Does the best team = the team that wins?

[nicdic]

The "what our opponents fans are saying" thread has over the past few days descended into an extended discussion about whether the best team and the team that wins must be one and the same.

To save that thread being derailed further still, let's bring the discussion in here...

 

[not_tenth-again]

excellent.... we might get the 'what our opponents fans are saying' thread back now

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

excellent.... we might get the 'what our opponents fans are saying' thread back now

In this thread, you mean?

 

[L-man]

It's pretty irrelevant, in 10 years (unless Leicester get done for PEDs) people aren't going to be saying "Remember Leicesters 15/16 title win?" "Was that the year Spurs were the best side?"

We've had amazing moments this year with this team and some I won't forget but people on here need to stop trying to console themselves with being the 'best footballing side' or 'best performing side', it means absolutely nothing. I'd be willing to bet we were all laughing at RAWK a few years ago when they were adamant they were the best side that year and deserved to win it.

Second is a fantastic achievement but Leicester are more than likely going to be lifting the trophy and we get nothing for 'best footballing side'

 

[Shadydan]

The best team kinda normally means the team who finish 1st by accumulating the most points.

 

[tobi]

Yes.

It's an old saying but one that I think is true, at the end of the season the league table doesn't lie. Where you finish is where you deserve to finish.

If we finish second and Leicester finish first then scoring the most goals, conceding the fewest and having the best goal difference ultimately counts for nothing because despite these excellent stats, Leicester found a way of getting more points than us (2015). If they win it it'll definitely hurt but it wouldn't be right to call another team the best team.

 

[easley91]

Looking at all stats apart from points indicates we are the better side. I believe we are the best footballing side in the league. However, Leicester have found a more consistent way to win which means they've garnered more points.

Normally the 'best' side would be the league champions, but I don't think Leicester are the best side just more consistent.

 

[Japhet]

More often than not. So the answer to your question is No. Chelsea winning the CL proves it.

 

[nicdic]

See, I'd find myself on the other side. Someone posted the great Danny Blanchflower quote in the other thread...

The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.

The argument isn't, did the team who won the league get the most points. They did/will. Neither is it, which team will be remembered, best or top?

The argument is about the best team necessarily being the team that wins. I don't think the two have to be the same. Because as Danny Blanchflower said, it's not first and last about winning. It's about glory. There is glory in winning, sure, but the rest of the sentence qualifies it. The glory is in doing it in style. I'd say we've done that more so than Leicester. And thus would argue we are the better team. Does that mean we'll win the league, I hope so, but the two don't have to be the same.

 

[Sweech]

No and I explained it thoroughly in the other thread.

38 games does not magically eliminate and even out external factors such as luck and refereeing decisions.

So yes the table does lie and there is empirical evidence to prove so.

You can argue over what your definition of "best" means but any opinion using facts will obviously come to the conclusion that no, just because you're on top after 38 games does not mean you've been the best performing or most consistent side.

 

[Doomchicken]

No. Luck plays a huge part, whether it's refereeing decisions, injuries, hitting the woodwork, or something else. If Kane's shot that hit the post against Leicester went in, we might be top now. If Leicester's recent handballs got called, we might be top now. At the same time, if Sterling's handball wasn't called, we could be third.

 

[Shadydan]

Leicester took 5 points off us this season, even if we'd have beaten them at least once or taken more points off them you'd have a case but that's another stat that people will conveniently ignore no doubt that the side sitting above us have been better than us this season.

 

[Trix]

The best team no. The most effective team yes.

 

[mpickard2087]

It's pretty irrelevant, in 10 years (unless Leicester get done for PEDs) people aren't going to be saying "Remember Leicesters 15/16 title win?" "Was that the year Spurs were the best side?"

We've had amazing moments this year with this team and some I won't forget but people on here need to stop trying to console themselves with being the 'best footballing side' or 'best performing side', it means absolutely nothing. I'd be willing to bet we were all laughing at RAWK a few years ago when they were adamant they were the best side that year and deserved to win it.

Second is a fantastic achievement but Leicester are more than likely going to be lifting the trophy and we get nothing for 'best footballing side'

This. Some/a lot of people on here are acting very tragic about it. The RAWK comparison being very apt. Leicester came flying out of the blocks, have led the way for a long time now, and have stayed the course easily without ever really looking to collapse under the pressure. They're not the most stylish outfit maybe (though they're also not total anti-football) but, barring a spectacular collapse at this point, they've been the best and most effective side this season.

 

[Sweech]

The best team no. The most effective team yes.

Does getting refereeing decisions make you more effective?

How can we credit teams for things that are completely out of their control and call them effective for it?

 

[Sweech]

Leicester took 5 points off us this season, even if we'd have beaten them at least once or taken more points off them you'd have a case but that's another stat that people will conveniently ignore no doubt that the side sitting above us have been better than us this season.

Yes but as has already been pointed out using points to define best is a misnomer.

Those points are awarded and influenced by several factors uncontrollable by either team so how can you judge a team based on things that they don't inherently influence or control?

And don't tell me all this things even out magically over 38 games. They don't, it doesn't even take much critical thinking to see through that fallacy.

The idea that the best team has the most points after 38 games is a romantic notion powered by belief and hope, while also thoroughly refuted by logic. That's it.

 

[Danners9]

in the past, perhaps. Some of the Ferguson Man Utd teams and Wenger's early Arsenal teams were streets ahead of everyone in the league in terms of style, quality and tactics. Mourinho's first Chelsea team finished Champions with more than +70 goal difference. These are the best teams, clearly.

However, competitions can be won by teams who spoil their opponents' game plan - not just beating opponents by being simply better (depending on how you define better).

Greece 2004. Chelsea's CL win. For example. They had a plan which worked and took their chances when they invariably came along.

Cruyff said: “Italians can’t win the game against you, but you can lose the game against the Italians.”

I certainly don't see Leicester as the best team, but they do have the most points. What they do is working and not enough teams have been able to combat it. We did in the FA Cup, but sadly that's not worth any points!! Spurs have been the best side to watch this year but lost games by not having the mentality and focus that Leicester have all season - and that period where Vardy/Mahrez were scoring every game was vital in building up their momentum and belief.

I can't see this Leicester team giving up a 2-0 lead to Stoke at home - actually, nor can I see Spurs right now doing the same thing. Same as the Newcastle loss at home. It wouldn't happen now. Just hoping that Leicester's performance drops in the next few weeks, they have some potential banana skins. Games they would have lost last season.. but who knows.

 

[ItsBoris]

Of course the best team can fail to win. Luck (statistical variation) has a lot to do with it.

If the season repeated itself a billion times, most likely every team would win the league at least once just by statistical fluke. The "best" team would be the one that would win it the most in that hypothetical simulation. In other words, you see who the average winner is when you adjust for all the potential sources of random variation. Of course, that's impossible to quantify, but I think goal difference is generally a more accurate measure of a team's quality than league placement. That standard happens to suit us now, but I was saying the same thing back when our goal difference was terrible.

So no, the "best" team does not always win.

 

[Shadydan]

Yes but as has already been pointed out using points to define best is a misnomer.

Those points are awarded and influenced by several factors uncontrollable by either team so how can you judge a team based on things that they don't inherently influence or control?

You can make that same case for every team in this league.

 

[Sweech]

You can make that same case for every team in this league.

Exactly.

That's exactly why the most points does not mean best. Every team has been influenced and the results are not balanced.

You're basically making my point for me.