Nerdorama

In all 25 years the winner had the most points.

 

In all PL games ever played a team who outscored their opponents was awarded more points

#threepointsforawin

 

AIK won the Swedish league in 1998 after scoring only 25 goals in 26 games.


They were both the lowest scoring team in the league and the league champions.

 

jesus saint you must be ****ing bored already

You need to take a walk or hire a whore or something

 

Good find.

You can have a low GD due to many close wins and then a few major losses, that's probably what happened here where they still get a lot of points...

Likewise a team can struggle to convert draws to narrow wins but then rack up some big wins to get a high GD but relatively low points...

Ultimately you need to work on attack and defense and every team is different.
United and Liverpool drop lots of pts against 'weak' teams but for two very different reasons...

 

We do have a nerd thread if you'd like to join us. You show promise.

 

They actually had more GA than two of the teams who were relegated.

The real measure in all this is how many games you win.

 

I've hired a whore to take me for a walk.

 

Never!

 

I was reiterating your 'painfully obvious' comment from yesterday for people who are still hung up on how many goals you score and concede

 

Well, the evidence is unequivocal, but people get so wedded to their pet theories that no amount of evidence to the contrary will change their minds.
It was fascinating seeing the lengths some would go to to try and distort a very obvious and simple set of data, because they didn't like what it showed.

 

I'm all for the 'you score 4 we'll score 5' philosophy - which satisfies the desire to see exciting football with the added bonus of actually winning but don't think it would go down too well with those wedded to the 'clean sheet at any cost' theory.

 

Stats without context are pointless.

For example i have actually laughed in the face of engineers saying cpk =1.3

I say is the process in control first?

If you say oh the team who scores most usually wins league.... fine... and if you say oh the best defence rarely wins...

But fail to say if we are talking about 1 goal 10 goals or 15 goals.

Thus are we talking about some special cause occurrence leading to **** defences winning titles or are we talking about a very marginal thing which has no real bearing at all.

In short can you name one side with an awful defence that has won the prem?

 

I have laughed in the face of pundits saying Lukaku is a great striker

I say did any goals help the team?

#doingalukaku

 

It's a very small group of 5 though isn't it. Arsenal, Chelsea and utd had the mega millions best teams around leaving Blackburn who had worse defence than the teams who finished 2nd, 4th and 5th. Leicester last year had same GA as Arsenal and +1 more than Spurs.

 

Explain to me how any of this actually affects the conclusion that attacking teams win the league more often than defensive ones?
Some people really can't take being wrong.
I presented the evidence - if you don't like it that's up to you, but the truth is not contingent on anyone's acceptance of it.

 

Someone employs you????

 

Newcastle United






...oh hang on, just remembered we blew it...damn. Just ignore me.

 

This is obvious , we are talking of what make them successful..

 

Are we to take that you accept Jose teams are attacking then, after all he has won the title in 3 of his 6 seasons here and also titles in other country's