Poyet will rest and rotate key men as winter bites (From The Argus)

That's good thinking. After last year it will help players keep fresh and hopefully injury free

They will all get a break in May for the whole of the Summer,in the mean time they will have to play all the time apart from injuries and banns.Football is a job like we all have to do if you dont go to work you dont get paid.How many games did Brum play last year,and they still were full of running.

It's the typical "if you've never played you don't understand" argument but I personally still fail to see how young professional athletes can't play 2 games a week if they are without injury. If they are carrying a knock then they need to rest for it to get better that’s different but resting players just because they have played twice a week for three months I just don't get. Tennis players regularly play 3 games a week during tournaments that can last over 3 hours a match in a sport equally physically demanding and I would say more mentally demanding. I think most bricklayers/hod carriers/farmers/lan
dscape gardeners/etc would agree that just over 3 hours competitive football a week would feel like a holiday.

I understand the sentiments of the last 2 posts but feel that rotation can have a motivational and energising effect too. Both Greer and Bridcutt played below their usually high standards on Tuesday evening. Keping them fresh and focussed can't be a bad thing for the team in the long run.

I think the key issue is knocks and injuries. I once heard Lee Dixon say that for 95% of all the games he played, he carried an injury of some sort. So I don't believe it is a fitness issue, but the gradual worsening of injuries if they are not rested.

Agree with you Doctor, hopefully after the international break we may a full squad to choose from including Vicente & Hoskins. Very quiet on the additional striker front, any rumours anyone?

Rotation can be equally good and bad,if you get it right and the mainstay of the side can adapt each week to the changes,as well as taking into account possible injuries,then your laughing,but i think it was Liverpool a couple of seasons back that dabbled with regular rotations of their squad and payed the price,both in poor performances and player unrest.Either way it`s obvious you cant rely on just 14 players for 46 league games,good luck Gus.UTA

tug509 wrote:
Rotation can be equally good and bad,if you get it right and the mainstay of the side can adapt each week to the changes,as well as taking into account possible injuries,then your laughing,but i think it was Liverpool a couple of seasons back that dabbled with regular rotations of their squad and payed the price,both in poor performances and player unrest.Either way it`s obvious you cant rely on just 14 players for 46 league games,good luck Gus.UTA

It backfired to the the extent that Rafa lost his job. Hopefully our manager will get it right.

A good cup run could throw a spanner in the works. With the standard of football in this division these days I think you could make a good argument for reducing the number of teams by two. If this were done bu tthe start and finish date were kept, there could be four weeks where all the teams get a rest.


.

On the sky sports iPhone app it says Brighton v Watford 17.20 k.o weds 26/12 sky sports tv. Don't get it?

Too many Harveys wrote:
It's the typical "if you've never played you don't understand" argument but I personally still fail to see how young professional athletes can't play 2 games a week if they are without injury. If they are carrying a knock then they need to rest for it to get better that’s different but resting players just because they have played twice a week for three months I just don't get. Tennis players regularly play 3 games a week during tournaments that can last over 3 hours a match in a sport equally physically demanding and I would say more mentally demanding. I think most bricklayers/hod carriers/farmers/lan

dscape gardeners/etc would agree that just over 3 hours competitive football a week would feel like a holiday.

I was so glad you posted that. My sentiments exactly and also those of Andy Gray btw.
I expect many of us used to do a job and play football twice a week; training on other nights too. We used to do this because we liked playing football. It was a recreation. There was no talk of 'burnout' or, 'Sorry Boss, cannot play today, or turn up for work today, because I have done too much.'
It's a modern affectation by managers to explain poor resultsand is totally psychological. If you tell someone they look tired, they begin to think they are.
It's different with actual injuries that have to be nursed along.
Every time I hear about a possible 'Winter Break' I get really irritated. Football is an entertainment even though it doesn't always seem like it! What happened to 'The Show must go on' principle? A lot of players agree too.
Anyway, a winter break would be impossible to implement as the weather vagaries would render an enforced break combining with a vountary break. We would be lucky to see any football in January or February. Can you imagine it? The winter would be so miserable without football. We provide the money for this industry and it should be up to the fans to decide whether they want a winter break not the F.A. or some other body of self-seeking cretins.
Whoops! Fell off my soap-box there.
Anyway, back to the article, it does occur to me that this is a smoke-screen by Gus to implant in the minds that no player is certain of playing every game. Is it coincidence that Bridcutt and Greer have given the ball away a lot more than normal lately and they are the two mentioned? What about AEA? He is playing well and not mentioned. It could be a subtle management ploy to motivate players? After all, they risk not getting back into the team if replacements do well.
As I said earlier, it's all pyschological nonsense and even then sometimes so called 'mind games' are wrongly attributed to managers when it's just them not managing properly or making excuses for poor results.

