Does the best team = the team that wins?

[L-man]

We were pretty damn ordinary in the first half of the season.

We only won 6 of our first 16 games and our PPG at that time was 1.675, which currently would put us level with United roughly, and finish with 63-64 points. Even after 21 games we were on 1.71 PPG, 65 points over 38 games. We've been excellent in the second half but we were far from the 'best' in the first half.

Have we been the best side in the league this season when we've only shown title winning form in the second half of the season?

 

[WalkerboyUK]

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.

12 points from their first 7 games... same as us.
Man City picked up 18 points in same period.
Man Utd had 16, Arsenal had 13.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

Being the best overall team in the league is about winning more points than everyone else by any means possible. So by that definition we are not the best team, Leicester are.

Fans get caught up on who are the most aesthetically pleasing to watch etc... but none of that matters in the end. Sport is about winning. And being the best team to watch is not the name of the game.

So to answer your question. Yes, the best team is the team that wins.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

12 points from their first 7 games... same as us.
Man City picked up 18 points in same period.
Man Utd had 16, Arsenal had 13.

I'm not as skilled as you are in presenting statistics, but 7 matches is just a random pick, right? It has nothing to do with the 7th match being the first Leicester lost? (they actually played the most game of any in the league before they lost.)

But yeah, you helped to refine my argument, with Arsenal and ManC as further examples. To be best, your best doesn't have to be THE best. You average must be the best. Hence, you must be really really good all the time.

 

[WalkerboyUK]

I'm not as skilled as you are in presenting statistics, but 7 matches is just a random pick, right? It has nothing to do with the 7th match being the first Leicester lost?

But yeah, you helped to refine my argument, with Arsenal and ManC as further examples. To be best, your best doesn't have to be best. You average must be the best. Hence, you must be really really good all the time.

No just went for first 2 months of the season, although that 7th game for Leicester was their first defeat.

I think it's difficult to argue that Leicester and us have been the best teams this season, but Leicester have been more consistent.

When Arsenal won titles under George Graham, largely due to single goal victories, did anyone (other than us) say they weren't the best team at the time?

 

[nicdic]

Being the best overall team in the league is about winning more points than everyone else by any means possible. So by that definition we are not the best team, Leicester are.

Fans get caught up on who are the most aesthetically pleasing to watch etc... but none of that matters in the end. Sport is about winning. And being the best team to watch is not the name of the game.

So to answer your question. Yes, the best team is the team that wins.

But is it though?

Winning more points definitely means you are Champions, but it doesn't necessarily mean best.

Because that's what remembered doesn't necessarily make it best.

And is sport just about winning? What about Danny Blanchflower's quote that I posted earlier? Is it not about more than just winning? About glory, style, etc.

 

[Trix]

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

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".

I never said the best team always wins the league, I said most effective, and the reason they get more decisions than others that play the same way is because, they are more effective at that style of play. Show me another team that plays that way that do it anywhere near as well. You won't be able to, and that is why they don't get as many decisions going their way.

 

[WalkerboyUK]

But is it though?

Winning more points definitely means you are Champions, but it doesn't necessarily mean best.

Because that's what remembered doesn't necessarily make it best.

And is sport just about winning? What about Danny Blanchflower's quote that I posted earlier? Is it not about more than just winning? About glory, style, etc.

You can't have glory without winning, unless you're Arsenal and bask in the glory of finishing 4th year in year out.

 

[Shea]

Being the best overall team in the league is about winning more points than everyone else by any means possible. So by that definition we are not the best team, Leicester are.

Fans get caught up on who are the most aesthetically pleasing to watch etc... but none of that matters in the end. Sport is about winning. And being the best team to watch is not the name of the game.

So to answer your question. Yes, the best team is the team that wins.

Best is something more subjective than what you are describing

Most effective, yes
Most Consistent, yes

These can be attributed to the team that wins the league by the simple virtue that they attained the most points over the course of a season. The league table is an objective marker that proves those variables

Best is something slightly different though. The best team do not have to be the winning team

As other have mentioned Greece were not the best team when they won the Euros, nor were Denmark

Chelsea were far from the best team in Europe when they won the CL

Even if you want to limit the statement to league champions rather than cups...

Personally I feel Man Utd were the best team in the country when they lost the league to Leeds and then Blackburn, and I think Keegan's Newcastle were the better team the year they blew a huge lead over Utd

I don't have direct knowledge of this next example as it was before my time but my dad and his dad always told me about the time QPR should have won the league and were by far the best team for the season only to be pipped on the final day by Liverpool (with players supposedly having been out drinking and womanising before the final day)

Were Arsenal the best team the year they pipped Liverpool on goal difference during the last game of the season? I was too young to really know what was going on but I am sure the consensus was that Liverpool were the better overall team and Arsenal's victory was something of an upset

Both Barca and Real were clearly better teams than Atletico when they won the title a couple of years back

Who is the best team is subjective and people can debate and have opinions I guess

It's too simplistic to just say "the table never lies and whoever wins it is the best team by definition, end of"

Indeed the table doesn't lie and the team that wins it is the most consistently effective but it doesn't automatically mean that team is the best, that is subject to personal opinion and debate

 

[Sweech]

I never said the best team always wins the league, I said most effective, and the reason they get more decisions than others that play the same way is because, they are more effective at that style of play. Show me another team that plays that way that do it anywhere near as well. You won't be able to, and that is why they don't get as many decisions going their way.

It's still luck based.

Just like @ItsBoris said. Replay these games and do you think you get exactly the same results? Of course not. There's no way you get anywhere near the same results or refereeing decisions.

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

But is it though?

Winning more points definitely means you are Champions, but it doesn't necessarily mean best.

Because that's what remembered doesn't necessarily make it best.

And is sport just about winning? What about Danny Blanchflower's quote that I posted earlier? Is it not about more than just winning? About glory, style, etc.

Sport is competition and any competition is about winning. We as fans love all the drama in between but ultimately the aim is to be the winner. That is the aim of any sportsperson or team.

Blanchflower's quote is wonderful but I would suggest it wouldn't be quite so poignant if he hadn't won anything.

 

[Archibald&Crooks]

It's still luck based.

Just like @ItsBoris said. Replay these games and do you think you get exactly the same results? Of course not. There's no way you get anywhere near the same results or refereeing decisions.

There you have it. There's no way anyone is EVER the best.

Ever.

Everyone happy now?

 

[nicdic]

You can't have glory without winning, unless you're Arsenal and bask in the glory of finishing 4th year in year out.

Sport is competition and any competition is about winning. We as fans love all the drama in between but ultimately the aim is to be the winner. That is the aim of any sportsperson or team.

Blanchflower's quote is wonderful but I would suggest it wouldn't be so quite poignant if he hadn't won anything.

I'd rather be Spurs and finish second, than be Leicester and win the league.

It matters how we play. It's not enough to just win. It's not just about winning.

 

[Everlasting Seconds]

There you have it. There's no way anyone is EVER the best.

Ever.

Everyone happy now?

OK.

To revamp the topic, does anybody think we are in a Matrix-esque virtual reality and Leicester chariman Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha just realised that he can reboot his football manager edition to replay matches until he get's the results he wants?

 

[dontcallme]

It's definitely an interesting debate and it varies from sport to sport.

Football is about fine margins. Often a dominant team will win a game by a single goal. Contract this to basketball and the high scoring nature means the better team almost always wins on the day.

We didn't deserve to lose to Leicester in our last game and had that gone the other way we would be 1 point behind them instead of 7 (please let my maths be right). But we did.

The Holland team of the 70s is much lauded but I'm pretty sure they never won anything. They'll be remembered with more fondness and respect than the Greek team of 2004.

Have we been the better team than Leicester this season? Probably but they have done what is necessary to win games and no one can criticise the performances of Schmeichal, Morgan, Drinkwater, Mahrez and Vardy. They will deserve the title if they win but I will look back at this season as the best in my time as a Spurs fan.

