Does the best team = the team that wins?

[Sweech]

As I said it's a romantic notion sports fans in particular seem to apply to only this in particular. I have no idea about the psychology if it's a coping mechanism to make sport seem fair and balanced so you can move on without harbouring resentment, but whatever it is that same approach is not follows elsewhere.

It's just like thinking whatever musical artist sells the most albums is therefore the best musician.

 

[Shadydan]

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.

Well in that case if we were to use that logic then the only deciding factor we have is to go by the amount of points accumulated then so as you were...

 

[L-man]

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.

I'm not really sure what your point is?

I think every football fan would admit incorrect calls are given every week and we know teams don't win every game they deserve to. That's part of why we all love football, the unpredictable nature of it, especially in the Premier League.

It seems you don't think the current league/ points format is a fair representation to judge a league winner. What else do you suggest?

 

[nicdic]

I think @Sweech is maybe going slightly too far.

The league as a competition is fair, and determines a clear winner. What Sweech is saying is almost now implying that any league title is dubious because it's not a fair enough test or whatever.

I think that's over complicating it.

Simply speaking, what we're discussing is whether what determines the "best" team is limited to just the amount of points totalled or whether more factors play a part.

 

[Sweech]

I'm not really sure what your point is?

I think every football fan would admit incorrect calls are given every week and we know teams don't win every game they deserve to. That's part of why we all love football, the unpredictable nature of it, especially in the Premier League.

It seems you don't think the current league/ points format is a fair representation to judge a league winner. What else do you suggest?

Read the title of the thread.

"Does the best team = the team that wins"

My answer is no and I've explained the logic. It has nothing to do with what I think of the league winner, if they win then they do so, that's how sports works. I don't have a problem with it at all, it just means I don't turn my back to obvious external influences like luck and don't anoint someone as "best" based on an accumulation of something that can be largely influenced by things out of their control.

Just like I said you wouldn't annoint someone the "best" musician because they've sold the most records. It doesn't mean I've suddenly got a problem with how they sell records or how someone tabulates the sales it just means I see a fallacy in the criteria used to annoint "best".

 

[Sweech]

I think @Sweech is maybe going slightly too far.

The league as a competition is fair, and determines a clear winner. What Sweech is saying is almost now implying that any league title is dubious because it's not a fair enough test or whatever.

I think that's over complicating it.

Simply speaking, what we're discussing is whether what determines the "best" team is limited to just the amount of points totalled or whether more factors play a part.

I'm not saying that at all. I couldn't give a toss about the league title. I just don't think you can annoint anyone as "best" simply because they acquired more points in an amount of games that's nowhere near enough to mitigate external influences.

 

[Sweech]

Maybe if I'm being too convoluted just look at @ItsBoris post. Top notch run down.

 

[Tit&Ham]

The PL winner rightly call themselves "the best team", but I think other factors also apply:

Injuries
Referee decicions at crucial times of the season
Christmas fixtures
Timining of fixtures( I.E. Meeting City when they have lots of injuries and important game in CL 3 days later)
Luck

If Leicester wins the league by 1 point I wouldn't be certain if they were the best team. 1 More game and it could change.
And If Leicester got an offside goal in the last minute of the last game to end up 1 point in front uf us - would they then be the best team?

It's a competition and the winners deserve to win it - They have managed to get most point. It doesn't matter if they are best or not. The same as the FA Cup: The best team doesn't always win it.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

As I said it's a romantic notion sports fans in particular seem to apply to only this in particular. I have no idea about the psychology if it's a coping mechanism to make sport seem fair and balanced so you can move on without harbouring resentment, but whatever it is that same approach is not follows elsewhere.

It's just like thinking whatever musical artist sells the most albums is therefore the best musician.

Don't know if that's the best analogy. Record musicians don't actually compete each other in the same way football teams do. Hence the term best would be applied highly different. One can of course have music competitions, but that's not what the analogy refers to.

 

[Trix]

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?

You make your own luck in this game you attack more you get more penalty chances, you play counter attacking at pace, you are more likely to see rash challenges. How the referee interprets them varies but if you for one minute think Leicester have been luckier than us, then it's because you are looking at it with a Spurs bias. The difference is that when we have had the odd controversial decision we have gone on to score more so it isn't quite so glaring. Leicester are very good at taking their opportunity and then seeing it out, we on the other hand usually go on to dominate and get more. Different playing styles but clearly in terms of points only Leicester's has been more effective so far.

For me the only way we win this is if Leicester lose one and their confidence wains and doubt sets in. If it doesn't they win it simple as that.

 

[fletch82]

Stoke fans saying loads of naughty stuff about us some even swore.















This is the right thread for this isn't it ?

 

[DanielCHillier]

I think the game between Atletico and Barcelona last night reflected us and Leicester nicely. Barcelona were all over them for most of the game and we're clearly the "better team". But Atleti defended well and took their chances just as Leicester have done this season.

 

[Trix]

Read the title of the thread.

"Does the best team = the team that wins"

My answer is no and I've explained the logic. It has nothing to do with what I think of the league winner, if they win then they do so, that's how sports works. I don't have a problem with it at all, it just means I don't turn my back to obvious external influences like luck and don't anoint someone as "best" based on an accumulation of something that can be largely influenced by things out of their control.

Just like I said you wouldn't annoint someone the "best" musician because they've sold the most records. It doesn't mean I've suddenly got a problem with how they sell records or how someone tabulates the sales it just means I see a fallacy in the criteria used to annoint "best".

No mate that makes them the most popular not the best.

