Spanish Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 35 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: No, it doesn’t really work like that. Chile are better than both Peru and Uruguay. The facts say otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted December 4, 2017 Share Posted December 4, 2017 International football you’re only as good as your last tournament. My opinion anyway. It’s ok saying Chilie are a top 10, yet when they fail to reach the tournament finishing behind Peru, I just don’t see how that’s possible. They qualify over 18 games, you can’t put failure down to bad luck. Won’t argue it’s easier to qualify in Europe but still, a top 10 side would still qualify in South America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 8 hours ago, David said: International football you’re only as good as your last tournament. My opinion anyway. It’s ok saying Chilie are a top 10, yet when they fail to reach the tournament finishing behind Peru, I just don’t see how that’s possible. They qualify over 18 games, you can’t put failure down to bad luck. Won’t argue it’s easier to qualify in Europe but still, a top 10 side would still qualify in South America. But how do you judge the quality of a team? Some punch above their weight due to the manager, on the other hand some fall way short of expectations due to the manager. Chile should have qualified, hence the moment they failed to the manager stepped down. It wasn’t down to a lack in ability. Same for Chelsea two years ago. They evidently weren’t only the tenth best team in the league over a 38-game campaign. They massively underperformed. I still see Italy as a top ten side. Finishing runners-up to Spain and unluckily losing to Sweden doesn’t change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: But how do you judge the quality of a team? Some punch above their weight due to the manager, on the other hand some fall way short of expectations due to the manager. Chile should have qualified, hence the moment they failed to the manager stepped down. It wasn’t down to a lack in ability. Same for Chelsea two years ago. They evidently weren’t only the tenth best team in the league over a 38-game campaign. They massively underperformed. I still see Italy as a top ten side. Finishing runners-up to Spain and unluckily losing to Sweden doesn’t change that. So Leicester weren’t the best team in England two seasons ago? Surely a team is as good as their position, especially over the whole of a season? If a team was as good as their ability on paper/size of club etc Derby would have been in the Prem years ago and not struggling along with the rest of the smaller unfashionable clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 5 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: But how do you judge the quality of a team? Some punch above their weight due to the manager, on the other hand some fall way short of expectations due to the manager. Chile should have qualified, hence the moment they failed to the manager stepped down. It wasn’t down to a lack in ability. Same for Chelsea two years ago. They evidently weren’t only the tenth best team in the league over a 38-game campaign. They massively underperformed. I still see Italy as a top ten side. Finishing runners-up to Spain and unluckily losing to Sweden doesn’t change that. suppose you are one of those people who think we didn't deserve to win our 2 championships, league table never lies. Or football should be like ski jumping where you get extra marks for style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: Chile should have qualified, hence the moment they failed to the manager stepped down. It wasn’t down to a lack in ability. Where do the should have’s end? Were Derby a Premier League side in 14/15 as we should have beaten QPR? The manager stood down as they were not good enough, for that reason they are not currently in the top 10. Who’s to say the next manager will do any better? They may have all the ability in the world but unless that translates to results on the pitch it’s worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 4 hours ago, richinspain said: So Leicester weren’t the best team in England two seasons ago? Surely a team is as good as their position, especially over the whole of a season? If a team was as good as their ability on paper/size of club etc Derby would have been in the Prem years ago and not struggling along with the rest of the smaller unfashionable clubs. Clearly Chelsea, Arsenal, United etc. had a better team or set of players than Leicester, for instance, during that season. Just because you finish higher than another team doesn’t mean you have a better team or set of players. Didn’t Derby prove this the last time we went up? Were we really the third best team in the league that year? Or did we just massively over achieve during the campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 15 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: Clearly Chelsea, Arsenal, United etc. had a better team or set of players than Leicester, for instance, during that season. Just because you finish higher than another team doesn’t mean you have a better team or set of players. Didn’t Derby prove this the last time we went up? Were we really the third best team in the league that year? Or did we just massively over achieve during the campaign? Can a team, or an individual, overachieve? Can anyone play better than they are capable of? Or do they actually play closer to the limit of their capabilities over a sustained period when they are “overachieving”. Isn’t that what separates elite sportsmen (and women) from good amateurs and also rans? It’s, for me, the ability to maintain a high level of performance under stressful conditions over a long period of time. I was quite good at darts when I was younger. I finished a game of 501 with a double finish in 13 darts. That’s professional darts level. However I only ever did it once. My average was much lower. Did I overachieve in that one game? No, I played to pretty much my maximum level with every dart I threw. For one game. So, in answer to your question, yes, we really were the third best team in the division that year. We finished third. We won more points than 21 other teams because we played nearer to our maximum capability over 46 games than all but two other teams. Or maybe 21 other teams underachieved over 46 games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 2 hours ago, richinspain said: Can a team, or an individual, overachieve? Can anyone play better than they are capable of? Or do they actually play closer to the limit of their capabilities over a sustained period when they are “overachieving”. Isn’t that what separates elite sportsmen (and women) from good amateurs and also rans? It’s, for me, the ability to maintain a high level of performance under stressful conditions over a long period of time. I was quite good at darts when I was younger. I finished a game of 501 with a double finish in 13 darts. That’s professional darts level. However I only ever did it once. My average was much lower. Did I overachieve in that one game? No, I played to pretty much my maximum level with every dart I threw. For one game. So, in answer to your question, yes, we really were the third best team in the division that year. We finished third. We won more points than 21 other teams because we played nearer to our maximum capability over 46 games than all but two other teams. Or maybe 21 other teams underachieved over 46 games! Chelsea’s last three league placings - 1st, 10th, 1st. Same set