Chelsea have been awful at home. Would be just typical to win v us then
Sir Ches
Sagna Mert Verm Gibbs
Rosicky Wilshere Cazorla
Ox Theo Podolski
Printable View
Chelsea have been awful at home. Would be just typical to win v us then
Sir Ches
Sagna Mert Verm Gibbs
Rosicky Wilshere Cazorla
Ox Theo Podolski
did sky have to put this humiliation live in front of the nation?
i think we've only lost once when ive posted it in a match thread.
lets keep the good record going.
Man up lads.
We're twatting these twats.
Hopefully agent Benitez is on top form for this one.
When do they tend to release news about possible postponements? Or is that just Arsenal being pussies for home games. I'm not sure I can be arsed to man up enough to go to this anyway.
With the spuds up against the mancs and the potential to close the gap this is a huge game. The lads need to handle the pressure and put in a big performance.
Chav win.
Yup, IF we win and spurs win against Utd, we will only be 18 points behind Utd.
Title race is back on! :scarf:
No chanceQuote:
Chelsea v Arsenal (13:30 GMT)
Chelsea are struggling to win at home and I could not believe they surrendered a 2-0 half-time lead against Southampton on Wednesday.
Benitez has won just one of six domestic home games as interim Chelsea boss
For me, they cannot win the title now and the situation at Stamford Bridge is even more interesting now Pep Guardiola has agreed to take charge of Bayern Munich.
It is no good for the Blues fans to keep booing Rafael Benitez during home matches - yes, do that at the final whistle if you want to, but not during the game.
The Blues went to the Emirates Stadium and won in September but their home form makes this a cast-iron draw for me. I think it will be a very tight game.
Arsenal are six points off the top four, albeit with a game in hand, but I would still back them to finish in the Champions League positions. It will be interesting to see how their results compare with Tottenham in the next few weeks.
Lawro's prediction: 1-1
Be optimistic my friend. We have a shiny awesome stadium, a banker as manager, Theo just signed a new deal, Chakma is out on loan and Wilshere doesnt look likely to put in a transfer request in the next 2-3 years. The future is bright.. the future is red and white! VE VILL VIN BPL 2020-21! :scarf:
Your point is nonsense yes, but mine isn't. It clearly shows how far we've fallen behind when the relegation places are closer to us than the league leaders. The CL is a cup competition and Man City had a ridiculously hard group, we'd have been knocked out as well had we been in their group.
It's an argument that'll make more sense when we've all played the same amount of games although even then I don't really think it means anything revelatory, 21 points behind or 12 points behind, it'd still be far too much.
Citeh deserve no sympathy or understanding for their CL group, not least because of how much they have spent to improve their squad but it's their fault for not doing well enough in the Europa League last season and the same may well occur next season (in fact with dropping out completely from Europe it might be even worse next time).
True but Man U have only played one game more than us and even if we added three points now we'd be 18 points behind then and 18 points ahead of the relegation zone.
The CL though doesn't at this stage reflect the quality of a side as one can have an easyish group (like us) and another team can get a much tougher group with quality teams like City, 2 of the teams in their group have got a decent chance of winning the whole thing.
Yes they've spent more money, but looking at it from a purely football side (ie quality of the team/squad) they are a better outfit, they've won more than us in recent years, wont he league last year and are above us this year as well. and of course beat us last week.
And Reading have played two games more than us. Also, you could say we finished 19 points behind Man Utd last season so the difference between the two sides is much the same as it was (in terms of relative to the two teams, it might be that other teams have superceded us).
I don't think Ollie was saying Citeh aren't better than us but just that looking at it from a points perspective doesn't tell you anything in isolation and is all rather arbitrary. All you're doing in 'defending' them is admitting they don't have enough to compete with the very best, in European competition which I presume is what you think of us too. That comes as a huge downer on their overall ability when it comes to evaluating them. Plus, we're closer to Citeh now than where we finished last season so are we also right to assume you think we've draw closer to them this season? I would suspect you don't think that, in spite of this points 'point'.
City are gypo ****s.
oh i disagree with that, particularly when the margin between the two sides over two games is remarmably wide. both the madrid games, unsurprisingly, showed a gulf between the spanish and english champions and of course we saw dortmund absolutely embarrass city in their own ground, then beat them with their second team. ajax even run rings round them in holland and at the eithad. when the control over the opposition is so apparent (as we have seen ourselves in seasons past when arsenal walk over teams from much lesser leagues), it gives a clear indication of the quality of each team.
