Is playing teams with “nothing to play for” actually an advantage or not?

[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?

[Tuerto]

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?

I don't know, although the best teams finish at the top, the worst at the bottom and average somewhere in between, there seems to be a natural order to these things, if teams without anything to play for can play with more freedom, but not more ability, that doesn't come because the pressure is off.

[NYCBlue]

It's probably a disadvantage. Especially at this stage in the season. If it was the last one or two games it might be different. I can't imagine many players would be "already on the beach" just yet.

[emjayblue]

In all my years of watching football this is always said but I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest this is the case.

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?

Agree with is. You can look at it 2 way I guess. Players in teams with "nothing to play for" will either have a mindset of already being on beech and not 100 % up for it or either play in a relaxed manner with nothing at stake and go out and express themselves and without the pressure things may just click.

At the end of the day you can never really predict what the opposition will do regardless, you just have to go out and try to impose your game plan onto them.

[sneggyblubird]

We just have to be at our brutal best,football doesn't come into it.:hehe:

[the other bob wilson]

Give me teams with nothing to play for at this time of the season - especially for the sort of side we are, I don't think four of the last five sides we play will be really up for a battle.

[Father Dougal]

Give me teams with nothing to play for at this time of the season - especially for the sort of side we are, I don't think four of the last five sides we play will be really up for a battle.

Interesting point about the type of side we are. Maybe it’s memory playing tricks but Dave jones sides always seemed worse v those teams.