Sticky-mess wrote:
On the sky sports iPhone app it says Brighton v Watford 17.20 k.o weds 26/12 sky sports tv. Don't get it?

29th, on Sky

Some tennis players might play three matches in a week but how many do they play over the year. How many of those matches are played in soaking wet conditions or on days when the temperature is only just above freezing. How many tennis players do you see get kicked up in the air by an opponent, and don't forget the short break they get every time they change ends. Apples and oranges.

Ah, those not so far away days, when the ball was a lot harder and heavier, as were the boots.
There was the FA Cup, the League Cup, International duties, a full fixture list, FA Cup and League Cup replays, some of which went on and on and on; oh, and smaller squads!
Matches were played in terrible conditions then, remembering the early 1960s FA Cup semi-final between Swansea and Preston played in a swamp!
What was that? Wages? Oh yes, the money wasn't much either back then.
Break? The way the season pans out now, there are more breaks than hot meals eaten during the same period, so why should resting players be considered?
I am all for having a squad capable of meeting the needs of play and injuries, but for highly paid sportsmen to have to be mindful of burnout. What burnout? Bah, humbug!

Grumpy lot this afternoon aren’t we.

This is about the science of being an athlete and obtaining the extra 5 – 10 percent from them.

Four games over two weeks is quite a lot, and although they are all capable, barring injury, of playing, it is not the same as Sunday League.

I am sure the medical staff can back up the reasoning for this.

I can't beleieve that some on here are comparing the fitness requirements of the game some thirty or forty years ago to those needed today and saying it's the same.
Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile and everyone thougth it amazing today it's nothing. The game today is different in nearly every aspect. The pressures on both players and managers to succeed is different. In reality what you people are doing is the same as putting a boxer from the 40's against Ali and trying to decide which is the better.

.

Did ya miss me?

Agree with you Hovite! It's amazing how subscribers on here know better than Gus.Being a mere female who am I to comment,but surely one must consider that Gus has been there!!! I feel it's sooo good that the players are being looked after considering we have the best people behind the scenes possible.Take heed.

Sorry chaps much as I usually enjoy reading your comments, I am going to 'have a go' on this one. It's disappointing to read so many negative comments regarding resting players.
Unbelievable ignorance from sports fans who should know better.
To equate elite athletes with Sunday League players or hod carriers is ridiculous. With the science these days, top players are training to the point where there bodies are finely honed to give maximum performance. However, like an F1 car, they can easily break down if pushed that bit too hard.
But of course, Gus doesn't know what he is doing, does he? ;)
Peace chaps... :)

Bridcutt played 46 games last year & will do this year or my name is Dicky Tiltman

Dave in Hastings wrote:
Sorry chaps much as I usually enjoy reading your comments, I am going to 'have a go' on this one. It's disappointing to read so many negative comments regarding resting players. Unbelievable ignorance from sports fans who should know better. To equate elite athletes with Sunday League players or hod carriers is ridiculous. With the science these days, top players are training to the point where there bodies are finely honed to give maximum performance. However, like an F1 car, they can easily break down if pushed that bit too hard. But of course, Gus doesn't know what he is doing, does he? ;) Peace chaps... :)

Agreed.

Having watched Liverpool last night and, in particular, Stevie Gerard I think I can count on one finger the number of complete passes he made, the number of successful tackles he made... awful! Was that because of burn out? I hope not but I do begin to wonder. If we have the squad to deal with rotation all well and good. In the case of certain defensive and midfield positions - though not all - we probably can if injuries and suspensions don't cloud the horizon... but unless something happens up front we are going to face the problem of who to put in. Unless DS squad players such as GB and TA are blooded now (no apologies to you Cabin Fever - it is absolutely essential they get some time on the pitch!) they will continue to be viewed as inexperienced rookies who cannot be trusted and risked to do the job - simply ridiculous given our current situation.
And for all who think there are 3 easy points up at Pride Park take a look at the stats - their home form may be marred by goals conceded (still hope for us there then!) but they are comparatively prolific in attack, something we cannot really claim to be... Nevertheless fingers remained crossed.

Sorry, got to wade back in!! The key here is the notion of resting FIT players. If players are carrying a knock due to the rigours of a physical sport then they need to be rested so they can heal. My point is that elite athletes should be capable if not injured of playing two games a week every week and resting them in favour of an inferior replacement to wrap them in cotton wool in the hope that they won’t get injured is nonsense. If we had 2 players of equal ability for every position then ignoring the other argument about continuity, not changing a winning team etc, then we could rotate but I think the past two games have shown this isn’t the case. The best 11 fit players for each game should play, regardless of if a couple of those players have been ever present. Incidentally the top 5 tennis players play approx. 100 matches a year in approx. 20 tournaments. They don’t play if they’re injured but if they’re not they play week in week out because that is what their training schedule prepares them to do. More relevant is Lionel Messi who in the past 4 seasons has played, 59, 63,65 and 73 games respectively including both club and international games. If he’s fit he plays because he’s the best they have. Clearly according to some on here Barcelona are getting this wrong…

Just got through a bunch of weeks of locked down jury service so no laptops allowed, I come back to find civil war raging over a plan to rest some key players thru the winter campaign.
What Poyet is saying is right. As most of you know I am not a big Vicente fan but that said, if he performs and earns his place, he is one who Poyet will certainly have to look out for. One's form can be affected from playing too many games just as it can from not playing enough. When temperatures start to fall and pitches start to get harder the game changes and so do the players.
Do you think that Poyet might have been talking with the medical team, do you not think he is taking their advice with regard to some of the players.
This topic may not have come up before but we have never been where we are today.
If CMS is banging in goals he will start every game but if he hits a dry spell in december or january maybe he gets a week off, assuming we have another striker by then. Bridge, Bruno, Greer, yeah maybe they will need a week off.

I just find it hard to believe some comments on here that we aren't prolific in attack.. we have the BEST goal difference in the league (+9).. we are obviously missing the influence of CMS and I have the feeling that AB is holding back for fear of getting a yellow card and leaving us short up front.

As to players rotation, I wholeheartedly agree with Dave's comments!

VegasSeagull wrote:
Did ya miss me?

its 5.18 in the morning Vegas you sent this post ,don`t you sleep.I`m arriving in Vegas tomorrow,staying at the Bellagio on the strip,meet me in the front bar on the 10th at 10pm I`ll be wearing a Seagull top,apart from that I don`t think many missed you.Shout me a beer YES?

pappaK wrote:

VegasSeagull wrote: Did ya miss me?

its 5.18 in the morning Vegas you sent this post ,don`t you sleep.I`m arriving in Vegas tomorrow,staying at the Bellagio on the strip,meet me in the front bar on the 10th at 10pm I`ll be wearing a Seagull top,apart from that I don`t think many missed you.Shout me a beer YES?

I would be happy to buy you a beer but I am not keen on your timing. and why in 5 days time.

Bummer no one missed me but oh well, life goes on.

Rob_in_Tulsa wrote:
I just find it hard to believe some comments on here that we aren't prolific in attack.. we have the BEST goal difference in the league (+9).. we are obviously missing the influence of CMS and I have the feeling that AB is holding back for fear of getting a yellow card and leaving us short up front.

As to players rotation, I wholeheartedly agree with Dave's comments!

The goal difference isn't thanks to our 'prolific' attack - more due to our very solid defence. Take away the goals scored by defenders (3) and CMS and we have a grand total of 6 which is as many as we have conceded... And?