 

[Shea]

I don't think the winning team automatically is the best team

To win a league over 38 games you have to be the most consistently effective team and therefore acquire the most points

That can be achieved without being the best team in my opinion. Most consistently effective and best team can be two different things and this season is a perfect example.....

To date we have been the best team in the league in my opinion, played the best football, scored the most goals, conceded the fewest goals (and so on) but Leicester sit 7 points clear of us in the league because despite not being as good a team as us they've been more effective more consistently over the course of the season and ground out a lot of results when not playing well (although the fat lady is yet to sing)

That isn't to say that if Leicester win the league they won't be deserving champions, they will be. We will just remember ourselves as being the team that SHOULD have won it because we were the best team this year but if we lose out we will have done so because we've failed to be as consistent from start to finish

Leicester dropped unexpected points to Villa though so they are not immune to doing so and there are plenty of points to play for still so we may still end up being the best team AND the most consistent team come the final whistle at St James park

 

[Sweech]

You make your own luck in this game you attack more you get more penalty chances, you play counter attacking at pace, you are more likely to see rash challenges. How the referee interprets them varies but if you for one minute think Leicester have been luckier than us, then it's because you are looking at it with a Spurs bias. The difference is that when we have had the odd controversial decision we have gone on to score more so it isn't quite so glaring. Leicester are very good at taking their opportunity and then seeing it out, we on the other hand usually go on to dominate and get more. Different playing styles but clearly in terms of points only Leicester's has been more effective so far.

For me the only way we win this is if Leicester lose one and their confidence wains and doubt sets in. If it doesn't they win it simple as that.

This is assuming I have my Spurs goggles on and it's Leicester or Spurs in the luck category.

It's not.

The idea "you create your own luck" is a fallacy. If their style was conducive to getting decisions then other teams with the same style should get just about as many of the same decision, but they don't. The fact is I don't even need to cite stats for that, any person would know that's the case.

I'm purely basing this on "the team with the most points is the best" being false. It has nothing to do with Tottenham or Leicester.

Look at it in American sports that have playoffs. Is the team that won the trophy at the end the best or the one who collected more points/wins the best?

I'd say neither because again, there are simply too many external influences out of a team's control that can have a big bearing on the factor you're using to determine who is "best".

 

[Kingellesar]

Depends how you define best, I think we play a more entertaining and attractive game than Leicester. I think this seasons table has shown the most consistent teams are the ones who have been rewarded, us and Leicester, if only we had started the season the way we have played since September. Our early season form suffered massively, 1 loss and 3 draws wasn't it?

Leicester know how to grind out results and counter attack fantastically. I think the game when Leicester beat City away was the moment they thought they would do it. Everyone expected City to smash them and get back to the top of the table but Leicester countered them so well.

Also as others have pointed out, we failed twice against them this season (three if you count the FA Cup at WHL) but beat them once in a cup game which they really didn't care about. But in the league they somehow escaped with 4 points against us, because they grinded out the result.

Also Arsenal beat Leicester twice....look at how far behind them they are!

 

[Shadydan]

I think the game between Atletico and Barcelona last night reflected us and Leicester nicely. Barcelona were all over them for most of the game and we're clearly the "better team". But Atleti defended well and took their chances just as Leicester have done this season.

I personally think that the better team performance came from Atletico because they defended and attacked better, but that's just me, they were uglier when they went forward but they were effective in stopping Barcelona from playing football.

The beauty of football is that we can appreciate different forms, I guess no-one can be wrong as the way people see football is purely subjective and everyone has a right to their own opinion.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

I think this question is so much debated at this point because we are best NOW. And I firmly believe we have been best for a long time. Our best performances this season are also far beyond any other team's very best. However, Leicester has the advantage of having been the best team from the very first second and several weeks into the season, and from then on, 2nd best probably. We were probably the 7th, 8th, 9th best team for a few weeks in a row or something. Leicester's average and our average are consequently largely influenced by the first weeks of the season.

To sum up, for this season as a whole Leicester is the best team IMO. But the best team right this very second is Spurs, again IMO. But there are no trophies for that.

Another way of looking at it is that to win, you don't have to produce THE best performances. You simply have to be really really good (but not necessarily the best) ALL the time. It's good lesson for your kids moving forward.

 

[Sweech]

No mate that makes them the most popular not the best.

Just like a team could have the most points and be the luckiest but not be the best.

 

[WalkerboyUK]

The PL winner rightly call themselves "the best team", but I think other factors also apply:

Injuries
Referee decicions at crucial times of the season
Christmas fixtures
Timining of fixtures( I.E. Meeting City when they have lots of injuries and important game in CL 3 days later)
Luck

If Leicester wins the league by 1 point I wouldn't be certain if they were the best team. 1 More game and it could change.
And If Leicester got an offside goal in the last minute of the last game to end up 1 point in front uf us - would they then be the best team?

It's a competition and the winners deserve to win it - They have managed to get most point. It doesn't matter if they are best or not. The same as the FA Cup: The best team doesn't always win it.

That's where there's a difference between a cup competition and a league competition.
In the FA Cup you need to win 5/6 games, spread out over 5 months. All one off games and luck of the draw can help a lot in terms of progression. You could play lower league opposition from round 3 onwards, or get lots of home draws.
In the league every one plays the same teams, twice. Over 38 games injuries, suspensions, dodgy decisions - they all pretty much even themselves out. I can think of a few dubious decisions that have gone in our favour, as much as have gone in Leicester's favour.

It's why American sports aren't always won by the "best" team, because after a league format they go into a knockout/play-off format.