I think you need to look at the table as it stands as points in the bag are always worth more, tomorrows round of games may make the points difference worse. As for last season, well that was at the end of the season, we've still got another 3 1/2 months so you'd argue we're doing worse, if anything Man U tend to get better in the 2nd half of the season.
European competition is a bit hit and miss IMO, we had great teams that failed in Europe for some reason or other despite being arguably the best around....it's more of a lottery. We may be closer to City but again it's not the end of the season there's a long way to go and they it's true they have not been as good as they were last season this season either.
As I said to Maccy the CL is a bit of a lottery (as we discovered in our hayday), the best teams don't always win. What I will say is that Madrid are an exceptional side with fantastic players and I'd expect them to beat City, Dortmund have been a surprise to all but clearly possess a lot of quality as well.
They didn't perform too well in Europe though they did run Madrid close in the away game, but then they're not as strong as last season either.
Why do I need to look at the table any more than I already do? I've already said it doesn't make any difference to me if we're 12 or 21 behind, it's still far too much either way. And it's a myth Man Utd do that much better in the second half of the season, quite regularly they have gained more points in the first half of the season but only by a minimal amount - they usually do as well in both the first 19 and last 19 of the season.
It's not a lottery if the same outcome keeps emerging, we know that more than most, surely?
Basically you're saying make a judgement between us and Man Utd and us and relegation now but we need to wait to make a judgement on us and the team likely to finish second. Makes no sense at all.
When I said you I wasn't talking about you specifically, just that this has to be considered :lol:
I don't think it's a myth, over the years they come on very strong many times in the 2nd half of the season and caught teams ahead of them regularly.
Well just look at Chelsea last season, they weren't the best team, this wasn't even the best Chelsea team and yet they won it. The CL isn't always won by the best team, luck certainly plays it's part and because it's not played every week it's quite conceivable that when a game comes up you're out of form. There's also other factors such as being inhibited due to fear of conceding and being placed in a tough group, it's no like the league where you play week in week out and feel like mistakes can be erased by some good form.
Very good teams win the CL, but it's not always the best teams, the group stages as has been highlighted this season can be somewhat unfair, with some teams getting an easy ride and other getting a far harder time due to a ridiculous seeding system.
It is a myth Zim, I posted on GW two seasons ago a comparison of how many points Man Utd gain from the first 19 to the last 19 and it is a lot, lot closer than gets portrayed. What they are is consistent in keeping their level across a season when one team quite often falters and that gives the perception they are doing 'better' than they did in the first half. Of course that is a skill in itself, to be able to do that when the season is nearing the end but in terms of outright points comparison - multiple season they have got more at the start.
Yes Chelsea won the Champions League when they possibly should not have but they have for a long time been at the level of making it quite far in the competition. However you're just picking out one example and making it the trend - what about when Barcelona have won it three times and when Man Utd won it the most recent time? They were the best teams in Europe at that point and they went on to win it.
I don't think the seeding system is ridiculous at all, nor unfair.
It's not a 1 off, there's Porto, Liverpool, Chelsea.
Barcelona seem to have got the hang of the CL however, before their last three victories however they'd only won it once when it was the European cup, I think it takes more than being the best team to win it, there's other factors perhaps style of play and an ability to play with freedom as you do in the league.
The seeing system basically seeds some weaker teams above stronger ones, this makes no sense at all, the best teams should always be seeded highest if you have a seeding system, that's how it works in other sports, seeing is based on the years performance generally.
Porto deserve more respect I think as they did win their league too, as did Barcelona, Man Utd and Inter. To go back to Porto and Liverpool is to go back from when we last won the league and FA Cup, which would seem quite a long time ago now.
I don't see what Barcelona only winning it once as the European Cup really matters.
Anyway, you talk about the system of it (the seeding) being unfair, the what would you do to make it fair?
I should split this in to another thread really.
The CL winners (if relevant) and the 4 league winners from the top 4 performing countries in Europe (the previous season) in the top seeds pot and then a points system based on league position and CL performance if you got to the QF or further in the CL the previous year to work out the rest of the teams in the top pot and 2nd pot etc etc (you get more points if you come from a major league obviously).