Rotating the squad is a necessary part of the modern game. Keeping the best players up to their best conditions is essential for any side to progress.
In our case, thank goodness Gus has his finger on the pulse of all things Albion, because without his management skills we would be in League Two by now.
To all those fans who cannot understand the resting process, please keep up!

Jonathan, you can play with the numbers all you like but the facts are the facts.. we still have the best goal difference in the league and have scored 15 goals in 9 matches and equal 4th in number of goals scored.. And we're not prolific enough for you???

Too many Harveys wrote:
Sorry, got to wade back in!! The key here is the notion of resting FIT players. If players are carrying a knock due to the rigours of a physical sport then they need to be rested so they can heal. My point is that elite athletes should be capable if not injured of playing two games a week every week and resting them in favour of an inferior replacement to wrap them in cotton wool in the hope that they won’t get injured is nonsense. If we had 2 players of equal ability for every position then ignoring the other argument about continuity, not changing a winning team etc, then we could rotate but I think the past two games have shown this isn’t the case. The best 11 fit players for each game should play, regardless of if a couple of those players have been ever present. Incidentally the top 5 tennis players play approx. 100 matches a year in approx. 20 tournaments. They don’t play if they’re injured but if they’re not they play week in week out because that is what their training schedule prepares them to do. More relevant is Lionel Messi who in the past 4 seasons has played, 59, 63,65 and 73 games respectively including both club and international games. If he’s fit he plays because he’s the best they have. Clearly according to some on here Barcelona are getting this wrong…

Those are impressive figures,hope V is reading your excellent comments!..UTA

Hello Vegas welcome back,i think a few on here thought you had been kidnapped by C`apn Haddock,i myself went for the alien abduction theory as you live in the states,you know ugly little critters with bad skin and worse breath,you know,palace fans....UTA

Vegas was just wearing a MACK in disguise ;)

Back to immediate business, Derby tomorrow. There doesn't seem to be any official information on the bhafc website, but tickets are available on the gate to away supporters. I was told this by the Brighton ticket office, who said that they had only sold about 600, and confirmed this with Derby.

PS Wildcard - put Bruno upfront tomorrow.

I thought they just had a rest against Birmingham and ipswich.
Are these players pro's or do they have a full time job come on Gus this 2012.
ALL other teams are in the same boat.

Too many Harveys wrote:
Sorry, got to wade back in!! The key here is the notion of resting FIT players. If players are carrying a knock due to the rigours of a physical sport then they need to be rested so they can heal. My point is that elite athletes should be capable if not injured of playing two games a week every week and resting them in favour of an inferior replacement to wrap them in cotton wool in the hope that they won’t get injured is nonsense. If we had 2 players of equal ability for every position then ignoring the other argument about continuity, not changing a winning team etc, then we could rotate but I think the past two games have shown this isn’t the case. The best 11 fit players for each game should play, regardless of if a couple of those players have been ever present. Incidentally the top 5 tennis players play approx. 100 matches a year in approx. 20 tournaments. They don’t play if they’re injured but if they’re not they play week in week out because that is what their training schedule prepares them to do. More relevant is Lionel Messi who in the past 4 seasons has played, 59, 63,65 and 73 games respectively including both club and international games. If he’s fit he plays because he’s the best they have. Clearly according to some on here Barcelona are getting this wrong…

Agreed.
I am sorry but most other posters on here are just spouting football manager cliches and repeating rubbish spoken by managers and footballers thinking they know better ...when they do not. Well done TMH for a couple of euridite and well constructed posts.
As far as comparing modern day footallers to those of thirty years ago is concerned then it is a valid comparison. They may be faster today but that is through natural development not necessarily modern coaching or dietary methods. Don't believe the hype....remember the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.

PittaPatta wrote:
Rotating the squad is a necessary part of the modern game. Keeping the best players up to their best conditions is essential for any side to progress.
In our case, thank goodness Gus has his finger on the pulse of all things Albion, because without his management skills we would be in League Two by now.
To all those fans who cannot understand the resting process, please keep up!

You have not understood the points TMH and others are making. It's the reasons for resting that are questionable.I suggest you 'keep up'.

VegasSeagull wrote:
Did ya miss me?

been down the casino????

