Tottenham’s year at Wembley has been an unusual obstacle for Mauricio Pochettino’s team. Could the new stadium be a curse for the football team and what impact does it have on Premier League betting? Read on to find out more.
Tottenham are the only Premier League club from the traditional top six to have moved to a new arena in the past decade, although many have done so before and many are planning to do so in the future. Likewise, when basketball and soccer teams move to a new city, the problem is that it can take players some time to get comfortable with the new environment and maintain the same level of gaming performance.
Before Tottenham, West Ham were the last club in the English top league to change their stadium. The move to London Stadium in 2016 marked the end of a 112-year stint on the Boleyn Ground. But are these new objects having a positive impact on game performance or are teams sacrificing home field advantage?
West Ham United
Given that West Ham have only spent one season at London stadium since the move from Upton Park, the available sample size is too small to analyze any significant impact that playing at the new stadium had on Hammer performance.
However, after 7th place in 2015/16 and only three defeats at home in the entire season, finishing in 11th place and eight home defeats in 2019/17 was certainly a disappointment for Slaven Bilić’s team. Bettors need to watch West Ham perform at home over the next few years to see how important the stadium changes are, but the experience of other teams certainly provides some interesting insights.
Renowned for their “undefeated” season (never losing the entire 2003/04 Premier League season), Arsenal and their fans have regularly been ridiculed for their lack of success since then. On closer inspection, the move to the new stadium may have had a bigger impact than many expect.
In the years following their famous title campaign, Arsenal took 2nd and 4th places before moving to their new 60,000-seat stadium. Since playing their first home games at Emirates, the Gunners have never finished better than 3rd in nine years.
A runner-up in 2015/16 indicated some recovery in home advantage, but a fifth and a failure in the Champions League qualifying next season for the first time in 20 years underscores how Arsenal falls short of a team that played on the old good “Highbury”.
Since their first season in the Premier League in 2011/12, Swansea City have played as a recognized top echelon of English football for several years. In truth, the Welsh club’s meteoric rise began back in 2003/04. As they made their way up the league in English football, the Swans moved from Vicky to Liberty Stadium in 2005.
Improving their standings in two consecutive seasons, Swansea received a promotion from League 2 a year before moving to their new stadium. Two years of stable performances were followed by a victory in Ligue 1 in 2007/08 before finishing in credible 8th and 7th in the next two campaigns.
Swansea played for the first time in its history in the Premier League after winning the Championship in the 2010/11 season. Has their new stadium become one of the main influences on the path from the base of English football to the Premier League?
Although Manchester City moved from Maine Road to Etihad Stadium in 2003, this is by no means the biggest change in the club’s recent history. While the move may have had an impact on their performance, the takeover of the club by Sheikh Mansour’s structures in 2008 and the over £ 900 million spent on player transfers make it difficult to analyze any potential impact.
Manchester City narrowly escaped relegation in their first season in their new spot, finishing in 16th in the Premier League (they finished ninth a year earlier). However, after fluctuations at the bottom of the league table, the takeover of Abu Dhabi United Group was completed and there were big changes in terms of staff and team composition.
In just one season, Manchester City’s huge investment became evident after finishing fifth in 2009/10. The third-place finish in 2010/11 was followed by the club’s first league title since 1968, thanks to a dramatic denouement in the final day of the season. A second league title followed in 2013/14, then the club finished in second and disappointing fourth in 2015/16.
Two more titles in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons and second place last season may indicate that not only the big money, but the new arena has had a beneficial effect on the team.
Since moving from Booth Ferry Park to KCOM Stadium in 2002, Hull City has been promoted five times and demoted three times in thirteen seasons. Although in 2008/09 they managed to reach the Premier League for the first time in their history, staying there proved to be a daunting task.
After relegation in 2009/10, the Tigers were only able to boast two mid-table finishes in the Championship before being promoted in 2012/13. Having escaped relegation in 2013/14, they were relegated in 2014/15, promoted again in 2015/16 and relegated again in 2016/17.
The new Hull City stadium was certainly part of a big change at the club that has brought relative success for the team. After their next relegation last season, expect a new comeback to take a little longer to achieve the stability fans are looking for. Moreover, at the end of last season, the team flew to League 1.
With the humble club as crowned 2016 Premier League champion, football fans around the world know what Leicester City is. However, few people know about the fifteen years that led to such an incredible achievement.
Moving from Philbert Street to King Power Stadium in 2002 was the perfect start when the Foxes won promotion to the Premier League in 2002/03. But a year later they were returned to the Championship, and the steady decline that followed led to relegation to Ligue 1 in 2008/09.
The instant return to the Championship was followed by three straight finishes in the first half of the standings and a multimillion-dollar takeover by foreign investors in 2010. The investment paid dividends after Leicester won the 2013/14 Championship and, of course, the Premier League in just two seasons.
Leicester has been a central figure in one of the biggest success stories in football history. Leicester’s regression to a mid-tier squad led to disappointing finishes in several seasons to follow, but last season they narrowly missed a league spot, ending up fifth in the Premier League. ”? Or did the Thai takeover play a big role in their success?
While Southampton are considered a stable Premier League club after several finishes at least 14th since their first season in the Premier League in 2012/13, it has been a difficult path for the team. Looking at their work since moving from Dell to St Mary’s in 2001, this change has had a major impact on the team’s performance.
