Top 4 mattered last season. united took 3 from City 3 chelsea 3 liverpool 3 or arse 5 off spurs. they won the league by how many points again They matter. if all teams are playing well at the top losses are not many and these games matter and if they are all playing equally didgy at times, they matter just as much. United by retaining parity in the playoff wit the top teams prevented them from passing United at the top, arsenal fell away anyway but the City 3 and the Sours 5 and the Che 3 were very important points that could have been lost and definately made the difference in points and confidence
Goals-wise he is one of the best and most consistent strikers in the premiership. It's a strange one as personally i am not that keen on him. His job is to score and he does regularly so i guess my view is wrong!
If they took 3 off all of those apart from Spurs then surely those games had no impact on their relative positions...? Obviously the actual difference between the teams was who got the most points off the teams outside the top 6? I understand what you're saying but you've kind of undermined your own point! Think people were trying to say we've been very competitive against those teams, and need to continue that, but a weakness to identify was not killing off teams outside the top 6. As for Darren Bent i think it's wrong to say he isn't a good finisher. That's what he does, he gets in good positions and puts it in the net more often than not. The reason he hasn't made the step up to regular England international and hasn't succeeded at a bigger team (Spurs didn't go well and there hasn't been interest from elsewhere), is that he offers little else to the team. So anywhere from 8th/9th downwards his goals will jump you up the league significantly, but the teams that use him will always hit a ceiling as if he isn't scoring they are playing with 10 men. This is why i haven't gone nuts for Hernandez yet, as i'm waiting to see how he progresses. The Barca game was a glaring example of how he had no impact when he doesn't score, so unless he can develop his build-up play or some other skill then i think his effectiveness will always be capped, and he will never be Utd's main man up front. Not doubting he's at a good place to do that or that he doesn't have it in him, but there's a reason Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke won leagues, and Jermaine Defoe and Darren Bent don't.
Well they would if you think about it. It's a 6 point swing between losing a game and winning it; something which is emphasised more when playing against teams around you. We lost to Spurs twice, which is a 12 point swing. We'd have finished 8 points in front of them had we won those two games, or 2 points if we'd just won one. I assume your point is that a win/loss against a team over the 2 games evens it out with 3 points taken each? I see what you mean if so, but even then beating the teams around you is, given the example above, perhaps more important than beating those that aren't. We can't stop Utd from beating Wigan, but we can stop them from beating us.
Sorry, i see what you're trying to do, but that just doesn't work, as there is more than two teams. Those games are not worth 12 points as to the other 18 teams in the league as there is only 6 points difference to them. Also by the same logic then if we were to lose every game we would be 6x38 worse off than the other teams, but as you know there is only 3x38 points available. Not saying beating the teams around you isn't important, just saying that in that respect all of the teams you mentioned were even last year, and it was the teams below them and the points taken in those games that separated them. Fact is if we had done better against the likes of Blackpool and West Ham then we would have won the league, but in matches against our rivals we did well enough to win the league.
If you read all of my post, the fact that they kept these even, apart from spurs enabled them to prevent chelsea closing, by beating che at OT, Spurs took from ars and che, where as united took 5 from spurs when Ars and CHe were still in the hunt, If united finished at the bottom of the playoff top 4 they wouldn't have won the league. It is simple math really and with them playing each other at hte end of the season the games had even more relevance to who won the title.
Actually we would still have won the league. Chelsea picked up 13 points against the other top six teams whilst we got 17. So even if that had been reversed, it would have been an eight point swing so we'd still have won the league by a point. In fact, no one really won the "top six playoff". Utd got 17 points, Liverpool got 14, Chelsea, Spurs and Arsenal all got 13 and City got 12. What won the league for Utd was that we only lost one game against opponents from outside the top six, whilst all the other top six lost at least five. Ultimately that's what almost always wins the league - regularly picking up three points at home and avoiding defeat away from home. There's a good reason no team has ever won the 38 game top flight with more than six defeats, and why the champions almost always have the best home record.
