So here's one to mull over. When Chelsea beat Wigan 2-1, both goals were wrongfully allowed for Chelsea with the goalscorers both being offside when they shot. Does that mean the best team won? Or does the referee's faults change this?
Stop crying you Swedes. !
- Thread starter Not PC enough
- 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
-
I disagree with the tagline "the best team always wins" for one very simply truth, referees can make mistakes. If team A scores a goal from an offside position, then team B scores 3 goals which are ruled out for offside even though they were clearly onside, how is team A better? Because they have better mind-control(/bribing ability) over the ref? That is nonesense, and this eventuality, and indeed the millions of other story-lines you could come up with fundamentally disprove the claim "the best team always wins" as a factual construction.
If we could put refereeing performance aside, it's purely a subjective exercise and thus a pointless debate. Why? Well to some fans "the better team" is the one who play free-flowing football with lots of possession and shots, to others it's just about who scores the most. As we've seen, the latter is based on rule 10 of the Fifa code and thus fact based but ultimately flawed by design, while the former is based on statistical interpretation and utterly subjective analysis of how football should be played(I am more inclined to this, however, given that football is supposed to be entertainment).
Also, the Swedes seem a bit dickish to me. They seemed to me to play aggressively to make up for their lack of talent and definitely tried to rile us, so being ungracious in defeat is a bit pathetic in my opinion.
If we could put refereeing performance aside, it's purely a subjective exercise and thus a pointless debate. Why? Well to some fans "the better team" is the one who play free-flowing football with lots of possession and shots, to others it's just about who scores the most. As we've seen, the latter is based on rule 10 of the Fifa code and thus fact based but ultimately flawed by design, while the former is based on statistical interpretation and utterly subjective analysis of how football should be played(I am more inclined to this, however, given that football is supposed to be entertainment).
Also, the Swedes seem a bit dickish to me. They seemed to me to play aggressively to make up for their lack of talent and definitely tried to rile us, so being ungracious in defeat is a bit pathetic in my opinion.
The 'best' team is almost entirely subjective. Stats are meaningless, (Im with Roy - 15 shots from 40 yards out in a game does not mean a team 'dominated') and every team will see it their own way. If a team plans to contain their opponents, and does so perfectly then hits them on the counter to win, they will say they had the game in their control Whilst the opponents, who were camped in the attacking third for the game, would say they were in control.
The 'we were the better team and we lost' argument is one that I almost exclusively attribute to sour grapes. Its just poor sportsmanship - even if you think it you shouldnt say it, you might aswell stam your feet and say 'its not fair!'
The only barometer that can be used to decide who the 'best' team is is, to use the oldest footballing cliche 'the only stat that matters.....'
The 'we were the better team and we lost' argument is one that I almost exclusively attribute to sour grapes. Its just poor sportsmanship - even if you think it you shouldnt say it, you might aswell stam your feet and say 'its not fair!'
The only barometer that can be used to decide who the 'best' team is is, to use the oldest footballing cliche 'the only stat that matters.....'
They were the best team because they won,whether it was fair or not is a different question.
That's rubbish and you know it is. If a ref has a nightmare of a game favouring one team heavily to the point of handing them the win, how can the winning team be the best team? The luckiest team? Yes. Best? Not a chance.
The best team does not always win Im afraid. Refs can influence this but. Heres a hypothetical situation
team A dominates possession create more chance and have more shots on target but cant score due to the team B's keeper being unbeatable while the rest of team B are poor sloopy passing poor defending but they manage to get a corner and Team a then concedes an own goal. Does this mean team b are the better team even though man for man only there keeper was any good? or are team a the better team despite conceding a stupid own goal?
team A dominates possession create more chance and have more shots on target but cant score due to the team B's keeper being unbeatable while the rest of team B are poor sloopy passing poor defending but they manage to get a corner and Team a then concedes an own goal. Does this mean team b are the better team even though man for man only there keeper was any good? or are team a the better team despite conceding a stupid own goal?
It means that the team that outscored the other team,thus winning the match as to be regarded as the best team on the best,in other words,the best team won.
You must log in or register to see images
Are they meant to be mates or something? If not Ribery should have gone for him
You must log in or register to see images
It misses off him doing the ****er gesture at him afterwards.
[video=youtube;53lMTqkzWy8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53lMTqkzWy8[/video]
Football is not entertainmant - It is a game of rules.
Entertainment is merely a by product that is in itself subjective... I am entertained by Stoke City every week but most people would not be.