Two years after moving to St Mary’s, the Saints finished last in the Premier League and, for the first time since 1978/79, were relegated to the second tier of English football. Less than four years later, they suffered a second demotion and ended up in League 1.
By 2010/11, things began to turn in favor of Southampton, who won the Premier League qualifier thanks to a runner-up in both Ligue 1 and the championship a year later. Southampton’s recent campaigns have provided stability, and while their numbers have not been as good as they should have been, the Saints are not one of the contenders for a Premier League exit.
Things to think about
Obviously this is an incredibly small sample, but it still provides some interesting points to think about. Some teams have done well at moving to a new stadium, while many have really struggled and taken years to recover. One thing is for sure: the new arena has an impact on the football team, sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Several factors can contribute to this apparent impact on gaming performance. The new location means that players have changes to their daily routine to get used to, the pitch and size will be different, changing rooms and other amenities will be different, and of course the atmosphere will not be the same as in their previous stadium.
In addition to everything players have to deal with, the costs of developing a new stadium can affect budgetary allocations and the potential for line-up improvements through transfers.
One of the central factors in home field advantage is that a group of players perform better in a familiar environment. These players get a slight lead in individual competitions and thus the team as a whole performs better. Of course, when a football team moves to a new stadium, it will take some time for players to get used to the new environment.
In addition to drastic changes in environments and amenities such as dressing rooms, teams also have to adjust to the new pitch, new pre-match routine and, depending on location, different travel patterns. While the new stadium could provide more modern conveniences, removing the familiarity of players with their surroundings may be the reason why teams such as Southampton, Leicester and Arsenal have performed worse initially after their move.
Football teams can decide which type of playing surface to use with the Desso GrassMaster part synthetic turf, which is now preferred by the majority, and they can also change the size of their field. The English Premier League regulations state that the pitch must be 90 to 120 meters long and 45.5 to 90 meters wide.
Arsenal’s transition from Highbury (100 mx 67 m) to Emirates (105 mx 68 m) is similar to West Ham’s crossing from Upton Park (100 mx 64 m) to London Stadium ( 105 mx 68 m). Likewise, Tottenham’s year at Wembley means their playing field has increased from 100m x 67m to 150m x 69m. In fact, every team analyzed at the beginning of this article has increased their field size after moving to the new stadium.
The larger field size may allow coaches to develop a more expansive playstyle, but it may take some time for players to get used to the new environment.
Leicester City fans are known to have caused a minor earthquake to celebrate the 2015/16 Premier League winning goal. The general assumption is that noise support means better results, but is that really the case?
Numerous HFA studies show that fans do not necessarily improve a team’s performance. Instead, it is argued that the aforementioned familiarity and the rise in testosterone levels (what happens before the fans arrive at the stadium) relate to a sense of primitive territoriality.
More fans and louder noise levels may not directly affect a team that recently relocated to a new stadium, but they can still contribute to reduced performance on the part of guests and match officials – something that will ultimately benefit the home team. side.
The influence of the crowd on the penalty judge is critical in the game of football. Since the 1992/93 Premier League season, 1,214 penalties have been awarded to the home team and only 722 to the visiting team (over 84% of that amount has been converted). The question is, does the number of fans or the level of atmosphere they create affects the judge?
A new stadium can be incredibly expensive for a football team. While Arsenal have absorbed Emirates spending, Manchester City, Swansea and West Ham have benefited from government-funded projects. Making financial adjustments to cover the £ 390 million cost of building a new stadium is one of the main factors that may have affected Arsenal’s playing performance in recent years, and since Tottenham are also self-financing their stadium, they have similar difficulties may arise.
While naming rights and increased ticket sales can help cushion the financial blow of the new stadium, clubs will most often have to curb spending in the transfer market to balance bookkeeping. This could then stifle progress and hinder their ability to compete in the Premier League.
Comparison of costs in the transfer market between Arsenal and their main rivals since the move underscores one reason why they have not been able to repeat their previous successes. The Gunners have spent £ 481.05m since 2006, compared to Man City, which spent £ 1.32bn, Chelsea £ 909m and Manchester United £ 885.74m sterling and Liverpool – 717.5 million
This may be why we see teams like Manchester City, Leicester, Swansea and Hull benefitting from their new stadiums as they don’t have to deal with financial constraints. Conversely, Arsenal and Southampton experienced a drop in their results before starting to turn around when they recovered financially.
Minimum rentals at the state-funded stadium meant Swansea could continue to progress in the Football League before winning a promotion to the Premier League. The 2010 takeover of Leicester City and the £ 181.33 million spent on the players since then contributed to their recent success after they initially fought at King Power Stadium. In addition, Manchester City’s success depended largely on their takeover and the huge financial investment that came with it.
It’s worth noting that Tottenham Hotspur have a notoriously tough transfer policy, and if the construction of their new stadium puts budget constraints further, they could lose ground among other elite Premier League teams.
Is the new stadium worth it?
There are many factors that can affect the performance of a soccer team after a stadium change. While familiarity with the arena and the atmosphere generated by the fans may be the main factors in diminishing the home field advantage, the financial implications of the move must also be considered. Football teams will undoubtedly be aware of these factors, but they still feel that changing stadiums is worth it (otherwise they would not have done it).
Although drawn from a small sample size, the observations made within this article are consistent with data analyzed from more than 30 teams that have changed stadiums in English football over the past 25 years.