtesy to stick to what is accurate in your defence.[/quote]

 

I mean we won the cup because we went on a winning run in that competition.  Fans would hope the euphoria of that success would drive the team on to do well in the league but it appears cup form and league form in that example are chalk and cheese, they have no baring on each other.  Sorry i didn''t make that clear...

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="jed exodous"]

[quote user="City1st"]"what do you mean we got relegated cos we didn''t pick up enough points and we won the cup cos we went on a 6 or 7 game winning run" I''m not quite sure whether you mean after the Final as in that case our results were March 30th onward - Coventry win Sheff Weds draw Arsenal loss Ipswich loss Watford loss Luton loss Leicester loss Soke win Everton loss Man U loss West Ham loss Newcastle draw Prior to the final from Sept 84 - March 85 we only had one time when we won two games consecutively ... and that was over Xmas. So if you are going to disagree then at least have to curtesy to stick to what is accurate in your defence.[/quote]

 

I mean we won the cup because we went on a winning run in that competition.  Fans would hope the euphoria of that success would drive the team on to do well in the league but it appears cup form and league form in that example are chalk and cheese, they have no baring on each other.  Sorry i didn''t make that clear...

[/quote]

... but clearly Cup form can and does have a bearing on League form as I and others have given evidence on.  League form generally peters out as a side progresses in the Cup not least because of the added fixture congestion and limited resources as players glory-hunt in the Cup. Just look at Leeds'' exploits last season and the effects on Jermaine Beckford''s league form compared to Cup form.

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Yellow Rider"]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="paul moy"]Apologies for yet again repeating this detail[/quote]
Shame it''s not entirely accurate.

Huckerby played in the very next game so presumably wasn''t that badly injured.  I think Helveg did get injured but wasn''t out for that long, just that Worthy decided not to play him again until quite late on for some reason.  And yes Bentley got a bit of a whack.  But so what?  It''s one of those things, could have happened anytime and ultimately we simply weren''t good enough.

And did Burnley ever get that memo about cup runs preventing promotion, by the way?
[/quote]

You''re absolutely right Graham!

Pity Paul Moy doesn''t get his facts right. Re Huckerby ''injury'', I went to Villa Park which was the match immeditaely after the West Ham game. It was Dean Ashton''s debut and the boy Hucks played in that game. (as you rightly point out). We did NOT lose key players in the West Ham game other than Bentley (who was not an automatic first team choice anyway).

I just find it deeply embarrasing to even think of our shambles of a cup record for the past 15, 16 years or so. How refreshing to listen to people like Malky and Mick McCarthy who are clearly treating the competition seriously and want to progress. You won''t get any of this ..........''glad to get that out of the way, concentrate on staying / going up'' rubbish from these boys!. 

[/quote]

Can you substantiate that with a link bearing in mind your blind certainty ? My recollection is that Huckerby sustained a calf injury and missed at least one game.  Not that I don''t believe you.... LOL

[/quote]

http://www.norwichcity-mad.co.uk/rprt/mtch/aston_villa_3_norwich_city_0_199494/index.shtml

Hope this link works Paul.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="Yellow Rider"][quote user="paul moy"][quote user="Yellow Rider"]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="paul moy"]Apologies for yet again repeating this detail[/quote]
Shame it''s not entirely accurate.

Huckerby played in the very next game so presumably wasn''t that badly injured.  I think Helveg did get injured but wasn''t out for that long, just that Worthy decided not to play him again until quite late on for some reason.  And yes Bentley got a bit of a whack.  But so what?  It''s one of those things, could have happened anytime and ultimately we simply weren''t good enough.

And did Burnley ever get that memo about cup runs preventing promotion, by the way?
[/quote]

You''re absolutely right Graham!

Pity Paul Moy doesn''t get his facts right. Re Huckerby ''injury'', I went to Villa Park which was the match immeditaely after the West Ham game. It was Dean Ashton''s debut and the boy Hucks played in that game. (as you rightly point out). We did NOT lose key players in the West Ham game other than Bentley (who was not an automatic first team choice anyway).

I just find it deeply embarrasing to even think of our shambles of a cup record for the past 15, 16 years or so. How refreshing to listen to people like Malky and Mick McCarthy who are clearly treating the competition seriously and want to progress. You won''t get any of this ..........''glad to get that out of the way, concentrate on staying / going up'' rubbish from these boys!. 

[/quote]

Can you substantiate that with a link bearing in mind your blind certainty ? My recollection is that Huckerby sustained a calf injury and missed at least one game.  Not that I don''t believe you.... LOL

[/quote]

http://www.norwichcity-mad.co.uk/rprt/mtch/aston_villa_3_norwich_city_0_199494/index.shtml

Hope this link works Paul.

[/quote]

Thanks for that. I stand corrected on Huckerby and apologise for doubting you there. Perhaps somebody can confirm how long Bentley and the Danish guy were out for ?

[norfolkchance1 0]

I''ve always felt it better to get knocked out of cups earlier (if you deem yourself to have a lesser chance of winning) if you are wanting to do well in the league. Theres''s nothing wrong with a couple of rounds but when you start having to have league fixtures rearranged you are relying on winning games in hand that come very quickly together.

I think we benefitted from early exit of FA Cup last year by winning league games on days when everyone else was playing in cup. Teams following couldn''t cope with the pressure.

Also when Sheffield United got to semi finals of FA Cup and latter rounds of Carling Cup it knackered league form - a point acknowledged by Warnock the following season.

[jed exodous 0]

Ok PM, you do raise a few valid points, but there are also lots of examples when a cup run has helped a teams league form.  It doesn''t always get in the way.  Perhaps players do pick up injuries but that cant always be helped and its as likely to happen in a league game as a cup game.  I think the cups are prioritised less in more recent years especially by teams higher up their league.