Rob_in_Tulsa wrote:
Jonathan, you can play with the numbers all you like but the facts are the facts.. we still have the best goal difference in the league and have scored 15 goals in 9 matches and equal 4th in number of goals scored.. And we're not prolific enough for you???

No, not enough ! The conversion rate of opportunities to goals is simply not good enough and I find it rich to hear that soft goals against are costing us points. With finishing to match the build up play we would still be top of the league. Simples!!!

Jonathan Mouette wrote:

Rob_in_Tulsa wrote:
Jonathan, you can play with the numbers all you like but the facts are the facts.. we still have the best goal difference in the league and have scored 15 goals in 9 matches and equal 4th in number of goals scored.. And we're not prolific enough for you???

No, not enough ! The conversion rate of opportunities to goals is simply not good enough and I find it rich to hear that soft goals against are costing us points. With finishing to match the build up play we would still be top of the league. Simples!!!

JM, try and be positive with the occasional post,it's really quite enjoyable.

i'll never have a bad word to say about Albion on the field..but the transport situation at the Amex is beyond a joke

http://www.theargus.
co.uk/opinion/letter
s/9967608.Matchday_l
ogistics/

I have always thought the stadium should have been built at Waterhall where everyone would have had the option to disperse on foot rather than queuing up to get out.

the stadium is built now Hovite and it's not going anywhere! Therefore this situation has to be addressed. The club have been contacted directly regarding this but so far...nada.

Yeah you're right, it wasn't a very helpful comment.

Have you contacted the club directly on this?

I mean you personally contacting the club.

yes

I would keep chasing them up. It is a dodgy road and they should welcome community input and suggestions.

Have you tried Tel: 01273 878288
Email: feedback@bhafc.co.uk

we have contacted them and received an initial reponse asking for personal contact details. These were passed on but, as yet, we have had no response. I hope they are contemplating the situation and will repsond sooner rather than later. The next home game is on the 20th, and whilst not expecting immediate solutions it would be nice to have confirmation that the situation will be given the proper consideration.

I know we all love the Albion but unless fans who are frustrated by their match day travails vent their spleen nothing will ever change.

Indeed, they have a lot of fine tuning to do. Don't give up.

Would be interesting to know if they do contact you or not. Keep the thread posted.

will do. we need to do our research too. would be great to find a solution as it is the only downer on what is a fantastic match-day experience.

Ref amex transport ; perhaps instead of of spending 29 million on a training facility for our tired footballers who can't be over worked ! A slip road straight into / out of amex grounds ., purchase of fields above stadium(council permitting and farmer) any suggestions welcome i for one agree if club to continue growing ( am sure club realise too) we need to all come up with some very gd ideas.

Hovite wrote:
I have always thought the stadium should have been built at Waterhall where everyone would have had the option to disperse on foot rather than queuing up to get out.

Disperse on foot, how you'd work that out!? I really don't see the major problem on the transport situation. I've caught the train and bus out of falmer and been happy enough concidering there's 25000 other people leaving the vicinity at the same time!!!

If you drive ur an idiot anyway, (unless you have no other option) . yes they need more buses and trains, but to honest it's probaly not in there (fiancial) interest to do so?!

If you've got feet, you disperse on them. I worked it out one day when looking at the bottom of my legs and to my surprise, a couple of feet. Ever since then I decided to use them for dispersing.

Joking aside I park and ride by the way and haven't had a problem, but people tend to leave the game early to grab the first bus or train out of there.

Re the travel issues to and from the ground.

By far the best method of transport I have used was when I was a passenger on a motor bike, Dyke Rd to the ground in 8 minutes.

My prefered method is to get a cab around 4pm and go the little bar in the village, stay there till game time. After the game hit the bar again and have a cab pick me up at closing time.

Of my 6 trips to the ground last year I did use the park and ride on occasion, it worked well enough. I am waiting for the heli pad to be built, by far the best way to travel when it's only a short hop.

I would like to see the regular back five (GK included) Lopez, Bridcutt, Hammond and Dicker with Buckley up front and Dobbie in the hole. I am guessing from what I have read that some will say Hammond should not start, well obviously I don't agree. Lopez might not be completely match fit yet but I am sure he could do 40 minutes.

Hovite wrote:
I have always thought the stadium should have been built at Waterhall where everyone would have had the option to disperse on foot rather than queuing up to get out.

For many a long hour I've been thinking upon this (Bob Dylan)I have always thought Hovite that the Amex should have been built at Waterhall. Unfortunately we are where we are. When we reach the PL and remain successful it may just be possible, finances permitting the Amex will be reallocated to Waterhall. I know this is very fanciful but is it not possible the team could be supported by 40-50 thousand crowds and would need a bigger ground? The infastructure at Waterhall would be such that a rail spur line could go straight to the back of the stadium. Then off the train and through the turnstiles. I beleive that is the case at Man U. Also the current parking in Mill Hill would be ideal as a foot bridge could be built across the A27 to the ground. Waterhall is in a natural bowl and would lend itself to a stadium for the most part being out of sight and away from any significant residential property. Also park and ride which is funded by The Albion would not be required, thus saving money. We are at Falmer as we really didn't have an option at the time and is far better than still being stuck at Withdean. Or should that read Withdene? Myself, I hop on the Seagull travel bus at the old Windmill puf, Southwick and have a leisurely trip to the Amex. As I do not like drinking before matches (waterworks trouble) I stay on the bus until half hour before kickoff, read the paper and listen to the pre match reports on the radio. After the match, board the bus and have a leisurely ride home with a good chat and a laugh (if we win). You can't beat it. The cost for 23 home games is £96, about £4 a game. Marvelous!!!

VegasSeagull wrote:
I would like to see the regular back five (GK included) Lopez, Bridcutt, Hammond and Dicker with Buckley up front and Dobbie in the hole. I am guessing from what I have read that some will say Hammond should not start, well obviously I don't agree. Lopez might not be completely match fit yet but I am sure he could do 40 minutes.

You clearly are unaware of the performance of Orlandi against Ipswich? Gets ahead of Dicker every time.

saraman wrote:

Hovite wrote:
I have always thought the stadium should have been built at Waterhall where everyone would have had the option to disperse on foot rather than queuing up to get out.

For many a long hour I've been thinking upon this (Bob Dylan)I have always thought Hovite that the Amex should have been built at Waterhall. Unfortunately we are where we are. When we reach the PL and remain successful it may just be possible, finances permitting the Amex will be reallocated to Waterhall. I know this is very fanciful but is it not possible the team could be supported by 40-50 thousand crowds and would need a bigger ground? The infastructure at Waterhall would be such that a rail spur line could go straight to the back of the stadium. Then off the train and through the turnstiles. I beleive that is the case at Man U. Also the current parking in Mill Hill would be ideal as a foot bridge could be built across the A27 to the ground. Waterhall is in a natural bowl and would lend itself to a stadium for the most part being out of sight and away from any significant residential property. Also park and ride which is funded by The Albion would not be required, thus saving money. We are at Falmer as we really didn't have an option at the time and is far better than still being stuck at Withdean. Or should that read Withdene? Myself, I hop on the Seagull travel bus at the old Windmill puf, Southwick and have a leisurely trip to the Amex. As I do not like drinking before matches (waterworks trouble) I stay on the bus until half hour before kickoff, read the paper and listen to the pre match reports on the radio. After the match, board the bus and have a leisurely ride home with a good chat and a laugh (if we win). You can't beat it. The cost for 23 home games is £96, about £4 a game. Marvelous!!!

Why would P&R not be required? Are you sure there are enough car park spaces in mill road for a 50,000 crowd? Can the London to Brighton line support more trains, especially trains that are crossing the main line? A station wouldn't be built on the main line as its too near the tunnel.

Non-starter l'm afraid. Our future is in a 30,500 capacity stadium at Falmer. We need to make that work.

saraman wrote:

Hovite wrote:
I have always thought the stadium should have been built at Waterhall where everyone would have had the option to disperse on foot rather than queuing up to get out.

For many a long hour I've been thinking upon this (Bob Dylan)I have always thought Hovite that the Amex should have been built at Waterhall. Unfortunately we are where we are. When we reach the PL and remain successful it may just be possible, finances permitting the Amex will be reallocated to Waterhall. I know this is very fanciful but is it not possible the team could be supported by 40-50 thousand crowds and would need a bigger ground? The infastructure at Waterhall would be such that a rail spur line could go straight to the back of the stadium. Then off the train and through the turnstiles. I beleive that is the case at Man U. Also the current parking in Mill Hill would be ideal as a foot bridge could be built across the A27 to the ground. Waterhall is in a natural bowl and would lend itself to a stadium for the most part being out of sight and away from any significant residential property. Also park and ride which is funded by The Albion would not be required, thus saving money. We are at Falmer as we really didn't have an option at the time and is far better than still being stuck at Withdean. Or should that read Withdene? Myself, I hop on the Seagull travel bus at the old Windmill puf, Southwick and have a leisurely trip to the Amex. As I do not like drinking before matches (waterworks trouble) I stay on the bus until half hour before kickoff, read the paper and listen to the pre match reports on the radio. After the match, board the bus and have a leisurely ride home with a good chat and a laugh (if we win). You can't beat it. The cost for 23 home games is £96, about £4 a game. Marvelous!!!

Why would P&R not be required? Are you sure there are enough car park spaces in mill road for a 50,000 crowd? Can the London to Brighton line support more trains, especially trains that are crossing the main line? A station wouldn't be built on the main line as its too near the tunnel.

Non-starter l'm afraid. Our future is in a 30,500 capacity stadium at Falmer. We need to make that work.

Bob! wrote:

saraman wrote:

Hovite wrote: I have always thought the stadium should have been built at Waterhall where everyone would have had the option to disperse on foot rather than queuing up to get out.

For many a long hour I've been thinking upon this (Bob Dylan)I have always thought Hovite that the Amex should have been built at Waterhall. Unfortunately we are where we are. When we reach the PL and remain successful it may just be possible, finances permitting the Amex will be reallocated to Waterhall. I know this is very fanciful but is it not possible the team could be supported by 40-50 thousand crowds and would need a bigger ground? The infastructure at Waterhall would be such that a rail spur line could go straight to the back of the stadium. Then off the train and through the turnstiles. I beleive that is the case at Man U. Also the current parking in Mill Hill would be ideal as a foot bridge could be built across the A27 to the ground. Waterhall is in a natural bowl and would lend itself to a stadium for the most part being out of sight and away from any significant residential property. Also park and ride which is funded by The Albion would not be required, thus saving money. We are at Falmer as we really didn't have an option at the time and is far better than still being stuck at Withdean. Or should that read Withdene? Myself, I hop on the Seagull travel bus at the old Windmill puf, Southwick and have a leisurely trip to the Amex. As I do not like drinking before matches (waterworks trouble) I stay on the bus until half hour before kickoff, read the paper and listen to the pre match reports on the radio. After the match, board the bus and have a leisurely ride home with a good chat and a laugh (if we win). You can't beat it. The cost for 23 home games is £96, about £4 a game. Marvelous!!!

Why would P&R not be required? Are you sure there are enough car park spaces in mill road for a 50,000 crowd? Can the London to Brighton line support more trains, especially trains that are crossing the main line? A station wouldn't be built on the main line as its too near the tunnel. Non-starter l'm afraid. Our future is in a 30,500 capacity stadium at Falmer. We need to make that work.

Hi Bob, what I suggested was a spur line off of the main south to north track to go right into the back of the stadium so only a platform would need to be built. Trains coming from the north could go int Brighton and back out to the stadium. Taken the size of Water Hall; I'm sure more than adequate parking spaces for cars and buses could be provide. More so than Falmer possibly. As an added thought, the existing Amex could be sold to Brighton council for major athletic events. That would really put the area on the map. Bold and fanciful dreaming I know but moving from Withdene to Falmer 12 or so years ago was also a dream. And that dream came true.

There could have been a massive car park built under the A27 at Waterhall which would have also served the city well on non football days. It would have saved visitors trying to park at Churchill Sq if they could park at Waterhall then jump on a train from there to Brighton Station. The seafront road is just a queue for parking during the summer season at weekends.

