Nerdorama

You really are having trouble understanding stuff lately aren't you?
Since when did "more often" mean "every time"?

 

Saint, youre saying that the best attack wins 15 times out of 25 compared to best defence that has won it 10 times.

I'm curious to see how well the defence fared for those 15 years which had the best attack because I'm sure it would have been good.

The reason I say that is because you make it sound that the attack was the sole reason that the team won the league (and vice Verse for the teams that won with the best defence).

And no one is saying that we need to have the best defence - it has to be much better if we want to win titles.

Mentioned it elsewhere but essentially a GD of plus 30 will virtually guarantee you CL and a GD of 40 plus will be a title challenge.

Using this season and last an example - Leicesters defence was pretty good especially in the latter half which really helped them over the finishing line. Chelsea had a great spell once they moved to a back 3.

In summary - you don't need the best attack, best midfield, best defence etc - you need to have the best balance. Using 13/14, we had a truly world class attack which up there with Real's (statistically) but we conceded 50 goals, and we lost the title.

Juventus put on a master class against Barca this year as well. That doesn't mean that they were defensive or boring though. It just means they're solid and can build from the back.

There's a misconception that having a good defence means that you're boring and defensive.

 

You've missed the fact saint really isnt being that serious

If anyone was serious they'd put the raw data there

best defence, goals conceded, position v goals conceded by champions that year etc etc

perhaps someone with serious charting skills should get on this.

for example... someone could just be lazy and say no champion has ever conceded more than x goals. then you can give a basic target for lfc to aspire to.

 

This site gives you all you need to know about title winning teams (guess what, money is not the answer).

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...tle-winners-myth-busting-the-champions-traits

 

Employ is such a lose term to be honest

 

Well hopefully it's not as an English teacher!!!

 

Mah maths... only half of maths teachers are any good at spelling to be fair, other 60% can't.

 

I am serious.
I'm just not very thorough.

 

Sorry Jimmy, I've done stat collecting for..... well, the rest of my life, basically.

For the record, I don't think that a defensive team is by definition boring, but I do think they tend to be less entertaining most of the time.
All I was trying to do (and I really wish I didn't have to keep repeating this) was to show that high scoring teams can be successful just as often as those with a tight defence. In fact, as it turns out, more so.
Btw, 5 of those stats overlap, as I pointed out in the OP, so there are 10 seasons when the team with the highest goal count but not the best defence won and 5 when those stats are reversed. 5 when the champs had both the highest goals for and the fewest goals against.
I realise this has shattered your illusions and left you a broken, bewildered man, and for that I am truly sorry, but I'm only repeating them, I'm not making them up.
Anyway, for penance I'll go and watch re-runs of Mourinho games until I can take no more.
Back in 5 minutes,

 

They taught Jose all he knows.

 

That's the worst point I've ever seen. They only take into account the money spent in the summer before the title win e.g. Man Utd's 2010/11 side. Funny how they didn't take into account the likes of Hargreaves, Anderson, Rooney, Berbatov, Ferdinand, Carrick etc. that were already there.

This sums up how money DOES effect a teams finishing position, you'd be stupid not to already know that, though.

 

Whooosh

 

Ooops! In my defence that is the type of argument you would make, usually

 

Please graph this with a delta of best defence v title winning defence on you other account

 

You know.... you could just say these guys only need look at the current pram table to see your point

 

I'm guessing you didn't read my post or you're deliberately being obtuse. The point is that for those teams with the highest scoring records, I'm guessing that their defences were still very good (not the best in the league, but certainly to a top 4 standard).

You're merely implying that those 15 teams had the best attack but had **** defences, which is suiting your narrative that attack > defence.

Out of curiousity, if you could go back to 13/14 team, would you improve the attack or defence? Similarly for this season As well.

 

I felt like throwing my toys out...

It may be saying the obvious but just looking at the stats of defence and attack of the league winners hardly give any conclusive evidence of which is more important. Spurs coming second with the best defence and attack seem to confirm that.

All I can say with certainty is that the league winners cannot have either a rubbish defence or a rubbish attack. A brilliant attack must be back by a decent defence and vice versa. Wins are more important than defeats so intuitively I would choose the former rather than the latter given the choice.

 

Are you RHC?.