Does that mean they’re in good form this season considering the teams they’ve dropped points to?Originally Posted by Letters To Santa
Does that mean they’re in good form this season considering the teams they’ve dropped points to?
It means their change hasn't done them much harm so far, they're 2 points off the top and sailed through their CL group.
I can cherry-pick some bad results from last season if you like. By this stage last year they'd drawn against QPR and Fulham, lost to West Hame and West Brom.
Maybe Mourinho will make them better but so far he's certainly not made them worse.
Every season, there will be surprises. It is extremely easy to pick an exceptional result and use it to support an argument. But while being exceptionally easy, it often leads to the wrong conclusion.
We are well enough into the season to draw the conclusion that the transitions undertaken by Man City and Chelsea have had no adverse effect on those teams when compared to last season. In Everton's case, the transition has had an extremely positive effect.
We've also learned that Ferguson srems to be a more effective manager than Moyes.
If you don’t send this signature to ten people, you will become a Spurs fan.
Okay, you guys are going on the points in comparison to last season. It doesn’t tell the full story but we can look at it. Both City and Chelsea were patchy last season and they’re looking that way now too. But if you look back on our points tally last season, it’s not as if there was a massive gulf between us. We finished 2 points behind Chelsea last season and 5 behind City.
Arsenal – 73
Chelsea – 75
City – 78
Why are you still putting them well ahead of us for the title race when they’re still patchy this season and we’ve been consistent?
That is an entirely different discussion. Maybe later, I've got to get on with some work.
If you don’t send this signature to ten people, you will become a Spurs fan.
I don’t see how if we’re comparing last season’s results.
There is no evidence there to suggest they’re going to storm the league. You just presume they will. As said, it's open especially when you consider that we weren't far behind them last year.
Just a quick point, and then I really am out for a while. The change at City is a major plus for them. Mancini was toxic. They should really be walking the League, though the combination of a toxic manager going up against the best ever meant that they never did.
If you don’t send this signature to ten people, you will become a Spurs fan.
Mancini did lose the plot a bit but after winning the title it’s always hard to keep a squad hungry because complacency kicks in. Pellegrini has a solid rep he’s never won a title and this is his first season here. I think he’ll build a solid team but there are no guarantees that he’ll great this season.
Take a closer look at the records for both Chelsea and City after 16 games.
Last season after 16 games
City – Lost 1, Drew 6 – 33 points.
Chelsea - Lost 3, Drew 5 – 29 points
This season
City – Lost 4, Drew 2 – 32 points
Chelsea – Lost 3, Drew 3 – 33 points
If Mancini was toxic and having a shocker, Pellegrini isn’t doing much better. 4 losses is a lot compared to 1 defeat. If he’s a much better coach, time will tell which is why this bedding in period is a perfect time to capitalise.
OK. That is a much better argument for why we could do it this year. You're right, we weren't a million miles away from City or Chelsea last year so we can't we finish above them this?
My real disagreement with you on this thread is you citing change at Utd, City and Chelsea as the reason we could win it this year. That change doesn't seem to have affected 2 of the clubs negatively, I agree that points at this stage is an imperfect way of assessing things but there are enough games to give us some indication of where the teams stand and so far Chelsea and City, despite some poor results, are doing OK. I'm not clear why you're contrasting City and Chelsea's 'patchy' form with our 'consistency' when we're only 3 and 2 points above them respectively. There's clearly not much between the clubs so far.
What have been the barriers to us winning the league over the last few years?
1) Fergie - well, he's gone and that gives us more of a chance than we had when he was around. Utd are looking far poorer without him.
2) Years of underinvestment - year on year we've sold our best players without replacing them. Last summer was the first year we've not had anyone good enough to pique any of the top clubs' interest so we have, for once, kept the core of our squad together. It wasn't a squad strong enough to challenge last year, we looked pretty poor at times, but Flamini was a good signing and Ozil an outstanding one. That trend has been halted, possibly even reversed, but it's debatable whether 1 big signing is enough. We still look pretty lightweight up front.
3) The billionaire-fueled clubs. City and Chelsea can blunder their way to the top with huge, expensively assembled squads. It makes them very haard to compete with. This is the barrier that I still see to us winning the title. They've both changed managers but as discussed that doesn't seem to have negatively affected them so far. It's true we weren't a million miles away last year from either so maybe we could just pip them both this year but City looked frightening last weekend. Chelsea haven't looked that great but they are winning games, they're still up there and they have a manager who while perhaps not quite in Fergie's league knows how to win the title.
IMO the title is a step too far this year, mostly because of number 3. I agree it won't be easier next year but if we invest in a top striker then we could push much harder. IMO that's our main weakness. Despite last weekend our defence is generally looking better this year, the midfield looks very good but we lack an Aguero/RvP or Suarez. Someone at the level who you can see leading the line in a title winning side. Get one and we'd be very strong contenders in any season.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote