Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

SOCCER - WINTER 2020


The Natural

Recommended Posts

It will be very important how the early part of the return leg will play out for Liverpool. Iirc they were ahead last year aswell, although by fewer points and one loss plus a few draws were enough to put them into second. 

It seems unlikely at the moment, but I wouldn't put it past any Guardiola team to get 19 / 19 or close to it. And there are quite a few EPL teams you can draw or loose against without playing bad. 

That being said, I'd be happy for Klopp and for the Club to get that title. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ReiseReise said:

It seems unlikely at the moment, but I wouldn't put it past any Guardiola team to get 19 / 19 or close to it. And there are quite a few EPL teams you can draw or loose against without playing bad.

Yes, but the thing is that even if they win 19/19 the most they can get is 95 points. Liverpool got 97 last time. Liverpool are an absolute maximum of 44 points away from finishing ahead of Man City. They got 47 in their last 20 games last time. But realistically they can probably drop 20 points and win the title, it's going to take more than a couple of draws to stop them. You can get 16s on the exchanges if you still fancy Man City, was 8s a few days ago - potential champions don't collapse like they did against Wolves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It benefits my team this time, but holy shit I really dislike the offside by millimetres VAR decisions. Yes, technically if we're dealing in absolutes then yes, the Wolves player was offside, but it just feels like a really cheap decision. The precise nitpickiness of it all has taken some of the fun out of the game. I look at the Wolves goal and think "fair enough, that's a goal"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though the VAR claim helps the team I would like to see win the Premier League, I think that we really need to establish the same category as NFL's use of video reversal, ie "If you have to scroll in 5x to see, then it's not clear and obvious." I guess this is the natural offspring of "Let it play to make sure a goal scoring chance is not wasted unnecessarily", but man, I can see how rage-inducing it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birmingham vs Leeds was a bit mental. 0-1, 0-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5. And somehow West Brom contrived to lose to Middlesbrough.

Oh, and Rangers beat Celtic away for the first time in like a decade.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AxB said:

Birmingham vs Leeds was a bit mental. 0-1, 0-2, 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 3-3, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5. And somehow West Brom contrived to lose to Middlesbrough.

Oh, and Rangers beat Celtic away for the first time in like a decade.

Yeah, just heard the Birmingham-Leeds final score and was going to tag you in a post. Got your money's worth if you were in the away end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Daily Star took Pep Guardiola's Team of the Decade thing as an excuse to do a ten year Premier League table (well, top 10). And it's like this (Win-draw-loss)

1: Man City (251-65-65) GD +503, 818 pts

2: Man Utd (220-87-73) GD +316, 747 pts

3: Chelsea (220-80-80) GD +331, 740 pts

4: Liverpool (206-92-81) GD +314, 710 pts

5: Tottenham (206-85-89) GD +236, 703 pts

6: Arsenal (205-87-89) GD +266, 702 pts

7: Everton (151-114-116) GD +77, 567 pts

8: West Ham (104-91-146) GD -96, 403 pts

9: Stoke City (99-94-130) GD -102, 391 pts

10: Newcastle United (106-73-145) GD -103, 391 pts.

So every team from 2010-2019 that isn't the big six or Everton has a losing record, a negative goal difference, and has spent at least one season outside the top flight. Money ruin football much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2020 at 7:31 PM, AxB said:

8: West Ham (104-91-146) GD -96, 403 pts

9: Stoke City (99-94-130) GD -102, 391 pts

10: Newcastle United (106-73-145) GD -103, 391 pts.

So every team from 2010-2019 that isn't the big six or Everton has a losing record, a negative goal difference, and has spent at least one season outside the top flight. Money ruin football much?

If you ran a table of the 1980s, would it be that much different?

(Edit: West Ham and Newcastle were both relegated in 1989, Stoke in 1985)

Edited by ComingToAmerica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a long stretch where they were just holding on to leads or having to come from behind to get 3 points. Last little bit here has seen some comfortable displays. I am okay with this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ComingToAmerica said:

If you ran a table of the 1980s, would it be that much different?

(Edit: West Ham and Newcastle were both relegated in 1989, Stoke in 1985)

Completely different, everyone's Premier League record would be 0-0-0. But in terms of League Division One in the 80s, Liverpool would be top, Chelsea and Man City would be much lower, Leeds would probably be in there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, AxB said:

Completely different, everyone's Premier League record would be 0-0-0. But in terms of League Division One in the 80s, Liverpool would be top, Chelsea and Man City would be much lower, Leeds would probably be in there...

Yes sure, some of the teams would be different - but you were suggesting that there would be a qualitative difference (due to money): I am questioning that.

(Edit: I think the 1980s table backs that up, Villa in 8th and West Ham in 10th both spent time in Division 2. Coventry survived through the 80s and 90s. )

Edited by ComingToAmerica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...