Ah so it would still be four pots of eight then and with country proection still intact?
I dunno, there's still an inherent unfairness from your perspective by judging part of it for one performance in a season (away from domestic title winners) for what is, as you have said before is a competition that can be a bit of a lottery.
The pots can stay, it's just the way teams are classified in those pots that change.
The thing is you have to take into consideration the CL as that's the competition you're playing in, but what the system I propose does is reward the league winners with top seeding status (and CL winners) and then classifies the rest based on league performance and performance in the CL if they got past the group stages.
I agree it's not perfect, but I think you have to rewards progress in the CL somehow or else a semi finalist might deem it a little unfair. There is a lottery element which I mentioned incorporated, however since the league performance comes into it as well it's not as influential.
this is why i was trying to be very clear about the margin of victory and performance in all of those games. fair enough, you have tough group and you give your best. however, when you play the same team twice and on both occasions the other team is far and above the better performer then that sends a clear message. city should have been buried in that first game at madrid and got what they deserved come the end - even a draw would have been unfair. dortmund are only a surprise to those who have not (or been able to) taken note of their rise under klopp, so i would say the real surprise in the group was ajax who man city could not cope with at all - home or away.
when arsenal beat sparta (i think it was them) 8-0 some years back, that gave a clear indication of the difference between the two teams, one that all of us agreed with. the same applies to city this season. when utd went out in the group stage last year they did not have their arse handed to them in every game, so you could pick out the other reasons why that happened. this year, after games against far superior opposition in their group, city could not claim to be unlucky or on an 'off' day. they were simply out of their depth and the point i am making is that when performances like that take place over the course of six games, against three other teams, then you can garner a clear idea of where the losing team stands.
Zim, for your system to work, that will mean changing the coefficients and in lieu of that, it also means you'll change what the top four leagues are, as those coeffiicients are based on what coefficient clubs attain over the last five seasons. For instance, Spain would've had huge contribution from Atletico Madrid to their current coefficient in order to be considered No.1 but if they qualify for the Champions League this season, they would be in a lower pot because they happened to not be in the Champions League that season.
What I am getting at is that you would need to work out another way of deciding as to what are the best four performing leagues are, which cannot use the current coefficient system.
As a note, interesting to check in answer to this that England are in danger of being the fifth best performing country in Europe this season. No surprises to see Spain and Germany at the top.
We're not just looking at City then, because they're a better side then us and ran Man U close recently (and won the league last season), they due to the seeding system found themselves in a much tougher group than the other two teams.
I agree the top Spanish and German sides are better than the English sides, but there's other factors that come into play in the CL that don't apply in the league.
That's what I mean Maccy, the coefficient would need to be based on one year (just like other sports), so the top 4 countries from the previous year in Europe would get their 4 league winners top seeded.
The 5 season coefficient doesn't work for me, simply because in 5 years a team's strength can change considerably and the CL which protects the top seeded teams and makes it fairly easy for them to get through to the knockout stages and thus keep their position in the top pot.
no but i think it's reflective of where the league standard is in terms of our 'best' teams against the big boys from overseas. city found themselves where they are because of non qualification the season before and were found extremely wanting when faced with teams who finished in similar positions in other countries.
it's the reason why no one believes utd will get close the final and of course why we will most likely go out in this round. in a complete knock out competition i'd agree that you'd struggle to get a clear picture of the dis/parity between countries but the extend nature of this competition does tell you something.
If I have got this right then, Man Utd could theoretically benefit by us doing really well in the Champions League and stay as a top seed, whereas for us our ranking could worsen? I don't see how that is particularly fair (nor is it likely but it's a scenario that could be played out by any inferior team in a league).
Five years is a measure of consistency across two competitions given equal weighting but look at what has occured this and last season by your own admission, rock hard groups. In your scenario is it more likely or less likely to get rock hard groups? If the latter then there isn't really much benefit for being a top seed anyway.
And there are other factors that work the other way round - in domestic leagues there are a greater concentration of weaker teams for instance. In the Champions League you face greater threats to your chances of winning it a lot sooner. In a league you have a greater chance of being able to recover from defeats, therefore should domestic leagues be given such a strong weighting or should it just be on the European competitions where the quality is further spread?