 

[WalkerboyUK]

I'd rather be Spurs and finish second, than be Leicester and win the league.

It matters how we play. It's not enough to just win. It's not just about winning.

Not sure the players would feel that way.

 

[L-man]

Not sure the players would feel that way.

Don't be silly, when Chelsea were lifting that Champions League in 2012. Gareth Bale was sitting there thinking "Ha! Jokes on them! Spurs play better football!"

 

[mil1lion]

Surely it all comes down to how you define being the 'best'. Being the entertainers or playing exciting football doesn't make you the best. Being 1st in the League after 38 games makes you the best team.

As much as I dislike the way Leicester play they're very good at it. I would rather win the League playing the 'Tottenham Way' so to speak. The challenge will be to play that style and still be the best. That's why teams like Barca are admired so much, because they're the best in Spain and they are wonderful to watch. We're getting there and we may even clinch the title at the end of the season. If we do then we'll not only have been the best but we'll have been the most entertaining side to watch which will only cement our legacy.

Spurs fans have grown up with the beautiful style of football since the last title winning side. We demand that exciting brand of football. The football we played under AVB was slow, predictable and boring to watch. The football under Graham was restricted, defence minded and boring. These managers never leave a lasting impression on the fans. That's because our view of 'better' football is by winning in style with flair.

If you think about it from a Leicester perspective however it's different. They're not a club that has huge financial backing. They haven't had as many great moments to celebrate and they haven't had the same stars that we've had over the years. They've faced relegation and they've had to claw their way back into the top division. I imagine their fans love the way they fight and scratch for every ball. They're the underdogs and they're used to it.

We may consider our style of football to be the best but Leicester may see their style as better. There's nothing to say you have to win games pretty. Chelsea certainly didn't under Mourinho and Arsenal didn't under Graham. It's just like saying Mayweather wasn't the best boxer because he wasn't exciting to watch.

 

[Lou3000]

There is no way to determine the best team. There is only the winner.

That doesn't mean that Leicester are the best team, it's only that, if they win, they were able to get to the trophy. In the same way that some teams are great Cup teams, though winning the FA means nothing other than you were able to win the FA. Over 38 games the winning team was was simply able to maintain fitness, play an effective style of football, and probably get a bit of luck from referees/weather/scheduling/opposing form.

But the best team is entirely subjective and meaningless. Do I think we are the best team this season? Yes, we scored the most, we conceded the least, we showed the most passion, and were by far the most entertaining to watch. I enjoyed watching us regardless of scoreline. Contrast that with Leicester who are an absolute bore to watch. Sit deep, absorb pressure and then play route 1 counter with Vardy.

But again, it's all so meaningless. I think that on their day City and yes, even the Scum, can play some truly impressive football. They just weren't able to stay fit (City) or keep their shit together (Scum). So if we're discussing "best" maybe the discussion needs to be Spurs or City instead of Spurs or Leicester.

 

[Sweech]

There is no way to determine the best team. There is only the winner.

That doesn't mean that Leicester are the best team, it's only that, if they win, they were able to get to the trophy. In the same way that some teams are great Cup teams, though winning the FA means nothing other than you were able to win the FA. Over 38 games the winning team was was simply able to maintain fitness, play an effective style of football, and probably get a bit of luck from referees/weather/scheduling/opposing form.

But the best team is entirely subjective and meaningless. Do I think we are the best team this season? Yes, we scored the most, we conceded the least, we showed the most passion, and were by far the most entertaining to watch. I enjoyed watching us regardless of scoreline. Contrast that with Leicester who are an absolute bore to watch. Sit deep, absorb pressure and then play route 1 counter with Vardy.

But again, it's all so meaningless. I think that on their day City and yes, even the Scum, can play some truly impressive football. They just weren't able to stay fit (City) or keep their shit together (Scum). So if we're discussing "best" maybe the discussion needs to be Spurs or City instead of Spurs or Leicester.

Perfect. Great post.