AdamRam Posted December 6, 2017 Share Posted December 6, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: 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? Kante joined them to improve them and make them become the best team in the country. Why did Neymar leave Barcelona, as surely they are regarded as a better team than PSG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 9 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: 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? If you think that Kante left Leicester to join Chelsea for anything other than boat loads of money then you are crazier than I thought....and yes if Watford offered enough money then De Bruyne would go there. Saying that Chelsea werea beetter team because they were the season before is a ridiculous statement....Leicester were the best team in the league, no one got anywhere near them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 2 hours ago, MuespachRam said: If you think that Kante left Leicester to join Chelsea for anything other than boat loads of money then you are crazier than I thought....and yes if Watford offered enough money then De Bruyne would go there. Saying that Chelsea werea beetter team because they were the season before is a ridiculous statement....Leicester were the best team in the league, no one got anywhere near them. If you think money is the only thing that matters, you are simply wrong. Otherwise no player would turn down moves to China or Saudi Arabia, but that happens and quite often actually. There's more factors than just money, eventhough it might be tempting to think things so simply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Surely unless you're a complete moron you look at what potential earnings there are I'd take less money to go to Man City than more money to go to Watford. One can give me champions league football and the stage to shine that the other can't. Kante can open up more doors playing for Chelsea than Leicester. There was always the likelihood that his long term interest was better at Chelsea in every possible way. Didn't Vardy stay for the money? Now if he was starting games and scoring goals for Arsenal(on less wages) in Europe and cup finals etc instead of Leicester then there would be more doors open to him in the future than what he's going to get. Not everyone jumps ship at the first offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 The League is just ranking teams based on results. Any number of factors can affect a result outside of how good a team is. A team could sign the player or two in the January that elevates them but because they couldn’t claw back the gap in the second half of the season would that still mean the other team is better? A team could have half a spine wiped out and collapse, bad luck. A controversial red card in a six pointer alters the result which ultimately sees Team A finish above Team B... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, cannable said: The League is just ranking teams based on results. Any number of factors can affect a result outside of how good a team is. A team could sign the player or two in the January that elevates them but because they couldn’t claw back the gap in the second half of the season would that still mean the other team is better? A team could have half a spine wiped out and collapse, bad luck. A controversial red card in a six pointer alters the result which ultimately sees Team A finish above Team B... The league is a true reflection of a teams ability over a set period any other assessment is based on personal views. Were we the best club in England in 1972? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 12 hours ago, MuespachRam said: If you think that Kante left Leicester to join Chelsea for anything other than boat loads of money then you are crazier than I thought....and yes if Watford offered enough money then De Bruyne would go there. Saying that Chelsea werea beetter team because they were the season before is a ridiculous statement....Leicester were the best team in the league, no one got anywhere near them. If Leicester were the best team in the league, please explain why their best player ditched them for the 'tenth best team in the league' Don't say money. Sergio Aguero wouldn't leave City for Watford, even if they doubled his wage. He just wouldn't. Also, why didn't Leicester start the 2016/17 season as favourites if they were the best team in the league? Bookies had them at 33/1 to win the league and 25/1 for relegation. Why would the best team in the league have shorter odds for relegation than winning the league? Do you think Man City will have shorter odds next season on relegation than winning the title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Spanish said: The league is a true reflection of a teams ability over a set period any other assessment is based on personal views. Were we the best club in England in 1972? No, we were, and still are, the best club in the world. We were also the best team in England in 1972! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 36 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: If Leicester were the best team in the league, please explain why their best player ditched them for the 'tenth best team in the league' Don't say money. Sergio Aguero wouldn't leave City for Watford, even if they doubled his wage. He just wouldn't. Also, why didn't Leicester start the 2016/17 season as favourites if they were the best team in the league? Bookies had them at 33/1 to win the league and 25/1 for relegation. Why would the best team in the league have shorter odds for relegation than winning the league? Do you think Man City will have shorter odds next season on relegation than winning the title? Sorry @Bris Vegas, but you’re going to have to find a better argument to convince me, and I think many others, that a team that finished 10th in the league is better over the whole season than the team that finished 1st. Yes Chelsea underachieved massively but they were still 10th at the end of the season. Leicester played as close to their maximum ability for virtually the whole of that same season (they didn’t overachieve, that’s not possible) and for that reason were the best team in the Premier League that season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamRam Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 45 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said: If Leicester were the best team in the league, please explain why their best player ditched them for the 'tenth best team in the league' Don't say money. Sergio Aguero wouldn't leave City for Watford, even if they doubled his wage. He just wouldn't. Also, why didn't Leicester start the 2016/17 season as favourites if they were the best team in the league? Bookies had them at 33/1 to win the league and 25/1 for relegation. Why would the best team in the league have shorter odds for relegation than winning the league? Do you think Man City will have shorter odds next season on relegation than winning the title? I’m not sure if you are serious or not, I can’t beleive your argument is around bookies odds and a player leaving their title winning team. England are the 6th lowest odds to win the WC, by your deluded theory that means we have a really good chance of winning it, and PSG are a better team than Barcelona because Neymar left them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Chelsea still had better players and more potential though. Who would have a bet on Leicester finishing higher than Chelsea again the following season? Leicester were a better team over the 38 games but as a player you would surely think the club that offers you the better long term options would be Chelsea. Goes for any job. Not just about money. Who blindly follows the nearest money trail? Potential earnings are probably more important than current earnings. Location, people you work with etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 2 hours ago, AdamRam said: I’m not sure if you are serious or not, I can’t beleive your argument is around bookies odds and a player leaving their title winning team. England are the 6th lowest odds to win the WC, by your deluded theory that means we have a really good chance of winning it, and PSG are a better team than Barcelona because Neymar left them. PSG ARE a better team than Barca... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannable Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Isn’t this just effectively the results versus performance argument? If you’d take results over performance you think the league table defines how good a team is and vice versa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 57 minutes ago, cannable said: Isn’t this just effectively the results versus performance argument? If you’d take results over performance you think the league table defines how good a team is and vice versa One is fact the other conjecture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViewsFromTheMiddle Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 1 hour ago, cannable said: PSG ARE a better team than Barca... They have potential to be but definitely aren't yet imo. Yes they scored a lot of goals in the group stages, but they had Celtic and Anderlecht.. Also Ligue 1 is nowhere near as competitive as La Liga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 7 hours ago, AdamRam said: I’m not sure if you are serious or not, I can’t beleive your argument is around bookies odds and a player leaving their title winning team. England are the 6th lowest odds to win the WC, by your deluded theory that means we have a really good chance of winning it, and PSG are a better team than Barcelona because Neymar left them. I’m not sure of the relevance of PSG and Barcelona here? Both play in different leagues, and judging by performances this term I’d say PSG look the stronger right now. But what’s that got to do with Leicester and Chelsea? Leicester deserved to win the title, but it was a freak season where the so-called title favourites all massively underachieved. If you had the choice of Leicester’s squad and Chelsea’s squad, you’d choose Chelsea’s every day of the week because they have better players, more ability, more potential, more squad depth and ergo a better team... That doesn’t mean Leicester can’t win the league. Hell, even Burton Albion can still win the Championship if they fluked their way to 26 successive 1-0 wins, but I think we can safely say they aren’t the best team in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 2 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: I’m not sure of the relevance of PSG and Barcelona here? Both play in different leagues, and judging by performances this term I’d say PSG look the stronger right now. But what’s that got to do with Leicester and Chelsea? Leicester deserved to win the title, but it was a freak season where the so-called title favourites all massively underachieved. If you had the choice of Leicester’s squad and Chelsea’s squad, you’d choose Chelsea’s every day of the week because they have better players, more ability, more potential, more squad depth and ergo a better team... That doesn’t mean Leicester can’t win the league. Hell, even Burton Albion can still win the Championship if they fluked their way to 26 successive 1-0 wins, but I think we can safely say they aren’t the best team in the league. If Burton won 26 successive games 1-0 and finished with more points than anyone else in the league then yes we would be saying that they were the best team in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronnieronalde Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: I’m not sure of the relevance of PSG and Barcelona here? Both play in different leagues, and judging by performances this term I’d say PSG look the stronger right now. But what’s that got to do with Leicester and Chelsea? Leicester deserved to win the title, but it was a freak season where the so-called title favourites all massively underachieved. If you had the choice of Leicester’s squad and Chelsea’s squad, you’d choose Chelsea’s every day of the week because they have better players, more ability, more potential, more squad depth and ergo a better team... That doesn’t mean Leicester can’t win the league. Hell, even Burton Albion can still win the Championship if they fluked their way to 26 successive 1-0 wins, but I think we can safely say they aren’t the best team in the league. Now I'm a massive Burton Albion fan as you might have guessed, but come on pal. 26 x 1-0 wins would put us on 92 points so we'll probably have to settle for going up in 2nd this time;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamRam Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 7 hours ago, Bris Vegas said: I’m not sure of the relevance of PSG and Barcelona here? Both play in different leagues, and judging by performances this term I’d say PSG look the stronger right now. But what’s that got to do with Leicester and Chelsea? Leicester deserved to win the title, but it was a freak season where the so-called title favourites all massively underachieved. If you had the choice of Leicester’s squad and Chelsea’s squad, you’d choose Chelsea’s every day of the week because they have better players, more ability, more potential, more squad depth and ergo a better team... That doesn’t mean Leicester can’t win the league. Hell, even Burton Albion can still win the Championship if they fluked their way to 26 successive 1-0 wins, but I think we can safely say they aren’t the best team in the league. I agree it’s not relevant as a player leaving a team is not indicative of the team he joins being the beat team the previous season. He may join for the money, or because he believe he can make the team he joins the best one however if you ask kante who the best team was that season he will say Leicester and show you his medal. Also, wasn’t that his first season for the foxes ? Therefore he improved them to become the best team in that season, he then left and Chelsea became the beat team....you may see a common theme here if you look closely enough :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 13 hours ago, cannable said: Isn’t this just effectively the results versus performance argument? If you’d take results over performance you think the league table defines how good a team is and vice versa Seeing this thread develop I would say this is more a results v paper football. I agree with Bris that before Leicester’s title winning season you would look at both squads and you wouldn’t find a fan that would take Leicester’s over Chelsea. But football isn’t about individual names on a sheet of paper, it’s a team game with the goal to achieve as many points as possible, a team which a manager and his staff are part of. Swinging all the way back to Chilie, sure they have a better side on paper than Peru and Uruguay but they did not achieve the results to qualify for the biggest tournament in the World. As of today, they cannot be considered one of the best until they get back on the pitch and prove themselves to be a top 10 team. Leicester City are no longer the best team in the Premier League, they were but now this title is Man City’s, next season who knows, one transfer window can change everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.