|
Post by lostinspace on Apr 8, 2015 9:53:23 GMT
Let's just hope the bees fans aren't chirping come 5pm Saturday! I have a few twitter screenshots ready to go, from 5 months ago, mainly Barnet fans giving it the '12 point lead' big un! They will come in handy when/if we have a big fat 'C' sitting next to our name come the seasons end! Just don't send them until we have actually won the thing then, sending them just because we have gone top could tempt fate ! brings back visions of having "avoided the drop" after the defeat of WW last season!!! counting chickens come to mind... tempting fate would be just too much
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 10:00:08 GMT
I can't remember. I think I've been consistent in that I think we'd win the league. The 100 points thing is hindsight, we could have had 100 based on actual games we've played. I wasn't saying that at the start of the season. Would win the league, Could win the league, or should win the league? Massive difference, as one implies criticism of the manager & players if we don't. All three.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Apr 8, 2015 11:10:48 GMT
Would win the league, Could win the league, or should win the league? Massive difference, as one implies criticism of the manager & players if we don't. All three. Interesting...
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 8, 2015 11:19:44 GMT
Whilst I'm on my high horse, another thing. What's this nonsense about 'away goals count double'. No they don't, it's just that the team that scores more away goals wins. If the first leg results in a 1-4 away win and the return fixture is a 2-5 away win, the recorded score isn't 11-10. Rant over, and relax Exactly, away goals don't count double and goal difference does not equal any kind of extra point. They are tiebreakers - urgo they only become relevant if there is a tie. If a team is on 48 points but has a +50 goal difference it doesn't get an extra point if the team ahead of it on 49 points only has a +45 goal difference. I don't know why people insist on seeing it as anything other than a tiebreaker - just makes it far more complicated. Having said that away goals are a load of crap - Wenger was absolutely right on that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 11:28:32 GMT
No, but if you're behind a team with a superior goal difference you need an extra point to overtake them. The extra point being defined as one point more than the other team get. So the superior goal difference is 'worth' an extra point, it just isn't an extra point.There's no way to overhaul the team ahead other than by getting one or more points than they do.
Which is exactly the situation we are in. Barnet's goal difference is worth an extra point!
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Apr 8, 2015 11:34:57 GMT
I'm just relishing being in this very positive position, at just the right time of the season. Enjoying every minute of it in fact, mostly because we have something to be positive about at long last. Exciting ennit? I wonder if we'll pull it off?
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 8, 2015 11:46:32 GMT
No, but if you're behind a team with a superior goal difference you need an extra point to overtake them. The extra point being defined as one point more than the other team get. So the superior goal difference is 'worth' an extra point, it just isn't an extra point.There's no way to overhaul the team ahead other than by getting one or more points than they do. Which is exactly the situation we are in. Barnet's goal difference is worth an extra point! Well not quite because it only comes into play if we're level with them. If they're 1 point behind us or 1 point ahead of us then it's worth diddly squat. The point is you need results to fall a certain way before that advantage even kicks in. If they were 2 points up on us it would be more relevant because then they could afford to draw one. As it stands the only way this is likely to come into play in the last 3 games is if we draw one and they lose one, which is definitely possible but probably one of the more unlikely scenarios (if either side does worse than that it's likely to become a 3 way race again in which Grimsby have just as good a chance as anyone). In that sense we're in a reasonable position because if we win all 3 we only need Barnet to slip up once and that can be a loss or a draw. So goal difference is currently pretty irrelevant because there's no way we can win all 3 games and still end up level on points and if we don't win all those games our chances of finishing top are very slim anyway.