of players. Likewise Leicester went from 14th or so to 1st and back to around 13th. Clearly a team can overacheive or underachieve during an individual campaign. Chile won two straight Copa Americas in 2015 and 2016. A few poor results in Autumn 2017 and they miss out on the WC on GD having dropped from 3rd to 6th. They’re clearly still a top team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PodgeyRam Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: Clearly Chelsea, Arsenal, United etc. had a better team or set of players than Leicester, for instance, during that season. Just because you finish higher than another team doesn’t mean you have a better team or set of players. Didn’t Derby prove this the last time we went up? Were we really the third best team in the league that year? Or did we just massively over achieve during the campaign? They had better players but they weren't a better team. Teams win leagues, not groups of individuals. When Leicester won the league they were quite clearly the best team. Same applies in international football. Peru qualified for the world cup, Chile didn't. Peru finished higher in the group than Chile. Ergo, Peru are the better team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TibshelfRam Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 On 01/12/2017 at 18:58, ramit said: Don't tell me you were in Reykjavík and didn't let me know. Haven't met a fellow Ram in ages. @ramit me and a couple of other fellow Rams are heading to Reykjavík in a couple of weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 22 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: No, it doesn’t really work like that. Chile are better than both Peru and Uruguay. you know that the best team in the league always wins it don't you...? And the worst team always comes bottom.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 44 minutes ago, PodgeyRam said: They had better players but they weren't a better team. Teams win leagues, not groups of individuals. When Leicester won the league they were quite clearly the best team. Same applies in international football. Peru qualified for the world cup, Chile didn't. Peru finished higher in the group than Chile. Ergo, Peru are the better team. But the placing or position of a team can depend on all sorts of factors, including the manager. With the same set of players a team could finish in 1st, 7th or 15th depending solely on the manager. Under Nigel Pearson we probably would have got relegated, for instance. Peru aren't a better team than Chile because they finished higher than them over 18 games. Clealry Chile are the better team, having won successive Copa Americas. Of the two, you'd back Chile to reach the latter stages of any major international tournament rather than Peru. Why? Because they are a better team. That might not be the case. Peru could go further than Chile. But that doesn't mean they are generally better. Nobody can convince me Derby were a better team than West Brom when we finished ahead of them. The following season proved that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: Clearly Chelsea, Arsenal, United etc. had a better team or set of players than Leicester, for instance, during that season. Just because you finish higher than another team doesn’t mean you have a better team or set of players. Didn’t Derby prove this the last time we went up? Were we really the third best team in the league that year? Or did we just massively over achieve during the campaign? Clearly Leicester were the best team the season they won the league, didn't they win it by a record amount..? The whole purpose of the league system is that every single team gets exactly the same opportunities to finish top of the table, therefore the best team is the one that finished at the top. And don't get me started on when we went up....we finished 3rd, 8 points above West Brom and 9 above Southampton so YES we did deserve to go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, MuespachRam said: Clearly Leicester were the best team the season they won the league, didn't they win it by a record amount..? The whole purpose of the league system is that every single team gets exactly the same opportunities to finish top of the table, therefore the best team is the one that finished at the top. And don't get me started on when we went up....we finished 3rd, 8 points above West Brom and 9 above Southampton so YES we did deserve to go up. I never said we didn't deserve to go up. I said we weren't a better team than West Brom. And Leicester weren't the best team in the league. Differing factors contributed to them winning the league over a 38 game season and they deserved it. But they weren't the best team, evidently by what happened in the following 12 months. The 'best team' doesn't always finish top. You can have the best team in the world, but if it's completely mismanaged or your whole team spends six months of the season on the injury table then it won't win anything. In terms of ability, Chelsea have evidently had a better team than Leicester for the past three seasons. But in one of those seasons, one massively overachieved while the other massively underachieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 51 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: I never said we didn't deserve to go up. I said we weren't a better team than West Brom. And Leicester weren't the best team in the league. Differing factors contributed to them winning the league over a 38 game season and they deserved it. But they weren't the best team, evidently by what happened in the following 12 months. The 'best team' doesn't always finish top. You can have the best team in the world, but if it's completely mismanaged or your whole team spends six months of the season on the injury table then it won't win anything. In terms of ability, Chelsea have evidently had a better team than Leicester for the past three seasons. But in one of those seasons, one massively performed consistently to near their maximum level while the other massively underachieved. FTFY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 1 hour ago, MuespachRam said: you know that the best team in the league always wins it don't you...? And the worst team always comes bottom.. That makes no sense, forest came 21st but had won the league by the end of August, how does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sith Happens Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 Considering the IOC have banned Russia from the 2018 winter Olympics for state sponsored doping how can FIFA justify holding a world cup there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 If anyone thinks Leicester had a better team than Chelsea then why would N’Golo Kante move to Stanford Bridge? By that logic Kante just left the best team in England, and Champions League football, to join the 10th best team in England with no European football. Where is the logic? Would Kevin De Bruyne trade Man City for Watford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted December 5, 2017 Share Posted December 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Bris Vegas said: If anyone thinks Leicester had a better team than Chelsea then why would N’Golo Kante move to Stanford Bridge? By that logic Kante just left the best team in England, and Champions League football, to join the 10th best team in England with no European football. Where is the logic? Would Kevin De Bruyne trade Man City for Watford? Why did Shackell leave Burnley for Derby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.