Does the best team = the team that wins?

[Maxtremist]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, it's all about what you classify as 'Best'.

Leicester are doing the 'best' with what they have, similarly so are we. There's has proven more effective this season so I wouldn't necessarily argue with people who call them the best team this season. I wouldn't exactly say them but it's hard to not call the team that comes first the best team in the league.

You then have the whole idea of who decides what is best? Over the years a lot of people seem to think this fast flowing attacking football is the 'best' kind of football but that's just opinion. Look at the Chelsea teams over the past few years, it wasn't pretty but they consistently got the job done and were hard to beat. I think that puts them up there with the best if they were getting the wins. Similarly in the champions league, a lot would call Barcelona one of if not the best team at the moment, and they got beat by a team who had a gameplan and worked for them.

Looking on paper a lot could argue that we've been the best team this season, most goals, least conceded etc... but Leicester have won more points and gotten the better of us in the league. They know how to win and have been proving that and whilst it's not always easy on the eye, it works and has continued working so for now, they're the best team.

I've seen a couple say, if we play them know they'd expect us to beat them, didn't we think that when they came to the lane? And they won. Yes we 'outplayed' them but the result says they beat us.

TLDR; it's all semantics. What some call best others may not agree with. I, for one, have no issues accepting Leicester as the best team in the league for this season though I would also make a good case for us.

 

[newbie]

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.

Your right, Leicester have not had European cup runs which saps energy

 

[Khilari]

Doesn't this whole discussion hinge upon what people define as "best"?

If best = most fun to watch playing dominant football then perhaps we were the "best" but that's fairly subjective an assessment. Like a panel of judges holding up cards to score a dance.

If best = most consistent then Leicester are "the best"

If best = scored most goals ± conceded fewest then we are "the best"

But the reality is if/when Leicester win the League, it's their name that goes down on the trophy, that trophy they can add to their winner's cabinet and history will remember them as "the best" irrespective of the definition. Most people, perhaps other than a handful of Spurs fans, will look back and remember this as being a magical season when billionaire funded sides were shown that coaching, team spirit and a belief in youth can sometimes win the day. But also that Leicester were winners. "Best" or otherwise.

 

[Khilari]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, it's all about what you classify as 'Best'.

Leicester are doing the 'best' with what they have, similarly so are we. There's has proven more effective this season so I wouldn't necessarily argue with people who call them the best team this season. I wouldn't exactly say them but it's hard to not call the team that comes first the best team in the league.

You then have the whole idea of who decides what is best? Over the years a lot of people seem to think this fast flowing attacking football is the 'best' kind of football but that's just opinion. Look at the Chelsea teams over the past few years, it wasn't pretty but they consistently got the job done and were hard to beat. I think that puts them up there with the best if they were getting the wins. Similarly in the champions league, a lot would call Barcelona one of if not the best team at the moment, and they got beat by a team who had a gameplan and worked for them.

Looking on paper a lot could argue that we've been the best team this season, most goals, least conceded etc... but Leicester have won more points and gotten the better of us in the league. They know how to win and have been proving that and whilst it's not always easy on the eye, it works and has continued working so for now, they're the best team.

I've seen a couple say, if we play them know they'd expect us to beat them, didn't we think that when they came to the lane? And they won. Yes we 'outplayed' them but the result says they beat us.

TLDR; it's all semantics. What some call best others may not agree with. I, for one, have no issues accepting Leicester as the best team in the league for this season though I would also make a good case for us.

You got in there just before me! Agree.

 

[Shadydan]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, it's all about what you classify as 'Best'.

Leicester are doing the 'best' with what they have, similarly so are we. There's has proven more effective this season so I wouldn't necessarily argue with people who call them the best team this season. I wouldn't exactly say them but it's hard to not call the team that comes first the best team in the league.

You then have the whole idea of who decides what is best? Over the years a lot of people seem to think this fast flowing attacking football is the 'best' kind of football but that's just opinion. Look at the Chelsea teams over the past few years, it wasn't pretty but they consistently got the job done and were hard to beat. I think that puts them up there with the best if they were getting the wins. Similarly in the champions league, a lot would call Barcelona one of if not the best team at the moment, and they got beat by a team who had a gameplan and worked for them.