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Apr 8, 2015 11:48:49 GMT
No, but if you're behind a team with a superior goal difference you need an extra point to overtake them. The extra point being defined as one point more than the other team get. So the superior goal difference is 'worth' an extra point, it just isn't an extra point.There's no way to overhaul the team ahead other than by getting one or more points than they do. Which is exactly the situation we are in. Barnet's goal difference is worth an extra point! Its only 'worth an extra point' if the 2 teams are on the same points. If Barnet end up on, for example, 90 points and we end up on 91, we would win, despite Barnet's superior goal difference. So as Irish etc says, its a tie breaker. Stop complicating it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 12:04:17 GMT
We need to get two points more than they get from the remaining games despite only being one point behind them. Their goal difference is worth an extra point. It isn't complicated!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 12:07:50 GMT
No, but if you're behind a team with a superior goal difference you need an extra point to overtake them. The extra point being defined as one point more than the other team get. So the superior goal difference is 'worth' an extra point, it just isn't an extra point.There's no way to overhaul the team ahead other than by getting one or more points than they do. Which is exactly the situation we are in. Barnet's goal difference is worth an extra point! Or, as we agreed earlier, Barnet's goal difference is worth ten thousand billion points, but those points are only awarded if 2 teams finish equal on points. In fact, goal difference is worth zero points, it's something completely different that is only taken into account when teams finish level on points, the number of points isn't altered, so there is no correlation between goal difference and points total. Irish. I knew we would find something we could agree on eventually. When an away team score first in a 2 legged fixture, it doesn't come up as 0-2 on the scoreboard. That was classic Wenger, he never sees fouls committed by his own team, and he just happened to feel that way about away goals when his team had just been eliminated. Wonder how he would have felt if the positions were reversed?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 12:14:01 GMT
Its equally ten billion points or 0.000000000000000001 points. But as points are only awarded as a whole, it seems sensible to keep it to 1.
We cannot finish top unless we have at least one more point than Barnet. That's an extra point that we need to get that they don't, by virtue of their goal difference.
The away goals thing is different. They don't count double and never did.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 8, 2015 12:22:58 GMT
No, but if you're behind a team with a superior goal difference you need an extra point to overtake them. The extra point being defined as one point more than the other team get. So the superior goal difference is 'worth' an extra point, it just isn't an extra point.There's no way to overhaul the team ahead other than by getting one or more points than they do. Which is exactly the situation we are in. Barnet's goal difference is worth an extra point! Or, as we agreed earlier, Barnet's goal difference is worth ten thousand billion points, but those points are only awarded if 2 teams finish equal on points. In fact, goal difference is worth zero points, it's something completely different that is only taken into account when teams finish level on points, the number of points isn't altered, so there is no correlation between goal difference and points total. Irish. I knew we would find something we could agree on eventually. When an away team score first in a 2 legged fixture, it doesn't come up as 0-2 on the scoreboard. That was classic Wenger, he never sees fouls committed by his own team, and he just happened to feel that way about away goals when his team had just been eliminated. Wonder how he would have felt if the positions were reversed? What is the world coming to.....I think we probably agree on quite of things actually - opinion of our clubs leadership for 1, the need for dramatic change in the governance of international for 2 etc. I'm actually prepared to give Wenger the benefit of the doubt on that one. He is enough of a football purist that the current rules don't just hurt his approach this year, they hurt him generally I think because they encourage the kind of tactics that the likes of Mourihno and Benitez employ over his approach. That's the main reason I don't like it. It rewards control freak hyper tinkering managers which is good for them but not good for the spectacle of the game. Mourihno is undoubtedly a master at viewing the game like a chess match and his teams are superb at winning games but they do it in a generally uninteresting way; after all chess is not a great spectator sport on the whole. This is my main rant against possession obsessed counter attacking football; it's football by the averages. If it generally produced sides that played like Guardiola era Barca that would be fine but these sides tend to be the exception; in general it produces sides that played like Mourihno's Real Madrid. You take exciting attacking players and shackle them in a system that allows very limited room for individual expression beyond the one stratospheric superstar who has a free role to win you games. Players are then moved around the system to maximise the amount of possession a side controls. Very successful but it doesn't produce exciting football matches in the main; too organised, too formulaic. There has to be an element of freedom and chaos to produce the most exciting games. The away goals rule play a big part in that for me - it rewards the wrong things from the point of view of the fan.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Apr 8, 2015 12:28:40 GMT
Schrodinger's Goal Difference
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 12:32:17 GMT
Or, as we agreed earlier, Barnet's goal difference is worth ten thousand billion points, but those points are only awarded if 2 teams finish equal on points. In fact, goal difference is worth zero points, it's something completely different that is only taken into account when teams finish level on points, the number of points isn't altered, so there is no correlation between goal difference and points total. Irish. I knew we would find something we could agree on eventually. When an away team score first in a 2 legged fixture, it doesn't come up as 0-2 on the scoreboard. That was classic Wenger, he never sees fouls committed by his own team, and he just happened to feel that way about away goals when his team had just been eliminated. Wonder how he would have felt if the positions were reversed? What is the world coming to.....I think we probably agree on quite of things actually - opinion of our clubs leadership for 1, the need for dramatic change in the governance of international for 2 etc. I'm actually prepared to give Wenger the benefit of the doubt on that one. He is enough of a football purist that the current rules don't just hurt his approach this year, they hurt him generally I think because they encourage the kind of tactics that the likes of Mourihno and Benitez employ over his approach. That's the main reason I don't like it. It rewards control freak hyper tinkering managers which is good for them but not good for the spectacle of the game. Mourihno is undoubtedly a master at viewing the game like a chess match and his teams are superb at winning games but they do it in a generally uninteresting way; after all chess is not a great spectator sport on the whole. This is my main rant against possession obsessed counter attacking football; it's football by the averages. If it generally produced sides that played like Guardiola era Barca that would be fine but these sides tend to be the exception; in general it produces sides that played like Mourihno's Real Madrid. You take exciting attacking players and shackle them in a system that allows very limited room for individual expression beyond the one stratospheric superstar who has a free role to win you games. Players are then moved around the system to maximise the amount of possession a side controls. Very successful but it doesn't produce exciting football matches in the main; too organised, too formulaic. There has to be an element of freedom and chaos to produce the most exciting games. The away goals rule play a big part in that for me - it rewards the wrong things from the point of view of the fan. Remove the away goals rule and the first leg may as well not be played. So, let's get this straight. You like Arsenal's pass and move game? It certainly doesn't reward percentages, when they attack they do it in numbers, the time in possesion and number of attempts on goal Vs goals scored will be much lower than Stoke, but it's a whole lot easier to appreciate the skill and fitness of players like Carzola and Ozil passing their way around opposition players than it is to enjoy watching Shawcross deliberately injuring opposition players to slow them down?
|
|
|
Post by brisgas123 on Apr 8, 2015 12:38:37 GMT
Can we move on from this now? We know the purpose of GD so can everyone shhh?
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Apr 8, 2015 12:42:31 GMT
Its equally ten billion points or 0.000000000000000001 points. But as points are only awarded as a whole, it seems sensible to keep it to 1. We cannot finish top unless we have at least one more point than Barnet. That's an extra point that we need to get that they don't, by virtue of their goal difference. The away goals thing is different. They don't count double and never did. That's it, in a nutshell as they say. I take it that we're discounting Grimsby?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Apr 8, 2015 12:47:38 GMT
Can we move on from this now? We know the purpose of GD so can everyone shhh? No.
Regards, The Campaign Against Sh*t Footballing Clichés That Don't Even Work Properly
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Apr 8, 2015 12:54:08 GMT
Its equally ten billion points or 0.000000000000000001 points. But as points are only awarded as a whole, it seems sensible to keep it to 1. We cannot finish top unless we have at least one more point than Barnet. That's an extra point that we need to get that they don't, by virtue of their goal difference. The away goals thing is different. They don't count double and never did. No, its sensible to not convert it into points at all, but if we really, really have to, then it has to be a fraction of a point. That's the only analogy that works if we go one (real) point ahead.
I like to think of away goals as being worth 1 plus 1/infinity goals
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Apr 8, 2015 13:38:28 GMT
What is the world coming to.....I think we probably agree on quite of things actually - opinion of our clubs leadership for 1, the need for dramatic change in the governance of international for 2 etc. I'm actually prepared to give Wenger the benefit of the doubt on that one. He is enough of a football purist that the current rules don't just hurt his approach this year, they hurt him generally I think because they encourage the kind of tactics that the likes of Mourihno and Benitez employ over his approach. That's the main reason I don't like it. It rewards control freak hyper tinkering managers which is good for them but not good for the spectacle of the game. Mourihno is undoubtedly a master at viewing the game like a chess match and his teams are superb at winning games but they do it in a generally uninteresting way; after all chess is not a great spectator sport on the whole. This is my main rant against possession obsessed counter attacking football; it's football by the averages. If it generally produced sides that played like Guardiola era Barca that would be fine but these sides tend to be the exception; in general it produces sides that played like Mourihno's Real Madrid. You take exciting attacking players and shackle them in a system that allows very limited room for individual expression beyond the one stratospheric superstar who has a free role to win you games. Players are then moved around the system to maximise the amount of possession a side controls. Very successful but it doesn't produce exciting football matches in the main; too organised, too formulaic. There has to be an element of freedom and chaos to produce the most exciting games. The away goals rule play a big part in that for me - it rewards the wrong things from the point of view of the fan. Remove the away goals rule and the first leg may as well not be played. So, let's get this straight. You like Arsenal's pass and move game? It certainly doesn't reward percentages, when they attack they do it in numbers, the time in possesion and number of attempts on goal Vs goals scored will be much lower than Stoke, but it's a whole lot easier to appreciate the skill and fitness of players like Carzola and Ozil passing their way around opposition players than it is to enjoy watching Shawcross deliberately injuring opposition players to slow them down? I can't see that there's nothing wrong with playing a game over 2 legs with no away goals. You still even out some of the luck that might occur in a one off game. I can't see why away goals mean the first leg is irrelevant. You just play 2 games; happens in cup competitions all over Europe (some of which have away goals and some don't). To be honest if they switched to one off games I'd prefer that to the status quo anyway I think - more of a spectacle, more tension, higher stakes etc. Not going to happen - TV needs it's matches. I think those first legs are often pretty bad games anyway as both sides play with the shackles on. What I want to see is something a bit more akin 'normal' football in which the home side goes for it a bit more. The away goals rule is supposed to discourage the away team from parking the bus but in reality it encourages both teams to stand off and produces this passive-aggressive football. That's what I don't like. What I do like is variety in the game. I don't think there's a single ideal way to play. That's where the fun is for me. Yes, if everyone played like Pulis's Stoke that would be terrible but I also think if everyone played like Wenger's Arsenal it would also be very dull. Those great United-Arsenal games were fun to watch as a neutral because they were a genuine clash of styles; and personally I preferred Ferguson's more British get it forward quickly and outwide to Wengers intricate passing game because that's what floats my boat (I was practically an original ABU but the United side with Ronaldo and Rooney in it played the football I most enjoyed watching). I like wide play, I like physical centre forwards; I preferred to watch Alan Shearer than Thierry Henry but that doesn't mean you can't appreciate both. I don't think it is 'Carzola or Shawcross' anymore than it's 'Daddy' or Chips'. I reject the premise that you have to love one and hate the other. I like to see skilled sides have to deal with a physical contest particularly in an era in which the dice is so stacked in favour of the big clubs as to make it very difficult for smaller clubs to compete on an equal skill level; I want to watch a contest not a skills exhibition. What I find utterly tedious is every team trying to play the same way which is partly come through globalisation of football and the professionalisation of coaches. I thought the 2010 World Cup was the most boring football I have ever seen in my life; everyone played this kind of possession, counter attacking stand off game. No matter which country it was - that was the way it was played. It was dire to me and I see it in the majority of Champions League games; that highly drilled style that most European coaches employ. I don't think football is improved as a spectacle the more organised the teams are into systems particularly if those systems are pretty much identical. It's football as Chess; a game of the head and not the heart and that's far less interesting to watch. The perfectly played football match ends 0-0 just like the perfectly Chess match ends in a stalemate. It's moved too much in that direction for me and a lot of high level football is just not fun to watch anymore. It seems to have become more an artform to be appreciated than a contest to be relished.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Apr 8, 2015 13:50:51 GMT
So, to summarise your verbosity (verbiage?) Irish......the knockout European Cup produced more interesting football than the Champions League. That's why you/we find the early stages of the World Cup so tedious.
|
|