Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
So, the Citeh PL win with 100 pts.
How much is due to them being the 2nd most
attackingest team ... in the world. Ever. ??
And how much is due to the PL collectively
bending over backwards for them ??
Man Utd finished 19 pts behind, and only 4 pts
ahead of Spurs.
Chelsky had another merc-led throwing in the towel
meltdown. The Poool have not progressed.
The Goons continue going south.
Have Citeh + Pep now got the combo of spending
and on-pitch nous to deal with whatever Man Utd +
Jose try to do ??
How much is due to them being the 2nd most
attackingest team ... in the world. Ever. ??
And how much is due to the PL collectively
bending over backwards for them ??
Man Utd finished 19 pts behind, and only 4 pts
ahead of Spurs.
Chelsky had another merc-led throwing in the towel
meltdown. The Poool have not progressed.
The Goons continue going south.
Have Citeh + Pep now got the combo of spending
and on-pitch nous to deal with whatever Man Utd +
Jose try to do ??
I see so sir Alex only has 1 legitimate title and city have only won it cause everyone else is poor in the league.
Must let the next Chelsea manager to not win the league by more than 3 points
If you had an ounce of self-respect you'd be able to see how badly you're embarrassing yourself at this point.
coming from the man who thinks there has only been ever 3 legitimate league winners (where 3 teams have finished within 4 points of each other since the PL started).
Where did I say that?coming from the man who thinks there has only been ever 3 legitimate league winners (where 3 teams have finished within 4 points of each other since the PL started).
Oh that's right, you're having to resort to making things up because you can't actually disprove a single thing I said because you literally can't, so all you have is peevish responses that even Donald Trump would think were beneath him.
Your whole basis none of his wins are legitimate as he has had no competition or that he's only had 1 rival and the way you have measured that is by how many points there is between 1st and 3rd place (the example you have provided).
Theres only been 3 times in the past 26 years where third spot has been remotely near top spot.
My basis for saying that none of his title wins is the fact that every single one of them required at least half of the competition to have an off season, thus making the job at least 50% easier. It's got nothing to do with who finished third, that's a point you're fixating on for no logical reason as it genuinely has nothing to do with the argument I'm making and the only reason I posted it was to prove how immature your peevish response was - and it took less than a dozen words, which should tell you something.
So once again here's the basis of my argument, with the relevant parts in bold...
2002/3 Primeira Liga: Sporting were absolute ****e that season, making the league 50% easier to win given the dreck in the rest of the league
2003/4 Primeira Liga: Sporting and Benfica both turned up, meaning a whole four games were important that season
2004/5 Premier league: Man Utd had a transitional season, thus removing 50% of the challenge - and the other 50% was Arsenal
2005/6 Premier League: Arsenal were ****e that season, thus removing 50% of the challenge
2008/9 Serie A: Juve were rebuilding post-Calciopoli while Milan's team was ageing rapidly
2009/10 Serie A: Juve were so bad they barely qualified for the Europa League while Milan were rebuilding, making it a cakewalk
2011/12 La Liga: Barca were the only threat so that's a whole two league games he needed to win
2014/15 Premier League: Man Utd, Man City and Arsenal all had stuttering seasons while Liverpool were barely qualified for the Europa League
Go ahead and try to refute any one of those points. Or better yet, just hold up your hands and admit you can't, as there's plenty of evidence to support what I've said.
you're argument is if a team doesn't rack up the points or the wins then they are in transition.
Chelsea happened to be in transition last year but we still managed to win the league.
In half your examples above he's still had a main rival and won it rather than said he's a **** manager and his success is because other teams are ****.
Just do what everyone else does rather than trying to spin this tragic story of yours and say he has had money or his successful and you wouldn't have him at your club for his ****ty football or his ****ish behaviour.
No, my argument is that when a team is spending a couple of years replacing large chunks of their squad they're in transition. That's what "transition" means.
As for your claim that Chelsea were in transition last season, here's a reminder of their first team squad from last season
Courtois; Azpilcueta, Terry, Cahill, Alonso; Moses, Kante, Fabregas; Pedro, Costa, Hazard
And here's your first team from the previous season
Courtois; Ivanovic, Terry, Cahill, Azpilcueta; Oscar, Matic, Fabregas; Pedro, Costa, Hazard
Kante and Alonso were added to the squad while Moses got a more prominent role. If you want to claim that's a transitional season, then I guess I'll have to point out that it's damning that a Spurs fan knows more about your team than you do - almost as damning as the fact you're defending someone who isn't even your manager anymore, and the fact you've sacked him twice should really clue you in to the clear and valid points I've made which you still have not managed to refute in any way.
So nothing on most titles are generally 2 teams challenging which mourinho had to contend with..
As for your transition argument, that chelsea team finished 10th (so no where near the top).
It had 3 new first team starters and a new formation. That's about as big a transition you can get in a team unless you're southampton.
you're theory is tragic. Bad rivals, rivals doing bad, teams in transition. Might as well write out any history unless it was spurs winning something
You really aren't very good at this, are you?
Most leagues have THREE teams contending for the title, for example...
Primeira Liga: Porto, Sporting, Benfica
Serie A (at the time): Juventus, Milan, Inter
Premier League 2004-6: Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea
La Liga: Barca, Los Ladrones
When one of those teams has a bad season, that takes the number of contenders down to two - and funnily enough that's when Steptonho tends to win, but when there's three in contention (or, in the Premier League for the past couple of seasons, four) it's funny how Steptonho doesn't have the league trophy in his hands at the end of it. Almost as if there's a pattern to it...
Whats the basis of contenders though? in the 05/06 example you put Arsenal had a **** season. You can do that for 22 of the 25 PL wins.
Even 14/15, you've attributed that to all his rivals stuttering by virtue of their points rather than his team being brilliant (do not equate that with attacking, although in the first half we were until he went back to type cause we lost to you boys)
here is the list of points from 1st to 3rd each season:
You must log in or register to see images
This in our "ultra" competitive league, you can see it's normally just 1 main rival as a challenger