Looking on paper a lot could argue that we've been the best team this season, most goals, least conceded etc... but Leicester have won more points and gotten the better of us in the league. They know how to win and have been proving that and whilst it's not always easy on the eye, it works and has continued working so for now, they're the best team.

I've seen a couple say, if we play them know they'd expect us to beat them, didn't we think that when they came to the lane? And they won. Yes we 'outplayed' them but the result says they beat us.

TLDR; it's all semantics. What some call best others may not agree with. I, for one, have no issues accepting Leicester as the best team in the league for this season though I would also make a good case for us.

Yeah I very much agree with this.

 

[dynamoSpurs]

The best team no. The most effective team yes.

The other way around

 

[scat1620]

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

Taking that quote in the spirit I assume it was intended in (i.e. you'd rather play football in the style of the Spurs team of 2015/16 and finish 2nd than win the league by playing in the style of the Leicester team of 2015/16), I can't offer any other response than I think you're mental. Batshit fucking mental.

 

[StartingPrice]

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.

Indeed. But a table compiled since Christmas, sees us sitting two points clear of Leicester at the top of the division. In a very real sense, we have been the best team since Christmas.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/epl-table-since-christmas-excellent-reading-spurs-awful-arsenal/?

Which is in line with a point I made in the other thread that we are a young team adjusting to a specific style and as such steadily improving. None of that applies, really, to Leicester.

@Sweech - in answer to your post in What Opposition Fans are Saying - yes, I did cover that, by including caveats and contingencies.

I generally agree with you, as the content of most of my posts on the subject should make clear. But I do accept that this is a subjective semantic issue and, ultimately, by any criteria used, it is fair enough for anyone else to say Leicester are the best club in the BPL this season. it doesn't mean they always played the best football or any such thing. But if they win the title they are the best club this season by the standards set by the Barclay's Premier League.

In regard to refereeing decisions, again, I generally agree with you. I have made the point several times that I have watched ArseAnal's games in these great late season runs they have (that so many reference) and they have included multiple matches where dodgy decisions have occurred. But that is just me arguing subjectively a distance from the event. The record books will show that they have been the best team (or the better team between them and us) over the final ten games in several seasons.

And ultimately, even when a club gets a lucky refereeing decision, they still have to take advantage of it. Take our pen at Citeh this season. A lot was made about it*, but the bottom dollar was that even after we conceded we didn't fold. We were away, we lost a lead, and our psychology could have actually been hindered by the fact that the pen was a bit dodgy and we had now lost the lead we gained from it. Their crowd was on top of us, their players were going full-on to put us under pressure. But we withstood that and continued to play to plan, to the point where we scored what can only be described as a copy-book Pochettino goal to win the game. And on that basis, not on the basis of the first goal being a tad dodgy, we deserved to win the game, we were the best team in the game. It's is the same with Leicester. Even if all they did was saw the game out they were able and capable of taking advantage of that decision - it is being consistently effective. So, unless you can recall exactly every game and every incident, weigh them against the decisions we have had in our favour and against us, and state categorically that in all of the game they got dodgy decisions, they would have lost without those decisions, it is best, for short-hand just to accept that if they win the league they are the best club in the division this year because they have been the most consistently effective and that is what is being rewarded with the title. Because, to repeat: It would be nice if brownie points were awarded for all of those other criteria and caveats but they ain't.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

No and I explained it thoroughly in the other thread.


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.

That is utter bilge of the highest order.

For God's sake stop before you become the complete laughing stock of SC.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

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.

I'd take the PL Title and happily watch us play like Rochdale to be honest. Ask any football fan in ten years time who finished second this season (assuming we do that) and they'd have to Google it.

 

[Franc]

In a league season the most deserving team wins it, regardless of style.

In a cup competition with a one-off final, any number of factors can result in an upset win or loss.

 

[eViL]

The reality is that when it was clear that it was either us or the Foxes for Champs; Leicester held their nerve and kept winning, we didn't.

I honestly thought they'd wobble by now; but they're a seriously impressive unit and you just can't argue that any League Champions aren't the best team in the country across a single season.

The next 5 years look bright for us, and I'm excited for what we're beginning to see; but like it or not, the League's lack of respect for the way way Leicester have played has probably won them the title.

 

[Lighty64]

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.

unfortunately though you don't get points for entertainment, if you did like ice skating where 3 judges sit there and give marks out of 10, we would be in a position that no team would be able to catch us.

as many have said in 10 yrs time people will look at the table and say oh Leicester won the title in 2016, they must of been the best team, they are the best team this season at playing to their strengths and gaining points for it, 7 more than us. over 33 games they have been better at getting results than we have, so at the moment they are the best team, they might not be the best entertainers, but entertainment doesn't guarantee 3pts

 

[kitchen]

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.

Sorry. I disagree. The overall shape of the league tends to be accurate but in terms of individual positions close to each other, the league table can often lie.

Across a season luck plays an enormous part. Luck with referees, luck with injuries, luck with fixtures, luck in the game. In a tightly fought league where a few points can make a difference between 1st and 2nd or 4th and 5th for example a few dodgy official decisions or a lucky deflection or two can make a significant point difference.

The old adage that things even themselves up over the season remains the biggest fallacy in football. It's all just luck. Some teams get more, some teams get less. That is all.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Best is very subjective of course. Best to watch ? Best at defending ? Best organised ? Best at attacking ? Best at gathering points ?

Teams can be badly organised, play badly, not have a single shot on target and still win.

The "best" team (using any or all criteria you choose) doesn't always win a game. The best team in the league (using any or all criteria you choose) doesn't always win the league. The league table does lie. But over 38 games it's not going to be a big fat lie, they are, usually, just small lies.

 

[CowInAComa]

Best is very subjective of course. Best to watch ? Best at defending ? Best organised ? Best at attacking ? Best at gathering points ?

Teams can be badly organised, play badly, not have a single shot on target and still win.

The "best" team (using any or all criteria you choose) doesn't always win a game. The best team in the league (using any or all criteria you choose) doesn't always win the league. The league table does lie. But over 38 games it's not going to be a big fat lie, they are, usually, just small lies.

The league table doesn't lie when it tells you who are the worst teams and who are th best teams.

But it cannot tell the whole truth between two teams that finish within touching points of each other. The difference could be something as incalculable as a dodgy plate of lasagne . And at that point how can you take that as the definitive statement on the question of who is better.

If the league title is decided in the last minute does that mean one team becomes better at that exact moment in time.

Anyway. Let's hope we win the league and accept the best team accolade on both fronts

 

[danielneeds]

Best is very subjective of course. Best to watch ? Best at defending ? Best organised ? Best at attacking ? Best at gathering points ?

Teams can be badly organised, play badly, not have a single shot on target and still win.

The "best" team (using any or all criteria you choose) doesn't always win a game. The best team in the league (using any or all criteria you choose) doesn't always win the league. The league table does lie. But over 38 games it's not going to be a big fat lie, they are, usually, just small lies.

But here you are judging things by your own criteria, in which you value cohesive team work and ball retention higher than winning in some cases.

99% of football fans just want their team to win first and then worry about their style of play later.

The best team is that who wins the most over 38 games, in cups it's different, hence Greece in 2004 or Holland not winning in 1974.

 

[Sevens]

Poor officialdom decisions are what can make the best team lose. That's it.

Otherwise the best team always wins because a team is the sum of its parts. If one team dominates the other but can't find a way past the goalkeeper and gets sucker punched at the end? Then the dominating team were inferior because their XI men could not find a way through.

If a striker has a bad day at the office and misses six or seven sitters he is part of the team. So therefore the team had a bad day at the office etc. It's a team game.

Now if a team loses 1-0 having 3 or 4 goals wrongfully disallowed? Then the best team lost.

 

[Gaz_Gammon]

If we were seven points ahead of Leicester with five games to play, then this thread wouldn't have even been dreamed up.

Therein lies the answer, some twisted theory that the winning team in the PL isn't the best because it's not my team.

Of course i will still support the idea that Sunderland should be given a place in the CL as they played quite well today.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

But here you are judging things by your own criteria, in which you value cohesive team work and ball retention higher than winning in some cases.

99% of football fans just want their team to win first and then worry about their style of play later.

The best team is that who wins the most over 38 games, in cups it's different, hence Greece in 2004 or Holland not winning in 1974.

It should be obvious that the best team can lose games, whether it's Holland in 1974, or every team that ever manages to lose a game somewhere along the way.

All measures of who is the best team over a year are slightly arbitrary in at least a few respects. But that's sport: it's all about arbitrary rules.

I believe that the league table is by far the best way of measuring how good a team is that anyone has ever come up with, but it is not an infallible measure.