PNP,often a team which concedes first turns the match around and comes back to win it so I don't see the connection. Didn't we come back from 4-0 down to 4-3 with ten men? Haven't ten beaten eleven before? I think they have many times.
There's also many examples of teams that have a man dismissed losing the game and the same applies to teams that concede the first goal. They're disadvantages. If only having 10 men wasn't a disadvantage, then it would be a legitimate tactic. Haven't seen many teams starting the game with one less player, though.
Starting a match with ten men would be going against the rules of football PNP so your point is invalid. I'm going to try and find a list of teams with ten men which have beaten teams with eleven. It has happened and quite often but I'm not going to fall out with you about it though.
So our beating you when Adebarndoor got sent off was a better result than we first thought. Sounds good to me
It wouldn't be going against the rules of football. From the Laws of the Game: "Number of Players: A match is played by two teams, each of which consisting of no more than eleven players, one of whom is the goalkeeper. A match may not start if either team consists of fewer than seven players. Finding exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the rule. Teams with fewer players are at a disadvantage, even if they manage to overcome that disadvantage. Not sure why you mentioned falling out, TMT. We're only disagreeing about something. People are all entitled to their own opinions on subjects without any annoyance on either side.
People are allowed to disagree with the mods, TMT. We're hardly infallible. This place would be pointless if everyone shared the same opinions. I doubt I share anyone's opinion about everything. Only persistently acting like an arsehole gets people banned or blocked. Disagreeing with me doesn't count as that. It just means that you're wrong!
No Spurs fan I've seen disputes we were lucky to draw against Wigan. Most feel Chelsea were lucky to win the CL last year. Most Chelsea fans I've read dispute they were lucky to win the CL last year. Most Spurs fan view this as evidence these fans are unwilling or unable to admit the truth. Chelsea won the CL using negative tactics, the same tactics Greece used to win the European championship. Negative tactics reduce the number of discrete events (goals) which determine the outcome of the game. They therefore increase the chance that luck, rather than underlying superiority, will determine the game's outcome. Negative tactics therefore have been, are, and will continue to be the friend of the poorer team. To take another example, my best chance of winning money in a casino over the course of the night is to make one bet. While the odds may be 52-48 against me (or so), there's only a small chance the house's advantage will determine whether I lose, and a large chance it will not. The more bets I make, the greater the chances the underlying advantage of the house will operate, and the greater likelihood I will end up around 4% down on the night.
TMT I'm in tears here. This isn't the Third Reich You're too polite for your own good you really are.
Hang on - this post is not a joke?! OK - above and beyond the logic that PNP has used here how about this: A disadvantage is not a guarantee of failure. You seem to be thinking that if a disadvantage exists it is a cast-iron guarantee of failure. A disadvantage is something that makes failure any amount more likely or makes a task any amount more difficult. These amounts may be large or small. Just because people/teams have achieved things whilst suffering a disadvantage does not mean that the disadvantage did not exist. (I can't believe I'm typing this...). It's not a great idea to go two goals down is it? But what if I point out to you that sometimes teams come from two goals down to win the game? Would you now conclude that going two goals down must therefore NOT be a disadvantage? Look - forget about the inarguable fact about what the word "disadvantage" means (something that makes something harder but not necessarily impossible) do you really not mind when Spurs get a man sent off? It's all just the same to you? Why stop there? Why not score an own goal on purpose at the start of the match? It's not a disadvantage - teams come back from a goal down all the time! If you're saying this to "copy another Spurs supporter" might I recommend you choose your role-models more carefully. Or, more likely, seek clarification as to what they meant - cos it just can't be what you think it is.
Lenny, if I didn't know you better I'd say you were being a tad facetious. I tried desperately not to laugh,. but.... well, found myshelf almost spitting my own rum out. Priceless,.
Being on a list is no disadvantage to me. All those people on Schindler's list didn't die so I guess that proves that in Nazi Germany being a Jew on a death list was actually no disadvantage. My logic is unassailable.
I can certainly see the advantage of having gone down to 10 against Wigan if it had been Naughton that wasn't on the pitch!!!! (And yes, the are others that would have fitted just as well on other occasions.....)
Here's a link seeing as some of you are taking the mick and don't believe what I'm saying. http:// www.guardian.co.uk/ sport/blog/2010/feb/11/the-question-teams-better-10-men. I don't know if there's a dot at the end. It gives facts and figures. A host of teams have won when a man has been sent off. Cameroon v Argentina is one example and Arsenal in 2008 with Diaby sent off went on to beat Bolton 3-2. There are many more. I find your post a tad offensive lenny.
Between 1992 and 2000 11% of teams which were drawing at the time they had a man sent off went onto win the match if the man was sent off before the hour mark. There are many other stats to support what I'm agreeing with. Austria v Usa is another case when the former had a man sent off went onto win 2-1.
TMT has commented but I can't see page 17 for some reason, so I'm going to post this and see if it helps.
