Originally Posted by
Father Dougal
In all my years of watching football this is always said but I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest this is the case.
From my years of watching City we’ve often picked up unexpected points with “nothing to play for” and when we’ve had “lots to play for” have often produced many of our worst ever displays.
Likewise with rivals, teams we play often seem liberated by having “nothing to play for” and can be a much tougher game than a team who are desperate for a win for whatever reason.
Statistically I doubt there’s much difference either way but I’d certainly be surprised if playing teams with “nothing to play for” was any advantage at all. Thoughts?