Jump to content

World Cup Draw

JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta

By JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta
in Football Forum

Recommended Posts

Dimmu

Dimmu

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Considering the IOC have banned Russia from the 2018 winter Olympics for state sponsored doping how can FIFA justify holding a world cup there?

I'm afraid of courtrooms so I can't comment like I would love to.

Football really is ruined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 183
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Day

Day

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Because we were in the same division, bot promotion contenders, and he was no longer a regular at Burnley?

Good point well made.

(Had it in my head they were in the Premier League. It's late.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MuespachRam

MuespachRam

Posted
Posted
2 hours 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?

 

I wonder why he left Leicester to go and play for one of the richest men in the world.....let me think, why could that be...??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MuespachRam

MuespachRam

Posted
Posted
4 hours 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 overachieved while the other massively underachieved.

 

So, we finished with 8 more points than West Brom, won three more than them and lost 2 less and beat them at home (they beat us at their place) AND then we beat them in the play off finals and we weren't better than them...? Come on Bris you know you aren't making sense.

Of course Leicester were the best team in the league, they got more points than anyone else, a LOT more points than anyone, they got 10 more points than their nearest rivals and 31 more points than Chelsea....so of course they were a better team than Chelsea I cant see how anyone can say otherwise really....Man City are currently 30 points ahead of West Brom is that because City are massively overachieving and West Brom are massively underachieving.......I don't think so do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Just logged in to read discussion about the World Cup draw and see that the thread has strangely morphed into a debate about Leicester, Chelsea and West Brom!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

Just like chillie they aren’t going either..

Chillie? Is that the country (Chile) or the pepper (chilli) or the weather (chilly)?  :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cannable

cannable

Posted
Posted
18 hours 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..

Better tell that to Billy then... he thought Southampton was the best team in the league in 06/07 and West Brom too better than us...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sexydadbod

Sexydadbod

Posted
Posted

Have to agree with Bris. Chile are better than Paraguay and Peru but off the field issues combined with other factors meant they didn't qualify. Many of the big South American sides celebrated Chile's failure to qualify, why? Because they know Chile are big threats to them, especially in cup formats. 

Chile proved they are one of the best by winning the copa Americas. It's rather simplistic to think that winning the league makes you the best team as there are other factors to take into account such as injuries to key players or lack of motivation due to already winning everything. Real Madrid weren't better than Barcelona(who were considered the best team in the world) in 11/12 but they still won the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

So, we finished with 8 more points than West Brom, won three more than them and lost 2 less and beat them at home (they beat us at their place) AND then we beat them in the play off finals and we weren't better than them...? Come on Bris you know you aren't making sense.

Of course Leicester were the best team in the league, they got more points than anyone else, a LOT more points than anyone, they got 10 more points than their nearest rivals and 31 more points than Chelsea....so of course they were a better team than Chelsea I cant see how anyone can say otherwise really....Man City are currently 30 points ahead of West Brom is that because City are massively overachieving and West Brom are massively underachieving.......I don't think so do you?

They were better teams than us, we just happened to finish above them. In terms of player and squad ability, they were evidently better and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.

Billy Davies did an excellent job in getting that Derby team promoted. If we had Phil Brown in charge of that lot, we'd have finished in the bottom six. There are a multiple of factors involved to just suggest your ability is where you finish. How else would you explain Chelsea going from 1st, to 10th and then 1st with the same set of players? Likewise Leicester from near relegation, to 1st and then back to near relegation?

Man City have finished in the top four for the past decade. West Brom have finished outside the top six for the past decade. Are you surprised by their current standings? No? Is it because one team is clearly better than the other?

Why were Leicester 5000-1 odds on winning the Premier League if they were geared up to be the best team? That makes no sense at all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamRam

AdamRam

Posted
Posted
23 hours 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?

 

What a bizzare statement? If Chelsea were the better team at the time then why would they need to sign one of the foxes players? They signed him because he was better than any of the players they had in their squad playing that position in the previous season.  

Kante joined and they won the league the season after, and he was a major influence on that, Leicester failed to replace him and therefore was no longer the better team.

Didn’t Luiz also sign at the same time from PSG? Did Neymar leave Barcelona because PSG are better ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdamRam

AdamRam

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Why were Leicester 5000-1 odds on winning the Premier League if they were geared up to be the best team? That makes no sense at all.

 

Odds are set on the probability of an event happening, for example if you place a bet on a roulette table you will get 35-1 even though the actual odds are 38-1.  This does not mean the bookies don’t believe that it will ever happen, just that they thinks it’s unlikely.  If I back no 5 though and it comes in, no matter how you look at it, that ball still landed on no 5, doesn’t matter if it’s my first go or 5000th it still happened.

Likewise, Leicester still won that league by being the best team over the season, they accumulated more points than any one else, doesn’t matter if it was expected or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Vegas

Bris Vegas

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, AdamRam said:

What a bizzare statement? If Chelsea were the better team at the time then why would they need to sign one of the foxes players? They signed him because he was better than any of the players they had in their squad playing that position in the previous season.  

Kante joined and they won the league the season after, and he was a major influence on that, Leicester failed to replace him and therefore was no longer the better team.

Didn’t Luiz also sign at the same time from PSG? Did Neymar leave Barcelona because PSG are better ? 

Because signing Kante would make them better? That doesn't mean Chelsea weren't a better team. Clearly they were, they won the league the season before and once again 12 months after. 

Not sure what Neymar has to do with the debate? 

Why would you leave the best team in England to join the tenth best team in England? Do you think if Watford offered to double Kevin De Bruyne's wages he would leave City for them? Of course he wouldn't...

So why did Kante join Chelsea? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...