The Race to the Title

[Lighty64]

I only realised recently that West Ham play their cup replay on Wednesday, hope it doesn't go to extra time and they are knackered for the Leicester game. Also hope Chelscum beat Man City on the Saturday so spam still think they have a chance of top 4. If Man City win that game they will be 8 points ahead of them and I don't think West Ham will be very motivated, especially as it would help us if they win.

they are still in poll for Europa League, and even though its not top dog comp and can be a strain, Bilic will take the Europa serious if in it proper as he did with Besiktas, plus they will want as many fixtures as possible in the OS in its first season

 

[srups34]

I'd like to see Utd beat West Ham, it will keep them(Hammers) interested in the league.

 

[Veuve Clicquot]

they are still in poll for Europa League, and even though its not top dog comp and can be a strain, Bilic will take the Europa serious if in it proper as he did with Besiktas, plus they will want as many fixtures as possible in the OS in its first season

He didn't take it very seriously this season, seeing as they got knocked out in the qualifying round.

 

[Lighty64]

Do Man U or Chelsea have anything to play for?

Both of them would prefer Leceister to win the league over us, especially Chelsea.

Man Utd still have hopes for top4, Chelsea's season is over

 

[davidmatzdorf]

@davidmatzdorf I know you seem to be disagreeing with anyone saying Chelsea won't turn up, but unlike you, you haven't (if you have I've missed it) explained why, especially with so many posting their thoughts .

Others have already name-checked all of the points I would have made. Here's one in more detail:

My main disagreement is that it's a fan-based misunderstanding of how footballers think. No professional footballer at any level is going to to throw a match, unless they're on the take. For players who have achieved Premiership level, it would be a scarcely conceivable notion for them. Their whole careers are based around the intense desire to compete and win.

The idea that their fans' dislike for a specific club would lead them to throw a match is ridiculous. Most footballers pay lip-service to these intense rivalries to keep their fans happy. You can tell because of the way they comment upon rivalries before derby matches. They do it to keep the fans contented, because they don't need motivating.

And no owner or manager would insult his players by suggesting that they should throw a match to spite a rival.

Another point that someone else already made very pithily is that (if anything) Abramovich would be more aggravated by Ranieri (whom he sacked) winning the league with a smaller club, in a season when Chelsea won't even qualify for Europe, than he would be by Tottenham (who once refused to sell him a player) doing the same.

I could go on. But I think the whole idea is a fan's-eye fantasy.

None of this rules out the possibility that Chelsea might be less than intensely focused as a team, when they have nothing to play for. But they still have to play both Leicester and Tottenham, so that's a bit of a moot point.

 

[Styopa]

Do Man U or Chelsea have anything to play for?

Both of them would prefer Leceister to win the league over us, especially Chelsea.

I think this is true of the fans, but the players who knows? And I can't imagine either LVG or Hiddink could care less who wins the league be it Leicester or ourselves. I have a feeling Chelsea's players would enjoy spoiling the party and having an influence on the title, even if it means handing the title to ourselves.

 

[Lighty64]

He didn't take it very seriously this season, seeing as they got knocked out in the qualifying round.

as I said, next season they start life in the OS and will want as many games in it as possible

 

[Ribble]

I have a feeling Chelsea's players would enjoy spoiling the party and having an influence on the title, even if it means handing the title to ourselves.

I get the feeling that depends on how where they finish will affect their end of season bonuses.

 

[Veuve Clicquot]

I get that the owners would rather be in Europa than nothing, but players are far more motivated to play in the Champions league, so if that is looking unlikely (if Man City beat Chelsea) then West Ham won't be as desperate to win against Leicester IMO.

 

[stokesy]

Others have already name-checked all of the points I would have made. Here's one in more detail:

My main disagreement is that it's a fan-based misunderstanding of how footballers think. No professional footballer at any level is going to to throw a match, unless they're on the take. For players who have achieved Premiership level, it would be a scarcely conceivable notion for them. Their whole careers are based around the intense desire to compete and win.

The idea that their fans' dislike for a specific club would lead them to throw a match is ridiculous. Most footballers pay lip-service to these intense rivalries to keep their fans happy. You can tell because of the way they comment upon rivalries before derby matches. They do it to keep the fans contented, because they don't need motivating.