Did ye have the best home record in 2009? I never said reversed, I said at the bottom having lost twice against chelsea city and Arsenal. and Liverpool. Remember, close 3 2 win at OT over ars che and lfc and city all could very easily have been draws, 1 goal in each tie, it was that close, not only would you have had less points but che ars and city more. You can look at it both ways and make a case I guess
I did not say that there are only two teams, nor did I say you get six points for a win. What I said was a games represents a 6 point swing with the team you are playing against. Extending on this point, the reason I say the games against the 'big' teams are important is because we were in and around them, so the result would have more impact on our league position in comparison to theirs. Here is what I mean. Let's say us and Spurs finish on 70 points, and they beat us both times we played them. If we had won both, it would be them -6 and us +6, making them on 64 and us on 76, which is a 12 point difference. Had we won one, it would be 73 and 67; a 6 point difference. P.S: I know this is the case with every team we play, but the effect is exaggerated with teams around us. You may say 'oh, well if we had beaten Blackpool twice, we'd have got those 6 points anyway', and I'm not disregarding that. But Spurs will have still finished on 70. The point being that the games against those close to us are, in a way, worth more points (of course I know you only get 3 points regardless of who you play, but I hope the above example explains sort of what i mean.)
MUFCOK. **** off to your own board and discuss why you won't be signing Wesley Snjeider,because Inter aren't stupid enough to take Michael Jackson in part exchange.
So I assume from this that hernandez must get lots of crosses in or set up lots of goals in other ways, being the fountain of all utd knowledge I am sure you will be pleased to tell how well he does in creating chances for other players.
Well starters apperantly swansea is very similar to blackpool, and go for all out attack, or they try to play the "barcelona way", so your judging every small team saying they'll all counter attack. and about a plan B, let kenny dalglish think of one? no point writing it on here as he wont read it lol, well its doubtful
Sorry if this is a double post but what? how is he overrated? lets say hes 26 hitting his peak and in the last 4 seaons has been in the top 3 best finishers in the premier league, only to drogba and rooney, which is nothing to be ashamed off, he cost 18m + add ons. id say thats more than a fair price, especially when you coinsider you bought his team mate henderson for 20m when hes not even close to bents ability, their diffrent players no doubt, but bent makes a much more important impact, he might miss alot of changes, but how many does he score? And damn kpr, your more addicted with united than nolmhan is with nani, thats flipping saying something there.
Drogba and Rooney. Drogba maybe,Rooney forget about it. In 6 of the last 7 seasons Rooney has not average more than 15 goals in a season.When Rooney was with Everton he got more yellow cards than he did goals. Secondly regarding Jordan Henderson.He cost £16 million not £20 million and he was signed for what he gives to a side and that is raw energy.He will perform better seeing as he is now going to managed by a proper manager and not a complete and utter moron like he was at Sunderland.There is a massive difference between Bent and Henderson,One is a young midfielder that was signed due to his obvious potential.The other is an average striker that is only fit for small clubs like Sunderland,Aston Villa and Spurs and Manchester United and Chelsea and Arsenal.
Yep. 16 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss = 50 points Liverpool: 12 wins, 7 draws = 43 points And we won the league by 4 points. Our home form was the reason we managed to finish above Liverpool in spite of losing so many more games. 2002 was the last time a team won the PL without the best home record, and without winning at least 15 of their home games. Well yes, if we'd lost both games against four out of the top six then we wouldn't have won the league, but that goes without saying - you'll never win the league if you lose more than eight games. But we didn't win the league on our form against the top six, we won it by taking 55 out of a possible 57 points at home. Chelsea in contrast took 45 points at home, ten less than us. And they lost the league by nine points.
Good points there except in 2009, our draws lost us the league rather than your form winning it. it was in our hands and we fked it up In 2009 the lack of draws was important, ye lost 5? was it but drew not too many.
