EPT2018 - 2019 Football Thread - Page 251
| Forum Index > Sports |
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28668 Posts
So when Real got first three years in a row, you can't just dismiss that as luck. It's certainly impressive, and you can argue that their lackluster league performance those years was influenced by focusing on the CL. But it also doesn't mean they were the best team in Europe over that three year period. One of the top ones? Most certainly. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17992 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
Plus somehow we have managed to have top scorers in world cup without winning it too which is weird XD | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18407 Posts
On June 03 2019 16:09 WillyWanker wrote: What was it in Dortmund, a 2 years peak? The end wasn't that great, was it? And with Liverpool it's only been a season and a half, and last season they ended 25 points below City. Lesser squads, but also lesser performances. Not that it makes him a worse coach, I'm just saying he has yet to show he can do it longer. His playstyle is very demanding and I'm very curious to see if he can do it. In Dortmund, he had the excuse his best players got signed by Bayern but at Liverpool he can sign almost anybody and retain his best players. 2 year peak? More like 4 years... Also the end was place 7 where not a single fan cried klopp out dueing that time. Most of us BVB fans criedthe day he said he was going to leave BVB. That was in a season dortmund had been bottom place of the table. You might have misremembered klopps reign in the BuLi. | ||
|
WillyWanker
France1915 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18407 Posts
| ||
|
sneirac
Germany3464 Posts
In other news, everybody and their grandmother is now reporting Sarri to Juventus, clearly Warnock needs his chance at Chelsea to prove he can do it all. | ||
|
clusen
Germany8702 Posts
On June 03 2019 16:09 WillyWanker wrote: What was it in Dortmund, a 2 years peak? The end wasn't that great, was it? And with Liverpool it's only been a season and a half, and last season they ended 25 points below City. Lesser squads, but also lesser performances. Not that it makes him a worse coach, I'm just saying he has yet to show he can do it longer. His playstyle is very demanding and I'm very curious to see if he can do it. In Dortmund, he had the excuse his best players got signed by Bayern but at Liverpool he can sign almost anybody and retain his best players. He also lost Sahin and Kagawa when he was coaching Dortmund, the latter one was pretty much their best player at that point | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
I am very sure that many/all key players would have stayed at BVB if they had money like Bayern. Reus has the highest wage currently with 10M€. I am sure half of Bayerns quad are earning far over 10M€ since 12/13. Mario Götze earned ~12M€ yearly during Bayerns time, now 8M€ since he is back to BVB. Would you ignore a 4M€ salary yearly? | ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
On June 03 2019 20:38 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think consistent CL finishes definitely says something about how good a team is over a period of time. Like if you get top 4 3-4 years in a row, that means you're among the top teams in europe for that duration. But singular finishes are less impressive/conclusive. This year, it's fine to argue that Liverpool has had the best season out of any team - they got 97 points in the PL, one less than city, and ended up winning the CL, which I would consider 'more than 1 point better' if you compare it to league performance. They also knocked out Barcelona, and looked like the better team when they played. But Tottenham has not been the second best team in Europe, despite getting second place. And last season, I'd disagree with either putting Real as #1 or Liverpool as #2. So when Real got first three years in a row, you can't just dismiss that as luck. It's certainly impressive, and you can argue that their lackluster league performance those years was influenced by focusing on the CL. But it also doesn't mean they were the best team in Europe over that three year period. One of the top ones? Most certainly. Unprecendented English treble >> chaotic CL success with losses to Belgrade, PSG and Barca on top of a shit final. | ||
|
Faruko
Chile34171 Posts
but for some reason, barcelona is rated way above this real madrid side and the difference is that, they both had the monopoly over certain tournament (Barcelona - la liga; Real Madrid - UCL) idk, i found it odd that people tend to undermine winning 4 ucl in 5 years, but have no problems saying a team that didint even won 2 UCL in a row is the greatest of all time, all im saying that its not easy to deice which kind of tournament its of more value: 1) is it being constant over the course of a season vs 32 teams which only 1-2 are about your quality? 2) or is it being better over not so long spans of time vs a ton of teams of your same quality ? is not like Real Madrid ended in position 10 every time they won a CL, they were always top3 | ||