And no owner or manager would insult his players by suggesting that they should throw a match to spite a rival.

Another point that someone else already made very pithily is that (if anything) Abramovich would be more aggravated by Ranieri (whom he sacked) winning the league with a smaller club, in a season when Chelsea won't even qualify for Europe, than he would be by Tottenham (who once refused to sell him a player) doing the same.

I could go on. But I think the whole idea is a fan's-eye fantasy.

None of this rules out the possibility that Chelsea might be less than intensely focused as a team, when they have nothing to play for. But they still have to play both Leicester and Tottenham, so that's a bit of a moot point.

I don't agree with much of that. We all know that players take a break towards the end of the season if nothing is important. We all know that players get up for derby matches and key games against rivals. And to say players don't need motivating is ridiculous.

The atmosphere in the stands has a direct impact on the team. The Chelsea fans will be bang up for their team to beat Spurs and that will transition onto the pitch. For the Leicester match it will be a bit of laugh and I suspect that the players will go through the motions.

I'm not saying they will roll over but with the Euros coming up are they really going to be giving it 100% just because Abromovich wants them to. I don't think so.

 

[Galactico14]

With regards Chelsea - firstly I think they will want to stop us winning title - by trying to beat us at bridge, not by throwing games to other teams.

I could see the arguement they may be more focused/prepared for a derby game vs us then say leicester match.

Secondly, we should not forget they are still champions, and this Is just my opinion, but if I were a Chelsea player I would want to show that whilst they had had a bad season it was just that, a bad season, and show that infact they are still top dogs and (try) to hand out a bit of beating and message to them and others they will be a force again.

I will just be happy if that game still has something riding on it.

 

[Lighty64]

Others have already name-checked all of the points I would have made. Here's one in more detail:

My main disagreement is that it's a fan-based misunderstanding of how footballers think. No professional footballer at any level is going to to throw a match, unless they're on the take. For players who have achieved Premiership level, it would be a scarcely conceivable notion for them. Their whole careers are based around the intense desire to compete and win.

The idea that their fans' dislike for a specific club would lead them to throw a match is ridiculous. Most footballers pay lip-service to these intense rivalries to keep their fans happy. You can tell because of the way they comment upon rivalries before derby matches. They do it to keep the fans contented, because they don't need motivating.

And no owner or manager would insult his players by suggesting that they should throw a match to spite a rival.

Another point that someone else already made very pithily is that (if anything) Abramovich would be more aggravated by Ranieri (whom he sacked) winning the league with a smaller club, in a season when Chelsea won't even qualify for Europe, than he would be by Tottenham (who once refused to sell him a player) doing the same.

I could go on. But I think the whole idea is a fan's-eye fantasy.

None of this rules out the possibility that Chelsea might be less than intensely focused as a team, when they have nothing to play for. But they still have to play both Leicester and Tottenham, so that's a bit of a moot point.

a while back someone posted a link (god knows how many pages back) and the article was Terry hoping Leicester go on to win the league. with them and their season under Mourinho, they don't have to physically throw the game, but their players at many times have not shown the commitment, hence why the reigning Champs are in 10th, and even though they haven't been defeated at home since Hiddink took over, they are not really winning either.

Abramovich most probably won't want them to lose and let Raneri lift the title there, but I doubt he will be offering the team a bigger win bonus if they do the damage

their crowd would fully be behind Leicester, just like a hell of a lot where shouting for Man Utd at White Hart Lane to prevent Arsenal, I remember that as I was at the lane that day.

there is so much bad history between the 2 clubs for people to think this way, even if we might be wrong.

we will just have to agree to disagree, but I'm preying more than hoping that we don't need a draw or win off them if this does go down to the final game

 

[stonecolddeanaustin]

Others have already name-checked all of the points I would have made. Here's one in more detail:

My main disagreement is that it's a fan-based misunderstanding of how footballers think. No professional footballer at any level is going to to throw a match, unless they're on the take. For players who have achieved Premiership level, it would be a scarcely conceivable notion for them. Their whole careers are based around the intense desire to compete and win.

