*Official* English Football Season 2009-2010

[Uppercut]

Nah, we scored as many goals as Barca did on Weds but couldn't honestly claim with a straight face we were as good as them.

As I've probably said before at tedious length, because of the low scoring nature of football it's uniquely susceptible to upsets; like on Wednesday - No Almunia & it was 3-0 or 4-0 to Barca at HT.

You were as good as Barca. Their dominance in terms of skill, physicality and, erm, just about everything else you more than made up for with the simple fact that you took about 4 shots to score 2 goals and they took about 20. Taking chances is such a massive part of football, in many ways it's the single most important aspect of the game. Why would you decide to exclude it when judging their performance?

Just because football is high-variance doesn't mean you can't equate a side's performance with how many goals they score or concede. None of the other stuff they do is relevant.

 

[GIMH]

That's far too simplistic a way of looking at things, though.

 

[Uppercut]

That's far too simplistic a way of looking at things, though.

Anything else is too complex a way of looking at things IMO. On what grounds could you possibly say Barcelona were the better team than Arsenal on Wednesday night? Playing lots of pretty football then giving away two goals at the end surely doesn't constitute a good performance, right?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Anything else is too complex a way of looking at things IMO. On what grounds could you possibly say Barcelona were the better team than Arsenal on Wednesday night? Playing lots of pretty football then giving away two goals at the end surely doesn't constitute a good performance, right?

Possession, territory, chances created, chances on target...take your pick.

As I said: no Almunia and we're at least three down by the turnaround.

Equating the best team with goals scored is just a ridiculously reductive way of looking at which team has played "the best"; if that's all there was to it no-one would bother watching or talking about the sport.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, it's the equivalent to looking at a scorecard and assuming the highest scoring innings was the best. We all know that isn't the case.

 

[Uppercut]

Possession, territory, chances created, chances on target...take your pick.

None of those things matter! That's the point. They're all a means to an end, and the end is scoring more goals.

As I said: no Almunia and we're at least three down by the turnaround.

Correct. The goalkeeper is a player too. Why would you decide to exclude his contribution when judging how well your team played?

Equating the best team with goals scored is just a ridiculously reductive way of looking at which team has played "the best"; if that's all there was to it no-one would bother watching or talking about the sport.

I don't think there's a way to rationalise the definition of the "better team" beyond that which scored more goals. Because that's how the sport is built, football is designed with the solitary aim of scoring the most goals. When a team walks onto a football pitch, that's the only thing they intend to do, their single aim. They aren't trying to get the most shots on target, the least fouls and the most possession, so why would we use the extent to which they do that to judge their performance?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Surely that's equating luck with performance? We've all seen days when our team/the opposition have been ****house and still managed to fluke a 1-0 by virtue of the keeper having a blinder/strikers having a mare/the ref forgetting his white stick.

It's perfectly possible to be greatly inferior, both in personnel and on the day, and still win.

 

[Uppercut]

Surely that's equating luck with performance? We've all seen days when our team/the opposition have been ****house and still managed to fluke a 1-0 by virtue of the keeper having a blinder/strikers having a mare/the ref forgetting his white stick.

It's perfectly possible to be greatly inferior, both in personnel and on the day, and still win.

But the keeper is part of your team! When the keeper has such a good game that it makes up for the rest of your team playing like poo, that drags your team's performance level up sufficiently to call them the better side on the day. Likewise if your strikers play like spoons, their performance can be said to have been so poor as to negate the quality of the rest of the side.

Refereeing boobs a notable exception, obvz.

 

[grecian]

Yeah, lets face it the plastic scousers were outplayed on friday, but the ref was their MOM.

Mido, still crap I see.

 

[GIMH]

I hate to do this to someone I like, but you've changed your tune mate

We were horrendously unlucky with the goal, but we'll pick up plenty of undeserved points this season too. Still, when they take home a match after playing like that, it seriously adds to the feeling that this is Chelsea's year..

After your defeat to Chelsea in November. Please explain how points can be undeserved? Results = points, so best team always win, then points = deserved always

Chelsea are by far and away the best team though.

They weren't today. Really don't think there's much in it, I'd say they're marginally the best team. They're in the almost unique position of having literally everyone fit, so it'll be interesting to see how they go later in the season. Especially when some key players head off to the African Cup of Nations.

You said that as well. So when did you take on this crazy theory that most goals = best team?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, lets face it the plastic scousers were outplayed on friday, but the ref was their MOM.

Mido, still crap I see.

They were lucky we didn't score 6 or 7 IMO

 

[GIMH]

Eddie Ilderton Appreciation Society

 

[Neil Pickup]

Don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this one. I can see what you're getting at - my school 3rd XI had a game at the start of the season when we had 20 or so shots to about 3 and lost 2-1, and I have absolutely no issues with the fact that we deserved to lose it. In fact I can't think of a non-ref situation where I could say a team who won a game didn't deserve to win it.

That doesn't necessarily lead to the converse, as much as writing that paragraph tried to persuade me, that every team who didn't win a game didn't deserve something from it. We also got schooled 6-1 at Harrow later in the season, but that was because we were giving away 18 inches and 18 months per player. Despite that, we were 1-1 after 40 minutes on a full size pitch and then collectively died.

 

[Uppercut]

I hate to do this to someone I like, but you've changed your tune mate



After your defeat to Chelsea in November. Please explain how points can be undeserved? Results = points, so best team always win, then points = deserved always





You said that as well. So when did you take on this crazy theory that most goals = best team?

Because, as I've repeatedly said, refereeing balls-ups are an exception, and Chelsea won that game with a goal that was the result of a series of refereeing balls-ups! My tune is exactly the same as it has always been

 

[GIMH]

cop out!

 

[Uppercut]

Don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye on this one. I can see what you're getting at - my school 3rd XI had a game at the start of the season when we had 20 or so shots to about 3 and lost 2-1, and I have absolutely no issues with the fact that we deserved to lose it. In fact I can't think of a non-ref situation where I could say a team who won a game didn't deserve to win it.

Yesss.

That doesn't necessarily lead to the converse, as much as writing that paragraph tried to persuade me, that every team who didn't win a game didn't deserve something from it. We also got schooled 6-1 at Harrow later in the season, but that was because we were giving away 18 inches and 18 months per player. Despite that, we were 1-1 after 40 minutes on a full size pitch and then collectively died.

I wouldn't hesitate to give the team some credit for that performance- there's often a lot to take from such matches. Points just aren't one of those things .

 

[BoyBrumby]

None of those things matter! That's the point. They're all a means to an end, and the end is scoring more goals.



Correct. The goalkeeper is a player too. Why would you decide to exclude his contribution when judging how well your team played?



I don't think there's a way to rationalise the definition of the "better team" beyond that which scored more goals. Because that's how the sport is built, football is designed with the solitary aim of scoring the most goals. When a team walks onto a football pitch, that's the only thing they intend to do, their single aim. They aren't trying to get the most shots on target, the least fouls and the most possession, so why would we use the extent to which they do that to judge their performance?

Of course they do; why would anyone watch if they didn't?

Goals scored is the method football uses to decide which team has won; but as to which team has performed "better", well there are measureable data one can use which I've already suggested or one can watch the game and make a subjective judgement.

Whichever method I use for Wednesday's game would lead me to the same conclusion: Barcelona were the better side. I doubt too many people who saw the match, excepting the most one-eyed Gooners, would suggest anything else.

As for the point about the keeper being part of the team; he is but only 1/11th of it. Without wanting to labour my point, because football is a low scoring sport and the nature of the job keepers perform, one have a "blinder" (as Almunia did 1st half) can have a greater influence on the outcome of the game than being one eleventh of a whole would otherwise suggest. This doesn't mean however that a keeper playing well equates to a levelling of the teams' performances; it just means a keeper has played well.

Moreover, if the opposing keeper doesn't have a save to make can one even say the keeper who has made several vital saves has outperformed him? At best it's unproven.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Anyway, back on actual football rather than footballing theory: Liverpool's bolt now shot with the draw at Brum, IMHO. 4 points behind Citeh having played 33 to their 32.

Raises couple of points: how nice it is to see a Gold & Sullivan-free Brum doing well (no Birmingham fan, but reserving the right to chuckle anyway) whilst their latest charges circle the drain & can Rafa survive not making the CL?

 

[GIMH]

Fan power is well in Rafa's favour - I don't think they'll sack him

 

[Jarquis]

You obviously assosciate with different Liverpool fans to the ones I do.