|
clusen
Germany8702 Posts
On June 04 2019 00:40 Dingodile wrote: Dortmunds peak were 11/12, 12/13 and 13/14. I am very sure that many/all key players would have stayed at BVB if they had money like Bayern. Reus has the highest wage currently with 10M€. I am sure half of Bayerns quad are earning far over 10M€ since 12/13. Mario Götze earned ~12M€ yearly during Bayerns time, now 8M€ since he is back to BVB. Would you ignore a 4M€ salary yearly? Lewa, Müller, Neuer and who else earns FAR more than 10 million € gross pa at Bayern? There are probably a few around the 10m mark like Thiago, Alaba, Boateng (who will be replaced by Hernandez) tho. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28668 Posts
Football isn't a sport where titles won is the only metric by which you measure how good a team is. There is a random factor, bigger than in other sports, and knockout tournaments like the UCL are prone to that. And thus, arbitrarily, we look at performance in addition to results. Regardless of whether you find the UCL or La Liga the more impressive trophy, the 36 games played in the league give us a much better gauge of how well the team performs over a season. There's value to looking at 'peak level' and valuing that the most. In other sports where results always match performance, it makes sense to give results in the olympics more weight than results in the rest of the competitive season. But in football, because results are not as closely tied to performance, you want a bigger sample size. A fantastic performance can be turned into a mediocre one by players making 5 mistakes of significance during a 90 minute game, another fantastic performance stays fantastic because the 5 similar mistakes made by the team ended up being insignificant. And while Real was occasionally very impressive during their CL runs, they could have been knocked out of any of them. The last title had them scoring a penalty goal 8 minutes on overtime vs Juventus to clinch a quarter final win. The year before was actually very solid, won each series with 2+ goals. Second place in group stage, but never in danger. But the one before that, they won the finals on a penalty shootout. An almost identical performance across those three seasons could have given them one win, one second place, and one quarter final loss. Looking at league performances those seasons + this season, you have RM losing the first by 1 point, winning the second by 3 points, losing the third by 17 points and losing this year by 19 points. Imo, that year where RM wins the CL but loses the league by 19 points, they're not the best team in the world. The two prior to that, where they win the league or narrowly lose it while winning the CL, RM does look like the best team in the world. This is why someone like me thinks that Manchester City has been the best team in the world the last two seasons (no problems coexisting with differing opinions, but I have a harder time if the team you are suggesting is not barcelona); their performance has consistently been fantastic. But singular bad performances and or random stuff has made them not win the CL. There are singular bad performances in a league run too - last season when they won the league 19 points ahead of #2, they played a terrible 0-0 game vs crystal palace halfway through, and they drew vs burnley having 20 vs 8 shots, etc.. | ||
|
sharkie
Austria18407 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28668 Posts
League victories also differ in how impressive they are - Liverpool looks 'basically as good as city' when evaluating league performance, but no trophy. Last season City was far superior to the entire rest of the league. Whereas when Leicester won (I mean, that was obviously a fantastically impressive feat from Leicester), the second place team had 71 points.. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1933 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6209 Posts
| ||
|
InFiNitY[pG]
Germany3474 Posts
On June 03 2019 23:25 sharkie wrote: 2 year peak? More like 4 years... Also the end was place 7 where not a single fan cried klopp out dueing that time. Most of us BVB fans criedthe day he said he was going to leave BVB. That was in a season dortmund had been bottom place of the table. You might have misremembered klopps reign in the BuLi. The big difference between Klopp teams and other so-called "great teams" is that Klopp did not take over a made team full of super stars, he made them himself. You say he can sign anyone he wants, but noone he signed was a star player when he signed them (maybe Alisson). Most players doubled or tripled in value only after joining Klopp's team. This season might be the first in which they could sign one or two real stars, who might actually pick Liverpool over any other team. So I find it very difficult to compare this Liverpool to star-studded Barcelona/Real. | ||
| ||