Also away fans wouldn't have to even touch Brighton.

Unfortunately because of the useless council's we have had, we had to go for the second best option, which is great but not perfect.

If I recall the reason why Brighton didn't build at Water Hall was because some guy int he goverment ruled the site out due to traffic flow.
I think the issue was all about the congestion it would cause, and safety hazards. Traffic flowing south would have to somehow get across to the entrance of Water Hall. Again working only from a fading memory I think the only options were either a tunnel or a flyover, neither of which the goverment wanted to fund.,

That may have been one of the reasons they invented, but with the main park and ride currently being opperated from Waterhall most of the cars for matches park there anyway. So it is pretty much the same traffic entering Waterhall now as what it would have been if the stadium was built there.

Well what ever the reasons, invented or not, we are were we are and I wish I could hop on a park and ride bus.

Fair enough

Getting back to soccor.

I think the stripes could be up against it today, the last two results will spur Derby, but I guess our last two away results might give them some pause for thought.

Had we won those two home games I am sure that Derby would have approached this game differently. As it stands now they have learned things about us that they didn't know ten days ago. I expect Derby to attack, they are at home, but I also expect them to employ the stifling tactic too

Now to contradict myself, as I often do, the fact that Derby might fancy beating us and play a tad more openly than either Birminham or Ipswich did, will help us play our natural game. I see this as a match in which we MUST score first.

. .

Hovite wrote:
There could have been a massive car park built under the A27 at Waterhall which would have also served the city well on non football days. It would have saved visitors trying to park at Churchill Sq if they could park at Waterhall then jump on a train from there to Brighton Station. The seafront road is just a queue for parking during the summer season at weekends.

Also away fans wouldn't have to even touch Brighton.

Unfortunately because of the useless council's we have had, we had to go for the second best option, which is great but not perfect.

How the h*ll do you think we coped when we were at the Goldstone!!! No parking ,And a punch up till the Hove station,not ideal,but a d*mn sight worse than the AMEX...The powers to be cant put everything right straight away,or would you rather have a road than a future!..UTA

When we were at the Goldstone most people walked along Old Shoreham Road, like in the song, remember?

Hovite wrote:
When we were at the Goldstone most people walked along Old Shoreham Road, like in the song, remember?

All the lads and lasses and all the smiling faces running down Old Shoreham Road to see our MULLERYS ACES....what? that one!

Claude Back wrote:

Too many Harveys wrote:
Sorry, got to wade back in!! The key here is the notion of resting FIT players. If players are carrying a knock due to the rigours of a physical sport then they need to be rested so they can heal. My point is that elite athletes should be capable if not injured of playing two games a week every week and resting them in favour of an inferior replacement to wrap them in cotton wool in the hope that they won’t get injured is nonsense. If we had 2 players of equal ability for every position then ignoring the other argument about continuity, not changing a winning team etc, then we could rotate but I think the past two games have shown this isn’t the case. The best 11 fit players for each game should play, regardless of if a couple of those players have been ever present. Incidentally the top 5 tennis players play approx. 100 matches a year in approx. 20 tournaments. They don’t play if they’re injured but if they’re not they play week in week out because that is what their training schedule prepares them to do. More relevant is Lionel Messi who in the past 4 seasons has played, 59, 63,65 and 73 games respectively including both club and international games. If he’s fit he plays because he’s the best they have. Clearly according to some on here Barcelona are getting this wrong…

Agreed.
I am sorry but most other posters on here are just spouting football manager cliches and repeating rubbish spoken by managers and footballers thinking they know better ...when they do not. Well done TMH for a couple of euridite and well constructed posts.
As far as comparing modern day footallers to those of thirty years ago is concerned then it is a valid comparison. They may be faster today but that is through natural development not necessarily modern coaching or dietary methods. Don't believe the hype....remember the fable of the Emperor's New Clothes.

Great. I spent 35 years training to be a coach at the highest levels of my chosen sport, and I get accused of speaking in football managers cliches!!!!
Never read so much rubbish. "...faster today... through natural development not necessarily modern coaching or dietary methods."

I take it that's a p*** take? Either that or it's one of the most ignorant comments I have read on here.