You need to stop basing life on twitter mate. More or less every Pl club supporter has noticed it at Chelsea, Sky have pointed it out often (as have BBC). This picked on feeling you have about Spurs is pure paranoia, every club gets laughed at for things they **** up but most supporters just accept it because they do the same to other clubs when the opportunity arrives.
Chelsea have been getting pelters from everyone. Even Drogba was saying he doesn’t recognise them anymore. Chelsea being worse than Spurs is no consolation to me. They’ll sort it eventually by throwing more money at it but my concern is Spurs.
It's not supposed to be a consolation. But they have been underperforming this season and we have not. They also have no scope for throwing more money at it as they have already spent more than they are really allowed. The lesson is that a takeover often makes things worse.
You need to start working on that reading comprehension See that part where I mentioned pundits and people who unthinkingly go along with what pundits say? That's not Twitter Glad that I could clear that up for you
There hasn't been a constant stream of articles from The Pathetic (who, last time I checked Diego, aren't a Twitter feed...) about the chaos at Chelsea in spite them burning through four managers this season, or their chairman thinking he's both DoF and apparently manager
If we finish in the top 7 we definitely have not as that is well within the expected outcome for a club of our current status. Chelsea’s squad cost nearly twice ours and is in the bottom half. Even that is probably not significant underperformance but it's much more of a standout than ours.
In our case it's not that we're underperformed per se (though some players are) it was more a case that injuries meant that certain parts of Conte's system weren't available while others were overused and, as a result, the system itself collapsed For the most obvious example, both Bentancur and Bissouma being out at the same time removed the component that is supposed to progress the ball forward and left us all too often seeing a horseshoe from one WB to the other - unless one player decided "**** it, I'll do it myself" which is more often than not Romero, with Skippy doing so on occasion The other is the overuse of broken down components yet expecting them to perform up to top standard, be it Son looking jaded all season, Kulusevski looking like he hasn't recovered from his injury yet still starting, and more recently Hojbjerg’s legs seem to have gone yet he's ever-present (mainly due to Bentancur and Bissouma being injured, admittedly) Clearly some players have underperformed, and bloody he'll did our manager post-World Cup, but there's extenuating circumstances for most of that - although some players clearly going backwards can't be ignored, be it compared to last season such as Dier or even over the course of this season like Perisic In comparison while Chelsea have had injuries they have a squad that would have allowed Potter to swap in players to maintain his system but that still didn't get them firing on all cylinders as would have been expected - while Lampard's system seems to be taking a team which wears blue towards the bottom three as efficiently as possible
We definitely will have underperformed if we finish 7th, considering we’re classed as a Big Six club. With the form Villa are in and the fact Brighton have two games in hand to go above, it’s very possible we even finish 8th. The manner of our potential league finish is also what makes it that bit worse, because for most of the season we haven’t resembled a football team but merely ten idiots and Kane, (nine when Bentancur was fit).
Every one of the big six clubs other than Man City has finished outside the top 6 over the last few seasons. This is a quite normal outcome of a competitive system where luck plays a part and poorer teams like Leicester and West Ham occasionally outperform. It's a huge mistake to think that things are badly wrong if that happens. Just as it's a mistake to assume that Leicester and West Ham were doing something that we could learn from. Newcastle, Villa and Arsenal look like big overperformers this season. It will be interesting to see if this is a one off or the start of something.
And every one of those clubs would’ve said they underperformed in the seasons they didn’t finish inside the top six. Leicester did do something many can learn from, it was only because they stuffed up financially that they couldn’t sustain it. They set a partial blue print that many clubs are now following or learning from. This is also the same Leicester with a Premier League title and FA Cup in the last 7 years, you don’t win those by luck.
because pundits don't notice it, fans don't notice it, and that means clout-chasing Twitter feeds don't notice it Recognise this line?
You underestimate luck. If you assume that the only things that matter are money and luck and do a Monte Carlo simulation of the PL fixtures you get outcomes which cover everything that has happened over the last fifty years in terms of individual seasons. The only unlikely events are that Man Utd under Ferguson, Arsenal under Wenger and Man City under Guardiola are so consistent.
The season is not yet done, but by revenue is not the current minimum requirement for Spurs to finish at worst 5th ??
I just don’t particularly believe in luck. Especially over a sustained period. In one-off circumstances perhaps, such as an inconclusive VAR call going for or against you would be either good or bad luck. But over a 38 game season you don’t get your position based on luck, equally in a knockout cup competition you don’t win every game via luck.
Where source data allows, you can determine the degree of consistency against revenues, changes in transfer/wage spending etc. I suspect the numbers would tell me that your "unlikely events" are in fact not unlikely at all.
You don't have to believe anything...there are statistical tests that you can run and as has been posted on here before 38 games is nowhere near enough statistically to differentiate between two similar teams. And over 5 or 6 games almost any outcome happening less than 10% of the time isn't surprising statistically. Which about corresponds to outliers winning a cup.
If you model by Monte Carlo then the nth best team finishes below nth on average, particularly when n is small. Not surprising since you can't come above 1st.
