No we won't.Originally Posted by Byron
No we won't.
Leice'ster have fluked it all season and will ruin our coefficient next year. And they're on drugs.
RL and I are going to start spamming threads when the horse egg chat starts.
The league table is only an exact science if you believe that luck plays no part in football.
But Leicester have been the best team; if they stay five points clear it would be a pretty good indicator that luck was not the deciding factor.
The discussion has moved on to the talk of 1 point difference making a team better or worse than the other. Remember this discussion started about Sunderland being as good as a mid-table side which is 10+ points difference. One is mental, the other is inconsequential.
It's not an EXACT SCIENCE, but I can't recall too many champion/relegated teams who didn't deserve it.
What about Liverpool the other year?
It is EXACT SCIENCE in that you know EXACTLY what goes into it. As in, if you win (by scoring EXACTLY more goals than your opponent) you get EXACTLY three points. If you draw (by scoring EXACTLY the same amount of goals as you opposition) you get EXACTLY one point and if you lose (you know what goes here) you get zero points. Then at the end, the table is decided EXACTLY by who has more points (followed by goal difference and shit.)
The above is, I'm sure you will agree, far more EXACT than determining which team is 'better' based on NON-EXACT measurements such as who passes the ball around nicer, or who is more 'incisive' or whose players have more 'flair' or who got lucky or whatever other shit. So yes, it does not get any more EXACT than the bloody table.
They couldn't defend and BOTTLED IT.
This is how I think Toby views football. He has no understanding of 'the beautiful game', and is one of those cunts that thinks it's purely a results business. BORING.
You can watch football for many reasons and derive enjoyment from different facets of the game, but the EXACTNESS of the table cannot and shall not be denied.
The par league doesn't lie. Just like the hips.
There's nothing wrong with enjoying one aspect over another or liking how a team plays despite the results they get but the league table is absolutely a points business. It's the entire point of a league.
Now piss off back to your margarine sandwiches.
The par table.
I can't imagine Leicester have had more penalties than Liverpool had a few years ago.
It means you've finished a point ahead. That's it. There are any number of reasons team A finished one point ahead of team B.
The main one being that they were better over 38 league games.
Fuck the Champions League, high profile preseason friendlies is when you know you've hit the big time.
http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/35872998
Swansea are ten points ahead of us. Four games ago they were four points ahead of us (we also have a game in hand) and we looked like catching them. If you think it's 'mental' to suggest that Sunderland might have a squad as good as someone like Swansea (and I include the other teams in and around that area) then crack on, but I'll pull you up when a side suddenly pulls back a ten point gap in a few games and makes you look a prat.
When about when it was only two points for a win and league tables could look different with the EXACT same results?
I never said the distance was big, in fact it's about as small as it can get. If you want to get into it I'd say teams within five or so points of each other are broadly similar in terms of quality, but the teams who get more have still done better.
They've done better because they have more points. Obviously. It doesn't mean they are better. It really isn't far fetched to suggest that in another season Newcastle and Sunderland could have been on par with or above Swansea, Watford, Bournemouth and West Brom, and that they have as good a squads.
I'm not really a fan of this, to be honest. We'll make quite enough money from being in the Champions' League.
There's no such thing as "better" in the normative sense dude. There's better performance-wise, and there's the predictive power of better, performance-wise, in hypothetical scenarios, but nothing else.
You didn't though, did you?
Look at the games Swansea played in that period, was obvious they'd get a lot of points during that run. Anyone who thought Sunderland would catch a Swansea side with a better goal difference, far better team, four extra points and games against Villa, Norwich and Bournemouth is a mad man.
They'd be four points better off if they had scored the two penalties they missed. They seem to have had loads of penalties but it's all about getting players/ball in the box.
Nobody's mentioned anything about that.
Luck plays a part in football, so the league table is not 100% conclusive in determining who is a better team. Do you not agree that some teams get more luck than others? That's how luck works.
Done better/are better, were slicing our regional delicacy of choice very thinly here. As for the second part, yes they may have (subjectively) slightly better or worse squads but it isn't just about how good your players are, I could manage Barcelona next year with the same squad they have now and I'm pretty sure they'd be terrible because I don't know what I'm doing.
I would absolutely agree with you if you were talking about their potential, we've seen this year how effective an unheralded group of players can be given the right coaching and motivation, but come the end of the season a team with more points is objectively better at league football.
Get ready for the Super League in a few years, Lee and Max. http://www.theguardian.com/football/...-champions-cup
You are (in my opinion) thinking way to much into it. Football teams are judged on points at the end of the season, it's really as simple as that. You create your own luck don't you know.
Luck plays a part in football, so the league table is not 100% conclusive in determining who is a better team. Do you not agree that some teams get more luck than others? That's how luck works.
This is one of the worst arguments we've ever had.
And people said we would miss Harold, never underestimate TTH's capacity for pointless fannying.
Andy Walsh has resigned as general manager at FC United. It's been a while coming and will hopefully allow the club to move forward and return to what it was built for.
Was it built for anything other than, "Those Glazers will bankrupt United by 2012. Just watch."?
It was a fan created club to return the enjoyment to football without the pricks. They've largely succeeded but the cult of leadership has tarnished the club in recent months.
Apologies, I was thinking about when we beat them in mid-january. We were a point behind them. We then got back to within three points of them at the start of March.
But aye, MADNESS.
No, but it wasn't 'madness' to suggest we might. It was perfectly plausible.
And there's occasions when there's very little to separate teams, which I believe is the case in this scenario.
I started off by saying ours and Newcastle's squads are about as good as anything else in the bottom half, barring one or two sides. You've now pretty much agreed.
Are you seeing them much? We have another lad from there (George Thomson) who is in our school doing coaching a fair bit.
Never really. Different city.
No, they might have the potential to be as good but so far they've been demonstrably worse and if they get less points across the season they will be a worse team.
And I'm beginning to hate myself so that's it, let's move on.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote