DEL Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 On 10 July 2016 at 23:35, Rampage said: England - Involved in most if not all of the bad behaviour You haven't got a clue at all. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 52 minutes ago, Highgate said: Nonsense. You are forgetting to factor in luck. Which despite what people may say, does not balance itself out over the course of a season. Why would it? However, the league table is a very good reflection of the quality of teams over the season , no doubt about that. But it's not perfect. And there is also bias to be considered. The team that finishes top of the league is the best team in the league, it is just a fact. If you disagree name me an occasion when this is not the case .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 29 minutes ago, MuespachRam said: The team that finishes top of the league is the best team in the league, it is just a fact. If you disagree name me an occasion when this is not the case .... Take for example one team finishes a point ahead of second place. The winning team benefited from several erroneous refereeing decisions throughout the course of the season where as the second place team did not. That could skew the league table, and the same could happen throughout the table. No doubt it has happened. Your notion that the league table always perfectly reflects the quality of the teams in it is naively idealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Portugal weren't even the best team in their group let alone the tournament. They were undefeated - so were Poland! Penalties are a lottery, anyone can win or lose them and the quality of each team goes out the window the moment they begin. Portugal got the rub of the green with a rubbish 24-team format allowing them to avoid any decent team. It was so ridiculous, that the 3rd placed team in Group F got an easier draw than the 2nd placed team! Iceland's last-gasp goal against Austria was Portugal's golden ticket to the final! I think the worst part about it is that Portugal are a good team. I mean, if that was someone like Poland doing it you could feel a sense of justice as they were tournament underdogs. But Portugal were favourites to win every game en route to the final, and actually were second best (and playing rubbish football) for long spells against the likes of Hungary, Croatia and Poland. Germany and Italy were far more impressive. You can't even pin Portugal down to a system or playing style. It was all slow passing at the back before an aimless ball forward. They defended well... Did they really? Hungary put three past them, and Croatia, Poland and France will regret missing easy chances against them too. The best team in the tournament for me were Germany. They were better than France in the semi-final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 Agree Bris Apart from I thought France deserved to beat Germany. I thought they created some really good chances. Griezmann in opening minutes, Giroud and Griezmann 2v1, the second goal.. Where Germany struggled to really create a chance where a player could shoot cleanly. Looked a bit harmless. Although I did miss 20 mins. What makes football so great and cruel is you can have 6,7,8,9 players deserve to win/lose but tight games come down to one or two individual errors or moments. And that's the thing with penalties. It's no longer a team sport. It becomes man v man. I think the majority of the Portugal team are very lucky to have a medal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: Portugal weren't even the best team in their group let alone the tournament. They were undefeated - so were Poland! Penalties are a lottery, anyone can win or lose them and the quality of each team goes out the window the moment they begin. Portugal got the rub of the green with a rubbish 24-team format allowing them to avoid any decent team. It was so ridiculous, that the 3rd placed team in Group F got an easier draw than the 2nd placed team! Iceland's last-gasp goal against Austria was Portugal's golden ticket to the final! I think the worst part about it is that Portugal are a good team. I mean, if that was someone like Poland doing it you could feel a sense of justice as they were tournament underdogs. But Portugal were favourites to win every game en route to the final, and actually were second best (and playing rubbish football) for long spells against the likes of Hungary, Croatia and Poland. Germany and Italy were far more impressive. You can't even pin Portugal down to a system or playing style. It was all slow passing at the back before an aimless ball forward. They defended well... Did they really? Hungary put three past them, and Croatia, Poland and France will regret missing easy chances against them too. The best team in the tournament for me were Germany. They were better than France in the semi-final. Yep Germany were the best team that I watched. Thought Croatia were very good at group stage and really thought they would reach the final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 9 hours ago, Highgate said: Watched it from start to finish. The 1990 World Cup has the lowest goal to game ratio of any World Cup in history. The only 3-2 in the whole tournament was England vs Cameroon. The other 3 quater-finals were 1-0, 0-0, and 1-0. The two semi finals were 1-1 AET, went to penalties. The final was 1-0, decided by a penalty. First tournament were Brazil decided not to play exciting attractive football, scoring 4 goals in 4 matches. Just because our respective countries had good tournaments doesn't mean we should look with rose tinted glasses. For me it was football's nadir. 1986....now that was a great tournament! But on the other hand appreciating footballing quality is totally subjective and there is no wrong or right here. you're judging games by goal stats? if you watched from start to finish, you'd agree with me, and my assertion that, even 26 years later, that world cup was memorable! I've already forgotten most of the last Euros and it only finished a few days ago. The highlight was a moth on a greasy face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 9 hours ago, Highgate said: Take for example one team finishes a point ahead of second place. The winning team benefited from several erroneous refereeing decisions throughout the course of the season where as the second place team did not. That could skew the league table, and the same could happen throughout the table. No doubt it has happened. Your notion that the league table always perfectly reflects the quality of the teams in it is naively idealistic. It is totally impossible to say what a good or bad refereeing decision is or has an effect in any game, it is 50 years since we won the World Cup and people are still debating that goal/no goal....decisions are made by humans and every team has to accept them. There are 90 minutes in a game and if the team that has had their "bad luck" doesn't do enough to win then that's it...they don't win.. there are zero examples of the best team in the league not winning it but there are hundreds and thousands and millions of examples of the best team in the league winning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sexydadbod Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 No team in the euros played well more than two matches. All the top teams were inconsistent so you can't say that one team deserved to win over the eventual champions. Again it sounds like sour grapes to me. In 20 years no-ones going to remember how Portugal played, they will only remember that they won the tournemant.I don't buy this nonsense that Germany were the best team because the only time they played well were against an average Slovakia team. In all the other games they had the majority of the possession but didn't play well at all for me apart from 45 minutes against N. Ireland. Italy also only played well against Belgium and Spain, all the other games they looked sluggish and fatigued. No-one remembers that arguably the greatest international team Spain in the 2010 world cup were dogsh*t for the majority of the tournemant and relied so much on David Villa but I don't see anyone criticizing them. The team that impressed me the most were Croatia and they lost to the eventual champions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 10 hours ago, Mostyn6 said: you're judging games by goal stats? if you watched from start to finish, you'd agree with me, and my assertion that, even 26 years later, that world cup was memorable! I've already forgotten most of the last Euros and it only finished a few days ago. The highlight was a moth on a greasy face! Well i think goals per game it's a better metric than Gazza's tears or moth activity. I pretty much watch all major tournaments from start to finish, or as near as is possible. I never disagreed with you that it wasn't memorable, just that it wasn't of high quality objectively speaking. Still, each to their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 7 hours ago, MuespachRam said: It is totally impossible to say what a good or bad refereeing decision is or has an effect in any game, it is 50 years since we won the World Cup and people are still debating that goal/no goal....decisions are made by humans and every team has to accept them. There are 90 minutes in a game and if the team that has had their "bad luck" doesn't do enough to win then that's it...they don't win.. there are zero examples of the best team in the league not winning it but there are hundreds and thousands and millions of examples of the best team in the league winning it. Merely saying there are zero examples of the best teams not winning leagues doesn't make it so. Pointing out examples would be meaningless seeing as you would only have my word for which team was the 'best'. You say that it's a teams own fault if they can't overcome 'bad luck' in a game, in so doing, you admit that a team can have bad luck in a game, that they need to overcome. I agree it's impossible to say what effect a certain bad refereeing has had on a game, but it's certainly possible to say which team is likely to have suffered more from it, and it's also clear that it has influenced the game. But you are wrong to say it's impossible to say what a good or bad refereeing decision is, of course it is possible. Clattenburg was wrong to award that free kick to Portugal, nobody can argue otherwise, and France probably suffered as a result. How can anybody possibly say that bad refereeing/linesman decisions haven't changed the results of matches, therefore the allocation of points at the end of a match and hence the league table afterwards? That's just down to luck. Luck also comes into play regarding a team's injury list. A fixture list is just pure chance...yet it can determine whether you meet a team when they are high on form, or low on form, whether they have lots of injuries or not. You could say the quality of teams is the 'signal' that league table tries to measure throughout the course of a season. Bad luck, regarding poor decisions by refs/linemen, injuries, meeting opposition at the 'wrong' time etc, as well as possible bias from officials can be regarded as 'noise' obscuring the true signal to some degree. Leagues are far better (and are in fact very good) than tournaments at telling us which teams are best. But to believe that they are perfect representations of teams relative quality is just fanciful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 5 hours ago, Highgate said: Merely saying there are zero examples of the best teams not winning leagues doesn't make it so. Pointing out examples would be meaningless seeing as you would only have my word for which team was the 'best'. You say that it's a teams own fault if they can't overcome 'bad luck' in a game, in so doing, you admit that a team can have bad luck in a game, that they need to overcome. I agree it's impossible to say what effect a certain bad refereeing has had on a game, but it's certainly possible to say which team is likely to have suffered more from it, and it's also clear that it has influenced the game. But you are wrong to say it's impossible to say what a good or bad refereeing decision is, of course it is possible. Clattenburg was wrong to award that free kick to Portugal, nobody can argue otherwise, and France probably suffered as a result. How can anybody possibly say that bad refereeing/linesman decisions haven't changed the results of matches, therefore the allocation of points at the end of a match and hence the league table afterwards? That's just down to luck. Luck also comes into play regarding a team's injury list. A fixture list is just pure chance...yet it can determine whether you meet a team when they are high on form, or low on form, whether they have lots of injuries or not. You could say the quality of teams is the 'signal' that league table tries to measure throughout the course of a season. Bad luck, regarding poor decisions by refs/linemen, injuries, meeting opposition at the 'wrong' time etc, as well as possible bias from officials can be regarded as 'noise' obscuring the true signal to some degree. Leagues are far better (and are in fact very good) than tournaments at telling us which teams are best. But to believe that they are perfect representations of teams relative quality is just fanciful. All very nicely put, but when all the arguments are put forward regarding luck and referees judgement etc there is still no example of the best team in the league not winning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 8 hours ago, MuespachRam said: there is still no example of the best team in the league not winning it. Leeds 1972? the Champions are always the best team in the league, if you doubt that you may have to carefully justify the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 8 hours ago, MuespachRam said: All very nicely put, but when all the arguments are put forward regarding luck and referees judgement etc there is still no example of the best team in the league not winning it. do you regard the best team as the most efficient team? ie, Leicester, for all the respect they deserve, were efficient, and that efficiency won them the league, BUT, I would argue, that on the cliched "their day", both Manchester City and Arsenal are better. Some would argue, and no doubt you WILL, that part of the quality is the mentality to sustain that level and perform to your optimum more than everyone else, ergo Leicester richly deserve their title, but you'd struggle to find anyone who believes that Arsenal and Man City didn't underperform/fail to reach potential. I think the best team didn't win the PL last season, the best 'performing' team did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 3 hours ago, Mostyn6 said: do you regard the best team as the most efficient team? ie, Leicester, for all the respect they deserve, were efficient, and that efficiency won them the league, BUT, I would argue, that on the cliched "their day", both Manchester City and Arsenal are better. Some would argue, and no doubt you WILL, that part of the quality is the mentality to sustain that level and perform to your optimum more than everyone else, ergo Leicester richly deserve their title, but you'd struggle to find anyone who believes that Arsenal and Man City didn't underperform/fail to reach potential. I think the best team didn't win the PL last season, the best 'performing' team did. 3 hours ago, Mostyn6 said: do you regard the best team as the most efficient team? ie, Leicester, for all the respect they deserve, were efficient, and that efficiency won them the league, BUT, I would argue, that on the cliched "their day", both Manchester City and Arsenal are better. Some would argue, and no doubt you WILL, that part of the quality is the mentality to sustain that level and perform to your optimum more than everyone else, ergo Leicester richly deserve their title, but you'd struggle to find anyone who believes that Arsenal and Man City didn't underperform/fail to reach potential. I think the best team didn't win the PL last season, the best 'performing' team did. I don't agree with the whole "under performing" and "over performing" The best team is just better than the others and as you say Leicester were better than everyone else in that league last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 13 hours ago, MuespachRam said: All very nicely put, but when all the arguments are put forward regarding luck and referees judgement etc there is still no example of the best team in the league not winning it. Examples would be pretty pointless, as they would just be a matter of opinion. I could say that team X who finished second in the whatever league in whatever year were the best team in the league. You could reply 'prove it'....how on earth could