General Football Untruths

And yet we always say things like "going out of the CL/FA will help them/us in the league"...Why do we say this if the best team always wins? It should be immaterial.

tbh, I think that myths been blown apart these past....what 5 years?

Us, Barca twice, Inter and probably Barca this year* are going to win the CL as well as their league and in some cases even more, and the one that didn't win a treble, us in 2008, we were kind of robbed vs Pompey iirc.
 
But that is because the Champions League has become harder to win, so if you aren't the best in the league* you aren't going to be the best in Europe. But there are times when no one from your country are the best in Europe, and going out of European competition will help your league chances.

In the Bundesliga this year Dortmund will probably win the League yet Bayern are in the Champions League Semi's vs the great Real Madrid, and could win the entire thing. Even if they don't they will only save themselves one game.

So who is better Dortmund or Bayern this year?
 
19341632.png


feck you Daily Mail!
 
Well, statistically they don't even themselves out:

http://www.debatabledecisions.com/tables

Also, the big teams are as a general rule the ones who end up being hard done, which puts to bed that feeble little myth as well.

It would also appear, as I have long suspected, that Stoke's survival in the Premier League is based almost entirely on them cheating more than anyone else, and refs being too thick to pick up on it.
 
Great quote from the guardian on the Classico today:

This is a kind of footballing chaos theory. In a league where the points totals are so high, the tiniest mistake, the flutter of a butterfly's wing, has a huge impact. Draws are the new defeats; defeats are the new disasters

And that is very true. The league is meant to decide which team is better. Many people simply say "the team that wins the league is the best" and then stick their fingers in their ears and hum. But in a league were two giants win all the other 36 games and it simply comes down to the two matches against each other, then the league isn't a league at all; it's a two-legged cup match. And in the cup, anyone can win.

Of course it isn't just high points leagues that are decided on butterflies, but any league where their isn't much between the teams. In 2010 the Premier League seemed to be decided on several butterflies, most noticeable perhaps because it finished so close. Last year was almost the same, had the referee gifted the Chelsea-United game to either team, they would have been undeserved champions whoever they where. At least the eyes of the opposition.

This season has been strange, make no mistake. You could twice play Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and Newcastle teams that look strong enough for the Champions League; all 5 of those teams have looked like they could both qualify and do well in it at some point in time. Or you could play those 5 teams when they are in free fall, and could not find a point for love or money. That is a hypothetical 30 point swing depending on when you played them.

In the end it was pretty even between City and United. Both played Tottenham at the start of the season when they where rubbish, and then at the peak of going from title contenders to relegation form. United played Liverpool during their swan dive to mid-table but then a game between the two clubs is never easy anyway. City had to play Chelsea after their resurgence, although they didn't bother showing up on the day, but also had to play Arsenal during their good run of form too.

None of this matters however, the league champion is the league champion. People who claim they are undeserved can be waived away with a word of "bitter" and it will likely be true. But the true truth of who is the better team; United or City, Barcelona or Real, Dortmund or Bayern, Reading or Southampton... is a little more unclear.
 
Surely if one accepts that the "decisions even themselves out" line is obviously going to be false, then it follows that "the best team will win the league" will also sometimes not be correct.

If the team that wins the league benefits from +6 points of fortunate decisions over the course of the season and the team that finishes second on goal difference is unfortunate to the tune of a -6 point swing, you're looking at the team that deserve to win by a huge margin finishing second.
 
Surely if one accepts that the "decisions even themselves out" line is obviously going to be false, then it follows that "the best team will win the league" will also sometimes not be correct.

If the team that wins the league benefits from +6 points of fortunate decisions over the course of the season and the team that finishes second on goal difference is unfortunate to the tune of a -6 point swing, you're looking at the team that deserve to win by a huge margin finishing second.

The point is that decisions even themselves out over the course of the season, not over the course of two head-to-head fixtures, which in the case of La Liga is how the title is usually decided.
 
The point is that decisions even themselves out over the course of the season, not over the course of two head-to-head fixtures, which in the case of La Liga is how the title is usually decided.

No, the point in this thread is that decisions do not even themselves out over the course of a season, and thus its a "footballing untruth" to say that they do.