The idea that their fans' dislike for a specific club would lead them to throw a match is ridiculous. Most footballers pay lip-service to these intense rivalries to keep their fans happy. You can tell because of the way they comment upon rivalries before derby matches. They do it to keep the fans contented, because they don't need motivating.

And no owner or manager would insult his players by suggesting that they should throw a match to spite a rival.

Another point that someone else already made very pithily is that (if anything) Abramovich would be more aggravated by Ranieri (whom he sacked) winning the league with a smaller club, in a season when Chelsea won't even qualify for Europe, than he would be by Tottenham (who once refused to sell him a player) doing the same.

I could go on. But I think the whole idea is a fan's-eye fantasy.

None of this rules out the possibility that Chelsea might be less than intensely focused as a team, when they have nothing to play for. But they still have to play both Leicester and Tottenham, so that's a bit of a moot point.

I understand exactly what you're saying but I'm not sure it's totally correct. I remember in the late 90's or early 2000's when we had Man U in the last game of the season at Old Trafford and arsenal needed us to win to give them a chance in winning the league. Les Ferdinand scored the opening goal for us and celebrated it like he really didn't want to be scoring it, especially when he heard the moot cheering from our fans. That was pretty much our only chance in the match and they went on to win 2-1 with us barely threatening thereafter (pretty typical for us at Old Trafford in those days mind you).

Even if the players were as professional as they should be there's still the fact the supporters will be up for the game against 100 times more than they will against Leicester which will transfer on to the pitch and ultimately affect the performance of the team.

 

[minimike]

People seem to be forgetting that all the players will put a shift in until the end of the season in an attempt to impress Conte!

Saying they'll lose on purpose is absolute madness.

 

[Lighty64]

I get that the owners would rather be in Europa than nothing, but players are far more motivated to play in the Champions league, so if that is looking unlikely (if Man City beat Chelsea) then West Ham won't be as desperate to win against Leicester IMO.

to qualify for Europe they still need to win their matches as they are not clear of those below, I'm sure their shitty owners will be offering bonuses to get into Europe, and the players like £££££

 

[teddy_sheringham_125]

Nobody can possibly make reliable predictions at this stage, because we're in crazy town as far as the season goes. Many have been saying Leicester won't lose to Swansea, or they won't lose to Everton, but nobody can predict the effects of pressure at this stage of the season. Sure, given the Leicester of the last 12 months, you might feel safe in predicting based on form, but if they lose to West Ham, we'll start to see whether form counts for anything. It just takes one loss for things to snowball - I cross my fingers that this happens early enough for us to capitalise.

 

[cozzo]

People seem to be forgetting that all the players will put a shift in until the end of the season in an attempt to impress Conte!

Saying they'll lose on purpose is absolute madness.

I hope we even get to this point

 

[Lighty64]

Nobody can possibly make reliable predictions at this stage, because we're in crazy town as far as the season goes. Many have been saying Leicester won't lose to Swansea, or they won't lose to Everton, but nobody can predict the effects of pressure at this stage of the season. Sure, given the Leicester of the last 12 months, you might feel safe in predicting based on form, but if they lose to West Ham, we'll start to see whether form counts for anything. It just takes one loss for things to snowball - I cross my fingers that this happens early enough for us to capitalise.

hopefully history will repeat itself in Leicester's case, the last time they were in this spot, they only took 1pt form their last 6games. ok that was ruined yesterday, but I'd not be too unhappy with them only gaining the 3pts they got yesterday.

if they lose v Wet Spam and we beat Stoke, Swansea won't be as easy as they hoped. if they beat Wet Spam, I think they will beat Swansea and then only need 3pts from their remaining 3 games

 

[Monkey boy]

that's the only downside, with them having to win it, Leicester can play the way that has gained them valuable points this season.

myself I'm hoping Everton or Swansea can grab points and not have to hope Chelsea do turn up. @davidmatzdorf I know you seem to be disagreeing with anyone saying Chelsea won't turn up, but unlike you, you haven't (if you have I've missed it) explained why, especially with so many posting their thoughts .

Oh good god what have you done that for?

 

[Lighty64]

Oh good god what have you done that for?

what?