i do that? The fact of the matter is when you think about all the variables that are out of team's control, there is simply no way league tables can be perfect reflections of team's quality/ability/efficiency or whatever. That's just not how things happen in reality. Years ago teams were given 2 points for a win, now it's 3. Also if teams were level, the tie breaker was goal average...now it's goal difference (in some countries it's head to head). If you applied the current rules to old league tables, you would find that many of the teams change position. Which set or rules are result in the perfect league tables, the contemporary or the archaic? It can't be both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 7 hours ago, Spanish said: Leeds 1972? the Champions are always the best team in the league, if you doubt that you may have to carefully justify the argument. So say if a team are top of the league for periods of the season until crippling injuries to their entire strike-force, entire-array of defensive midfielders and all left-sided centre-halves result in a collapse, could the argument not be made then? Especially if the team in question beat the eventual champions at home and drew with them away, outplaying them on both occasions. There's the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Highgate said: Examples would be pretty pointless, as they would just be a matter of opinion. I could say that team X who finished second in the whatever league in whatever year were the best team in the league. You could reply 'prove it'....how on earth could i do that? The fact of the matter is when you think about all the variables that are out of team's control, there is simply no way league tables can be perfect reflections of team's quality/ability/efficiency or whatever. That's just not how things happen in reality. Years ago teams were given 2 points for a win, now it's 3. Also if teams were level, the tie breaker was goal average...now it's goal difference (in some countries it's head to head). If you applied the current rules to old league tables, you would find that many of the teams change position. Which set or rules are result in the perfect league tables, the contemporary or the archaic? It can't be both. Exactly my point - It doesn't matter how many points are awarded for a win etc, ALL the teams go into the season knowing that if they win a game they get 3 points, if they draw they get 1 and if they lose they get nothing....and back in the day it was 2 points for a win, BUT all the teams know this, so it is irrelevant to say that "team X" would have won the league if it was 3 points for a win, because you can't say that "team y" didn't adjust their game according to the points on offer at various stages of the season. Just the same with the play offs and people moaning that the third place team finished 20 points ahead of the 6th place team but are beaten in the play offs...well, unlucky, you knew the rules before a ball was kicked. And yes it is pointless you coming up with any teams that were better than teams above them because they do not exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 18 minutes ago, cannable said: So say if a team are top of the league for periods of the season until crippling injuries to their entire strike-force, entire-array of defensive midfielders and all left-sided centre-halves result in a collapse, could the argument not be made then? Especially if the team in question beat the eventual champions at home and drew with them away, outplaying them on both occasions. There's the argument. No, there is no argument, because the team in question would know before the start of the season exactly what they need to do, if they have injuries then they should deal with it. Football is a team game, a squad game now even, if they don't have adequate replacements then that's their hard luck and one reason why they wouldn't be the best team in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highgate Posted July 13, 2016 Share Posted July 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, MuespachRam said: Exactly my point - It doesn't matter how many points are awarded for a win etc, ALL the teams go into the season knowing that if they win a game they get 3 points, if they draw they get 1 and if they lose they get nothing....and back in the day it was 2 points for a win, BUT all the teams know this, so it is irrelevant to say that "team X" would have won the league if it was 3 points for a win, because you can't say that "team y" didn't adjust their game according to the points on offer at various stages of the season. Just the same with the play offs and people moaning that the third place team finished 20 points ahead of the 6th place team but are beaten in the play offs...well, unlucky, you knew the rules before a ball was kicked. And yes it is pointless you coming up with any teams that were better than teams above them because they do not exist. How on earth was that your point ? Nobody is claiming that leagues aren't fair (bar occasional bias and corruption), merely that luck influences the outcome. Given the nature of football and the league season, logic dictates that this must be the case, whether you are willing to accept it or not. If i were to toss a coin and you called Heads correctly, the outcome was fair....and you were lucky. The input of random chance does not render events 'unfair'. Football of course is mostly skill and effort, but luck cannot be overlooked. Nevertheless, i can see your views in this area are set in stone, so we will have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.